In a leader entitled ‘Scandal of the historic Australia Hall’ last December, Times of Malta noted that there were certain things in society that belonged to all the people. “But there appears to be a perception among Maltese politicians,” the editorial had added, “that the moment they are elected to government these items of common heritage become uniquely theirs. This is nowhere more so than when it comes to public property.”

It seems that even institutions supposedly there to serve the country, or, rather, the public, can become the property of politicians. We have already heard a senior police officer declare in court they did not speak to people who allegedly bribed public officers to rig electricity meters because of a political decision. The government has decided that such people should not be prosecuted provided that they settle their full bill, pay a fine and also spill the beans.

So the police were subjected to the politician’s whims and now it seems it is the Attorney General’s turn.

When summoned to appear before the Public Accounts Committee, Attorney General Peter Grech refused to answer questions on the Australia Hall case, invoking professional secrecy.

Australia Hall had been transferred to the Labour Party in 1979 in exchange for its former headquarters in Marsa. Four years ago, the Nationalist administration filed a court case to reclaim the property. Then, last October, the new Labour government decided to drop the case.

The PAC is scrutinising the October decision. When an Opposition member asked the Attorney General whether the government or the Government Property Department had approached him or his office about the matter, Dr Grech invoked professional secrecy. The Speaker then ruled that the Attorney General could only be exempt from answering questions covered by professional secrecy if the government, its “collective client”, agreed.

In his decision, the Speaker quoted at length from Erskine May and House of Commons practice.

The 24th edition of the Erskine May Parliamentary Practice, as the Speaker himself felt he should point out, had noted that “the fact of, and substance of advice from, the law officers of the Crown is not disclosed outside government... The purpose of this convention is to enable the government to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence.

“Therefore, the opinions of the law officers of the Crown, being confidential, are not usually laid before Parliament, cited in debate or provided in evidence before a select committee, and their production has frequently been refused; but if a minister deems it expedient that such opinions should be made known for the information of the House, the Speaker has ruled that the orders of the House are in no way involved in the proceedings”.

Surely, the spirit of such practice is to safeguard the national interest and not to cover up decisions of a partisan nature.

The Speaker also felt he should refer to an incident that had arisen in the House of Commons in March 17 following a parliamentary question on the Iraqi invasion. Then Prime Minister Tony Blair had decided to table in Parliament the Attorney General’s advice on resolutions of the United Nations.

If the government has nothing to hide why did it not authorise the Attorney General there and then to go ahead and furnish the information sought by the opposition at the PAC? Or does it prefer the line of confrontation and arrogance?

Labour may have the mandate and the power to govern, however, it should bear in mind that this is no fiefdom and that State institutions are there to serve the people not the party in government.

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.