Salary increases not justified

Prime Minister Patrick Manning must know that his Government will be harshly criticised for accepting the salary increases recommended by the Salaries Review Commission in its 80th Report. Perhaps that was why the increases were passed in Parliament on Carnival Friday, so that the Government could slip their self-serving decision under the radar — if only for a few days. But Mr Manning, as a professional politician, must also know that there was no way that citizens would accept this decision uncritically. That being the case, he must either think that public reaction will have no significant political effects in the next general election, or his desire for a salary increase outweighs any concerns about political consequences.

So Mr Manning’s salary goes from $32,000 per month to $48,000. This does not include a duty allowance of $7,500, a travel grant equivalent to $20,000 per annum, and a constituency allowance of $2,500 per month. And all this goes with free housing and vehicles. The Manning household will also benefit financially from Mr Manning’s wife, appointed as Education Minister by her husband, having her salary increased from $22,000 to $33,000 per month. Mrs Manning also has a monthly transport allowance of $4,700, a housing allowance of $9,200, a subsistence allowance of $1,250, and the same annual travel grant as her husband.

In justifying the Prime Minister’s increase, the SRC said that “great demands are placed on the office holder with respect to the management of the affairs of the State and we have recognised this in determining the recommended level of compensation for this office.” This is no doubt true, but it is hardly sufficient. The key question is this: Does the Prime Minister meet those demands in a manner which justifies a salary of almost $60,000 a month? Given the country’s high levels of crime, the inefficiency of its health and other public services, the deficiencies of the education system and, most particularly, the poverty level, the answer would appea r to be “No”.

We single out the Prime Minister, not because we believe he is solely responsible for all these national shortcomings, but because he presides over a system in which he is king corbeau and to which, despite four years of talk about constitutional reform, no significant changes have been made. But Mr Manning has probably calculated that he can get away with taking a 50 percent salary increase because the Opposition poses no serious political threat to him at this time. In fact, the Opposition’s response in Parliament was not to criticise the increase per se, but to complain about the lack of a sufficient salary increase for Opposition MPs.

Mr Manning should be aware, however, that political consequences are not confined to elections alone. It is a fact, for instance, that crime increases when there is a wide gap between rich and poor — and there can be little doubt that this salary increase will fuel that perception.We must emphasise that we are not against all the increases recommended in this report. The SRC holds that the increases must apply to all or none, because of “the need to maintain meaningful differentials or relativities with top positions and supporting positions under the SRC and the rest of the public service.” But this is a weak argument. In our view, whoever else might get increases, it is not the right time for politicians to get higher salaries. Only when the country’s social indicators improve, and not merely its economic ones, can such increases be justified.