Parties are non-committal as to whether their parliamentary groups will discuss a hunters’ petition calling for the referendum law to be changed.
The petition of more than 104,000 signatures was formally laid on the table of the House yesterday by Parliamentary Secretary Michael Falzon.
But the government and Opposition whips were coy when asked whether the respective parliamentary groups would discuss the petition.
Hunters want the law changed so that it will not be possible to hold an abrogative referendum on what they claim are minority “rights, privileges and interests”.
Labour Whip and government spokesman Carmelo Abela said it was still too early to say whether Parliament will discuss the matter.
“Parliament has no procedure or rules that say what should be done with petitions once they are brought to the attention of the House,” he said.
Unless the legal changes include a clause allowing pending referenda processes to continue, a change in the law could stop the spring hunting referendum
The Labour manifesto proposed the creation of a parliamentary petitions committee that would have clear guidelines on how to handle petitions but the proposal has not yet been implemented.
“It is too early to say whether there will be a parliamentary discussion and I cannot say whether a discussion will be held within the Labour parliamentary group,” Mr Abela said, adding the significant number of signatures collected could not be ignored.
Opposition Whip David Agius would not say whether the Nationalist Party parliamentary group would discuss the petition.
“I cannot deny or confirm whether the matter will be on the agenda for tomorrow’s [today’s] meeting. These are internal party matters but as always the agenda remains flexible until the very end and we sometimes even change it during the meeting.”
On Monday, PN deputy leader Beppe Fenech Adami said the party was in favour of a limited spring hunting season but did not agree with the petition that sought to limit a civil liberty by calling for the Referendum Act to change.
What hunters are asking for has raised questions as to whether the abrogative referendum sought by anti-spring hunting campaigners can be stopped.
According to Kevin Aquilina, law faculty dean at the University of Malta, if the referendum law is changed to exclude what are being described as minority rights, the spring hunting referendum could technically be blocked.
The principle that a law should not apply retroactively is tied to the criminal field and did not apply in this case, he said.
“This means unless the legal changes include a clause allowing pending referenda processes to continue, a change in the law could stop the hunting referendum.”
This may be a moot point since the Prime Minister has gone on record saying that he had no intention of doing anything to stop the referendum initiative.
Asked how the hunters’ request could be entertained, Dr Aquilina said Parliament could increase the list of laws in the Referendum Act over which an abrogative referendum could not be held.
“But this is more of a political decision rather than a legal matter,” he said.
The anti-spring hunting referendum is the first such exercise since the abrogative referendum became law in 1996.
This does raise the question as to whether the Maltese have a culture of direct democracy, according to Dr Aquilina.
“In Malta’s history we only had six consultative referenda that nearly all ended in controversy and this will be the first abrogative exercise. It does raise the question whether the Maltese are keen on exercising democracy in this way.”