Djun tal-PLPN: theddida demokratika

Matul il-ġimgħa l-oħra kien hawn delegazzjoni f’Malta mill-Parlament Ewropew biex tistħarreġ dwar il-progress li sar fil-konfront tas-saltna tad-dritt (rule of law) fil-pajjiż.

Wieħed mill-kummenti li għamlu kien dwar id-djun esaġerati tal-partiti politiċi parlamentari! Iddeskrivewhom bħala ta’ theddida għas-sisien demokratiċi tal-pajjiż. Id-djun akkumulati tal-partiti politiċi parlamentari li jlaħħqu miljuni kbar huma ta’ theddida għad-demokrazija għax jorbtuhom fit-tul mal-karru tal-flus u poġġuhom f’posizzjoni kontinwa kompromettenti.

Aħna mill-ADPD ilna nitkellmu dwar dan u dwar il-ħtieġa ta’ qafas serju ta’ finanzjament pubbliku tal-partiti politiċi.

Madwar tmien snin ilu inħolqot leġislazzjoni dwar il-finanzjament tal-partiti politiċi. Liġi li fiha toqob iktar minn passatur.

L-ewwel nett hi l-Kummissjoni Elettorali li tiffunzjona ta’ regolatur f’dan il-qasam. Issa l-Kummissjoni Elettorali hi magħmula minn rappresentanti tal-PLPN. Kif jistgħu dawn jirregolaw lilhom infushom?

It-tieni ħallew barra minn dan kollu lill-kumpaniji tal-partiti politiċi. Toqba kbira din għax qed tiġi użata biex d-donazzjonijiet politiċi jinħbew bħala taparsi servizzi li jinxtraw mill-kumpaniji tal-partiti politiċi. Dan ta’ lok għall-każ magħruf bħala tal-invoices foloz jew għall-każ l-ieħor ta’ servizzi fittizji. Meta wieħed iqies li l-kumpanji tal-PLPN ilhom snin kbar ma jippreżentaw l-audited accounts tagħhom wieħed jista’ jifhem iktar kemm huma moħħhom mistrieħ li l-abbużi li qed isiru jibqgħu misturi għal ħafna snin.

Ma’ dan kollu jeħtieġ li nagħtu każ tal-kontijiet li jammontaw għal miljuni f’arretrati tad-dawl u l-ilma mhux imħallsa mill-PN u l-PL u l-kumpaniji tagħhom.  Anke ħlas b’lura tal-VAT għandhom li jmur lura għal ħafna snin.

Ex-Ministru kien iħobb jikkwota qawl Ruman li hemm liġi għall-bnedmin u oħra għall-annimali. Hekk ġiebuh il-pajjiż. Hemm liġi għalihom, li jippretendu li jagħmlu li jridu (u fejn jaqblilhom iħokku dahar xulxin) u oħra għall-bqija, għalina lkoll.

Għalik li iddum ma tħallas il-kont tad-dawl u l-ilma malajr tirċievi theddida ta’ qtugħ tas-servizz. Imma dawn b’miljuni ta’ arretrati jibqgħu għaddejjin qiesu ma ġara xejn.

Hemm bżonn leġislazzjoni sura dwar il-finanzjament tal-partiti li tagħti każ dan kollu. M’għandhomx jibqgħu taparsi qed jirregolaw lilhom infushom.

Beyond 26 March

Increasing our vote tally by almost doubling it between general elections is no mean feat. That is what has been achieved by ADPD-The Green Party on 26 March. Notwithstanding the small numbers involved, the achievement is substantial, getting close to the best green result achieved in the 2013 general election. 

The 26 March electoral result, however, once more, exposes an electoral system which does not deliver proportional results when it really matters: results that is, supporting minority views. Political parties representing the PLPN establishment, have continuously benefitted from various adjustments to the electoral system, from which they obtain one proportional result after the other: proportionality which they benefit from but simultaneously, continuously and consistently deny to others.

