Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1512001
13 NEWS maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 22 NOVEMBER 2023 CLAYTON Bartolo's justification for withholding the full report that is sup- posed to detail the economic impact of Malta's cash rebate scheme for the film industry smacks of arrogance. The Tourism Minister told parliament on Monday during the budget estimates debate he was only tabling the abridged version since he "does not trust" the PN. Frankly speaking it is the lamest excuse ever given by a minister to justify with- holding information, which is of public interest. Malta returns millions of euros to film producers as part of its 40% cash rebate scheme intended to attract foreign pro- ductions. Such schemes are common place in the industry and in principle are no different to other industrial incentives Malta has provided over decades to attract foreign investment. But whether the scheme is good or too generous in its current incarnation is a moot point at this stage. It is the minister's attitude that is under the spotlight. Speaking in parliament, Bartolo showed contempt towards the Opposition but even worse, towards taxpayers who are footing the bill for this report. The probability is that the full report will be saying nothing different from the 40-page abridged version, which quanti- fies the economic spinoff from the cash rebate. But this is beside the point. The underlying principle is that no minister should withhold information just because they 'do not trust' the Opposition. The report should be clear enough to al- low its readers to reach their own conclu- sions. Irrespective of what the Opposition makes of the report, it will be out there for anyone to read and evaluate. This leader sees no plausible justification for the full report to be withheld and Bartolo's be- haviour is needlessly stoking the flames of suspicion. Bartolo's behaviour is childish and his arrogance is disturbing. It is precisely this attitude that leads people to switch off politics, feel angry or disconnected from those in power. The minister may have received acco- lades from his ardent followers for rub- bishing the Opposition but to the large swathe of middle ground voters his at- titude is unacceptable. Indeed, it flies in the face of government's recurrent budget theme that it has listened to the people. The minister has a portfolio that comes with a lot of discretionary spending on events and sponsorships. The least he could do is be responsive to concerns and requests for information. It is irrelevant that the minister has passed on the full report to the Auditor General, who is probing the finances of the Malta Film Commission and the tax rebate incentive. What is so special, or controversial, about this report that justi- fies it being kept secret? Probably nothing. But Bartolo's behaviour is possibly a re- flection of a wider problem within gov- ernment when it comes to transparen- cy. There have been too many instances where ministers have acted in contempt of transparency by delaying parliamentary replies, publishing heavily redacted pub- lic contracts, being scant with the media when asked for information. Transparency should be a core principle of governance and when full disclosure is not possible for clearly defined reasons, there should be circumstances where MPs are given disclosure in a confidential way. An analysis of the impact the cash rebate has on the economy does not fall within the realm of exceptions. It is not the first time the government has published economic impact analyses to justify proposed future projects that may be controversial in nature. But in this case, it seems, the full report is too hot to handle. Ministers are accountable for their ac- tions to parliament, where the representa- tives of the people scrutinise and question their decisions and behaviour. Bartolo had no right to withhold the publication of the report because he does not trust Opposition MPs. Indeed, it was PN MP Julie Zahra's duty to ask that the impact assessment be published in its en- tirety for everyone to digest and under- stand. She was doing her job. If anything, it is the people who are in- creasingly showing a lack of trust in poli- ticians and while this is underpinned by a myriad of reasons, arrogance by ministers is definitely one of them. A question of arrogance maltatoday MaltaToday, MediaToday Co. Ltd, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 MANAGING EDITOR: SAVIOUR BALZAN EXECUTIVE EDITOR: KURT SANSONE EDITOR: PAUL COCKS Tel: (356) 21 382741-3, 21 382745-6 Website: www.maltatoday.com.mt E-mail: dailynews@mediatoday.com.mt the Painted Frog's survival, right now, turns out to be none of these things – even if, naturally, none of them exactly 'helps', either. No, it is the simultaneous presence of numerous other invasive species, which have been introduced to Malta at some point over the past few decades… and which are now driving our only indigenous am- phibian to the verge of extinction. As naturalist Arnold Sciberras told me, in a recent interview: "To- day, practically every fresh-wa- ter spring, in every valley, is filled with crayfish: an invasive species, that somehow got released into our natural water-ways; and with which the Painted Frog finds it im- possible to compete. "We are even finding the occa- sional terrapin species, let loose in the wild... and also another alien species of frog [the Levant Water frog]: which we discovered two decades ago, in Sarrafflu, Gozo; but which we have now recorded in at least four five other sites in Gozo; and a couple of sites in Mal- ta. And wherever this frog-spe- cies establishes itself: it will always out-compete the Painted Frog…" Meanwhile, there is another in- digenous species (not 'endemic', this time; but arguably more 'em- blematic') whose populations have also declined alarmingly, in recent years. That's the Leopard Snake (Zamenis situla), folks: which, ac- cording to legend, is the self-same species that once sunk its fangs into a certain St Paul… only to be unceremoniously shaken off into a bonfire, for its pains (with the re- sult that all its descendants mirac- ulously 'lost their venomous bite', from that moment on)… Once again, I'll resist the tempta- tion to digress (but it's ironic, isn't it, that this species somehow man- aged to survive its fiery encounter with St Paul, 2,000 years ago – be- coming part of Malta's folklore, in the process - only to be driven to extinction TODAY, in our own lifetimes?) Sadly, however, that seems to be what's happening, right now. To quote Sciberras once more: "In our more recent studies, we saw that some snake populations are quite stable; but others – namely, the Leopard Snake [lifgha]– has plummeted, recently. "[…] What most people don't know, however, it that we have re- corded another five alien species of snake, recently. Some of them are already quite common; others rare; and some... well, we're afraid that they might even be genetically polluting the local populations, by 'hybridizing' with them…" And when I asked him wheth- er these newly-discovered snakes posed any 'danger to humans'… here's his reply in full: "To humans? No, not at all. They're not venomous; and they do not pose any danger whatso- ever. They are, however, very dan- gerous to local wildlife. And we've already seen a major decline, in the population of one of our indige- nous snakes…" And, well, this brings us back full-circle to the question I asked in the headline. Given that so much of Malta's indigenous wildlife ap- pears to be under direct threat of extinction, right now… why do people like Robert Abela – and everyone else who is supposed to be concerned with the protection of Maltese biodiversity: including, naturally, ERA – only ever com- plain about the 'threat posed by invasive species', when: a) The species just happens to be 'a tree' (and not, say, a 'cray- fish', 'frog', or 'snake'… where the threat is at least REAL); b) The tree in question isn't even 'invasive', to begin with (after all, the words 'alien' and 'invad- er' do not exactly mean the same thing: one merely happens to 'come from somewhere else'; the other has to … well… actually, 'IN- VADE', FFS!!!), and; c) The only thing 'threat- ened' by its presence here, is a taxpayer-funded 'landscaping pro- ject', that could just as easily have been redesigned from scratch, to mitigate any further damage caused by those 'alien' (but not 'in- vasive') trees? Hey, don't all try to answer at once! You can't exactly expect me to hear what you're saying, when you all suddenly start shouting like that…