Malta’s parliamentarians will be brushing the metaphorical sand from their shoes and the dust off their pre-summer recess notes in preparation for the resumption of Parliament tomorrow.
And while the next stretch of debates is expected to be a lively one indeed, it is hoped that the debate at large will not follow in the tracks of political debates past, the tones of which have often left much so much to be desired in terms of the country’s political maturity.
Last week, this newspaper asked the prime minister and the leader of the opposition for their priorities for the resumption of Parliament.
Both, predictably, pointed, respectively, to the issues of the country’s socio-economic development on the one hand and improving the people’s standard of living on the other – issues that will undoubtedly become a recurring theme in and after this autumn’s budget speech.
Regularising the country’s laws on gaming establishments, given the recent crackdown on gaming outlets across the country, is expected to feature in this first week of debates, and that will be followed by a debate on Malta’s addressing of climate change.
Related to that will be the parliamentary motion on the extension of the Delimara power station – another hot topic and one that will now be placed on Parliament’s agenda following the opposition’s parliamentary motion ‘condemning’ the minister responsible for selecting the extension’s supplier.
Budget 2010, which could be expected to be announced sometime in the three weeks between mid-October and the beginning of November, will, as per tradition, be another contentious issue, perhaps more contentious than usual.
The government is seemingly in no position to give the public any sweeteners in the form of tax breaks and the like, being otherwise engaged in the dire necessity of reining in the quickly rising deficit, which has been rising still further since the European Commission began an Excessive Deficit Procedure against Malta. At the time, the deficit was at 4.7 per cent of gross domestic product, now the figure is closer to six per cent, as against the EU’s three per cent threshold.
Balancing the two will not be an easy task, but now is the time, being the second budget of the five-year legislature, for a harsh budget. But the harsher the budget, the more ammunition for the opposition.
The government, we are told, will prioritise the country’s competitiveness, increase job creation and safeguard existing jobs. The opposition, meanwhile, could be expected to retread much of the ground covered in its inflation seminar, which provided some good food for thought, any other food for regurgitation.
But as opposed to the consistently confrontational tones, and it is agreed there is much to be confrontational about in the way the country is being run, what is needed for the country’s betterment is constructive political dialogue. To note just two examples from the political arena, the opportunity to foster fruitful dialogue was completely lost in the parliamentary immigration debate called for by the opposition, and in the European Parliament election – both chances for the country’s politicians to rise above the usual crass political discourse, but, unfortunately, both chances were utterly lost.
On another note, too little importance is given to parliamentary proceedings – on the parts of both the public and the media itself. The media tends to cherry pick what it feels will interest its readers, listeners and viewers and neglects a great deal of important issues that crop up in the House.
The public too pays too little heed to the way the country is being run, but then again complains consistently without being informed enough. Indeed, both the public and the media need to do a better job of it, and in the process hold our parliamentarians accountable for their arguments and decisions taken in the people’s name.