As no doubt everyone is aware by now, this week the Labour Party marked its hundred days in office. It is a period that is often called “the honeymoon period”. But I wouldn’t call it that because it might imply that it is some kind of holiday for whoever is involved. However, it may be that during this short period people tend to dismiss blunders committed by the new administration emanating from a lack of experience rather than the inability to govern or to do things right.

I tend to disagree with this impression. Coming from the HR profession I believe that the probationary period is an extremely important period in which the employee should be properly assessed. An objective assessment would indicate whether or not that employee will be fit for purpose.

Assessing a government might be more complex but the same principles apply. It is very difficult for me to provide a totally objective assessment of the party in government, but there are facts that cannot be refuted or interpreted subjectively. I will give a few examples.

This is a government that seems to be in some sort of hurry. Very well, it has time-frames. However, it is already apparent that this is a government that is ready to push boundaries, at least until it creates a public outcry.

The Prime Minister’s granting of a waiver to ophthalmologist-MP Franco Mercieca is a case in point. Initially, the Prime Minister gave us the impression that, for him, ignoring the Code of Ethics was not such a big deal. He defended his decision until it became very evident that his waver had very serious implications. The person to whom the waver had been given was still performing run-of-the-mill surgical operations that could have been performed by any ophthalmologist and, to make matters worse, these interventions were being carried out in a private hospital and the person in question was being paid hundreds of euro.

When all this was uncovered by the Sunday Times of Malta and followed up by Il-Mument, the Prime Minister had no other choice than to put a stop to it.

I will say from the outset that, in my mind, the blame for this mess should be pinned on the Prime Minister simply because he was the one who allowed it to happen in the first place. For all I know, this could have been the carrot dangled in front of this well-known medical professional to tip the balance in favour of an affirmative answer for his candidature as a super-delegate.

Where’s the sensitivity?

In its first 100 days, this government has also shown dangerous insensitivity towards the environment. And, no, I am not referring to the impending detachment of the ‘environment’ from Mepa, with all the implications, but to a number of statements uttered by various exponents of the government, including the Prime Minister.

Let’s start with Dr Muscat’s long-time “dream” of increasing the surface area of our Islands through land reclamation. When this idea was mooted some weeks ago, environmentalists came out strongly against it because of the indiscriminate damage land reclamation causes to sea habitats. University marine and biology lecturer Alan Deidun was quoted as saying that the effects of dumping at sea, which is what reclamation entails, could spread widely. Astrid Vella of Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar reminded us that studies carried out by Mepa showed that land reclamation in sites close to shore caused unacceptable damage to marine life. True, one should give this government some time to come up with its studies on the subject, but the Prime Minister’s assertions on Bondiplus that this government will not let a gremxula (a Maltese wall lizard) ruin a project was, in my opinion, a very puerile comment which Dr Muscat should have avoided.

The same insensitivity is being shown by the government in its plans to build a 200MW power plant in Marsaxlokk. In a press conference held this week, the Nationalist Party has clearly shown that the Project Description Statement (PDS) for this project published by the government clearly shows that the proposed project will negatively affect the environment, apart from other implications. One of the options presented by government is to have a 300-metre, 15-storey vessel, possibly two, covering a good part of the present landscape. These vessels will be used to store the 180,000 cubic metres of gas which is three times the amount originally planned. What’s worse is that these vessels would require a sea depth of at least 12 metres. Since in most of this area the depth is just three metres, a lot of dredging will be needed. This will probably destroy the posidonia which lies in the area.

All this could be avoided if the government agrees to carry out the necessary studies, including a full Environment Impact Assessment, so that an informed decision is taken and an environmental disaster avoided. This is the only sensible way forward.

Charló Bonnici is Opposition spokesman for climate change, the environment and sustainable development

[email protected]