The procedural motion by the Prime Minister was an illegal, anti-Constitutional, procedural gaffe, Labour Deputy Leader Anġlu Farrugia told Parliament yesterday.
He said this was the first time in Malta's parliamentary history that such an ultra-rightist motion, which stifled the democratic process, had been tabled.
Claiming that the government was sending a threatening message, Dr Farrugia said the opposition would not be threatened and would now seek other ways to save democracy. Other EU member countries had a right to know what was happening in Malta.
At the beginning of his speech, Dr Farrugia quoted former Deputy Prime Minister Guido de Marco who, in 1997, had said that the government could not govern in a state of panic when the then Labour government had presented a parliamentary procedural motion.
Dr Farrugia said that such a statement applied today, because the government had panicked after the Leader of the Opposition had presented the motion on the proposed development for the St John's Co-Cathedral Museum. The PN had internal problems, he said.
When the PN withdrew from the pairing agreement in 1997, the Labour government side did not know that the then Leader of the Opposition Eddie Fenech Adami was indisposed.
Dr Farrugia said the government motion conditioned MPs on when to vote as decided by the government. A division could even be taken over a span of two weeks. He said that the standing order regarding division calls had never been questioned before in Malta's parliamentary history. The House of Commons had agreed to the principle of deferred divisions after a select committee had made proposals, but such deferred divisions were limited to certain issues. The vote in the House of Commons would be taken on the Wednesday without any further delay.
They also applied to the European Union Parliament.
Dr Farrugia said the model adopted by the government was a "Gonzi model" which was nearer to a dictatorship model. This went against all Constitutional principles and showed that the government was acting with absolute arrogance.
The government had presented the procedural motion only two days after the Leader of the Opposition had presented his own motion. The government intended to send a message to silence its own backbenchers who were not comfortable with the ways things were developing.
The opposition had every right to object to the motion because it impinged on the democratic function of the House. The Deputy Prime Minister knew that where the national interest so demanded the opposition had always agreed to pairing.
Dr Farrugia said he did not expect the Deputy Prime Minister to make such a gaffe when the select committee was looking into various issues.
Interjecting, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said that Dr Farrugia had confirmed that the principle of deferred division was applied by the House of Commons. He said that against all arrangements agreed in the House Business Committee, the Opposition Whip in the Monday sitting had moved the adjournment to Thursday instead of the Tuesday, when he knew that government members had to be overseas on that day.
Dr Gonzi said he could declare that things would have remained the same had not the Opposition Whip moved the adjournment for Thursday without giving any notice. This incident had forced the government to present its procedural motion.
On a point of order, Opposition Whip Joe Mizzi said that the House Business Committee had agreed on the House business up to Monday, as could be verified from the minutes. He had also accepted that the House be adjourned to Tuesday as long as the government agreed that the opposition motion would be discussed on the following Thursday or Friday. The government side had not given any reply.
Continuing, Dr Farrugia referred to the last general election and said that the way the PN had campaigned and organised influential people to grab the election was beyond imagination. He was waiting for the court judgment on corrupt practices before revealing other things on how the PN had acted.
He said that last March, democracy had been the loser and what was happening now showed that the government did not enjoy the trust of the people.
Before the election, the PN had made a number of promises which it had not kept and was now in state of chaos and with no sense of direction.
Concluding, Dr Farrugia called on the government to withdraw the motion and continue with the work started in the Select Committee. The motion was a shame and created a parliamentary and democratic crisis.
Labour MP Owen Bonnici said the motion went against Standing Order 196 which limited the suspension of the standing orders. A government could not suspend a standing order capriciously, because there were limitations to this in the standing orders themselves.
A suspension could never revoke a standing order. A government could not eradicate a standing order with a simple majority, because this was at the core of the parliamentary system. If a majority was given the power to do such things, this would be a problem that stifled the democratic spirit of Parliament.
Dr Bonnici said he was speaking from a theoretical level because the government was not proposing a cancellation, rather a suspension, if anything. But a suspension could be requested for particular reasons.
The government was claiming that this was necessary to allow for the fulfilment of commitments emanating from EU membership; so this was not something temporary, or limited to this legislature, as was being claimed. The needs of Malta as an EU member were independent of the current legislature.
Dr Bonnici said he accepted the rulings because he was obliged to do so, even though he had his own opinion and interpretation of them.
Standing Order 196 militated on the parameters of suspension of House business, but what the government was doing by seeking to introduce the system of deferred divisions amounted to its greatest step to date against the democratic spirit of Parliament.
There was more than one standing order that pointed to practices of the British House of Commons as a point of reference for action to be taken in all circumstances not envisaged by the standing orders. On other occasions the House of Commons practice was also taken as a direct source of interpretation of the standing orders.
In 2000 there had been a very interesting development at the House of Commons, introducing a new scheme for divisions to be taken the following Wednesdays. This system was so modern that reference to it could be found only in the most recent prints of Erskine May. But, said Dr Bonnici, the situation at the House of Commons was different from that of the government in Malta, wherein the Prime Minister was seeking to have greater control of House business.
The concept of deferred divisions at the House of Commons had been introduced effectively not in the interests of governability but for the convenience of MPs, who were reluctant to be detained for long hours without even knowing if there was going to be a vote at all. This had given rise to some of the most telling objections, including that an MP's vote could fall subject to third-party influences in the days before the vote was taken. This consideration was of the essence, said Dr Bonnici.
The Prime Minister's motion enveloped all possible scenarios, even if the subject matter was urgent and should not be made to wait for two days or a week for a vote. The situation would be mitigated if exceptions were to be allowed to the system of deferred voting, but the government was making no such move.
Governability was one thing, but the fact that the motion was all-enveloping was worrying. If a party was in government with a great majority of seats, this would be the operative aspect. Since the Maltese system was one of parliamentary democracy and laid down the tenets of governability, no real democrat could stand by and let such things be done without protest. What the government was seeking to do was undemocratic and unacceptable, concluded Dr Bonnici.
Alfred Sant (PL) said that all MPs had the obligation to respect the legislative ethos in its two aspects of debating and deciding. One had to balance the exigencies of the executive with the needs of the legislative body. The motion was emblematically fascist because it imposed supremacy of the executive over the legislative.
The motion presented under a Labour government did not take away the decisive aspect of the legislative. It only extended the time for debate, as was also the practice in the House of Commons at the time. But through the present motion the executive was taking upon itself legislative powers which belonged to the House.
Dr Sant said that the executive should respect Parliament. The House's sovereignty was being attacked in a dangerous way. There was a fascist element in how to organise the agenda and the media in the country. The government, which did not enjoy an absolute majority, was trying to introduce procedures which would give a new tool to those who in future might want to manipulate things.
It was inconceivable that the Prime Minister, who had himself served as Speaker of the House, should present a motion which introduced a fascist element in the way Parliament was treated. He said that under Il Duce (Benito Mussolini), parliamentary powers in Italy had been eroded and taken over by the executive. The government was undermining democracy with its arrogance, and this could lead to confrontation.
This was taking place despite the goodwill repeatedly shown by the Leader of the Opposition, even though the government side might say that he himself, as former Leader of the Opposition, had been adamant. The government had tabled this motion at a time when the opposition had shown good will in the formation of the Select Committee and the appointment of the President.
The manoeuvring of the government showed that it was faced with internal problems. The government had tabled the motion so that members of the executive could attend EU meetings, when Malta had contributed more than it had received from the EU over the last two years.
Concluding, Dr Sant said the motion damaged the democratic and political fibre of the country.