A government that prides itself on being transparent in administration ought to act in a transparent manner all the time when it suits it. The Labour government pays lip service to transparency and accountability but the number of instances in which it is failing to act in line with these basic norms of democratic administrative behaviour is increasing, not decreasing.

In the same way that the judges’ bribery scandal some years ago had shocked the country to the bone, the oil procurement scandal at Enemalta, which is huge by local standards, as well as a string of other bribery cases in recent years, have shown that there is greater need of enhancing and enforcing the rules and regulations that help check errant behaviour.

In the wake of these scandals, people are not taking slips in administration lightly. Neither are they accepting outright resistance to the publication, on time, of information that ought to be made public. The key word here is “on time” for an administration can easily wriggle out of such a requirement by declaring it intends to publish the required information at the appropriate time. This often means when it is politically convenient.

There may sometimes be bureaucratic hurdles involved in delays in the publication of information that ought to be made public. Whatever reasons, other than those deemed justifiable on the basis of national interest (a term much abused by governments), this ought to be unacceptable.

A case that raised eyebrows, but which, strangely, does not seem to have made an impact in the public domain, concerns the difficulty this newspaper found in trying to get the names of the members of a consortium that won a public contract.

The consortium, Gozo Connect, has won a €356,000 contract to determine the technical and financial feasibility for the development of a digital hub in Gozo. Neither the Malta Financial Services Authority nor the Trade Department or the Department of Contracts would reveal the names of the firms involved.

The value of the contract is not huge, but this is irrelevant. Once there is a public contract, taxpayers should be informed of the details. No wrongdoing is being alleged but why should different government entities hold back from giving the names of the consortium members?

If the tender has been awarded, why should it be difficult for these departments to give the names of those who make up the consortium? Why should the names not be for “public knowledge” once it is public money that is going to finance the consultancy service?

In his latest report the Ombudsman called for a mechanism to ensure that any refusal to divulge information related to public administration is fully justified. His report came only days after the publication of the story. The right to deny the information, remarked the Ombudsman, should be the exception, not the rule. This may well be regarded a truism but, for one reason or another, the right is being flouted or observed only at the whim of the administration.

Why has the government not published the agreement reached with the Chinese company that is to take a stake in Enemalta and that with the consortium that plans to build the gas-fired power station, or, for that matter, the agreement with Henley and Partners?

The government appears to be taking these matters lightly, but sooner or later it will be held to account for this shortcoming.