Making change happen
During yesterday’s sitting in Parliament, I spoke about what a historic day it was for our country. You might ask, what made it so historic? Wasn’t it just another plenary session?
My answer to that would be no, it was not just another ordinary sitting. Yesterday MPs started discussing the new method of appointing the police commissioner which means that for the first time in Malta’s history, the police commissioner will be chosen following a public competition, thereby removing the prime minister’s decision-making power.
This is a significant step for a plethora of reasons, the main one being that this will make the process of appointing people to such a crucial role in the police force far more transparent than it ever was. The second reason is that the selection process will be led entirely by the Public Service Commission (PSC). The PSC is an independent body established by the constitution, composed of bipartisan members and whose chairman is approved by both the prime Minister and the leader of the opposition. The third reason is that by including a grilling in front of the parliamentary Public Appointments Committee, we are adding another layer of scrutiny for the chosen candidate.
One must note that Parliament’s role in the process of appointing a police commissioner was never mentioned by the Venice Commission in its recommendations. Nor is it a practice used in many European countries. In fact, in France the director general of the police is appointed by the government through a decision of the Council of Ministers, while in Sweden, the police chief is appointed by the government for a period of six years. In the UK, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is appointed by the monarch following a recommendation by the home secretary. This means that, by adopting this new method, Malta will be one step ahead of its European counterparts. As a government, we believed that as the country’s highest institution, Parliament must play a role in this important process. The grilling will also be available online for the public and the media to follow in real time. I believe that this proposal shows that the government is committed to taking every step in the right direction to listen to the concerns of the civil society and make the necessary changes.
On the other hand, we have an Opposition that has been inconsistent on the matter. The first proposal the Opposition suggested that the police commissioner should be appointed by a simple majority in Parliament. If a simple majority were to applied, the government would be choosing the Commissioner of Police on its own and nothing would have really changed. However, the Opposition changed its mind and decided that the police commissioner should be appointed by a two-thirds majority. However, the Opposition offers no alternative in the case of a constitutional deadlock. If the twothirds majority is applied and the government and the Opposition do not agree on a candidate, then this can result in a constitutional standstill and the country will end up without a police commissioner until an agreement is reached. This might never happen, which is why the Opposition’s proposal is so irresponsible.
As a government, I believe it is our duty to ensure that we future-proof our country to allow the next generation to thrive more than we ever could. This proposal is yet another reform we are implementing to strengthen our country’s institutions and our democracy. It is our responsibility to deliver the change that is really needed for our police force to move forward. Delivering this change will not be an easy ride; however, I am certain that only this government can do so. If we had to wait for the Opposition, it would take another 25 years.