'Government reforms instil fear'

Reforms by the Nationalist government instilled fear in the people, who were used to reading between the lines because it was common knowledge that the government was the sole benefactor in such cases. With the Malta Transport (Regulatory) Authority Bill, the government was giving birth to a monster with a big head and a small body.

Opposition spokesman on transport Joe Mizzi said this Bill was yet another excuse to do away with small operators while increasing taxes on the people. This, when in the past weeks the government had given the impression it was giving this important system an overhaul.

Generally speaking, reformed policies reduced abuse and introduced plans of action for the benefit of the general public. The millions of euros people contributed in taxes were supposed to go towards optimising transport services, which was a right of all citizens.

Changes had been introduced piece-meal over the past weeks, during the debates on the estimates of the ADT and the MMA, in the hope that people would not understand what the government had up its sleeves. If Allied Newspapers reporters were serious they would ask what Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and Dr Gatt had up their sleeves. The opposition was aware of the major problems in the government's finances, which the people would have to make good for.

After taxes and VAT, the remainder of the people's earnings went on licences or utility bills. So what came next? The next step by the government was using the local councils and the Transport Authority to collect more money in new taxes and parking fees.

Why was the government acting in this way when everyone knew how heavily burdened the people were? The truth was it had been boasting for years of phantom investments, but now even these were leaving due to the state Malta was in. This increased unemployment, predicted to explode by the end of the year.

Then the government tried to justify the suffering by blaming the global crisis. In truth, it had no funds and no contingency plan, save to further burden workers and their families.

The authorities set up by the government were another means of collecting revenues to finance its expenditure. The government was a spendthrift with people's money.

The ADT contributed not less than €80 million to the national coffers, and this sum might yet soar to €100 million. Measures were not taken due to environmental concerns but simply to collect revenues. People had the right to know the truth. The ADT had earned more than €100 billion in 20 years, but had given little to people in return.

Mr Mizzi said that people were concerned about issues that Minister Gatt did not talk about. Was it true that the government had lost millions of euros from the EU to help public transport owners improve their services and vehicles between 2004 and 2009?

The people were also concerned that first there was going to be competition in transport routes that would benefit the customer but now, the government was going to issue a tender for a monopoly, violating EU regulations.

Mr Mizzi asked whether it was true that there was corruption in ADT with regard to street maintenance.

He said the government's proposal was to integrate three entities under one umbrella, but he was sure that the minister would again not tell the truth with regard to government's intentions. The minister would not tell people that he would not have any control when the new body increased bus fares.

Analysing the Bill, Mr Mizzi said the problems did not arise in its principle but in the way it was formulated. Certain issues were being ignored. The Bill was the result of haphazard work and cutting and pasting from separate Bills.

Commenting about the authority's functions and duties, Mr Mizzi said it was being expected, among other things, to carry out and give effect to any international convention to which the government was about to become a party. It would have to develop strategies to achieve policies, and determine both short- and long-term practices. Put succinctly, it would have all the responsibilities under the sun.

The Bill gave the minister more than a finger in the pie. He would be involved in the appointment of the authority's chief officers, the management committee and the board of appeal, as well as the approval of the auditing committee that would be set up by the authority to vet its accounts. Even so, the minister could still insist on the authority's accounts being audited by the National Audit Office.

Mr Mizzi said the country needed an integrated national transport action plan, but this was not mentioned anywhere in the Bill.

The authority would have the power to regulate charges for the use of any transport facility, but there was no provision in the Bill for the authority to watch against any breach of fair competition principles. Such things had already happened in Malta in the recent past, but the government did not seem to have learnt anything. The Malta Resources Authority had been proven to have engaged in discrimination, but nothing had really been done about it.

Mr Mizzi said the Bill did not even mention the environment and the control of emissions. Everybody was paying lip-service to the environment, but little or nothing was being done in principle on such important considerations.

The way the authority was being burdened with extensive powers was unacceptable. Conflicts of interest were inevitable, as had happened with other existing authorities. The Bill was the fruit of a lack of serious planning and knowledge of where the government wanted to arrive, Mr Mizzi said.

If the government really wanted to build up an effective authority it must first decide on which school of thought to follow.

The Anglo-Saxon school favoured clear guarantees of autonomy and financial transparency, with an authority being the only body to watch over particular sectors. The French school looked on such an authority as a guardian of social interests, with a structure to guard the public service and implement a policy to incentivise the use of public transport, accessible as a universal service, with special schemes for vulnerable persons.

The Bill was made up of a bad mix of both. Much more serious thought was needed on how to do things, especially in the licensing and wide regulation of the transport sector.

Tenders must be regulated by an ad hoc separate authority. The government had already been frequently let down by autonomous auditing, yet the Bill bore no provision for the internal management of the authority's financial affairs. How could an audit committee chaired by the authority's deputy chairman ever be impartial? The committee would have to scrutinise and evaluate any transaction to be entered into by the authority not exceeding €500,000.

Probably for the first time in a Bill setting up an authority, it included specific information about the salaries of the authority's employees, something that had never occurred before. Maybe the government had realised the mistakes of personally-tailored remuneration for certain people in other authorities?

If the new authority was to be modelled on a corporation, its CEO's security of tenure should be tied down to the authority's performance. Setting out with a three-year appointment could cause irreparable harm to the authority in the meantime.

Mr Mizzi said it was clear that the government was in a panic. After 20 years of less than serious construction on proverbial sand, it knew that any of its creations could go down with the smallest wave to hit it. Even because of the lack of serious investment in the past 20 years, it could no longer be said that small was beautiful with reference to Malta's size. Unemployment had exploded, revenue was continually diminishing, and the consumer was easy prey for the government to put it on the sacrificial altar.

A serious plan was needed to cut down on the pollution caused by the energy and transport sectors, but there was no sign of such a plan for either sector. How could the government plan for efficiency, less bureaucracy and less costs?

As last week's extensive power failure had shown - and the people had still not been told why it had happened - the government kept saying that Malta was in line with EU directives, but the people were not prepared for what could yet happen again. The government had made no real effort to get EU funds for improving the system. Its lip-service had been just that, and the people were suffering.

Concluding, Mr Mizzi said the delusion of workers in the transport sector was great because they were still very uncertain about their future. It was important to make laws, not hurriedly but after deep thought. When the Bill came up for debate in committee, the opposition would be proposing its own amendments in the real interests of less bureaucracy and less abuse.