Looking after themselves

Mon, May 26th 2014, 12:06 AM

Recently, a select committee submitted its report to Parliament regarding its review of parliamentary salaries and the possible construction of a new Parliament. This week, we would like to Consider this...is it now timely for Parliament to consider either the increase in MPs' salaries or the construction of a new parliamentary complex?
Background
The parliamentary select committee was appointed to inquire and make recommendations to the House on matters pertaining to the powers, privileges, immunities of Parliament, the allowances and benefits of parliamentarians and the feasibility of a new parliamentary complex. The committee, comprised of four Progressive Liberal Party and three Free National Movement MPs, unanimously recommended that MPs' salaries should be increased. The committee also suggested that the compensation gap between the speaker's salary of $80,000 and that of the deputy speaker of $32,000 was too wide and the latter should be upwardly revised. Some of the other suggestions included recommendations for:
o An increase in MPs'
monthly constituency office allowances, from $1,500 to $2,500;
o Parliamentary insurance coverage to include spouses, and that such insurance should continue after MPs leave office;
o Duty allowances to be paid to all MPs;
o Travel allowances for family island MPs who represent multiple islands;
o Increased benefits for the leader of the opposition;
o Enhancements for the clerk and deputy clerk of the House of Assembly;
o Benefits awarded to former prime ministers to be enshrined in law;
o A grant to be made to political parties represented in Parliament;
o The speaker of the House of Assembly to be made a corporation sole and to have greater administrative and budgetary controls over the operations of the House.
Public reaction to the recommendations
The public reaction to the committee's recommendations was immediate and inimical. Several trade unionists voiced their disappointment at the report. John Pinder, president of the Bahamas Public Services Union said: "I thought they were very presumptuous to want that at this time when they are saying the country has no money. We are faced with the government trying to introduce value-added tax on Bahamians who can't afford that. The country is strapped for cash. I have a number of members who work in buildings that have been condemned for a number of years - they work in poor environments."
Belinda Wilson, president of the Bahamas Union of Teachers (BUT), observed: "As hundreds of teachers wait for millions of dollars to be paid to them for correct salaries, back pay, confirmations and more, the BUT is very concerned...this should not take priority over the small man, teachers and workers of this country who are suffering."
Former parliamentarians also weighed in. Branville McCartney, leader of the Democratic National Alliance, blasted the committee members, noting that he was "amazed and disheartened" that they would unanimously approve an increase in their wages and benefits while regular Bahamians are struggling financially.
In a similar vein, former Cabinet minister George Smith observed with respect to salary increases that "it should be revisited when the economy is much stronger and there is a surplus of money in the treasury". On the construction of a new parliamentary complex, he maintained that "the government first of all needs to ensure that all of its employees are in proper accommodations before they can even talk about building any new House of Assembly".
Out of touch
We are surprised and concerned how out of touch the members of the select committee are with the Bahamian people and that they could even bring themselves to table such a report in Parliament. Surprised because it is patently clear that in perhaps the shortest period of time of any government in recent times, the current administration has been disappointing at best and disastrous at worst in several areas.
In two short years, the electorate is suffering from "buyers' remorse" and the only thing that will save this government is the even more abysmally dismal performance of the official opposition.
Speaking of the official opposition, while we believe that the role of the opposition is not to oppose for the sake of so doing, this is a classic example in which the public could have taken comfort that the opposition is doing its job. This is a case where the opposition could have voiced good and valid reasons for foregoing an increase in their salaries; however, they unanimously agreed with the governing party members on the committee. How thoroughly disappointing!
We are also concerned that any parliamentary committee could table such a report because it reflects an insensitivity on its part for the plight of Bahamians who continue to suffer from the devastating effects of the Great Recession, from which we are only now gradually emerging. While we believe that, in the fullness of time, parliamentary salaries should be reviewed, now is not the time for so many reasons.
First, the funds simply are not there. The government met a deplorably dismal fiscal situation when it took office two years ago, and neither the economy, the national deficit nor the national debt have improved sufficiently to warrant an increase in parliamentary salaries.
Secondly, there are so many other public servants who are in greater need of increased remuneration. All parliamentarians, except Cabinet ministers, have or could have full-time jobs for which they are paid, some very handsomely.
That members should now suggest a salary increase is vulgar and obscene, akin to the double-dipping of public servants who simultaneously receive full compensation as well as National Insurance benefits while they are on sick leave.
As for Cabinet ministers, a case can be made to increase Cabinet ministers' salaries, because their salaries are comparatively low for persons who devote their entire time to the administration of the country. However, we would only support this for a much smaller Cabinet of no more than 15 persons. The current Cabinet, in our opinion, is too bloated and the Bahamian people are not now receiving value for money from some Cabinet ministers.
Third, any consideration of a parliamentary salary increase is a revealing indication of the thinking of parliamentarians who believe that the government will likely receive additional taxes from value-added or alternative taxes; hence there will be additional revenue to defray increased parliamentary wages. Instead of projecting a mind-set of austerity, cost-savings and expenditure containment, MPs seem to be salivating at the prospect of finding new ways to spend projected new tax revenue. This should be of great concern to the Bahamian people.
Fourth, while we agree that more resources should be applied to defray the cost of constituency offices and MPs visiting constituents who live on various islands in their constituencies, we strongly object to the erection of a new parliamentary complex at this time, as we do to duty allowances for MPs. What possible rationale can they advance in support of the latter suggestion?
Conclusion
There is a well-known poem that we learned early in our youth: "Of all my mother's children, I love myself the best, but when I get my belly full, I don't care 'bout all the rest". This poem seems to concisely characterize the attitude of some parliamentarians who seem eager to improve their lot in a time of great austerity, at the expense of Bahamians who are in considerably greater need. Is it any wonder why our citizens are feeling such a level of distrust and disappointment in politicians?
Our politicians would be well-advised to be more sensitive about the recommendations that they make, especially when they are the beneficiaries of such recommendations. They also would be well-advised to remember whose money it is they are proposing to spend and for whose welfare they are elected to work.
At this trying time in our nation when people are really hurting, the politician that never forgets the people, understands their needs and keeps their well-being first and foremost in his performance in Parliament will be the politician who will be returned to the House by his constituents. He will also be the one who shows his fellow politicians the simple and timeless formula for being a good public servant: serve the public before getting your own belly full.
o Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis and Co., Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in Parliament. Please send your comments to pgalanis@gmail.com.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian

 Sponsored Ads