Fair treatment would possibly have seen us achieve much better results than we have achieved so far. Unfortunately, the electoral system is designed to be discriminatory. This includes the setup of the Electoral Commission itself as well as the manner in which it operates under the continuous remote control of the PLPN. Even simple access to the individual district provisional results, which I requested, was continuously obstructed and objected to by the Electoral Commission late on Sunday 27 March when the counting process was still in progress.

Furthermore, PLPN have normal access to electronic counting data held by the Electoral Commission in order to be able to vet the validity of the final results. Repeated requests to extend such access to the green monitoring team in the counting hall were ignored. Even the OSCE election observation team present in the counting hall found this very strange and queried our monitoring team continuously on the matter.

Tomorrow, we will start the long process in court which could deliver some form of justice: the restitution of the parliamentary seats which our party has been robbed of by the PLPN political establishment throughout the years.

Normally, after elections, we waste a lot of time engaged in soul searching discussing whether taking the PLPN establishment head-on, one election after another, is worth the effort. This time we are immediately taking the plunge to ensure once and for all that each vote cast in Maltese general elections, irrespective of whom it is cast for, has an equal value. It is a long journey which may possibly take us to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, if this is considered essential, in order to settle the issue of electoral justice in these islands once and for all.

We have had to take this line of action as parliament in Malta has been consistently incapable of acting fairly. Parliament is, since 1966 under the complete control of the establishment political parties: PLPN.

By next Tuesday all bye-election results will be known. Subsequently the constitutional gender balance mechanism will be applied in favour of the establishment PLPN. This will be limited in implementation, similarly to the proportionality mechanism: limited in favour of the PLPN

The PLPN duopoly which has completely hijacked the institutions wants to be sure that its control is adequately embedded such that it can withstand any future shocks.

It is unacceptable that electoral legislation treats us in this despicable manner: differently from the manner in which it treats the establishment political parties. Unfortunately, the PLPN duopoly have not been able to deliver any semblance of fairness in our electoral system. The Courts, consequently, are our only remaining hope to address and start removing discrimination from electoral legislation, which is why tomorrow we will embark on our long overdue Court case.

The team we have built in the past months at ADPD has functioned quite well in achieving one of our best electoral results. It is now making the necessary preparations to ensure a better Green presence in our towns and villages in the months ahead. As a result of the excellent teamwork developed, we have starting preparing plans for the future which should lead to an organic growth of the party. This will make it possible for us to achieve even better results in the next political cycle.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 10 April 2022

Kull vot jgħodd

Nhar l-Erbgħa, flimkien ma’ Ralph Cassar Segretarju Ġenerali tal-Partit, f’isem ADPD ippreżentajt kawża kostituzzjonali dwar ir-riżultat elettorali li ġie ppubblikat f’dawn il-ġranet.

is-sistema elettorali, tul is-snin, ġiet żviluppata fl-interess esklussiv  tal-PLPN, iżidu is-siġġijiet għalihom u jinjoraw lill-bqija . Għandna sistema elettorali mbagħbsa, mhux denja ta’ pajjiż demokratiku.

F’demokrazija b’saħħitha, kull vot jgħodd: il-valur tiegħu m’għandux jiġi mkasbar għal kwalunkwe raġuni. Sfortunatament, f’Malta, il-leġislazzjoni elettorali hi iddiżinjata b’mod diskriminatorja, u dan bil-kompliċità tal-Parlament. Hi sistema elettorali diskriminatorja favur il-PLPN li bejniethom ikkontrollaw lill-Parlament sa mill-1966, u jridu jibqgħu għaddejjin hekk.

Vot favur l-ADPD għandu l-istess valur daqs vot favur il-PLPN. Imma l-liġi hi diskriminatorja għax tagħti valur u piż lill-voti tal-PLPN u tinjora l-bqija tal-voti tal-Maltin u l-Għawdin.

Dan hu riżultat ta’ żewġ miżuri speċifiċi: waħda dwar il-proporzjonalità u l-oħra dwar il-bilanċ tal-ġeneru. It-tnejn jiffavorixxu lill-PLPN u huma diskriminatorji fil-konfront tagħna, it-tielet partit, kif ukoll huma diskriminatorji kontra l-partiti l-oħrajn ukoll. Id-diskriminazzjoni li qed niffaċċjaw hi parti integrali mill-liġi elettorali.

