In the evening session’s adjournment, Rural Affairs and Environment Minister George Pullicino said although the opposition launched a tirade against the bill, none of the speakers proposed a solution to the problems they pointed out.
The Labour MPs were all doubtful about where the money collected from the eco-contribution would eventually end up. In his address, Mr Pullicino gave a breakdown of how the money will be spent. “The government’s only mission is to take difficult decisions for the present and future generations,” said the minister. Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi spoke during the morning parliamentary session, as did MLP spokesman Josè Herrera.
There seems to be an agreement on the principles surrounding the eco-contribution bill, the prime minister said, referring to the importance of the environment and that polluters should be the ones to pay most for waste management. He said that it was not possible, however, to keep bending the principles to accommodate different people’s needs.
He rebutted the criticisms levelled against the bill by the Opposition, saying they are not offering any concrete alternatives. He accused them of taking political advantage of the situation. “The idea that we came up with this bill just recently... in a panic, is simply a publicity spin,” he said, reminding that the bill was first mentioned in last November’s budget speech. The budget speech spoke clearly of the introduction of an eco-
contribution, drawn along the lines of the ‘polluter pays’ principle, he insisted, and it outlined the reasons for it too, namely to help sustain waste management. It even gave a list of the items to be taxed, he pointed out.
“We started working on its implementation immediately.” The government had engaged entrepreneurs, from the bottling industry particularly, in discussions over a collection scheme shortly after the budget, he said, in order to give the private sector a say in the matter. Unfortunately the talks did not produce a solution, he continued, saying that it was unjust to say the government did not consult anyone.
In his conclusion, Dr Gonzi, amplifying his opening comments, said that the Opposition had no solution to the issue. He likened the stance taken by the Opposition on the matter to the attitude he had taken over the Maghtab landfill. Regarding the Maghtab landfill, he said the only solution the Opposition had was to continue dumping on the site. People should take note of these empty publicity spins, he said.
Dr Josè Herrera spoke straight after the prime minister. He said that the argument, made by speakers on the government’s side, that the Opposition should not criticise the bill simply because it was already mentioned in the budget speech, did not make sense, insisting that on the contrary they had every right to do so.
Furthermore, he said, almost everyone was against the bill and not just the Opposition. Even environmentalists such as Graffitti, known for their radical position, spoke against the bill because it was discriminatory. He added that that was precisely why the Opposition was against it – because the taxation it contemplated was discriminatory and would hit people in the low income bracket badly. Regarding the prime minister’s argument that the environmental reform was referred to in the last budget speech, Dr Herrera said such reference was made in every budget speech for the past 10 years. This does not mean that people expected a tax to be introduced. The tax could have just been announced during the budget, he said, instead of leaving it for later and trying to disguise it under the term contribution.
Speaking during yesterday evening’s parliamentary session, Opposition leader Alfred Sant said this extensive debate on the eco-contribution is a charade. There was no consultation and the bill was drawn up irresponsibly.
“People are playing with arguments without actually addressing the root of the problem.” Dr Sant said there is no coherent environmental policy that attacks the problem at the source. A tax based on the ‘polluter pays’ principle would be implemented at the stage at which an item becomes waste and thus is polluting the environment. Instead the eco-contribution proposed works the opposite way and taxes the item when it is sold.
He echoed other Labour MPs in saying that this bill was simply a way for the government to try to deal with the increasing deficit and to block the financial hole it finds itself in.