[WATCH] Stanley Zammit: ‘Government was obliged to revise local plans in 2016, but failed to do so’

Opposition MP Stanley Zammit has accused the Labour government of failing in its obligation to revise the country’s local plans in 2016.  

He tells me government’s argument that local plans cannot be changed is “wrong”, insisting it was obliged to revise them, 10 years on from when they were changed by a Nationalist administration. 

I interview Zammit in the same week parliament has started to discuss legal amendments to Malta’s workplace health and safety law, a change which stems from the public inquiry into the Jean Paul Sofia’s construction site death.  

He believes government has rushed to pass the amendments through parliament, having done “nothing” in the months preceding the Bill’s tabling in the House.  

Zammit says the changes are sorely needed, outlining the need for a “culture shock” in the sector, but feels there is still some obscurity when it comes to fines and regulation.  

Questioned on the 2006 Nationalist administration’s rationalisation exercise, he is reluctant to concede it was a mistake, but does agree it could have roped in more experts in its execution.  

The same goes for the 2006 local plans, with Zammit defending the exercise, stating the Labour government was obliged to revise them 10 years later. He says the government is intentionally “stagnating” the planning system to gain political traction.  

On the PN’s road to the general election, he says it must continue to build up on the positives it has achieved. Zammit says the party has to enter into dialogue with people to understand the changing needs of society.

The following are excerpts from the interview. 

The full interview can also be viewed on Facebook and Spotify.

Parliament is currently discussing amendments to the workplace health and safety law. But the Opposition’s reaction has been somewhat contradictory. You accused government of rushing the Bill, saying it was a “knee-jerk reaction”, but at the same time, you are saying government is late in presenting the Bill. Is government rushing or taking too long? 

If I have a piece of work which takes me a year to finish, and then I spend 11 months taking it easy, and then in the final month try to compress all that in one month, that is a rushed piece of work. The problem is that the government did not plan ahead.  

We are speaking about a law which is 20 years old, and instead of grabbing the bull by the horns and reform it, we have spent years drawing up legal notices and subsidiary legislation, but now it has become too complicated, and still, it does not reflect today’s reality.  

Let’s take construction for example, the sector has changed from 20 years ago. We are then suddenly faced with particular situations; we panic and end up introducing stop-gap measures. The Jean Paul Sofia case was the biggest catalyst for the change we are seeing now.  

We need the reform, urgently, but to change the culture, to shock the culture, you have to convey that urgency. But that urgency does not mean you table the Bill and expect the law to be introduced in 10 days.

You agreed with government on several points. Do you agree with the increase in fines, or are we going to see the PN criticising government for being too draconian?   

This Bill was half-baked. We agree the fines of 20 years ago are not as impactful in today’s world. A €233 fine today is not a deterrent, but there is still some obscurity.  

If we are saying a maximum fine of €50,000, in what context is that fine? Let’s say you have a block of flats with four balconies, and you didn’t install the railing, and you receive a fine. What will the fine be? Will you be fined for every railing you didn’t install, or one fine for the entire development?  

As a deterrent it also fails, as those who know they are breaking the law, do not know what fine they would be paying.   

[…]  

With all their positives and negatives, BCA fines are classified accordingly, and by and large are understandable.  

It is also a question of trust in the authorities. This Bill lacks in governance and transparency. There was the statuary and almost obligatory process of the public inquiry in the first months of 2023, then total silence, and then there was one presentation on a number of subjects to the MCESD, and then total silence again. One fine day, the PM said he wants the law to be enacted by summer. Those gaps signified a lack of participation by relevant stakeholders in the process.  

On good governance, we proposed an amendment – which was also pledged by Labour – to have persons in public positions chosen through public call, but the minister didn’t want that. Why does the government not want this?

Do you feel it is time for the 2006 local plans to be amended?  

The argument brought forward by government for the past 11 years that local plans cannot change, is a wrong one. In 2016 government was obliged to revise the local plans, they had to be revised after 10 years, but failed to do so. Of course, the local plans need changing.

When I’m saying revised, I am speaking about a complete overhaul of the local plans…  

Of course, they need to be overhauled completely… the issue here is quality of life. We could have chosen to prioritise votes, like what Labour has done over the past decade, but we decided the issue we want to resolve is quality of life.  

[…] 

A revision of local plans would need a stock take. What you and me feel about the local plans is irrelevant, we need to stick to the facts. How much more development can Malta sustain? What kind of development? What kind of infrastructure do we need? Someday we will reach a limit 

The government is intentionally stagnating the planning process, because it only prioritises votes. The Planning Authority with all its positives and negatives, was a ‘planning machine’. You had a whole storey of forward planners, but today there are only a handful, who have no resources.  

We need a carrying-capacity study. Government should have published that carrying-capacity study in 2015, as part of the preparation for the local plan revision, but nothing was published.  

Government has to answer for this. Probably this study exists, but to not anger anyone, its stored in some drawer somewhere where no one can read it.

Do you concede the 2006 ‘rationalisation exercise’ was a mistake? Large swathes of land, almost the size of Siggiewi, suddenly were allowed to be developed… 

Comparison politics is not by style, but if we are going to compare this to Siggiewi, imagine how much allowing one or two-storeys across the country is in terms of size...

I don’t feel that is a fair comparison because the rationalisation exercise allowed virgin land to be developed across the country… 

The issue today is over density. We are suffocating. The problem with the rationalisation exercise was that there was no planning. The planning system did not track down these pockets. If the planning system continued to analyse the wider situation, it would have analysed these pockets more efficiently. Had that been carried out, the system would have identified the areas which needed to be rationalised, and not the developer.

The MEP election result boosted the PN, but in around two years’ time we will have a general election. What’s next for the PN? 

The first thing we must do is continue building on the positives – unity, teamwork and better organisation. We must also continue listening to people’s concerns and enter into dialogue with them. And finally, we have to have more mature ideas, and reflect today’s changing society.