Weathering the storm | Lawrence Gonzi

The last time I interviewed the Prime Minister was way back in October 2008, and since then, the lines of communication have been totally non-existent: partly due to a silent boycott of the newspaper by government marketing campaigns, one of the first gauges of the relation between the news industry and the powers that be.

That may be changing now.

Since then, Lawrence Gonzi’s second administration has been beset by the vicissitudes of his Cabinet members and the changing climate of international finance that brought about a short recession. I ask him what has changed since we last met two years ago.

“I think what stood out were the reforms that have made all the difference in allowing the country to weather the recession that erupted during that time. This was a recession that brought countries to their knees around the world, as can be seen even today what with news headlines about Ireland, Spain and Portugal – now even Cyprus.

“Even if I appreciate that those tariffs hurt people,” he says about the hike in utility prices, “it was a reform that sparked a change in culture, pushing the country slowly towards alternative sources of energy: energy-saving light bulbs that reduce consumption, photovoltaic cells, and solar-panels to heat water.”

Perhaps one of the promises that marked 2008’s election year, was a commitment to have calls for applications for directors on government boards – what seemed to be an attempt towards meritocracy, rather than appointments through political affiliations.

“We actually did start implementing it. The latest decision we took was for the nominations of MEPA’s development control commission, for which we issued a public call for applications. A number of people applied. Out of those, 10 were chosen. One later dropped out, which led us to choose someone who hadn’t applied.”

But if that was the case, why was the Labour candidate Martin Debono (Sliema local councillor) not chosen at the DCC, when he was short-listed?

“There were individuals who were associated with the Nationalist Party as well who weren’t chosen. Let’s not start questioning the motivation behind choices the very moment we start implementing an electoral promise. We made a public call, we held multiple interviews, and those who were chosen were those deemed suitable for recommendation by the interviewing board.”

Gonzi appears to have his conscience at peace with the DCC applications, even though countless ‘un-meritocratic’ appointments are still the order of the day across many government boards and agencies. But this forms part of the power of conviction of the prime minister, as is his belief that the Public Broadcasting Services is “decent and fair”.

Does he think public broadcasting reflects diversity and is truly representative?

“Yes. I think that in broadcasting we need a national discussion that goes beyond partisan politics because I am worried by the state of local broadcasting. I don’t like party-owned broadcasting at all. My opinion is that the national broadcaster does reach certain standards and does provide space for diverse opinions,” he says, before turning to a Labour right-of-reply as an example of these standards.

“Today a Labour Party figure can show up 15 minutes before the airing of a programme and expect to speak during that same programme,” he says referring to Bondiplus – a PBS mainstay whose editorial slant in favour of government is taking a life of its own.

“We have a Broadcasting Authority that functions, but the time may have come for a revision of how it works,” Gonzi says, before reminding once again that Labour had quit the Select Committee on the Strengthening of Democracy, of which broadcasting was part of its remit.

“I think today’s broadcasting reflects what the democratic norm necessitates. Can it improve? Yes. How? We can discuss that. I am open to discussion, and I would prefer that, on a topic this important, we have agreement. I would not wish for it to happen through imposition, either by government on the opposition, or the opposition on government, or other third party voices.

“Currently, public broadcasting is better than the scandalous broadcasting seen under Labour administrations, when those who headed it are still within the party and are sitting in parliament.”

I should hope so. That was 25 years ago. Why does he always return to what happened before 1987?

“Naturally, things changed. But today’s broadcasting is the best it’s ever been in the last 25 years, and it has improved since the days when the leader of the Opposition’s name couldn’t even be mentioned. Thankfully, those days are over, but those behind that policy are still politically present.”

Much as many things have changed since the 1980s, the government’s profligate dispensation of tax money when it comes to tenders and mega-projects still puzzles me, especially due to the total absence of respect for procurement procedures. Take for instance the White Rocks sports village, a large ambitious project, and similar the City Gate project, where there was no call for tenders.

Now why has the White Rocks project suddenly been allowed to have residential units, when previous tenderers for development had been refused this option?

“First of all, let’s get our facts straight – there was a tender. This was awarded to a contractor, who then did not deliver by not presenting a project in accordance to the tender conditions – and it was dropped.”

When I checked the facts after this interview, it was clear that the Maltese consortium San Andrea had asked for a small percentage of the project to be dedicated to residential units. In fact, an agreement had been concluded with former tourism minister Michael Refalo, but then suddenly the goalpost changed when Francis Zammit Dimech took over.

Gonzi continues: “Government can administer its own property it in the national interest, but in line with established regulations. If a parliamentary resolution is required to give that property, we have the option to undertake that procedure, and we will continue to have it.

“We had various major projects that were carried out through a parliamentary resolution – both large and small. If government determines that it is preferable to issue a tender that can be done also. Government can take all the decisions it wants but it has to remain transparent in its decisions and be able to explain why, in this case, a project that will lead to a leap of quality in the sports sector without the government needing to spend money for neither development nor maintenance –

“I think that if negotiations reach that point – and we shouldn’t take things for granted – the flaw in the opposition to the White Rocks project is that everyone is taking everything for granted. Government is still negotiating, something that we said publicly when the project was first announced.

“We didn’t negotiate in secret: first, we announced the project, and then we started negotiating the parameters – now, we’ve started discussing the details.”

However, if I remember correctly, the issue was that the original tender had insisted on no residential units. In this case, the new consortium is demanding it gets residential units. And secondly, the government is now awarding direct orders of multi-million projects thanks to the Grand Harbour Regeneration Corporation ‘schedule 3’ status, which allows Austin Gatt’s approval for contracts that would otherwise need vetting by the Contracts Department.

“Going back to the White Rocks project, the issuing of the tender during a time when our thinking was aimed at tourism, we issued a general invitation to submit a project for the development of a tourism village, not a residential development. We could have if we wanted to, but that was the call at the time. The winner of the tender later came back with a view to change the parameters of the development. That would have been unjust with all others who competed for the tender, and so, the tender was dropped.

“Since the tender dropped, the government changed its strategy. This makes sense because at the time, the tourism issue of self-catering flights was still relevant. Things changed, and the country made such a leap forward in the tourism sector that the country didn’t have that need anymore. So we felt it was wise to move towards fulfilling a specialised tourism niche in the sporting sector. I am persuaded that our position is strong, which explains why we made this choice.

“As to the Schedule 3 listing, I must correct you here… Just because they are schedule three (contracting authorities) does not mean that no tender is issued, but rather that a particular procedure is used for making calls for applications, or expressions of interest. Nevertheless it retains the utmost transparency accountability, but it avoids the need for a lengthy procedure that going through the contracts department would necessitate.”

I am stumped at this reasoning: the Prime Minister is telling me that calls for tender are issued, but that the decision-making is not according to the usual criteria. Is he playing with words?

With Austin Gatt’s name being floated, I turn to his minister’s decision not to stand in the next elections, and how the Prime Minister had that same week felt the need to go back on his statements on Gatt’s show in the PAC when he turned down witnesses to the Delimara hearing: reports appearing in both The Times and PBS.

Wasn’t such a declaration a surprise to him as well, two years before a general election?

“Austin had voiced his position as soon as the last election was won. He immediately made it clear that he did not intend to contest in the coming election,” the PM says, ostensibly referring to questions put to Gatt by MaltaToday in July 2008, in which the minister had avoided clearly answering whether he would contest or not.

“What I learnt throughout my own political experience is that one makes decisions according to what they are going through at the time. Things might change later on. I say so myself. It is still early, one should make decisions at the opportune time.”

Does he think there is a chance that he changes his mind?

“I am hoping to be able to change his mind. To be clear, however, I would prefer that such a decision be announced now rather than on the eve of the next election. While you might spin a story out of nothing, I appreciate the fact that he made his intentions clear early on. I only hope that I am able to change his mind, but that remains to be seen when the time for decisions comes.”

But Gatt is not a backbencher. He is the man who is known to deliver on his reforms.

“Stories are being invented mid-legislature. Go figure if the issue surfaced just three months before the election! I appreciate the fact that Austin chose to make this public at this time – without detracting from the fact that I intend to change his mind.”

MaltaToday linked Gatt’s outburst to Gonzi’s comments to The Times where he offered a softened approach on witnesses to the PAC, as against Gatt’s steadfast opposition – only to later publish a letter to the same newspaper saying that he had directed Gatt to take his bullish stand. The irrefutable evidence is that there has been a fall-out between the two.

Gonzi denies. “Absolutely not true. Austin made a statement to that effect in his own typical style where he makes that amply clear,” he says.

Moving on: the PM has made repetitive declarations regarding corruption each time a case surfaces. He has insisted that he reports all allegations of corruption to the Police Commissioner. Certainly there are situations in political life that are not tied tp corruption, but rather deal with conflicts of interest, or mistaken decisions that embarrass him as prime minister, and also his government.

“I refuse to address such an important issue like corruption in these terms. I would turn it around and say that it is unheard of to put the Commissioner out of the picture when one has the duty to report instances of corruption specifically to him.

“This interview is taking place just a day after the Auditor General spoke before the Public Accounts Committee. He was asked categorically whether he would have reported the instance to the Police Commissioner if he had the slightest doubt of corruption, and he replied in the affirmative. He didn’t, which clearly shows that he had no suspicion of corruption.

“The worrying part is that certain strategies are unfolding, primarily within the Labour party, to undermine institutions with specifically these duties: the Police Commissioner, the Auditor General, and the Commission against Corruption.

“It is these entities that have the function to investigate, not someone who comes along and expects to behave like the Police Commissioner and investigate someone without the idea of protection of individuals. Throughout my political career, I’ve had cases of corruption which were genuine and those concerned went to prison, but I’ve also had cases of completely fabricated allegations which led to considerable political fallout and the person behind them going to jail.”

He fails to mention that it was he who set much store in the first place when he gave credence to a report by a Lou Bondì’s assistant Joe Zahra, which turned out to be false; and that he had told John Dalli that he “could not have a minister under investigation” before even forwarding the false report to the Commissioner of Police for investigation. He did not treat his other ministers with the same iron fist.

“Before we adopt positions that could be misinterpreted, we need to explain to the public that the country has strong and reliable institutions that are efficient and have yielded results. Let us make use of them to reassure the public.”

But my question wasn’t about suggesting that the Police Commissioner is dismissed. My question was that there could be instances in his government of people (not necessarily ministers) who are in positions that raise a conflict of interest.

“One should verify doubt by going straight to those responsible for investigating any such cases. What is not fair is that we sow doubt. That is unjust and slanderous. If one has a doubt about how someone is doing things, there are institutions in the country that are responsible for investigating.

“I must insist that as long as I was prime minister, corrupt individuals have been caught following investigations by the office of the Police Commissioner.”

Last week, Tonio Fenech said that he felt uncomfortable having an Enemalta CEO who later joined another company which was itself receiving tenders from Enemalta – he was referring to David Spiteri Gingell, today a member of Loqus (formerly Datatrak). There is no shred of evidence that links Spiteri Gingell, or former Enemalta chairman Alex Tranter or Transport Malta and GHRC chairman Mark Portelli to any wrongdoing. But surely, they must raise eyebrows with their apparent conflicts of interest. Don’t these things bother him? Don’t they deserve media attention?

“Yes, naturally, because these instances raise doubts and should be avoided. But if one doesn’t have proof of corruption, one shouldn’t imply corruption. There are some who imply it without having proof, while freely using the word corruption – which is bad.

“As bad as it is that these instances occur – which could be solved by mandating that anyone who served as, say a CEO with a company, cannot have contact with the sector for a period of time – which is how it should be done in my opinion – it is equally bad to imply corruption without following up the accusations with the institutions responsible for investigations. That is what is bothering me – that the institutions of the country are being undermined.”

One of the more recent speeches in parliament was made by former minister Jesmond Mugliett, which dealt with the ARMS contract and the smart meters contract.

“Jesmond made a very valid point that deserves discussion – something we’ve invited the Opposition to join. We make contracts worth millions that include confidentiality clauses. Jesmond’s point was that, due to these clauses, should we end up in a situation where the government cannot explain the contracts it enters into, the services these involve, and the money paid out to them?”

Does he agree with this?

“Yes, I agree with Jesmond’s position. I agreed so much that, in the case of the smart meters contract, we have made a request to the contract holders to publish the contract, the terms of service and services standards, minus certain confidential information.”

I let him know that Mugliett’s speech was reported by neither PBS nor the friendly press. Did he agree we should leave such commercially sensitive information out and discuss everything else?

“Yes, and we should also try to introduce a system where those aspects which are purely financial be separated into a particular annex so that the rest of the contract can be seen by the public. That way, everyone can see what service is being provided, or what the government is paying for.

“Jesmond is right on this point, and when we spoke privately, I recognised his point and told him we would try and find a solution.”

Tonio Fenech admitted there were instances where more micro-management is needed, ARMS Ltd being a case in point. He claimed responsibility and said that the prime minister shouldered the responsibility when it was he, in fact, who should have.

Micro-managing is intrinsic to capable management – did he see a lack of this micro-management in his ministers?

