Tuesday, 22nd April 2008 - 12:41CET
Government offers nomination of Speaker to the Opposition
The government offered the Opposition the possibility of nominating one of its own MPs as Speaker during a meeting on Monday between Dr Gonzi and Alfred Sant, who is still leader of the opposition.
The offer was part of a set of proposals made by Dr Gonzi after prior approval by the Nationalist Party.
The government in a statement today said the proposals were:
That the Speaker be appointed from the Opposition benches as long as both sides reach a pairing agreement. The Deputy Speaker and the chairman of committees would be chosen from the government benches;
Prime Minister's questions would be held once every two weeks;
In view of meetings of the Council of the European Union, Parliamentary sittings would be held on Tuesday mornings and afternoons and on Wednesday mornings with all voting taking place at the end of the Wednesday sitting. Parliament could hold other sittings as necessary;
With regard to the quorum required for sittings, the government suggested that sittings would be suspended only if not enough MPs are present in the House 30 minutes after a call for quorum is made, and such call can only be made only during Question Time;
Funding would be provided for 10 research officers, employed by Parliament, five for each parliamentary group;
The government said that Dr Gonzi and Dr Sant at their meeting on Monday also discussed the appointment of the Auditor-General and the Deputy Auditor General.
The government said that in view of the Opposition's statement late yesterday on parliamentary business, it appeared that the Opposition had unilaterally decided that the talks between Dr Gonzi and Dr Sant would not remain confidential and the government proposals were therefore being made public.
In terms of House rules, whenever the Speaker is a serving MP, he loses his original vote, but has a casting vote. Whenever a pairing arrangement is reached, Opposition MPs are 'paired' to government MPs so that if a government MP has to be away and cannot vote in the House because of official business, the opposition MP will also not vote. That preserves the government majority.
(See also: 'Opposition offers case-by-case pairing arrangement' in the news section)
RSS
Comments
1. Pairing is an informal agreement. it may last months or years.
2. It is usually the back benchers will most probably find it difficult to find a pairing MP .
3. Pairing should NOT BE ALLOWED when there is a division on Major Political Issues.
4. Proposing the opposition to select the speaker will put the govt at an adavantage because 2 MPs from the Govt side will not have a pairing MP.
5. If a future GOVT will have many more seats than opposition some MPs cannot be paired.
In view of the above I would ask Govt and Opposition:-
Is it possible to select a speaker and deputy speaker who are not MPs? but are approved by both sides of the house.
This will make pairing more fair.
Accurate about what ? ? ? !
people Like Me, GAVE OUR VOTES TO THE P.N ! LIKE OR NOT ,
ARE YOU DAY DREAMING FOR AN EARLY ELECTION ?
It was the mlp who should have been more accurate, before the P.N got the government
again, Again paring or not, the P.N again in Power is here to Stay. As our Prime Minister Dr Lawrence Gonzi, always said IVA FLIMKIEN KOLLOX POSSIBLI . U MELA MY FRIEND.
Oh no!
You uncovered us, the bunch of "diehard PN supporters using this blog to pressure MLP into conceding this effective bargaining chip". Typical Mintoffian mindset (ooops sorry! Which one? the salvatur or the traditur? ) on various counts. I mention two:
1. everything is calulated in terms of bargaining...do you recall that the famous neutrality clause (and the foreign interference) were a bargaining chip for democracy in 1987;
2. the dangerous use of computers. How wise were our leaders in the 1971-1987 paradise called Malta Socjalista to prohibit the import of computers.
I'm not a diehard PN supporter. Yes I support PN, but I respect myself more than my political inclination.
PS. What happened of the bidu gdid?
On the other hand,it should not be thrown away in exchange for a cosmetic concession like the Speaker's post. It is a powerful tool and should be used wisely. .
As for those PN supporters who are trying to pressure the MLP into conceding this effective bargaining chip in return for peanuts or else be considered as unreasonble, they will just have to live with it.
What most diehards MLP supporters on this blog have not realised is that MLP has not said NO to PAIRING. If they do say NO to PARING after the new leader is elected, MLP will further solidify its perpetual opposition status.
My hunch is that a new MLP leader will accept a pairing agreement. Then, all those who wrote violently against such an agreement in this blog will be praising the new leader.
And Maltese citizens will rekindle their hope that a New Beginning is possible within the MLP.
As Benigni would have it … Life is beautiful.
Please get your facts right.
I challenge you to show in the Parliamentary debates, the PN voting against what you're saying. Eg are you aware the the Widows and Orphans Pensions Ordinance was approved during the PN Government in 1927 (Prim Minister was Sir Ugo Mifsud). If you want one single social benefit, I can mention the Child in Care Benefit, the myriad of Social Work Services, the development of the services to persons with diabilities, etc, etc, etc. The difference is that while MLP tried to create dependence, PN strives to give wings to people.
