The slogan 'a government that listens' is one that is often used by Labour Party exponents.

There is a difference between listening to the radio in the background and just drowning it out and actively listening, forming decisions based on what one hears.

The support given during Covid is an example of the government listening and taking decisions based on what it hears. Sadly, however, there have been major issues where the government either just does whatever it wants despite public outcry, or had to change its actions only after immense public pressure left them really no other choice.

An example of a U-turn by the Prime Minister was over the call for a public inquiry into Jean Paul Sofia's death. The reluctance to call one was only changed due to massive public outcry. The change in economic direction, from a focus on growing the economy based on population numbers to trying to control the situation only really took off when situations like traffic and property prices are major issues, and after the MEP and local council elections, where the gap between the two parties shrunk.

Examples of some areas where the government is not taking action despite calls include calls to give local councils more autonomy, and calls for reform to prevent the execution of a planning permit once an appeal is filed until after that appeal is decided.

A prime example of where the government is actually not listening at all is the rushing through of a reform which will negatively impact the ability for members of the public to call for a magisterial inquiry. The government's proposal is not in the public interest... not at all. But the Prime Minister is ignoring the calls from so many sectors to stop moving forward with the bill.

This newsroom published an analysis of the bill last Sunday. One of the major points of contention is that prior to this reform, a citizen could file a request for a magisterial inquiry directly with a magistrate, who then decides accordingly whether there is enough evidence for such an inquiry to be launched.  That will no longer be the procedure once the bill passes, as a new procedure will be introduced whereby people would first need to file a report with the police. Given the seeming inaction by the police on major government scandals in the past, such as the Panama Papers and the hospitals deal, this reform leaves much to be desired.

Professor of law Kevin Aquilina went as far as describing the reform as the "fatal torpedoing of the rule of law."

The bill also increases the level of proof needed for a magisterial inquiry. The Malta Independent on Sunday's analysis reads that this reform introduces a higher level of proof for citizens who request an inquiry to have to reach: the "balance of probabilities."  This essentially means that in order for a citizen's request for a magisterial inquiry to be ultimately accepted, the citizen needs to prove that it's more likely than not that the crime being alleged took place, the analysis concludes.

How is a citizen supposed to do the job of an investigator without the powers needed to conduct said investigation?

The sole reason why so many magisterial inquiries were instituted by activists over the past years is because the police were not being seen to be doing their job on high level corruption cases. Instead of damaging a tool that has proved to a fantastic safeguard for the rule of law, perhaps the government should act in the interest of what is right and ensure that there is no need for such investigations in the first place by ensuring everything the government does is transparent, open, in the interest of the public and not done controversially. If everything is done correctly, then there is nothing to hide.

Let's be honest about this reform, it is not to improve the rule of law or protect citizens' rights. It is being done to protect the people government, and those close to them.