The Hon. (Ms.) Lakmali Hemachandra, Attorney-at-Law

¶ 01 Hon. Presiding Member, thank you for the time. Three Bills are before us: the National Minimum Wage of Workers (Amendment), the Budgetary Relief Allowance of Workers (Amendment), and another Budgetary Relief Allowance of Workers (Amendment).

¶ 02 In my view, especially the two Budgetary Relief Allowance amendment Bills require a two-thirds majority today. That necessity arises due to a Supreme Court determination. It is important the public understand why. Otherwise, those ready to attack good law reforms — like raising private-sector minimum wages — will spread slander, both within and outside Parliament.

¶ 03 The basis is that the two amendment Bills remove the Rs. 3,500 Budgetary Relief Allowance granted under Acts No. 36 of 2005 and No. 4 of 2016; petitioners argued that removal deprives workers of an existing right. In its determination the Supreme Court clearly stated that while the allowance is indeed being removed by those amendments, the concurrent National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Bill absorbs that allowance into the wage. Thus, there is no cut to overall remuneration; it is an absorption into the basic. Therefore, if the National Minimum Wage (Amendment) is first passed, the two-thirds requirement for the other two is not necessary. The Court informed Parliament accordingly.

¶ 04 Since all three are being passed together today, we require two-thirds for the two relief Bills. But the Court did not rule that any worker’s rights are curtailed or wages cut — it emphasized the three Bills must be read together. Petitioners challenged only two Bills, so the Court’s order addresses only those. The public should know that the two-thirds vote today does not curtail any constitutional right and is only a procedural requirement because of simultaneous passage. If we had passed the Minimum Wage (Amendment) first and the relief-allowance amendments next month, two-thirds would not be needed.

¶ 05 We must also understand the timeline. Sri Lanka had no minimum wage law until 2016. The state could raise public-sector wages, but there was no legal framework for private-sector minimum wages until the National Minimum Wage Act, No. 3 of 2016. Before that, in 2005 and again in 2016, relief allowances were used as policy to raise private wages in the absence of a formal minimum-wage framework. Those allowances applied to employees earning under Rs. 40,000. Each time the minimum was raised, the relief allowance sat atop the basic. If we now increased the minimum to Rs. 27,000 without absorption, adding Rs. 3,500 would make Rs. 30,500 this year. Raising private wages is desirable — I have long represented private workers as a lawyer and know the need — but the change must also be bearable across sectors, including SMEs and the informal economy.

¶ 06 Hence we absorb the allowance into the basic and then step up to Rs. 30,000 in January, allowing industry to adjust. We are not cutting; everyone will continue to receive what they get now, structured into the basic.

¶ 07 A suggestion to the Minister: Sri Lanka needs a regular mechanism to review private-sector wages periodically, rather than ad hoc legislation. If we can institute periodic reviews, many issues will be resolved. I conclude. Thank you for the time.