Irony can exceed itself at times. It did so last Wednesday for what should have been a routine meeting of the House of Representatives.

Instead, the early evening turned into an example of the hollowness of Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi’s claim that he, along with his ministers and parliamentary secretary, deserve to be paid an MP’s honorarium on top of the normal salary voted for their office because, in effect, they do two jobs. They act as ministers/parliamentary secretaries and also as MPs, he claims.

Later on that fateful Wednesday evening Nationalist Party general secretary Paul Borg Olivier faithfully parroted his master’s voice when he was quizzed by Reno Bugeja on the TVM Dissett programme, where the PN top official was more concerned with talking about the Labour Party and opposition than answering his interviewer to properly explain and justify his party’s stand on a number of issues.

As the House met on Wednesday its members were supposed to start the evening by performing their basic function. Which used to be that they congregate in the House to start the meeting with the clerk asking them to join her in a prayer, then reading the day’s business, approving the minutes of the previous meeting, and moving on to an abbreviated half-an-hour of Question Time.

That was the procedure in bygone days, following which, after Question Time was over, ministers not involved in House business that evening would go off to the room which each of them has in the Palace to continue the day’s work with a few members of their secretariat, while MPs would either stay on in the House or go to their respective government or opposition room, there to research, discuss or simply while away the time in less demanding pursuit, at times going for a mild tipple in the House bar.

That procedure fails sometimes, and certainly did so last Wednesday. It is the duty of the MPs on the government side to form a quorum (an undemanding 15 members present); and, of course, it is the duty of ministers to stay to answer written parliamentary questions, which can provide a more entertaining few minutes in the House than the relative drudgery of listening to or making speeches on the second reading of a bill, or listening or intervening when a bill is being discussed in the committee stage.

Last Wednesday, procedure did worse than go missing. There were not enough MPs to form a quorum, not even counting those who wear and are now paid for a double-hat, a bi-beret if one might coin a term in these revolutionary times.

The opposition whip, who always follows the proceedings with hawk’s eyes whoever is in opposition, did not make an issue of that – meaning he did not make the dreaded call for a quorum. But then it became a bit too much.

When Joe Mizzi stood up to put a question on behalf of an absent opposition colleague as the rules allow, there was not one single minister to answer the written question in the House – not a minister to whom the parliamentary question was addressed nor a ministerial colleague, as the rules also permit.

That was too much for Mizzi. He called for a quorum. The irony of the evening was about to exceed itself. Only 14 members from the government side turned up. The Prime Minister, instead of being angry at his side’s absenteeism, opened an onslaught on the Labour whip, insisting that, as the MP who had called for a quorum, he was obliged to be in the House, thus making up the necessary numbers.

Speaker Michael Frendo pointed out that quite a while back when his predecessor Louis Galea was still chair, that rule had been changed. In accordance with set procedure, therefore, he adjourned the House to its next scheduled meeting, on Monday. The time and cost of convening Wednesday’s sitting went down the drain. The government side looked silly.

And irony looked bigger than usual. For it became patently clear that ministers and parliamentary secretaries, though paid an additional MP’s honoraria on top of their salary and allowance (which no one knows what it is paid for), had failed to perform the most basic of an MP’s duty, to be in the House at least for the start of a sitting.

The dramatic farce of the two salaries is becoming clearer than the knot being tied up on the divorce legislation issues. The disdain, contempt even, for the parliamentary class receives further fuel from the government side.

The Prime Minister ignited that contempt by giving ministers and parliamentary secretaries an additional MP’s salary in May 2008, though House approval was not sought for it, as required by financial regulation and practice. The payment continued to be given without House approval because it was not specified in the Estimates for subsequent financial years.

Gonzi added fuel to that contempt by referring, post facto, the increase in MPs’ honoraria to the House Business Committee – but, in stark contrast, failing to refer to the committee the additional honorarium given to Cabinet members and parliamentary secretaries.

These were required to refund the additional MPs’ honoraria they had enjoyed, without it being voted to them, since May 2008. But, by prime ministerial diktat, they were allowed to keep the additional MP’s honoraria at the old rate.

Tunisia and Egypt are fighting for freedom and democracy. Mercifully, we enjoy both. But we should not take liberties with them.

It is of no consequence when the opposition learnt of the hike in the take-home pay of ministers and parliamentary secretaries. But it is of much consequence that the Prime Minister and his colleagues take unwarranted liberties with their pay and totally ignore the anger and disgust they have triggered thereby.