Franco Debono
Franco Debono began his speech in Parliament yesterday by describing himself as one of the Prime Minister’s “most loyal” MPs who was never given due credit.
Democracy by radio and justice on cassette recorders
He then picked on the government’s main mantra — that it is busy creating jobs — and said man cannot live by bread alone but also needs human dignity.
He said Malta’s lack of unemployment was partly due to the island’s size, which gave it access to remedies that escaped bigger countries, so not all criticism should be stifled because the country had jobs.
The government had stretched the EU financial crisis to the point that it became an “excuse” for several failings.
Utility prices, he said, were not really just the result of higher oil prices but also because the government had opted for a “polluting and sickness-inducing” heavy-fuel oil power station instead of gas infrastructure.
Dr Debono said Parliament had to have sufficient means to broadcast parliamentary sittings. In the digital era, Malta’s democracy depended on the radio while the administration of justice depended on cassette recorders. These were symptoms of the actual state of the democratic institutions.
He highlighted various failings in the justice sector, and said the two most important changes were thanks to him, including granting suspects access to a lawyer and separating the home affairs and justice portfolios.
He criticised the Attorney General’s excessive powers of discretion, the multi-tasking of inquiring magistrates and the way they were appointed, as well as the former Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, who never spoke about giving suspects the right to a lawyer even though fundamental human rights were being breached.
He said the Justice Minister should not be the one authorising phone tapping and it was unacceptable for the government to dismantle ordinary justice by setting up parallel systems of part-time tribunals and arbitration boards.
The situation in the prisons was unacceptable but no one shouldered responsibility, even after the infamous case of 10 years ago that took centre-stage last December where “poor” Josette Bickle was jailed for drug trafficking. The judge had suspected collusion with prison authorities but no one shouldered responsibility.
Turning to the health sector, he said the primary healthcare reform had not materialised, resulting in long waiting lists and an overcrowded emergency unit.
The only successful reform this legislature was the rent reform – the others were either shelved, implemented badly or meaningless.
Dr Debono said it was Parliament that was elected for five years, not the government. The Prime Minister had a duty to ensure he commanded a majority each day. A Prime Minister acting with absolute discretion was inviting trouble.
The politics of spite was even more dangerous than that of envy, he said, accusing the Prime Minister of dragging his feet so as not to embarrass Cabinet members or be seen to be bowing down to an MP’s pressure.
Belittling the status of an MP sent the wrong message, he said, stressing that MPs were not toys.
Although everyone told him he was right on the things he brought up, he was always ignored. His colleagues told him he had the right to speak but this was a right given by the people, not by his party. While he had the right to speak, the Prime Minister had a duty to act.
Political, constitutional, judicial and electoral reforms were still badly needed.
The country was moving into having a presidential system without the safeguards of having a Congress, because Parliament was being weakened.
Not only was lack of accountability too deeply rooted in the country, but now someone who was doing his best for the country was being “obscenely” asked to resign because he disagreed with this culture.
The lack of constitutional reform was throwing the country back by making people the victims.
Party loyalty should not be seen outside the constitutional framework. MPs should not be puppets, even when the Prime Minister and the Cabinet decided everything without regard to people’s rights.
Everybody should play their part in real teamwork. He had shown team spirit over the years. But this was not shown in the honoraria issue, which was most disrespectful to Parliament.
Nobody was greater than the party but the party machinery was there to strengthen unity, something it did not do in his dispute with former PN candidate Hermann Schiavone. If the Opposition is thirsty for power, Dr Schiavone was “obsessed” with it, he said.
The Prime Minister’s reasoning for voting against divorce despite the referendum was “absurd” and went contrary to democracy, he said, adding that this alone merited resignation.
Concluding, Dr Debono said backbenchers should not be gagged, ministers should be held accountable.
George Pullicino
Resources Minister George Pullicino said that the opposition motion of no confidence had been presented with the sole aim of bringing down the government. There was no declared motivation behind the motion.
No declared motivation
For the opposition, power was the means to an end and no policies or proposals had been presented by Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat during his party’s annual general conference.
The Opposition was vague, going against the electorate’s will and calling an election before the end of the government’s five-year term.
