Sant sees amendment 'symbolic' but lacking effectiveness

Opposition leader Alfred Sant said yesterday that while the Opposition would back the entrenchment of the Ombudsman's Office in the Constitution, it viewed this measure as being largely symbolic because the people still lacked an effective mechanism to challenge decisions which affected their everyday life.

He was speaking in Parliament during the debate on a Bill to entrench the Ombudsman's Office in the Constitution and raise the retirement age of magistrates and the Attorney General to 65 from 60.

Dr Sant said society needed to discuss how the Office of the Ombudsman could be strengthened so that it could be a more effective shield for the people and an instrument that instilled transparency and accountability in public administration.

The state, Dr Sant said, still had a major role in people's everyday lives as an administrator and regulator, and many decisions were also being taken by powerful private sector interests.

What the people in a democratic society expected was a level playing field where their rights were balanced with accountability and responsibility in decision-making by the political, institutional and economic operators.

The Office of the Ombudsman needed to be based on the values of democracy, human rights and protection of the rights of minorities, among others.

While everybody agreed with such values in theory, reality was different. People were getting increasingly disillusioned with politics and politicians because they had no effective means of redress against injustices they suffered.

For example, he recently came across a woman in Gzira whose quiet life was being shattered by building development next door without any consideration for the inconvenience she was suffering, and she could do nothing about it. He had met a University student who was told he would get credits for his studies abroad, only to return and be told that he would not.

The people were demanding explanations as to how substantial government contracts were being awarded, how some Mepa permits were issued quickly, and others were not and how they were told that spring hunting was to be allowed, when it would not be. They wanted to be able to effectively defend themselves from discrimination, whether it was in promotions or even in the manner how VAT inspectors made their inspections.

The Office of the Ombudsman was doing good work, Dr Sant said, but what was most important was not the letter of the law, but justice based on common sense and practicality.

Furthermore, the Ombudsman could not be effective without supporting structures. And yet, Malta was still lacking mechanisms such as a Whistle Blower Act and a Freedom of Information Act. Such structures were needed to operate in parallel with the Office of the Ombudsman for accountability and transparency. Until they were set up, this amendment, though positive, was only symbolic.

Dr Sant said the opposition agreed on the raising of the retirement age for magistrates. He said an injustice was being committed, however, in that this amendment was being moved only a short time after two magistrates Dennis Montebello and Joe Cassar, had retired. With this Bill having been in the pipeline for so long, surely the imminent retirement of these two magistrates could have been taken into consideration? The government, he said, should consider a remedy to this situation.

Replying, Tourism Minister Francis Zammit Dimech said that when seen in the context of the government's record in improving the people's rights and means of redress, this Bill was far from being symbolic. Labour had promised to appoint the Ombudsman as far back as 1971 yet it was under the Nationalist government that the first Ombudsman was appointed 12 years ago.

This Bill, which had been welcomed by the Ombudsman, would now guarantee the continued existence of this institution. The success of this institution could be seen in the way it had dealt with more than 12,000 cases.

Although there was the rule of law in Malta, the government acknowledged that mistakes were committed and it had acted so that all those who were in a position of power, independently of what it was, were subject to scrutiny.

The people's rights were also further strengthened through modern legislation on the press and the introduction of pluralism in broadcasting.

It had piloted the setting up of the House Public Accounts Committee which could scrutinise any contracts which could be referred to it the Opposition leader. There were structures to ensure that there was a level playing field and structures which safeguarded human rights.

The government had also set up Mepa to regulate the building industry. But did the Opposition Leader prefer regulation by the minister, as used to take place in the past?

And if any other structures were needed, such as a Freedom of Information Act, this government would set them up as well.

As for contracts, Dr Zammit Dimech said procurement procedures had been introduced and one could appeal decisions. Under a Labour government, the minister used to decide whether or not to award a contract.

It was worth recalling how, under Labour, in terms of the Interpretation Act, it was ministers who took administrative decisions and people had to go to the ministers for everything they needed. This government, in contrast, was implementing subsidiarity, as shown through the creation of the local councils and other decision-making bodies.

Dr Sant had mentioned a case involving one university student. He augured that this case would be resolved, Dr Zammit Dimech said. But the situation was very different from the time when entry to the University itself was regulated by a board headed by Dr Sant himself.

As for the retirement age of magistrates, Dr Zammit Dimech said the government could have acted sooner had the opposition made its views on these amendments known.

Labour MP Helena Dalli said the Opposition had spoken in favour of the entrenchment of the Ombudsman's Office when the Ombudsman's business plan was discussed in a House Committee. Nonetheless, the duty of the opposition was to make its voice heard in Parliament. That was why MPs were elected.

Mrs Dalli said that the opposition agreed with the extension of magistrates' retirement age but this should be the case for all valid and competent people in the country.

The 1996 Labour government had sought to work with people of all political convictions. Although a number did their duty, others had tried to put spokes in the wheel. Circulars used to be issued specifically to hinder the government.

Labour had tried to remove the 'winner takes all' culture in Maltese politics but it had not been successful because the Nationalists made sure that this remained deeply rooted. After all, it was former PN general secretary Austin Gatt who had spoken about politicising the civil service.

There were brilliant people in every sector whose services needed to be utilised. Yet, even if the US embassy last week honoured a Maltese for her work in the women's sector, the present government sent her to a library counting books.

Dr Zammit Dimech spoke about what happened in the distant past but forgot what happened yesterday.

The Bill was strengthening the Ombudsman but this should not be just a lip service. Recommendations by the Ombudsman needed to be taken up by the government. Yet it was this administration which had attacked former Ombudsman Joe Sammut over recommendations he had made.

Mrs Dalli also insisted on the need for a Whistleblower Act. The omerta culture should not be allowed to continue. There had been people in the civil service who ended up suffering depression because they spoke out about abuse and ended up being investigated instead. How could a serious civil servant see corruption and not speak up? A Labour government would move a Whistle Blower Act following a national discussion on the issue.

She observed that a White Paper on the Civil Service Act was published some five years ago, but the Bill had still not made it to the House.

She praised former Ombudsman Joe Sammut and current Ombudsman Joseph Said Pullicino for their work and appealed to the House to show them effective appreciation and not insult them when not agreeing with them.

Earlier in the sitting, Parliamentary Secretary Tony Abela said the raising of the retirement age of magistrates meant experienced people would serve for longer at the law courts.

Abroad, Maltese judges were serving beyond the age of 65 in various institutions and they were all doing Malta proud.

Turning to the amendment on the Ombudsman, Dr Abela said the government did not want Malta to return to a situation where the people had no one to turn to when they suffered as a result of administrative action.

It was worth remembering that up to some time ago the Constitutional Court was suspended and judges who took decisions against the government were transferred or ended up without a Hall. As a result this government had set up the Commission Against Injustice. As far as possible, people who suffered an injustice were given financial compensation. The Labour government in 1996 set up a similar institution.

Happily both sides in the House had agreed on the creation of the Office of the Ombudsman, thus assuring the people good governance by instilling greater accountability among administrators. The first Ombudsman, Joe Sammut, and the incumbent Joe Said Pullicino had set yardsticks in the area of public administration. Their good service justified the entrenchment of the Office in the Constitution.