Aleander Balzan, Director of Communications, Labour Party
There is no doubt that the party financing law is an important law that favours good governance and it is part of a series of similar laws that this administration has introduced. The Nationalist Party in government promised such laws for years on end, yet it never implemented them.
Being a law implemented by the current government it is relatively new, which is why I believe that in order for there to be a thorough analysis of its effectiveness and the changes that it will bring about, it needs to be given further time. This is even more valid in view of the fact that the Electoral Commission is working on its first investigation, therefore one would need to wait to observe the outcomes.
It was not a surprise that the Nationalist Party voted in favour of this law when it was presented by the government in Parliament. Had it done otherwise, it would have come across worse than the way it did already, by not introducing such essential laws in the first place. The Nationalist Party could not possibly vote against a new law that was praised by institutions such as GRECO.
The two leading political parties should behave in a way that does not necessitate the Electoral Commission’s reprimand
When I consider all this, the least I expect is for the Nationalist Party to respect the law. Among many other things, the new law ensures that the Electoral Commission acts as a watchdog. The moment it was caught red-handed attempting to break this very law, the PN immediately embarked on an exercise aimed at undermining the commission.
When it came to surface that the PN was accepting donations by means of a system of false invoices (DB Group case), the party opened fire on the Electoral Commission.
Former PN leader Simon Busuttil, defended himself by saying that the Electoral Commission is not qualified to pass judgment on him. He even had the audacity to face the Constitutional Court, so that the Electoral Commission would not judge him.
This means that the PN definitely does not believe in the role of the Electoral Commission; the same commission that is trusted with the most important democratic exercise, which is managing a general election.
The attack on the Electoral Commission was a clear move on Busuttil’s end, in order to gain as much time as possible before the general election. It was the type of move you would expect from the sort of person who would spend years preaching on good governance but then was caught up in a case that embodies the highest form of political crookery.
Above all, is in too poor a moral state to be able to talk about the law regulating party finances. The false invoice conundrum that surfaced because of mere coincidence was at the epicentre of a series of decisions that had already been taken by the Nationalist Party, so that the proposed law would not be observed. One of these decisions was the ċedoli scheme; a system of secret borrowing, by means of which the Nationalist Party pocketed millions and that is still in place until today. The leader of the Opposition, Adrian Delia, declared his intentions of holding on to the ċedoli scheme because he claims it is functioning well.
Prior to becoming party leader, Delia had preached about the need for more transparency in the way the Nationalist Party is financed. As soon as he became leader, he started dancing to a different tune and citing commercial sensitivity.
All this leads me to my conclusion: we must first consider the fact that the law must be respected entirely, including the spirit with which it was written. Delia should drop the case initiated by Busuttil, in order to submit his party to full scrutiny.
Above all, the two leading political parties that aspire to lead the country should behave in a way that does not necessitate the Electoral Commission’s reprimand.
David Camilleri, Nationalist Party treasurer
The Party Financing Act is there to assure the public that parties are not trading political favours for power. Empowered by law to enforce the provisions of the law in this area, the Electoral Commission should move to reassure the electorate that parties are following the same rules of transparency and trustworthiness.
The commission is vested with the authority to examine and investigate political party funds, particularly the scrutiny of donation sources. The law is very specific about direct contributions that are not commercially generated by the organisation: donations from the same source are capped at a maximum €25,000 within a period of one calendar year; donations of €7,000 or more have to be reported; donors who give €500 or more over a year have to be identifiable; donations during party events that exceed €50 have to be recorded.
The Nationalist Party voted in favour of the Party Financing Act in 2016, even if the amendments it proposed were not accepted by the government side and has been in full conformity with the legislation from the start. In fact, the PN was the first party in parliament to register as a political party, 10 months ahead of the Labour Party.
In order to ensure the spirit of the law, that outside financing to parties is transparent and above suspicion of political obligations, it is fair to expect the Electoral Commission to take into consideration means of party funding beyond direct donations.
Identified and recorded sources of donations are a good step, but should the Electoral Commission tolerate a situation where prominent Labour Party propagandists find themselves in comfy jobs in the public sector while persisting in their proselytism?
Political organisations are becoming increasingly more complex and expensive to operate
Although this cannot strictly be considered as donation or sponsorship, it certainly is advantageous to the party in government. A similar practice is observed with a network of government department employees that doubles as an army of social media trolls, flocking to comment boards whenever a hot story is broken.
Add to this the numerous immovable assets that Labour governments have unashamedly gifted to the party, the latest of which was Australia Hall valued at €10 million. All of this flies under the radar of the Party Financing Act but the commission should nonetheless take a more active interest in the state of affairs.
Party financing law considers all parties without distinction. At the same time, however, the Electoral Commission should treat the party in government with a degree of distinction. Although there is a clear constitutional divide between government and political party, the line of demarcation can run very thin in practice. The Electoral Commission is not authorised to adjudicate legal matters. However, it does have the responsibility to flag cases that raise a challenge to the spirit of transparency pronounced by the very party financing law it seeks to uphold.
Political parties are not simply another category of interest groups, as the financing law itself states. Parties are necessarily oriented toward governing and the stream of donations must therefore be kept in check. The PN adheres fully to the legislation in terms of donation registration, auditing of accounts, and compilation and submission of annual reports. In the meantime, though, the Nationalist Party continues to argue in favour of a state financing system for political parties that would not only give parties an equal footing, but would more importantly eliminate any suspicions of double intentions from donors.
Political organisations are becoming increasingly more complex and expensive to operate, and yet the only viable way to sustain political activity is the most rudimentary: collecting donations. The Electoral Commission does well to oversee these funds and demand full clarity of provenance but focusing on the narrow terms of the Party Financing Act should not blind the Commission off from wider questionable arrangements, particularly by the party in government.
If you would like to put any questions to the two parties in Parliament send an e-mail marked clearly Question Time to editor@timesofmalta.com.