WHAT a way to end our last day of the 2005-2006 session on the House on the Hill, Mr. Editor, Year III in the second reign of the PLP, what with the sudden late-night surprise introduction of a second version of that resolution on parliamentary salaries, which we had previously debated and voted upon up here on the Hill the month before, but which, as it turned out, could only be the subject of debate but not a vote in the Chamber down the Hill when the PLP decided after the fact that to proceed like they had for the last six years was unconstitutional — and they persuaded the Senate President to take the point.This latest twist came without any notice to those of us who were in the House. Literally. It came after we had worked our way through the day’s agenda when the man in charge (and it actually wasn’t The Man, Mr. Editor: he was away, so P’s Deputy had to stand in for him on this one — and how convenient that turned out to be) rose to tell us that the PLP wanted to revoke the first resolution and substitute a new one, the effect of which was to now stagger their huge increases over a two-year period, half now so to speak and the other half later.

We didn’t even have the courtesy of a copy of the resolution. It was left to the PLP Whip Ottiwell Simmons to scurry across the floor of the House with copies for members of the Opposition while the Deputy P was speaking.

Dr. Brown said something about a new two-phase approach having been agreed. He didn’t say by whom. Neither did any of his parliamentary colleagues in the House, whether Cabinet or backbench. They sat silently throughout the entire debate.

PLP MPs didn’t say a word — probably on instruction and perhaps, Mr. Editor, because some of them were as much in the dark as we were. At one stage, Minister Michael Scott was about to get up (and presumably say something) but got the party message before he could open his mouth and he sat quicker than he rose — and he’s the Minister responsible for Telecommunications, wireless and other.

There was a plan afoot all right, Mr. Editor, and the plan wasn’t to talk about this at all. A number of rules of the House had to be suspended too — to do what they wanted to do. In fact, they were in such a hurry that they had to be reminded of the need to waive the rules by the Speaker Stanley Lowe (pictured right) <$>who very kindly (I thought) led them to the rules they had overlooked.

Now, the rules of the House, Mr. Editor, can be suspended — and occasionally are, and often with consent and, if not, with some prior notice. However, and on the other hand, as we who have served in Opposition well know, Governments with their numerical majorities can also choose to flex their parliamentary muscle and push through what they want when they want.

However, such cases tend to be few and far between; for instance, where there is a crisis of some sort and the usual notice and the niceties cannot be observed. So what crisis was the country facing here? None, Mr. Editor. None at all.

This was instead all about parliamentary salaries (again) and the significant increases that will be backdated to April 1 — which could turn out to be a very nice, and a very hefty windfall for some (but note: not all, Mr. Editor) just in time for the Cup Match holidays.

Under this latest scheme which they call half now, half later (and still get their big pay rises) some members are going to do a lot better than others; and there are no monetary prizes for guessing who ends up more equal than others on this, their latest rush job.

But let me get you started:

[bul] The Premier is going to immediately go from an annual salary of $111,714 to $155,857 for an increase of $44,143 — up some 40 per cent.

[bul] Cabinet Ministers, the full-time variety, which the majority of the PLP Cabinet are expected to elect, will go from $78,856 to $134,142 a year for an increase of $55,286, a hike of 70 per cent.

Contrast that if you will with these: |0xb7|

[bul] Senators will go from $26,287 to $26,695 a year for an increase of $408 a year or 1.5 per cent (which is actually less than what they had been getting by way of an increase under the previous system which provided for annual increases that matched the CPI year over year and is, in effect, a cut in pay).

[bul] The Speaker of the House of Assembly will go from $62,428 to $68,071 a year for an increase of $5,643 or a nine per cent increase.

[bul] Backbench MPs will go from $39,428 to $44,714 a year for an increase of $5,286 a year or 13 per cent more.

You don’t need to go figure, Mr. Editor.

This is once again clearly a case of those at the top taking care of — who else but — those at the top. Full stop. Period.

And who among us can forget the famous last words of the Premier when he piloted the first resolution through the House, and told us that Government had to adopt all of the recommendations of the independent salaries review board and that it be wrong of them to interfere? Famous last words indeed.

But we remembered them in his absence.

