Pension motion fails in Senate

The 15 Government senators voted against the motion, eight Independent senators voted for, and five Opposition senators and one Independent senator abstained. Wrapping up the debate, the mover of the motion, Independent Senator Dr Dhanayshar Mahabir said it was “not about compensation” contrary to Government Senator Paula Gopee-Scoon’s assertion, but was about a participatory pension plan that discriminated against the majority of senators.

It was also not about any senator in the current Parliament but about the future of the Senate and who should populate it, he said.

Noting that the Parliament of 1969 decided on the pension plan, he said, “I ask myself, how could they have formed a select committee without including members of the Senate to fix themselves, and to exclude the senators.” Looking at the contributions by the Parliament 47 years ago, Mahabir said, “I am grateful for all of those senators who contributed. I apologise to people like (former senator) Nicholas Simonette, who would have served for 15 years” and who would not have benefited from the pension plan.

Noting that the International Labour Convention defines parttime work as being 30 and 35 hours a month, Mahabir said the legislative and oversight work of senators exceeds 35 hours. He said many senators leave tenured position to give public service and asked how many could afford to do that.

On Gopee-Scoon’s comment that serving in the Senate was about volunteerism and public service, Mahabir said that public service was not about charity. “If that is the case we become very aristocratic.

We make the Senate as a chamber only for the very wealthy because these are the ones with the money and the lords of the land,” he said.