The author of last Tuesday’s editorial of The Times (major newspapers have a number of leader writers), took me to task on my financial aptitude because, according to this writer, I “chided the government for warning department heads about their duty to see how they could carry out its instructions to cut spending”.
... it is very rich of the Prime Minister to use these officers as scapegoats to cover his fiscal gaffes- Helena Dalli
The assessment worried me no end and I asked for a revision of papers especially since, in my political lifetime, I have invariably done the opposite of what I have been accused of.
As spokesman for public administration and government investments I have written and spoken in Parliament and elsewhere about the abuse of taxpayer’s money on and by quangos. I have asked countless parliamentary questions on how public money is spent by public officers. I have often quoted the Auditor General’s reports condemning the open-handedness of some public servants. I have scrutinised public spending together with the other members of the Public Accounts Committee, budget debates… you get my drift.
The leader writer then advises me that I would have had more impact had I asked the minister “how successful the cost-cutting programme it launched in its 2011 Budget had been”. Had I done that, I would have been repeating myself as that is exactly what I did months ago in my critique of the last Budget.
And for those who find Parliament too boring, this is from an article I wrote after the Budget was announced:
“There are then no proposals on how to restrain government overspending. The wastage in government administration is also not addressed... Last year, we were told that there will be spending cuts in ministries and efficiency will be top of the agenda. The figures show that this did not happen and that there will actually be higher spending.”
I even went back to the press conference upon which I was assessed by the editorial writer. There I came to the conclusion that the least s/he could have done was to read the press release before spontaneously letting the fingers skid out of control on the keyboard.
Some quotes from the press release: “The government is now blaming top public administrators but when the opposition drew the government’s attention on the misuse of public funds, the government defended those whose spending was out of control as the Prime Minister and ministers considered first the political loyalty of these officers before their administrative efficiency”.
To give some examples: the millions of euros spent on doing up the Malta Enterprise office; the millions given monthly to a consultant at the Resources Ministry; the Auditor’s assessment of the abuse of public funds: “good examples in bad practice”; the BWSC case; the euro-guzzling mismanagement at Enemalta and Transport Malta; millions for a new Parliament building and for a pointless bridge...
During the press conference, I also spoke about the fact that “the Labour Party has been criticising the way quangos seem to have a free hand in spending taxpayers’ money but the government was always ready to protect the big spenders... It is now that the government is facing external pressure that, instead of carrying the responsibility, the Prime Minister is putting the onus on public administrators”. And this is the whole point.
The editorial then ends with: “Labour would be wrong, very wrong, if, in its urge to put the Administration in a bad light it works up a sentiment against the government for trying to trim expenditure. This is not the way to win votes”.
This statement is quite patronising and the writer seems to be wagging his/her finger at me, warning me scoldingly, “wrong, very wrong”, and declares pedagogically that “this is not the way to win votes” uncovering his/her bias that shadow ministers are there only to win votes and not to criticise what they disagree with as not a good solution for a national problem.
The reason for pointing out at Dr Gonzi’s brass neck in so angrily and arrogantly throwing the financial ball in the public servants’ court now, was that it is very rich of the Prime Minister to use these officers, when it suits him, as scapegoats to cover his fiscal gaffes.
What’s more, at this stage the Prime Minister sounded like that father who wastes his salary on gambling and then tells his children to be careful with money or they will be punished.
Which brings me to another point that reflects the confusion in the author’s mind when s/he states: ‘‘And even her point about Dr Gonzi not having the moral authority to order the cuts is somewhat flawed now because the Prime Minister has already admitted that they had made a mistake in the way they handled the matter”.
No logic here and the reasoning goes like this: Dr Dalli criticises Dr Gonzi for a lack of moral authority; Dr Gonzi had already admitted this; ergo Dr Dalli is wrong to say that Dr Gonzi has no moral authority. The syllogism astounds.
We shall soon have the much-touted golden rule enshrined in our Constitution but what we really need is a change in the spending patterns of national politicians, politicians who would do anything and spend as much in order to hold on to power.
Why do citizens have to pay for the mismanagement of their government? And maybe even pay for penalties now. Politicians should be held directly responsible for their actions in the same way that executives in the private sector are. But, no, hold on, lest some writer feels offended.
Fiscal discipline starts at the top, which brings me to the question asked in the title. Who’s a good Finance Minister? It could be that for the leader-writer in this case, Tonio Fenech has the right ingredients as s/he didn’t tell him that he makes a bad Finance Minister. One ought to eat the national financial pudding to appreciate the proof of this.
Dr Dalli is shadow minister for the public service and gender equality.