Tourism Minister Mario de Marco said this evening that the fact that the Opposition had moved a no-confidence motion without justification amounted to democratic fraud.
Speaking on the second day of the no-confidence debate, he noted that the Opposition had still not explained the reasons for its motion. Opposition leader Joseph Muscat, he said, was showing himself to be opting first for the politics of convenience, and now the politics of silence.
During the debate, Nationalist MPs placed a strong accent on the government's economic performance. Opposition MPs did not participate in the debate and most of them were not in the Chamber.
Today's sitting was opened by Parliamentary Secretary for Youth and Sport Clyde Puli who noted, like Francis Zammit Dimech yesterday, that no reasons had been given by the Opposition for its no confidence motion. And that was with good reason, he said, because the economy was performing better than that of other countries, and the government was sticking to its electoral programme.
Workers in Malta were not losing their jobs, queuing for work or seeing their pensions eroded. Students were not seeing tuition fees rise; instead tuition was free at all levels.
In Malta parents were enjoying lower income tax and higher children's allowance, among other measures.
The government was assisting many sports organisations. Suffice to say that 33 sports grounds were built in the past few years.
The government knew where it was heading. But no one knew how a Labour government would act. No one knew how it would attract investment and create jobs.
How would Labour keep its promise to reduce the power tariffs when it had raised them steeply at a time when international oil prices were very very low.
How could anyone even consider toppling the government in current circumstances?
The government, however, was not clinging to power and it would act according to Thursday's vote and the parameters of democracy.
A GOVERNMENT PROUD OF ITS RECORD
Beppe Fenech Adami said the government had to be judged by its record, and its best record was in creating and safeguarding jobs.
The government would also be judged for its excellent records in education and health, where spending and progress was continuing while other countries were making cutbacks. Malta was spending €41,000 on education per hour, and €50,000 on health.
Dr Fenech Adami said he was also voting against the no-confidence motion because this was a government proud of its record in helping the elderly.
This was also the government formed by a party which took Malta into the EU and gave a future for young people, when the PL and its current leader had opposed EU membership.
He was also proud of this government because of its help to people with disabilities
He would vote against the no-confidence motion because of he was oroud of the government's actions in foreign affairs, particularly when faced by the Arab Spring. The situation could have been very different had the government heeded the Opposition's advice. What the Opposition had wanted was for Malta to campaign for the tourists which those destinations had lost.
The Opposition, Dr Fenech Adami said, still had to reveal its vision for the country and its policies for the various sectors. But the people so far only had the 52 soap bubbles which the Opposition inflated in the wake of the Budget speech, including promises which had already been implemented by the government. And even that list was seriously lacking, saying nothing about, for example, pensions, crime, foreign affairs, the police, youths, people with disabilities and public transport.
The Sunday Times had asked Dr Muscat why the people should vote for him, and his reply was that his testing group was that of an MEP. But his track record only showed that he tried to deny millions of euro for the waste recycling plant. He did not even manage to convince his socialist group on the working time directive or on issues of education.
Dr Fenech Adami said that should an election be called, the government would go before the people with a record it could boast about. The Opposition, in contrast, had nothing.
Tourism Minister Mario de Marco said that if this no-confidence motion was backed by a majority, the country would probably have to go for an early election, a situation which was against the people's wishes.
MPs had a duty to ensure that the people's wish to have a government for five years was not changed. Prudence was needed. In a similar situation in 1998, the opposition had extended the hand of support. But the real problem at the time was in government policies and in the fact that that government had stopped the EU accession process and lost its social plot. The then Opposition had appealed to the government to change course, and it would then support it to remain in office. For the then Nationalist Opposition, the national interest had come before early elections, and it waited for nine months before the situation came to an end.
The present leader of the opposition was in a hurry, however. He wanted to cut the people's mandate short. In an e-mail Dr Muscat sent to many people on January 16, he said this was time for new leadership. He claimed that the country needed him.
But, with respect, what was special about him? Did he have a vision or track record. What had his position been on EU membership and what was his position in the wake of the EU referendum? He had been against accession and backed those who claimed the Nos had won. He had also said that the opposition should vote against the EU accession treaty. Yet he then agreed to be a candidate for the European Parliament elections.
His credentials, therefore, were credentials of convenience. He made a cardinal mistake on the fundamental choice of EU membership. And there was an emptiness with regard to his views for the future. From convenience politics he had moved to the politics of silence.
