‘Doublethink’ refers to the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accepting both of them. Despite all the odds, George Orwell’s 1984 seems to be having increasing relevance. Take the Prime Minister’s insistence that the new Land Authority is autonomous. The aim of the law is to establish an ‘independent’ authority to replace the Commissioner of Land. However, it empowers the government to appoint critical decision makers and even change their decisions.

The law allows the government to appoint seven of the 10 members of the board of governors, including the chairman and the deputy. Even the ‘independent’ board members will be chosen by the minister. Moreover, the government can even demand that a decision the minister deems unpalatable is revised by sending it back for review and giving “ministerial direction”.

The CEO is also appointed by the minister after a public call. There will be a chief audit officer too who, however, reports to the government-chosen CEO.

Even the experts on the board – an architect and a lawyer – are picked by the government. The Chamber of Architects opposed this, saying they should be appointed by professional bodies.

For an institution to be autonomous it should be independent from the government. If the new Land Authority is to be accepted as autonomous, then we need a new definition of the term.

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat’s defence of the ‘autonomy’ of the Land Authority is backed by Parliamentary Secretary Deborah Schembri, who went from activist to apologist when power suited her, and architect Robert Musumeci, who advised the government on the law.

It is quite ironic that the architect known as the man to go to when you have an application that is unlikely to be accepted by the Planning Authority is the one advising the government on the reform of the Land Authority.

Mr Musumeci penned an opinion piece on this newspaper defending the autonomy of the new Land Authority he helped mould. He says it should be autonomous in the same model as the Planning Authority.

This was said at a time when news emerged of direct instructions from the Office of the Prime Minister to the Planning Authority to include Mrieħel in the high-rise policy after the public consultation process had been closed.

There is also a contradiction in government aims to seek increased autonomy for the former Malta Environment and Planning Authority by separating the environment and planning functions while, at the same time, merging the Land Department and the Land Registry.

It is important to remember where all this started. This newspaper exposed the Gaffarena scandal leading to a damning report by the National Audit Office. The Auditor General concluded that the deal sealed at the Land Department involved collusion with government officials. Real autonomy for the new Land Authority is therefore a main consideration.

The scandals surrounding Australia Hall, Café Premiere and the Gaffarena land deal are enough to legitimise concerns on how the new Land Authority will function. Yet, it seems public concern has instead been used to usher in a reform that consolidates government control of public land management.

A real reform would see the right checks and balance being put in place to address public concerns and introduce effective autonomy. It is a pity the government has instead used the exercise to serve its own political interests.