Party work cannot be treated as paid work, says former DA leader and Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen.
- Party work cannot be treated as paid work, says former DA leader and Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen.
- Steenhuisen was part of a group of senior leaders who received “top-ups” within the party.
- New party leader Geordin Hill-Lewis stressed that the payments came from donor funding and not taxpayers.
Political party duties cannot be treated as “work” or “employment” outside of Parliament, Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen has argued as the DA continues to grapple with the fallout from a leaked report showing that he and other party leaders were paid monthly stipends in addition to their state salaries.
In a parliamentary response to ActionSA’s Lerato Ngobeni, Steenhuisen said: “At risk of stating the obvious, members of Parliament are required to perform certain duties and responsibilities for their political parties.”
ActionSA lodged an ethics complaint against DA members in Cabinet, specifically Steenhuisen and Deputy Finance Minister Ashor Sarupen, who were named in the report as having received so-called top-up payments.
According to the report, which surfaced last month, Steenhuisen received a sum of R39 560 gross per month, which would put his salary on par with that of Deputy President Paul Mashatile.
Sarupen, who became chairperson of the DA’s federal council a fortnight ago, received a top-up of R50 000 for his role as the party’s national campaign manager for the upcoming local government elections.
READ | DA hit by leaked report on secret ‘top-ups’, sparking questions on criteria, consistency
These party funds were not declared in the Register of Members’ Interests, where MPs declare funding, gifts, and remunerated work performed outside of Parliament.
It was on this basis that ActionSA lodged a complaint with the parliamentary ethics committee.
News24 has obtained Steenhuisen’s affidavit to the committee.
In it, he admitted that he received payments from the DA in his capacity as leader, following “relevant party approvals”.
Steenhuisen, however, disputed that these payments constituted remuneration outside Parliament.
DA leaders’ top-up salaries.
He said provisions of the Code of Ethical Conduct and Disclosure of Members’ Interests were intended to prevent a situation where renumerated work outside Parliament gave rise to a conflict of interest.
But he added that the definition of work “outside of Parliament” could not sensibly include internal work done for one’s own political party.
This was, Steenhuisen argued, because the Constitution treated party membership and parliamentary membership as “legally inseparable”.
The code included a notable exception: travel for party-related matters did not require disclosure, he added.
“The exemption indicates that the code treats certain categories of party-funded benefits as falling outside its disclosure framework as a matter of deliberate policy.
“The same logic applies, in my respectful submission, to an allowance paid in connection with the leadership of the party. Both are benefits provided by one’s own party in connection with internal party-political activity, and neither involves an external commercial relationship or third-party financial interest that could compromise parliamentary independence.”
In his statement, Steenhuisen said:
I confirm that the payment I receive from the party takes the form of an allowance and not a salary.
It was not calculated based on hours worked and did not include any associated leave or statutory benefits.
“It is an allowance, a recognition payment, intended to defray costs incurred in the performance of my party-political responsibilities, and to ensure that no state resources are applied to those functions.”
In his affidavit in reply to ActionSA’s complaint, Steenhuisen pointed out that the commissioner of oaths who signed off Ngobeni’s affidavit was Alan Beesley, a fellow ActionSA MP.
READ | Mission accomplished: GNU gamble transformed DA into party of influence
Steenhuisen argued that this constituted a conflict of interest under the legislation governing oaths or affirmations, the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act 16 of 1963.
“Mr Beesley has a direct political interest in the outcome of this complaint: its success would damage a political opponent and potentially confer political advantage on ActionSA.”
He asked that the committee require that the complaint be re-commissioned before a commissioner of oaths who “has no political or personal interest in the matter”.
Steenhuisen added that the complaint should be dismissed.
‘It’s donor money, not taxpayers’ money’
Earlier this week, newly elected DA leader Geordin Hill-Lewis said he did not see any problem with the top-ups.
He told journalists: “It’s the DA’s money that we’ve raised through fundraising; we would never, ever abuse state resources.”
Hill-Lewis added that how the party chose to remunerate senior office bearers was entirely an internal matter, saying: “It’s actually not an issue for public ventilation.”
The leaked report did not stipulate where the funds came from.
DA leaders’ top-up salaries.
It was authored by former finance chairperson Dion George, who fell out publicly with Steenhuisen after he was fired from his role as minister for forestry, fisheries and the environment.
The DA previously said it questioned the report’s validity, arguing that it had not been served on the party’s federal executive.
Last week, newly elected finance chairperson Mark Burke told News24 that the party would be working on a standardised policy for payments of this kind.
