The MLP motion
That in the parliamentary sitting of 30 May 2006, Minister Austin Gatt admitted that because the government has a majority of five MPs, it could break the law and could retroactively ratify the violation.
Such a statement, the MLP said, constituted an abuse of power and denigrated the highest authority in the land, rendering parliament a rubber-stamping institution.
Such action did not respect the constitutional conventions and the basic principles of democracy, and was an insult to the people that believe that parliament is an institution that should be respected. This was unacceptable to the Opposition.
The motion urged the House of Representatives to condemn the arrogance of Minister Gatt and called upon the prime minister and all MPs to condemn Minister Gatt’s actions. It also called for the minister’s resignation.
What was widely perceived to be an absolute waste of the House of Representatives’ time turned out to be exactly that yesterday with 10 hours of mind-numbing tit-for-tat exchanges with only a few relevant speeches.
The issue revolved around the Malta Labour Party’s motion for the removal of Industry, Investment and IT Minister Austin Gatt from office, which predictably did not go through by a 34 to 30 vote.
The morning and afternoon sessions were more or less taken up by all MLP speakers calling for his removal because his arrogance was filtering into other ranks of the government, while PN speakers pointed to the sizable achievements made by Dr Gatt. Perhaps the one speaker of note was former Minister John Dalli who expressed his disgust at the way parliamentary debates are held here in Malta, branding them as being outdated and “from our grandparents’” generation.
Lawrence Gonzi (PN)
“I have never heard such a strange motion in all my time in parliament. The real threat to democracy is not the PN when you hear Opposition speakers say that our law courts are made up of a PN mob. That is a threat,” said Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi.
He said that in their motion, the MLP said that the PN had broken the law. “Yet in discussions today, we have heard MLP speakers say that no laws were broken. The motion in itself is full of lies and then they tell us to respect parliament.”
Dr Gonzi said the way things were done by Austin Gatt was simple procedure. “Dr Gatt even said that while he negotiated the agreement, the PN fully agreed that the issue would then go through parliament,” said Dr Gonzi.
He said the Opposition presented a motion and no one substantiated anything. He added that Dr Gatt said the opposite of what the MLP claimed, branding the content of the motion as being pure fabrication.
“40 per cent of shares of Maltacom were sold during Dr Sant’s time as PM and we still don’t know to who. And then you talk about transparency?” he jibed.
He questioned the MLP’s wants and asked whether the Opposition expected that the government set down preconditions by going to parliament first.
“Is that what you want? Do you want us to put the conditions first? You worked in exactly the same way when you were in government. You can’t have two weights and two measures,” he said.
Dr Gonzi said that when he was trying to negotiate with Skanska, all he found was trouble from the MLP. “What would have happened if that was all in parliament? It’s common sense. First you negotiate then you approve in parliament. The government should be in the best position to negotiate and yes, of course, explain and be accountable after.”
He said that the MLP was indirectly saying that the electorate’s vote was arrogant. “The people gave us a majority of five,” he said.
“We ask you, we plead with you to give input, yet document after document that we publish, you never give feedback,” he said.
Dr Gonzi wound up: “10 hours to discuss fabrications and lies. This motion is a representation of MLP’s strategy of lies and doom and gloom. And I thank Dr Gatt for his contribution that the whole country will benefit from in the future through all his hard work.”
Alfred Sant (MLP)
Opposition Leader Alfred Sant countered and closed the session. “Our country is in crisis. The government is disconnected from the people completely. We have a crisis of credibility. We hear of SmartCity and all the fabulous projects the government is working on, yet the government and all institutions are paralysed. Parliament is a rubber stamp for the government which says ‘I have majority I can do what I want’,” said Dr Sant.
He said that many people in Malta were suffering as a result of the arrogant decisions being taken by the government. “Parliament exists for a reason and that is for people to know what is happening. The point of the issue is that the government steam rolls over everything and everyone,” he said.
Dr Sant said that the government accused the MLP of going off point in yesterday’s sitting. “They have too. I always try to not bring up the past. But what right do the PN have to portray to be the protectors of democracy?”
Things go back to 1930s and 1940s. Do they forget the ties they had then? Do they forget the obscene way they used to use the Church to press on MLP people in the 1960s? If you were Labour you are interdicted and dirty, said Dr Sant.
He said that the country’s administration was just deteriorating. “The arrogance is not just personal, it’s institutional. That is not a way to do things. It’s like medieval times. Arrogance breeds,” he said.
He accused Edwin Vassallo, Ninu Zammit, Tony Abela and George Pullicino of adopting the same attitude. “The government thinks it is made up of elites. All you have to do is listen to people to realise that.”
He mentioned various instances wherein the government has been faced with damning situations, yet nothing is ever done. “And this is supposed to be new politics,” he said.
In closing, Dr Sant had another go at Dr Gatt saying that various chairmen said they were treated like dirt. “And the worst was the Denim workers… people were fired and a couple of days later, when these people were worried sick, Dr Gatt came out and said he was ready to bet that all other (factories) will close soon. The government needs to be humble not arrogant,” he said.