What has happened instead is that the PLP Cabinet rolled up their sleeves and sharpened their pencils and pulled out their spy glasses and they combed carefully the Constitution and the Rules. For what? For the sake of the Constitution, Mr. Editor? For the sake of the Rules of the House of Assembly or the Senate? For the sake of the people of the country? Or for themselves? I decline to answer the question for you on the grounds that it may incriminate me.

I also declined to take part in the vote on Friday night along with my colleagues on the Opposition benches. Let’s be clear on that too: it wasn’t so much a walk-out as it was a refusal to vote in protest over the way in which the PLP Government had chosen to proceed and what they were trying to do. For themselves of course, Mr. Editor. For themselves.Uncommon courtesy IRONY of ironies, Mr. Editor: Government rammed through their resolution after Opposition Leader Wayne Furbert declined to proceed with his motion of deploring Government’s failure to proceed with legislation this session — as they had promised — to provide for absentee balloting.The reason? Wayne had only introduced the motion the week before, and practice and precedent to date on the Hill, has been to give members two weeks to study and consider before taking up items on the agenda. Incidentally, the relevant Rule only requires four clear days’ notice.

But we had also not given Government notice of our intention to take it up and Wayne elected not to depart from common courtesy.

But PS, Mr. Editor: we remain mystified as to why Government has chosen not to proceed with the necessary amendments, particularly when they were tabled for review — before we rose last year for our summer recess — and for comment over the recess, which we gave, by the way, last October. We don’t know and you don’t know because they won’t tell us.

* * * YIKES, Mr. Editor, I had a chilling reminder the day after our protest in the House that being in Opposition can some times be hazardous to your health. I was combing through Friday’s edition of The New York Times the next morning when I came across this little item on page 3: “Belarus Sentences Oppositionist”

MOSCOW, July 13 — An Opposition candidate who ran against President Aleksandr G. Lukashenko of Belarus in an election in March was sentenced to five and a half years in prison on Thursday for hooligansim and causing a public disturbance.“The man, Aleksandr V. Kazulin, was arrested on March 25 as he led a protest against the rigged election.” I know, I know: define hooliganism.

PS: I’m glad I live in Bermuda, Mr. Editor. Aren’t you? Down and out UNTIL the PLP sprang the surprise salaries revision motion, the day was unfolding as expected and it looked like we might the session not with a bang but a whimper . . . depending, of course, on what might happen on the emotion to adjourn. The two Finance Bills — amendments to the Bermuda Monetary Authority Act and the Insurance Act — went through as expected, no longer a parliamentary pas de deux between Minister Paula Cox and Dr. Grant Gibbons, but now more of a pas de trois with Pat Gordon-Pamplin fulfilling her role as the new Opposition spokesman for Finance with back-up from Dr. Gibbons on the backbench.Debate wasn’t prolonged either on the take note motion of Renée Webb which suggested there was a compelling need for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, based on the South African model, to tackle racism here in Bermuda.

Dale Butler, Minister for Human Rights, rejected the idea on behalf of the Government and Opposition Shadow spokesman for Race Relations and Empowerment Jamahl Simmons offered that a Joint Select Committee of Parliament might be a better way to proceed.

“If members in this House can be seen to work together [on this issue],” he said, “we will inspire and encourage others to do the same.”

The South African model did not appear to hold much appeal among other members as well. But the man behind it did, and co-incidentally, Mr. Editor, I had brushed up for the debate by re-reading the autobiography of Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom<$>, and re-visited some of the passages which I had highlighted the first time through.

There was this one: his comment in response to his critics who could not — and did not — understand his passion for reconciliation: “I reminded people again and again that the liberation struggle was not a battle against any one group or colour, but a fight against a system of repression.”

That, Mr. Editor, seems to me to be a good note on which to end . . . for this week.

* * * BY the way, you heard right, Mr.Editor: we are adjourned for 16 weeks until Friday, November 3 when we start all over again on the House on the Hill. Hopefully, with a stronger legislative agenda than we have had for the past 12 weeks. It was so light that I can hear the wisecracks now: how will we know that they have gone? For now then I sign off for the summer, a House columnist, JB the MP.