That the ball has, at long last, been set rolling toward the country’s electoral reform is most welcome news, but there is still a lot more to be done, and urgently, over and above the first baby steps announced this week.

Tomorrow, Parliament will be given the first reading of a Bill to amend the General Elections Act so as to allow for a rolling electoral register, meaning that people who turn 18 up to the day before an election will automatically be eligible to vote. As such, and if passed through the House, those coming of age before an election will no longer need to worry about whether their names have been included on the twice-yearly elector register – in April and October − in time for the election.

The move is undoubtedly in the right direction and it will serve to eliminate such disenfranchisement when it occurs. And with the Opposition seemingly in agreement, the Bill stands a very plausible chance of becoming law in time for the next general election, whenever that may be.

The Labour Party has in fact long favoured the notion and had complained during last year’s divorce referendum that close to 3,000 18-year-olds had been disenfranchised from that vote when the Electoral Commission had chosen to base the May referendum’s list of eligible voters on the October register rather than that of April, the preceding month.

The Bill will also provide for voting at hospitals, but it is not expected to heed calls to make overseas voting possible at Maltese embassies abroad.

But when it comes to electoral reform, the most pressing issue is that of party and electoral financing, an issue that the Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) has long been calling on Malta to make good on.

And the good news is that a first reading on a party funding Bill is also imminent, and not a year, month, week or day too soon. But what that Bill will contain is just about anyone’s guess as matters currently stand, and it will be interesting, given the country’s deeply entrenched political duopoly, how both parties in Parliament debate the piece of draft legislation.

But one thing is certain; matters in the area undoubtedly need a good dose of transparency. Malta, according to GRECO, is among the worst offenders in this respect, and it has the longest way to go towards rectifying the situation as well. And as such, the Bill about to be presented should go an equally long way.

Malta is, in fact, one of just three Council of Europe member states – the others being Andorra and Denmark – out of a total of 46 members, that allow anonymous party and campaign financing.

Moreover, Malta does not require political parties or organisations affiliated to political parties to keep proper books and accounts, to specify all donations received in these accounts, or to make the accounts public – matters deemed essential for ensuring the transparency of party and election campaign financing. Malta does, however, provide that returns submitted by election candidates can be made public upon request.

With the prospect of an early general election looming over Malta since as far back as December, there is little doubt that the wheels of the electoral machine of both the country’s main political parties have been grinding away, campaign donations included.

A recent survey by Eurobarometer, the EU’s statistical arm, found that half of Maltese respondents felt that links between business and politicians were too close, while 66 per cent of Maltese felt that transparency was lacking when it came to party financing.

GRECO has called on its members states to ensure that structures be put in place where they are absent to guarantee transparency in political party and election financing by stamping out anonymous donations; introducing, through legislation, transparency when it came to the sources of party funding such as donations in kind, party membership fees and loans or sponsorships; publishing related financial information in an easily accessible and timely way; creating truly independent supervisory bodies to oversee such financing; and developing sanctions against corrupt practices that are effective, proportionate and dissuasive – all requirements that Malta does not meet as matters currently stand

There is undoubtedly a long way to go and it is hoped that the Bill to be presented to the House realistically tackles these issues, which affect the country’s democratic institutions at their very root.