Labour torpedoes judicial reform bid
Court reform hits snag
A long-sought agreement with the judiciary which is meant to enter into force tomorrow is in the balance as the Labour Opposition signalled its disagreement at the eleventh hour.
Labour’s parliamentary group decided it would back a proposal to increase the retirement age of sitting judges and magistrates from 65 to 68 years but will oppose the other parts of the package, which includes a €12,000 increase in allowances over the next three years and a new retirement pension system.
The decision follows a meeting of its parliamentary group last week in which the draft agreement between the Government and the judiciary was discussed.
“We think the current economic scenario does not permit an increase in the salaries and allowances for the judiciary, even though they might deserve one,” Labour’s justice spokesman Jose Herrera told The Sunday Times.
“We opposed an increase in the salaries of MPs and ministers over the past years for the same reason and we will be consistent even with regards to the judiciary,” he said.
Insisting this was the official collective position of Labour’s parliamentary group, Dr Herrera said his party would, however, support the proposal in Parliament to raise the retirement age for members of the bench.
Dr Herrera said there were various reasons to support a longer working-life for the judiciary, particularly to attract senior lawyers to the post and to avoid situations where judges about to retire asked for government appointments after ending their career at 65.
The reform package, intended to revamp the much-criticised court service, provided the judiciary with increases and better conditions in return for an improved service, including the introduction of a diary system where all cases are to be heard by appointments, the holding of afternoon sittings and a reform in the Commission for the Administration for Justice.
The Government was still due to start discussions with the Opposition on the commission as it needs its consensus on any changes.
According to Dr Herrera, the Opposition would prefer to start the discussion on the reform of the commission first and then discuss increases in the financial package.
“We have nothing against the judiciary but we want to see more accountability,” Dr Herrera, a seasoned lawyer, insisted.
Although the Government can still go ahead with the agreement concluded with representatives of the judiciary, as increases in salaries and allowances do not need the support of the Opposition in Parliament, observers pointed out that it will be difficult for the Government to continue with its plans.
“Like any agreement this was a give-and-take exercise. It’s difficult to pick and choose,” a senior lawyer told this newspaper.
A former judge said the fact that the Government is entering the last part of its legislature unsure of the support of all its MPs may have tilted the Opposition’s position towards torpedoing the agreement.
“On the other hand, it was a tactical mistake on the Government’s side to agree to a financial increase without getting commitments on concrete reforms in the Commission for the Administration of Justice and more accountability,” another lawyer said.
Currently, judges receive annual remuneration of around €50,000 and magistrates earn €44,000, apart from allowances which include a chauffeur-driven car for their family’s use.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Marsa murder - Police looking...
Update 2: Three arrests after flamingo...
Former Judge Ray Pace found dead
Where’s Everybody staff is given notice
Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...
Update 4 - Eddie Fenech Adami stable...
Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...
Updated - Two bodies, capsized boat,...
Franco Mercieca doing routine eye ops at...
In Discussion
Update 2: Three arrests after flamingo...
Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...
Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...
Chinese company to study Malta-Gozo...
Updated - PM reacts to Labour anger on...
Franco Mercieca doing routine eye ops at...
No appeals board for first part of power...
Updated - PM comments as Franco Mercieca...
BBC site highlights illegal hunting in Malta
63 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Charles Massa
Sep 30th 2012, 19:57
Ghal fej dawn ghandhom jiehdu dawn iz zidiet fenominali meta hemm partita kawzi lura li jmorru snin. L ewwel issir riforma, ikunu aktar efficjenti u wara jiehdu z zidiet.
j brincat
Sep 30th 2012, 18:11
@Aaron Vella
"*Cough*, Wage freeze,....."
Wage freeze is a figment of GonziPN's imagination and his apologists who are getting fewer by the day!
(jb)
.
j brincat
Sep 30th 2012, 18:08
@A. Borg
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the GOSPEL OF
ENVY, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill2
Seems you're a master in making a search on internet to find out quotes.
So, socialism is a failure BUT what is GonziPN?
(jb)
Joe Brincat-LL.D
Sep 30th 2012, 18:03
This is a loaded article. It is not factual and imparts "value judgments" which are not based on law. The question of the much needed reform in the management of court cases is distinct from the question of the remuneration of judges. Two separate questions ! Is that clear enough. Certainly the judges never stamped down their feet, threatening that they would not participate in any reform, unless the salary structure is changed.
