Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said this afternoon that the Opposition had failed to justify the censure motion it moved against Home Affairs Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici.

Speaking during the debate in parliament, Dr Gonzi said parliamentary accountability was important, but the Opposition too had to be accountable. They should explain their motions not present them out of opportunism as was the case with this motion and the one against Richard Cachia Caruana. The two motions had an invisible link.

The Prime Minister had been present for all the sessions of this debate and the reasons brought forward by the Opposition were superficial and weak. The opposition had failed to justify its disgusting motion.

Some speakers had spoken about the how Labour government minister Charles Mangion had resigned. But, Dr Gonzi said, that situation was different. Dr Mangion had contravened rules about the granting of a pardon for the early release of a prisoner, and his resignation was immediately accepted.

Dr Gonzi said he wanted to condemn personal attacks against all members of the House and their families, including attacks by bloggers and other media writers, and he was renewing his appear for these attacks to stop once and for all.

He said the two-and-a-half hour introduction to this debate by Labour MP Michael Falzon was surprising in that it lacked substance and conviction. Indeed, all the Opposition MPs were trying to defend the indefensible with regard to this motion.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici was not perfect, nobody was, but there were many positives in the minister's hard work. When everything was taken into account, the bottom line was that despite huge challenges, the minister deserved the confidence of the House.

It was a confidence which did not stem from his values, integrity or personal friendships. It was a confidence borne out of his work as minister for the past four years.

Dr Gonzi said he appreciated the minister's offer that if this motion was not approved, he would concentrate on home affairs and local government and give up responsibility as Leader of the House, avoiding any possible conflict of interest.

The prime minister said this motion was unjust and Edwin Vassallo (PN) was right to say it had no moral validity.

Dr Gonzi said criticism had been made about the separation of the judiciary and the executive. But what did Joseph Muscat have to say about Evarist Bartolo's remarks that he had no confidence in the judiciary. Did Dr Muscat have confidence in the judiciary? If he did, why had he not censured Mr Bartolo?

The Opposition did not want the government to recall the past, Dr Gonzi said, but the government would continue to recall that tyranny and the political hypocrisy evidenced now.

How could the Opposition speak of rights for the accused when they had been responsible for torturing of arrested persons and for a man being taken to court when he was known to be innocent?

At the time when human rights were repeatedly trampled, a Labour front bencher was general secretary of the PL.

How could Labour speak of basic rights and democracy when they governed for five years without a popular majority. Several ministers at the time were still on the Labour benches. And then they preached democracy to others.

They spoke of the judiciary when Labour suspended the Constitutional Court and judges were subjected to musical chairs?

How could Labour have the cheek to speak of court delays when, under Labour, the courts had vacancies on the Bench for years?

How could they criticise this government on the Whistle-Blower Act when Labour had created the frame-up of Pietru Pawl Busuttil to cover up the Raymond Caruana murder.

How could they speak of prisoners’ rights when in their time prisoners were held in inhuman conditions?

And then they wanted to censure Dr Mifsud Bonnici?

A Labour spokesman had said policemen dismissed by this government should be reinstated or compensated. Yet those policemen had been dismissed for trampling on people’s rights.

DOUBLE STANDARDS

For Labour, it was always a case of two weights and two measures. For example, they wanted the government not to believe a North Korean statement about remarks allegedly made by Joseph Muscat.

But then they had no qualms in doing the opposite by insisting that a US cable leaked by Wikileaks had to be believed even though its contents were denied by those who were involved.

On the basis of the Wikileaks cable, the Opposition moved a censure motion against Richard Cachia Caruana, effectively accusing him of treason. Should a similar motion be moved against Dr Muscat?

The opposition’s motion was serious, Dr Gonzi said, because it demanded the minister’s resignation. But not a single reason to back it up had been presented, making this motion technically, legally and morally invalid.

Was a minister expected to resign because a generator had disappeared from the Civil Protection Department? Under Labour, then Prime Minister Alfred Sant had admitted how three copies of an inquiry report into frame-ups had disappeared. Dr Sant saw no reason to hold an inquiry, let alone a resignation.

This was political opportunism of the lowest kind ever, Dr Gonzi said.

ATTACKS ON THE POLICE COMMISSIONER

The Prime Minister said that Dr Falzon’s address on Wednesday, particularly his criticism of the police force, was nothing more than an attack on the competence and integrity of the Commissioner of Police.

Yet the reasons he mentioned as to why the minister should resign were, unbelievably, that three cars had failed the VRT, that there was no one to repair the phones, that people were being refused in the police force for having a tattoo, and that no policewomen were deployed to Paceville.

The opposition might have had some grounds had crime been rising, or had the police been failing in their investigations, but that was not the case. But instead Dr Falzon had argued that height requirements of  female recruits should be lower than those of men.

Could the Opposition be so ridiculous?

Dr Muscat, clearly feeling uncomfortable, had spoken of low morale in the police force and said that many valid people had left.

It was unfortunately true that some good people left hte force, and retaining them was difficult in view of high salaries being offered elsewhere. But surely one should also have mentioned the successes being made in recruitment and in training by the Police Academy.

MOTION LACKS JUSTIFICATION

Concluding, Dr Gonzi paid tribute to Dr Mifsud Bonnici on the way he had managed the National Contingency Centre during the Libyan uprising. His work saved many Maltese workers in Libya and prepared Malta for all eventualities.

Much of the work which the minister had carried out could not be revealed because of the sensitivity of the issues involved, but he could say that his work demanded courage and determination. Those were times when Gaddafi had threatened Malta, when workers were evacuated to the island and an influx of migrants was expected.

But the Opposition's criticism was only about three police cars which failed the VRT.

“All things considered, Dr Mifsud Bonnici deserves the confidence of the House,” Dr Gonzi said.

The Opposition motion, he said, was unfair and morally wrong. It was moved for political convenience and lacked moral justification.