Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/278185
Interview 12 You've been accused of interfering in police business on the Enemalta smart meters issue. The uncertainty with regards to the real number of hacked smart meters added further confusion. In essence, something that could have earned the government brownie points turned negative… In the case of tampered electricity meters, there is a law that gives the government and Enemalta the right to demand repayment for the stolen electricity, plus a fine, without in- volving the police. This law was used during the previous administration – consumers were asked to pay Ene- malta its dues in addition to a Lm100 fine, and that was that. When I found out that there were hundreds of people benefitting from tampered meters, my primary con- cern was to discover who was be- hind it. There was a case to be made against individuals who were respon- sible but without the testimony of consumers, it was not a strong case. So we made a decision. Whoever had one of these meters had to pay back that which they stole as well as a fine and, in court, give any information they had about the racket. Without the guarantee of immu- nity, those witnesses would not have come forward. In fact, just this morn- ing another Enemalta employee was caught using the information volun- teered by consumers. If we had not done this, we would never have dis- covered the extent of these crimes. How do you respond to the accusation that the police commissioner, Peter Paul Zammit, is your 'puppet', as the Opposition put it, when it came to a decision not to charge people with bribery in the Enemalta meters scandal? What we did would have been con- sidered interference only if we had broken a law. We followed the law. Each case is being brought before the relevant authorities. The Attorney General determines whether or not those who come forward are referred to the courts after they have paid back what is owed and the stipulated fine, and has given information. That per- son must then testify publicly against those responsible for tampering. For the first time in such a situation, we are not just catching the 'small fish' but the big fish as well. What we are doing is no different from what happens abroad, where witnesses are given incentives to testify, rather than intimidate wit- nesses into remaining silent. So far a number of people have come for- ward and there are many more out there. The deadline we gave is ap- proaching. Once that time elapses, whoever does not come forward will be taken to court and we will use all the tools at our disposal to bring them to justice. The other accusation is that you do not want to tread on the toes of those families (who have used one of these smart meters) because they could represent potential Labour votes. I think it is an unfounded accu- sation. If this logic holds, then no government will have ever done anything because they feared losing votes. We are proceeding according to law without any consideration for people's political affiliation. In fact some of the earlier cases were brought against people close to the Labour party. The issue of meritocracy is being brought up regularly. When you were in Opposition, you criticised the way some people were appointed. Do you feel your actions then and your actions now contradict one another, when so many people have been appointed for what appear to be political considerations? To the Opposition, meritocracy means appointing staunch National- ists only. I look at a person's capabili- ties and whether that person believes in the direction we want to steer this country towards. I too can mention those of a Nationalist affiliation who are working with this government because of this very reason. These people are called deserters and mer- cenaries, among other things. The decision is based on capability. There are people who are capable and who want to serve and who believe in the ethos of this government, and we have retained these within our ranks. I believe that this issue was handled badly due to miscommunication. It was one of the first challenges we faced and we could have conveyed our message better to people. The fact remains that the last press conference by Simon Busuttil was all about meritocracy. What credibility does the leader of the Opposition retain when a few days before the last election, he ap- pointed someone close to him to work with the government, at Dar Malta? And we allowed him to stay on. We obviously felt that that per- son was qualified and capable and that he was willing to work towards the goals we set. So why should he be removed? That person was not ap- pointed on merit but he retained his position because of it. The leader of the Opposition has no credibility on these matters. Don't you think it is time to find a structured process by which important appointments are made, a process agreed upon by all? A specific case is the police commissioner's post. The reality is that there should not be controversies over such appointments, that there should be a consensus. It takes two to tango. The criticism directed at the police commissioner from the Opposition is not unlike criticisms I made when I was in Op- position. Just because the Opposition attacks decisions does not mean the system itself is flawed. I would say that the aggressive way the Opposi- tion is making these criticisms is out of synch with public sentiment. I have no problem with the strat- egy the Opposition is adopting