Archbishop Charles J. Scicluna's address on "Malta in 50 years" at last week's State of the Nation conference has a lot to unpack. The archbishop's speech is thought-provoking, and although I respectfully differ on some of his views - he failed to acknowledge, for instance, the unprecedented reforms relating to the rule of law and good governance that have taken place since 2013 - it raises some very pertinent questions which merit reflection and discussion. What follows is my sober assessment of it.

The questions

Scicluna asked what a child born today will see in Malta in five decades? What will "Maltese" mean? What language will that child speak? Will they feel part of a community, connected to a history and culture, or increasingly detached from them? He also spoke about an unhealthy overfamiliarity between politicians and big businesses.

The facts

Let's call a spade a spade. Malta has achieved unprecedented economic and social progress, largely thanks to Labour administrations since 2013. We have created jobs, raised living standards, and built a level of prosperity that earlier generations could barely have imagined.

Housing, for which I am now politically responsible, offers an example. Around 85% of Maltese families own their homes. That is a remarkable achievement. As Minister for Housing, I see every day the importance of ensuring that prosperity is measured not only by national economic figures but also by whether families can build a secure life. Labour has therefore invested in programs that help people become homeowners and improve their homes. The objective is simple: economic success must translate into a better quality of life and reach as many people as possible.

The future

But prosperity brings responsibilities. Charles J. Scicluna is right to ask whether a more prosperous Malta will necessarily be a better one.

The environment is perhaps the clearest test. There is widespread agreement that we can not leave future generations a country in which economic development has consumed the spaces that make Malta liveable. The decisions by the previous Labour administration to return Manoel Island and White Rocks to the public and to develop these and other sites as public spaces and national parks show that choices can be made differently.

The family

The same question applies to the composition of Maltese families and the role of our communities. Our country's changing demographics, including smaller families and an ageing population, raise difficult questions about how we support parents, children, and older generations. This must be framed within a society that has become increasingly different.

The economy

Our economy grew at an extraordinary rate, and the need for migrant workers became urgent if we were to sustain that growth. When Malta was a British colony, Maltese workers served the British and performed many of the menial jobs. Today, migrant workers are doing what we did before 1964, while Maltese workers have moved up the career ladder. Migration is a double-edged sword. It has always been so. People who come here bring skills, traditions, and experiences that can strengthen our country. But it also creates fear of the unknown and, at times, perceptions of a threat to our Maltese identity. We should welcome others while nurturing what makes us Maltese: our history, language, customs, beliefs, traditions, cultural heritage, and particular sense of community.

The language

The Maltese language deserves special attention. In a rapidly changing society, language is more than a means of communication. Protecting our language should not mean closing ourselves off. It should mean ensuring that Maltese remains a living language in everyday life, education, culture, and public life.

That is why the investment we had done in creating the Ċentru tal-Ilsien Malti under the headship of Dr Maris Camilleri is a step in the right direction. The programs Dr Camilleri are pushing forward are strong, robust and much needed in terms of resources for the Maltese language.

The background

In his speech, the archbishop raised concerns about the relationship among politics, business, the media, and institutions. This part of his speech drew the most attention, and some media outlets portrayed it as Scicluna's admonishment of the Labour government. Whether he meant it that way is anybody's guess - although that is not the point at the end of the day. 

Whatever the case, it is a given that undue familiarity between powerful business interests and political decision-making can undermine public trust.  I think one must not belittle the groundbreaking and much-needed institutional reforms introduced since 2013. It is very easy to speak about the rule of law. It's harder to act and deliver to improve it. That is what we have been doing and will keep doing.

The reforms

Before 2013, Dr Franco Debono, then a Nationalist MP, led a quasi- and absolutely justified backbench revolt to persuade his government to implement these reforms. Lawrence Gonzi, then Prime Minister, looked the other way. These include reforms to judicial appointments, reducing direct political control over the process; the requirement of a two-thirds parliamentary majority for the appointment of the President; the split of the dual functions of the Attorney General, the introduction of the Whistleblower's Act; regulation of party financing; the right to be represented by a lawyer during police interrogations; stronger safeguards around institutions; and the removal of the prescription for corruption offenses committed by politicians. Since 2013, Labour has put these reforms in place. I had the privilege of implementing many of these reforms when I was minister for justice and many more were implemented by my successors Dr Edward Zammit Lewis and Dr Jonathan Attard.

The track record

Certainly, these achievements should not be an excuse for complacency. As a government, we are deeply aware that institutions must continually earn trust and that we must remain willing to learn from mistakes and strengthen safeguards.

The same standard should apply to every institution, including the Church. The archbishop rightly acknowledges the need for institutions to earn public trust. That principle, as the Archbishop himself stated, must apply within the Church itself: confronting scandals transparently; protecting victims of horrible crimes and accepting accountability are essential if the local Church is to lead by example. I am sure that the local church leadership is aware that it cannot ask society and its political leaders to "walk the talk" while failing to do so itself.

The legacy

I strongly agree with the archbishop's assertion that our country's future will be judged not only by its economic prosperity and ever-growing GDP, but also by whether people still feel they belong here; whether the Maltese family is nurtured and strengthened; whether the Maltese language survives; whether our environment remains accessible and protected; and whether our institutions continue to command our citizens' trust.

The Labour government is aware of this. Malta Vision 2050 recognizes that today's choices cannot be separated from tomorrow's needs. Planning means bringing together economic success with environmental responsibility, a strong social care sector, stronger institutions, and a renewed sense of community.

We should be proud of how far we've come as a country. We should also acknowledge that much remains to be done. The response to the archbishop's speech and the pertinent questions he raised should not be defensive. No one is suggesting that Malta is perfect, but warts and all, we are a thriving and resilient nation. Our duty is to continue improving it and making it better for future generations.