He spoke on a fresh and innovative economic policy in his e-mail. But what would this consist of, given that Malta was doing better than other countries?
Would he change the jobs policy, or the financial services policy, which were doing so well? Would he stop the government's assistance to factories to safeguard jobs. Would he change tourism policies, which were yielding such good results?
He was saying he would change economic policy, but, again, how?
Dr Muscat would have been justified to move a no-confidence motion if the economy was stuttering, But it was growing by almost twice the rate of the EU. So what was there to change?
DEMOCRATIC FRAUD
That the opposition had moved a no-confidence motion when there was no reason for it amounted to democratic fraud.
He was not saying that the government did not have problems, Dr de Marco said. But it had the enthusiasm, the ideas and the commitment, to implement what it had promised.
Mistakes had been made, and he would be the first to apologise for them, he said, but that did not stem for disrespect to the people. Circumstances in Malta and abroad changed, and the government had to set priorities according to the nation interest.
But this was the government which in a very difficult scenario, was setting the basis for future growth. It was this future stability which would be severely shaken if an election was held now, ironically on the pretext of stability.
The people had made their choice four years ago and their mandate must not be cut short.
This government, Dr de Marco said, remained ready, willing and able to make the people proud of their country and proud to live in freedom.
OPPOSITION CAUSING INSTABILITY
Finance Minister Tonio Fenech said there are no arguments as to why there should be a no confidence vote in the government and it was the opposition’s motion that was causing instability.
The Opposition was absent from the debate on its own motion and it was failing to say how it could be different from this government when and if it was elected to government.
The Opposition was only offering emptiness. Could it be that the Opposition leader has been advised that the less said the better, he asked.
Mr Fenech referred to the IMF mission’s visit which, he said, praised the government’s work in the past four years to address the crisis and recognised the fact that the Maltese economy in 2010 had recovered very well and in spite of turbulences.
It also warned that the situation in 2012 was to be very difficult and much more attention was needed from the government to protect jobs on which families depended.
But the Opposition was ridiculing the world economy in all its complexity, bringing it down to the level of a box of oranges. If this was how the Opposition leader wanted to convince the people that he could manage the country, it showed his shallowness and lack of will and preparation. It showed that he would be the country’s biggest gamble.
The past four years, Mr Fenech said, were the toughest and had led to the fall of governments. Because of the government’s work, the country had managed to come out stronger and be one of the six EU states which managed to increase employment.
Malta had also seen an expansion in its tourism and financial services markets while reducing the tax burden on the people.
From the 27 EU states, only six countries managed to see an increase in the employment market.
The government took precautionary measures to help factories and tourism, saving jobs in the process and it would do so again if need be. This government had been with the worker in the moment of truth.
A STEADY HAND
Nationalist MP Charlo Bonnici also insisted that the opposition should explain the reasons for its no confidence motion. How was it measuring the government’s performance?
Dr Gonzi had shown himself to be a steady hand on the tiller, despite the economic storm. His government had a record to be proud of in foreign affairs, health, tourism, education, the environment and so many other sectors.
Mr Bonnici said this was a government which not only had an economic record to be proud of, but it could also boast of having the courage to carry out reforms which had been pending for many, many years, such as the transport reform and reforms in many other sectors.
This was also a government which had been brave enough to initiate talks on democratic reform, including a law on party financing. But the opposition had walked out of the committee which was discussing these reforms.
This government deserved the confidence of parliament and the people because it had shown itself to be the government which the country needed in the current circumstances.
Dr Jean-Pierre Farrugia (PN) said he was proud of his work as a backbencher. He was proud to have put some 2,000 parliamentary questions - the second highest on the government benches. Nearly all had come from his constituents. He was the first MP in parliament to have asked the government about hospital waiting lists, not the opposition. That he had asked the government a number of searching questions had been wrongly interpreted by the Opposition media as criticism of the government. He was happy to note, however, that where waiting lists were involved, the waiting lists were down. Criticism, clearly, counted, even when it came from the government's own back benches.
The same applied to other areas he had asked about, such as access to free medicines, the public-private partnerships he had advocated for slum clearance and social housing, social-urban regeneration and the fact that the pharmacy of your choice was initially only rolled out in the North. His criticism of proposed primary health care reforms had also been heard.