Re pairing in 1996-98 you're wrong (again). There was a pairing agreement (and an MLP speaker too!!!)but it was withdrawn. Come on! Find out why and, if you're proud on the incident leading to its withdrawal, publish it. I'll give you a hint...it was during the debate on the famous CET laws.
Unfortunately I was around during the Mintoff & KMB 'paradise'. Sorry to disappoint you...I don't miss it and I don't want to live it again.
It would be better for the PN to hold a snap general election in two to four weeks' time to try and strengthen its governing base - come what may! Or else, devise a parliament session plan which would require the least amount of cooperation from the opposition, which after all it is not that much difficult to devise.
@wistin schembri
No i do not shame myself stating that the Fenech Adami Administration refused the paring agreement because of the anti EU stance labour adopted in 1996.
Lest we forget, maybe both of you wern't around at that time, the party you support was AGAINST and voted in parliament against:
the introduction of Children's allowance,
the introduction of Old Age Pension,
the setting up of Air Malta,
the acquisition of Mid Med Bank from Barclays Bank International,
the introduction of the minimum weekly wage,
the establishment of Bank of Valletta
the establishment of Sea Malta
the introduction of the 6 monthly Bonus
the gender equality,
the introduction of maternity leave,
heaps of parastatal entities which provided a livehood to a lot of people,
free plots of land engaged and married persons who were able to build their future homes on
subsidice of home loans to permit persons with relative low income purchase the house of their dream
the introduction of countless other social benefits turning Malta into a welfare state to the great envy of neibghouring countries.
Malta being proclaimed a Republic, 7 PN members of parliament voted against.
Need I continue, Now tell me of 1 single social benefit that your beloved PN introduced in their tenure of office.
Finally, in the early nineties, my children's allowance was disallowed because our take home money was a little over Lm7000 at that time. How's that for social justice.
And Yes, We are Labour, nobody can take that away from us, and that's how we will remain, LABOUR.
the MLP has every right - whatever may be written here - not to consider a pairing agreement. By not accepting a pairing agreement, the MLP would be putting pressure on the Gonzi government to behave as a government for all the people. The problem is not parliament - where, for your information, over 85% of votes are taken by consensus - but rather in cases which happen outside of parliament: in the arrogance of power, in the way labourites may be treated as second class citizens, in the lack of enforcement (or selective enforcement) of laws or regulation or in cases such as those involving JPO!
Today, our (yes, even mine, of course) Prime Minister, Dr. Lawrence Gonzi, stands at a crossroads: He can continue in the vein he has started off with the unilateral stance on the Partnership for Peace and the handling of the JPO mess (for example) and keeping his parliamentary group happy at all times - thus ensuring a massive loss whenever the next elections may be held - or else take the opportunity and lead the country like a true statesmen by addressing those key areas where no MLP opposition can go against him as otherwise the MLP itself can lose thousands of votes.
Some examples include long-standing issues such as changes in the rent laws or topical matters such as a true reform of MEPA which addressing the concerns of the public. Areas such as the protection of consumers against potential cartels in, say, pharmaceuticals or foodstuffs, the actual enforcement of the laws of the land, greater transparency in the management of government entities and so on and so forth.
Well, as Dumbledore was made to say in the Harry Potter books, there is the easy way and the right way of doing things: It remains to be seen which one shall be chosen by Dr. Gonzi. I hope for all our sakes it shall be the right way as we need desperately to fix certain things in this blessed country of ours which have been there, stagnating, for over forty years and which both parties - yes, even the MLP - have thrown under the carpet.
So, for those who keep repeating the 'slimmest of majority' issue forget that a month before the election many polls indicated that Labour was very much in the front by several thousand votes which seem to have evaporated when substance was presented by the NP team!
Dr. Gonzi will not heed veiled threats by the Opposition. He has a mandate, he has a programme and he will see to it that it will be carried out.
The Opposition had better spend all the energy they can muster in electing the 'right' leader who will have to do much better to unseat the NP in 2013. This is a gigantic task considering the divisions within the party itself.
Too bad it will be the year 2013 until they get another chance and if recent history is any indicator, odds are that even then they will once again be sore losers at the polls.
Viva il-Partit Glorjuz Nazzjonalista.
Today Labour is Pro-EU and almost all the MLP leadership candidates are asserting their EU credentials. Therefore there is no major issue of national importance that divides this country anymore but our politics are simply which team can do a better job of running the country the way that the majority of the Maltese people want it to be run. For this legislature, the team that was chosen is the PN and labour should respect this and show it by agreeing to the pairing arrangement to ensure a stable administration maintaining the one seat majority in cases which have nothing to do with government support like business overseas.
The issue of speaker of the house is a separate issue and simply another move in a chess game and whether MLP accepts or not does not affect the national interest so they are welcome to decide on how best to gain advantage as opposition.
Yes I agree with M Brincat. A goverment that is on a short leash, that is afraid about the consequences of it's actions will benefit us all.
Those who wish that MLP behaves like a good boy and help the Government to overcome its home-grown problems ... are only wishing.
PN: You give me pairing, I give you the Speaker (and eat an MP's vote)!
Come on! What do you PNers so-called "independent" freelancing MLP demonisers think we Labourites are? "Pan troglodytes"? Please get a life.
Yes - we want the PN government to be on the edge - for as long as this legislation takes.
Yes - we want the PN government to stop itsarrogance, lies, corruption and incompetence.
Yes - we want the PN government to feel the bitter aftertaste of wrong decisions whenever the above is not done ...
Of course, like what I'm going to do here, they do not criticise my entire comment, but more like a partial element of it. They seem to refuse the fact that Labour, if elected, would govern for the 48.7% that voted for them; they seem to ignore the fact that Labour could have governed on a majority of seats had we had three parties in Parliament. Obviously, they argue in favour of the points, as we say in Maltese, "fejn jaqbel lilhom".
In response to Mr. Ellul's comments, while obviously a pairing agreement would be favourable for the PN - I'm not going to deny that - it won't be the end of the world if the government does not achieve it. Why, might I ask? Between 1987 and 1992, PN governed with a 1 seat majority as well, and stayed there till the end of the legislature. It is the MLP between 1996 and 1998 that couldn't ensure that it fulfilled a whole term in government. Now, seeing that Dr. Gonzi has all of his MP's backing him up in decisions being taken, a repeat scenario of the Sant legislature is most unlikely to happen. As I have said previously, it is a vote of no confidence that throws Government's life into doubt, nothing else. As for the 'WE ARE LABOUR' statement (once again), I think I'll just leave that be this time - it's not worth me wasting my time formulating an argument against that.
As for Mr. Fenech, well, I suggested that you are free to emigrate seeing that you portray yourself to be stuck in a rut. Maybe living abroad would make you happier. Of course, you are free to stay here in the hope that maybe, by 2013, the MLP will finally be elected to Parliament. However, I wouldn't call my suggestion 'undemocratic' because it was simply a suggestion! Also, the fact that you will "do [your] level best to ensure that people like him will not be given the opportunity to these islands slip into totalitarianism" makes me chuckle. I'm assuming that by "him", you're referring to me. The ironic thing is that I'm not in politics, I'm too young for that!
It would be very interesting to study the pairing saga in 1996-98 legislature.
First of all there was a pairing agreement (although MLP opted for an MLP speaker). Then the pairing agreement was withdrawn. Why?
I challenge Mr Laviera, Mr Micallef, Mr Ellul, etc to find out the truth and then tell the story. I'm pretty sure they won't do it because they will be ashamed.
Will you accept the challenge?
Mr Ellul's comment is the best "WE ARE LABOUR". Prosit....it says it all.
Also as Matthew Borg argues, it's a good thing that the opposition takes any opportunity available to return to power.
.. what's good for the goose ..
Just forget the past, and just think of the future.
Thinking about the past gets you nowhere.
The Government now has to duty to govern and govern well for the common good.
The Opposition has the duty to be a constructive opposition with sound arguments when opposing a bill.
This is what should happen for the next 5 years till the next election.
In reality, when 1996-1998 Prime Minister Alfred Sant was not able to continue governing, it had nothing to do with pairing or no pairing. It was the divisions in the MLP that brought the MLP Government down, the same divisions that are still evident in today’s MLP.
Does MLP need to have a Speaker from his own ranks? answer:- Yes would be nice, but we can surivive without it;
Is MLP obliged to agree on Pairing? answer:- No; This is a democracy, and if PN's government is weak, that is because the people voted for them to be weak. (actually people did not give them absolute majority at all - so PN should be thankful they are in government at all).
I am not complaining.
In 1996-1998, The Fenech Adami Adminstration refused the pairing agreement, yet labour won with an absolute 8000 majority. Tell me Matthew, the PN with a relative 1524 majority, should they seek a pairing agreement with labour?
If what was good for the goose then, what is it now?
Sorry Matthew, like I said before, NO agreements of any sort in parliament. Let the PN sweat it out. WE ARE LABOUR.
What difference does it make who I am? It's the argument that counts not the persona. Nevertheless should you like to get to know me fell free to call cjbutti@maltanet.net.
Also, the statement regarding "the majority of Maltese people want the GonziPN Government brought down as quickly and as speedily as possible" is childish beyond belief. While Mr. Fenech is not wrong in saying that if you had to combine those who voted AD, AN, Independent Candidates and MLP, there would be a total of 50.79% of the votes, our system, despite being PR (Proportional Representation) is kind of a first-past-the-post system because the party that obtains the majority of votes - be it an absolute or relative majority - governs. The system is as such, it's using crying over spilt milk with regards this. If Mr. Fenech is so bugged with the Nationalist government, then he can emigrate for all I care...
Only in the case of when the third party is elected to Parliament do we have a situation relying on seats. And thereagain, if AD was elected this time around, it would the MLP governing with nowhere near the majority of votes!! I don't think the likes of Mr. Fenech or Mr. Ellul would be complaining then...
We have been unfairly treated for a long time by the PN arrogance. Who has forgotten Austin Gatt boasting of the five seat majority so they do not have to recourse to Parliament. But this time they not only lost the five seat, but also the majority on a national basis.
The MLP message should be NO WAY...and no pairing either. Over the years we have watched the continually foul tactics of the Nationalist Party. Now, we should emulate them.
I agree with these proposals when it comes to official Gov't delegations.......they are fair enough ! I hope that last legislature's incident (when the Oppposition refused Louis Deguara some days rest during Budget sessions following an accident) repeats this time around...and what of absenteeism because personal sickness ???
If Charles is who I believe he is, then he might well know that when a MP crosses the floor during a legislature, then the opposition cannot exactly 'save the government' if that happens! For that to occur, one of the opposition members would have to vote in favour of the government. He should also recall that when there was an equal vote of 34 members each in Parliament, the speaker would always pass an act or a bill in favour of the Government. I repeat; it's the vote of no confidence that brought the government down in 1998 - Dr. Sant correctly asked for a general election in light of not having the majority of the HoR supporting him. And, to be honest, you wouldn't exactly expect the Opposition to vote in favour of that, would you?
a pairing deal or not Lawrence Gonzi, as Our Prime Minister will Lead Malta to a Better
future, surely for the next 5 Years,
@ Joseph Grech Attard : You do need to be more Mature ! it's not GonziPn ! It's Mr Lawrence Gonzi Prime Minister of Malta ,With comments like yours Malta can never unite,
Out in the streets the word is going around that the opposition is showing a weakness by the simple fact that they are debating the pairing issue.If the administration has a problem they are smart enough to sort it out without the help of the opposition. Did the PN offer any assistance to save the govrnment in 1998?
Tough it out Labour,you owe it to us.
and a hard headed Prime Minister in their midst which is not the case here.
Has anyone read the following?
"My link was possibly the only bridge of communication between our side and Mintoff. We used to meet in his room downstairs at the Palace... The press was aware of our meetings, which sometimes took place immediately after Mintoff spoke to the press."
"Obviously the opposition had all the political will to bring down the government on the first opportunity that arose."
Quotes taken from Professor Guide de Marco's autobiography, "The Politics of Persuasion", on page 270.
Further comment are superfluous!
Imagine that the post of Speaker is given to the opposition to be chosen from outside the House with the right of a casting vote and imagine that after that, the Opposition will not agree with the government on a pairing arrangement, meaning that we will have an unstable government to the detriment of our own country.
Let us not forget that the government was democratically elected by the majority of the Maltese to govern Malta for five years and that the Prime Minister for these five years should by Lawrence Gonzi.
This is what negotiation is all about. You give away a bit and you gain a bit. So please be a tiny bit objective and concede that the PN has the mandate to rule our country and it is in the interest of all that we have a stable government. Look at our neighbours across the channel. Successive unstable governments have brought the country on the brink of economic collapse. And by the way what would have your comments been if the Prime minister had failed to offer any a prestigious position to the Opposition? No wonder a lot of people are still very skeptic about the ability of the MLP to govern successfully! Politics is not about gripes but about creativity and dynamism.
If PN expects MLP to give away a seat - so that PN has 2 seat majority - then they are wrong. Actual I view this as an act of provocation - and in my opinion MLP should sya no to pairing and let PN decide on the speaker. This is democracy after all - MLP is not oliged to accept pairing.
Furthermore, one needs only look at one other issue - the JPO mess - to see how things could develop for the PN government.
Why should the MLP accept a pairing agreement under the current circumstances?
In negotiations everyone strives to come out on top. This offer is so ludicrous since if they accept Gonzi would get what he wants, some breathing space and labour would lose all their bargaining power - and for what, a darn speaker!
Grow up please!