So the stand, taken by the Opposition on remuneration, cannot be said that it "torpedoed judicial reform".
On this I must say that this salary increase was a quid-pro-quo that judges accepted to work in the afternoons, provided that they are given more money. Judges are not paid by the hour, not are they paid by production !
The salary of judges is fixed by Parliament. The Constitution guarantees that judges while in office cannot have their remuneration diminished, even by Parliament, but there is no obstacle if a majority in Parliament votes during the budget for such an increase. The same goes for the honorarium of the President of the Republic.
The agreement of Parliament (and not a simple majority) is required where Constitutional amendments are necessary.
A funny though crosses my mind ! The Prime Minister and the other Ministers did not ask for the approval of the Opposition when they gave themselves, without any parliamentary approval, the Euro 500 per week.
That was illegal. A vote to increase and have parliament approve an increase in the salaries of judges does not require a two thirds majority !
A. Borg
Sep 30th 2012, 17:23
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the GOSPEL OF
ENVY, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill
Mr M Spiteri
Sep 30th 2012, 21:49
Well time has proved Churchill wrong as it is capitalism that has brought the world's economy to the state it is today.
Aaron Vella
Sep 30th 2012, 16:56
*Cough*, Wage freeze, anyone... Typical Labour, iridu jwaqqaw il-gvern Akkost tal-kollox. Imbaghad jghidulek l-ewwel Malta. Yeah right.
Joseph Scicluna
Sep 30th 2012, 16:50
Regrettably, the use of the word 'torpedoes' in the title of this report provides a negative impression of a decision by the Labour Party parliamentary group which is in fact a wise , reasonable and responsible decision. This for a number of reasons.
First of all, a decision to grant members of the Judiciary pension rights equivalent to those currently enjoyed by Members of Parliament would be highly ill advised. Qualifying Members of Parliament are entitled to a pension which is not only uncapped but which is automitically revised upwards whenever MPs honoraria are reviewed . Granting such rights to members of the Judiciary would be highly discriminatory to serving public officers and to the thousands of retired public officers, many of whom provided this country with long and meritorious service. Any such concession to the Judiciary will undoubtedely result in great trade union pressure on future Administrations for similar treatment, this when all other EU Member States are undertaking radical pension reforms.
Moreover, concluding a reform agreement with the Judiciary at this late stage of this Legislature practically on the eve of a General Election would be most undesirable and would probably be a repeat experience of the Agreement signed with the Medical Class only some time before the opening of Mater Dei Hospital and the 2008 Elections, which resulted in a major increase in public expenditure without delivering the promised reforms
Joseph Scicluna
Ronnie Callus
Sep 30th 2012, 19:07
Hundred percent correct Joe.
Joe M Borg
Sep 30th 2012, 15:45
Nothing new about Labour. Yep, welcome to the Ice Age! Under Labour, we go back to the Ice Age, and it's a guarantee! Looking back to our recent history, under Labour, we got a Wage Freeze, and under Labour, the E U Application was also frozen. So, I'm not amazed that they want to freeze the minimum wage, as is being mentioned, and also freezing our Judiciary System. Who will be next? You and me?
john muscat
Sep 30th 2012, 15:26
Reading these comments I dare classify them into three categories being sensible, less sensible and mediocre. In my opinion an asset to solve these problems would be the building of a new Court and the appointment of more members of the judiciary where each member of the judiciary will have his/hew own staff and their private chambers.
Both the Nationalist Party and the Labour Party have a large number of lawyers in their ranks, I am amazed how this did not come up during the various interventions regarding the long awaited reform which only seems to be better conditions to the judiciary. The Justice Minister himself should know better.
Members of the judiciary also have to study cases otherwise we would have a disaster in the system. Working in the afternoon is definitley not a solution, lawyers have to see their clients and to study cases. Furthermore, in the criminal courts the police have to act as prosecuting officers. Let's be reasonable when are these dedicated men going to carry out their police work, at night? Another asset to the better performance of the system is the creation of a Prosecution Unit. The police are heavily committed and no wonder many members of the police force including quiet a number of inspectors have these last years opted for another job and left the police force.
Undoubtedly the solution is not an increase in the wages of the judiciary as if everything depends on their income.. A wage increase does not necessarily make a person perform better. Taking a look at statistics of the cases decided irrespective of the fact that the public does not agree with the outcome of the cases, one can see that a number of members of the judiciary really perform and perform well, but alas others leave much to be desired and they will still get their wage increase.
