Carmelo Abela is a good choice for Speaker

In the current constitutional set up the Speaker of the House only requires a simple majority to be appointed by parliament. It has always been the case that the government of the day nominates one of its own—whether a sitting MP or someone who would not have been elected in the election, or who would have called it a day.

We believe that any constitutional redraft should consider the option of having the Speaker elected by a two-thirds majority, like the president. After all, the Constitution stipulates that if the president is unavailable and no acting president is appointed, the Speaker can fulfil that role. But this is a conversation for another day.

It was only natural that Robert Abela was going to nominate someone with Labour roots as Speaker of the House. The nomination of Carmelo Abela was to be expected. He is one of the longest-serving MPs, who also occupied the role of Whip thus putting him in direct contact with parliamentary procedure and practice. Abela also served as deputy speaker in the past. He has the experience, knowledge and gravitas to serve the role of Speaker with dignity and fairness, which is why he is a good choice for the role.

We believe the Opposition should support Carmelo Abela’s nomination by voting in favour of it on Saturday. It would be a sign of goodwill and hopefully set the tone for a less confrontational climate when Robert Abela and Alex Borg meet to agree on who should be the next chief justice and auditor general. On the other hand, if the Opposition does vote for Carmelo Abela’s nomination, the government must not interpret this as some form of weakness but recognise it as an act of political maturity.

TO CURB ILLEGALITY, CHANGE THE POLICY

The person who decided to build an illegal villa on public land at Armier appears to have seen the light of day and decided to pull down the structure himself.

It wasn’t an act of generosity. Neither was it gentlemanly behaviour, or a damascene conversion. The only reason Franklin Mangion decided to cooperate with the authorities after taking them for a ride for two whole weeks was because of the outrage that ensued in the wake of his illegal behaviour.

The imposition of daily fines by the Planning Authority may have also played a part in forcing him to change his mind, although we still believe that these fines are still too low, especially for cases in ODZ areas, like the Armier villa.

Unfortunately, Mangion is not the only one, who embraces this cowboy attitude towards planning laws. It is an attitude that angers honest, law-abiding citizens, who cannot fathom how people like Mangion choose to audaciously plough ahead with their devious plans.

This is why policy needs to change. The sanctioning of illegalities in ODZ areas needs to be stopped. As things stand today, had Mangion applied for sanctioning, the authority would have to wait for that process to an end, months or even years down the line, to proceed with direct action. This is wrong since it allows abusers to keep pushing their luck since they will still be benefitting from their own illegality.

If government truly wants to be serious about enforcement, it should change the policy and end sanctioning of ODZ illegalities.

Nonetheless, the Armier case also shows the importance of environmental conservation groups, heritage organisations and resident groups that very often are the first to raise alarm bells. In this case, it was the Malta Ranger Unit that documented the abuse, reported the matter to the authorities, followed the case over two weeks, and finally raised public alarm over what was an unfolding case of unashamed abuse. These organisations deserve nothing but praise for their work and politicians would do well not to treat them like enemies of the people. The MRU is doing a sterling job filling in the gap in environmental enforcement by acting as observers in the countryside.