Austin Gatt
Word for word account
The media does not have the space to report a speech or an interview word for word. But when a series of words is wrongly attributed to someone as a quote, is repeated once, twice and more and enters into the public consciousness as if it were Biblical truth, then it needs to be corrected.
In a two-hour interview with Di-ve, the print media chose just two short sentences to quote and in both cases got them wrong or - in some cases - selectively edited them to turn them on their head. As Alfred Sant recently said in front of a parliamentary committee, it is impossible nowadays to correct each wrong quote but when the likes of Lino Spiteri starts taking as gospel truth what one is supposed to have said, then it is incumbent on me to correct that impression.
The first point concerned my supposed change of stance regarding when the tariffs should have been implemented, where half of what I said is conveniently edited out. This is what I said word for word (the interview was in English):
"I think we should have taken a longer period. I think, with hindsight, what we should have done - although it was suggested but it was shot down - on October 1 - when the surcharge revision was due - we should have changed the surcharge and started discussions to go with the intention to implement on January 1. The reality is that we would have been through the same problems because the surcharge would have gone up from 95 per cent to 190 per cent.
"The new tariffs that eventually came in basically are 185 per cent (here I was wrong because actually they were equal to 125/130 per cent) so bottom line we would have ended up with the same tariffs (interruption)... yes but psychologically people (interruption)... yes, agreed, the surcharge would have gone down again. (Interruption) No, what would have happened is on January 1 you would have these tariffs, it would have been easier to sell."
The second misquotation is even worse because it is a total invention. I am quoted as having blamed the party for the tariff revision!
Simply ridiculous because the reference to the party came some three minutes later and in a different context, so much so that the question was: "Are people's consumption patterns changing?"
Part of my reply to this was, word for word:
"Of course, they changed... Unfortunately, we do not seem to realise that subsidies come out of the general budget. If you subsidise electricity, or if you subsidise the drydocks, or if you subsidise somewhere else, those subsidies are coming out of every tax payers' money... I think that's the wrong system (subsidising electricity consumption for consumers who are not social cases) and we have to have the courage to say, let me blame my party, first of all, we took too long to come to this system and that is the criticism that my party should admit to ..."
I do not believe I need to add anything to the above. As usual, no medium will admit to having purposefully quoted me out of context, selectively edited what I said or even disjoined parts of the same sentence in order to quote me fully but make no sense of the disjointed parts.
Still the above is a word for word account of what I said and there is no way that truth will change simply because it is convenient for someone to twist it.
Dr Gatt is Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Communications.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
6 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Paul Micallef
Jun 17th 2009, 18:40
Mr Martinelli my question is a sound one. Your answer is a vague one. Can you prove what you are saying?
J Martinelli
Jun 17th 2009, 17:54
@ Anthony Mercieca
"...at no stage, when the energy crisis started, where there attempts either to explain to the nation in general, nor the social partners..." This is not so. The government had for months on end made it clear how much the ongoing subsidies cost and it was the social partners who did not accept the 'user pays' system and sought to postpone almost sine die the tariffs increase.
@ Paul Micallef
The answer to your question, "Is the Government going to keep the subsidy money of the past and the tariffs money as of from October 2008?" is a simple one. The government will keep nothing of the increase in tariffs because the extra collected will simply go towards balancing the cost of fuel. There is nothing left over to give back to the taxpayer.
@ B Agius
"Then enter Muscat who would still have the same economic issues to resolve and hopefully, by then, some policies to deal with them". Joseph Muscat should be presenting alternatives NOW not four years from now. But unfortunately he obviously has none and all he does is talk and giving false hope that once he governs solutions will emerge! Incredulous opportunism.
B Agius
Jun 17th 2009, 17:17
Economically speaking, Dr Gatt is right. Malta cannot continue to be run on a subsidy system. And the people think that that way the Government is doing its job. It is not. The Government's job is to develop policies to grow the economy so people can earn real money so they pay -and can afford to pay - appropriate taxes and pay also for what they consume. Malta, for far too long, has been used to handouts (by the British Government for instance) to keep things ticking over. A culture of real competitiveness, efficiency etc is years away it seems. If the Government however doesn't find a politically acceptable way to do the few things that most people think should be done, it will be turfed out of office, and rightly so. Then enter Muscat who would still have the same economic issues to resolve and hopefully, by then, some policies to deal with them.
Paul Micallef
Jun 17th 2009, 13:23
The argument that Dr Gatt is making regarding the misquotation from the media is more than correct. It also applies to both political parties when it comes nearer to an election.
What I do not see clear is that up to last year the Government was forking out millions of tax payers euros annually to the Corporation in subsidy. Now that the governement decided to stop this subsidy, and the Government knew that this had to stop long time ago, and that the consumers had to take the load of paying according to the amount they consumed, nothing wrong about this actually I agree, but then I ask, the millions that the Government is going to save from the subsidy, now replaced with tariffs, are they going to be redirected to the taxpayers?
I do not know if I made myself clear? Let me ask the question again.
Is the Government going to keep the subsidy money of the past and the tariffs money as of from October 2008? This means that now we are being taxed twice for the same thing.
Jesmond Farrugia
Jun 17th 2009, 10:43
Dr. Gatt,
It is understood that if oil prices go up, electricity rates must also go up. What is not being given to the Maltese public is a real, solid incentive to invest in alternative energy - for electricty generation. The 200 families which benefitted from the scheme launched in Feb 2009 by the MRA is a good start but way too little.Instead of subsidising tariffs, give an alternative (valid) incentive.
Anthony Mercieca
Jun 17th 2009, 10:30
Reading my friend's clarification on how he was mistakenly reported or words manipulated, the facts are that, at no stage, when the energy crisis started, where there attempts either to explain to the nation in general, nor the social partners, the reality of the situation than what appeared to be a panic reaction by the minister (s) and the approach, you have to take it whatever way could be proposed. No consideration was factually taken on the standard of living of the masses. The rates really pinched hard on all with the consequentially effect that it did make things worse for everyone in the present economic and financial turmoil. People's sensitivity (not vis-a-vis complaints of paying higher rates) but how it actually effected their daily life were totally disregarded. The consequences were seen in the EP elections but worse also there is a spread feeling of how credibile is the administration, even if that might not be justified.