Nhar it-Tnejn 28 ta’ Marzu 2022 kien imħabbar li r-riżultat elettorali kien aġġustat billi mal-lista tal-membri parlamentari eletti żdiedu tnejn oħra mil-lista tal-kandidati ippreżentata mill-PN. Din iż-żieda saret biex ikun hemm aġġustament għall-proporzjonalità bejn il-voti miksuba mill-partiti parlamentari fl-ewwel għadd tal-voti u s-siġġijiet parlamentari miksuba.

Meta sar dan l-aġġustament ġew injorati l-voti miksuba mill-partit ADPD fl-ewwel għadd tal-voti, liema voti kienu jammonta għal 4747 vot, ammont li hu ikbar mill-kwota nazzjonali. Din id-diskriminazzjoni tiżvaluta l-proċess demokratiku u dan billi l-voti tal-Partit Laburista u tal-Partit Nazzjonalista qed jingħataw valur billi jittieħdu in konsiderazzjoni biex isir l-aġġustament għall-proporzjonalità filwaqt li  l-voti ta’ ADPD qed ikunu skartati kompletament.

Il-proċess elettorali hu mistenni li jkompli fil-ġranet li ġejjin u dan billi l-emendi kostituzzjonali tas-sena l-oħra jipprevedu li wara li jkun konkluż il-proċess ta’ bye-elections assoċjati mal-elezzjoni ġenerali, l-Kummissjoni Elettorali talloka mhux iktar minn tnax-il siġġu parlamentari addizzjonali, sitta lil kull naħa biex jonqos l-iżbilanċ tal-ġeneru fil-Parlament. Dan ser ikompli jżid il-problema ta’ rappresentanza parlamentari billi ser iżid ir-rappresentanza tal-partiti parlamentari u jkompli jinjora l-bqija. Il-prinċipju tal-proporzjonalità li diġa huwa applikat b’mod dgħajjaf ser ikompli jiġi mnawwar bħala riżultat ta’ dan.

Il-kawża kostituzzjonali hi dwar dan it-taħwid kollu. Qed nitolbu lill-Qorti li issib li hemm ksur ta’ diversi drittijiet  umani liema drittijiet huma mħarsa kemm mill-kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta kif ukoll mill-Konvenzjoni Ewropeja tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem. Hemm ukoll ksur tal-artiklu 3 tal-protokol numru 1 tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropeja dwar id-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem u dan dwar id-dritt ta’ elezzjonijiet ħielsa.

Qegħdin nistennew rimedju kontra d-diskriminazzjoni li seħħet diġa meta l-Partit Nazzjonalista ngħata siġġijiet Parlamentari u aħna b’mod diskriminatorju ma ngħatajniex, kif ukoll protezzjoni mid-diskriminazzjoni addizzjonali li ser isseħħ fil-ġranet li ġejjin meta jidħol fis-seħħ il-mekkaniżmu korrettorju dwar il-bilanċ tal-ġeneru.

Is-sistema elettorali Maltija mhiex isservi l-interessi tal-pajjiż imma biss tal-interessi tal-PLPN li kkapparraw ukoll l-istituzzjonijiet. Il-voti ta’ kulħadd għandhom valur u jeħtieġ li jkunu rispettati, mhux biss dawk tal-PLPN.

Inħarsu l-voti kollha.

Ippubblikat fuq Illum: il-Ħadd 3 t’April 2022

Every vote counts

On Wednesday, on behalf of ADPD-The Green Party, together with party General Secretary Ralph Cassar I instituted constitutional proceedings relative to the election results just published.

The issue at stake is that the electoral system has, over the years been developed in the exclusive interest of the PLPN: milking more parliamentary seats for the PLPN and excluding the rest.

 In a healthy democracy, all votes have an equal value: every vote counts. Unfortunately, in Malta, electoral legislation, by design, that is with the clear intention of Parliament, is discriminatory in favour of the PLPN, the political parties which have exclusively controlled Parliament since the 1966 general elections.

