Nationalist MP Jesmond Mugliett told Parliament yesterday that the opposition's reaction to the Prime Minister's procedural motion was disproportionate. He maintained this was no fascist motion and did not trespass on anybody's rights.
The opposition had accused the government of being arrogant and of trying to stifle the opposition. It had also said that this conditioned parliamentary democracy, and did not allow members to vote freely.
He referred to past legislatures when the guillotine motion used to be applied. That, he said, was truly detrimental to democracy. Neither in this legislature nor in the previous one had there been such a motion. Under a Labour government, he said, debates sometimes lasted well into the night.
Any motions tabled by the PN in opposition used to remain on the agenda for weeks and even months. In one particular case, then Opposition Leader Eddie Fenech Adami had had to attend Parliament, even if sick, to present his motion as the Labour government had objected to the debate taking place without him as the mover.
Under the 1996-98 Labour government, parliamentary sessions would begin late, and ministers would turn up late, with then Minister Without Portfolio Joe Mizzi being the only minister present to answer questions.
On the other hand, Dr Mugliett said, since 1998, sessions had never started more than a couple of minutes late, and opposition motions were debated without undue delay.
The motion had to be taken in the context that the government had a one-seat majority and wanted to work hand in hand with the opposition, but could not ignore other factors such as foreign commitments.
The problem was the opposition, which did not want to come to an agreement on pairing. Trips abroad had to be planned, and without pairing some solution to allow for normal functioning had to be found.
Dr Mugliett pointed out that controlling calls for quorum was long overdue. The opposition had often abused the system, not letting the government function.
The government believed in the role of the opposition, and in working together to safeguard national interests.
Dr Mugliett said the new site for Parliament was also something that gave both sides of the House the chance to debate and have their say on how it should be built and where. This was something that belonged to the government, the opposition and the Speaker's office, and the building should reflect all this.
Even if possible sites were exhausted and a site was settled on which did not suit everyone, he suggested that the best was made of the opportunity to work together. It was up to those involved to stop wasting time on minor controversies.
Dr Stephen Spiteri (PN) said the motion created a balance between the functions of the government and Parliament.
While Parliament had the obligation to legislate, the executive needed to meet its international commitments in the EU and other international fora. The government wanted to continue to respect democracy, had extended the hand of friendship to the opposition and wanted to reach agreement with it on how Parliament was to function.
The politician had the responsibility of giving direction to the country and creating the political stability that the country needed at a time of global crisis. The motion was justified and there was a need for it because it created a balance between parliamentary and governmental responsibilities.