Ever since Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi was elected, the two successive Nationalist governments he has headed have preached the virtues of consultation and discussion.

In some cases, the consultation has worked brilliantly, for example the pre-budget document and the budget consultation meetings. They have given a sense of empowerment to both social partners and the general public at large. And to be fair, the government has listened and implemented where it has deemed feasible and fit.

Another area where this approach seems to be working is the rent reform issue where Social Policy Minister John Dalli has personally gone to different localities to explain and to listen to suggestion put forward by the general public.

Yet, we have seen other areas where the government has completely botched its own good idea. The water and electricity tariff proposals are again a perfect example of this. The purpose of this editorial is not to scrutinise the tariffs themselves, but to analyse where government went wrong.

The Malta Council for Social and Economic Development is in itself a consultative body. Its main function is to debate and discuss matters which will have a direct impact on Maltese society, whether it is a government decision, or whether challenges are posed by international events or by market forces.

It has worked very well in the past on issues ranging from mass redundancies at textile companies or privatisation of large employers. The MCESD brings social partners around the table and basically pits wits against each other to find solutions to these problems.

The MCESD was told that it would be kept in the loop about the proposed tariffs. It came from the horse’s mouth – Union Haddiema Maghqudin secretary general Gejtu Vella told the media that back in July, those on the MCESD had been promised that they would be kept in the loop and consulted.

It turned out that in the meantime, the government engaged the services of KPMG to draft a proposed utility bill reform plan. The finished plan was then dumped in the lap of the MCESD at its last meeting – when all concerned thought they would be discussing their budget proposals. The social partners were presented with what they termed to be a ‘fait accompli’ – a decision which had been taken and when implemented, to be implemented retroactively to 1 October. This newspaper is of the opinion that such actions are not tantamount to consultation. To rub salt into the wound, the government gave the MCESD a couple of weeks in which to come up with alternative proposals – and this in view of the fact that it took months to compile the said plans. Again, that is not consultation.

The MCESD chairman was up in arms and quite rightly too. The government must learn that if it preaches consultation and promises it, people will get their fingers burnt by proceeding in such a manner. One is not saying that the MCESD board members should have been involved in the drafting of the plans, but they certainly should have been briefed at strategic intervals.

The members have shown time and time again that they are capable of keeping a lid on things if matters are that sensitive, so why should they have been excluded? Again, this is a lesson to be learnt. One cannot promise one thing and do exactly the opposite. If that is the case, why bother with the MCESD at all?