Double standards

IN RECOMMENDING massive increases in pay for public officials, the Salaries Review Commission (SRC) cited all manner of reasons to justify its approach. There was a need, it said, to attract “individuals committed to public service,” to differentiate among skill sets, to consider the “total” picture of the myriad benefits of office, to compare pay levels with the private sector while, at the same time, acknowledging the “unique position” of some posts, such as the Prime Minister’s.

No thought was spared, it seems, for the plight of ordinary public servants who recently settled for a modest four per cent pay hike.

Nor did the SRC make much of the global economic picture, a matter that is plainly relevant. It was the economic situation that was frequently cited by officials in explaining why public servants could receive only a nominal pay increase for a bargaining period that spanned almost a decade.

True, the SRC applies to just 950 specific offices, while the Chief Personnel Officer oversees approximately 100,000 public servants. The impact of increases on the latter group would be far more significant.

Yet, it is hard to understand why what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Indeed, the SRC’s 117th Report, dated May 2023 but tabled in Parliament only last Friday, makes a clear argument for the need to harmonise pay levels across both the public and the private sectors. Why should this be done on a selective basis?

Several aspects of the review process disclosed in the report are unsatisfactory. The document is basically six years late. The SRC is now recommending a review be done every three years. By either count, this is far more frequent than what pertains to ordinary public servants.

Ostensibly, the latest report is the fruit of a long process which saw the engagement of a private consultant, a survey, and the workings of a “Job Evaluation Committee” comprising “members of various backgrounds representing each of the occupational groupings within the purview of the SRC.” In other words, the very officials subject to the commission itself.

In sharp contrast, in countries like the UK, the salaries of MPs are now determined by an independent parliamentary standards authority. Last year, that body recommended British MPs take only a small 2.9 per cent increase in line with the average public sector worker’s rise.

Whatever the views of the consultant, it is clear the SRC holds the final responsibility for its recommendations. Like the Government, it cannot hide behind the fig leaf of a report by a third party. But that is precisely what is likely to happen when these matters are considered in Parliament.

After all, the SRC’s latest report recommends increases for the chairman and the four members of the commission.