THE LAW passed last month attempting to rationalise the payment of multiple pensions to state and public officials has been – for lack of a better word – altered, so that only members of parliament and government ministers will contribute to social security.
The final draft of the law passed hurriedly on 21 April stated that “officials” must contribute 6.8 per cent of their monthly earnings to the state. This was understood to apply to some 150 individuals, some of whom were specifically named.
This was intended as a message to civil servants who contribute around half of that amount towards their social insurance pension compared to workers in the private sector. Civil servants also contribute nothing towards their professional pension, which comes straight out of state coffers.
Those listed as paying contributions henceforth included: the President of the Republic, the Attorney-general and the deputy AG, the chairman of the Supreme Court, the Central Bank governor, the Auditor-general and “any other Official whose function or position is provided for, or is established, by virtue of the Constitution or any law of the Republic.”
But in the government gazette of May 6 where the law is published, the relevant section of the law, article 3 (f), states instead: “A minister and deputy must contribute to the Republic’s Treasury an amount equal to 6.8 per cent of monthly earnings, for the duration of their term.”
In short, the wording of the government gazette seems to have limited the definition of “official” to MP and ministers. It thus applies to only 65 of the 150 persons originally intended to contribute to social security.
The law was the last act of parliament, which later dissolved ahead of the legislative elections.
It was intended to save the state around €1 million a year in payouts to recipients of multiple pensions.
But since most of those initially affected have now been excluded from contributing, as the gazette indicates, that translates into hundreds of thousands of euros lost to state coffers.
The reasons for the discrepancy between the final draft of the law and the gazette’s version were unclear.
After a law is passed by the House, the parliament’s administrative services forward it to the Office of the Presidency. Once signed by the President, the document is sent on to the government printing press, which publishes the gazette.
What took place on 21 April might offer a clue, however. On the day lawmakers passed the complex bill in under ten minutes, surprising observers who had expected a lively debate. Since none of the MPs present chose to speak, it quickly transpired that it had all been settled during the party leaders’ meeting behind closed doors earlier in the day.
Cynics would also note that discrepancy cannot be corrected while parliament is in recess, having dissolved for the legislative elections. The new House reconvenes on June 2.
Several MPs contacted yesterday were at a loss to explain the discrepancy and most declined comment.
“I guess they pulled a fast one,” speculated one deputy, who refused to be named.
Another remarked: “Things were crazy on the last day [of parliament]. Do you think we remember what we passed, word for word?”
EDEK MP Marinos Sizopoulos said this was not the first time that the wording of a law has been changed in the government gazette.
He particularly recalled one instance when a tax amnesty bill he co-authored ended up with a different wording in the gazette.
“But I couldn’t prove it then, because no minutes had been kept during the sessions of the House Finance Committee discussing the bill,” he told the Mail.
“Right now, there is no mechanism in place for deputies to check that the laws we pass are reproduced exactly when published in the gazette,” said Sizopoulos.
If the wording has been altered, he added, parliament should investigate and pinpoint the cause. But any rate, correcting the discrepancy would be a mere formality, he said.
What is curious about the altered wording of the gazette is that it cannot plausibly be attributed to a clerical error or a typo. In Greek, the word for “official” and the words for “deputy” or “minister” are not even close in their spelling.
Also curiously, the article in question is the only altered text in the law. More than that, all the preceding articles cite “officials”, and only article 3(f) refers to deputies and ministers exclusively – seemingly out of the blue.
