These two words, authority and responsibility go together. There is no responsibility without authority and vice-versa. This also applies to people in politics. We politicians, who are chosen by the electorate to represent them in Parliament, need to shoulder our responsibilities since we are given the authority to do so. This applies even more to those who are in government since their authority goes beyond what is debated and decided in Parliament.

But looking back and thinking about issues that emerged during a number of years, did those in authority shoulder responsibility? The Nationalist Party has been in power for over twenty years. In these years abuses and corruption both alleged and proved were very common. However, not even one nationalist minister did resign. This is a clear sign that these people want authority but without responsibility. In Europe, but not only, when something happens and falls within the remit of a politician, especially I reiterate one in government, even if they had nothing to do with it directly, they tender their resignation. This is a far cry from what happens in Malta under this government.

This also forms part of the political change that is very much needed in our country. We live in a state where the winner takes it all, not only when it comes to high positions but also in the lower grades of the administration. In these last years decisions, including major ones, are being taken not in the interest of the country first and foremost but according to political exigencies and partisan needs of the Nationalist Party. As such the urge to be responsible for every action of government is even more urgent. In these last few days climate change was on the agenda of the Maltese Parliament. However, we should also aim not only to achieve the goals of climate change in order to have a better environment, but also to achieve political change since politics needs morals.

Pre-budget document

In the last couple of years a pre-budget document started being published by the government so as to have a debate prior the reading of the budget. This in itself was a positive development since it gave the budget debate a new dimension and a new possibility. However, by time this became a PR exercise and not a real debate. Moreover, this so called consultation process became a process where government can test the ground before implementing certain decisions that can be criticised.

The ways budgets are prepared and discussed vary from one country to another. I believe that the pre-budget consultation process if implemented correctly, and not for PR purposes, can be a good development. The next step will be for Parliament to discuss and approve differently the budget after it is announced. However, to arrive to this three things are required. Firstly the consultation process with society and the social partners has to be sincere and open; secondly to have the necessary resources and systems in Parliament; and thirdly we need to change the way we do politics.

This year’s pre-budget document looked more like an academic publication, rather then a document which lists the government’s intentions and proposals for next year’s budget. Being the document that it does not allow a proper discussion on the proposals and the thinking of the government. In addition to this document during political meetings the Prime Minister and his finance minister uttered phrases that indicate in which direction the budget is being prepared. It seems that for next year a number of social benefits are going to be under attack primarily the benefits received by single mothers. Curbing abuses should always be on the agenda and not when the budget approaches. However, one needs to ask who was responsible to issue social benefits if now we are being told that there are abuses?

And why is the government conveying a message that single mothers are abusing social services just for the fact that they are single? Someone in authority approves and scrutinises social services, so is the government implying that the system is not working or is being abused by someone down the line? These statements raise more questions than give answers. And is it only through the cutting of social services that the government is going to solve the deficit problem which after all was created by the same government?

So what about the 4 million euros being paid as commission for the new power station in Delimara? What about tax evasion? And, by the way, can anyone give an account of what the Tax Compliance Unit is achieving in respect of tax evasion? Recently we had the VAT scam. A number of people were arraigned to court. Some admitted and in my humble opinion the sentences were lenient. Not only, but up till now the public coffers suffered from less revenue. This is very serious since the people who always paid their taxes will eventually be taxed even more. This is a very big social injustice.

Carmelo Abela

Deputy Speaker and

Labour main spokesperson for industry and foreign investment

Email: [email protected]