Nationalist MP Jean Pierre Farrugia has reiterated his opposition to a motion moved by Labour MPs in Parliament criticising the way ministers are being given a parliamentary honoraria alongside their ministerial salaries.
Dr Farrugia, who had himself voiced reservations about the situation, was reacting in The Times to an opinion piece by Lino Spiteri.
In it, Mr Spiteri said that the prime minister may get away with defeating the opposition’s motion on the huge pay rise the Cabinet granted itself. If so, that would be a vote outcome that did not represent public opinion, which had condemned the retroactive pay rise and its size in no uncertain terms.
"The Prime Minister might win the vote but he will certainly lose the argument.”
Dr Farrugia said he doubted that Mr Spiteri had read the opposition motion.
"One need not be a wordsmith to note that the emphasis, like the refrain in a song, is all about the fact that the Leader of the opposition did not get his salary hike.
"Why didn’t the opposition present this motion in 2009 when it first found out that front benchers would be taking their MP salary too?
"Why didn’t the opposition present this motion last January after all MPs were notified they were to take around €20,000 in arrears and a salary increase of around €600 monthly from this year? Is it because among the Labour parliamentary group I had witnessed some telling me I was being a “masochist” by spearheading the “we’re all in it together” campaign?
"Politics is not about rhetoric I’m afraid!," Dr Farrugia said.
The opposition motion was discussed at a meeting of the PN parliamentary group yesterday and it appeared that MPs would support the government and vote against the motion on Saturday.
MPs appeared to accept the government's line and it was decided that the government would present a counter motion to explain what had happened and show 'sensitivity'.
The Prime Minister told the meeting that there had been an 'administrative error' which led to the anomalous way the raises were granted.
The enhanced pay packets, decided by the Cabinet in May 2008, were immediately implemented for the Prime Minister, ministers, parliamentary secretaries and Speaker Louis Galea. However, ordinary MPs, the opposition leader and current Speaker Michael Frendo were kept on their old salaries.
The Labour motion calls on Parliament to condemn the “insensitive, arbitrary and non-transparent” behaviour of the Cabinet on this issue.
There was unanimous agreement that the affair had been mishandled and that the government had lost public opinion on the issue which it would not regain.
NO MORE REFUNDS
However, the Prime Minister made it clear he had no intention of making his ministers and parliamentary secretaries refund any more money than they had already refunded in January.
Two MPs who had raised speculation about their vote on the salary issue were Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Jesmond Mugliett, both pro-divorce.
Before the meeting, Dr Pullicino Orlando told reporters there was a “worrying” political discourse being used on the divorce debate: that conscience should prevail over democratic will.
“What is interesting is that there are some people who are pricked by their conscience only when they discuss divorce,” he said, in a thinly veiled reference to the issue of ministers’ salaries.
After the meeting, he did not give further comments, except to say the discussion was open and frank.
Meanwhile, Mr Mugliett entered the meeting saying he had a number of questions to ask about the justification for the salary increases.
Leaving the meeting, he said his questions had been answered “to a point”, but did not say how he would vote on the matter.