Better performance at the Court of the Courts of Justice does not depend only on the judiciary. The judiciary should be provided with enought staff and enough equipment and a decent working environmnet.
T Mizzi
Sep 30th 2012, 14:32
"A tactical mistake on the Government's side to agree to a financial increase without getting commitments on concrete reforms in the Commission for the Administration of Justice and more accountabilitly" is spot on paritcularly when the honest citizen has to wait YEARS for a decision!
Lawrence Attard
Sep 30th 2012, 13:54
Mela dawn specjali biex jiehdu z-ziedet? Haj tejbu l-performance taghhom l-ewwel umbaght naraw. Mur il-qorti jew iddhol f'hafna mill-awli ta isfel u tahseb li qieghed is-suq bl-ambjent li hemm. Jien il paga tieghi ila f-frizata 9 snin u nahdem ma kumpanija tal-gvern il-cola biss niehu bhalli hawn ohrajn. il-cake ghandu jinqassam minn kullhadd mhux minn uhud biss. Se tagevolaw ftit u tbeghdu hafna.
George Cutajar
Sep 30th 2012, 13:09
Labour's torpedoing of the judiciary's salary increase is a taster of what is to come if they get elected. Wage freezes galore. Better start hoarding logs to keep warm.
victor bonello
Sep 30th 2012, 14:56
do you not read the papers? this very week on the Business Supplement of this paper David Marinelli explained the dramatic financial situation Malta is in because of the overspending and irresponsible way GonziPN has been administrating.
Labour unlike GonziPN is not trying to buy votes. They are being realistic.
It might very well be that we might be needing logs to keep warm but this is only because of a minority that have been eating too many lobsters and drinking too much champagne!.
cesco di luigi
Sep 30th 2012, 17:47
If that is so then I will vote Labour. Incompetence and laziness should not be rewarded.
Joe M Borg
Sep 30th 2012, 18:01
Victor Bonello. Don't you read between the lines? Who is buying votes? Who is promising everything to everyone? JM promised to bring the utility bills down, and I believe that he will! However, he NEVER stated HOW. Lately he is indicating how: wage freeze is one. Just like Alfred Sant did in his time. He promised to remove VAT, which he did, ONLY to introduce CET. It's an old Labour tactic.
JM promised an earthquake once,....well, these are the first tremors. Wage freeze seems to be the first, others will follow.
You also mentioned the 'supposed' financial situation Malta is in. What situation would we be in, if instead of joining the Euro, as PN did, we had done what Sant had suggested, devaluing the Malta Lira by 10%? I cannot even begin to comprehend what would have happened to all our savings and assets! Do you? Do you realize that today ALL YOUR ASSETS would be 10% less? Savings, home, cxar, etc..... Use your brain! But thankfully we did what PN suggested.
Mr Giancarlo Bonnici
Oct 1st 2012, 08:56
@ Joe M. Borg
Just to put the record straight. You mentioned in your comment that Dr. Sant had suggested a 10% devaluation of the Maltese Lira. I'm not going into the merit on whether this would have been beneficiary or not, but may I remind you and the readers that a 10% devaluation of the Maltese Lira was not only suggested but IMPLEMENTED in 1992 by the Nationalist Government lead by Dr. Fenech Adami
victor bonello
Oct 1st 2012, 10:29
@ Joe M Borg. Thank you fro your reply, but I find it without much gist. If we were to compare the cost of living between M Vs Euro you will realize that we had a devaluation far greater then 10%.
What used to cost 1 LM - 2.42 euros to day cost double that except for the Lira shops.
Besides that one has to look at an even wider angle. We have had so much money throw to the wind that whilst the Lm was backed by reserves to day our Euro is on the brink of collapse.
Marion Storace
Sep 30th 2012, 12:02
To all Bloggers stating that the judiciary should get an increase in allowances and a new retirement pension scheme - I ask them 'Has the judiciary asked for this increase/scheme during the last 25 years - definitely NOT so why now???'
The usual mud slinging PN spinners at their best hypocrisy.....
E. Vassallo
Sep 30th 2012, 16:14
You really do not know the responsibility and work of the Judiciary. bet your labour leader is starting his wage freezing from the members of the Judiciary...
