Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat said yesterday that the government's amendments to the Electoral Law on early voting would only be acceptable if they were part of a wider package.

In the stormiest Parliamentary sitting of this legislature, Dr Muscat accused the government of arrogance and strongly objected to the way the government had moved the amendments. He said these should have first been discussed in the Select Committee on Democratic Change, along with other issues.

The amendments, which Dr Muscat described as half baked and lacking transparency, provide that people who declare they will be away on polling day may make a sworn declaration and vote on the Saturday before polling day.

Dr Muscat said that the way of deciding who had a right to vote should be changed to do away with having ineligible people still appearing on the electoral register. Malta's expired ID cards should be renewed, and the Electoral Commission should be given the onus of choosing staff to be on duty at St Vincent de Paule Residence and old people's homes on the day of voting.

He also insisted that agreement should be reached on the allocation of Malta's potential sixth seat at the European Parliament, and that flight arrangements for voters who needed to be flown in from abroad should henceforth not be made by Air Malta, but by the Electoral Commission.

Dr Muscat said Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg's speech had been a prime demonstration of unbelievable government arrogance. Dr Borg had spoken as if the electoral law had been reduced to chewing gum to be changed at whim.

The fundamental principles of democracy held transparency, equality, seriousness and accountability as guiding every electoral process. Labour believed that everybody with a right to vote should be accorded this right freely.

The state's job was to lead by rule of law and see that the law was respected. It must establish how elections were participated in by whoever held the right to vote and wanted to exercise it, but measures dressed up as a show of democracy sometimes were overshadowed by ulterior motives. Slipshod measures undermined all these principles. The short-sighted might see them as progress, but democracy without verification was intrinsically wrong.

Dr Muscat said the opposition together with progressive forces in the country had always insisted that the right to vote should be given to all. It was the progressive forces who had expanded voting rights from a multiple vote according to one's property, with a worker having no vote, to voting rights for all men irrespective of their financial worth, and subsequently to universal vote also for women. This had flown in the face of whoever maintained that women should not be burdened with such responsibilities as the right to vote.

Nobody should present themselves as knights in shining armour, as if only one side existed. The current Bill had been presented by the Prime Minister who had then slunk away from introducing it.

Dr Muscat said that shortly after he had been made PL leader, there had been correspondence between him and Dr Gonzi, which included what Dr Muscat had thought was a brilliant idea of a Select Committee to discuss various shortfalls. Dr Muscat had agreed, and one of the topics had been electoral reform. The crucial point up for discussion was what should happen on election day, as well as the method of voting.

The opposition had insisted that talks should be held before any statement was made in the media. If the Prime Minister had really wanted to arrive on such a point he should have first submitted his proposals to the Select Committee. There was no point in doing things in patches.

The electoral law needed a major reform, and Dr Gonzi must say if he wanted to kill off the Select Committee. If so, the opposition had no time to waste. It expected proof that the Prime Minister really wanted to talk seriously, not waste time.

Dr Muscat said the rationale of the government's proposal had come out after the Olympic Committee's remarks that Maltese athletes would be away on the date of voting for the European Parliament and local councils. The opposition had accepted to debate, so long as all safeguards were in place. The amendment being moved by the Prime Minister was one that did not see the electoral law as such but was overshadowed by ulterior motives, which was not in the country's best interests.

Dr Borg had already let the cat out of the bag because he had given an insight into why the proposal had been instigated by PN Secretary-General Paul Borg Oliver (was there a difference between party and government?). The opposition had been expecting serious talks, preferably in the Select Committee, but this was not to be. Maybe one could arrive in some other way.

Dr Muscat said that very significantly, the Prime Minister's amendments had been presented on April 1. Even conceptually, any amendment should be made to serve everybody, not just Maltese athletes taking part in the Small Nations Games. The date of the European Parliament elections had become known five months before the day, and whoever wanted to be in Malta could have managed it. The government's lame excuse could never hold sway. The real difference lay for who had an official engagement to represent the country overseas.

