Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/936285
maltatoday SUNDAY 4 FEBRUARY 2018 Opinion 26 I may have a habit of reading too much into things, but I'm going through the Government's official response to the European Parliament's 'Mission Report' about Malta – which just came out about an hour ago, so it's only a cursory f lick-through for now – and... well... at moments, it almost reads like the Dictaphone transcript of an angry telephone-call: 'Oh yeah? That's what you said about me? Well, take THIS for a reply, you bunch of lousy no- good... (fill in with appropriate epithet of your choice)'. There is an unspoken anger and indignation that just seeps through each paragraph.... an overwhelming sense of injured pride, of mortal offence, of... 'NO FAIR!' And I have to also say that... I'm loving every minute of it. So much more expressive (and entertaining) than the usual dead-pan tone you get in most official governmental communications. There is a satisf ying 'oomph ' to almost every other sentence. Try this one for size: "1) The Report shows a fundamental lack of understanding as to the roles of the various institutions in Malta which it describes, how those institutions perform their duties and their powers under statute..." Ouch! All that's lacking is a final f lourish: 'So there, too!'... or 'Rubber Jollies!'... or (my preferred choice) 'Suck on that, Euro-F***ers!' . And please note, that's just 'number one': the first of several finger- wagging admonitions that just don't stop throughout the 44-page document. Later on, for instance, there's this: "The Mission Report attacks the independence of broadcasters and newspapers by stating they are 'owned by political parties' and 'under the control of the Government'. This is a further example of a lack of proper research and a deeper analysis of facts..." SOCK! Then there's this: "The Mission Report refers to 'concerns on the absence of protection measures for Daphne Caruana Galizia'. As the delegation is well aware, Ms Galizia was offered police protection but it was refused. If the Mission Report is suggesting that a journalist should be subject to police protection against their will then we would consider this a dangerous step in terms of media freedom." BIFF! And even this (a footnote on page 1, by the way): "Malta has certain doubts as to the legality of the ad-hoc delegation in view of its composition and the manner in which it operated. It did not wish those concerns to hold up its response to the factual allegations made in the Mission Report, but Malta reserves all and any rights in this respect." KAPOW! What can one say? Locked and loaded. The Government wins this particular round of 'Epic Political Rap Battles' hands down... now, I'm looking forward to the European Parliament's reply. It's a bit like waiting for the next episode of Game of Thrones, really. Who would ever have guessed that so much entertainment could be had, from such a brutal dismembering of our institutional set-up by the European Parliament? Ah, but that's the crux of the matter, right there. It reminds me of that horribly trite expression we used to use as children (and some of us still use to this day). 'Ask a silly question, and you'll get a silly answer'. By the same token: 'compile an amateur report on a country's justice system, and you can only expect its government to come back with an equally childish retort'. Regardless what we make of the reply, it remains a fact that much of that Mission Report was indeed erroneous, or based on f lawed (often biased) perceptions. It is true that the fact-finding mission misinterpreted some aspects of Malta's Constitutional law: how we appoint Attorney Generals in this country, for instance; or how the AG's office is apportioned between the separate roles of public prosecution and government's legal advisor. But I don't want to get bogged down in details. Earlier, I described the expression 'ask a silly question' as 'trite', because... while we can all understand the rationale behind the silly answer, it remains a silly answer all the same. And in this case, it's a silly answer that doesn't even address the questions being asked. It is not enough to merely point out the many shortcomings in the original EP report; and indeed it is not enough to address this reply only to the European Parliament. There's still the rest of us out here, you know: the citizens of Malta, who also have a vested interest in the state of this country's national institutions. So even if the delegation itself was biased, and asked all the wrong questions to all the wrong people – and that, by the way, can almost be taken as a one-sentence precis of the government's reply – the questions it was meant to ask are still valid. Again, the part about the appointment of the AG makes a good example. I've already quoted part of the Government's reply – (i.e., that the European Parliament doesn't know what the heck it's even talking about) but even if we accept that as true... it does not follow that there is no problem with the appointment of AGs at all. Indeed there is a problem, and Government's own argument even spells it out for us: "Peter Grech was appointed as Attorney General on 9 September 2010 when the Nationalist Party [underlined] was in Government; and on 9 March 2013 the Labour Party was voted into Government, yet Mr Grech remains in his post to this day. For the reasons set out above, the Attorney General appointment procedure is transparent, fair and free from bias or political persuasion." Much as I hate to call 'non- sequitur'... that is a non- sequitur. For one thing: just because two parties agree on something, it does not mean that the 'something' in question is 'fair and free from bias', etc. Quite frankly, it could very well mean the opposite. Besides: the issue under discussion is the appointment – not removal – of the AG. As Government separately argues (but, strangely, didn't mention in its reply) a two- thirds majority of the House is already required to remove an Attorney General from office. So yes, the incoming Labour government did indeed retain Dr Peter Grech, though he had been appointed by Gonzi. Maybe it did so freely and in good faith – no reason to suspect otherwise, really – or maybe it wanted to remove him, but simply couldn't because of the two-thirds threshold. But who cares? We're not talking about what this particular government did, or did not do, in the case of this particular AG. It concerns the system of appointments as a whole: it's about what government – any government – CAN do, within the parameters of the law. This side of the argument was completely missing from government's defence. And it becomes important in view of the next line of attack: "The fact that the Maltese Attorney General wears two Raphael Vassallo We are right, you are wrong, so there! I'm looking forward to the European Parliament's reply. It's a bit like waiting for the next episode of Game of Thrones era.org.mt Environment & Resources Authority Hexagon House, Spencer Hill, Marsa. PUBLIC CONSULTATION Trees and Woodlands Protec on Regula ons, 2018 The Environment Resources Authority (ERA) is revising the Trees and Woodlands Protec on Regula ons in order to protect an addi onal 14 tree species in the Maltese Islands, protect trees in urban public open spaces and increase controls on ac vi es and alien species which may harm trees. It is also being proposed that persons carrying out interven ons on protected trees, are to be licensed. Court penal es have been substan ally increased, par cularly for those interven ons concerning strictly protected trees. Guidelines on Works involving Trees, 2018 The Authority developed Guidelines on Works involving Trees, which guide those carrying out interven ons on trees, whether protected or not. The document provides guidance on permits that are required for certain interven ons on trees and how to apply for them, exemp ons from permits, and how to register as a tree specialist. Other sec ons on best prac ce, including pruning and transplan ng and compensatory plan ng are also provided. ERA is invi ng the public to submit wri en comments on the proposed amendments to both the regula on and guidelines by Thursday, 1st March 2018. Representa ons are to be made in wri ng to the: Na onal Affairs Environment & Resources Authority Hexagon House, Spencer Hill, Marsa, MRS 1441 or on the email address: era.policyconsulta on@era.org.mt For further details visit the Authority's website: h ps://era.org.mt/en/Pages/Dra -Policies.aspx