Opposition to vote against Public Administration Bill

Although the proposed Public Administration Bill had a lot of good in it, the opposition would still vote against it as drafted because there were too many important issues that were being overlooked, Labour Deputy Leader for Parliamentary Affairs Anġlu Farrugia told Parliament on Monday.

Speaking during the debate on the second reading, Dr Farrugia declared that during committee stage the opposition would be proposing several amendments. If it really wanted, the government could work hand-in-hand with the opposition to make the Bill a veritable instrument for the common good.

The Bill, which referred to values of public administration, was positive in concept, but the reality was quite different. Minister Austin Gatt had said it was unrealistic to imagine the civil service to be unbiased, and it was therefore to be imagined that the minister disagreed with this Bill.

The setting up of a Merit Protection Commission to investigate decisions taken by the Public Service Commission was a good idea, but he questioned what would become of those who had already suffered some injustice under a Nationalist government, because the new commission would have no power in such cases.

Dr Farrugia mentioned cases where no award had been made up to 20 years later, even when the case had been decided. But there were cases where Nationalist governments had been relatively quick to compensate those who had suffered under Labour governments.

He said that Lm300,000 had been allocated in the budget five years ago to accommodate those who complained that they did not receive sufficient compensation. Even former PN secretary-general Joe Saliba had spoken openly of the double injustice when compensation was not given even though it had been awarded.

On a point of order the Prime Minister said that where compensation was not given it was impossible for him to do anything, because to go against the decision of the PSC would be unconstitutional. But he invited anyone who could suggest a solution to do so.

Dr Farrugia suggested that if the Public Service Commission had ruled against a promotion, perhaps the Prime Minister could offer some other form of compensation, such as monetary, without going against the PSC's ruling. He said he was speaking for both Labour and Nationalist supporters, because no one could be allowed to suffer injustice. The issue had been dragging on since 1996. The stumbling block was the Public Service Commission.

Outlining values such as accountability was good, but this should always be the case, not just occasionally. The Nationalists attacked Labour for employing people before an election, yet they had fallen into the same trap. Government employees had increased by some 3,000 in the two years after 1987, going up to 30,500 in 1992.

He mentioned the recent case of Mepa issuing permits without a hearing and then expecting an apology to suffice, and said that this was typical. These regulations had been in the pipeline since 1989 but similar mistakes kept being made.

Dr Farrugia said he agreed with the Prime Minister that the present model of the PSC should be looked at anew, with an eye to other similar organisations overseas. It could do with more accountability and transparency.

Except when promotions were dished out, the PSC was looked upon as a disciplinary board. It was positive that discipline had now been entrusted to the leadership of each department, which knew the exigencies of the department better. The Merit Protection Commission was an addendum to the PSC and should primarily safeguard merit. But merit could always be overstepped if a call for applications was tailor-made. This would render the Merit Protection Commission toothless, and it should be empowered to query such tailor-made calls. It was powerless to overturn or in any way amend a tribunal decision.

Dr Farrugia said he was all in favour of protecting anyone who blew the whistle. But what protection had been given, for example, to the Mepa auditor? The people could not accept that the government really meant business in this regard.

Continuing the debate yesterday, Labour MP Justyne Caruana said one had to look at the Bill in the context of what had taken place before and after the election. Many new appointments did not reflect what was being stated in the Bill, but were just a means to thank many people. The Bill was an admission by the government that things were not going well.

Dr Caruana pointed out that there were many people who were dedicated to their jobs, some of whom were highly qualified, but they were not being well utilised. On the other hand, there were people who only went to work for their paycheques.

Inspectors in Gozo never bothered Nationalist Party supporters. During a counter examination in Court it had resulted that the inspectors did not check on everyone but only on a selected few. This was a shame.

She agreed with the meritocracy concept, which was very desirable and which she would like to be effective.

Dr Caruana also spoke on several cases of perceived injustice.

Nationalist MP Edwin Vassallo said the Bill proposed some of the most major reforms the government would be carrying out. It was a good product that strengthened the community because it improved the service and gave employees in the public sector the chance to improve themselves.

He had expected more from Dr Farrugia, who had said that the two parties had to work more closely together to increase their credibility yet, given the chance in such a debate, had simply fired off negative comments and questioned the government's competence.

There were two reasons to defend this law: It defended values and established regulations to better organise the government's human resources and improve the quality of the service.

This Bill showed that the politician had looked at society's problems and tried to find solutions. The government had worked on the values it held dear.

Labour MP Owen Bonnici said he was under the impression that the government did its utmost to give workers as many rights as possible. But workers in the public sector had less right of access to fora where they could seek remedies.

The law gave private-sector employees the right to go to an industrial tribunal to solve industrial issues, but it put up a brick wall when it came to the public sector.

