House concludes debate on public administration

The House of Representatives yesterday gave a second reading to the Public Administration Bill, the opposition voting against in a division.

The debate was concluded by Education and Employment Minister Louis Galea who said this was the first time that the public service was being given a comprehensive legal framework.

He said many of the comments made during the debate focused on transparency, accountability and the avoidance of corruption as well as the alternatives which the opposition said it had for the public service.

Labour had said nothing to back up its opposition to the Bill and its MPs had spoken as if the government was not doing what it should to fight corruption and abuse in public administration.

Yet, Labour governments held the national record of institutionalised corruption. On the contrary, what the government was doing showed clearly that it was bent on fighting all signs of corruption.

Labour was very adept at not only brainwashing but also at misinforming and at character assassination. On the other hand, never as at present had there been so many ways of fighting corruption. That the Nationalist government was doing all it could was certificated by Greco, the Council of Europe's body for fighting corruption in its recent report on Malta.

Dr Galea said that at times the opposition pretended to be constructive and referred to its policy documents. Yet, on public administration Labour was only saying that once in government it would publish a White Paper - something which this government had done four years ago.

Indeed, what Labour was proposing to do once in government had been done or was being done by the government, even through the current Bill. This meant that the opposition was not even following events.

These included the training of public officers and public- private partnerships.

The minister referred to Labour criticism of the Merit Protection Commission which would oversee recruitment in public service agencies. The opposition's comment that the commission would only come into action once the recruitment had been made could only be taken to mean that Labour would prefer recruitment to stop until all aspects had been studied. There were pros and cons in both methods, but the Labour method would put the responsibility on whoever had to confirm a decision, rather than on whoever was duty-bound to take the decision.

Concluding, Dr Galea said the Bill had a vision of an efficient and accountable public service. During Parliament's summer recess there would be ample time for all interested bodies to comment further on the Bill before it went into committee stage in September.

Parliamentary Secretary Francis Agius said this Bill had been needed to clarify the legal blur between the civil and the pubic service.

This was a Bill which had come at the right time, with the pubic service undergoing modernisation and the use of information technology growing fast. Such a modern law could also lead to an improved relationship between the public and the private sectors.

Dr Agius underlined the important role of public service employees in society and said it was important that everybody's responsibilities were clearly defined, as this law would try to do. This Bill also confirmed the values governing the public service and the duty of employees to implement government policy without political partisanship and conflicts of interest.

Politicians had a major responsibility to ensure that workers were not hindered in their job by the political system.

Dr Agius underlined efficiency gains in the agriculture system, noting the introduction of the paying agency and new auditing systems.

Competitiveness Minister Censu Galea said no minister, parliamentary secretary or permanent secretary could know what all the individuals falling under his/her responsibility would be doing. There was no doubt that for the country's administration to progress, all those who had some form of responsibility, however small, would shoulder the burden of that responsibility.

The civil service had the responsibility to ensure that decisions were not taken on the basis on one's political beliefs but in the best interest of the country. Indeed, gone were the days prior to 1987 when workers suffered because of their political beliefs.

Thankfully, a minister nowadays could not do whatever he wished and wanted but a substantial number of people could still not believe that ministers had rules to follow.

The minister said that despite the number of attempts to be fair with one's subordinates, one would always find individuals he would have trusted who did not reciprocate that trust.

Unfortunately there were persons who, instead of doing their duty, did what they wanted and blamed this on their superiors. So one had to see where individual responsibility started and ended. Moreover, when members of the public made unreasonable requests, civil servants had to have the courage to clearly tell them that their demands could not be met, without making excuses.

Mr Galea insisted that it was everyone and not just the minister who had to be accountable. Everyone had the responsibility to ensure that abuses were reported to the authorities concerned. Allegations had to be passed on for investigation and those who made them had to shoulder responsibility to ensure that abusers got what they deserved.

Foreign Minister Michael Frendo said Malta was one of the smallest and most successful countries partly due to its strong civil service. Good governance depended on how public service officials carried out their duty.

The Bill created the necessary basis of how public administration should operate.

The minister underlined the fact that promotions had to be based on merit and said that this Bill was introducing a better system of checks and balances to ensure that the public service was more competitive.

It was also of utmost importance that this law regulated the setting up of agencies because this gave a certain flexibility for the creation of entities which remained in the sphere of the public sector.

The aspect of good governance was being emphasised in a way which made one realise why it was attracting so much investment.

Parliamentary Secretary Tony Abela said this Bill ensured continuity in the public service independently of who was in government.

Good governance was a hallmark of this government and action was taken whenever anybody broke the law. The recent case involving maritime licences was a case in point, yet the opposition was trying to turn this issue against the government. He too had suffered attempts at character assassination by the opposition. Unfortunately that seemed to be its way of doing politics.

Labour preached good governance, yet under Labour when Alfred Sant was party president, people had to make contributions of Lm50 to be able to buy a colour television. One could recall how the importation of many things was banned, or how the infrastructure was creaking, despite advice from the public sector for investment in the power station and water production facilities.

And under Dr Sant's Labour government one could remember how the financial deficit shot up by over Lm200 million and the Bugibba embellishment project ended up costing twice what was projected.

An example of the current government's good governance was how public finances were now on track, to the extent that Malta would adopt the euro.

The pubic sector, however, had a crucial role in the provision of good governance and public officials had a duty to offer non-political advice in the national interest.