Anomalies in the salary scales
Malta’s salary scales have become controversial, to say the least. Traditionally, within the public sphere, the senior heads of the civil service and the members of the judiciary were among the best paid.
Over the last couple of decades, however, we have experienced a rapid increase in the number of senior public officers who no longer necessarily form part of the civil service. These new posts are the result of the introduction of the various innovative public entities and regulatory authorities that have been steadily mushrooming since Malta joined the European Union. These, though akin to the customary government departments, surprisingly do not fall within the ambit of the salaries awarded to civil servants. The disparity in these economic arrangements is, as a result, giving rise to certain discontent.
It is no secret that the earnings of CEOs and people in top management posts at these new authorities by far outweigh those of the members of the judiciary and the civil service and this, to me, does not seem justified.
Lately, particular statistics caught my attention. I was literally astounded by what I read. It transpires, for example, that the chairman of the Malta Environmental and Planning Authority earns, believe it or not, more than double the pay of the Chief Justice who occupies the third highest ranking position on the island. Similarly, he earns more than two and a half times what is paid to the Attorney General and permanent secretaries, who occupy the top posts within the civil service.
Senior officers of this same entity (Mepa) are similarly awarded a financial package by far more lucrative than that offered to judges and to the more senior heads of departments. This, to me, is unmerited. Amazingly, some of these high-flyers are actually earning more income than our head of state himself. All this is naturally raising eyebrows.
On the other hand, and contrary to this trend, government ministers have definitely taken advantage of upgrading their own financial package. To justify this, the government points to the income being generated by the above-mentioned public officials but such comparisons seem only suitable with regard to the Executive and this seems unjust.
As we are all only too aware, in this legislature, the government made arrangements to raise significantly the remuneration of Cabinet ministers to the extent that, today, they are earning close to double what they used to get in the past. No similar immediate initiative was however taken to bring in line senior civil servants and members of the judiciary. All this is somewhat unnerving.
As the opposition member responsible for justice, I have, as expected, been persistently approached by various members of the Bench who have clearly pointed out their dissatisfaction with such a situation. Notwithstanding their position in Malta’s hierarchy, the Bench has commenced a nosedive in terms of salary scales within the government service. It is to be appreciated that, in order to have a strong and efficient judiciary, we have to entice the best legal brains available. Surely, the financial package being offered nowadays is far from attractive in this regard.
Furthermore, judges lament the way their pensions are computed. Due to this, it has become customary for judges approaching retirement age to endeavour to seek ulterior public positions after leaving the Bench. In truth, this tendency, justly or otherwise, diminishes their independence, especially in litigation involving the Administration or highly polarised cases.
On account of all this, we have lately read how two prominent judges, on attaining retirement age, raised the issue of the mandatory pensionable age of 65. They actually felt obliged to suggest that this should be extended for a few more years to avoid the necessity of having retiring members of the judiciary seeking further employment, which seems demeaning.
In the light of all this, it seems right and fitting if the government tackled these anomalies.
Dr Herrera is Labour spokesman for justice.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
4 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr Joseph Calleja
Jul 30th 2011, 16:40
First of all Dr. Herrera I think it is very ludicrous that judges have to retire at such a young age, the law is preposterous to let such a young mind go to waste so early. As long as a judge or otherwise has a sane mind and can physically function properly no one should be forced to retire at such an early age, judge or no judge. In this day and age 60 is still considered to be a very young age and a judge can function efficiently till he becomes 65 or 70 if he chooses too. As far as the outrageous wages, blame the system and the government in general. It wouldn't be so bad if these people merited that kind of wages but most of them are as hopeless as ... on a bull. Are these Ceo's and heads of departments worth this kind of money, of course not, but this comes from a corrupt government and a corrupt society. A good example is the Honoraria pay raise and the 500 euro a week pay raise to our politicians compared to the 1.16 euro the government offered as a COLA to the public. Fair? Of course not. Dr Herrera come next election, if and when the PL takes over, maybe, and I say maybe, the PL can correct all, or some of these wage atrocities and maybe even allow judges to stay on the job longer. It is something that the PL can run on. Too bad you won't be there to stop the relocation of the Triton Fountain or maybe put a roof on the Topless Opera House, it is a shame the way our country is being run. You might even miss the inauguration of the Cirkewwa Project. Well there is always the prospect of the Gozo Tunnel Link or the finished product of the new Upper Barrakka proposed lift? And maybe if it is still in existence you can always try to save Air Malta by reducing the wages of the highly overpaid management.
(Being a bit sarcastic of course).
Mr Joseph Calleja
Jul 30th 2011, 20:14
In addition, if judges have to retire at such an early age so should politicians. It makes even more sense.
Mr Tony Camilleri
Jul 31st 2011, 15:23
Mr Joseph Calleja they did not have a rise of €500 PER WEEK but €1,000 PER WEEK, €500 on each salary. Remember they are taking TWO salaries.
M Sciberras
Jul 30th 2011, 13:33
I applaud this article. Some salient points are missing, maybe because as a politician the writer has his own agenda.
First, a long overdue upward revision of the payscales of senior people in the civil service cannot take place on its own but as part and parcel of the entire civil service payscale. A senior civil servant is on a higher rung in the same pay scale as an entry level clerk. But the govt has avoided this because Malta cannot afford higher dalaries for the entire civil service and because rising the wages for some and not others will upset the collective agreements in place. One of the main reasons for the explosion in the number of govt entities and quangos was the inability to attract professional staff on civil service salaries within their inflexible stuctures as well as to get away from all the 'inherent' constraints of the civil service and the estacode.
Yet as we all know what was created in too many cases were entities as inefficient as the civil service, with the only difference being that they offered higher salaries and some jobs for 'the boys'.
A little noticed curiosity emerging from the scandal of how MPs and ministers received their payrises is that, unlike in other countries, the pay scales of our elected representatives are not linked to the civil service payscales. I do believe they once were, though I stand to be corrected. If they were, the government would not have been able to freely amend salaries without upsetting a hornets' nest.
By ducking the true issue of civil service pay and working practices reform, Malta's politicians have created a true mess of different and hugely unfair payscales and employment contracts, and several agencies whose raison d'etre is simply not to be part of the civil service. In the case of the justice system, they have created a class of judges and magistrates who are so poorly paid that the independence and incorruptibility of the judiciary has long been under threat.
The true issue is civil service reform. Transparency requires that all who are in government employment, save for autonomous agencies whose true need should be challenged and questioned, should be on a clearly communicated pay scale. Dr Herrerra omits to mention that to solve the real problems he mentions, a bigger one needs to be solved. There are many others in the civil service, such as architects, auditors, statisticians, economists etc occupying important or crucial administrative roles whose wages are just too low. This is unfortunate, because some of the most intersting and important jobs can only be found in the civil service. Wages that are too low, espacially vis a vis the private sector, can only foment resentment or an inabilty to attract or retain quality people. Given the vital nature of the work much of the civil service does, this is insane. The unions with their collectivist approach and their infexibilty are as much to blame as government and the opposition for this situation. So Dr Herrerra, what we would now like to hear is your concrete proposals to rectify this situation. They had better be bold.
Please choose the reason of your report below: