Sections of proposed law withdrawn

Parliamentary Secretary Carm Mifsud Bonnici told Parliament yesterday that the government had decided to withdraw from the Administrative Justice Bill those provisions which would have given the new Administrative Review Tribunal competence to review administrative acts of the public administration which involve alleged violation of the Constitution or were ultra vires of the law.

The tribunal would be competent to hear all other cases.

Winding up the second reading debate on the Bill, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said the decision had been taken in view of concerns expressed by a number of quarters. He was confident, however, that within a few years, as the many administrative tribunals were consolidated in the new tribunal, these provisions would be reintroduced.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici said the thinking behind the Administration of Justice Bill was for the people to have an easy, effective, cheap and fast way of redress when they were downtrodden by administrative decisions, even those caused by lack of attention. The adage, justice delayed, justice denied, applied here too.

At present, administrative issues were treated like any other case before the law courts and decisions took their time.

At the same time there was also another problem in that Malta currently had a myriad of administrative tribunals and one sometimes did not know which was responsible for what.

Now the tribunals would follow the same rules and they would, gradually and over a number of years, be merged into one body.

In terms of the new law, all public and administrative tribunals had to respect the parties' right to a fair hearing, including the principles of natural justice. Proceedings would, as far as possible - an exception being income tax cases - be held in public. There had to be procedural equality between the parties and both sides had to have equal access to government documents. Decisions had to be taken within a reasonable time.

Since the tribunals were being merged, it made sense that the review of administrative acts would also fall within the competence of the Administrative Review Tribunal.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici said the government did not want a situation of forum shopping and therefore it had proposed that provisions which existed in the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure on administrative review would be transposed to the new tribunal. However, because of opposition which had been raised, it was decided to withdraw this clause for now, but he was confident it would be reintroduced in a few years' time when the bulk of the administrative tribunals fell under the umbrella of the Administrative Review Tribunal.

Specialisation, even in administrative matters was important, which was why the government had moved this Bill.

This Bill was opening wide a door for the people to defend their rights better when administrative decisions were taken.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici said he wished to assure everyone that tariffs for the new tribunal would not be expensive since the purpose was to improve access to the people.

Earlier in the debate yesterday, Public Investments Minister Austin Gatt said this Bill was rooted in the government's commitment to make it easier for the people to demand review of administrative acts and for the powers of the public administration to be always subject to clear rules and independent review.

There was no doubt that at present it was somewhat difficult for ordinary people to demand a review of an administrative act as they had to go through the courts, where decisions were not likely to be taken quickly, although matters had improved. As a result people were discouraged and actions to challenge administrative acts were rare.

Thanks to this new law, however, the people had an easier and quicker way to challenge administrative acts. This, therefore, was a Bill which empowered the people.

Efficiency in public administration had to work hand in hand with an effective means of review, even if, according to some, administrators may get scared of taking decisions as a result. One simply could not have a situation were the people felt helpless and could not challenge decisions which may be abusive.

This government had always respected the independence of the courts while having the courage to criticise the administration of justice when such criticism was seen to be justified. The people, after all, had a right to expect an efficient administration of justice. It was also for that reason that significant changes had been made in the way justice was administered.

The setting up of the Administrative Review Tribunal, which this Bill proposed, could be seen as part of the chain of specialisations of the courts and part of measures for the people to have justice within a reasonable time.

Jason Azzopardi (PN), who spoke earlier, said the government had an impeccable record in strengthening the courts, the rule of law and hence, democracy. It could not take lessons from the opposition on the judicial review of administrative action.

The fact that judicial review would be in the hands of a tribunal did not erode the powers of the courts to investigate administrative shortcomings. Nor did it erode the rights of the people to seek redress in such circumstances. But cases would henceforth be considered in a faster manner while still following the principles of justice.

Indeed, this Bill listed the principles of good administrative behaviour which the various tribunals had to follow, including the principles of natural justice.

Significantly, all parties to a case would have equality of arms, with equal access to all documents. Hearings would be held in public.

The review of administrative acts would be based on whether the administrative act was ultra vires in view of abuse of power, lack of authorisation, lack of observance of procedural requirements and when the administrative act went against the law.

Such principles, which were also followed in the courts, were in the public interest.

Dr Azzopardi said he was calling on Parliament to consider amending the Constitution because it was anachronistic that the Public Service Commission, through article 115, was above the law. It was unacceptable in this day and age that one could not ask the courts to investigate the action of this commission. Wasn't the law equal for all?

By the same yardstick, it was unacceptable that one had to give 10 days notice before instituting a court case against the government.

It was about time that justice was equal to all even in such matters.

Tourism Minister Francis Zammit Dimech also stressed the argument that this Bill gave new powers to the people. This was in sharp contrast to how the people were treated by Labour governments when, for a time, the Constitutional Court was not constituted and judges were shuffled around. At the time public service accountability had practically disappeared, but this government reversed that with amendments to the Interpretation Act.

It had also been a PN government which acted to set up the Office of the Ombudsman. It gave the people the right to take their case before the European Court of Human Rights and it also strengthened democracy by improving press freedom, introducing pluralism in broadcasting and giving the Office of the Auditor-General independence from the central administration.

Education Minister Louis Galea said this Bill reflected the evolution of a society which was now better informed and better able to stand up for its rights. This was, therefore, an important building block in the administration of justice.

Good governance was essential for the rights of the people to be safeguarded. Administration had to be reasoned, fair, transparent, consistent and motivated by the public interest. This Bill was therefore also streamlining the way administrative tribunals functioned.

The Bill was later given a second reading.