Opposition Leader Simon Busuttil.

Events of the past seven months had shown that the Labour Government had lost its moral compass, Simon Busuttil said at the end of a debate on the Opposition’s motion requesting a revision of the Speaker’s ruling that found him in prima facie breach of privilege.

The Opposition motion was defeated with 35 against and 25 in favour. Nine members – four from the Government side and five from the Opposition – were absent.

Dr Busuttil said that last week, he had not insulted anyone. Dr Muscat had now gone down in history as being the first prime minster to raise a privilege complaint against an opposition leader.

Dr Busuttil insisted that last week, he had substantiated his argument that there had been political interference in the police handling of the Dalli case.

The issue was not whether John Dalli was guilty or otherwise. That was up to a court to decide. The issue was that a politically appointed commissioner had interfered in the course of justice.

He was appointed by the prime minister, who was responsible for his actions.

Dr Muscat had long campaigned for political responsibility. Now he had to shoulder it.

Former Commissioner Rizzo had said there was a case to arraign Mr Dalli and the Attorney General agreed with him.

He also said there was no political interference from the former government.

It was a fact that Mr Dalli could not be arraigned because he was abroad and had a medical certificate. The new Government removed Mr Rizzo and appointed Peter Paul Zammit, who was known to have close political ties with the Labour Party.

On the day that the police commissioner was appointed, Times Of Malta also reported Mr Dalli had returned to Malta. Mr Dalli said he returned six days earlier. As if Mr Rizzo, who knew he was being removed, could arraign Mr Dalli during that period.

It was a fact that the investigative team in the Dalli case was removed.

It was a fact that the new Commissioner made the decision not to arraign Mr Dalli on his own and contrary to others’ views (government interruptions).

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I defend your right to say it

The Government was responsible since it appointed him. He later admitted that the Attorney General had not necessarily agreed with him.

It was also a fact that a few days later, Dr Muscat had appointed Mr Dalli as a govern-ment consultant.

This was a chain of events that would lead any level-headed person to come to the reasonable conclusion that there had been political interference, for which the Prime Minister was responsible. The Govern-ment should not insult the people’s intelligence.

His appeal, Dr Busuttil said (amid government interruptions) was for politics to be built built on principles and substance. This government had already lost the moral plot and its moral fibre.

MPs should vote in favour of the Opposition motion if they disagreed with immorality as displayed in this case, as well as in the cases of a World Bank-blacklisted person being appointed to speak for the Government, a person being suspended over the Gozo Channel controversy and a minister’s wife made a government envoy.

The Prime Minister should smell the coffee, Dr Busuttil said.

Earlier, Dr Busuttil said privilege was there to protect MPs, but Dr Muscat was using it to gag the Opposition. But he wanted to assure Dr Muscat that no one would gag it.

What Dr Muscat had done was to act against the Opposition’ right to express itself.

The Opposition would fight to defend this right, if need be, in the Maltese courts and the European Court of Human Rights.

Quoting Voltaire to government MPs’ boos, Dr Busuttil said the principle was: “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I defend your rights to say it.”

Dr Busuttil said he obviously remembered the time when he was appointed head of MIC.

He also remembered how at the time, Dr Muscat could not be appointed to that post, as he was at the time campaigning against EU membership.

But to compare his appointment at MIC with that of a ministers’ wife as envoy, as Dr Muscat had done, showed that he did not understand the issue.

A government could appoint people to positions of trust but it could not appoint a minister’s wife in that way.

She obviously had a right to work, but not in that position, in that way.

Dr Muscat had spent a legislature criticising former ministers for taking a raise of €500 a week, and Dr Mizzi himself had now taken six times as much.

Taking part in the debate were Mario de Marco, Francis Zammit Dimech and Beppe Fenech Adami from the Opposition, and Carmelo Abela, Joe Mizzi, Deborah Schembri and Owen Bonnici from the government side. Their contributions can be read on timesofmalta.com