Joseph’s mixed messages

Joseph Muscat's new government has sent a clear message that it means business.  The contrast with an ailing government clinging on to power beyond its expiry date has been obvious. Boosted by a 12-point margin in the polls, the new government is doing its utmost to present itself as an effective government.

The government's decision to commence talks with the Holy See to revise the agreement giving supremacy of ecclesiastical courts over civil courts on annulments is welcome. So is the government's prompt decision to bring closure to the case of Joanne Cassar, reversing the previous government's use all sorts of legal mechanisms to impede Cassar's pursuit of happiness.

Although ministerial spot checks should be the exception and not the rule as these can contribute to the perception of an over-zealous executive, Emanuel Mallia's focus on prison reform and concrete action to eradicate institutional abuse in the corrective institution is welcome. So was Marie-Louisee Coleiro Preca's commitment to improve the situation in the long neglected young offender's unit.

Leo Brincat's decision to appoint a committee to investigate the Sant Antnin permit EIA is also welcome, considering the damning contents of a MEPA audit office report unofficially released before the 2008 election. 

Hopefully Labour will show the same zeal for EIA regulations in the assessment of its energy and land reclamation plans. For what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

As regards to appointments Muscat has sent very mixed messages, with some like that of former Nationalist MP Franco Debono to coordinate the new constitutional assembly smacking of post-electoral payback time. 

The appointment of businessmen in key positions remains problematic as it was under Nationalist governments. It simply weakens the distinction between public and private interests in a country where business and politics are already engaged in an incestuous relationship. Surely a commercial entity like Air Malta could benefit from the business acumen of Ray Fenech and Joe Gasan, but such appointments also amplify the perception that some businessmen are an integral part of government. 

Other appointments like that of architect Vince Cassar as MEPA's executive chairman were based on merit. The proof for Cassar will be in the pudding, especially in resisting any attempt to render MEPA into a rubber-stamp for government, especially with regards to attempts to fast track certain projects deemed to be of national importance. 

Robert Musumeci surely has technical competence in his consultancy role on planning procedures, but it is obvious that his advice reflects the new government's pro development bias.

In fact the worst message sent by the new government was with regards to land use policies. The first indications coming from the budget speech is that Muscat's new government is a throwback to the worse excesses of Nationalist governments between 1987 and 2008, when it comes to the fetish with big projects like land reclamation and yacht marinas in Gozo. 

Muscat's reliance on the construction industry to kick-start the economy, coupled with his decision to take direct ministerial responsibility over MEPA could result in a conflict of interest of massive proportion. For MEPA is first and foremost there to regulate, and not encourage development.

Moreover, the idea of the private sector coming up with proposals without any parameters being set up by government is dangerous. Gonzi at least had the decency to submit his crazy ideas of a golf course at Xaghra l-Hamra and artificial islands to proper studies before entering in any commitment with the private sector. Now we risk having the private sector dictate the country's agenda. My question is: will the bidder be chosen before or after the environmental impacts of each proposal are assessed?

The announcement of a new planning system through which permits will be issued automatically (without the need of case officer reports and public board meetings) if these are deemed to comply with local plans suggests a throwback to pre-1992 years, before the Planning Authority was set up.  This is problematic because local plans are prone to interpretation. 

It is also unclear whether this policy will apply to any development conforming to local plans whether it is a shop, a dwelling or a hotel. Making distinctions could also prove arbitrary and it is always better to sin on the side of transparency.

It would be tragic if Malta's most progressive government on civil liberties issues ends up behaving like the most regressive party on issues like land use and hunting.  It would surely be a peculiar re-definition of progressive politics.