Why was the government proposing voting a week before the date, and not two weeks or three days before? Why not before the start of the electoral campaign? Dr Borg had hardly referred to those who needed to vote; he had dwelt more on those who needed to come to Malta. The opposition had heard nothing of this before today. Now the government wanted to bring in voters to vote a week before the actual day.

Dr Muscat said that the whole point was the issue had come to this situation after a problem had been raised by one organisation for one election, but the government had now come up with an amendment not just for the European Parliament elections, but also for general elections. In so doing the government had leapfrogged the Select Committee and was pushing for a quick decision on any election, even on referenda.

Was this serious? What type of study had been carried out on such a proposal? Had it really been cooked up by Paul Borg Olivier? The proposal was sending the wrong message by the government, which was already in a panic and wanted to treat the electoral law as chewing gum. Had any alternatives been studied?

That the government should be trying to go ahead in such a slipshod way did not bode well for democracy. Even people close to the Electoral Commission had questions on the rationale of this amendment, how from certain concepts of the electoral law could be undermined.

Dr Muscat said the opposition is ready to help change everything if need be, but not piecemeal according to the whims and needs of the party in government. Labour was not simply some pressure group, and this had been amply shown in the close result of the last general elections.

The government's amendment was seeking to sweep aside all the genuine efforts of the past months. Even PN diehards had questions on the logistics of the proposed amendment.

European regulations on European Parliament elections laid down that they must be held on specific dates between Thursday and Sunday between June 4 and 7 every five years. They also said that elections must be made under national regulations, even on the strength of certain amendments according to the particular country's treaty of membership.

On an interjection by Dr Borg, Dr Muscat said it was good to know that the government had sought legal advice on what it was proposing. Malta's electoral system called for a day of reflection just before voting day, on which no electoral campaigning could be done. But now a situation would develop whereby a number of people would vote while the campaign was still in full swing. Should the campaign be stopped for another day on the eve of the week before? Even this could yet be discussed, but the government had not made these points.

It was well known that any electoral campaign would include broadcasting, so the parties could continue to influence voters on the day of voting. This would constitute regress, not progress, because facts could become known on the last days of the campaign (after the early voting), as had happened in March 2008. Early voters would not be able to reflect on facts and opinions that would come to light on the last days before voting day. Even this principle was now being undermined.

Dr Muscat said the opposition was ready to discuss any point, but not with this half-baked proposal. It was looking for answers from the government side. In March 2008 all ballot papers of a particular district had had to be reprinted. The government's amendments sought to legislate not only on next June but for always. What would happen if one candidate passed away in the last week? What would happen with votes on two different ballot papers?

To date, the electoral process must stop on the Thursday before voting, but now the government was introducing early voting without adequate thinking. Why were these proposals being discussed for the first time in a full session of the House, and not in the Select Committee?

Shortcomings were present even in the proposed system. The opposition could not understand the proposed deadline for application to vote early up to half a day before voting, in spite of the fact that the current system was already complicated? Why should applications for early voting not have a deadline of a week before, so that sworn declarations could be verified and the necessary preparations made? This was presenting a situation where all that a person would need to do was to take an oath, in a country where oaths had been known to be abused.

Dr Muscat proposed that with the oath, one should present one's ticket to show that one would really not be in Malta on the established voting day.

On one's return from overseas after voting day, one should have to show that one had really been away. These provisos did not exist in the current proposals. It would not be serious for a person to say they would be away and given the right to vote early, then did not go away at all and went to vote on the established day. This was in stark contrast to the plight of an assistant Electoral Commissioner, who if not voting on Friday lost his right to vote on Saturday. This system would effectively constitute two classes of voters.

Today the government's real aims had become known. Most of the time of Dr Borg's speech had been dedicated not to those who would be away on voting day, but now the right to vote was being offered to whoever could come to Malta not only on the day but also a week early.

Dr Muscat said that when the opposition would come up with its own proposals it would show that it was ready to accept certain government proposals, but wanted more. Labour had come up with certain electoral proposals in the past, but they had never been considered, much less accepted. One of these was that while AECs had the right to vote on the day before elections, Electoral Commissioners could not do so. They should be given this right: something very small but always refused.

