Austin Gatt and public entities

In his interview on public entities (December 15.), IT and Investment Minister Austin Gatt drew a number of misleading conclusions vis-à-vis the reforms of government entities and on the skills of chairmen, other board members and employees in general.

Dr Gatt should admit, in the first instance, that the unhappy state of affairs within public entities is solely the fault of the various governments and no one else's.

His interviewer was indeed right to imagine readers would ask questions. Not just two questions, as he anticipated, but a dozen, at least. Unfortunately, the interviewer failed to challenge the minister's many wrong assertions.

Most public entities have been in a pitiful state for as long as I can remember. Surely, Minister Gatt, having been in politics for quite a while, knows that. It is the gross mismanagement of the country's affairs by the various administrations that actually brought about the unsustainable situations of so many public entities. The minister's impulsive reaction to the situation is a very poor attempt to save the government's face.

Perhaps the first good thing resulting from Malta's entry into the EU is the exposure of the government's half-truths and, of course, the blatant lack of good and proper governance.

It nettles me to read Dr Gatt's remarks particularly in the case of the appointment of chairmen and other board members. I can assure the minister that there is available on the local market a wealth of qualified and experienced human resources, in the form of retired senior executives, who are still most capable of helping the government put its house in order. I am sure that many of this untapped wealth of human resources are free of conflicting interests and are by far less costly to hire.

However, governments appear to prefer to stick to the traditional way of granting directorships to individuals on the merit of who they are rather than on what they are worth. No government ever gave the impression that conflicts of interests, and/or the exorbitant cost to the enterprise were ever given much consideration in appointments. In addition, were the government to apply the "fit and proper" clause in appointing its directors, I am more than certain that most would fail the test. Suffice to say that many are not even aware of their basic duties and obligations in terms of the law.

Dr Gatt must either have a short memory or else he is not being honest with himself and, obviously, with readers. We have heard of hefty remunerations and generous perks, at least, this last score of years, just as much as we have heard of handsome salary increases for MPs, senior officials and countless so-called consultants.

It is also a tradition for governments to provide employment to individuals in an endeavour to gain political mileage. This is most notable on the eve of elections when governments literally go on an employment spree, engaging thousands of workers, irrespective of whether government entities do require extra hands or not. In fact, this practice of employment may be cited as one of the major reasons why government entities experience a very high cost base, as referred to by the minister.

On the question of the redeployment of the 484 ex-shipyard workers, I seriously doubt whether it was wise of the government to allocate these men to different government entities. The exercise is nothing more than a game of musical chairs. The financial strain on the shipyard may have been lessened with the downsizing of its labour force but only to the detriment of other government entities.

The irony is that, while the government had long committed itself to downsize the public sector, Dr Gatt is finding comfort in redeploying ex-shipyard workers within the same public sector. Hence, one wonders how truly productive this movement of manpower really is.

I entirely share Dr Gatt's stand on people's expectations regarding free travel by Gozo Channel and the national airline. It would be most appropriate (and interesting) for the minister to publish a list (by category) of all the free travel both government entities had granted, say, these last three years.

Cutting down on excessive directors' remuneration is indeed a step in the right direction. However, savings have to be made across the board in its widest sense. Free travel (other than for staff, in accordance with international practices, and compassionate cases) has to be restricted to all and sundry. The national airline's (and other entities for all that matters) board of directors' benevolent attitude with public funds must be checked forthwith.

I also agree with Minister Gatt that sponsorships and donations by state enterprises should be radically reviewed. How on earth can any chairman feel at ease with his conscience when he exercises generosity with the people's money, particularly, when the company he is supposed to manage is in financial straits? I hope it would not be long before Dr Gatt stops this abuse once and for all.

The minister also said that one of the first things he did regarding the national carrier was to commission a report which is now being discussed at board level. He also said he is working on the reorganisation of the whole airline. Is he insinuating that the government only realised the airline's problems now?

The minister spoke of the misconception of some people regarding the problems that exist at Air Malta. If there ever existed misconceptions on the national airline's structure they surely must have been in the minds of those in government entrusted with the management of the company and, in turn, in the mind of the minister who allowed these misconceptions to go unchecked.

I do hope that Maltacom will finally find a truly strategic partner. I do sincerely mean a strategic partner for past experience has shown that the strategic partners governments managed to rope in have not yet proved to be that strategic after all!

Once again I wish Minister Gatt every success in his endeavours.