The independent commission appointed by the Prime Minister to review the salaries of those holding a political office has reignited a long-standing debate for which there appears no end in sight.

The initial reaction to the leaked report focused on the salary scales proposed for holders of political office, including the prime minister and the opposition leader, but the debate quickly moved on to whether being a member of parliament should be a full-time or a part-time job. They are two entirely separate issues.

Opinions are mixed, sometimes poles apart, as to whether being an MP should be a full-time job. There are both advantages and disadvantages. Paying MPs properly so they may forfeit their careers to dedicate themselves full-time to their duties as elected politicians is an argument that holds water. But democracy does not allow the luxury of security of tenure and MPs would often need to return to the careers they left behind.

Those against full-time politicians argue politics is not a career but a service, indeed a privilege, to represent the community that gives you that parliamentary seat. To turn this ‘honour to serve’ into a full-time job, where MPs would decide for themselves their own remuneration and work conditions, could attract the wrong sort of ‘career’ politicians.

A possible solution to this multi-faceted dilemma would involve a major overhaul in the way parliament operates.

Speaker Anglu Farrugia unveiled ambitious plans for parliament when he spoke at the Sette Giugno commemoration last year. He is proposing a parliament that would be administratively autonomous and independent of the executive. He hopes absolute independence would translate into better services for MPS, like by bringing Meusac under parliament’s wing, a proposal included in the present government’s electoral manifesto.

PN deputy leader Mario de Marco has suggested teams of researchers, similar to those made available to MEPs, who would support MPs in their parliamentary work.

Providing the necessary structures, tools and support to MPs would go some way in expediting procedures, ensuring good legislation, and at the same time enabling MPs to maintain their current part-time roles.

The issue concerning salaries is more sensitive , considering the disastrous way the previous PN government handled the honoraria. Finding itself on the other side of the fence, the Opposition has been taking umbrage at the government’s decision to appoint Labour backbenchers to government boards saying the move effectively gave them a second salary.

The remuneration of politicians can easily become dynamite and maybe it was with this in mind that the Prime Minister has already ruled out any salary increases in this legislature or the next.

In doing this, the Prime Minister is ignoring the elephant in the room, or in this case, inside the House of Representatives. It does not make sense that some heads of government entities actually earn more than the Prime Minister. This issue needs to be addressed, with political sensitivity and maturity. It will require the co-operation and restraint of all political parties to debate the proposed salaries without the discussion degenerating into a political dogfight. It was the Prime Minister who appointed the commission that came up with the recommendations. The least he could do now is debate the proposals. Kicking the can down the road does not solve anything.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.