The opposition had always been indignant to hear stories of abuses on weak people especially in old people's homes, particularly at St Vincent de Paule residence. They were methodically subjected to threats of how sub-standard food or care if they did not vote as directed. Dr Muscat said the government side's immediate reactions to what he was saying showed that they, too, knew that this was true.

What was really needed was full supervision to ensure infirm voters' dignity and no abuses. At SVDP and old people's homes, voting should be done early and the Electoral Commission itself, not a department or ministry, should choose the staff to be on duty on voting day. This would be a show of courage on the part of the government.

Dr Muscat again commented on the government side's reactions to his words, saying that their show of bravado was already dying down.

The opposition's second proposal was that, when the day of elections to the European Parliament and local councils was already known, Air Malta's arrangements for the carriage of voters to Malta should no longer be delayed. What guarantee of transport would be available to Maltese working in Luxembourg, for example? Why was it that certain people always managed to find a place on board when others did not? If Dr Borg thought this was imagination, the government should accept that the administration of distribution of Air Malta tickets should be in the hands of the Electoral Commission. Dr Muscat challenged the government to accept the opposition's proposal immediately.

Today, the decisions on who came to Malta to vote and who did not were taken by people in a state enterprise led by a person who had declared himself to be part of the PN strategic organisation. Aircraft seats happened to be found in answer to calls from the PN central administration.

Dr Muscat said the opposition would accept the government's proposals only at the price of the acceptance of Labour's amendments.

Now that Malta had been presented with the possibility of its sixth seat in the European Parliament, the opposition expected to be asked to decide how to allocate this sixth seat. It would not accept for the sixth seat to be allocated from behind the wings or with a lack of transparency; neither would it accept any playing about with quotas. Labour was formally proposing that the candidate, of whichever party, who placed immediately after the five elected candidates should be given the sixth seat, for eventual occupancy when and if it became available.

The opposition was also ready to discuss other proposals on adequate representation of the people and the system, but not haphazardly and without proper planning. Dr Muscat challenged Dr Borg to say if all who had voted in March 2008 satisfied the provision for a minimum stay of six months in Malta within the previous two years. The bare truth was that there was no system to check this out under the Schengen agreement.

Interjecting, Dr Borg said that not even Dr Muscat could guarantee that whoever had voted Labour had really been eligible.

Continuing, Dr Muscat said it was interesting that the only way to challenge this point was by recourse at law. But as soon as recourse is made, Labour is accused of trying to undermine democracy.

Taking Dr Borg's statement further, it meant that not even he could guarantee that the electoral register was correct. There were people on the register who should not be there. This must be treated seriously because there was no idea of how many such instances existed. This made the point crucial because there was a court sentence that if a person's name appeared on the electoral register nothing could be done about it. The present system was farcical and unsustainable.

Dr Muscat said this was the sort of discussion that needed to be held in the Select Committee, including the government's proposed amendments. The basic principle to discuss was that if one contributed to society one had a right to decide on its future. Now that the government had confirmed that the condition of six months' residence in two years was only a farce, it should be decided that voting rights should be linked to tax payments.

There was a blueprint for this, and the opposition was not reinventing the wheel. It was by no means a perfect principle without problems, but definitely better than having a register that was not correct, showing people who had no right to vote. Although it was agreed that such people were breaking the law, their votes still counted and nobody except themselves could tell who they were.

Another crucial point was that the Maltese were living in a country of expired ID cards, made legal only by annual legal notices. All ID cards should be changed, and then the opposition would be ready to examine the government's amendments.

The Select Committee had not met for a long time. Dr Muscat expressed the hope that the opposition was wrong to think it had been dealt a death blow.

Summing up the opposition's package in conclusion, Dr Muscat said flight arrangements should be carried out by the Electoral Commission; ID cards should be renewed; agreement should be reached on the allocation of the sixth seat in the European Parliament; and the way of deciding voting rights should be changed. The voting process at old people's homes should be better supervised, with the Electoral Commission deciding on staff to be on duty on voting day.

Government's reply will be appearing tomorrow.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.