‘Opposition a step ahead of government’

In creating specialised Commissioners for Administrative Investigations under the Ombudsman Act (Amendment) Bill, the government was trailing behind the opposition which was a step ahead by having suggested the introduction of a Commissioner for Consumer Rights and a Commissioner for Health.

Speaking in Parliament yesterday, Chris Cardona (PL) said that one should give importance to the Office of the Ombudsman by strengthening its powers. He criticised the six-month time-bar for filing a complaint to the Ombudsman. In cases where civil servants expected replies from their superiors, the six-month time-bar was not enough.

While the Ombudsman had solved several disputes, the government was not ready to eradicate political nepotism. It was a Labour government that had fought this phenomenon, even if this had prejudiced its time in government.

Dr Cardona said that the Ombudsman was an extra judicial institution, acting independently and impartially to ensure redress.

The government should have the good will to enforce the recommendations by the Ombudsman, but it had criticised him.

The Ombudsman was not there to just publish his rulings; he had to investigate complaints against the public sector. There should be the proper remedies where citizens were mistreated. Dr Cardona said that if cases were not redressed, there would be greater injustice.

While the government should serve as an example in respecting the recommendations of the Ombudsman, it was giving the worst example. This was evidenced in the Public Accounts Committee.

When the Mepa auditor had exposed abuses in the issuing of building permits, instead of attacking those who had created this mess the government had taken umbrage against the Mepa auditor. Former Ombudsman Joseph Sammut had also been attacked by the Nationalist administration.

The government had ignored the Ombudsman’s finding that ARMS Ltd was insensitive towards its clients. The government had ignored the Ombudsman on a national issue. The government was not interested in improving the public administration, with the way it was acting.

Concluding, Dr Cardona said that political clientelism was measured through the awards of big contracts, corrupt tendering processes and accommodating those who helped the PN.

Edwin Vassallo (PN) said that it was easy to blame the government for any injustices, but the seriousness of government could only be gauged by the legislative instruments which it made available for redress.

New procedures were being put forward through this Bill. However, he proposed a number of amendments.

One such amendment concerned the fact that commissioners might revert to the Ombudsman. He said he would like to make this consultation mandatory.

The Bill was proposing that the Ombudsman could only revise the commissioners’ final reports if he thought there were points of equity, natural justice or points at law. He was proposing that the Ombudsman should have blanket powers to revise such reports to eliminate further problems.

Mr Vassallo felt that a new culture of anti-customer care was being developed. Customer care was faceless, making it more difficult for the aged using automated machines to get service offered by both the public and private sectors. Customer care, he said, was no longer a priority and this was something that had to be changed immediately.

He also called for proper evaluation of the Ombudsman’s decisions to see whether the redress suggested was practical. The public service shuld have proper and more efficient guidelines to eliminate mistakes.

Extensive bureaucracy led to injustices and long periods of time for decisions. A few years ago public services regulations had been amended to make civil servants more efficient and reduce bureaucracy. The government had to see that public employees were efficient because he felt that there was a tendency of a “no-risk” approach being adopted.

Opposition spokesman on justice José Herrera said the Ombudsman was as important as the Auditor General.

There had been complaints that the Ombudsman did not have enough power because he was only able to report. He said that in Malta, new institutions were not accepted straightaway. The Office of the Ombudsman had been created only a few years ago and was still struggling to find its feet.

Dr Herrera said the Ombudsman should not be given more executive powers, but these should be vested in the courts. He was happy to note that the Bill did not grant him exclusive powers. He believed the courts were not bold enough and there had been a reluctance to give rulings against the executive and affirm administrative rights.

Malta had never had an administrative court. Instead, it had created 187 administrative tribunals. He said Malta should have an administrative section in its courts, as was the case in Italy and France. A couple of years ago this was going to be put into action but had instead been transformed into a tribunal which was still not functional.

The Auditor General and the Ombudsman were two important innovations. The Ombudsman was being given the power to recommend commissioners for special areas. However, he criticised the Bill because it would be reducing the Ombudsman’s power since the commissioners would be functioning independently.

Although he believed that the amendments to the law would make the legislation better, it would make more sense for the commissioners to work under the same umbrella as the Ombudsman.

Concluding, Dr Herrera called on the government to give more importance to the Ombudsman’s report, even suggesting that this be debated in Parliament.

The debate continues.