An announcement by the Finance Minister the other day that the government planned to review a number of social benefits, particularly those paid out to single mothers, was grist to the mill of those who are inclined to jump at any move to cut benefits in order to hit out at the Nationalist government. There is absolutely nothing new in this as in our politically-minded community any objection, or criticism, justified or not, is considered par for the course.
Some are accusing the government of acting insensitively or that it has no moral conscience. Well, it would act insensitively if it decides to proceed in a generic manner with all recipients but it is hard to imagine that the government would be going along this route. It is more likely that those who opened their guns at the Administration did so rashly, in other words before first waiting to see the kind of measures the government will be taking. For them to know this, they would very likely have to wait for the presentation of the budget.
What should be said straightaway, however, is that any moves meant to cut abuse in the payment of social benefits ought to receive widespread approval rather than negative criticism. Benefits are paid out of the taxpayers' money and those abusing the system are effectively stealing money that could be used to help those who are in most need. There should therefore be no objection to the better use of means testing to ensure that those getting benefits are genuine cases.
As it happens, the sustainability of the social welfare programme is one of the priority issues that the social partners want to go into with the government within the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development. In a common-position paper presented to the council, they are pointing out that the sustainability of welfare programmes would be an important challenge in the coming years. This, they felt, would require the continuous pursuit of efficiency gains, elimination of waste and abuse and better targeting of available resources.
Who could possibly be against such aims? Yet, in the pursuit of winning political favour, in terms of votes, some politicians are apt to forget all this, particularly at budget times, or close to an election, as their first interest is to put the party in government in a bad light.
To what extent would the trade unions be prepared to cooperate in drives to cut waste or in exercises meant to bring about greater efficiency, such as in hospitals? Past experience is replete with examples showing resistance to this.
This is not the way for the country to make advances in a matter that is so vitally important to any party in government.
Malta is in no position to allow waste and abuse. With government revenue down, and the European Commission breathing down the government's neck to ensure that it moves in the right direction in the effort to bring the deficit down to below the required threshold of three per cent, the government is certainly right in all efforts it makes to cut abuses. In this, it should have the support of all, including of the trade unions.
Optimum efficiency in the administration of the country's finances ought to be a motivating force in any government. This has not been so at all times, as reports by the Auditor General show only too well. It is time to correct our way.