“Let other people decide your salaries” is the latest message in the Fiji parliamentary pay controversy.

This is the call of Fiji’s longtime House of Representatives Secretary Edward Blakelock, who believes that the Special Emoluments Committee must be independent.

He said the Emoluments Committee, traditionally comprised independent consultants who were not sitting parliamentarians and cabinet ministers.

Fiji Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry echoed similar sentiments, adding the report on the review of emoluments for parliamentarians should have been cleared by Finance Minister Professor Biman Prasad in cabinet before it was tabled in Parliament.

RNZ Pacific reports that the political fallout from Fijian parliamentarians giving themselves a pay rise last week is spiralling out of control after the main opposition — FijiFirst, the largest single political party in Parliament — sacked 17 out of 26 of its MPs.

While Parliament decides on the make-up of the Special Emoluments Committee, Blakelock said it should not comprise ministers and members of Parliament.

The Parliamentary Remunerations Act 2014 does not spell out who should be members of this committee, but in accordance with parliamentary tradition, the body is expected to be independent of the Parliament.

It should not include current sitting members as committee members so as to ensure no conflict of interest but to be eventually be answerable to Parliament in terms of the approval of its report.

Not eligible
He said the 1997 Constitution specified that exclusion under Section 83 (4) — that a person whose renumeration is reviewable by the Parliamentary Emoluments Committee is not eligible to be appointed as a member.

“As a matter of principle, I personally believe that a member of Parliament — whether a minister or not — should not be a member of a committee which reviews their own salaries, allowances and benefits purely because of conflict of interests issues and just basic fairness,” said Blakelock.

“As mentioned earlier, the 1997 Constitution specifies that exclusion in no uncertain terms.

“In other words, members are expected to be drawn from outside of the current membership of Parliament.

“The Parliament itself chooses by agreement who should be a member of the committee.

“Again, Parliament has to act within the confines of the relevant constitutional provisions and precedence, as well as the provisions in the Parliamentary Remunerations Act 2014.

“I would have thought that if the committee had comprised of members who are not current sitting members of Parliament, we would certainly not be going through all these rigmaroles today.

Independent committee
“The committee should, in my opinion, be independent and consist of experienced and qualified persons from outside of Parliament.”

The 2013 Constitution requires that Parliament “must, under its rules and orders, establish committees with the functions of scrutinising government administration and examining Bills and subordinate legislation and such other functions as are specified from time to time in the rules and orders of Parliament”.

And according to Parliament’s Standing Orders on Special Committees, a special committee may be established by a resolution of Parliament to carry out the assignment specified in the resolution.

This allowed Parliament to pass a resolution on July 12, 2023, for the establishment and membership of the Special Emoluments Committee.

The committee is chaired by Minister for Women Lynda Tabuya and comprises Minister for Infrastructure Ro Filipe Tuisawau, Education Minister Aseri Radrodro, and Opposition MPs Alvick Maharaj and Mosese Bulitavu.

Repeka Nasiko is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

So 40 Fiji members of Parliament voted in favour of the Special Committee on Emoluments Report on the review of MPs’ salaries, allowances and benefits in Parliament on Friday.

Now that’s not going down well with the masses, with many venting their frustrations on social media. From the outset, it appears there are many people frustrated by the turn of events in the august house.

Many also sent in letters to the editor expressing their disappointment. There was the odd one out though, reflecting on the need for a pay rise for parliamentarians. So in effect, we have both ends of the spectrum covered.

That’s democracy for you. People will have differing opinions on what constitutes the right action to take at this moment in our history.

Seven voted against the motion and five abstained.

There are differing opinions as well in the House.

The National Federation Party voted against the motion, pointing out their position was in accordance with the directive of the party.

Opposition leader Inia Seruiratu insisted government must be seen as an equal opportunity provider and an employer of choice.

In saying that, we reflect on a number of factors. They are intertwined with this change in financial status of our MPs.

There will be the line taken about the importance of the work and salary comparisons initially, the duration of their stint in Parliament, status and expectations from voters, and the argument about attracting and retaining professionals, against the impact this will have on our coffers, pinning down taxpayer dollars.

We have a scenario that isn’t a pleasant one at all. We have a competitive salary against timing, and expectations of a nation that isn’t well off at all.

We have a delicate situation. Sceptics will wonder about what is fair compensation against the financial strain this places on taxpayers.

Let’s face it. There are economic challenges, and this increase will no doubt be seen as an insensitive one.

For what it is worth, what we have now is a situation that raises the importance of transparency and public trust in government decisions.

There will be issues raised about the independence of the process, and references will no doubt be made back to earlier emolument committees, and the processes they followed.

There will be questions asked about the need for people independent of Parliament.

In saying that, we are reminded about the taxpayer having every right to hold our MPs up to scrutiny!

We again raise that delicate balance between effective governance and the concerns of the people!

Fred Wesley is editor-in-chief of The Fiji Times. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz