Updated | Azzopardi says billboard law was designed to ‘gag’ opposition

Opposition spokesman Jason Azzopardi said the only reason the government had introduced regulations on billboards and signage was to gag the opposition, after it had put up its billboards when the Panama scandal was revealed.

He said it was scandalous that any sort of signage visible from public roads would be subject to a fee of €1,500, without any distinction on size, type or location where the signage was situated.

“For 36 months, the opposition had failed to set up any billboards, and only did so in March after the Panama scandal was revealed,” Azzopardi said.

This led the government to introduce panic legislation to try and stop the opposition from getting its political message across, the MP claimed.

“In its frenzied panic to stifle any news revealing the government’s involvement in the Panama scandal, the government decided to stifle the freedom of expression while introducing fees and fines indiscriminately,” Azzopardi said.

He was introducing an opposition motion in parliament calling on the house to repeal Legal Notice 103/2016 that resulted in the introduction of the 2016 regulations on billboards and signage.

“This legal notice garnered the opposition and disdain of the entire business community,” said Azzopardi. “The Chamber of Commerce and the GRTU immediately criticised the legal notice as it would be of great detrimental value to all operators in the sector.”

He said this legal notice did not only affect billboards, but any other sort of signage and advertising visible from a public, including – among others – window signage, signs on vending machines or fridges visible from the road.

“Because of this blatant attempt to gag the opposition, even a restaurant that displayed its menu outside could now be liable to a fee of €1,500,” Azzopardi said.

“It is also scandalous that the legal notice introduces daily fines in case of infringement, without listing the amount of the fines that could be due.”

And after a recent court ruling, everyone had come to realise that – like citizenship – even freedom of expression was up for sale in this country, he said.

“The government told the opposition in open court that if it wanted to enjoy its freedom of expression, it should be ready to pay for it,” he said. “That is the state we have reached.”

Azzopardi criticised the government for putting a price tag on everything and likened it to Oscar Wilde’s decription: “A government that knows the price of everything but the value of none.”

Parliamentary secretary for planning Deborah Schembri denied this legal notice had been introduced in reply to any action by the opposition, and insisted it had already been in the pipeline when she took control of the secretariat in January.

After all, there were already previous regulations in place, including legal notice 368/2004 and the 2006 mepa regulations on billboards and signage.

“The new legal notice was an update of existing regulations, and could still be updated and amended further, as the government pursues discussion with interested bodies,” Schembri said.

“But it was imperative that we start trying to clear the mess we had on our roads, with conflicting regulations and blatant abuse the name of the game,” she said.

There had been, for example, conflicting definitions regarding billboards under the previous legal notice and Transport Malta and MEPA policies, Schembri explained.

With regards to the €1,500 fee due on signage, Schembri acknowledged it was not the government’s intention whatsoever to place a fee on shop signs.

“Unfortunately, the wording of the legal notice is not one of the best, and in this case it had been misinterpreted to mean that shop signage would be subject to a €1,500 fee,” she said.

This was one clear case where changes to the wording of the legal notice was necessary, she said.

“I can accept that some amendments are needed to better explain some regulations in the legal notice, but I will not revoke or repeal what has been done already,” Schembri said.

The government had already met with some sectors to discuss the regulations, and had in fact already agreed that some amendments were necessary, she said.

But she said there were cases where different interests were in conflict, as in the case of shop window signage, with shop owners saying these should not be subjected to a fee, while billboard operators insisted this would create an uneven playing field.

Schembri vehemently denied the legal notice was an attempt to gag the opposition.

“The legal notice did not impose fees only on the opposition, but all political parties, including the Labour Party in government, are subject to the same €1,500 fee for billboard installation,” she said.

Opposition MP Robert Arrigo acknowledged it could very well be true that the legal notice had not been introduced in response to the PN’s billboard campaign on the Panama scandal.

But he asked why the government had rushed to introduce a half-baked anti-business legal notice, when it was now admitting the wording of the legal notice was not the best possible, that more discussion with interested parties was necessary and that some amendments were inevitable.

Arrigo said the interests of business were not taken into consideration, especially when one considered that advertising was of vital importance to any business.

He asked whether local councils were involved in the process, and whether they would be receiving a percentage of the fees.

Parliamentary secretary Chris Agius said that while he applauded the fact that illegal billboards and signage were removed from around the country, the rights of sports organisations to put up advertising and sponsorship signs around their property would be protected.

Opposition MP Mario Galea said it seemed, following the speech delivered earlier by parliamentary secretary Deborah Schembri, that the government had adopted a management-by-crisis approach and was simply focused damage control.

He said the PN was now expected top pay €1,500 for every billboard outside an election campaign, a total of around €30,000, while the Labour Party would not incur any costs as its propaganda billboards would be set up by the government under the umbrella of “information campaigns”.

“We are not ashamed to admit that we are a poor party,” he said. “We acknowledge that while in government, we did not look to lining the party’s pockets, as you when you expropriated Australia Hall and expropriated other properties to use as Labour Party clubs.”

“Was it not enough that the national television station had become a spokesman for the government?” asked Galea. “Was it not enough that the PBS (Public Broadcasting Services) head of news Reno Bugeja was like a Super Two? Were the disgusting news bulletins on TVM not enough for the government?”

Galea said that the opposition would not allow the government to shut it up and stop it from promoting its message.

“We survived when you used tear gas against us, when you beat us up, and when you fired sub-machine guns against us,” he said. “You can rest assured this legal notice will not succeed in shutting up the opposition.”

Environment minister Jose Herrera criticised Galea’s closing comments, saying they were excessive and out of synch with today’s reality.

He said the protection of the environment was the most important reason behind the legal notice and denied that any political party was being denied its freedom of expression.