A vote cast for ADPD-The Green Party is equal in value to those cast in favour of the PLPN. Existing electoral legislation is discriminatory due to its giving weight to votes cast for the two parliamentary parties and ignoring those cast for others.

This is the result of two specific measures: one dealing with proportionality and the other dealing with gender balance. Both measures are designed to benefit the PLPN and discriminate against us, the third party, and others. The discrimination we are facing is an integral part of electoral legislation by design. 

On Monday 28^th March 2022 it was announced that the electoral result was adjusted through the addition of two MPs from the list of candidates presented by the PN.  This addition is the result of a proportionality adjustment between the votes obtained at first count by the political parties making it to parliament and the parliamentary seats won.

When this adjustment was carried out the votes obtained at first count by ADPD-The Green Party amounting to 4747 were ignored. These votes amount to more than the national quota. This discrimination is a devaluation of the democratic process as it gives weight to votes cast in favour of  Partit Laburista and Partit Nazzjonalista but ignores completely the votes cast for ADPD.

In the coming days, the final stage of the electoral process will be implemented. After all the bye-elections associated with the general election are concluded the Electoral Commission will assign up to a maximum of twelve additional parliamentary seats to the two parliamentary parties in order to address gender balance in the parliamentary ranks.  This will add to the existing problems of parliamentary representation by further inflating the parliamentary seats of PLPN to the detriment of the rest. The proportionality principle, already very weak will be further eroded.

The Constitutional proceedings deal with all this. The Courts are being requested to find that there has been a breach of several human rights protected not only in terms of Malta’s Constitution but also in terms of the European Convention of Human Rights. We also point out that all this is in breach of the first protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights relative to free and fair elections.

We expect that the Courts identify suitable remedies to address the discrimination which has already taken place when the Partit Nazzjonalista was awarded additional parliamentary seats and the votes obtained by ADPD were ignored. We also seek the Courts’ protection from further discrimination which will occur in the coming days when the provisions of the gender balance corrective mechanism are applied.

Malta’s electoral system is not serving the country well: it has been manipulated repeatedly by the PLPN to serve their own interests. To this end they have also hijacked the Constitutional institutions. It is not only PLPN votes which are important: everyone’s vote is important and requires the utmost respect.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 4 April 2022

B’sodisfazzjoni, inħarsu l-quddiem

Flimkien ma sħabi ħriġt mis-sala tal-għadd tal-voti f’nofs il-lejl bejn il-Ħadd u t-Tnejn.

Għalina din l-elezzjoni kienet esperjenza posittiva għax irnexxielna nirbħu lura l-parti l-kbira tal-voti li konna tlifna fl-elezzjoni tal-2017.

Sodisafatt li l-ilħaqna l-miri tagħna li naqbżu kwota fuq livell nazzjonali. Issa nistgħu ngħaddu għall-fażi li jmiss fil-kampanja politika tagħna: il-ġlieda għall-proporzjonalità vera. Proporżjonalità li l-liġi tagħna tirriżerva b’mod esklussiv għall-PLPN.

Kif diġa ħabbart, iktar tard matul il-ġimgħa ser nikkontestaw ir-riżultat elettorali. Il-kontestazzjoni tagħna hi limitata għall-mekkaniżmu tal-proporzjonalità u dak tal-bilanċ tal-ġeneru li jiddiskriminaw fl-applikazzjoni tagħhom. Il-fatt li ġibna kwota fuq livell nazzjonali jagħti saħħa u kredibilità lill-argumenti tagħna.

Il-Kummissjoni Elettorali tul il-kampanja kollha agixxiet ħażin. L-aħħar argument li kelli mal-kummissjoni l-bieraħ kien meta bi stupidita kbira irrifjutaw li jagħtuni kopja tar-riżultati bil-counts u l-wirt tal-voti. Domt ħin twil nargumenta magħhom meta fl-aħħar ċedew u għaddewli kopja. Ma nistax nifhem għalfejn jieħdu dan l-atteġġament.

