The Times of Malta editorial last Wednesday castigated the Malta Employers’ Association for “questioning” the presence of journalists at its MCESD presentation of EIRA amendments’ proposals.
In certain aspects this criticism may be justified, however the matter of media presence at meetings of the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development is more complex than might initially appear.
In respect of the specific incident, in terms of publicity and coverage, if anything, the MEA had every interest in allowing the press to stay on for the presentation of its proposals to amend the Employment and Industrial Relations Act. However, as expected, General Workers’ Union officials raised the dubious issue of “unfair” and “undue” exposure to the MEA’s proposals, at the expense of their views on EIRA changes.
The issue of the presence of the press at MCESD meetings is still very much unresolved. There are three schools of thought: one advocates a total ban on the presence of journalists; another would allow the presence of journalists at an initial presentation stage and not the ensuing discussion; and, finally, the option of a full opening up of the meetings to journalists, even at the debating stage.
Any one of the three options brings advantages and disadvantages to the attainment of the objectives that the law has set for the MCESD.
A total ban on the presence of journalists contradicts basic principles of press freedom and shackles a process of open consultation and free expression of views of members.
No doubt, formal MCESD presentations, as part of a consultation process, will invariably benefit from the presence of journalists.
Excluding journalists from an ensuing debate can be justified on given occasions but not necessarily always. The Times of Malta editorial hints that, sometimes, the presence of the press may inhibit disinterested and objective debates, particularly on controversial and delicate issues. However, the editorial also rightly points out a justified interest of the public to know about the views expressed at the council.
Should the MCESD be perceived as a debating institution similar to the House of Representatives? Hardly.
The MCESD is primarily a consultative council that reacts to social and economic events as they happen. It receives information from the government, which information is assessed and debated, and feedback is given. However, furthermore, the council can and does call for special debates and focus when particular problems emerge, Libya being a case in point and the deteriorating industrial relations environment, highlighted by the MEA, another.
There is need for a different engagement from the MCESD chairman and its members
The MEA did not, in the past, and does not now agree with the Chamber of Commerce, Enterprise and Industry’s description of the MCESD as being a rudderless, irrelevant and inconsequential national body.
This description, which the editorial quotes, does not describe the MCESD. The MCESD is not in dire need of radical reform, however there is certainly a need for a different engagement from its chairman and its members.
Independent leadership and initiative are required from a chairman to keep the MCESD relevant and effective.
Members too must become more proactive in proposing topics for discussion. They must become more demanding so that particular issues are brought for discussion at MCESD. They must not just passively only accept for discussion whatever is presented to them by whomever.
So to reconfirm, of course, ministers may and should continue to request MCESD slots to make their presentations. Likewise, however, should employer, union and civil society council members.
As already stated, there seems to be no problem when a request is made so that a media presence occurs during presentations. There may, or may not, however be a problem if the media presence is requested at the post-presentation debating phase.
Perhaps this issue of a public debating MCESD would be best decided ad hoc on a case-by-case basis. Meanwhile, an MCESD chairman does not require permission from or the consensus of members to put an item on the council’s agenda when such a request is legitimate and is not precluded by established rules.
MCESD members are more than free to attend or not attend convened meetings and are equally free to participate or not in a debate.
In practical terms, it is becoming very evident that a sensible chairman should immediately set up standard recurring monthly or bimonthly meetings. For these set meetings, the chairman will accept and line up members’ items, including ministerial presentations, to be placed on the agenda.
Concise presentation times must be strictly adhered to.
Ad hoc convening of MCESD meetings should only occur extraordinarily. Whoever requires the attention of, or exposure to, the MCESD, should accept adherence to the dates of the recurring set meetings.
In conclusion, the effectiveness of the MCESD will hinge on the courage and ability of individual members to condition it to consider and debate really relevant social and economic issues.
Undue pressure, or not so undue, applied to preclude undesirable discussions on particular issues must be resisted by all the social partners.
Arthur Muscat is president of the Malta Employers’ Association.