A key issue that is likely to keep popping up and at times even take the centre stage is the measures that need to be taken to reduce the public sector deficit. It will obviously become a ping pong game between the two main political parties and among the various interest groups representing the business sector, the employees and other groups in society such as pensioners and consumers.

The government would want to increase its revenue and reduce its expenditure in an effort to have a two-pronged attack on the deficit.

The minute there is an attempt to increase revenue through taxation or through the introduction of new charges or through the increase of charges for services provided by the government, the opposition party would pick up the cue and criticise the government for having decreased the purchasing power of the public at large. Trade unions would soon follow suit and criticise the government for having penalised workers; while if the increased revenue is coming from the business sector, the attack would be that the government measures would have reduced the competitiveness of companies operating in Malta.

On the other hand, if the government seeks to reduce its expenditure, it would get flak from the opposition party for having reduced the level of service that the public at large has got for free till now, trade unions would resist it because reduction in expenditure might mean changes in work practices, and interest groups would complain that a reduced level of service would hit the persons they represent.

This would mean that the government, whatever it does, will get support from no one and criticism from everyone. This is in effect one of the risks of anyone who seeks to be in government. This is why the measures that are needed to reduce the public sector deficit must be an important component of the social pact and this is why the government needs the full support of the public sector employees to achieve its targets.

It is an issue that has many facets that can best be explained by a question that each and everyone of us must have put to oneself and to others. "Where is all our money going?" It is a very fair question that should have a fairly logical answer. Unfortunately the logical answer is not that readily available.

One points to the increase in expenditure on social services, be they pensions or be they initiatives to help the less disadvantaged in society. Then there is the increased expenditure on health and education. There is the increased expenditure on roads, the agricultural sector and other areas such as support given to state-owned enterprises and public entities.

All this is true and logical, but still people experience a sense of frustration that what we get back does not measure up to what we pay in taxation and social security contributions.

This frustration experienced by people is caused by their conviction that there is a great deal of waste and inefficiency in the public service. It does not mean that this is true; however, this is what the perception is, irrespective of whether it is based on fiction or fact.

What makes it even more exasperating is the fact that public service employees do not believe that life at work is that great for them. They claim that their pay does not match that available in the private sector for jobs of similar responsibilities (possibly true in some cases and not true at all in several other cases).

Those in management levels in the public service claim that the pay differential between them and those at the lower end of the scale is not big enough to justify the responsibilities that they have to shoulder (generally true, but there is little willingness in certain public sector departments to call subordinates to account for their actions).

Morale in certain departments may be low (true, but this depends also on personal attitudes apart from other things). Sickness levels are claimed to be higher than those in the private sector (possibly true but limited to a number of employees and not to everyone).

Public service employees are generally scorned in the media and labelled as a bunch of lazy idiots (admittedly very unfair by those that hide behind generalisations and are afraid to go into specifics).

Recognition from customers is very rare even if some of them believe that they have to do miracles daily to serve the public effectively (true, but we have to blame the national mentality that we want everything for free for this). And the possibility of industrial action, in one form or another, is never far off from the surface (true, because employees generally seek security in rigidity rather than in flexibility).

This explains the feeling of malaise that there may exist in the public service, a malaise which in turn may tend to lead to more waste and inefficiency, with the result that we end up in a vicious circle.

This points to the requirement to take action that hits at the cause of the problem rather than the symptom. A number of initiatives have already been taken, all driven from within the public sector itself.

These include, among others, the devolution of certain authority to permanent secretaries and directors, the introduction of a performance management programme, the recruiting of specialised persons by the department concerned rather than centrally, the introduction of quality service charters.

A lot of hope tends to hinge on the new Public Service Act. The changes proposed by this Act should not be viewed as stand alone actions, but as part of a process that aims to transform public service management from a command and control style to a lead and enable style based on trust, empowerment, merit and high performance.

To achieve this transformation there needs to be support from all quarters. Sectorial interests have no role to play in this process, as the benefit would be not simply a better managed public service, but also a reduced public sector deficit.