/ 3 April 2007

Dismay at ‘deplorable’ MP salaries

Many MPs are reportedly dismayed over a proposed 5,4% pay increase, but no political party contacted on Tuesday would say how much the MPs should get.

The recommended inflation-related increase for MPs was contained in the long-awaited salary review, released last week by the Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers.

It is understood MPs were expecting increases of up to 50%, to close what they see as a ”gap” between their earnings and the salaries commanded by more senior parliamentarians.

The more mundane 5,4% increase, if accepted, will see ordinary MPs earning a total package of R643 800 a year.

The South African Press Association on Tuesday posed the questions, ”What is wrong with a 5,4% increase?” and ”How much do you think the increase should be?” to several political parties.

None would comment on how much they thought the increase should be.

”It doesn’t even match the increase [MPs] received last year,” said the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP).

The party’s media liaison officer, Liezl van der Merwe, said: ”The IFP expected the wage gap between the highest earners and the lowest earners in Parliament to be narrowed.”

IFP MP Sybil Seaton last week said the proposed 5,4% increase was ”deplorable”, and said MPs, after waiting years for the commission’s recommendations, had been looking forward to ”earning a decent salary”.

The African National Congress (ANC) declined to give official comment.

”Since the release of the report by commission chairperson [Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang] Moseneke on Friday, there has been no opportunity for caucus to sit and discuss it so we can come out with an official view,” said ANC caucus media spokesperson Moloto Mothapa.

Several MPs had spoken to the media on the matter, but this had been in their personal capacities, he said.

Last week, ANC caucus chairperson Vytjie Mentor was reported as saying she was ”depressed” by the commission’s recommendations on MPs’ pay, especially as MPs had no resources.

One of the recommendations by the commission is that MPs’ constituency allowance doubles from R40 000 to R80 000.

Democratic Alliance MP Mike Ellis said he thought the commission had ”totally disregarded” two broad but key principles when it came to the size of MPs’ salaries.

The first was the need to ”narrow the gap” between the highest income earners in the legislature, such as the speaker, and ordinary MPs.

The second was that most Cabinet ministers were drawn from the ranks of MPs, and it was important to ”attract the right people”. For this reason, MPs’ salaries had to be commensurate with the public and private sector.

There had been a ”feeling over many years that MPs’ packages were not satisfactory”, and an expectation the commission would have addressed this matter, he said.

Ellis declined to put a figure on the total package his party thought ordinary MPs should earn.

The Independent Democrats (ID) said it would comment officially ”after Judge [Moseneke] has been afforded the opportunity to explain his proposal”.

MPs should listen to Moseneke before they condemned his proposals, party leader Patricia de Lille said.

”The way forward as proposed by the ID is that Parliament must convene a meeting with the Moseneke Commission to get an explanation from the judge on how he arrived at the proposed increase. This should happen as a matter of urgency,” she said. — Sapa