Nationalist Party general secretary Paul Borg Olivier will seek re-election to the post after his two-year term ends in June. He tells Kurt Sansone the PN is on a new mission to embrace diversity and reach out.

Your term started on the wrong foot when you sent a confidential e-mail by mistake to your political rival in the Labour Party and continued with the worst electoral result in decades for the Nationalist Party in last year's European elections. What assessment do you have of yourself?

I will leave the assessment to others. However, looking back at these two years I would say I am satisfied not so much with the successes but with the challenges the party and the government have had to face. The party quietly went through a series of internal reforms that culminated in a number of proposals approved at the last general council.

There were also the big challenges faced by the country in terms of reforms, and the challenge posed by a Labour Party that was casting doubts while the PN was taking bold decisions. But the most important aspect that characterised these two years and which taught me a lot was the Prime Minister's resilience and his determination to shoulder the burden of reforms while dealing with economic problems.

These elements gave me the necessary energy to work, but I want to look ahead.

Are there any successes which you can claim to be yours?

I did not promise an internal earthquake, but internal reforms that built on the party's past achievements - because we are proud of our past. The last general council gave a vote of confidence to the administration by returning all members to the executive committee. We are connecting the party with its roots.

The last general council proposed reforms to the political and educational academy AZAD, the setting up of political formation courses and others.

What happened to the reforms you had talked about two years ago to the document 'A Network of Communication'?

The document intended to mobilise the party's grassroots and which was launched in 1998, will now be transformed into a network of participation to reflect the changing times.

Over the past two years the party has worked to broaden participation and strengthen internal dialogue. The vision is to continue re-positioning the PN as the party of dialogue both internally and externally. We must communicate not only with our grassroots.

This is why in the last weekend of May we will organise a conference for non-political people focusing on the government's Vision 2015. We want to go beyond 2015 as a party. We want to communicate with people who are not attached to us.

You are also copying the Labour Party, which opened up its general conference to delegates who are not necessarily grassroot activists.

Not at all. The PN is synonymous with dialogue; it is our strength. Vision 2015 is not copying the Labour Party. Lawrence Gonzi had launched it in 2007. It is a doable programme, but the party's role now is to take that vision further. We have to leap into another generation.

Nobody in the past dreamt of reforming the shipyards from a company that was politically organised - rather than economically motivated - into a private company that seeks economic viability. This is a generational vision that is happening today.

What happened to the system of complaints you wanted to set up and which landed you in trouble after you sent the information to Jason Micallef by mistake?

We have strengthened the system of complaints in the party, but politics is not only about receiving and dealing with complaints. We have to be proactive to prevent complaints from arising.

It would be a mistake for a party to organise itself around a system of complaints management.

But your original idea was to have a system similar to the one adopted before the last election when people met the Prime Minister and their grievances were addressed immediately. What happened to this system?

I still believe that what worked in the run-up to the election should be maintained throughout a whole legislature.

What communication channels does the party have with government complaints officers?

The communication is within the parameters of the law and this was confirmed by the Data Protection Commissioner. The PN always wanted a system to have complaints that reached the party being passed on to the relevant government departments. After all, we are here to render a service to those people who come to us.

The government has had a rough ride this year with a damning report by the Auditor-General on the power station extension contract, the recent suspension of European funds for educational programmes because of mismanagement and the recent allegations of bribery in the super yachts privatisation. Do these matters worry you?

I see them in a different context. It is one thing to speculate like the Labour Party is doing and it is another thing to deal with matters politically. As a party we are obliged to see that the government puts into practice the electoral programme which people voted for. However, the party has its own agenda and it is distinct from government.

Looking at the issues we have to make a distinction between the different cases. The case concerning the educational funds from the EU is an unfortunate one. These programmes are suspended until the necessary verification is carried out.

The funds were suspended after the Education Ministry failed to act on the warnings delivered by the European Commission nine months ago. Isn't it ironic that a party which argued that EU funds were one of the major benefits of EU membership has arrived at this point?

It is unfortunate that we had to come to this stage and the Prime Minister has ordered an inquiry into the matter. However, it is also saddening how Alessandro Cristina (the Education Minister's son) was implicated in the affair. He was employed with the agency that handled the funds before Dolores Cristina was appointed Education Minister and it is saddening to try and pin all the responsibility on him.

We have to wait for the inquiry but I also hope this programme is reactivated quickly because we have an interest in seeing young people and students benefitting from these funds just like the 1,500 beneficiaries that have already benefitted from €18 million in EU funds from the same programme.

Has this episode damaged the PN with one of its core areas of support: students and young people?

Whether it has damaged the party or not is a different matter altogether. I do not think we should be seeing it in that light. It is a Labour trend to evaluate issues on the basis of whether they damage the party or not.

As general secretary it should worry you.

We are in politics to do politics - not to manage gimmicks or simply administer the country. Whether it damages the party or not is secondary to the interests of the students.

The students are saying it is an unfortunate situation and are urging us to put the programmes back on track. I do not see anything wrong with students airing their concerns and I do not see it damaging the party. The students are right to call for a quick resumption of these programmes and it is also right to have the money audited.

Isn't it worrying that the ministry took no action for nine whole months?

It worries me because as a politician. I want to make sure that any beneficiary receives the best possible service. It is unfortunate that this happened but we now have to see that it gets back on track.

