THIS MONTH, the Clarke Committee will begin to review the salary and emoluments of parliamentarians. Under the chairmanship of Oliver Clarke, the Committee has been given certain terms of reference in regard to the issue.
One item that should not escape us, in the aftermath of the Budget Debate, is what could turn out to be another case of fiscal irresponsibility is terms of reference No. 7.
No. 7 seeks "To examine the allowances presently paid to non-ministerial members of the Senate and recommend such adjustments as appear necessary."
Now I could be mistaken and the review of current Senate allowances may mean that it could in fact be cut, but I do not think so. In light of previous comments by Senators on both sides, there is a call for salaries to be paid, not just allowances. I think it is most interesting that this fiscal irresponsibility should be slipped in at a time when strict controls should be placed on the level of new expenditure. I find this in bad taste.
What is even more shocking is that if you examine the terms of reference, which comprise eight in all, it becomes clear that at no stage can any roll-back/reduction of the increases that caused the furore, be investigated or considered. It is not on the agenda.
The Committee is instead asked to examine the history of such adjusted emoluments, with reference to previous Committees; to examine delays in implementing such; to report on how the recent increases compare with other public servant wage and salary settlements; to decide on whether there should be a change in the formula that links the two, or propose a new formula. Also of interest is, Terms of Reference No. 8 which could also lead to an increase in the amount of pension benefits received by retired legislators.
I must be living in a different world from one inhabited by our esteemed legislators, but when a country depends on loans to finance at least half of its Fiscal Budget, I would expect that the Terms of Reference would not add to proposed layers of public expenditure.
I hope the Clarke Committee will not be blamed when in any future adjustments to Senate allowances and pensions, we hear that Parliamentarians can wash their hands like Pontius Pilate (it was just Easter) and say it was not they who determined the new layers, but this eminent group.
Oh for another terms of reference, I will call it No. 9 that links parliamentary pay increases to economic growth. This would give them a 1 per cent increase since GDP grew by 1 per cent in calendar year 2002 or 1.7 per cent in fiscal year 2002. It would concentrate their minds wonderfully on growth.
