There is nothing wrong with Lydia Abela accompanying her husband, Prime Minister Robert Abela, to political activities, supporting his work, or championing causes close to her heart.

But there is a fundamental difference between offering support, which is acceptable, and taking on a role in government, which is not. That distinction appears to have been lost.

The latest example, in which Lydia Abela announced a budgetary measure concerning social security contributions for workers who spend extended periods away from employment while receiving mental health treatment, is simply improper. This is not a matter of whether the measure is good or bad. It is a question of who has the authority to announce government policy, and who should be held responsible for it.

Lydia Abela is not a minister, a parliamentary secretary, or an elected representative. She holds no constitutional or executive office. She has no portfolio, no ministerial responsibilities and no democratic mandate to announce measures on behalf of the government. She is not sworn in as a member of Cabinet. She holds no executive responsibility whatsoever.

If she wants to be part of the administration, all she has to do is contest the election like her husband or sister did. There is nothing which prohibits her from doing so but, until she is elected, she should stay away from behaving as if she is a member of the executive.

What next? Will she start attending Cabinet meetings? Will she sit around the table when ministers discuss the country's finances, decide spending priorities and determine policy? Will she soon be announcing entire sections of the Budget before the Finance Minister has had his say?

The questions may sound sarcastic, but the underlying issue is serious. Government is not a family business in which authority can be passed around between the partners. Public office comes with responsibilities, procedures and accountability. Being married to the prime minister does not confer any of these.

There is also the rather obvious question of how ministers must feel when measures falling squarely within their portfolios are announced by the prime minister's wife. The problem is not merely one of protocol. It is one of political responsibility. Ministers are supposed to lead their respective departments, explain their policies, and defend their decisions. They should not have to watch someone without an official role take the credit for measures for which they will eventually be answerable.

Lydia Abela gets the publicity and the applause when she makes an announcement. If the measure subsequently fails to materialise, is delayed, or is implemented badly, however, it is the minister responsible who will be the one facing questions and criticism. It is an arrangement that allows one person to wrongly enjoy the political benefits without carrying the corresponding burden of accountability.

It is difficult to imagine that the Finance Minister is particularly pleased to have the announcement of a Budget measure taken out of his hands before the Budget itself is presented. Budgetary policy is not a public-relations exercise for the prime minister's wife.

It is the responsibility of the government, with the Finance Minister first to announce the government's plan and then all ministers explaining their respective portfolio's way forward during special parliamentary sessions in which the Opposition will have its time to debate.

What is also particularly objectionable is the involvement of the Department of Information in what the PM's wife is saying or doing. The DOI is a government institution financed by taxpayers, not a publicity agency for the prime minister's family. Its purpose is to communicate official government business. Issuing statements in the name of Lydia Abela gives an official stamp to a role that has no formal standing in the country's constitutional or executive arrangements.

This was not the first time this has happened. During the election campaign, Lydia Abela was put in the forefront of Labour Party activities, much more than ministers and parliamentary secretaries were. Even then, her participation crossed a red line.

But the practise becomes worse when she takes a central role in government work, not that of the party. The machinery of government should not be used to elevate a politician's spouse into a substitute office-holder.

None of this diminishes Lydia Abela's right to speak publicly, support charitable causes, or participate in discussions about mental health and other social issues. These are legitimate activities. But she should never be the one to reveal government plans, whether she has her husband's permission or not.

Malta already has a problem with politics becoming increasingly centred on personalities, images and carefully staged publicity. Extending that culture to the prime minister's wife, while using taxpayer-funded communication structures to legitimise her announcements, takes matters a step too far.

The principle is straightforward: government measures should be announced by the people who have the authority to make them and the responsibility to implement them. The people who make sworn declarations upon taking office that they will serve the country in their role as ministers and parliamentary secretaries. The people who will ultimately take responsibility of the government's actions, whether they are a success or a failure.

This is yet another example of the "anything goes" mentality that Labour professes.

Public office is not a privilege that can be shared among family members.

In a democracy, proximity to power is not power.

It is time that this distinction is respected.