Prime Minister Robert Abela wants the country to believe that the controversy surrounding the Bill establishing a National Commission for Human Rights and Equality is simply another case of the Nationalist Party opposing progress. His description of the PN as "anti-equality" may make for an effective political slogan, but it bears little resemblance to the reality.

Had the Nationalist Party been the only voice objecting to the Bill, the Prime Minister might have had a point. Governments and oppositions have always clashed over legislation, and accusations of obstruction are part and parcel of political life.

But that is not what has happened here.

The government is not facing resistance from one political party. It is facing opposition from an unusually broad cross-section of Maltese society. Employers, business organisations, trade unions, professional bodies, Church schools, insurers, pharmacists and a long list of NGOs have all called for the government to stop, consult, and reconsider before pressing ahead.

These organisations have little in common. They often disagree on issues of public policy and rarely speak with one voice. Yet, on this occasion, they have arrived at remarkably similar conclusions. They are questioning not only aspects of the Bill itself but, above all, the government's determination to rush it through Parliament without adequate consultation.

That fact alone should have given the government pause.

Instead, it chose to reduce every criticism to partisan politics.

That is unfair not only to the Opposition but also to every organisation that has taken the trouble to study the legislation and publicly explain its concerns.

It is particularly telling that several of the NGOs calling for the vote to be postponed are organisations that have spent years working in the field of human rights. These are hardly bodies that can be dismissed as being hostile to equality. On the contrary, many have made it clear that they simply wanted the opportunity to examine the Bill properly and provide technical input before Parliament took its final decision.

Likewise, employer organisations have not argued against human rights or equality. They have argued that legislation of such constitutional and societal importance deserves proper consultation, particularly through the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development.

The Malta Chamber of Commerce has said much the same thing. UHM has called for wider consultation. The Church Schools Association has expressed concerns over constitutional implications. The Insurance Association has identified practical issues affecting its sector, while the Chamber of Pharmacists has raised questions regarding professional conscience.

Whether one agrees with every one of these arguments is beside the point.

The point is that they exist.

When so many respected institutions independently conclude that legislation deserves more scrutiny, a responsible government listens. It does not accuse everyone of being against equality simply because they refuse to rubber-stamp its proposals.

Governments confident in the quality of their legislation should have nothing to fear from consultation. If stakeholders have misunderstood certain provisions, ministers have the opportunity to explain them. If genuine weaknesses are identified, Parliament has the opportunity to improve them. That is how good legislation is made.

Instead, the government appears to have viewed every request for consultation as an inconvenience standing in the way of a political timetable.

That is the wrong approach.

No government has a monopoly on wisdom. No minister drafts perfect legislation. That is precisely why consultation exists.

To be fair, there is one point that can be made in the government's favour. Much of the opposition to the Bill emerged only in the days, and in some cases the hours, before Parliament was due to vote. Some organisations could undoubtedly have spoken sooner. Earlier engagement might have allowed concerns to be addressed without bringing matters to the brink.

But that does not change today's reality.

Once it became evident that such a broad coalition of organisations was asking for more time, the sensible course of action was to postpone the vote and reopen discussions. Instead, the government chose confrontation over consensus. It went ahead with the vote, which it ultimately lost because it did not obtain the required approval of two-thirds of the House.

That decision has left it looking increasingly isolated.

The irony is that the government could easily have turned this into a success. By accepting a delay, inviting further submissions and refining the legislation where necessary, it could have emerged with a Bill enjoying broad support across society. Instead, it chose to portray legitimate criticism as political sabotage.

That is a mistake.

Robert Abela is perfectly entitled to disagree with the objections being raised. He is equally entitled to believe that the Bill should proceed unchanged.

What he cannot credibly do is pretend that the only people objecting are the Nationalist Party.

The evidence says otherwise.

This is no longer a dispute between government and Opposition. It has become a dispute between the government and a growing list of organisations that believe legislation of this importance deserves more discussion before becoming law.

The Prime Minister should stop trying to score political points by branding opponents as "anti-equality". That argument has been overtaken by events.

When criticism comes from every direction, the mature response is not to attack the critics.

It is to listen.