The Nationalist Party has often been accused of changing its mind quickly. The Labour Party has been very much in the forefront in pointing out times when the PN says one thing one day, and then says the opposite the next or else puts forward a different interpretation or idea.

Last week, the PN came up with one other moment which created some confusion. This time, it was not picked up by the PL. Probably there was a reason for this – the PL does not really like to speak about Malta’s grey listing by the Financial Action Task Force.

But the real issue in this case is not the lack of reaction from Labour. It is what the PN said that is worth delving into, particularly because of the fuss it had created and continues to create – rightly so – about the need for Malta’s institutions to work, and work properly.

It was a rather confusing statement.

For many months, the PN has criticised the laissez-faire attitude by Malta’s institutions, the shortcomings in due diligence processes, and the way the government adopted an attitude which facilitated wrongdoing. It insisted that in Malta anything goes and that a culture of impunity had touched all sectors of society, starting from Castille downwards.

Last week, then, the PN spoke about what it described as “exaggerated processes” of due diligence which have become longer and more detailed, and which are affecting businesses as well as foreign investors.

The statement is confusing because, on the one hand, the PN for many months advocated more serious due diligence processes; on the other hand, now it is complaining that the due diligence process is “exaggerated”.

Does the PN want due diligence processes or not?

The PN was trying to bring out the fact that Malta’s grey-listing has added a substantial burden. But by speaking of “exaggerated” processes, the PN was belittling its own campaign of seeking to have better due diligence processes.

The level of scrutiny which companies have to face while registering with the Malta Business Registry has become much greater, with the due diligence becoming much more detailed, the PN’s chief spokesperson Peter Agius said. Agius added that in the case of companies, one must conduct due diligence on every director.

But, isn’t scrutiny a good thing? Wasn’t it the lack of scrutiny that was worrying and which contributed to Malta’s image deteriorating over a number of years? So why mount a campaign for better scrutiny and, now that it is happening, complain about it?

The PN cannot afford to make such mistakes. It is still trailing heavily in the polls, and the last thing it needs as we approach the general election is to come across as being confused on what it wants, particularly on subjects which could help its cause.

Due diligence processes have to be thorough and comprehensive, and while every effort should be made for them to be smooth, at the same time efficiency should not be sacrificed for speed.