The government had safeguarded employment and the environment, invested in education and initiated a number of projects. A €65 million project against flooding was also in the pipeline.
These projects would provide more work opportunities. The government had also managed to generate energy from waste. On the other hand, when he was an MEP, Dr Muscat had threatened to stop EU funds for green jobs.
The government believed in the people and deserved parliament’s confidence.
Dolores Cristina
Education Minister Dolores Cristina also criticised the Opposition for moving the motion of no confidence in the government for no valid reason whatsoever.
Political opportunism
Various reports had praised the Maltese economy in times of global recession which had brought much bigger economies to their knees.
The true reason behind the Opposition’s motion was political opportunism, more significantly brought out by its silence during the debate. Its MPs’ absence in the House was indicative of its election mode having been put to work.
The Opposition MPs’ absence in the House is indicative of its election mode
Mrs Cristina said that in the absence of clear thoughts from the Opposition it was only natural for people to compare the two parties’ track records, even though Labour’s was in the distant past.
Jason Azzopardi
Small Business Minister Jason Azzopardi observed that according to Dr Muscat, the motion should lead to a fall of the government even if it failed to go through. This contrasted with the Nationalist pledge in 1998 not to lead to the then-government’s failure.
Motion created instability
The motion begged the question why only Dr Muscat was to speak, and none of the members of his promised “best-ever Cabinet”. It was the motion itself that had inflicted instability on the country.
Dr Muscat’s childhood was of little interest to the people. It was not so much where he was coming from as where he was going. At the Labour conference he had made no mention of his plans to be the youngest-ever prime minister.
It is not so much where Joseph Muscat is coming from as where he is going
Minister Azzopardi said Labour’s past on several aspects did not leave much hope for the future, whereas the government’s successes gave only hope, even in the face of current problems. But the government had a proven social conscience.
Mario Galea
Parliamentary Secretary Mario Galea said the government had never won elections through gimmicks but through vision and hard work. Although he did not agree with Franco Debono’s methods, he acknowledged that, unlike the opposition, he was putting forward a number of proposals.
A spectator with no script
The IMF this week had called for more reforms in Malta but had acknowledged the country’s economic resilience despite the eurozone crisis. Malta had been a protagonist in the Libyan crisis and Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi had taken a number of important decisions in such a delicate situation.
The Opposition, on the other hand, had only commented when it became clear which side would be winning the conflict.
Mr Galea said the Opposition resorted to populism and as a result was now only a spectator with no script.
Ċensu Galea
Former minister Ċensu Galea said the motion could not be defended or justified because it was dry and unsubstantiated.
Motion unsubstantiated
He would have expected Dr Muscat to beef up the motion when introducing it last Monday and it would now be too late to try to convince anyone to vote for it during the winding up this morning.
Mr Galea continued listing the government’s achievements and said the government decided in the best interest of the country.
In closing, he condemned hate attacks on blogs and the use of technology to spread hate. However, he said, one must condemn such practices at all times not only when it was convenient and he accused the Opposition’s media of spreading hate and lies.
Karl Gouder
Karl Gouder said the motion had been presented to the background of an international crisis. The government had invested in the economy, education and health and its clear vision was clearly producing good results.
Clear vision
On the other hand, the Opposition’s track record included freezing the EU membership application, removing stipends and increasing taxes.
Peter Micallef
Peter Micallef said that the government had been elected democratically and was not, as claimed, clinging to power.
Good results
Despite the difficult situation prevailing in Europe, Malta had achieved good economic results, increasing tourism, employment, schools and clinical operations.
Humility and loyalty increased the integrity of members of Parliament, he remarked.
Edwin Vassallo
Edwin Vassallo thanked Dr Debono for his sincere speech.
Sincere speech
The Opposition was now in great difficulty and would have to justify the motion. The people deserved to hear the reason behind this motion.
During the past three years, the Opposition had presented 11 other motions to try to topple the government without offering its own proposals.
The motion had only been presented with the aim of forcing an early election and not because the Opposition backed Franco’s proposals. The people did not want an election and the motion created uncertainty. It was now up to the Opposition to face the people and solve this instability.