Emmanuel Ebejer
Sep 30th 2012, 12:00
The recent collective agreement for Government employees is expected to give a 2.5% raise of thier current wage for each of the next 5 years! So if money is available why not help those really in need? Give a decent pay raise (package) to those on minimun wage! I am quite sure these noble people will agree!!
cesco di luigi
Sep 30th 2012, 17:49
And by this agreement magisrtartes will also get this increase PLUS the super package.
Ms.D. Galea
Sep 30th 2012, 11:45
Why shoudl judges get wage increases which they most certainly do not deserve?
Paul Konti
Sep 30th 2012, 15:18
AND MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT NEED!
michael catania
Sep 30th 2012, 11:43
This is another example of how 'patriotic' the conservative government is towards this island nation. The country is deeply in depth and they keep burdening it with these outrageous salary rises to the elite. With the 2.5 % on offer to the public servants, the government paybill goes up and up and the taxes get less. To me it looks like they are determined to destroy this economy. It took them 25 years to get us to this state of affairs and are now in a hurry to inflict as much damage as possible prior to the next election, one which they are likely to heavily loose and thus make the next government that much harder to implement its electoral programme. To me these people are nothing more then traitors and should be held accountable to their actions in the future
Joseph John Camilleri
Sep 30th 2012, 14:00
It was in depth when the rains arrived.
Richard Caruana
Sep 30th 2012, 10:58
More wage freezes!
Shades of things to come for sure
Noel Abela
Sep 30th 2012, 11:26
Richard please gewt a life and be honest with yourself and those who read these blogs. If you agree with such a hefty raise in the salaries of these civil servants then you must be out of your mind. After all us working class people only got euro1.16 a week rise.
John Williams
Sep 30th 2012, 11:38
an extra EUR 12,000.00 qed nitkellmu ta!!! u meta jkollok paga ta EUR 55,000.00 plus car and driver, ma nahsibtx li tissejjah wage freeze!!!
kun aff fatti u mhux tisma min dak li jajdulek richard
George Joseph Cauchi
Sep 30th 2012, 12:08
I wouldn't mind an increase in my earnings or an uncapped pension. Anyway what are these increases in salaries meant to cover? An increase in productivity ? Politicians from the two large parties keep on harping about the competitiveness perspective in the keeping the minimum wages as it is. Once again two weights and two measures.
Ronnie Callus
Sep 30th 2012, 12:16
@ Noel Abela:
Well said the more they have the more they get, whilst the lower class given 1.16 euro which was already taken by the increase of Gas, fuel and energy. Is this all honesty with us tax payers which is surely paid from our salary deduction. On the other hand are we going to increase the National Debt when we already are not coping with it. This is the same as the 500 euro per week given behind our backs to the parliamentarians who are more on holidays than in parliament. Dr.Franco was an eye opener to all and now he should show his committment beliefs.
M Borg
Sep 30th 2012, 12:18
I do not agree with the minimum wage freeze or with a freeze on other salaries, but I do agree that this financial package should not be given.
Why do they need to be given another €12,000 increase to the allowance they already get ? Why should a high increase ?
But what should never be started is a new retirement pension system. They are not the only " workers " who are paying a high NI tax but while all of us get the national pension it is being proposed that they will be given an uncapped pension.
It is bad enough that we have MPs enjoying this why include the judiciary now ?
Richard Caruana
Sep 30th 2012, 12:57
@ N Abela
Don't need to get a life, I've got one and proud of it.
I'm a pensioner and get the same as 'us working class people'. So what?
Under Labour's pension law I would have got 2/3rd of what you and every 'working class' people get.
So believe me, I'm much better off, thank you
j brincat
Sep 30th 2012, 10:51
Labour torpedoes judicial reform bid!
What an inappropriate title!
Did the government really expect the PL to play ball and betray its principles which make no distinction between different strata of society!
(jb)
Richard Caruana
Sep 30th 2012, 11:01
Typical socialist thinking... still embedded in thinking of 'different strata of society'. Before, in less flowery words, it was called 'different classes',
And there are those who believe JM and his Movement/Party or whatever it's called these days, wants to create a new 'middle class'.
Cobwebs, nothing but cobwebs.
Ronnie Callus
Sep 30th 2012, 19:12
@ Richard Caruana:
Different classes are created by the PN when he gives rise in salaries by percentage.
j brincat
Sep 30th 2012, 10:47
@M Sciberras
The ignorance of people is perfectly reflected in these comments. Successful lawyers and other professionla earn very high salaries, much higher than the wages earned by judges and magistrates"
So what?
