When actors refuse to leave the stage
Last Monday, Parliament discussed the Bill to amend the Public Administration Act at Committee Stage.
Owen Bonnici is the Minister for Justice, Culture and Local Government t was a Bill proposed by Government to introduce pre-appointment Parliamentary hearings, or ‘grillings’, before main public appointments of regulatory bodies and non-career Ambassadors are made. It represents a bold step. As a long-serving civil servant told me, it is even bolder when one keeps in mind that normally Governments in their second term tend to foster a defensive mentality. In our case, this is definitely not the case.
As usual the Opposition wanted more even though it did not go anywhere near such a measure when in Government. We were open-minded and in listening-mode about this and after lengthy discussions agreement was reached on almost all the disputed issues: indeed a sign of maturity by both sides of the House. All was going well and in a civilised manner - I have to congratulate in particular the Opposition MP Dr Karol Aquilina who is sharp, very well prepared and open to dialogue until the former leader of the Opposition, the actor who didn’t leave the stage, Simon Busuttil, came around to ply his trade and customary venom.
It is clear that Busuttil believes in aggressive and radical speech. He appears to lack basic understanding that a party in Opposition will only make it to Government when it convinces people that they will not be giving themselves up to extreme approaches, which end up hurting our country in the process, but that moderation and compromise must prevail. Coupled, of course, with a vision for our country, which Simon Busuttil simply does not have.
He spent his career as Leader of the Opposition exclusively repeating allegations of corruption by all and sundry, harming our country in the process. His other policies were always very shallow and unconvincing. The halfbaked proposal of giving money to people who relocate their home to Gozo is one which comes to mind.
He went to the last election as a one-issue party: the party supposedly on the right side of the Panama Papers. He hoped that all the muck of the previous administrations had by then been forgotten.
As we all know, this earned him a trashing at the polls and led to his flight from the party leadership, only to be replaced by a former unknown - a man from the political wilderness. Such was the extent of loss of faith of the party faithful who had followed him during the electoral campaign. This despite the ‘no holds barred’ campaign of his hawkish entourage, even at a later stage against the incumbent leader.
Last Monday the Opposition proposed a very long list of public appointments which it considered to merit a pre-appointment hearing. The list was so long that Parliament would have probably never got through it in practice but it was no surprise that this included the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Police. The Opposition electoral and postelectoral campaigns had particularly targeted these two public officials, presumably prompted by some backroom boys who were dead set on seeing these two go.
Apart from that both gentlemen tend to be low profile, humble and down to earth. Boisterous types perceive this as a sign of weakness. I personally sometimes suffer from this too.
Busuttil’s hawkishness and even his apparent lack of basic human feeling was at its best last Monday. There was absolutely no need to turn the debate at Committee Stage of a law almost totally agreed on into a personal attack on public officials. The Attorney General was in the House doing his duty as legal adviser and drafter of the law. He had in fact contributed substantially to reaching the quasi-compromise. Still Busuttil could not help taking the debate one notch lower and launching a scathing personal attack on him and, to a lesser extent, on the Commissioner of Police, whom he claimed has become guilty of dereliction of duty. He is very liberal with such claims on others and tends to overlook his own dereliction of duty as Leader of the Opposition without a proper electoral programme.
Busuttil showed himself to be particularly brilliant when hitting out at people who could not reply or question him there and then on his wild allegations. The Attorney General, of course, does not have a right to speak in the House. Busuttil really came across, as he often does, as being so full of himself and arrogant.
As expected, the reasons given for his broadsides were complete baloney.
For example he claimed that the issuing of an investigation order by a court could be made without proof of a reasonable suspicion and this when the now famous article 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act demands this (i.e. Demands reasonable suspicion).
Busuttil took it for granted that media reports were enough to find a reasonable suspicion and appeared scandalised that anyone would contest this.
When one sees these things one has to ask what this man is about. Is he genuinely against the requirement of a reasonable suspicion as a basis for intrusion into liberty? Is really that what he wants?
Also, as any lawyer knows, the FIAU has the power to acquire the information which is obtained through an investigation order without the need of asking the Court and without the need of having proof of a reasonable suspicion.
On a mere suspicion, FIAU can proceed and obtain information straightaway. From what is available in the public arena, it appears that the FIAU did exactly that and acquired all the information they wanted about everyone they wanted.
This is because in the field of financial investigation, the FIAU has far more powers than those afforded to the Attorney General, who at all times needs to make recourse to the Courts coupled by the need of having a reasonable suspicion.
Busuttil purported to rely on the words of the Chief Justice but the Chief Justice, even though breaking with judicial tradition in choosing to comment on matters which are politically controversial, never said that an investigation order can be issued in the absence of a reasonable suspicion. The impression given to that effect was the work of others.
The report of the MEP delegation raises questions as to how much of what was said was actually reproduced in the report and also whether it was reproduced correctly at all times.
One example which comes to mind is the claim, found in the MEP delegation report, that our whistleblowers law does not apply to public officials. Of course it does and how! Despite this, nowhere did the MEP report attack Maltese institutions in the way Busuttil did.
At the last election in particular the electorate has shown that it can do without an all-knowing, all-arrogant, all-insolent, stuffy style in politics.
I doubt if Busuttil has learnt that lesson. He was the future for the Nationalist Party once.