For decades, what journalists referred to as the "budget conclave" was an established feature of Malta's annual Budget Day. A few hours before the Finance Minister rose in Parliament to deliver the budget speech, journalists from different newsrooms would be invited to a confidential briefing, giving them an advance overview of the measures being announced. The information remained under embargo until the speech was delivered, allowing journalists to prepare their coverage without compromising the official announcement.
It was a practical arrangement that served both the government and the media. It enabled journalists to familiarise themselves with the principal measures, organise their reporting and prepare informed analysis of what is arguably the most important policy document published by the government each year. It also ensured that newsrooms were operating on an equal footing, with the same information available to everyone at the same time.
That is why the decision to abandon this established practice for Budget 2027 is so disappointing.
Instead of bringing all media houses together for a single briefing, the Office of the Prime Minister opted for individual meetings with selected newsrooms at different times. Some media organisations were invited, while others were left out altogether. The Institute of Maltese Journalists (IĠM) has rightly expressed its disappointment at this departure from the usual procedure, questioning why a system that had worked for years was replaced without any apparent justification.
The new arrangement raises legitimate questions. Why should some newsrooms receive information before others? What purpose is served by briefing journalists individually when a single meeting could provide everyone with the same information under the same conditions? And why were certain media organisations excluded, including the Nationalist Party's media?
Even if the intention was not to favour one newsroom over another, the outcome risks creating precisely that perception. Those briefed first have more time to prepare their coverage, while those called later are placed at an unnecessary disadvantage. Those not invited are left without the same opportunity to prepare before the budget is delivered.
Was this an attempt to stagger information and give different newsrooms different insights into the budget? Or was it simply a case of disorganisation? Neither possibility reflects well on the government. If the change was deliberate, an explanation is warranted. If it was the result of poor planning, then the obvious solution is to return to a procedure that had already proved effective.
The conclave was not a favour granted to journalists. It was a sensible working arrangement that recognised the practical demands of covering a complex and lengthy budget speech. There was no evident reason why this year's budget required a different approach.
The episode also comes against a broader backdrop in which reaching ministers through official channels has become increasingly difficult, while requests for interviews continue to be ignored. Effective communication between government and the media is not merely a convenience for journalists. It is part of the process through which the public receives information about decisions that affect its daily life.
We hope this year's departure proves to be an isolated incident and that the traditional collective briefing returns next year. The government should work with the IĠM to restore an arrangement that is transparent, practical and fair to all newsrooms.
A system that served successive governments for decades should not have been discarded without good reason. If it was not broken, there was little justification for fixing it.