Achieving, learning and moving forward

Finance Minister John Dalli's portfolio put him in the limelight, but having to deal with issues that affect people's pockets does not necessarily endear you with the public. He explained to Vanessa Macdonald he has never shied away from decisions, even if they were difficult ones.

If elected leader, and eventually become prime minister, will you change the Cabinet and how extensively?

There is going to be a new president, a new prime minister and the foreign minister will be appointed EU commissioner, so there will be a lot of vacant posts in the Cabinet. That gives the opportunity for a drastic change.

We have to analyse the qualities of the parliamentary group and then decide.

Many of your backbenchers are still inexperienced. Would you have enough resources to put a good Cabinet together?

So was I in 1987. As soon as I got elected, I was given Cabinet responsibility as parliamentary secretary of industry. Although experience is important, quality is far more.

How do you rate your performance as minister, on a scale of 1 to 10? What did you do well and where did you fail?

I don't like to rate myself. As a minister, both in economy and in finance, I restructured the whole economy. I delivered liberalisation, a freer market economy, a balanced economy that also takes care of financing the social welfare base of the country, and I believe that, all in all, my performance has been good.

I renovated bureaucracy, introduced the financial services sector, removed protection from industry straight from the day I was elected, lifted exchange controls, removed the need for half the population to fill in a tax return at the end of the year. I also improved the efficiency of revenue collection to a great extent.

So you didn't fail in anything?

There were mistakes, however, I learnt from them and I believe that any mistakes made were eventually corrected.

Such as...?

For example, 1994, where basically we reformed taxation before actually getting other revenue in. I was expecting VAT to generate a lot of revenue for the government. Eventually, VAT was embroiled in a political issue which hampered its operation. This then created the problems we had in the government budget.

So even when you failed, it wasn't your fault?

No, no. As a politician, I should have ensured that other revenue was being generated before tax was relaxed. It was a timing issue.

What criteria do you think the delegates will use when choosing who to vote for? Do you think it will be character, performance or will they remember favours and slights from the past?

I am pleased to say that they are being objective. They are analysing the candidates, their vision, their delivery, their leadership qualities and their potential to deliver a good economy, a sustained welfare society and an electoral victory in four year's time.

The Labour Party has often tried to implicate you in corruption, whether hinting at backroom dealings in the hospital contract or criticising the rushed sale of Mid-Med to HSBC. Has any of the mud stuck and, if so, how will you fight it?

None of the mud stuck because all decisions were taken in the best national interest. Although Labour investigated my decisions when they were in government they came out with a blank. The decisions I took, in both cases, I would take again, because they were the right ones at the right time. The sale of HSBC gave Malta good standing in the financial world and generated a lot of business. And the hospital contract was, I believe, the most transparent operation that one could imagine.

You are going to great lengths to portray yourself as a decision-maker. Many of the country's problems are the results of decisions which have not been taken in spite of all the PN years in power...

It is the media that labelled me a decision maker, I am not complaining. In life there is always something left to be done. I have taken decisions, even when I knew they would not put me in the best possible light with the public.

It doesn't mean that we have taken all the decisions that have to be taken, which is why we need a decisive leader to be at the helm.

Why did you say you would step down after 10 years?

I feel that 10 years is long enough to complete a programme.

During my professional life I never stayed more than five years in the same position. That gives freshness to the new positions I have always taken up. And in a normal country a leader should hand over to others after a certain period of time.

Is this not-so-subtle criticism of Eddie Fenech Adami?

Not at all. I think he should not have stepped down. I do not see how he could have in 1987 when we entered government. Or in 1996 when European adhesion was at risk. The country was in turmoil, fighting for its freedom. He got us freedom, and then set up the institutions, and we needed his firm hand and his continuity to take us to our ultimate goal, which was to join the EU.

With his capability for choosing the right moment, he saw that he has now accomplished what he wanted and he is passing on the baton to someone else. That is how much of a gentleman he is.

You recently published a 46-page booklet outlining your vision. Is this in line with the elected government's manifesto? If so, why did you bother, and if not, then what about the government's mandate?

We have an enabling manifesto, which does not go into any details of operations. What I published is information for the councillors to know who I am and what I think. If we respect their intelligence, I think we owe that to them.

When I speak to councillors, I do not ask for commitment. I want them to think and decide objectively in the interest of the party. I am pleased to note that other contenders are taking some leaves out of this booklet and making them theirs. This shows it is a compilation of good ideas.

They are not just choosing the next leader but also the next prime minister. Do you feel it is acceptable for this to be the delegates' decision?

Yes, the electorate voted for a party and the programme will continue. Our system is for the leader of a particular party to be the prime minister. This is why the choice has to be taken in the interest of the party because the prime minister has to deliver for the party to face the electorate in four years' time.

Since it is possible to split the leadership and the post of prime minister, could the prime minister not have done this a year ago, to give the choice to the electorate and not to 800 delegates?

This is a question you should pose to the prime minister.

There will be an interim period when the winner would be party leader, minister and prime minister in waiting. Will that be quite frustrating, if not distracting?

Absolutely not. It is a God-send. I would use that time to study my colleagues better so that when I have to take decisions on the Cabinet they will be the right ones.

It would be a problem to decide from the day I was elected leader as, I can confess, it was never in my character to pry into people's affairs more than I needed to. I don't know some of them well enough - and it would be unfair for me to take rash decisions if I don't know what their capabilities are.

You said recently that you had 40 per cent of the delegates' votes. Is that a strategy which could backfire?

My findings are based on what councillors think not what the man in the street wishes. My findings indicate that 70 per cent of councilors had decided whom to back and this according to independent assessors and analysis that I have made personally. Forty per cent of those decided for me. It now appears that my support has edged forward.

Other surveys could backfire.

If you lose in the first round which of the other contenders would you back?

I think I would leave a free vote to any person who has backed me. I believe in the councillors' freedom to choose and I would not sway from that, even in the second round.

If you lose, what role do you see yourself occupying?

One has to see in the circumstances. One does not become minister by application. One gets chosen by the prime minister and is given a portfolio. So I would have to be comfortable with the portfolio and I have to be chosen in the first place.

So would you consider leaving politics?

I am saying what I am saying. That I will first have to be chosen minister and would then have to consider the portfolio offered.

If you win, who would you choose as deputy?

There would be no question of choice, as Lawrence Gonzi would not need to step down. I work very well with him.

Profile

Age: 55

Political career: Entered politics in 1981 and was elected in 1987, 1992, 1996, 1998 and 2003. He was appointed parliamentary secretary for industry in 1987 and in 1990 was minister for economic affairs. He was finance minister between 1992 and 2003, adding the economic portfolio after the last election.

Status: Married to Josette Callus. Two daughters: Claire and Louisa.