~ Want proposal to abolish fringe benefits in 2020 ~
PHILIPSBURG–Ministers and Members of Parliament (MPs) will no longer receive their monthly NAf .500 allowance if a motion approved by Parliament on Tuesday evening goes into effect.
The motion was given the green light by eight MPs – seven from the governing coalition and one vote from United St. Maarten Party (US Party) MP Frans Richardson.
It was opposed by governing coalition MP Chanel Brownbill (United Democrats – UD), five National Alliance (NA) MPs and US Party MP Rolando Brison. Richardson’s vote for the motion seemed to have caught MPs across party lines by surprise; they all looked at him in disbelief when he said “for” when his name was called to vote.
In addition to eliminating the monthly NAf. 500 allowance, the motion tabled by UD MP Sarah Wescot-Williams also calls for government to present a proposal to parliament for the 2020 budget deliberations to eliminate fringe benefits such as vacation allowances, etc., “for politicians and others in the higher(-est) salary brackets.” Wescot-Williams said in her motion that this will save approximately NAf. 300.000 per annum.
The motion also calls for the restriction of all government travel delegations to a maximum of two persons; for the travel budget of Parliament to be established at NAf. 500,000; for government travel to be slashed by an additional 10 per cent across the board; for Ministers and MPs to be responsible for mobile phone cost above NAf. 500 per month; and for authorities to immediately collect the 10 per cent medical self-contribution from MPs and Ministers.
Several MPs motivated their reasons for how they voted.
Brison, who voted against, said the issues listed in the motion are all covered in the law and if MPs want to take this issue seriously they should legislate it and not put the burden on ministers to do what they are paid to do.
He said the NAf. 500 allowance, the vacation allowance and travel of MPs and Ministers are covered in the law and if MPs want to change or eliminate these they should bring legislation to do so.
“If we want to be taken seriously as MPs and show the community that we are doing our jobs as legislators, then legislate it. Why put it towards the Council of Ministers that you support to do the job that we can do ourselves for our own salary. …
“We are legislators. I brought legislation myself on the UTS [United Telecommunications Services – Ed.] law, Mullet Bay increase is on its way [and one on] environmental levy. That is our job. I won’t support or entertain any motion in this regard. When people get serious about doing their jobs and legislating as we are mandated to do by the constitution, then we can have a discussion. Until then I vote against,” Brison said.
In motivating his vote, Brownbill, who voted against the motion proposed by his party, simply said “More money more problems.”
NA MP Ardwell Irion, who voted against, said the motion does not address certain things. He said that while it mentions cutting travel, it does not address the cost of travel. “It leaves a lot out,” Irion said.
Jacobs said that while she can agree with some of the considerations in the motion, until government and parliament seriously look at amending the budget to save government money in places where it is being wasted, she is not prepared to discuss any other cuts. She also questioned whether civil servants in “higher salary brackets” as mentioned in the motion are prepared to take a cut in their fringe benefits, as proposed in the motion.
UD MP Tamara Leonard, who voted for the motion, said she cannot defend not supporting the motion knowing the financial situation the country is in, a sentiment shared by her colleague UD MP Franklyn Meyers, who also supported the motion.
In voting against the motion, NA MP William Marlin said the motion sends a message that parliamentarians are “the enemies of the people who take home a lot of money and they don’t want to help the people.”
He said that rather than collecting the 1.2 million from someone who owes government in land taxes, MPs must come across as the good Samaritans to cut everywhere. He challenged his fellow MPs to prepare legislation, get majority support and pass legislation on these issues, “but do not bring a motion to appease persons who are looking at us.”
Considerations
The considerations of the motion stated that the country is facing serious financial challenges exacerbated by Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017 and that due to these challenges, the 2019 budget has undergone several changes to comply with norms applicable to the budget, at the same time avoiding putting “the proverbial knife” in expenditures and programmes that provide employment (civil service), care, and social programmes, direct and indirect through subsidies, and even seeking some room for new initiatives.
The considerations also said that this proved only possible with a call on the Dutch government for liquidity assistance, as was done in 2017 and 2018. It also stated that the budget has suffered serious delay and government, to stay within the financial parameters, has had to cut and prioritise throughout the 2019 draft budget.
Other considerations include that the Dutch government has again conditioned the liquidity assistance and has reiterated that matters such as pension reform, the 2015 instruction, adjustments to the salaries of Ministers and MPs, justice agreements, etc., be included in the draft 2019 budget; the Ministry of Finance has slashed the proposed travel budget of Parliament from NAf. 873,950 (2018) to NAf. 378,143 (2019); that the salaries of MPs are regulated by law and even have safeguards for legislating, requiring a two-thirds majority to establish or amend; that Parliament is not adverse to a discussion regarding salary norms across the board, but this brings more into picture than just salaries of MPs and Ministers; and that the condescending attitude towards the Parliament by the Dutch government and the pressure on the Government of St. Maarten to circumvent Parliamentary oversight are unacceptable in St. Maarten’s democratic system and that of the Kingdom.
The considerations also note that Parliament considers it its duty to assist government to bring down its expenses, as more fundamental discussions on the way forward are awaited, that Parliament is not in favour of government’s proposal for a voluntary reduction in salary (solidarity act), but prefers a more fundamental addressing of the cost of politics; and that in reviewing Parliament’s budget and Parliament’s emoluments, some reductions are possible.
Source: The Daily Herald https://www.thedailyherald.sx/islands/88853-mps-approve-motion-to-get-rid-of-naf-500-allowance
View comments
Hide comments