Opposition leader Simon Busuttil. Photo: Matthew Mirabelli

Simon Busuttil warned the government last night that if the Opposition’s proposed amendment to the party financing Bill was not endorsed by Parliament, he would take matters to the Constitutional Court.

The amendment provides for the Labour Party to declare its clubs and the revenues derived from them, and then adjust party financing accordingly to eliminate discrimination.

Closing the Opposition’s contribution to the debate on the Bill, Dr Busuttil said that if the party in government was not willing to give back the properties it had “stolen” from public and private hands, these should at least be declared and the revenues accrued from these properties deducted from the financing budget.

He enjoined the government to support the amendment for the common good and as a gesture of goodwill.

If it was not passed, the Opposition would look into human rights laws and seek to obtain redress to the discriminatory position it would be placed in.

Dr Busuttil said he wanted to make it absolutely clear that the Opposition was in favour of this law and fully intended to vote for it. Political parties were crucial in a democracy so it was essential they should not be shackled or prevented from operating properly through lack of finances.

A clear financing law would make it less possible for parties to be bought off by donations from anonymous individuals or companies. When a party was bought off, it would have to pay that back.

The PL electoral campaign, he said, had a visibly huge and anonymous financial backing when compared to the very modest PN campaign.

When the PN published how much its campaign had cost, the PL had the audacity to say that its own campaign was less expensive.

This was unbelievable and had raised a lot of suspicions. The Opposition believed in truth and transparency, unlike the present government.

The Opposition would look into human rights laws and seek redress

This law would introduce transparency in the size of donations people could make. Everyone would know where they stood and the public would be able to judge for itself.

The Opposition was in favour of this law because it believed there should not be any discrimination between the parties. There should be a level playing field in party financing.

The reservations of the Opposition lay in the fact that the government did not want to include State financing of the parties in this Bill. The PN wanted equality and the government wanted inequality, he said.

It was time there was public funding. Even AD agreed with this, but the Bill said there should not be public financing. This was ironic given the PL had been benefiting from it through the acquisition of public land and properties for decades.

State financing already existed – but only for Labour.

Among Labour’s assets were clubs worth millions, requisitioned a long time ago on the back of the taxpayer.

What justice was there if the PL could simply take a property from families and use it for decades without equitable compensation? Of the PL’s 28 clubs, six of them had been taken from private families.

As the Opposition was not expecting the PL, not known for its generosity, to accede to its request, it had come with a proposal: if the PL failed to return these properties, then all parties should be bound to annually declare any income from any public properties they may be using.

If discrepancies between the parties were found, these would have to be rectified.

If this proposal was rejected, the PN would have to rethink its position and it was prepared to use every constitutional means to ensure there was no discrimination.

Dr Busuttil said he believed matters did not need to escalate to that point.