Fuq nota personali għandi sodisfazzjoni kbir li kelli madwari team tajjeb li lkoll kemm huma ħadmu għat-team kollu. Ir-riżultat hu xhieda ta’ dan. Grazzi.

Jiena illum il-ġurnata għandi 66 sena u ma naħsibx li hu fl-interess tal-partit li nibqa’ fit-tmexxija wisq iktar. Lil sħabi ilni li nfurmajthom li jridu jsibu lil xi ħaddieħor biex imexxi lill-partit għall-futur. Mhux ser naqbad u nitlaq għax dan ikun ta’ ħsara imma hu l-mument li posti jieħdu ħaddieħor biex ikompli jibni fuq ix-xogħol utli li wettaqna flimkien. Jiena ngħin kemm nista’, mhux biss fi transizzjoni għal tmexxija ġdida imma anke fil-ħidma li trid tibqa’ issir. Għad baqali iktar enerġija!

Kburi li wasalna hawn. Grazzi lill-4747 votant li tawna l-fiduċja tagħhom. Inħarsu l-quddiem b’sodisfazzjon.

Some reflections on the campaign

I have led a team of 10 fantastic candidates in this campaign. Five of them were contesting a general election for the first time. We managed to engage much more than in other elections.

The broom was an effective symbol which communicated our basic political message: the country needs a good clean-up. We opted for a direct and clear message to convey our views across. The feedback we had was substantially more than in past elections.

Our campaign expenditure was around €7,000. Insignificant when compared to the millions spent by PLPN! ADPD’s campaign was developed organically responding to a number of issues and communicating our manifesto proposals throughout the 32-day campaign.

As anticipated, we encountered the usual difficulties when dealing with the constitutional institutions which have been hijacked by the PLPN.  Primarily I am referring to the Broadcasting Authority and the Electoral Commission.

The Broadcasting Authority once more failed to ensure a level playing field. It has permitted the party-political stations a free hand, as usual. PLPN, notwithstanding, still had access to the lion’s share of the campaign transmissions on the national station.

On Tuesday I met the Chief Electoral Commissioner to discuss a pending request from ADPD relative to the vote-counting process. This concerned access to the electoral counting data as is currently given to the PLPN. When the counting of votes was done manually it was possible to carry out visual monitoring to ensure that the counting process was properly managed. This cannot be done today without access to the electronic data held by the Commission. PLPN have been given this right of access and they can as a result check and verify the counting process. 

The Electoral Commission is withholding this right of access to ADPD. Without such a right of access to data held by the Commission we cannot verify the counting process and consequently we cannot put our mind at rest as to the absence of foul play in the process. The Commission has been aware for some time as to our request, and hence it is not acceptable to be informed at such a late hour of their refusal to grant the requested access. The Commission is basing its position on the electoral law which grants exclusive rights of access to political parties represented in parliament. The law, however grants the Commission the authority to remedy such issues. If the Commission keeps refusing to solve the problem it will confirm yet again that PLPN have hijacked this important institution too.

On a different note, I must thank my friend Dr Jean-Pierre Farrugia for publicly endorsing the ADPD campaign. I was not expecting this but it was definitely most welcome.

This Sunday will be a long day. The counting process will be swifter than in previous general elections due to electronic counting. Early in the day we will have the first projections of the results. Then, in the early afternoon the full results will be known. At that point the results will be analysed and the necessary conclusions drawn.

During the campaign I made the point that, subject to obtaining a reasonable number of votes, ADPD will be taking the necessary action to ensure that each and every vote cast has a bearing on the final result. Towards the end of the counting process, I will have the opportunity to address the press and outline the way forward.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 27 March 2022

Mill-Manifest ADPD: (4) finanzjament tal-partiti

Għandha tittejjeb il-liġi tal-finanzjament tal-partiti politiċi billi fost oħrajn tkun eliminata l-possibilità li jkunu l-partiti politiċi stess li jirregolaw lilhom infushom permezz tal-Kummissjoni Elettorali li hi komposta fil-maġġor parti tagħha minn rappreżentanti tal-partiti fil-parlament.