“There are things that are lacking in everything. If I told you what my day is like… but while I recognise those failings, I also note the country’s successes. These don’t come by themselves. What Joseph Muscat refers to as ‘the bankers’ – the United Nations, the European Commission, the credit rating agencies – while Cyprus is being told its reputation will suffer because things are not going well, and while Spain is being told it is not doing well, these same organisations lauded Malta for doing well and achieving results.

“This is not to say we do not face difficulties of our own (because we do), but compared to other countries, Malta is weathering the storm. This does not mean that everyone is happy and that wages are going up – but being able to save jobs means a lot.”

I ask him about pension reform and tell him that this much needed-reform appears to have stalled. “Yes, but let us not be superficial. There is no other country that has the two-thirds we have there. Our problem is not the sustainability of the pensions, but the adequacy of the pensions people are receiving.

“Our system caps pensions and gives out a maximum of two-thirds of one’s pay. Other countries have vastly different systems, so I fear that all these experts who decide to weigh in do not have a detailed idea of our system and its challenges.”

He fails to mention that MPs do not have a capped pension.

He continues: “How adequate is it really? Today the highest pension is roughly two thirds of the pay the president earns: Lm4,500-Lm4,600. Today there are already those who earn between Lm9,000-Lm10,000 and the moment he or she turns 65, they have to adjust to living on Lm4,600. This is the problem – and that is the highest pension, imagine trying to live off the lowest one.

“Unfortunately, the national debate on the issue is still too superficial and does not reach the roots of its real challenges. This is why free healthcare is so important. I can improve pensions not by increasing them, but by providing free healthcare, free residential services, Telecare, and all other services that elderly need to live a comfortably life.

“One of our greatest reforms was that now pensioners can go out and earn as much as they want without losing their pension. This way, the inadequacy of the pension is being made more realistically feasible; but unfortunately, these arguments rarely feature in the public discourse where other issues tend to take greater prominence.”

That is why I am asking about pension, I quip.

He hits back: “Yes, but five years ago we held a public discussion with a national conference that fuelled widespread discussion. Someone should have had the decency to at least re-read all that’s been said in parliament because it’s all explained there – and not as if we’ve only just started working on it.”

I refer to Tony Blair, who wrote in his memoirs that there is no right or left in politics, but right and wrong. Does he think that, on the issue of hunting, he is in the wrong, both as regards his own position, as well as his interpretion of the EU court ruling as having been in Malta’s favour?

He continues to openly defy the truth and replies: “The fact is that we won the case. We were taken (to court) on the accusation that the government had been wrong in opening the spring hunting season for four years running. The court found that Malta was right in opening the season because it said that the alternative (autumn hunting) was not enough of an alternative for our particular circumstances.”

Actually, the court ruling argues that autumn provides a valid alternative to Spring shooting. And besides: if he is right, why is the Commission already warning the government that if it reopens the spring hunting season it would be going against the ruling?

“The reason is that the court, while it said the government was right, did not say in its conclusion that the government could open the hunting season for two weeks or three, or one, and did not say whether we could hunt 20,000 birds or 10,000. The point on which there is no agreement between us and the European Commission so far is for how many weeks the season would be opened for.”

I stopped to think – so you are saying that if the government opens the spring hunting season there would be no action by the EC?

“The Commission could retain its position and - should we decide that, based on last spring’s figures, the Maltese government can open the season for three weeks and it does so – step in and say no to three weeks, accepting only one week instead. If we contested that, it could be we’ll go to court again.

“But we’ll go to court if we think we’re right. I won’t take the country to court if I don’t think we’re right, or if the advice we receive tells us that we’re not right. It was the Attorney General who defended the country in the European Court, after all, and the court ruled in his and in Malta’s favour.”

I move on, completely baffled, and question him about his stand on divorce.

“This is a decision that the electorate must make. In this legislature, we do not have the mandate to decide on it, so the only way for the electorate to make this decision separately from a general election is a referendum, where the Maltese population can decide the issue at the opportune time.”

Yet there were instances where governments made decisions which in other countries had been decided by referendum, such as the Lisbon Treaty. Is this issue of a referendum more closely related to his religious beliefs than anything else?

“I don’t see how you can compare divorce with the Lisbon Treaty, when we have a consensus, a unanimous vote in parliament, with nobody voicing any dissent against it? Divorce, on the other hand, is tied to something that for thousands of years in Malta was and still is fundamental – i.e. marriage between a man and a woman –which is the foundation of society.”