However, I also find it saddening that the Labour Party tried to single out one person when there is a whole structure that handles funds. My interpretation over why Alessandro Cristina was singled out is that Dolores Cristina, a week earlier, had said she heard Labour MP Justyne Caruana vote 'no' in Parliament on Labour's power station motion.

Are ministers in touch with people?

Ministers are in touch with what the people are feeling and we have worked for this as a party. In the aftermath of the European Parliament election I pushed ministers into the village squares to talk and listen to the people.

This is not only happening at party level but at governmental level, such as the post-Budget dialogues, and now in commemoration of the second year of the legislature. It is not enough but it is positive.

Were critical PN backbenchers bought out when they were ap-pointed parliamentary assistants?

Not at all. The system of parliamentary assistants is giving backbenchers a wider role. In these two years the motivation of MPs to participate and speak out was also a reflection of their constant contact with the electorate. This is a strength not a weakness.

It could be a weakness if it translates into a situation where the government does not enjoy a majority in parliament. There was the vote on the St John's Co-Cathedral, which was withdrawn after Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando spoke out against. Two amendments required the Speaker's casting vote last December when Franco Debono was absent from Parliament. Jean-Pierre Farrugia said he would not vote for the primary healthcare reform proposals.

I see what is yet to come and how we can work together even if we do not agree on everything. In the last general council the design of the stage was also a reflection of what this party believes in. We chose blue and orange because they are two opposing colours but they are also complementary.

Orange has become fashionable after the Nick Clegg effect on UK politics.

We have always used blue and orange. This represents diversity within the context of our values as a party. Diversity is not a weakness.

Last November Jean-Pierre Farrugia had expressed concern that the party was departing from its Christian-Democratic roots. Is there an ideological rift in the party?

Last year the party's immediate political action was focused around job security, and the Budget reflected this. However, Jean-Pierre Farrugia's question in the general council about our Christian-Democratic values prompted a reflection. We realised that jobs were important but job creation should not be an end in itself.

This is why in the last general council we came out with the theme 'With Work We Strengthen Solidarity'. We should not only look at the economy in terms of growth and job creation but as an instrument for solidarity. We repositioned ourselves to embrace the value of solidarity. In this sense Farrugia's call was positive and participatory.

The parliamentary Social Affairs committee has issued a document on cohabitation and how this should be regulated. The implications of the measures proposed in the case of separated individuals who have a second relationship amount to divorce, all but in name. Does this document reflect the party's position?

The document is a reflection of the Social Affairs committee that is made up of members from both sides of the House and who spoke to experts in the field. It is an instrument to fuel debate. The Prime Minister recently announced that a law on cohabitation would have to be in place by year's end. Internally as a party we are discussing the issue.

Doesn't the party have a stand?

The party is participating in the dialogue necessary to formulate the law. Internally we are still formulating our policy.

The PN had made a proposal to regulate cohabitation in the 1998 manifesto. Why is it still debating the issue more than 10 years later?

It was a proposal then and it was declared by the President in his speech that inaugurated Parliament at the start of this legislature. Now, two years later, it is a programme in action.

It's true that we had proposed it in 1998 but even Malta's proposal to join the EU had long featured in the PN's manifestos. The issue is being debated even at grassroots level.

Should cohabiting couples be afforded the same rights as married couples?

We have to speak about rights and obligations. We also have to recognise the different family forms that exist. There should not be any discrimination between those different family compositions but we have to address obligations because cohabitation can lead to a situation where people are more vulnerable.

But should cohabiting couples enjoy the same income tax benefits, inheritance rights, access to housing and the right to take decisions on behalf of the spouse in health-related issues like married couples?

We have to safeguard the type of relationship that exists between the cohabiting individuals. We are obliged to consider some form of recognition for this relationship and so we have to look at all the issues you are raising. The party is internally discussing the matter and will be participating in the national debate.

Will this law talk about the rights of gay couples?

There is a misconception about the PN's relationship with gay people. Internally we do not segregate people. We do not view people according to what they are, but on who they are and what they represent. We have gay people at different levels of the party and we do not make a distinction between a heterosexual and a homosexual candidate.

Will the party find it difficult to convince its Christian base when it comes to afford civil rights to gay people?

We recognise society is changing and as a party we have to provide answers. The PN has its values but it also respects diversity. Internally we do not discriminate and we are an open party.

But the gay lobby is talking about something more than that. They are asking for the recognition of gay civil partnerships on the same lines as married heterosexual couples. Is the PN comfortable with this?

The principles regulating cohabitation should not be confused with those of married couples. There is a distinction between a relationship developing outside marriage and a relationship based on marriage. The PN makes this distinction. The law on cohabitation will also safeguard the distinction.

Will the internal debate on cohabitation create tension between the liberal and Christian-Democratic factions in the party?

Internally we want a mature discussion that leads the party to a balanced position that enables it to participate in the national debate on the matter. We have to safeguard everybody's interests. A law on cohabitation has to safeguard vulnerable individuals even though not all cohabiting couples are in a state of vulnerability.

Will you be contesting the post of general secretary again?

Yes.

Was this the reason you did not submit your name to be considered for the co-option to replace Michael Frendo in Parliament?

Yes. Against all advice, two years ago when I contested the post of general secretary I had said I would not contest the general election to be able to dedicate all my energy to the party. I would have reneged on my promise to party members if I had put my name up for consideration when the co-option was being decided upon.

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.