Parliament begins discussing new human rights commission

Parliament has begun debating a Bill to establish a new human rights authority which, according to Equality Minister Rosianne Cutajar, will give a stronger voice to society’s most vulnerable people.

However, Opposition Leader Alex Borg criticised the proposed law, arguing that the commission should be more independent of government and that the Bill provides insufficient detail on how it would operate in practice.

The National Commission for Human Rights and Equality will replace the existing National Commission for the Promotion of Equality and investigate both human rights violations and discrimination.

Its protections would apply to individuals and legal entities, including companies and organisations. It would cover discrimination in areas such as employment, education, access to goods and services, and advertising, on grounds including sex, age, religion, disability, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, and health status.

Cutajar said the law would also place a formal obligation on the state to promote equality and continuously combat discrimination. Within one year, the government would be required to draw up a national plan promoting equality across all areas of the state.

Concerns over independence

The commission would be accountable to parliament while operating independently and impartially. It would comprise a commissioner and nine members, each serving a five-year term that could be renewed once.

The commissioner would be appointed through a parliamentary resolution requiring the support of two-thirds of MPs.

Cutajar said the two-thirds majority requirement would ensure the highest possible level of parliamentary agreement on the appointment.

However, Shadow Equality Minister Graziella Attard Previ pointed out that if the first two votes fail to secure a two-thirds majority, the Bill allows the appointment to pass by a simple majority on the third vote. She said this would effectively allow the government to choose the commissioner after two unsuccessful votes.

“We cannot build a human rights commission which permits government control when consensus is not reached,” Attard Previ said.

Attard Previ argued that the safeguards intended to protect the institution’s independence were not strong enough, explaining that several of these protections were contained in general laws that could later be amended by parliament.

"This is not a strong foundation for an institution that will have the power to criticise the state itself," Attard Previ said.

Borg similarly argued that the commissioner should be chosen through an agreement between both sides of parliament, rather than solely nominated by government. He warned that if the Labour Party were able to make the decision alone, the institution risked becoming "a mechanism of political control hidden behind parliamentary procedure."

Borg said Malta has gone without a human rights commission for far too long, but stressed that an institution’s credibility did not come from its name alone. Instead, he said, it would depend on its competence and willingness to scrutinise those in power.

He also argued that parliament could not establish an institution intended to protect people from the state while leaving it dependent on the state for its resources.

Borg said the commission’s members should include qualified people already working within NGOs, civil society organisations and trade unions.

Lack of consultation

Borg also criticised the government for failing to publish a White Paper or hold a public consultation before presenting the Bill, saying this denied civil society and NGOs an opportunity to contribute to the creation of the commission.

“This clearly shows a government that believes it does not need to listen to anyone,” Borg said, pointing to the irony of discussing inclusion while excluding stakeholders from decisions on how their rights would be protected.

Borg also noted that the Ombudsman, who had proposed legislation extending the office’s powers to include human rights oversight, had been entirely excluded from the Bill.

Investigative powers

Victims would be able to submit complaints directly or through a trusted person, NGO or organisation.

The commissioner would also be empowered to launch an investigation without first receiving a complaint where there was reasonable suspicion that a human rights violation had occurred.

Under the proposed law, the commissioner could summon witnesses and demand documents or information. Failure to cooperate could result in a fine of up to €1,000, three months in prison, or both.

Following an investigation, the commissioner could publish findings and recommendations. The person or organisation concerned would then be required to provide information allowing the commissioner to verify whether those recommendations had been implemented.

Borg criticised the mechanism, saying parliament could not create another institution that produced reports only for the government to leave them "on the shelf."

"We want to create an institution people can trust," Borg said. "One which the government cannot control or ignore."

Cutajar responded that although the commission’s recommendations would not be legally binding, they could not simply be disregarded.

She said the person or entity concerned would be required to report on whether the recommendations had been implemented. Failure to provide that information could result in a penalty.

At the end of the sitting, Borg assured that the Nationalist Party will propose any amendments needed to strengthen the insinuations transparency and pluralism.

"In the future, we will have something even bigger. This is only the beginning, and I look forward to seeing us continue strengthening and building on what we achieve through this Bill over the years," Cutajar concluded.