But, I interrupt – there was a time when the Roman Catholic Church tolerated divorce, but that is another argument entirely – what I am trying to ask him is: did he feel uncomfortable because he was fundamentally a devout Roman Catholic?

“Again, this is your opinion, and not fact. I am Prime Minister of a country. I have before me the welfare of the country. I have a clear responsibility, and the decisions I take each day can affect the lives of Maltese people.

“So my analysis cannot be prejudiced either by moral religious sentiments, but neither can I discard the values I believe in and thanks to which the country got to this point throughout its long history.

“My judgement today is objective, and it is based on the fact that we have a strong society. One of the reasons for this strength is our solid family unit. It seems to me that my first duty, without shying away from recognising that there are couples going through marital breakdown… the issue of divorce is more intimately tied to those couples who want to build a new family, and I recognise this desire.

“But on the scales, we also need to weigh the fact that for the first time there are some who want to change a historically recognised and established national institution intrinsic to the country. This is a tremendous thing.

“It is as if there is the desire to devaluate the idea of a permanent marriage, intentionally or not. We are recognising, though, that marriage is very important because there are those who feel the need to marry twice. So the point of departure should be that marriage is fundamental.”

Did the fact that exponents from the PN are leading the YES campaign bother him?

“Absolutely not. The PN welcomes within it officials and candidates who have long been saying they are in favour of divorce. Such are the realities of a political party. At the end of the day, the party adopts a stance, and then proceeds from there.

“But I am not uncomfortable in the least. Though as a prime minister I need to make my own decisions in the interest of the country, I have not only a right but a duty to do so, even if others try to manipulate the reasons behind my decisions.”

He speaks a lot about the restructuring in the country, and one sector in need of that is Air Malta. Does he recognise that within that sphere, there was a lack of much-needed timely reform, and that are now far too late?

“Let us get our facts straight. In 2004, with consensus and the support of the unions, a restructuring process got started. The workers, from top to bottom, took on a significant burden – so much so that some had their wages frozen, and some others had reductions. This idea that we ‘discovered’ the situation last week is mistaken.

“We’ve known about Air Malta’s challenges since 2004, and started the process, which was not simple.

“I think that the large changes that happened in 2007 resulting from the price in oil, fuel, and the introduction of low cost carriers, along with the realities of the recession, have taken their toll. During this time, we’ve also witnessed the folding of Alitalia, while Air Malta’s planes kept flying.

“I think that there was a commonly-held hope that the pressure during 2007 and 2008 regarding the price of oil first and foremost and then the recession, would pass.

“In reality, the recession is still around, the economic crisis is still there, the LCCs are still operating, so unfortunately, those responsible for managing the airline should have been more aggressive in restructuring the company.”

Will there be a change in the staff compliment? My question is not how many will lose their jobs, but how many will be absorbed by government. 

“If the plan was all decided in detail, I would be able to reply without difficulty. But as you know, a group is being set up where unions and opposition representatives will meet and find the best way. There are also different methods of restructuring, and addressing the issue of workers.

“Solutions that take various forms but still need to be in line with EU regulations. But one must leave this group to calmly find the best solutions for the carrier and for the country.”

I refer to long-pending issues such as the National Bank and the Bical Bank. Also political party funding and electoral reform, which he claimed was a priority two years ago. These issues don’t seem to be in anyone’s agenda or priority list.

He replies, albeit ignoring any reference to Bical and the National Bank. I’m not surprised – nobody seems to care anymore. 

“First off, permit me to say, that I’ve had no qualms in plunging into reforms that have been pending for 60 years. The public transport reform has been unsolvable since the days of Mintoff, yet we’ve been able to address it and we’re well on our way to sorting it out.

“The Drydocks… that had been waiting for a reform since the Second World War, constantly draining national resources, was also addressed and resolved. We had the courage to address reforms which had long been gathering dust on the shelves of various governments.

“The pension reform and the rent law reforms are two further examples. These all took place in the last two years and a half in this legislature, and as during the previous legislature, our concentration was focused on the phenomenal euro adoption reform.”

He then takes a dig at what the John Dalli campaign for the leadership in 2004 inculcated in the media back then.

“Surely nobody can say, as was said before, that I am not a Prime Minister who cannot take decisions, or who is afraid of undertaking necessary reforms. Six years down the line, all those who said such things can see that it was nonsense.

“The truth, however, is that there are many important reforms left which need carrying out, and we will not shy away from doing so.”

