Opposition deputy leader Mario de Marco yesterday asked whether the Bill on political party financing would contribute to the stagnation of the Maltese political system, even though it advocated the formation of political parties in the public interest.

Speaking in Parliament during the debate in second reading of the Bill, Dr de Marco said that although the two-party parliamentary system lent stability and consistency to the political climate in Malta, it had its shortcomings.

Political parties, including those not represented in the House, had given a contribution in the democratic and social development of the country.

The debate in the House, however, had focused on the two political parties, as if the political scenario could not change.

The Bill also dealt with the right of political parties to receive equal treatment without any prejudice to other laws or regulations as representation under the electoral law. This was a fundamental concept because such treatment could also refer to direct or indirect financial contribution to political parties.

There was a time when people enrolled in a political party to gain employment with the government led by that party

Another clause pointed out that citizens were free to join or not to join a political party. He said this clause was important because there was a time when people enrolled in a political party to gain employment with the government led by that party.

Dr de Marco noted that National Statistics Office figures showed that about 400 new employees were engaged in the public service during the period preceeding the European parliamentary elections earlier this year. This showed the need to strengthen democracy.

On registration of political parties, he argued that such a party was the essence of freedom of expression and as such did not need to be registered. He asked whether a party which was not registered could avoid issues of accountability.

Accountability was essential, so that the Bill contemplated the regulation and control of donations to political parties. What distinguished political parties in the past was the lack of transparency, which was also reflected in the government.

He complained that the government was not answering parliamentary questions raised by Opposition MPs, and it was not giving information or publishing contracts between the government and a number of companies. This was lack of accountability.

Political parties incurred a lot of expense in their organisation, with billboards, advertisements, council meetings and conventions among other activities.

One had to regulate the income and expenditure of political parties. Opinion makers and the media often asked whether certain donations were made as a reward or because individuals or groups expected something in return.

One had to address such issues, he said, adding that discussion on public funding was important and it had nothing to do with whether a political party was bankrupt or not.

He asked whether contractors helping a particular political party were doing so to gain some sort of advantage or were asking for a favour. It was unacceptable that the Bill did not exclude donations to political parties from a company where the State had a minority shareholding.

He also queried how donations above €7,000 could be recorded by a party’s financial secretary when it was not necessary to register them.

One should consider a capping on the amount of money that a political party could spend in its electoral campaign.

Concluding, Dr de Marco said the Labour government of the 1970s had abused its authority when it did not give equal treatment to political parties and did not distinguish between the party, the government and the State. As a result there was no level playing field between the parties today.