They should then have remained "successful lawyers" and continue to earn their very high salaries. Official statistics based on declared income in Malta shows that these are not too many! One wonders why!
The crux of the matter is "what makes them (judges/magistrates) different from other classes of workers?"
So you see, your missive did not shed much enlightenment and intelligence!
(jb)
M Sciberras
Sep 30th 2012, 11:40
I suggest you acquaint yourself with what statistics are really saying. A legal partnership or law firm earns profits AFTER all salaries have been deducted. So to find how much salary is earned by top lawyers - or other professionals who own companies or benefit from profit sharing schemes - you need to also factor thier share of the annual profits of the firm or partnership.. So yes, my friend, these comments reflect alot of ignorance. The share of the annual profits of the firm is often much greater than the amount declared as salary. This is common and acceptable practice in companies everywhere and is perfectly legal by the way, just in case it needs clarifying....Dont be taken for a ride by opportunistic politicians. Judges do not have the option of running companies.
M Sciberras
Sep 30th 2012, 10:38
I am sure Jose Herrera earns €50000 or less from his private practice! Hypocrisy at its best!
cesco di luigi
Sep 30th 2012, 17:51
Yes but he is not paid from taxes, but from individuals who choose him as their lawyer. that's his own private business , not Government pays him.
M Sciberras
Sep 30th 2012, 20:57
@cesco de luigi. Try and follow your own logic. Magistrates and judges are selected from the most successful lawyers. The ones who are at the top of the legal profession, bar those who have chosen to pursue careers in the Attorney General's Office, earn more than a judge makes, something you admit. So many of Malta's top legal minds either have to make a financial sacrifice to join the bench, or join it for the wrong reasons. Or people who just are not good enough are appointed. So it is in the taxpayers interest to offer the right competitive salaries. Have we forgotten the bribery of two judges a few years ago? The manifest poor quality of some of the current serving judges and magistrates? High salaries do not solve everything but the current salary structure is too low. And the same for that matter goes for politicians. Jose Herrera knows this better than anyone - this is nothing but cheap politics. A judge in Malta earns less than than the financial controller of a medium sized company. It is ridiculous.
Matthew Grima
Oct 1st 2012, 10:10
M Sciberras, do not blame the bribery on poor wages, there's always bribery no matter how much the receiver earns.
And I do not care how much a financial controller earns in a medium sized company, if that company is making a lot of money and the financial controller is performing well then he deserves to get whatever he earns.
You earn what the company you work for affords. And the government(we) cannot afford it.
X Borg
Sep 30th 2012, 10:34
I think 2.5% like the rest of us should be in order and forget any special pension considerations.
Ethelbert Schembri
Sep 30th 2012, 10:31
We've all witnessed a very bad performance from the courts of justice so a holistic reform is much needed here .... But a reform is not just the increase in pay and other benefits, it must address the poor state of the judicatory and the justice system thoroughly.
That would be great to go to our employer and demand to get a very nice increase in out pay and he smiles back and say, yes sure I give you the raise and all more benefits and in return I don't expect nothing !!! YES SURE !!!! So why are they expecting to be treated differently ?? Isn't justice equal to everyone???
M Sciberras
Sep 30th 2012, 10:19
The ignorance of people is perfectly reflected in these comments. Successful lawyers and other professionla earn very high salaries, much higher than the wages earned by judges and magistrates. But in Malta, many continue to persist in the belief that all live or must live on the minimum wage or their own wages. All you need to do is go outside of the front door and see the cars alot of people drive, the houses alot of people live in and the lifestyles alot of people lead to realise this is not the case. This is nothing but cheap politics by Labour. I would be amazed if Jose Herrera does not earn far far more than what a Maltese judge makes from his private practice. Alot of good lawyers refuse an appointment as judge unless conditions improve. And the increase in salaries was part of a wider package of refom Which is now stalled. Envy and ghira wins the day again.
j brincat
Sep 30th 2012, 10:19
@Pierre Vassallo
"Opportunism at large. What an irresponsible opposition"
Are you for real?
Or whatever GonziPN proposed goes down well for you?
(jb)
j brincat
Sep 30th 2012, 10:17
Why should judges be treated differently from the rest of us? What makes them so special?
The government should hide away in shame for proposing this agreement.