Dr Bonnici criticised the Constitution where it prohibited the scrutiny of the Public Service Commission by any court. This was what he called the hangover from the old Maltese system, and could not be imagined in the 21st century. In its wisdom the PSC also refused to implement decisions handed down by the Injustices Tribunal. When a person who had been affected went to court to seek damages, the PSC said this could not be sanctioned, but the court had been courageous enough to give this person a secondary remedy in a preliminary judgment.

The PSC, Dr Bonnici said, was a disciplinary forum but not a forum where redress could be sought by those public-sector employees who felt they had suffered injustice. One of the aims of a Bill the British government was drafting was that the civil service should continue to be subject to general employment conditions similar to those of the private sector. Malta should also adopt such a stand because it would not be credible before it did so.

Charlò Bonnici (PN) said he too was surprised that the opposition had already declared it would be voting against the Bill, especially more so because the opposition itself said it would be making its own proposals regarding the PSC. Since the commission was entrenched in the Constitution and any amendment thereon would necessitate a two-thirds majority of votes in the House, this meant that the opposition was ready to sit down with the government for talks on the topic.

The Bill was proposing to give legal status to a long-standing structure. It would permit entities set up by the government to continue to work independently while coming under the aegis of the public service.

The success or failure of public administration depended not only on the structure but on human resources. Commitment and motivation would surely make for any organisation's success.

It was important for the public service to have senior employees who were well versed in the system and could therefore take the right decisions. On the contrary, some workers who simply rose up the ranks could not take such decisions.

Most of the government's work originated or took shape in a ministry's secretariat. Such positions were not suited to people who simply accepted a minister's invitation to serve on his or her secretariat. Since they were not elected personnel, some of them did not feel the right level of responsibility towards the public.

It was a good thing for the Bill to introduce a code of ethics, but this would be effective only if it was seriously upheld.

Marie Louise Coleiro Preca (MLP) said she could not see why Nationalist Mr Bonnici found the Opposition's objections to this Bill hard to understand. It was not only overdue but also incomplete. Mr Bonnici said the Bill increased efficiency, but it would be more effective to have a government that led by example, because the public sector worked under the government's direction.

A clear code of ethics to avoid conflicts of interest and promote increased transparency for MPs of both political parties was necessary. Such a code did exist, but this had been broken so often that it was obviously insufficient. She mentioned cases of promotions for no clear reason, such as those the previous Ombudsman, Joe Sammut, had looked into within the Armed Forces of Malta.

She questioned why there was no Whistleblower Act to complement this law, so that public service employees could really put their minds at rest. This was more important in Malta than in larger countries, because due to its smaller size such issues as conflict of interest increased. Not too long ago the Nationalist government had attempted reforms to the system, but these had tended to involve employing people with some political alliance.

This Bill, said Mrs Coleiro Preca, created unrealistic expectations of transparency and accountability, because at the same time the workers had to follow directions given by the Prime Minister and ministers. The Labour Party was proposing a Bill on how a caretaker government should operate, and the government would do well to start working on this Bill immediately, as this would complement the Bill currently under debate.

Lack of transparency was predominant in the public administration sector. One example was the lack of information when it came to applying for a pension. The application was sent, and one was told how much one would be receiving. But people with any questions were passed from one department to another and never got anywhere.

This Bill made it obvious that there was a lack of coordination. The public service could not be faced with such a law without being given the necessary tools, such as promotion of networking and availability of information about oneself.

Mrs Coleiro Preca encouraged the government to listen to the opposition's proposals for this half-baked Bill, and to adopt complementary measures.

Nationalist MP Frederick Azzopardi said that the public service was there to push the country forward. Public servants were officials who transformed policies into action and gave the public many services. It should be capable of responding to government needs and give service at expected levels.

He said that a reform had been embarked upon 18 years ago. The public service had been demotivated at the time and, in spite of difficulties, a lot of progress had since been achieved. Conditions of work as well as wages had been improved. The government had invested, and was to continue investing, in information technology.

Mr Azzopardi said that since the first phase of the reform various departments had quality service charters and, with the assistance of the private sector, there were workers who were being utilised better in private-public partnerships.

These workers were proving they were quality workers who had lacked good management when they worked in the public sector.

The government had published a White Paper and created a debate, and it was now proposing another Bill in the second phase of the public service reform. This was giving the opposition and all interested the opportunity to take part in the debate on the reform.

The Bill was very different from that on the public service which had been presented as part of the White Paper, showing that the government had given a lot of consideration to what had been said on the subject.

The government wanted to hasten the rhythm of progress for the people to be better served. It wanted a public service which really served the people and which was accountable, efficient, flexible and gave value for money.

Mr Azzopardi said that the Bill was introducing the concept of meritocracy. For the first time, the government was empowering the PSC to protect genuine whistleblowers.