Wrong messages from the National Audit Office

 

The National Audit Office (NAO) has recently published its report for 2017. In a democracy, the role of the NAO is of paramount importance. Its role of ascertaining the presence (or absence) of good governance at all levels is crucial in determining the health of the public sector.

The report lists the investigations carried out during 2017 in respect of which separate reports have been published and discussed publicly. These include the annual report on the public accounts, the consolidated annual report on local government, special audits and investigations and performance audits. Last year also saw the publication of a stand-alone report on the results achieved by the three main revenue-generating departments of the government, namely the Inland Revenue Department, the Value Added Tax Department and the Department of Customs.

In his overview, Auditor General Charles Deguara welcomes the positive developments, highlighting the administration’s commitment to implementing the NAO’s recommendations as far as possible. This has been done for two consecutive years and it is to be hoped that it becomes an annual occurrence.

The report explains the efforts made to continuously train the staff, thereby ensuring that, as far as possible, an internal team of experts is available to monitor and investigate as required. This is essential in order that the NAO keeps the administration on its toes.

The NAO, in its present format, was set up 20 years ago. Since 1997, it has been part of Parliament, accountable directly to Parliament. Previously, although technically independent it formed part of the Ministry of Finance.

During the past 20 years, it has had much to do. Its specific investigations are the ones about which we hear the most but the workings of the NAO go much deeper. Its continuous examination of the country’s public accounts, and the recommendations made to fine tune or correct methods of operation are always work in progress.

In order for the NAO to be as effective as possible, it should ensure that it keeps at arm’s length from the administration’s day to day operations. For this reason I was worried when reading in the 2017 report a short list of a number of domestic working groups in which the NAO participated. These range from the International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) Implementation Project Board, the Financial Legislation Working Group, the Local Government Good Governance Working Group and others. The NAO should have oversight and not sit around the same table forming part of working groups to implement or draft a proposal for implementation.

Some years back the Auditor-General, together with the Ombudsman and the Chairman of the Electoral Commission, had decided to go beyond their terms of remit and accepted the Prime Minister’s invitation to examine the issue of the salaries of MPs and holders of political office. I had taken the Ombudsman Said Pullicino to task about his stand when, together with Arnold Cassola I had met the trio. They then justified their stand by referring to legal advice from the Attorney General’s office and others! The three wise men did not realise that they had compromised their office because they cannot – and should not – switch from being regulators to being advisors, even if temporarily.

The NAO would do well to take a step back, thereby ensuring that it is at arm’s length from the administration. Otherwise it risks sending the wrong messages.

 

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday : 29 April 2018

The mess created by Franco Debono

The current controversy as to whether it is appropriate for the Electoral Commission to be the authority overseeing the implementation of the Financing of Political Parties Act was anticipated over three years ago.

As far back as February 2014, Alternattiva Demokratika -the Green Party – in reaction to the White Paper published by the government on the regulation of the financing of political parties, had welcomed the initiative but had also queried the choice of the Electoral Commission as the regulating authority. This position was reiterated by  Alternattiva Demokratika in July 2014 when Minister Owen Bonnici and his advisor Franco Debono presented the finalised Bill.

Alternattiva Demokratika has consistently insisted on the identification of an acceptable alternative to the Electoral Commission as the regulating authority. This alternative was identified when the Parliamentary Select Committee on Standards in Public Life agreed to the setting-up of the post of a Commissioner for Standards in Public Life and on the 24 March 2014 concluded its workings by finalising a Bill for the purpose. This Bill was approved by Parliament on 22 March 2017 and, hopefully, its implementation process will start soon. The Commissioner for Standards in Public Life is to be appointed by – and requires the consent of a two-thirds majority in Parliament. This ensures that the appointee will be acceptable to everyone.

Alternattiva Demokratika’s position was subsequently adopted by the Nationalist Party, which  presented various amendments to the proposed legislation on party financing at the Parliamentary Committee stage. On behalf of Alternattiva Demokratika, I participated actively in this debate, even in the Parliamentary Committee dealing with Bills, and can attest that Government and its advisors consistently opposed the replacement of the Electoral Commission as the regulatory authority of choice.

