Temperatures rose in the House of Representatives yesterday, with the Prime Minister accusing the opposition of protecting wrongdoers as accusations flew on corruption and how it is being investigated. George Vella, for the opposition, denied the claim.
Speaking during his introduction of the debate on the Public Administration Bill, Dr Gonzi said the Bill included whistleblowing provisions to protect from victimisation employees who uncovered abuse.
Dr Gonzi said this government over the years had created various mechanisms to deter and counter abuse, including new powers to the police, new powers to the courts to review administrative decisions, the creation of the Ombudsman, the setting up of a Commission Against Commission and the Financial Management Assessment Unit. The latter unit had been effective in reining in cost over-runs, but its purpose was also to detect any abuse. There were various cases which had been identified, referred to the police and ended up in court. All allegations were investigated. Sometimes allegations were false, including a well-known case which created furore in the country. All this reflected the government's commitment to clamp down on abuse.
It was scandalous, therefore, how it was investigators or ministers who were being criticised, the latter after having held back from comment so as not to alert perpetrators.
The difference between now and in the past was that abuses were now being detected and people were ending up in court. In the past, allegations were made but no one was caught.
Intervening, Dr Vella said a minister had been caught on tape saying he knew there was wrongdoing, yet he had done nothing about it.
Dr Gonzi said it was worth noting that the individual concerned had broken the law. Disciplinary action had been taken against him, and then he had tried to get his own back by secretly taping the minister and then going to the opposition asking it to make use of this case. All this had happened because Minister Censu Galea headed an organisation which took disciplinary action as appropriate. The opposition was protecting wrongdoers in this country. (Interruptions)
Dr Vella asked how the MLP was protecting this person.
Dr Gonzi said the individual concerned had confirmed that he had gone to the MLP, and the MLP through its actions was protecting him.
Interjecting, Dr Vella referred to the current controversy over licensing at the Malta Maritime Authority.
Dr Gonzi said this was where the opposition's deception lay. This case had been revealed and was being acted on solely thanks to the mechanisms which this government had set up. Instead of both sides backing the action that was being taken, the government was being criticised as if it had done nothing.
Helena Dalli (MLP) asked if by the same argument the government had protected Mr Zahra who had produced a report on the new hospital.
Dr Gonzi said one could also recall how the MLP in government had forgiven the individual who recorded the minister. Dr Vella asked if Dr Gonzi would grant immunity to Frank Portelli, who had made allegations on the building of the new hospital.
Dr Gonzi said he had met Dr Portelli and, gentleman as he was, Dr Portelli had published a letter recognising that a genuine investigation into his allegations was being made. He could not say more as investigations were continuing.
Dr Gonzi said there could be space for other initiatives within the area of the clause to protect whistleblowing, but the fact that such provisions were being extended to the whole public service was undoubtedly positive.
Earlier in his address, Dr Gonzi said this Bill was the fruit of four years of discussion and consultation.
The public sector had made major steps forward, particularly in the application of information technology, and Malta was among the most advanced EU countries in e-government.
The Prime Minister said that over the past 20 years the sector had had to absorb the shock of overnight engagement of 8,000 people on the eve of the 1987 general election. It had seen sections of its activities privatised and new systems and procedures were introduced for greater accountability and transparency, including the appointment of the Ombudsman and the House Public Accounts Committee and the Commission for the Investigation of Corruption. Promotions were based not just on seniority but according to merit, with new benchmarks set for career progression.
Family-friendly measures featured in recent collective agreements, making the government a model employer.
In October 2003, the government published the White Paper entitled "A public service for the 21st century", opening the debate on the modernisation of the legislative set-up governing the public service. There had been submissions from three employer organisations, four trade unions, the Public Service Commission, permanent secretaries, three non-governmental organisations, and individuals including public officers. The government had analysed the suggestions made and there was a substantial difference between what was originally proposed and what there was in the Bill. Further suggestions would be welcomed.
The ultimate aim of the Bill, Dr Gonzi said, was to establish, in a practical way, the fact that the public sector was there to work for the common good; to provide for the application of the established values in the public sector across the board; and to ensure that the criteria of seriousness and accountability were enforced, providing for better organisation and administration.
Dr Gonzi said this was the first time that Malta would have a law covering the whole public service - departments, corporations and agencies - but excluding commercial companies.
The values which the public service should uphold were accountability, transparency, courtesy, professionalism, high standards, impartiality and efficiency. Public officers were expected to implement the policies of the government of the day efficiently and effectively and contribute towards the coordination of government policy in conjunction with other departments, agencies, government entities and local councils.
They should also contribute through their conduct to making their workplace one which recognised talent, developed skills and rewarded performance while avoiding discrimination.
Dr Gonzi said the Bill included the code of ethics published a few years ago. The code would apply to all public employees and since it would form part of the law, it would be enforceable.
Turning to the organisation of the public service, Dr Gonzi said a minister shall have the general direction and control of all departments, agencies and government entities placed under his responsibility and may give directions directly to the head of the department, chief executive officer, board of directors or any other employee falling within his responsibilities.
For the first time the Bill provided for ministers' secretariats, and existing guidelines would have force of law.
There would also be in each ministry an Office of the Permanent Secretary.
The Bill laid down how government departments were designated and their status. It also established titles of headship positions to avoid confusion, such as between Comptroller of Customs and Director-General of Customs.
The Bill listed the functions of the Office of the Principal Permanent Secretary and recognised his position as head of the public service, with the authority to issue directives under the authority of the Prime Minister.
It then went on to list the responsibilities of permanent secretaries, heads of departments and those in executive positions.
Dr Gonzi said an important section of the Bill covered recruitment. He said the Public Service Commission would be complemented by a Merit Protection Commission. The Merit Commission would audit the appointment of employees of government agencies while the Public Service Commission would remain focused on the civil service. The Merit Commission would be able to investigate abuse in the engagement of workers in public service agencies, to the extent that it could annul recruitment decisions and fire people who engage such persons, although it would not substitute the Industrial Tribunal.
A head of department may appoint employees for particular positions to carry out specific tasks, upon whose completion they would revert to their former positions.
There could also be a manpower pool grouping employees who were surplus to their former position and who would be re-trained for more effective deployment.
He said that another important section of the Bill covered government agencies. There was currently a legislative grey area in the case of public sector agencies such as Appogg and Sedqa, as well as foundations.
They would be regulated by a budget and would be under the responsibility and direction of ministers and ministerial permanent secretaries and subject to financial auditing.
Dr Gonzi said the Bill also covered the myriad of boards forming part of the public sector, except those bodies set up under the Constitution. They would be subject to the same values and regulations as the rest of the public sector.
Concluding, Dr Gonzi said this Bill had long been anticipated. It would give the public sector the tools to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, introducing regulation and new controls, without putting the public sector in a straitjacket.
Dr Gonzi said public officers were often victims of unfair criticism as a result of wrong perceptions, but the vast majority did their duty, motivated by a sense of service to society. He said the government remained open to suggestions on improving this Bill.
The rest of the sitting will be reported tomorrow.