In line with the code of ethics of MPs, Dr Farrugia said he had not used improper influence or threats to achieve his aims. As Fr Joe Borg wrote in his blog on timesofmalta.com in 2008 he believed in loyal dissent. Sometimes that meant saying no to the leaders, but that could be an act of serving love.
Dr Farrugia said an early election might in some circumstances be a blessing in disguise, but an election was not something which Malta needed at this time. Austerity measures, if they were needed, should not come with elections on the horizon.
Gozo Minister Giovanna Debono said the Opposition's 16-word no-confidence motion did not reflect seriousness. The opposition was ignoring the people's interests and giving preference to its own.
She said the government was managing to carry out its programme despite the economic situation. That programme included giving particular attention to Gozo. The PN was the only government which had a vision for Gozo. The lastest concept for Gozo, which was fast coming to fruition, was that of eco-Gozo. Mrs Debono went on to list programmes carried out in Malta, inclcuding the closure of the waste dump, sewage purification, school building, tourism training, better roads, restoration of the Cittadella, and better healthcare.
LOYALTY KEY TO SUCCESS - ARRIGO
Robert Arrigo (PN) joked at the beginning of his speech that he could not produce his secondary school certificates because his mother could not produce them. MPs came and went, he said, but the party remained and its policies and values should be respected. The coach in any team expected loyalty more than anything else. One could not be successful unless those in the dressing room were united and what was said in the dressing room stayed there.
He understood how some MPs wanted to progress, maybe too fast. In his private life, he had ventured out on his own to build his 'empire' but he did so without bringing anyone down.
Mr Arrigo said people were hurt when he was among the MPs with the highest number of votes from two districts, yet some in the Cabinet were only just elected. But he agreed on the need for loyalty.
Unfortunately people did not heed the backbenchers, not even The Times. For example, he had had spoken about the problems of Air Malta seven years ago.
The current situation should be a lesson, Circumstances had changed, people's expectations had changed. He would remember how on the Qui Si Sana issue he had strong arguments with someone more powerful than him, but he got his way and a car park was not built there.
Mr Arrigo said he had been given space in a ministry for services which did not exist, but nonetheless, he was proud to have continued to be of service to his constituents.
He had also suffered 10 months of blackmail during which he kept the prime minister constantly informed. They had exchanged many SMSs and e-mails - not as much as in the case of another person - but the prime minister had encouraged him, showing his human face, for which he was grateful.
Mr Arrigo said mistakes had been made. For example, he was critical of a Mepa permit issued recently in St Julians which would lead to a blot on this area. He had also complained about excessive spending in Sliema on openings (of projects) The money could have been better spent where it was needed.
The finance minister wanted to cut spending, while another minister was continuing to engage people.
Mr Arrigo said many candidates, especially from the PL, were making promises they could not keep. The PL, he said, was in a quandary with new candidates, old candidates, super candidates, and candidates which were on again, off again, he said to applause.
Businesses were worried because they did not know what a possible change of government would bring, Mr Arrigo said. He warned, as he did on a TV programme yesterday, that an abstention in this no confidence vote would render the government like a car with a slow puncture. Elections, he said, should be held in their proper time, as they would otherwise bring about disruption.
STRONG INVESTMENT IN EDUCATION
Dr Stephen Spiteri (PN) also underscored the government's performance in education and health. Education, he said, was regarded by the government as the key for individual development, but also the development of society and the economy.
It was a source of pride, he said, that Malta had the best rating in inclusive education. This government was investing heavily in its schools, but it was also giving direct and indirect assistance to Church and independent schools to ensure that they too were sustainable. Church schools on their own would this year be given €45m by the government.
Dr Spiteri also highlighted the scholarships - well over 1,000 - handed out by the government and co-funded by the European Union. These, he said, had given students opportunities which were previously unavailable.
The government, he said, was sowing the seeds which would serve the country well into the future.
Philip Mifsud (PN) said he too wondered how the opposition had not given reasons for its no-confidence motion. Every other motion in parliamentary history had been motivated. In his 20-minute speech yesterday, Joseph Muscat had not given a single reason why no confidence should be shown in the government. Instead, he gave his interpretation of the various scenarios which could emerge from the vote, in a way where he would always win. This only showed political arrogance at its best. One could only wonder how they would act if they were ever to be in government.
The debate continues tomorrow evening.