The Nationalist Party this week announced that it will be revamping its Environment Policy, proposing that any development in Outside Development Zones should only be approved with a two-thirds majority in a parliamentary vote.

The PN said that it was fully aware of its transgressions against the environment in the past, when drawing up its proposals. This is a very important facet of what the PN is proposing. It is only through contrition that the party can be taken seriously, even though it has a new leader at the helm and is re-inventing itself following its traumatic trouncing in the last general election.

But back to the matter at hand - ODZ development. The first issue that must be raised is the differences between when ODZ land should, or should not be touched.

A very large section of society kicked up a right stink when the current government proposed the building of a private commercial university on mostly ODZ land at Zonqor, limits of Marsaskala.

After a huge backlash, the government backed down in part and drastically reduced the footprint of ODZ land which would be passed on to the developers. People were still not happy.

They would be even more unhappy if a vast tract of ODZ land was given up for the construction of private villas or holiday complexes or hotels. We have precious little land left and such sites that are already blemished should be put to use before we resort to touching pristine land.

But we must also think about the inevitable. Malta is a small country and in the future, we will need big development to sustain our society. Some of the examples that come to mind are hospitals, energy generation plants, schools and other infrastructural projects such as much needed roads and other transportation methods.

It would be foolish to think that we can say “no development on ODZ land, ever”. But what we can do is make sure that there are checks and balances, such as the PN’s proposal of a two-thirds majority vote in parliament. One would hope that despite the filibustering, sabre rattling and threats, our House of Representatives does not lose sight of what they are actually doing in parliament, and that is representing our views according to how people voted on each party’s electoral manifesto.

A balance must be struck, and if it is indeed deemed necessary to have to use up portions of ODZ land to accommodate a project which will improve a sustainable quality of life, then yes, the matter should be put to parliament for a reasoned and researched vote.

But equally, if a proposed project is frivolous and merely steeped in commercial interests, then the opposition of the day should also have the moral fibre to vote it out.

The proposal seems to have been met positively by stakeholders and the public at large. This newspaper also believes that t he implementation of such a proposal would also be beneficial, and the most important thing at stake here is that the proposal itself is beneficial to Malta and the people of Malta, not the government of the day.