As Malta sizzles in what must rank as the hottest controversy ever over reports of corruption, impropriety, sleaze and maladministration, the government chooses this particular moment to come out with the news that no fewer than 241 of the 259 recommendations made by the Auditor General in his annual report had been taken on board.
If, through this move, the government wishes to transmit the message that it knows what good governance is all about, it is very well mistaken, for, although acting on the recommendations of the Auditor General is most definitely praiseworthy, the claims of impropriety being made today have far more ramifications and carry far more serious implications than administrative shortcomings.
The political impudence of announcing the taking on board of the Auditor General’s recommendations at this particular point in time is hard to believe, more so for the fact that the ‘news’ was given by none other than the Prime Minister who is at the centre of a storm over the Panama Papers revelations involving a Cabinet minister and his chief of staff.
As the two main political parties continue to throw political arrows at each other over claims and counter-claims arising out of the Panama Papers, the rest of the country stands watching the unfolding drama with a kind of tension that is normally experienced only during an election campaign.
It stands to reason that it is essential for any administration to implement the recommendations made by the National Audit Office over shortcomings it detects in its role of protecting the interest of the public purse. Far too many instances of disregard to procedure and regulations have not been acted upon promptly in the past and if this trend is being reversed it will be to the good of the administration and the taxpayer who, ultimately, ends up footing the bill for any loss of revenue involved in administrative shortcomings.
Not all government departments or public authorities failed to act on recommendations of the Auditor General as the “management comments” carried in the annual report show. However, it appears the government has even commissioned an internal audit to verify statements made by ministries and departments on how they are implementing the National Audit Office’s recommendations.
Principal Permanent Secretary Mario
has been reported saying they did this not because they did not trust them but because they wanted to get rid of the “anything goes mentality in the public service”. This is music to the ears of all those who have been lamenting the sharp downward trend in service standards, not just in the pubic service but in the private sector as well.
In the light of this, any exercise meant to strengthen the concept of accountability and good governance in administration is good investment. But for good governance to work at its best it has to filter down from top to bottom of any hierarchy but those responsible for the running of the administration are not exactly giving the right examples of good governance. The contrary is the case as shown by a string of allegations showing both the government and the country in a bad light.
Every time the government, through any of its spokesmen, attempts to defend what is generally held to be morally indefensible, it diametrically goes against its own principles. Correcting administrative shortcomings in the public service is commendable but the scandals and cases of impropriety that have rocked the party in power indicate that the government has to work much harder on ensuring good governance at the top.