but I believe that the leader of the Op- position is not in synch with what the Maltese population is thinking and feeling. This does not mean that we shouldn't look for more common ground but it takes two to make that work. This issue of appointments is problematic in such a small country, which is characterised by stark political division. Do you think there is scope in reassessing the suitability of people occupying positions of trust? Aside from the police – I believe that politicians should not involve themselves there – I think that being trustworthy is not dependent on po- litical affiliation. They must be com- petent and willing to work with the administration. I think that there has never been a government that has extended the hand of friendship to the extent that we have to people who might not share the same political think- ing, so that they can serve in differ- ent capacities. An example is the board overseeing PBS. There was a time when that board was composed solely of people close to the current government. Looking at the board now, one can see that it is made up of people with minds of their own who are willing and able to criticise both the government and the Opposition if they see fit. In the past there has been a trend that people chosen for the judiciary have been close to the current administration. The judiciary is dependent on nominations from politicians. In this particular area, shouldn't we revisit the way these appointments – which require trust and integrity – are made? This is something that [judge emeritus] Giovanni Bonello's report is proposing. It is something I am open to, though perhaps not exactly in the way reports by Bonello, Philip Sciberras, Michael Frendo and Kevin Aquilina suggest. I anticipate that you will say that the proof of your support of women in politics is the presidential nomination. But statistically speaking, you have appointed fewer women to government posts than the previous government. You have frequently stated that you want to see more women appointed to decision-making positions. Realistically, how do you propose to implement this idea without resorting to tokenism, something you yourself denounced when defending your nomination of Marie Louise Coleiro Preca? Firstly, I think that there should women in decision-making posts. One of the things we could improve is the gender balance, in a practical way, and I am committed to creating a better gender balance. But I argue that it is not just a mat- ter of numbers. It is also a matter of the suitability of the positions. For example in the judiciary so far, this government has promoted one mag- istrate to judge, appointed two mag- istrates and will appoint one other judge and one other magistrate. Out of these five, three are women. So I think that is a good sign. The presidential nomination is an- other example. After all, in the past 25 years, there have been no major constitutional posts occupied by a woman. With the exception of Miri- am Spiteri Debono in 1996, no wom- an has occupied a major post derived from the constitution. Actually, that makes it 32 years. This choice we made – regarding Coleiro Preca for President – gives a stronger message than the number of women in other posts. Of course this does not mean I will ignore the importance of these statistics, but a presidential nomination is worth more than a board appointment. Let's talk about the reshuffle. The media has piqued people's curiosity over this issue. There appears to have been a correlation between your choice of ministers and the votes they received in the last election. This time, what are the criteria you'll be using to decide? The choice was not solely based on the number of votes, but their popu- larity was something that was taken into consideration. Will that be the criteria you will use in the coming reshuffle? No – I will employ the same cri- teria. And I know this might shock some people but if these changes need to happen every year, they will happen every year. If there is a need for change, it will happen. For me, it was obvious that once the presi- dential nomination would remove a minister from the Cabinet, the spec- ulation would begin. Everyone in politics knows that if you can't stand the heat, you should get out of the kitchen. This is some- thing I often discuss with others. You cannot pay attention to the specula- tion. You must keep working, and truth be told, I saw some people working a lot harder in the past weeks when this speculation was rife. With the exception of Franco Mercieca and Marie Louise Preca who, for different reasons, will be leaving the cabinet, will you be keeping the same people in the Cabinet, or is there the possibility that some people will lose their ministerial posts? If I answer that, I'll be fuelling the speculation. Do you feel that, as Prime Minister, your mistake was in selecting someone who was not a doctor for the post of Minister for Health? Firstly I would say that in the health sector, a lot of work has been done over the past year, some of which may not be immediately evident, some of which may not have been made clear by us as a government. However, I am not one to blame others. The buck stops here. I am re- sponsible. And I think that a lot has been done in this first year. By Saviour Balzan MERITOCRACY To the Opposition, meritocracy means appointing staunch Nationalists only maltatoday, SUNDAY, 16 MARCH 2014 Labour's electoral rallying call: 'Malta for All' 'I do not mimic anyone'