There is something which irks me quite a lot. Giving importance to the primary natural/physical environment is laudable. More should be given.

But why do we not give, at least, an equal amount of attention to our secondary environment, that is the human-made, socio-cultural environment?

Since the 1990s, probably in preparation for Malta’s eventual accession to the EU, we set up a regulatory framework to protect our primary environment, which can perhaps teach us a thing or two about protecting the socio-cultural environment.

The Environmental Impact Assessment was one of the main protective tools. Research and consultation were at the heart of these EIAs. At that time, the then Planning Authority was spearheading environmental concern, as environmentalists were still considered to be little more than tree huggers.

The EIA, emanating from European legislation, seeks to evaluate the impact of a development proposal on various environmental aspects: noise, dust, flora and fauna, archaeology, shadow generation, wind tunnels and the like.

The bigger the project, the bigger the impact, and consequently the EIA should encompass wider parameters.

Naturally, the concept was refined over time as the sensibilities of the general public developed and became more demanding. By the 1990s, the concept developed, now through specific EU binding legislation, into Strategic Environment Impact Assessment – not only the impact of a particular project but the impact of a group of projects.

The quality of life became increasingly important as the public became increasingly aware of its responsibility. This not only focused on its current living conditions but also on what it was leaving to future generations.

As the argument went – it’s all about living a better quality of life, so gauging the impact through research and consultation ensured this principle. If it’s important enough to have an impact, measure it. That is our motto today.

This said, however, it seems that what is good for the physical goose is not equally applicable for the socio-cultural gander. There does not exist, as far as I know, a mandatory requirement to hold impact assessments when the government enacts legislation that affects our secondary, socio-cultural environment. This is not right.

I believe that all important legislation should be based on consultation and research to assess how it will affect the quality of our lives. Such legislation could probably have more impact than a building project would.

Truth be said, although this regulatory provision is missing, the number of times when governments voluntarily resorted to consultation and research is not small. For example, the present Labour Government has embarked on a raft of consultation exercises, an indication that research and consultation will be a hallmark of the administration.

There was an extensive consultation exercise about school uniforms. Government has launched a White Paper that paves the way for the introduction of free childcare for working parents. It will launch a Green Paper about poverty.

The management of the Pharmacy of Your Choice scheme as well as the medicine procurement and distribution system will be the subject of a White Paper asking for the public’s feedback. A fully fledged report will be the basis for consultation about the health sector. White Papers will be issued on shop opening hours, a ban on circus animals, new means of mass transport and the local wardens system.

Within this growing culture of consultations and studies, those legislative measures whose enactment ignores this process will manifestly stand out like sore thumbs. Two such examples are the gay marriage (in all but name) act and the selling of our citizenship. They just fly in the face of this culture of consultation.

The two lines in favour of civil unions in the electoral manifesto of the Labour Party were balanced by several public declarations against gay marriage and adoptions by gay couples. Given that this subject is, at least, as important as school uniforms and shop opening hours, one would have expected a process of vast consultation and, better still, a White Paper.

According to the news website Newsbook, on June 27, Social Dialogue Minister Helena Dalli publicly promised that by the end of September a White Paper on civil unions would be published.

The Government reneged on its public commitment. Instead of consulting with all stakeholders, it only consulted with the gay lobby. Instead of a White Paper, we were presented with a Bill. Isn’t the redefinition of marriage and the radical transformation of the adoption regime as important a subject as school uniforms? Isn’t the effect of such legislation more lasting than changing the style of school uniforms?

This legislation cheapened our country, harmed its reputation and enshrined the attitude that everything has a price but most have no value

The Government also threw overboard the process of consultation in the process of enacting legislation to sell our citizenship. This is decidedly a more worrying move since the subject was totally absent from Labour’s electoral manifesto.

Although no Labour big gun ever mentioned the subject prior to the election, it is hard to believe that there were no behind-the-scenes moves and, probably, done deals before the election.

Then, hey presto, after the elections, we find out that our citizenship was up for grabs by the rich of this world who wanted to roam about the EU and the US just because they possess a fat wallet.

Our government came up with a scheme, the likes of which exists in no EU member state. Our models were dubious Caribbean countries, sunny places for shady people. Our country is shamefully being reduced to the status of the St Kitts and Nevis of the Mediterranean!

Shop opening hours are such a serious subject that a White Paper was considered to be in order. The use of animals in circuses was similarly considered to be important. But the prostitution of our citizenship was considered to be just a matter of course.

This legislation cheapened our country, harmed its reputation and enshrined the attitude that everything has a price but most have no value.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt

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.