The author of the basic draft of the Financing of Political Parties Bill, former MP Franco Debono, emphasised that he had modelled his proposal on UK legislation. He refused to consider, at any time, that the basic mechanics that determine the composition of the Maltese Electoral Commission clearly show that his proposal was a non-starter. He even refused to consider that the situation in the UK is completely different, in view of the fact that there is a long-standing tradition of appointing a truly independent Electoral Commission, so much so that very recently the said Commission, after a thorough investigation, fined the Conservative Party the maximum fine permissible at law for proven irregularities in party financial reporting!

In a document published by Alternattiva Demokratika way back in July 2014 to explain its position on the Financing of Political Parties Bill, it was stated that:  “ ……. the manner in which the Electoral Commission is composed, half appointed by Government with the other half appointed by the Opposition (and a Government appointed chairman) places the two parliamentary parties in such a position that they directly control the whole proposed process.”

The fact that the Electoral Commission is a constitutional authority already entrusted with specific duties spelled out in the Constitution is not a valid argument which can in any way justify its selection as the regulatory authority for political party financing. It has to be borne in mind that the only reason why the Electoral Commission carries out its electoral duties adequately is due to the detailed and entrenched legislation which regulates the electoral process, which legislation is so tightly drawn up that it leaves very little, if any, space for political manoeuvring.

The Electoral Commission currently has three complaints on its agenda which point to three infringements of the political party financing legislation. The Labour Party, primarily on the basis of statements by the db Group as well as reports in the press, is insisting that it has proof that the Nationalist Party is circumventing the regulations on political donations by camouflaging them as payment for fake services. The way forward is to have the matter thoroughly investigated. Unfortunately, due to its composition, the Electoral Commission is not and cannot ever be a credible investigating authority.

The PN is thus right to oppose an investigation led by a politically-appointed Electoral Commission and to challenge the matter in Court. Obviously, this may be a convenient way out for the PN, handed to them on a platter by the Labour Government and its advisor Franco Debono.

Alternattiva Demokratika would have preferred it if the law were better drafted without leaving any room for the PN (and possibly Labour too, at a later stage) to wriggle out of its obligations.

This will, however now signify that in these crucial months leading to a general election, the rules regulating party financing will be largely ineffective while the validity of the law is dissected in our Courts of Law.

This is a mess created by Franco Debono who preferred his narcissistic posturing to the identification of reasonable proposals acceptable to all political parties. Whether the government will, at this late stage, seek a reasonable way out is anyone’s guess.

published in The Malta Independent on Sunday – 9 April 2017

Il-finanzjament tal-partiti : id-difett ewlieni fil-liġi

 

Bħalissa għaddej id-dibattitu dwar jekk il-Kummissjoni Elettorali għandiex tinvestiga l-allegazzjonijiet li nġiebu għall-attenzjoni tagħha dwar nuqqas ta’ osservanza tal-liġi dwar il-finanzjament tal-partiti.

Alternattiva Demokratika sa mill-bidu nett għamlitha ċara li kien żball oħxon li tintgħażel il-Kummissjoni Elettorali biex tħares l-implimentazzjoni tal-liġi. F’dokument dwar l-abbozz ta’ liġi f’Lulju 2014, Alternattiva Demokratika kienet qalet hekk : 

“ ………….. l-komposizzjoni tal-Kummissjoni Elettorali b’nofsha  tinħatar mill-Gvern u bin-nofs l-ieħor tinħatar mill-Oppożizzjoni (b’Chairman appuntat mill-Gvern) tpoġġi liż–żewġ partiti politiċi parlamentari f’pożizzjoni li direttament jikkontrollaw il-proċess kollu li qed jiġi propost. Kull partit politiku ieħor, inkluż Alternattiva Demokratika, hu  eskluż minn dan il-proċess.

…………………

Alternattiva Demokratika, kif diġa għamlet meta ikkummentat dwar il-White Paper tirreferi għal proposta approvata minn Kumitat Magħżul tal-Kamra tar-Rappreżentanti taħt it-tmexxija tal-iSpeaker. Il-Kumitat Magħżul issa iffinalizza r-rapport tiegħu liema rapport  jinkludi abbozz ta’ liġi ieħor intitolat: Standards in Public Life Act 2014. Dan l-abbozz  jipprovdi dwar il-ħatra ta’ Kummissarju u Kumitat Permanenti Parlamentari dwar l-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika.

