I don’t think Tonio Fenech could have handled the MP pay rise issue any worse if he tried. Instead of being upfront about the whole matter and trying to explain why ministers deserve a €600-a-week pay rise, he hedged and hawed, with the full extent of MPs’ increased financial package only coming to light in answer to a parliamentary question made last week.

Actually there are two financial measures which are to be implemented and which have cast the Prime Minister and Tonio Fenech into the role of modern-day Marie Antoinettes dismissing the peasants with the equivalent of “Let them eat cake”.

The first is that which relates to ministers and parliamentary secretaries retaining their honoraria for being MPs, besides being paid their ministerial salary.

Now the reason for such a measure is not totally objectionable. After all, ministers and parliamentary secretaries still retain their role as members of the House. If they assume more responsibilities it should stand to reason that they should be paid more.

The extent of their honoraria is another matter, as is the way the measure was decided upon. Back in 2008, when the world was being buffeted by the first waves of the unfolding economic disaster, a Cabinet meeting was held. After a brainstorming session, Cabinet members concluded that the best way to handle the impending economic crisis was to spend more on themselves.

At that point they also decided that honoraria of all the Members of Parliament should be raised from 50 per cent of Pay Scale 1 to 70 per cent of Pay Scale 1. This effectively means ministers get a €600-a-week pay rise.

Other MPs will get less than that, but it still means taxpayers will have to fork out over €4 million to pay for the increase in honoraria over the five years of this legislature.

Now I don’t subscribe to the notion that all professions should earn the same amount of pay. While every type of job should be afforded the same amount of respect, there is no way a cleaner or a loader should earn as much as a surgeon or a pilot. The skill and qualifications required to perform delicate operations or to fly a plane are greater than those required to carry out more menial tasks. Even the level of responsibility is different.

It follows that the pay packet of someone with a job which requires more skill or responsibility should be commensurate with these requirements. In view of this, I can understand why full-time politicians should be paid well. However, I can see why the financial measures irked so many people.

In the first place there was the way they were introduced, with none of the fanfare which accompanies popular government measures. These were pay rises by stealth, the government being fully conscious that a public urged to adopt austerity measures would not welcome the announcement that parliamentarians would be splurging on themselves.

From a public relations point of view, it’s a disaster. It shows the government is rather insensitive to what citizens are feeling. Political leaders in other countries have gauged public sentiment more accurately and acted on it.

In Britain, both David Cameron and Nick Clegg had refused the MPs’ pay rise.

In beleaguered Ireland, the top politicians accepted pay cuts of up to €14,000 each.

One of US President Barack Obama’s first announcements when taking office was to announce a freeze of his senior White House staff pay at current levels. This was done to enable the White House to stretch its budget to get more done for the country.

Obama said he recognised that “in these austere times, everyone must do more with less, and the White House is no exception”.

I suppose the PN thought the increase in honoraria would be put into effect without too many objections from opposition MPs, who would be benefitting from the extra money coming their way. In the past, this was one aspect where bipartisanship was the order of the day.

Fenech must have reckoned that Labour’s credibility would have been shot if Labour MPs accepted a pay rise after howling at government extravagance.

As it is, Joseph Muscat wisely shunned what was effectively ‘hush money’ and refused the pay rise, as did other Labour MPs. This had the effect of making Fenech’s protestations about a Nationalist-Labour agreement about the increase, sound quite hollow.

As for his mutterings about both sides agreeing that mail expenses of MPs should continue to be paid from public funds, it just reeks of desperation and efforts to distract from the main issue at hand.

Put quite simply, why are the Nationalist MPs insisting on awarding themselves a pay rise when the economic situation dictates otherwise?

And why has a measure decided upon two years ago been revealed only now?

Fenech may fulminate about the price of Joe Mizzi’s stamps, but he would do well to answer the more pertinent questions as to how a country burdened with a huge deficit can afford to shell out extra millions right now.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt