It is amazing to see the type of responses to the debate on the Judges Salaries and Pension (Amendment) Bill and the Retiring Allowances (Legislative Service) Bill before the Parliament. As an individual involved in both the private and public sector I would say that the Salaries Review Commission has a lot more work to do given its mandate. Additionally, the Government is at fault initially for lumping the components of these bills together for debate. We operate under the Westminster system and therefore the model requires a separation of powers among the Judiciary, Legislature and the Executive. However, I believe that a major cause of this confusion is having the Judiciary lumped together with the Legislature as the bills are presented together for review in the Parliament. Both are separate functions and institutions and therefore should be considered separately.
I share the view by most of the talk show hosts, political analysts, the man on the street and others that the package given to the Chief Justice needs to be reviewed and maybe even considered as not being in the best public interest. This is so because being able to walk out of your job and receive a pension and other benefits equivalent to your current salary maybe a disincentive to work. Therefore, the country may find themselves having empty benches from time to time or having to look for a Chief Justice more often than usual because after a very short term in office he can live the same lifestyle without having to work. Most subject matter experts and experienced people in either the Parliament or the Judiciary are stating that they have no issue with the bill in principle. However, there are some weak arguments being advanced in relation to opinions on what are the functions that MPs carry out and how those functions should be measured in terms of the implementation of a comprehensive job description and performance management system.
The SRC has failed to produce these items to date and even after the last of many reports of the Salaries Review Commission a job description is still outstanding and the Commission acknowledges that MP packages have to be reviewed but are dragging their feet on the issue. I have personally observed the hardships faced by MPs after their party has lost and election and they leave office. Firstly, note that our electoral system operates with party politics and therefore, during heavily competitive election campaigns when parties are accused of corruption or members of political parties are so accused, the party suffers. The negative public perception is therefore carried individually by all MPs serving at that time. The effect of that is that the MP becomes unemployable in most instances. There are even cases where MPs have left the country to seek employment in other countries.
Therefore when we put all of this in context, legislators must be properly compensated and after serving a term of four years onwards a pension option is only reasonable given the scope of their job and the expectations place on these elected public officials. Imagine that the Chairman of the SRC who holds a part time position has a salary close to an MP who is expected to be available at all times to serve his constituents.
Ronald Huggins,
St Joseph