The secret payments we should know about
Transparency in public affairs is the foundation stone for democracy. Yet, all too often, it seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Take the case of exit benefits for Maltese prime ministers and ministers: the cloak of secrecy seems as impenetrable as the walls of Fort St Elmo.
For years, nobody quite knew just how the benefits for top politicians who exit office were calculated. It was even unclear who decided on those benefits.
This week, we learnt that it is ministers themselves who get to decide how much of our money they should pocket as they transition out of the executive. And they do so in meetings which only they are privy to.
A report by parliament’s standards commissioner revealed that aside from a flurry of perks afforded to all other exiting prime ministers, Joseph Muscat also got three substantial extra benefits when he resigned under a cloud in 2020.
The additional benefits are not trivial ones. His wife Michelle got her own official, taxpayer-funded vehicle. He received a state-owned office at a prestigious Sa Maison address. And most controversially, Muscat also doubled a €60,000 cash payment – by giving up a transitional allowance he was not even eligible for.
A transitional allowance, as its name implies, exists to help a person transition out of a high-paying job in cabinet. Muscat, who declared €482,000 in income in the year he quit as prime minister, had little need for one.
This isn’t just an administrative footnote; it’s a Rubik’s cube of fiscal probity, and the optics of this arrangement are as bewildering as they are concerning.
Muscat’s predecessors in government were no strangers to giving themselves secret salary bumps – it was Times of Malta, after all, which had exposed the Gonzi-era cabinet decision to increase ministerial salaries by €500 per week.
But that cabinet had the decency to introduce clear rules on transitional allowances for exiting ministers. One rule was that the allowance stopped if former ministers or prime ministers earned more in personal income than the allowance’s value.
Erasing that rule would have been bad enough. But Muscat and his ministers did more. They also introduced a new rule which allowed a recipient to double their lump sum payment by renouncing that allowance.
That rule left Muscat roughly €60,000 richer, at everyone else’s expense.
We do not know on what basis they changed those rules, because these were cabinet decisions, and what goes on behind cabinet doors is shielded from public view.
Standards Commissioner Joseph Azzopardi this week said that should change. Benefits for outgoing ministers and prime ministers should be codified in law, the commissioner said, not agreed upon in secret by the very people who should be receiving them.
Robert Abela told Times of Malta that he will take up that recommendation. That is great to hear, and a step in the right direction. The question is, will he keep the contradictory provision that would allow him to essentially pocket the transitional allowance he, like Muscat, will not be eligible for?
Our well-heeled prime minister will not need extra cash to get by when he eventually decides to call it a day. The right thing to do would be to ensure the law does not allow him to abuse the system, as Muscat did. But temptation is a dangerous thing. After all, he might muse: everyone is pigging out.