Sant insists on single package of changes for local, national elections

Opposition leader Alfred Sant yesterday insisted once more that the House should enact one packet of legislative changes on the holding of local and general elections.

He said in parliament that the opposition and the government agreed that the term of local councils should be extended to four years.

But it made no sense to improve this aspect of the local councils without tackling the more serious issue of national elections. In that area too, there was a convergence of ideas that there should be strict proportionality between the votes won by the political parties and representation in parliament.

But this issue could not be delayed any further. The Labour Party was insisting that proportionality should be calculated on the basis of first count votes won by each party and, he agreed, the issue should also be linked to other matters, such as governability.

If there was good will, there was no reason why rapid progress could not have been made on all these issues together.

In this way one would, once and for all, end the arguments on electoral boundaries.

Dr Sant was the last opposition speaker during the debate on the Local Councils (Amendment) Bill.

He also insisted that the bill should include amendments regarding the Local Councils Association because, he said, it was manifestly unfair that although there was a majority of Labour councillors throughout Malta and Gozo, Labour was in a minority in the association.

This was not an issue which needed any further discussion and the opposition would move its own amendment when the bill was debated in committee stage. And unless the situation was remedied, the MLP would raise the issue elsewhere and would also be prepared to set up an Association of Labour Councillors.

Replying, Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg said he could not agree that the matter over the term of office of the councils should be linked to other matters.

Dr Sant was acting in the same way as the Labour government had acted in 1987 when, after staying in government up to the very last day after winning a majority of seats in parliament without a majority of votes, the MLP government linked its amendment on majority rule to constitutional amendments on neutrality, non-alignment and foreign interference.

It was worth noting, however, that what Dr Sant was calling for with regard to proportionality were changes to what Labour itself had moved in 1987 when it had been prepared to grant only a one-seat parliamentary majority to the party which won a majority of votes. And the problem the MLP government had in 1996 was not that it only had a one-seat majority, but that one of its MPs did not vote with the government. The PN had also had a one-seat majority between 1987 and 1992, but it lasted the term.

The government, Dr Borg said, was prepared to hold talks on proportionality and other aspects of the (national) electoral system, but this had nothing to do with the term of office of the local councils.

The government had not included changes to the term of office of the councils in this bill because it had wanted agreement with the opposition, and because the changes would have come too close to the elections due on March 12. He feared that once the 2005 local elections were held, changes to the term of office would never happen because for the coming few years there would still be elections every year and hence, no savings.

As for the Local Councils Association, it was worth pointing out that the Labour government of 1996 had not felt the need to change anything. The association was formed by the councillors who voted for its officers. This was not an issue of locality boundaries. So what was Labour proposing, to give weighting to particular votes? This issue had also been discussed with the MLP and there was agreement, but nothing happened because in that case too, there were some who linked the issue to other matters.

In his speech, Dr Sant said this bill showed how the government lacked a vision for local councils. This was basically a technical bill which said nothing about how the councils could generate a community spirit, social cohesion and a sense of identity within each locality.

But how could the PN promote a sense of cohesion when the deputy mayor of Safi, a PN councillor, had shown himself to be a fascist and taken part in activities of the far right? He even used the pseudonym OperazzjoniC3, which was the World War II plan for the fascist invasion of Malta. The PN had known about this for a long time, but had done nothing, claiming he had apologised.

This, Dr Sant said, had to be linked to what happened in 1996 when the PN used Hitler to promote its activities, later saying this was a joke.

Dr Sant said there was need for serious proposals for the local councils to have the strength, responsibilities and profile to be effective in environmental and social affairs while promoting social cohesion.

But this bill showed that the government was not interested in all this but only in using the councils as a screen for its own inaction.

There was nothing in the bill on how local councils should work on a regional basis. The Labour Party's initiative to promote regional cooperation among the councils of Cottonera had shown the potential that could be realised when one instilled the sense of working together.

Other issues also needed to be tackled. There has been cases, in Gozo for example, where persons voted in one locality, then moved house and voted in another locality in the following year. Did it make sense for some people to be able to vote practically every year?

In his winding up, Dr Borg said no legal amendments were needed for local councils to work in a regional manner. Several councils were already taking regional initiatives.

The minister said that the bill was introducing a system on the election of mayor and while everyone agreed on what was being proposed, certain difficulties were brought up, including that an independent candidate could obtain the highest amount of votes.

In terms of this bill, a mayor would be automatically elected only when a party won an absolute majority of the council seats. If this did not happen, it would be up to the councillors to elect a mayor.

A problem could arise if an independent candidate on his own obtained more than 50 per cent of the votes but, obviously, did not have a majority of the council seats. But a popular independent candidate could always get other people to stand for the election with him.

Councillors could still bring down a mayor with a vote of no confidence, but councillors moving such a motion would also know that their move would be going against the wish expressed by voters.

Referring to Dr Sant's point that there were people who were voting in different localities, Dr Borg said such a possiblity existed, but it did not appear to be a major trend. It was not something easy to control. But if there was evidence that this was developing into something dangerous he would see what could be done, but this did not seem to be the case.

Referring to comments by Joe Brincat (MLP), Dr Borg said the government was not saying that every civil marriage would be presided by the mayor but that mayors would be able to preside civil marriages.

The bill was then unanimously given a second reading.