INITIALLY, I WAS incredulous.
Listening to the vote after a division on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill last week in the House of Assembly, I could not believe the Opposition had abstained on a policy it had championed in Government to rationalise the retirement age across the public service.
Note that an abstention is a negative vote.
That the Barbados Labour Party would vote against the Bill, while expressing support for the principle, simply went beyond belief.
Why back away now?
But that was not the only farcical aspect of a sad day in our parliamentary history.
Government knew that it would not reach the required two-thirds majority (20 votes).
Why press ahead with the debate?
Was it to call someone’s bluff? Was it to put the Opposition on the wrong side of the public service with an election pending?
There is always more in the mortar.
The amendment to extend the retirement age for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Auditor General came at an awkward time for Government and, surprisingly, after correspondence from the Opposition indicating it would not support the change.
It was within days of a favourable decision for dismissed workers of the National Conservation Commission by the Employment Rights Tribunal, which suggested they were unfairly treated and disadvantaged.
In contrast, two perceived high-ranking specially advantaged public officers are expected to benefit from moving their retirement age from 62, where it had been since 1966, to 67.
But several perceived low-ranking public servants were denied meeting retirement age, while others were dismissed, as some of their colleagues with fewer years were retained.
The political environment was therefore charged and offered the Opposition a chance to do what it does best – oppose.
Meantime, there was a sub-plot, involving former Prime Minister Owen Arthur, which put his successor, along with his former colleagues, on the opposite side of the debate. This presented a case of past versus present loyalty for some in the debate and perhaps for the first time, openly.
But there is some history to this debate. In 2004, a constitutional amendment was needed to extend the age of civil servants in central Government as well as those in statutory boards, which allowed them to benefit from their retirement age moving from 62 to 67 years.
Surprisingly, the DPP and the Auditor General were not included. It would be interesting to find out why.
The intent of the amendment was to give the benefit of working five additional years to all public servants. The major political issue for the Opposition appeared to be: why did this Government force the workers of the NCC to go to court to secure a privilege that was intended in the 2004 amendment? The security of the workers certainly would have been the intention of the Arthur administration.
In the face of the decision of the Tribunal and the questionable reason the NCC workers could not be reinstated, the Opposition appeared to see an opportunity to pressure Government.
The notion that reinstatement would have created a major problem for the corporate environment in which they worked remains difficult to digest. They are not office workers who see the CEO on a daily basis. Their jobs do not change in response to changes in the business environment.
The evidence suggests some serious inconsistency in policy. There was some admission by the Prime Minister and the former president of the NUPW that the principle of last-in first-out was not followed in the case of the NCC workers.
The dismissal was done for purely financial reasons. If it is accepted that such reasons are paramount, then the fairness or lack thereof must be in the political process that pointed to Minister Dr Denis Lowe.
So the tabling of the amendment was indeed a political opportunity for the Opposition.
The June 27 letter to the Leader of Government Business stated: “. . . we are not in a position to cooperate with respect to offering our support for this debate . . .”.
It called for a clear statement of policy from Government on retirement age for all civil servants and employees of statutory corporations. It was noted that employees of the Barbados Investment and Development Corporation were recently forced to retire ahead of the 60 years requirement.
Despite the foregoing, however, the suggestion that the Opposition could have waited for another debate to raise their concerns is “new politics”.
While constitutional amendments are too serious to be trivialised with parochial, peripheral matters, the convention in Parliament is for politicians to stretch their privilege to put information that is tangential into debates.
Albert Brandford is an independent political correspondent. Email: albertbrandford@nationnews.com