A survey by Eurobarometer held in August 2025 and involving 500 Maltese respondents showed that 56% of citizens reported being satisfied with their public administration, placing the country among the top performers in the European Union (EU), just behind frontrunners such as Luxembourg, Denmark, Estonia, and Belgium.

While satisfaction levels alone do not tell the full story, they are closely tied to efficiency, accessibility and trust in institutions, which are essential for understanding the overall effectiveness of public administration and the public's perception of government performance.

Taking the results of the survey to be credible, and there's no argument to show that they are not, credit is to be given to whom it is due, in our case, to the previous and current Labour administrations and legislatures.

However, considering the frequent public complaints that appear on social media and are directed at various government departments and entities, this survey may have raised some concerns. Perhaps a bigger number of respondents might have provided a different picture.

The issue gathers momentum when one duly considers the implications of such a strong public service satisfaction.

Public service satisfaction is normally the overall evaluation by citizens of government-provided services, such as health, education, and administration, based on how well the service matches their expectations. It measures trust and effectiveness, generally resulting from high-quality, efficient, and accessible service delivery. Key drivers include service quality, reduced bureaucracy, and professional staff behaviour.

Public service cannot be achieved without strategic government intervention.

High-quality public administrative services are essential for achieving governments' socio-economic objectives, including economic growth, citizen well-being and upholding the rule of law. To effectively deliver these outcomes and respond to citizens' needs and expectations, administrative services must be designed and delivered in a responsive, reliable, inclusive, equitable and agile fashion.

Transforming administrative services to be more human-centred must remain an ongoing priority for our government, requiring it to consider user convenience and expectations ahead of internal processes and existing policies.

                                                             Illegal temporary structures

The Planning Ministry's public consultation on new guidelines for outdoor sporting events and facilities, aiming to ensure temporary structures do not lead to 'permanent urbanisation', closed some time ago.

Though I sincerely hope that this consultation was not another useless exercise like so many others before, I am afraid that, even here, we will end up being taken for a ride. Whenever such consultations were launched, they hardly brought about any significant changes. It was practically more of the same.

This latest move came about quite late in the day, as a quick tour on our islands will show that, over these last years, illegal temporary structures that eventually transitioned into permanent structures, and not just concerning sporting events and facilities, have been continuously tolerated by the respective authorities, guaranteeing them full impunity.

Does anyone recall the government's decision, way back in June, 2013, to allow persons who build illegal structures to obtain a temporary compliance certificate in spite of the illegality?

Just some time ago, large illegal structures crept up all the way to the perimeter fence of Malta's airport, yet the Planning Authority's enforcement was nowhere to be found.

Illegal temporary structures in Malta and Gozo, often located in Outside Development Zones (ODZ), have been sprouting up like mushrooms and include unauthorised kiosks, beach structures, agricultural sheds, and, recently, padel courts.

To make things worse, controversial proposals sometimes allow for regularisation or replacement with "formal" structures.

It's time to get serious on this issue.

                                       Treading on unsure legal grounds

During the last electoral campaign, the PN proposed an offshore bunkering facility on Hurd's Bank.

While such a proposal might appear innovative and promising, I believe that a number of fundamental and determining legal hurdles must first be overcome.

I am referring to the question of jurisdiction.

One has to bear in mind that Hurd's Bank is 22 kilometres away, outside Maltese territorial waters, but forms part of Malta's Exclusive Economic Zone.

Malta had already started the process to declare an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the central Mediterranean, with the potential of extending its responsibilities by as much as 71,446 sq km beyond territorial waters.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982, became the main international agreement related to maritime issues during the last 40 years, wherein states have jurisdictional rights and duties; however, in the Exclusive Economic Zone, some specific rules and regulations differ substantially from those in other areas.

Article 56 of the UNCLOS establishes sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources related to economic concerns. The problem of rights and duties in a state's declared exclusive economic zone is somewhat of a grey area under international law. Although UNCLOS established specific rights and duties in the EEZ, these are not entirely clear. The specific legal regime in this area is very ambiguous, and its interpretation depends on other factors that have not been previously established.

In an exclusive economic zone, a coastal state enjoys sovereign rights of exploration, exploitation, conservation and management. In principle, the provisions of UNCLOS concerning the EEZ reflect a compromise among the signatory states with competing interests. A balance is meant to be struck between the resource interests of the coastal state in its offshore waters and the interests of states insisting on ensuring that any new declaration of economic zone exclusivity does not encroach unduly on the traditional freedom of the high seas.

The main problems that one can envisage concerning the EEZ relate to three interdependent aspects, namely determination of the EEZ itself, jurisdiction in the zone (rights and duties) and activities in the zone. Determination is a national and unilateral activity, but Malta will eventually have to determine limits with other states (opposite northern and southern states). It is an issue that will have to be established through agreements, but in the case where that is not achieved, it will have to be established by special courts or tribunals to resolve the dispute or at least manage the conflict.

Dr. Mark Said