NGOs, insurers raise concerns over government's equality bill

Several organisations have raised concerns over the government's proposed National Commission for Human Rights and Equality Bill, despite welcoming its overall aim of strengthening Malta's equality framework.

The Bill, which is currently before parliament, has drawn criticism from civil society organisations and industry bodies, which higlight that key provisions should be revised before it is approved. 

The law is set to replace the existing National Commission for the Promotion of Equality and investigate both human rights violations and discrimination.

Protections that would apply to individuals and legal entities, including companies and organisations, are set to 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.

The Malta Women's Lobby (MWL) expressed concern over this proposal that permits the merging of the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality (NCPE) into the new commission.

It insisted that the NCPE “has a distinctive institutional identity, history and accumulated specialist capacity especially in the area of equality between women and men, with the whole broader field of human rights,” adding that this would be “unacceptable.”

The Lobby, in this view, also questioned why the Commission for the Rights of Persons with Disability would remain independent while the NCPE would be absorbed into the new structure, insisting that "consolidation must not mean demotion."

It also criticised provisions including a proposed two-year time limit for discrimination complaints, which it said could prevent victims from seeking redress if discrimination is only discovered after the deadline.

The MWL called for stronger safeguards on gender equality expertise within the commission, clearer provisions on sexual harassment, stronger enforcement powers, and greater consistency between the Maltese and English versions of the Bill.

Humanists Malta, then said the legislation should offer clearer protections for people with non-religious beliefs or no religious beliefs.

"This is significant. Equality must belong equally to the believer, the non-believer, the sceptic, and the person still grappling with life's deeper questions," it said.

The organisation noted the Bill's inclusion of "religion or belief" as a protected ground was a positive step. However, it argued that the legislation should explicitly state that the protection extends to non-religious beliefs and the absence of belief.

"In Malta, 'belief' is still often understood to mean only religious belief. Yet freedom of conscience is broader than religion," it added.

Humanists Malta also called for clearer guidance on the limits of religious autonomy, particularly in areas such as education, employment and care services.

Earlier this week, the Church Schools Association insisted the bill was being rushed through parliament ahead of the summer recess without sufficient time for scrutiny or public consultation, warning that the proposed law could undermine the constitutional rights of church schools to preserve their Catholic identity.

On Wednesday, the association expressed their disappointment with Government’s decision to proceed with the third reading of the Bill, despite their continued appeals.

These decisions should “be founded on a process that respects participation, consultation and the careful consideration of diverging perspectives,” it said.

Consequently, the Insurance Association Malta (IAM) criticised the government's decision to fast-track the Bill without renewed consultation with the insurance sector.

While supporting the Bill's objectives of equality and the protection of fundamental rights, the Association said the current version differs in "several important aspects" from a draft legislation discussed with stakeholders in 2017 and 2018.

IAM warned that the proposed law could have significant implications for insurers and policyholders, arguing that legitimate risk assessment must remain protected.