Salaries to be made uniform for all independent constitutional institutions

The National Assembly is shortly due to consider the Determination of Remuneration of Office Bearers of Independent Constitutional Institutions Laws Amendment Bill. This aims to establish a uniform and equitable framework for determining the salaries, allowances and benefits of the Public Protector, the Auditor-General and members of any commissions provided for in the Constitution, in line with section 219(5) of the Constitution.

The current Bill covers the:

• Public Protector

• Commission for Gender Equality

• Electoral Commission

• Independent Commission for Remuneration of Public Office Bearers

• Independent Communications Authority of South Africa

• Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities

• Auditor-General

• South African Human Rights Commission.

The Public Service Commission specifically asked to be included, and the Committee was also in favour of including the Financial and Fiscal Commission, but the inclusion of these two would have changed the tagging of the Bill and delayed its passing, so an amendment to cater for them will be requested in the Fifth Parliament.

The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development debated whether it was appropriate for the Independent Remuneration Commission to consult with both the line Ministers and the Cabinet member responsible for finance, when making its determination on the appropriate salary, allowances and benefits. Some felt this went against the notion of independence of the institution, but others pointed out that as long as the state departments remain the conduits for funding, it would be appropriate. Legislation will be introduced in the Fifth Parliament, to allow these institutions, and the Office of the Chief Justice, to get their appropriations directly from Parliament. A question was posed whether the line Minister would need to answer any questions raised by MPs during question time about, for instance, the spending of the Office of the Chief Justice.

The conclusion was that whilst it would probably be more appropriate for such questions to be answered by the institutions themselves, to the relevant portfolio committees, Parliament may “need to evolve” and the Rules Committee is to be asked to look into whether an adjustment of the Parliamentary Rules is needed. In practice, MPs may already pose questions to institutions and require them to answer, either during meetings or in writing, and some Committees do use this very effectively as a continuous oversight mechanism.