The cost of ditching Austin Gatt

Gatt survives | Gonzi saves Gatt | Gonzi lets Gatt sink | Timeline: How to raise expectations and fuel disappointment

Technically, the fortunes of Gonzi’s government are not tied to Austin Gatt’s fate. The fall of one minister does not necessary entail the fall of an entire government. But politically, the risk of a senior minister losing a vote of confidence cannot be underestimated.

Moreover, Gatt is more than just a minister: he is a pillar of the Gonzi administration, responsible not just for the current public transport reform but also for Gonzi’s pet project, the rebuilding of City Gate and the construction of a new parliament. 

He was also the minister who spearheaded the unpopular hike in water and electricity tariffs, before being replaced as energy minister by Finance Minister Tonio Fenech.

Gatt, who led the PN’s well-oiled electoral machine in the turbulent late 1970s and early 80s, rose to the rank of secretary-general in 1988, and as such represents continuity between Fenech Adami and Gonzi eras.

Despite his abrasive ways, Gatt always projected himself as a ‘doer’ who broke the General Workers Union’s back through his victory in Sea Malta, achieved through divide and rule tactics, as well as the privatisation of the dockyard.

Similar tactics also crushed a hugely unpopular wildcat strike organised by bus drivers and other transport operators three years ago. Gatt was also the only transport minister with the guts to bring an end to the bus drivers’ previous monopoly.

But Gatt’s legacy also included less savoury aspects like the controversial decision to use Heavy Fuel Oil at Delimara, and antagonising everyone who stood in his way Р from former Sea Malta chairman Marlene Mizzi to Birdlife Malta Р when it objected to the proposed Ghadira road. 

His penchant for nasty remarks, like considering Sant as a candidate for the Discovery Channel’s altered statesman, also left a bitter taste on the other side of the divide. He also has a tendency to constantly feed sound bites to the Opposition, such as when expressing his conviction that the PN will be in power for the next 20 years.

Gatt’s surprising archconservative stance on divorce also alienated the party’s liberal wing. But it was the wave of disappointment on the very high expectations raised by Gatt’s promise of transport reform that may well be the cherry on the cake of an already toxic legacy.

It may well be the case that Lawrence Gonzi stands to gain politically by Gatt’s downfall; but if this happens, Gonzi will have lost a vital organ of his government.  Collegiality will also demand that Gonzi stands by his man. And the only way to do this would be to tie the no-confidence vote in Gatt with a vote of confidence in Gonzi’s entire government.

But all that depends on Gonzi’s reading of the various scenarios which the opposition’s vote could unleash.

Gatt survives

It may well be that by saying ‘mea culpa’ Р admitting the shortcomings of the transport reform and reintroducing some of the old routes Р Gatt may have already secured the vote of his colleagues. Moreover, a solitary abstention by Franco Debono will not be enough to bring him down as the government can rely on the Speaker’s casting vote. 

Many MPs could also get their pound of flesh by criticising Gatt in the parliamentary debate while still voting in a collegial way.  Nationalist MPs may well take this opportunity to lambast Gatt while distancing themselves from the unpopular aspects of the reform, without actually voting for the Labour Party’s motion.

One powerful argument made by Nationalist MPs will probably be that “political responsibility” on the part of Gatt entails ensuring changes to the system as demanded by the public rather than leaving the whole reform half baked in the hands of a newcomer.

They may also argue that despite the shortcomings of the system, Gatt has at least got the ball rolling.

In this case, Gatt would surely have suffered a drubbing while Franco Debono could even boast of cutting the mighty Gatt down to size.

Still, many would be perturbed by the latter’s’ excessive protagonism and lack of collegiality. While Debono may gain sympathy among some constituents, among Nationalist voters he could end up paying the price for undermining a Nationalist government.

Gonzi saves Gatt

If it becomes clear that more than one MP intends to abstain, Gonzi will face a very difficult choice between intervening to save Gatt, or letting him sink. 

The worst-case scenario could be that Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Jesmond Mugliett keep him guessing right up to the end. For JPO, the vote on Gatt could well be sweet revenge for Gatt’s hard-line stance on divorce. Mugliett, a former transport minister himself, could also exact revenge on Gatt’s decision to abort some of his pet projects (like Dock Number 1).

Added to this was Mugliett’s embarrassment during the transport wild cut strike of 2008, when he was often quoted for the guarantees given to bus drivers and motor hearse owners before the election.

But the ego of both politicians may well be satisfied by exacting Chinese torture on Gatt and Gonzi without actually voting against them.

But faced with uncertainty on their vote, the choice for Gonzi would be either to call their bluff by turning the opposition’s motion in to a vote of confidence in his government; or granting them the freedom to vote as they like in the understanding that they will not push things too far. 

If Gonzi opts for the first option, he would risk doing what Alfred Sant did in 1998 when he tied a motion on a yacht marina to a confidence vote in his government.  On that occasion, Sant ended up losing both vote and subsequent election, resulting in the collapse of his government. 

But by taking a tough line, Gonzi would send a powerful message to the backbench that he is no longer prepared to tolerate an excess of protagonism on the backbench.  For there is a profound difference between criticising the government and abstaining or voting against one of its ministers.

While criticising government could be welcomed by most mainstream Nationalist voters, endangering the stability of the government may well be seen as an act of disloyalty.