Skond il-klawsola 3 tal-abbozz dwar l-Istandards, il-liġi proposta tapplika għall-Membri tal- Parlament (inkluż Ministri, Segretarji Parlamentari u Assistenti Parlamentari) kif ukoll għal  persuni impjegati f’posizzjoni ta’ fiduċja inkella bħala konsulenti tal-Gvern jew ta’ xi korp  statutorju. L-istess klawsola 3 tippermetti li l-applikabilita tal-liġi tista’ titwessa’ permezz ta’  regolamenti li jkunu ikkunsidrati u jiksbu l-appoġġ tal-Kamra tar-Rappreżentanti.

L-abbozz jikkonċerna l-imġieba tal-politiċi eletti fil-Parlament u konsulenti/ħatriet ta’ fiduċja.

L-awtorità regolatorja hi vestita f’Kummissarju għall-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika li skond kif  tipprovdi l-klawsola 4 tal-istess abbozz jeħtieġ l-approvazzjoni ta’ mhux inqas minn żewġ terzi tal-Membri tal-Kamra tar-Rappreżentanti biex ikun jista’ jinħatar.

Il-Kummissarju hekk maħtur hu propost li jkun sorveljat fil-ħidma tiegħu minn Kumitat Permanenti mmexxi mill-iSpeaker u kompost ukoll minn 4 Membri Parlamentari, tnejn min-naħa tal-Gvern u tnejn oħra min-naħa tal-Oppożizzjoni.

Alternattiva Demokratika hi tal-fehma li dan ifisser mhux biss garanzija ta’ serjeta’ u imparzjalita bil-ħatra ta’ persuna li tgawdi l-fiduċja ta’ mhux inqas minn żewġ terzi tal-Parlament imma ukoll garanzija ta’ trasparenza ikbar minħabba li l-laqgħat tal-Kumitat Parlamentari jsiru fil-pubbliku. Il-ħidma li issir għaldaqstant tista’ ukoll tkun soġġetta b’iktar faċilita għall-iskrutinju tal-medja.  

Għal dawn ir-raġunijiet Alternattiva Demokratika hi tal-fehma li l-awtorita regolatorja dwar il-finanzjament tal-politika għandha tkun fil-qafas tal-istruttura li l-Parlament qiegħed jibni bil-mod u bil-paċenzja dwar l-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika bl-involviment tal-Kummissarju dwar l-Istandards fil-Ħajja Pubblika. Dan ikun ferm aħjar mill-istruttura proposta fl-abbozz ta’ liġi dwar il-finanzjament tal-partiti politiċi.

Nifhmu li l-idea li l-awtorita regolatorja għall-finanzjament tal-partiti politiċi tkun il-Kummissjoni Elettorali ttieħdet mill-esperjenza tar-Renju Unit. Irridu iżda inżommu quddiem għajnejna li l-esperjenza tar-Renju Unit m’għandha xejn x’taqsam ma dik Maltija fejn tidħol awtorita’ regolatorja indipendenti. Fil-leġislazzjoni tar-Renju Unit kemm il-proċess elettorali ukoll dak ta’ sorveljanza tal-finanzjament tal-partiti politiċi hu taħt il-lenti tal-House of Commons u l-Kummissarji Elettorali għar-Renju Unit (għaxra b’kollox) b’kuntrast mal-prattika f’Malta ma jistgħux ikunu persuni assoċjati ma’ partiti politiċi. Dik tagħmel differenza kbira u fundamentali.”

Wara li Alternattiva Demokratika kienet ħarget b’din ir-reazzjoni, il-PN kien beda jdoqq l-istess diska.

Imma l-Gvern webbes rasu.

 

Tista’ tara id-dokument sħih ippubblikat bil-Malti hawn. Inkella hawn jekk tippreferi taqrah bl-Ingliż.