Former leader of the Opposition Simon Busuttil strongly objected to criticism being levelled against the National Party (PN) for "tarnishing" the reputation of Malta when it speaks out on the international sphere.
Busuttil was speaking during a Parliamentary debate on the Public Administration Act which seeks to introduce a permanent parliamentary committee that would scrutinise Ministers' choices for top posts in certain public entities.
He expressed his disappointment with the "fruitless" rule of law debate which took place Monday night in Parliament. Government clarified its position on why it is against the appointment of the Police Commissioner and the Attorney General through 2/3 approval in Parliament during the debate.
Busuttil took aim at the "stock response" government members give when confronted with scandals which is to draw comparisons with previous PN governments.
"Such scandals never took place under the PN," Busuttil said to the incredulous government side of the House. He later clarified that a "journalist was never assassinated under a PN government".
Busuttil then responded to a popular argument by government that PN governments had 25 years to affect the reform they are now proposing. To this, Busuttil said under a PN government such a climate of impunity had never taken hold, to loud protest from the government.
He then slammed criticising coming from the PL saying that the PN is causing damage to Malta on the international sphere. Busuttil stressed that it is those in power, and not those reacting to the actions of those in power, who are damaging Malta.
The debate got extremely heated when Justice Minister Owen Bonnici could be overheard shouting that Busuttil should try to "focus on doing some good for the PN" instead of the strategy he was employing.
Back to the crux of the debate, the Public Administration Act, the committee overseeing scrutiny is proposed to be made up of three members of government and two members of the opposition to reflect the make-up of parliament.
The relevant minister has final say on appointments. Committee members would be able to submit questions to a minister's choice in writing to the minister, who then passes them on to the candidate. Replies must be delivered in writing with a possibility for supplementary questions being sent by committee members. Should any further clarification be required, the nominee may be asked to come before the committee and explain in person.
Proceedings are to be made public except in extraordinary circumstances, without those circumstances being explicitly outlined in the draft bill.
In light of the parameters proposed by the government, Busuttil called on the committee to cover all public entities. Under the current proposed law, the FIAU and the police are among entities outside of the remit of the proposed committee scrutiny. He also called on scrutiny to be delivered directly through a hearing, and not in writing.
Busuttil went on to propose that the scope of questioning should not be limited to directly related to the post and that the committee should have final say and not the member, especially in light of the government majority within the committee.
Justice Minister Owen Bonnici
Justice Minister Owen Bonnici thanked concerns by "genuine" members of the opposition, while continuing to counter arguments raised by the other side of the House.
Referring to criticism over the first round of questioning being submitted in writing to possible candidates, as well as criticism levelled due to the scope of questioning being limited to subject matter related to the post, Bonnici gave a rundown of the government's position.
He relayed his own concerns that should possible candidates be hauled before the parliamentary committee and scrutinised publically on anything and everything, "quality" people might be put off and this could be a deterrent.
"Am I saying something so crazy?" he questioned.
Bonnici also countered the argument that the committee, and not the minister should have final say on appointments. Citing arguments of separation of powers, the minister contended that the executive, that is Cabinet, should be separate from Parliament. He said the heads of public entities serve the people and that Parliament hold the government's choice for that position accountable.
The rest of his intervention may be found here.
from The Malta Independent http://ift.tt/2zUiNTS
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment