Public works and infrastructure minister Dean Macpherson came under fire this week after reports that he travelled to a Brics forum summit in Brazil with his partner at a cost of at least R350,000 to the taxpayer.
The revelation has reignited scrutiny over executive travel expenditure and other benefits enjoyed by cabinet ministers and their deputies.
Opposition politicians and some ANC members have slammed the hypocrisy of Macpherson’s political home, the DA, which has, for many years, while in the opposition benches, been vocal against ANC ministers’ travel and accommodation expenditure, which it deemed unnecessary and wasteful.
The party even campaigned against the Ministerial Handbook, which provides for such perks, labelling it an instrument for excessive, taxpayer-funded luxuries for cabinet members.
The handbook provides that “ministers and deputy ministers may be accompanied by their spouse (or an adult family member instead) on no more than two international trips per year if the trip undertaken is longer than three days and the minister or deputy minister is invited to attend official duties accompanied by a spouse or adult family member.”
The DA went as far as laying a complaint with the public protector in October 2022, challenging the legality of the handbook in its entirety. It also introduced a Cut the Cabinet Perks Bill during the sixth administration, which it later allowed to lapse.
“Our legal research suggests that there is no law that makes provision for this handbook to even exist. While the handbook — formally titled the ‘Guide for Members of the Executive’ — notes that ‘Members are required at all times to ensure compliance with the Executive Ethics Code’, there is no provision in the code or in any other law allowing for the existence of a handbook that gives the president dictatorial powers to force taxpayers to pay for the perks of cabinet members,” said Leon Schreiber, then shadow minister for public service and administration.
“The handbook, therefore, appears to exist ultra vires — outside the constitution and the law,” he added at the time.
The public protector is yet to publish the findings of that investigation.
As details of Macpherson’s trip emerged this week, the DA has remained mum, while ActionSA approached the public protector to investigate, and the EFF demanded full disclosure and a complete breakdown of the trip’s expenditure.
The red berets also called for a clear policy explanation from Macpherson’s department regarding companions on official trips.
The Sunday Times has established that no such policy exists at the departmental level, and the likelihood is that Macpherson relied on the Ministerial Handbook.
While Macpherson may have acted within the provisions of the handbook, questions remain whether a struggling economy such as ours can continue to dish up such junkets for ministers’ spouses, children and other family members to far-off countries.
What role are they supposed to play on these international working trips, and where do they account for that?
The Ministerial Handbook often attracts controversy due to the largesse it bestows on elected leaders. Even the successive reviews, conducted behind closed doors, following criticism, have done nothing but cement this charity.
The time may have come for a proper and public review of this policy by parliament and taking in the inputs of ordinary South Africans who are feeling the pinch of the escalating cost of living.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.