Pronounce 'reform' again

"Reform" is among the words most frequently used by the Fenech Adami administration. For well over 16 years, it trumpeted reform. If anything needed to be done, then a "reform" would be launched... and nobody can argue against reform, can one? To reform, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is "to make or become better by the removal of faults and errors". A stand against that would be like denigrating motherhood.

The problem, however, with the "reforms" pushed forward by Dr Fenech Adami and his ministers over the years has been that they never seemed to get done. Or else, if something happened, it soon needed further "reform", almost as if nothing had been done at all. A case in point was the civil service, where, every two years or so, windbag speeches are delivered from the top of the civil service pontificating about reform and launching high-sounding mantras about better efficiency and organisation. Meanwhile, everybody knows that nothing much will occur, except that the usual top dogs will continue running their bureaucratic games in slightly amended formats. Shortly, another "reform" will be announced.

Nothing illustrates better how the "reform" gambit has been played to the death as the issue of welfare. From memory, here is how it panned out.

Soon after the 1998 election, the government trumpeted its new discovery that, over the long term, our welfare system was not sustainable, especially on pensions. So, it decided to set up a high-powered commission to study the matter and make recommendations. The social partners were to be members alongside a number of ministerial representatives.

Labour was also asked to nominate a member. When we decided that this would not be a good idea, given the issue and how it had been clobbered together - also in view of what the terms of reference set for the commission meant in practice - the government and its allies expressed shock and disapproval. How could the opposition refuse to participate in such an essential and urgent task?

Events since have completely justified Labour's position, based on the conclusion that the welfare "reform" commission was just another government smokescreen. For nothing happened. Years passed, the commission met or did not meet, but presented sparse public information about its deliberations.

Then - was it two years ago, in the annual budget? - proposals were floated by the finance minister about changes to the welfare system, that tangentially overlapped with the remit on which the welfare commission would someday present a final report.

The chairman of the commission resigned and was replaced some months after. A new hush followed, lasting well past the 2003 election. Rumour had it that, while the commission was hardly meeting, its new chairman was busy drafting a final report all by himself.

Concurrently, the finance minister again spoke about the unsustainability of the current systems of welfare, including pensions. Five years had been wasted, he claimed. Later, Dr Fenech Adami echoed this admission by blandly accepting that his government had indulged in "interim" solutions. Sharp movement was now necessary, we were told, since the welfare problem was exacerbated by burgeoning expenditures in the public health sector.

So, the news was leaked to the press that the chairman of the welfare commission had submitted his draft/final/preliminary report. Kites were flown in the media about how the age of retirement would have to be quickly raised, to 65. No doubt, the resulting furore was foreseen. Trade unions, pensioners' representatives and employers' associations were encouraged to give their off-the-cuff reactions to the ideas being mooted.

Next, came news that the government - for which presumably read the finance minister - had finalised its draft decisions on how to change the welfare system, with special reference to pensions and to health. Reportedly, these were more stringent than the proposals made by the chairman of the welfare commission in his report. A brouhaha of sorts ensued. Some say it was engineered to get people to agree that radical decisions needed to be taken soon. But a number of organisations - business and trade unions - told the government it was necessary to contemplate action in a measured way, not hurriedly.

The participants in the Council for Social and Economic Development were summoned to a weekend in Gozo where they discussed, with the finance minister, welfare "reform" proposals that to date have not been published. Expectations built up that a consensus on welfare "reform" would emerge in the course of this meeting.

Well, no: it was discovered that there was another report in the pipeline, this time drawn up by the World Bank. So, according to journalists, there will be minimal moves on welfare "reform" in the coming budget till the World Bank report arrives. We shall see. In any case, expectations have been keyed up and, if something is to be attempted, public opinion will have presumably been softened up.

Regarding whether any meaningful action will follow, that is a different matter. Anyway it goes, you can count on one sure thing. The r-word word will be pronounced lots of times.