In a frank interview with Leonard Callus less than 24 hours after she resigned from the Labour Party, Marlene Farrugia says she had to leave the PL not to let down the people who voted for it.

You must have paid a price for your decision to resign last Tuesday. Your political career must have suffered and there must have been some unpleasant reactions.

When joining the political arena, one must be aware that a price will have to be paid. One’s family, one’s state of mind, both pay a price. I had considered this. However, I would never have imagined leaving the Labour Party – a movement of which I was so proud and for which I worked so hard to see it elected – during the first legislature of a Labour government. One has to make a clear distinction between the party and the movement. I had to resign from the party.

Some claim that your decision was not motivated by principles and values. What is your reaction to the claims that you were unhappy about not being appointed minister and about the way your partner [Labour Whip and former health minister Godfrey Farrugia] was treated?

I respect everybody’s opinion. I would like those who think so to place themselves in my position.

When I was part of the Labour opposition we fought against the lack of transparency during the last period of the Nationalist administration. We fought the government’s bad environmental stewardship, for which people were paying a price. We spoke on behalf of people who were expressing their anger, including against the rationalisation exercise that led to the further uptake of land for development. As the Opposition, we criticised the fact that the BWSC contact was not initially made public and insisted that the government publish its agreements.

Now, as the government, we are doing what we had condemned while in Opposition. I have tried hard to convince the government to practise what it preached while in opposition, and will keep on trying. We promised this to the people and it was in our electoral manifesto.

Repeatedly, this has not happened. On Tuesday the government had the opportunity to make a quality leap in transparency. Several might consider this as something minor. It is not. The government failed when it had the opportunity to give people a voice by allowing NGOs to choose their representatives on the environment authority.

When I saw this I realised that the government does not want to be transparent and I made my choice.

So was it more than the amendment to the [Environment Protection] Bill that led you to take such a step?

I’m sure that those who have followed my political life while in Opposition and since the last election, have realised that I voice my opinions. Now we are in government and we carry responsibility. I have always voiced my concerns whenever I disagreed with any step or with the way any decision was taken or implemented.

I recall that in my early days as an MP, I made a lot of fuss when Dr Lawrence Gonzi said in Parliament that the dockyard would be privatised in spite of the letter he had sent before the election saying this would not be the case. I’m not against privatisation. I’m against sending a letter like that and then doing the opposite.

We did the same. We said that Enemalta would not be privatised and then we privatised it. We never mentioned the citizenship scheme. We promised better stewardship of the environment and more sustainable development but this did not happen. I can go on.

At each stage I tried to convince the government to respect our promises. I have noticed that there is no longer the intention to do so, or the intention is being snubbed.

I kept hoping till the end and took part in Tuesday’s debate to try and convince. The Prime Minster knew my position and I had spoken about my views within the parliamentary group.

Did you discuss your proposals with the Prime Minister and did he inform you that he disagreed?

The Prime Minister knows my views as I led the Parliament’s Environment and Planning Committee. He knew my view on the NGOs’ suggestions. I reminded him about them and invited him to propose the amendments as the government rather than wait for the Opposition to put them forward.

I also sought the go-ahead for the committee that I chaired to discuss the environment protection bill, so that the public, NGOs and experts would be able to make a contribution and debate the Bill with MPs. My view is that people should participate in our decisions throughout the legislature and not only when they cast their vote every five years.

So did the Prime Minister not accept your request?

I sent an e-mail to the Whip to convene such meeting. I asked the Deputy Prime Minister, and naturally the Prime Minister was informed. I was abroad and Godfrey Farrugia called the meeting once on my behalf, but it was at short notice. A few hours were not enough. I then made another request, for the Bill to be discussed at committee stage within the environment and planning committee rather that in the committee for the consideration of bills. The request was rejected.

Do you believe that the Minster for the Environment is giving the environment the importance it deserves?

The environment minister is doing what he can in the circumstances he can operate in.

Was the environment the only issue that led to your decision?

There are several. The manner in which Enemalta was handled. I asked for the publication of the agreements several times. We learnt from the media that an unprecedented €360 million guarantee was issued in favour of a private company. We heard that Bank of Valletta had granted a loan to this end. We heard rumours about Air Malta of which we, as a parliamentary group, know nothing. These are a few examples.

I have tried hard to convince the government to follow what it preached while in opposition, and will keep on trying

Often we, as the parliamentary group, learn of what the government has decided from the media. Within the group I had to face the Żonqor issue. Were it not for the people who stood up and said no, we would have lost 90,000 square metres of land. At least, after civil society took a stand, this was reduced by 70,000.

Why does not even the parliamentary group enjoy its deserved share of the country’s governance?

Why are we closing ourselves up? We used to criticise the Nationalist administration and repeated the accusation, made by someone else, that it was an oligarchy. Why are we behaving in an identical manner?

The Prime Minister has described you as a free thinker. Does this mean there is no space for such people within the Labour Party?

I don’t believe that the Prime Minster meant that. He said I was a free thinker and so was he. The difference between me and the Prime Minister is that I am a free thinker and free to think, while he is a free thinker – and I agree with him on several ideological issues – but he is not free to think because he would somehow compromise himself in a manner that only he can tell of. I cannot tell you how.

Do you think there are parliamentary group members who are afraid to speak out?

I am sure there are.

What would you advise these MPs to do?

I would pass on the same message as I send to the rest of the Maltese people: stand up to be counted when the country needs you.

You made a distinction between the movement and the party. What is the difference?

Let us go back to 2008 when a new party leader was being chosen. The party had turned in on itself. Everybody knew that if it did not open up and become a welcoming space for civil society, there was no hope that it would be elected one day.

That time I supported George Abela as I considered him to be the personification of such a movement. We know he enjoyed wide support. I’m not referring to the party delegates. I wished for a party where everybody felt comfortable.

Dr Abela was not elected by the party delegates and Dr Muscat asked me to be part of the new political force. I accepted wholeheartedly, convinced that together with the rest we could create the movement we dreamt of. We did so and we won the election by 36,000 votes.

We believed that the nation should be placed above the party’s interests and that was the message in the run-up to the election. I’m sure that the readers have their views as to whether we have practised what we preached.

What has led to such a radical change in less than three years?

I would recommend that you put the question to Joseph Muscat and those who are doing such a disservice to the Labour movement. I have done, and will keep on doing, my duty to the country so that it would rank higher than partisan interests.

Leaving Parliament on Tuesday, you said the PN “saw the light”. Was this a cynical remark?

There is a difference between the current PN and the one that came before it, including on environmental matters. There is a leap in how politics is done within the PN. Many are enlightened while in opposition; the test comes when one is in government. I hope that they remain so when the people elect them to govern.

Do you exclude the possibility of crossing the floor?

I exclude it categorically.

I want to be the voice of the people. I will not cross the floor. Should PN agree with my beliefs and how I want to practise them, let them come. I will not go over.

You said that you will remain in Parliament to be the people’s voice. Who are these people?

The 36,000 majority confirms there were many who believed our promises, including governing without favour, practising meritocracy and transparency, strengthening justice, rule of law, institutions and democracy. The Labour Party in government does not reflect the governance these people expected.

I repeat. The Labour Party in government does not reflect the expectations of those who, for the first time, voted for the movement we created with Dr Muscat.

I believe that I would be abandoning these people if I were to leave Parliament. I have been consistent. It is the Labour Party that has shifted. I will not let these people down.

How can you give them a voice? The government or Opposition have to allow you time to speak in Parliament.

I will ask the government and Opposition to let me be the voice of those people who voted for such governance. I will let people know who it is that gives me the opportunity to speak, that really wants everybody’s voice to be heard.

Moreover, we need an overhaul of Parliament’s standing orders and to make constitutional amendments. It’s not right that the consent of one of the parties is required to place national above partisan interests.

What is your message?

I thank people for using their brains. I appeal to them to stand up and be counted when the country needs them. Their position can lead to change. Don’t be afraid. They can shut my mouth if I am on my own but together they cannot silence us. We are a mature people. Let us show our parties that we are not gullible and we know what we want for our country.