Opposition Leader Simon Busuttil yesterday appealed to the government to respect the basic rules of modern democracy and to ensure civil and serious debates.

Speaking during the adjournment, Dr Busuttil told Parliament that recent government actions, including moves to unilaterally postpone local council elections by as much as five years, undermined democracy and smacked of a dictatorship.

The government was set to amend the Local Councils Act and revoke all elections for five years. He noted that whenever decisions were taken with regard to elections, there had always been consensus between the government and the Opposition.

The Prime Minister had said in May that he sought to remove elections for local councils because they were a waste of money. “Democracy is not a waste of money, Mr Prime Minister,” Dr Busuttil said.

It could not argue that previous governments acted in the same manner. The Nationalist government paid for its mistakes

Even though the government had a big majority in Parliament, it could not tamper with elections as if nothing happened. There should be regular elections and someone who was elected for a term should not have his term renewed automatically.

Even as the government gave 16-year-olds the right to vote in local elections, it would be removing such elections. This meant that 16-year-olds would have to wait until they were 21 to vote in local councils elections for the first time.

Earlier, Dr Busuttil said that although political parties disagreed continuously, the government had manifested irresponsible behaviour over the last few days. It had lied, concealed public contracts and been intolerant to criticism.

The publication of Sai Mizzi Liang’s contract showed that the Prime Minister had lied to Parliament about her wage. She was not paid €3,000 a month but €13,000.

Noting that former US president Richard Nixon had resigned after lying about the Watergate scandal, Dr Busuttil said that Dr Muscat shouldered no responsibility for his lie.

It had become anathema to criticise the government. Intolerance to criticism showed that one had lost the argument.

One had to rebut criticism with other arguments and not with name-calling.

Speaking about the Enemalta Bill, Dr Busuttil said it was normal for parties to disagree. However, the government’s continuous concealment of agreements was contrary to the principle of transparency.

“How can Parliament do its work if it is not given access to all the information it needs to fulfil its duties?”

Turning to party financing, Dr Busuttil said the Opposition agreed with the Bill but it also suggested that it was time to consider party financing by the State. Political parties would thus not be dependent on large private donations.

Although one could argue that the PN had made a U-turn, the government had also changed its position. While it had argued in favour of the State funding political parties in the past, it was now saying that it was not time to consider such an option.

Dr Busuttil said this would mean that the PL would enjoy the proceeds of public property it had donated to itself, including Australia Hall, while arguing that taxpayers should not pay to finance political parties. “There should be a level playing field.”

Speaking about independent institutions, Dr Busuttil said that never had a person been appointed to the judiciary directly from a party’s media.

Two wrongs did not make a right. The government could not defend its actions by arguing that previous governments acted in the same manner. The previous Nationalist government had paid for its mistakes.