John Dalli (PN)
Nationalist MP John Dalli said that in the infamous parliamentary sitting when all this came up, Dr Gatt had said that he was going to sign the agreement for the sale of land with the proviso of parliamentary approval. “Even the documents he presented before the discussion made it clear that he conditioned his acts to the decision of this parliament. But he also said he felt comfortable that his side of the house had five seats more than the other,” said Mr Dalli.
“Is this something that should be wasting a whole day of parliament time? Every minister does the same as Dr Gatt did in that situation. What is all this hullabaloo about?” he said.
He continued: “Ask people that were beaten in this parliament in the past about the other side’s respect for the House when they thought they could trample over people’s rights.”
Mr Dalli tried to drum some sense into the MPs: “We respect this parliament when we are responsible and we speak responsibly and we tell the truth. It is easy for people who have something to gain to simply hear things and repeat them in open session. It is very easy, but it is very irresponsible. It does no good for the country,” he said.
“Keeping such an issue as that of today dragging on is sheer indiscipline. How much was relevant to the motion of what we said today? People have talked about loads of things that were not even relevant. We need to be more focused and could do a lot better if we are responsible to ultimately improve the country,” he said.
Mr Dalli said: “We were not voted into parliament just to tear each other apart. We were voted in to be serious, to reflect the wishes of the people and to push forward what the people want.”
He concluded: “And what do people want? Do they want people shouting? Do they want an aggressive parliament – that in was our grandparents’ age. They want an intelligent and thinking parliament which can come up with solutions.”
Jose Herrera (MLP)
Labour MP Jose Herrera said that people’s perception was that parliament had become a simple government rubber stamp. “Political responsibility means that we should use more caution in the way we speak. Austin is not lazy, he’s a hard worker, but making a statement that can be misinterpreted that you can take parliament for granted because you have a majority is very dangerous. All he needed to do was explain what he meant properly and we would not have had to use up 10 hours like this,” he said.
Gavin Gulia (MLP)
Labour MP Gavin Gulia said that “Parliament is supreme. We must discuss things here first. This is the supreme institution and the respect it deserves was not given with the way this contract was signed. The government put the cart before the horse.
The government should have made a promise of sale on this issue which would have then been subject to conditions,” he said.
He continued: “The government could have done this and put guarantees in place to take the issue to parliament before was is passed through. It is simple arrogance to say that you have a majority of five and that it will go through anyway. What would have happened if there are people on the same side of the House that go against that position? That is why this is a political and legal mistake. The respect owed to parliament was not given.”
Michael Frendo (PN)
“This motion has nothing to do with parliament. When the motion was put forward the MLP said that Austin Gatt did not observe the law, but now they say he did. Dr Gatt simply worked to improve things in this country,” Foreign Affairs Minister Michael Frendo said.
He continued: “People know that Dr Gatt is a hard-working minister who has done a lot signing deals with the likes of Microsoft and Cisco to move forward in ICT and to have a modern knowledge-based economy. His tangible work can be seen. The Opposition is just clutching at straws to disrupt his work. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with respecting parliament,” he said.
In 1981 MLP took away people’s votes and a government without the support of the majority came to power. “That should be apologised for along with many other things that happened in the past. I hope that Dr Gatt, a dynamic person, carries on with his sterling work.”
Francis Zammit Dimech (PN)
“The simple way to do it is sort out an agreement, sign it, then ratify it in parliament. It’s crazy to think that you would first put it through parliament and then present the conditions to the buyer. Does such a straightforward case deserve this long drawn-out motion? Wasting time to discuss a lie made up by the Opposition? It’s the Opposition that does not respect parliament and not the government,” Tourism Minister Francis Zammit Dimech said.
He continued: “And I concur with Dr Frendo on the need for apology for what happened in 1981. But I can go back to only three years ago, to the referendum. The people said they wanted Europe, yet the MLP said the majority did not accept the fact. There is no seriousness and no credibility, there are no serious plans for anything either,” he said.
Evarist Bartolo (MLP)
“Parliament should not only be strengthened and respected, we must make it independent from the government, which would be in Malta’s interest. If parliament wants to take its role in a democratic society, it cannot be a rubber stamp but must be a place that works hard for the country’s benefit,” he said. “It is pathetic that we are still having to call for respect to be shown to our parliament,” he said.
Charles Mangion (MLP)
The first to speak at yesterday’s marathon sitting in the morning was MLP deputy leader for parliamentary affairs Charles Mangion. He asked what parliament was being reduced to – a talking shop or a serious debating forum that represented the people’s wishes? He referred to the parliamentary questions sessions where even answers of a sensitive nature were being postponed on a regular basis.
Dr Mangion said that there must be a distinction between the executive, the party and parliament but this government was reducing the House to a simple rubber stamp. Referring to the power surcharge problem, Dr Mangion said that the Malta Resources Authority remained numb on the issue until it was prodded by the government.