The class distinction depicted in George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' seems that it is still going strong with the PN
The PL should not even consider being part and parcel of this agreement as otherwise it would been hypocritical in the eyes of many.
There are MORE pressing matters in this country of ours that need to be addressed.
But then the election round the corner and the PN is in Panic Mode!
(jb)
Lawrence Fenech
Sep 30th 2012, 10:12
It compares very well with the 1 euro 16 cents I was allotted by the same government who also intends in the forthcoming maybe budget not to move thre COLA rates.
John Vella
Sep 30th 2012, 10:11
i agree with Joseph muscat on this one....
R. Gauci
Sep 30th 2012, 10:03
Currently, judges receive annual remuneration of around €50,000 and magistrates earn €44,000, apart from allowances which include a chauffeur-driven car for their family’s use.
Don't you think that the above remuneration is enough to live a comfortable life especially when you have to consider the back log of cases there are presently at the courts and when we are in a situation that you go to court when you are in the wrong ??? !!! ( Tmur il-Qorti meta jkollok tort)
m. borg (slm)
Sep 30th 2012, 10:00
Whlie we the men and women the street are asked to make sacrifices the judiciary gets a €12, 000 increase over three years.
In the public sector it is customary to increase an employee's wage according to his/her performence, the judiciary on the other hand is lacking in this regard yet the government rewards them instead.
Ahna ahna jew m'ahniex.
Joseph N. Attard
Sep 30th 2012, 11:49
@ m.borg (slm): "In the public sector it is customary to increase an employee's wage according to his/her performance". Since when? God forbid that what you say is true, as otherwise many public so-called civil servants, from top to bottom, would get a decrease instead of an increase in their salaries. It is only in the private sector where one gets rewards according to his abilities and hard work.
Anthony Pace
Sep 30th 2012, 09:54
Tell LP that salaries and pensions are amongst the lowest in the EU!!! and need radical and urgent reform regardless of the present economic situation.
If Malta increases salaries and pensions in line with the rest of Europe then the EU will have to allocate more money to one of it's poorest relations!!!
Renald Borg
Sep 30th 2012, 10:14
If we should reform salaries then we start from the bottom up!
Richard Caruana
Sep 30th 2012, 11:02
@ R Borg
That's impossible, Sir. Minimum wages will not rise according to the lateest Labour/Socialist thinking.
Anthony Pace
Sep 30th 2012, 11:54
@ Mr Borg & Mr Caruana: Reform in salaries starts at he top and works its way down the ladder. It is a fact of life that salaries and reimbursments lag behind the rest of Europe. In my opinion the judiciary reform did not go far enough. The main judge should be on par to the President's salary together with the other judges and magistrates having a salary similar to the PM's and ministers.
Likewise hospital consultants, university lecturers, civil servant officers should be equally renumerated and their pensions similarly reformed. Then the police force pay reformed together with nurses and midwife and teachers salaries and pensions.
An increase in salaries and pensions will increase the spending capacity of the nation and lead to increased GDP, taxes, etc and more revenue raised.
I would however go for a freeze on food products and other vegetables, etc as they are presently sold on par or above the rest of the EU as we import everything.
Pierre Vassallo
Sep 30th 2012, 09:26
Opportunism at large. What an irresponsible opposition. "A former judge said the fact that the Government is entering the last part of its legislature unsure of the support of all its MPs may have tilted the Opposition’s position towards torpedoing the agreement."
Antonio Pace
Sep 30th 2012, 09:20
Consistent indeed Hon. Herrera. This is called wage freeze. Back to Mintoff economics. Labour won't work.
m. borg (slm)
Sep 30th 2012, 10:02
Mr Pace are by any chance one of those who would be effected by the €12,000 increase?
First let's see reforms at our court's then they get what they deserve if they deserve any better.
Renald Borg
Sep 30th 2012, 10:16
I guess you're one of those PN supporters not able to think for yourself hence you keep repeating over and over the party's current talking points.
Lawrence Fenech
Sep 30th 2012, 10:16
@Pace.
Not giving fantastic raises is not a "wage freeze" conveniently trying to put this expression in people's mind called in other words " brain wash", also the late Dominic Mintoff was always on the giving side of the underwaged.
A.Felex Busuttil
Sep 30th 2012, 09:17
its not the time for an increase. After all most judges by 11 am they will be having cofee at il kazin Malti or Cordina
Please choose the reason of your report below: