Tuesday, 24th June 2008 - 18:15CET
Dockyard privatisation: Gatt urges MLP not to play with words
Transport and Communications Minister Austin Gatt this evening urged the Labour Party not to play with words over the privatisation of the dockyard.
Speaking in Parliament in reaction to comments made yesterday and today by MLP deputy leader Anglu Farrugia, Dr Gatt said the records of the House clearly showed Dr Farrugia having said yesterday that he agreed with privatisation, and everybody took that to mean agreement on the privatisation of the shipyard.
It was only later that Dr Farrugia added "in principle".
Dr Gatt said the MLP needed to be clear about whether or not it agreed with the privatisation process. The party was not believed before the election, and it would still not be believed if it continued to play with words, despite having a new leader.
At the beginning of today's sitting Dr Farrugia, said in Parliament this evening that the opposition did not agree with the privatisation of Malta Shipyards as it was being carried out by the government, without consultation.
Speaking in Parliament on a point of order when the House was about to approve the minutes of yesterday’s sitting, Dr Farruigia referred to his comments during question time yesterday and insisted that he had said that the opposition agreed with privatisation only “in principle.”
Meanwhile, Labour leader Joseph Muscat speaking in a Net TV interview said that the government should study models for the future of Malta Shipyards which assured a future for the workers.
He said the dockyard had a future only if the government did not continue to take decisions on its own, but in consultation with the opposition and the trade unions.
While the MLP was not against the privatisation of Malta Shipyards in principle, models adopted abroad should be considered, such as partial privatisation. And privatisation of the dockyard should not be the same as the privatisation of Mid-Med Bank and Sea Malta.
It was unacceptable that the government wanted to reduce the workforce even before new owners indicated how many workers they needed and in what skills.
It also needed to be ensured that workers that went to the private sector did not end up unemployed after a few months, Dr Muscat said.
RSS
Comments
You write: A government doesn't need to consult the opposition on how to carry out a job. That's just wishful thinking on the opposition's part.
Alow me to make two comments:
1. Consultation enhances understanding and, to an extreem, ownership, therefore obtaining the optimum economic and social climate. It is therefore good to consulkt with whoever as long as the right balance between consultation and delivery is obtained..
2. In the Privatisation of the Shipyards, the need for Government to consult with opposition is very important. Government will be selling to an investor. One of the key considerations made by any investor will concern the political risk. If Government briefs and obtains opposition's endorsment to its plans, Malta will be poised to achieve the best possible results especially given the positive approach being adopted by Joseph in breathing a new spirit to the way we do politics.
Regards
"Blue-eyed elf"? Did you even read my comment? It's people with attitudes like yours who helped Sant bury MLP.
First stage will invite offers for the dry-docks to be run as a ship repair etc activity. Should Dock 1 be made available as a potential dry-dock facility or not? I think not. But if it enhances chances for stronger investor interest I would not exclude the possibility.
Government would simultaneously agree 'in principle' with Union on the redundancy process.
Once all submitted business-plans of potential investors are studied, (with opposition representative as observer or equivalent status throughout the adjudication process), a decision is made when the number of employees that the new owner is willing to take over, based on the selected business plan, is duly identified. Redundancies based on the existing 'in principle' agreement will be completed.
Government will then proceed to look at shipyard-property not taken up through the privatisation process and submit conversion ideas for ‘public’ reaction followed by concrete action.
Government must show itself determined and focused in this second process. It was completely lethargic in the face of the discarded dock 1 opportunity.
Prime Minister is rightly keeping Gatt out of it. Gatt should oblige. He carries too much baggage.
After twenty years of dilly-dallying.
The writing has long been on the wall. The British Govt decided
to convert the Naval Dockyard to commercial use in 1960, and leased
it to Bailey's.. Then it was administered by Swan Hunter.
It was Dr Borg Olivier's government which nationalized the Dockyard in 1968 - remember?
Forty years later, the country is still paying the price for that fundamental mistake.
Anyone read Roger Mifsud's article in the Independent?
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=71162
As usual, austin gatt is being pretentious and patronising.
According to his doctrine, one is either with him, or against him.
Gatt needs to be continuously reminded that he cannot say that PN have 5 seats majority and do what they like anymore.
Decisions are already being taken without any consultation or discussions.
All that gatt is asking, whether the opposition agrees with what the Government is doing or not!
Discuss or frakass, and that would be PN doctrine of the 80s.
I would appreciate if you were to address comments made to me based on what I have written. I am not into partisan rhetoric that may only blur any positive action that Government and Opposition may take in the interest of all stakeholders including tax payers, employees and a healthy business activity.
Thank you and best regards
---HOW MUCH IS THE MLP/GOVT/GWU READY TO SELL THE SHIPYARDS FOR?
---WHAT PLANS SHOULD THE NEW COMPANY HAVE??......which of these plans would tally with this country's expectations??
---GATT IS A VERY TOUGH MINISTER WHO HAS BEEN VERY SUCESSFUL WITH SMART CITY??........Is he going to be as determined in the Shipyards case??
...........................these and other issues are the things we should be discussing right now and not petty play of words...............though to be fair and honest, MLP sympathisers have to admit that Anglu's statements are a bit confusing...everyone was of the idea that the two sides were infavour of privat. and that now the discussions about the above issues had to start...............so it did come as a bit of a 'shock" that Anglu is now using the "in principle " to sit on the fence and not take sides........
................lets at least agree that our destination is Privatisation......then we can disagree on the way to get there.........we can say that a van is better than a taxi ......but for Heaven's sakes can we agree on one common destination!!??
The only sabotage that I see is coming from the opposition benches. first he says that the Opposition AGREES with privitisation, later he adds "in principle", and now because someone chastised him, he says that he did not say those words. Unbelievable .. the first gaffe from Anglu Farrugia as Deputy Leader Parliamentary affairs, like the ones he used to do when he was in the Police Force. Your honeymoon is already over.
Austin has been there before, look at the mess-up he made of Sea Malta, another clear example is the privatisation of Mid-Med, virtually given away for a few pennies.
The government is after a consensus, well and good, but, the flogging of the Dockyard has to be done the right way, not like Mid-Med behind closed doors, for if another hurried balls-up is in the offing, then Austin cannot turn round and say; `Well, let us not forget that the opposition was part of this.` At this point I will ask Austin, `Who is playing with words?`
Dr Gatt seems not to have it in him to rejoice.
He says it is only an in-principle agreement!
Well, I thought that was utterly obvious. What does Dr Gatt expect at this stage? That the MLP should come out and declare itself in favour of any agreement that the Government may reach in the future irrespective of price, conditions, terms, covenants, assets privatised etc etc? Amazing.
Government's next step is to beef up the communication link with opposition so that opposition can do its duty. This link seems to have been established when the Prime Minister made his welcome declaration.
I hope that this link will not be sabotaged for any reason.
Perhaps Mr Gatt is also not happy with pairing. Perhaps he wants Opposition to agree unconditionally to pairing. Would not be surprised.
The positive thing is that this statement is not made by Prime Minister. If there is a hawk/dove issue within Government ranks it is best that we are made aware of it. I still cling to the hope that the old way of doing politics is behind us.
According to yesterday’s The Times, it said that at one stage Dr Farrugia said he agreed with privatisation, later adding “in principle”. According to the same The Times, but today’s edition, we have yet another version. The Times said that Anglu Farrugia said “only” in principle and not just in principle.
Now we have a party that says that something is white on a Monday and says it is black on a Tuesday, just a day after. Imagine what they would have done if they were in Government?
If the MLP were in government, it would go about privatising the shipyards in a different manner than the PN is doing - nothing new there: different party, different approaches. A government doesn't need to consult the opposition on how to carry out a job. That's just wishful thinking on the opposition's part.
...................as a hopeful I just hope that Muscat's good intentions do prevail and the MLP does pronounce itself ( as it seemed to have done yesterday) in favour of Privatisation and that it doesn't turn out to be a "ferha bla temma"