Does he consider the reform on party financing a priority? 

“Yes, and I hope that, by the first six months of next year, I will be able to present a draft bill. I am ready to make the commitment towards this law. However, I would have preferred if the discussion progressed at the Select Committee level, but once the Labour party quit the committee, I am ready to undertake it myself. Nevertheless, I will be open to discussion and debate.

“I have assigned Franco Debono, who has already conducted studies on the issue, to prepare a draft law – not another Galdes Report, or another report to be debated, but a draft bill to take to parliament.”

But he fails to mention that the Galdes report was never implemented or followed up, as was the case with the report on electoral reform.

“The electoral system is different. It demands a national consensus – something I will undertake only if the Labour Party and other political factions present are in line with what is being proposed.”

That answer completely reneges what he said two years earlier when he committed himself to electoral reform, come what may.

I refer him to the scandals that have hit local councils, and in which a sizeable number of PN mayors and councillors were involved.  I point towards the poor screening at party level.

“Yes, I agree that screening needs to be improved, and this is something that the State has a role in as well – not to interfere but to provide better tools such as instruction and training.

“However, let’s not generalise. Neither do we want to implicate genuine individuals. We are also talking about an institution that has been around for 16 years, and within that time thousands of individuals have contested and served, bringing about massive change within the country. The positive function is there. Admittedly yes, these cases have surfaced.

“My genuine reaction is that I am happy that we caught them. Without passing judgement, it is good that any potential wrongdoing was uncovered. My reasoning is that the institution worked. The ‘trap’ sprung and the ‘mouse’ was caught.”

But he did not catch them, it was the media who caught them.

“The true test of any system is to uncover what is not supposed to take place. However, to answer the question, the experience of political parties should teach us that we should be more careful to conduct screenings more carefully. That said, however, people can always change and instruments need to be in place for this.”

I refer him to the sniping in the blogs, making it perfectly clear that I was referring to the personal attacks by Daphne Caruana Galizia on Jeffrey Pullicino Orland, Jesmond Mugliett, John Dalli, Robert Musumeci and others.

Was he comfortable with these tactics?

“I do not agree at all with these tactics. I have respect for all politicians who have been of service to the country and have sacrificed to this end.

“I might have to make certain decisions because I feel the time for change has come, but it doesn’t mean that someone is being changed because he or she has done a bad job. Change and fresh blood is important to ensure new ways of doing things.”

I remind him that former ministers and junior ministers such as Jesmond Mugliett and Stanley Zammit have had difficulties making ends meet when they were dumped as ministers and had to return to the real world.

“But I was the Prime Minister who was criticised at the start of the legislature for a measure allowing an allowance to former ministers who do not re-enter the work force for a period of three years. Yes, this represented a soft landing for someone who would have been removed from his or her position, I don’t mind saying it.

“These are people with families who sacrificed their careers for the service of the country. I implemented a measure that is present in other countries because basic humanity demands this. Even when the Leader of the Opposition ends his term, should he not have a cushion to land him gently into the realities of the work force? I have no problem with having done this.

“Are we at a point where it is as if that those who offer themselves up to serving the nation are permanently stained with mud? The country got to where it is today thanks to all three sides of the political scene, which managed to cooperate and help Malta compete with larger countries and perform better – which is something we should be proud of.”

What was supposed to be a 25-minute interview turns into an hour. I ask what he could have done better, and what 2011 will bring for Lawrence Gonzi.

“Looking back, I think that we could have done better on some of the harder issues, such as the water and electricity tariffs, we could have better explained our position and introduced measures that incentivised the public to move towards renewable energy sources.

“We should have better explained that the 27,000 families who were most at risk by the utility tariffs were shielded by the government, which paid millions – something that not many understood.

“As a government, we might have come across as insensitive when in reality, we implemented various measures intended to assist those most vulnerable.”

Will he more sensitive to people’s concerns?

“I hope so. I have faith that the worst is now behind us with regards to the downturn in the Maltese economy. I also have faith that the reforms we’ve implemented will yield results. Once those results are evident, everyone will be able to benefit from them.

“While the storm has not yet completely passed, if the country maintains its cautious approach throughout 2011 and overcomes the remaining obstacles, I think that we stand to increase further still the quality of life of the Maltese people.”

And then he ends as he always ends, with a reference to himself:

“The government led by Lawrence Gonzi will keep improving the quality of life for the Maltese people as it has done in the past.”