Faced with a choice between committing political suicide and voting against their government, disgruntled backbenchers like Pullicino Orlando and Mugliett would probably have no choice but to toe the line.

But this also depends whether the two politicians have any political ambitions left, and the level of resentment and rancour they harbour against the Prime Minister. 

For irrespective of whether Gonzi intervenes or not, a vote against Gatt is ultimately a vote against Gonzi’s government. Neither Gonzi nor the backbench rebels can escape this fundamental reality.

Gonzi lets Gatt sink

By turning his back on Gatt, Gonzi may well have rid himself of his most unpopular minister. But in so doing he would have set a very dangerous precedent, which could return to haunt his government every time the opposition presents a motion to test his one seat government. 

If Gonzi lets his backbench vote in full freedom, he would have also fatally undermined the principle of collegiality in the PN’s parliamentary group and cabinet.

The moment Gatt is allowed to fall it will be every man for himself, rather than “one for all, all for one.”

The only scenario where it would be plausible for Gonzi to let Gatt go would be one in which Gatt himself wants to go.  But this is highly unlikely considering Gatt’s pivotal role in the City Gate project.

While it is unlikely that backbenchers will push Gonzi to the brink, if this does happen it remains unlikely that Gonzi’s government would survive the blow.

Timeline: How to raise expectations and fuel disappointment

July 2008:A four-day wildcat strike by the Public Transport Federation, ostensibly in protest at the partial liberalisation of the motor hearse sector, paralyses the country at the peak of the tourist season.

On the day the strike was lifted, Transport Minister Gatt announces a sweeping reform of the bus system, claiming the new service would use ‘more efficient and energy saving buses, which are smaller, will be used and the system’s administration will be separate from the bus service’.

Later that month, Gatt commented that “ironically, the strike has sped up transport reform.”

December 2008: Transport Malta announces finalised plans for the bus route restructuring, based on the report released in November 2005 by British based engineering consultancy company Halcrow Group Limited.

August 2010: A consortium led by Arriva is named the preferred bidder for the 10-year contract to operate bus services in Malta. David Evans, Arriva’s managing director, Europe, says: “Our investment in new buses and advanced technology for passengers is set to put Malta ahead of many major European cities.”

December 2010: Arriva defends its announced plans for a ‘two-tier’ ticketing system which would charge non-residents higher rates than residents. The European Commission had previously announced it would be ‘looking into’ the legality of this system, which is still in place today.

2 July 2011: First day of Arriva service. Over 50 bus drivers fail to show up for work: a fact which, alongside malfunctioning ticket machines, causes excessive delays, complaints and mayhem across the island. Austi Gatt: “I hope the striking drivers are sacked”.

4 July 2011: All striking drivers are sacked by Arriva, which imports temporary drivers from the UK until the shortage is resolved.

6 July 2011: Gatt admits that he “never expected transport reform to be that difficult.”

21 July 2011: Emanuel Cini, a Cospicua resident and retired gay porn actor, announces on YouTube that he would be going on hunger strike in protest against he new routes, which he claimed left him a “prisoner” in his own home. “I want the resignation of Austin Gatt and I want the Prime Minister to do his job and fire him himself for his sheer incompetence.” He later calls off the strike after the intervention of the Prime Minister.

5 September 2011: Austin Gatt issues a statement declaring that after two months of “coordinated insults”, Labour leader Joseph Muscat has started “recognising the inevitable: the incontestable success of the public transport reform.”

September 9 2011: Tourism stakeholders vent frustration and anger that the service was negatively affecting Malta’s tourism product. “Given that public transport is a critical success factor in our tourism product, we cannot afford to have a public transport that disrupts rather than facilitates the life of the thousands of visitors in Malta,” MHRA president George Micallef complains. “We need a public transport that facilitates and enhances the visitors’ experience in Malta. However, the service being provided is frustrating tourists and the situation has to be tackled without further delay.”

27 September 2011: Labour presents a motion in parliament holding Austin Gatt responsible for the failure of the servive and calling for “the resignation of the responsible Minister the political appointees and the heads at Transport Malta who were in charge of the fiasco in planning this reform.’ Gatt’s response? “I didn’t lose any sleep over it.”

6 October 2011: A 20-year-old university student, Nicola Abela Garrett, briefly commands national attention by angrily confronting Gatt over the failures of the new bus system. She later apologised for calling the minister a “fucking wanker” to his face. On his part, Gatt said he ‘understood her frustration’ but expressed ‘bafflement’ as to why he should be held responsible for the shortcomings of the Arriva service.

12 October 2011: Transport Ministry announces a 22% increase in public transport usage in Malta and especially Gozo: “These figures shows the trust of passengers in the new service despite its initial shortcomings,” Gatt says.

October 13, 2011: Nationalist MP Franco Debono shocks government benches by announcing that he might abstain on the Opposition motion to censure Gatt. It is not known whether the minister slept well that night.

October 15 2011: Gatt announces changes to the bus routes to bring them in line with “what the people want”, while assuming partial responsibility for the disappointing service. “It was us who made the changes to the routes, changes however, which were rejected by the public... maybe we were too avant-garde, and too innovative, and when it came to the interchanges, we underestimated the reaction by commuters.”

October 17 2011: Nationalist MP Michael Gonzi complains that new service did not improve over previous one. “On the contrary, St Paul’s Bay has become a prison in itself. We need the previous 49,”he said.