THIS GOVERNMENT IS even more boldfaced than I thought. Here it is making passionate (non)-arguments for having its ten per cent “sacrifice” reinstated while at the same time the Central Bank’s statistics on the economy indicate we haven’t yet turned the corner.
Furthermore, if the economists are right, we may never turn the corner if Government’s policies don’t change.
Various economists and institutions continue to insist that Government expenditure must come down further, and the Prime Minister at the recent Barbados Chamber of Commerce Industry (BCCI) luncheon identified wages and salaries among the major contributors to this expenditure. So how can the salary reinstatement be justified at this time?
Based on the MPs’ comments, you would think they’re now living “hand to mouth” bringing back memories of Leroy Parris, claiming he couldn’t meet living and business expenses when his assets were frozen. Has anyone seen any change in the lifestyles of either the MPs or Leroy Parris?
We’ve heard various reasons for the reinstatement at this time – but one online commentator put his own spin on it, saying that when the MPs are jettisoned out of Parliament like a cockroach running from Baygon, the ten per cent will help their pension cheques. I can’t comment because I don’t know how ministers’ pensions are calculated, nor can I predict how Bajans, with their characteristic short memories, will vote.
Austerity package
Minister Stephen Lashley (whom I once considered to be one of the more reasonable ministers) is quoted as saying that the ten per cent pay cut for parliamentarians and other senior Government officials came as part of Minister of Finance Chris Sinckler’s austerity package back in December 2013, but the austerity period was now over.
The Prime Minister also alluded to this by saying that the credit unions and the banks had returned to the status quo ante and so “this is just a restoration of the salary parliamentarians voluntarily gave up . . .”. Which status quo? Isn’t the 2015 liberalisation of the bank interest rates and the additional tax on bank assets in 2016 still killing us?
Minister Jones joined the fray by pointing out that parliamentarians had endured the cuts for about 30 months in support of Government’s fiscal consolidation programme. He said with clear signs the economy was improving, Government had started to provide some ease for Barbadians, and that MPs shouldn’t be excluded.
What ease Minister Jones? Any taxes that were terminated have been replaced by others, including the burdensome and all-encompassing national social responsibility tax.
Senator Byer Suckoo’s defence was that “it’s not about how much money, it is about the principle. We agreed to a fixed time and the time has come”. But apparently that doesn’t hold for the VAT increase which was to have lasted for 18 months but has been in force for about 60 months. I suppose principles can be changed to suit the scenario. As Groucho Marx is quoted as saying: “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them . . . well, I have others.”
And to make matters worse, as Dr Worrell admitted recently, the Government and state entities owe a staggering $4.9 billion to private individuals and companies. That’s why I get acid reflux every time a Government minister says Government has never reneged on its local debts. Apparently what’s owed to us in tax and VAT refunds isn’t considered debt.
Government’s claim that the Opposition is misleading the public by saying that MPs are getting a pay increase doesn’t seem to mesh with Ms Mottley’s reported statement that “. . . whenever this motion passes in February, ministers, senators, parliamentary secretaries, all who are entitled to benefit from this, will get more money than they got in December last year”. That’s a fact but it’s being twisted and used as a red herring by Government.
I don’t agree with Ms Mottley though, when she links an increase in salary for public servants with MPs taking back their ten per cent in salary. We all know that if we based the majority of public officers’ salaries on performance, they wouldn’t justify their present salaries, much less a pay increase. As Dr Worrell argued, “an increase in productivity in the delivery of public services is urgently needed”.
Of course if the MPs were judged on performance, they too, could be on a sticky wicket!
• Dr Frances Chandler is a former Independent senator. Email: [email protected]
