Labour MP Helena Dalli, the opposition spokesman on public administration, has criticised the government for moving the Public Administration Bill at this stage of the legislature, on the eve of a general election.
She said that comments made by the Prime Minister when he presented the Bill in Parliament confirmed that this was not the time for this Bill to be moved in the House.
Dr Gonzi had made many partisan comments and proven that the PN was incapable of rising to the occasion, attacking Labour instead.
He had spoken about events which took place 20 years, claiming that the civil service had been burdened when 8,000 were employed before the 1987 election, when the service had grown much more since.
He had also kept a straight face and boasted of having set up a unit to ensure that government departments did not over-spend - this when a characteristic of government projects was how they went over budget and over timelines.
He had also kept a straight face when he spoke about corruption and what he said was the government's commitment to accountability and transparency, this against a background of irregularities at the transport and maritime authorities as well as ongoing controversies on other issues, such as Frank Portelli's allegations of corruption on the Mater Dei Hospital project.
The government was boasting that this bill included a clause to protect whistleblowers from victimization. The opposition held this did not go far enough and did not protect those who revealed wrongdoings by ministers. And the government did not have a track record to be proud of.
A permanent secretary who had blown the whistle about abuses at the Aquaculture Centre, Edward Gauci Borda, was hounded out, as had other whistleblowers like JR Aquilina and Albert Ferrante in other sectors. Mepa auditor Joe Falzon was being kept without the resources he needed to work. Former FMSS director-general Philip Rizzo had said in court that he had to resign instead of a person who had been stealing.
One could also remember how the government rounded on Ombudsman Joe Sammut after critical remarks he had made. Or one could recall how following the investigation by the auditor-general on Richard Muscat, former director of Voice of the Mediterranean, a minister said the auditor-general himself should be investigated.
The government was claiming it wanted efficiency, transparency and accountability. The building of the new hospital showed a situation which was anything but. No one knew when it would be finished and how much it would eventually cost, and Maltese taxpayers would foot the bill for the recent flooding.
Mrs Dalli asked why the government had waited so long to move this Bill, which the PN promised in its 1996 electoral programme. This was a Bill which should be enacted seriously after the election. As it was, it would hinder, rather than help the civil service develop. What the government was doing was aimed at binding future governments. This was not right.
Referring to sections of the Bill, Mrs Dalli observed that the reference to violation of the code of ethics appeared to apply only to employees. Did it also apply to ministers and their secretariats?
A code of ethics for private secretaries already existed on paper but was being repeatedly ignored. So what guarantee was there that it would now be adhered to?
How were appointments to be made? What would happen when positions were created and tailor-made for a particular person or another. What would the Merit Commission do if a minister wanted to appoint particular persons?
Mrs Dalli observed that in its introduction the Prime Minister said that this Bill included all government agencies, yet, but the schedule only listed the Management Efficiency Unit and the Office of the Attorney General.
She referred to PBS and asked how transparency applied to this station when a decision taken by the Editorial Board on programme selection for the next schedule was withdrawn because two productions had been left out, creating uncertainty for the other production houses.
The Labour MP said the government's failings in the public service were confirmed in the PN's own internal report following the European Parliament elections. The report had said that the public's experience of the public service was not a pleasant one owing to bureaucracy, inefficiency, lack of transparency, arrogance, lack of professionalism by holders of certain posts and indiscipline, with some people seemingly above the law. These were the ills which the public service needed to be cured of, Mrs Dalli said. Only then would there be seriousness and efficiency.
Replying, Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg said an election could be as far away as August next year. Did Mrs Dalli expect the government not to move legislation in its last year?
This Bill followed a long process of consultation. It was the first legislative package on the public service, featuring the various changes which the sector had gone through including the various government entities set up alongside the civil service itself.
However, other legislative changes were made over the years, such as amendments to the Interpretation Act. The courts were given new powers to review administrative decisions and other checks and balances were introduced such as the Ombudsman. Less than one per cent of the Ombudsman's recommendations were not implemented by the government, and this included the former Labour government.
Interjecting, Mrs Dalli said the Ombudsman was undermined by the government's public comments .
Dr Borg said everyone, even the courts, was open to criticism, and in the case referred to by Mrs Dalli (on AFM promotions), it was the Ombudsman who had first criticised the government, and the government had responded.
The minister referred to the values listed in the Bill which would govern the public service. The Bill said that public service should efficiently and effectively implement the policies of the government of the day. This did not mean politicising the public service. And obeying orders did not mean obeying illegal or immoral orders.
Dr Borg said the code of ethics referred to by Mrs Dalli had so far not had force of law, but it would henceforth, as a result of this Bill.
What was particularly innovative in this Bill was how it provided for the rights and duties of civil servants. It laid down the rules that would govern the relationship between those running the public sector and ministers.
It also cleared up the legal vacuums that existed with regards to corporations, companies in which the government has a controlling interest and other government agencies, such as their accountability and their relationship with the government and with Parliament.
This Bill was creating a control mechanism, through the Merit Commission, to oversee recruitment, promotions and discipline even in such public entities.
Although the Merit Commission would conduct 'after the event scrutiny' if it found abuse in, say, recruitment, such recruitment could be stopped and decisions could be annulled.
The Bill also introduced greater flexibility. For example, the PSC would be able to delegate some of its powers to heads of department even in areas of recruitment, as long as established procedures were followed.
There would also be a faster process for the creation of government agencies.
Dr Borg said this Bill would not solve all the problems in the public service but it was a good balance of the various interests, including the duties and responsibilities of employees and the demand for a more efficient service.
Other speakers will be reported tomorrow. They included Opposition leader Alfred Sant who said this Bill was too little, too late and did not make for organic development of a public service that would be attractive to future employees. This Bill was also a retrograde step with regard to accountability and it did not address how the public service could become more efficient.