The Public Domain Bill that was debated in Parliament last week merits some applause. With this law, the government will bind itself to new restrictions on property declared to be in the public domain. The focus is on securing access and enjoyment for the public.
This is a private member’s Bill presented by MP Jason Azzopardi. After years of pushing this forward, Azzopardi was destined to give his speech at the exact moment when the Leader of the Opposition was holding a press conference about the emerging Panamagate scandal.
Bad luck on the day, but this will not detract from its value in the long-term. It has been described as a quantum leap for environmental and heritage protection, and Azzopardi deserves credit for seeing it through.
It is very positive that, on the government side, Parliamentary Secretary Jose Herrera is supporting the Bill, so it is likely to be approved.
This Bill enables the government to select State property and classify it as ‘in the public domain’. Apart from the coastal foreshore and seabed, this can now encompass areas of countryside, public roads and squares, fortifications and valleys.
It can apply to movable property such as collections in museums or art galleries, archives and libraries.
NGOs and local councils will be able to identify and recommend property for the public domain. In his speech, Herrera briefly raised the concern that ‘extremists’ might now expect too much land to become public domain. Hearing that, I hope the Bill does not get watered down by the parliamentary committee before its final approval.
• As soon as the story about Konrad Mizzi’s shell company in Panama broke, people immediately assumed it was set up for dubious reasons. No surprises there.
If Mizzi ever imagined that people might think this set-up was quite normal for a Maltese Cabinet Minister, the generous answer is that he must be politically naïve. Not likely, but there you go.
This is clearly not a desirable quality in a senior politician, today’s super-minister of the Cabinet, who is in charge of privatising major State entities. We could not possibly want a naïve person selling the family silver, thank you very much.
There is a trend for the government’s current crop of advisers to take the line that if something is legal, then it is fine. Perhaps we will now hear that being naïve is not illegal, so that must be fine too.
We should apparently be blind to the heavy, dark clouds over a company in Panama
Unfortunately, serious matters like this can end up so politically polarised that there is a danger of losing sight of the problem.
The constant pointing of fingers at past misdeeds to justify present behaviour is very tiring. Yet, to turn the tables on this, just remember the approach towards Tonio Fenech’s famous tal-Lira clock.
Measured on the scale of the stories emerging today, this gift is a joke. Yet the mud thrown at this ill-fated clock by the Labour Party before the last election depended upon people understanding the nuances of potential corruption. Grey areas hovered around the opportunities or relationships that might lie behind the gift.
Crucially, in that farcical clock story it was not alleged that the gift was illegal, but that it might be wrong or immoral. Politicians were screaming and banging on about this until there were clocks plastered all over Facebook.
It is impossible to believe that these same people do not know that it is unacceptable for a senior Cabinet minister, while still in office, to acquire a shell company in blacklisted and secretive Panama.
And, sinking ever deeper, that they do not see the incongruity of the fact that this idea was floated to the minister by the Prime Minister’s personal assistant, and involved the advice of an accountancy firm close to Castille.
As long as it is mentioned in the next ministerial declaration of assets (after first being exposed in the media) then it’s fine, the Prime Minister has explained. It is apparently not illegal, so it is no problem.
Three years ago, people were expected to understand the wrongdoing that might, admittedly with a stretch of the imagination, be linked to a relatively inexpensive clock. Yet now we should apparently be blind to the heavy, dark clouds over a company in Panama.
The grey areas and nuances have disappeared, and all we hear is the black-and-white, simplistic argument of whether it is legal or not.
I watched Dissett a few days ago and was intrigued to hear Mizzi declare that he is ‘a straight kind of guy’. I think he meant straight-talking, although I got quite lost in his description of the maze of roads he travelled before he alighted in Panama.
The Prime Minister should stop arguing that if it is legal, then it’s fine. People are not missing the wood for the trees. The fact that Mizzi is paying a fine to the Tax Department to regularise his position for not declaring his trust in New Zealand hardly solves the matter.
Times do change and expectations for transparency and accountability are real and steadily growing. There is little point in trying to sweep stories and contracts under the carpet at Castille. Eventually, the truth will out.
petracdingli@gmail.com