He said that the “tribal” feeling in the country was definitely not the type of politics that had been portrayed by the prime minister upon his election. The members of the House have to be accountable to the people, he added.
Dr Mangion said that it was becoming common that administrative procedures were moving forward with a certain type of arrogance. Referring to the rebuilding of roads, he said that everything is accepted as if nothing happens and no standards are being applied with the result that ultimately it is the people who suffer.
Dr Mangion also questioned what several authorities such as The Malta Environment and Planning Authority, the MMA and others were doing to protect the consumer as these were only there to save the government. He referred to the never-ending saga of the golf course, the new development zones and the port tariffs issue, where confusion reigned supreme.
Austin Gatt (PN)
Industry, Investment and IT Minister Austin Gatt explained that the whole issue had arisen with regard to land where Maltacom has property but where it does not hold any title over the land. He said that the government had conducted a due diligence exercise where it had resulted that those lands had been expropriated but the government had never paid original owners of the land and so it had no legal title.
Minister Gatt said that the documentation in relation to the privatisation process regarding Maltacom, which was laid on the table of the House of Representatives before the incident raised by Labour whip Joe Mizzi, had shown that the government had committed itself to do everything possible, including to seek parliamentary approval, to transfer the land to Maltacom.
He said that Labour whip Joe Mizzi had not even bothered to read the documents tabled on Maltacom when he raised his objections.
The minister said that when a Labour government had sold a 40 per cent stake in Maltacom in 1998 it had not informed the buyers that there were properties in the company’s name with no legal title. He also tabled a copy of the offering memorandum that the Labour government had issued in 1998 through which it had wanted to effect the sale.
It is clear that the Labour Party are ignoring their major shortcomings and that during their administration they had tried to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.
Dr Gatt said that the Labour government was unsure of parliamentary approval. On the contrary, the present government was confident that it could commit itself with third parties and, when asked, parliament would approve resolutions proposed by the government.
Dr Gatt said that the Labour government tried to avoid going to parliament to transfer land, and this contrasted sharply with the position it was taking now. On the contrary, the government had presented in parliament a copy of the documentation with the signing of the agreement with the Maltacom share buyers where it is written that the transfer of land is to be carried out only with parliamentary approval.
Leo Brincat (MLP)
MLP spokesman on foreign affairs and IT Leo Brincat said that disrespect to parliament had again been shown by Minister Austin Gatt who repeated his statement where certain guarantees could be given as the government had a majority of five MPs in the House. He said that the minister should have resigned after making such statements and treating the House with contempt and arrogance, especially during the PQ sessions.
The Labour MP said that Dr Gatt had total disrespect for everyone on both sides of the House and this was unacceptable. He said that the motion was well-timed and was only intended to restore dignity to parliament.
Marie Louise Coleiro (MLP)
Labour spokesperson for Social Affairs Marie Louise Coleiro said that it was important to distinguish between the legislative and the executive as if this was not the case, a democracy cannot function. She said that Minister Gatt ignored all the procedures of decency in parliament and, like the government, continued bulldozing over every social partner including the Opposition.
Ms Coleiro referred to the decision by the International Labour Organisation’s ruling on public holidays, the astronomical court tariffs, the Sea Malta issue and the surcharge question where the government showed that it did not want to listen.
Chris Agius (MLP)
Labour spokesperson for industry Chris Agius said that all MPs should respect parliament as an institution and show mutual respect towards each other, which was certainly not the case on Minister Gatt’s part. He also referred to several PQs that were either avoided or not answered at all by government ministers.
Mario Galea (PN)
Nationalist Party whip Mario Galea said that it was unjust for Labour MPs to say that their leader had been criticised as Dr Sant had his own record of personal attacks on PN sympathisers. He said that the power struggles in the Labour Party were being brought into parliament and creating a destabilising atmosphere.
In a clearly emotional mood, Mr Galea recalled the incidents that occurred in the 1980s when PN supporters were regularly beaten at a time when Dr Sant was president of the Labour Party. He said that the Opposition was stuck in the past and was wasting its time with ideas of the day before yesterday not like the PN government which had brought Smartcity and Lufthansa Technik, among other companies, to Malta.
Michael Farrugia (MLP)
In a heated exchange between Labour spokesman on health Michael Farrugia and Justice and Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg, the murder of Karen Grech was mentioned with the minister rising on a point of order asking for the Labour MP’s statements to be struck off the record. Speaker Anton Tabone had difficulty controlling the situation as Labour MP Joe Debono Grech also rose to have his word.
Dr Farrugia said that the government was continuing to lead in an arrogant manner and this had now become endemic in the administration. He said that the Nationalist Party had sent persons to plant bombs to destabilise the Labour government, a claim which was repeatedly denied by Minister Borg on a point of order.
Silvio Parnis (MLP)
Labour MP Silvio Parnis spoke about the smear campaign against him adding that he would continue soldiering on nonetheless in helping those who are in need. He said that it was not fair to state that if one had a majority in parliament then the government of the day could do what it wants.