Parliamentary committee fails to set date for judicial appointments debate

Doubts have arisen on whether a private member’s bill presented by shadow justice minister Jason Azzopardi can be debated in parliament during the parliamentary time allocated for the opposition, after the Attorney General recommended that the Bill be referred to the Cabinet.

The government and opposition last week tabled two separate bills in the House of Representatives for their first reading in what will pave the way for a reform in the appointment of members of the judiciary.

The opposition’s Bill, entitled ‘Judicial Services Appointment Authority Act, 2016’, was passed on to the Attorney General by the Speaker’s Office – a standard practice – to confirm whether the President’s recommendation was required.

The Attorney General confirmed that the Bill required the recommendation of the President, in line with the Constitution. Because the recommendations to increase the retirement age and the establishment of a new independent body will impact the Consolidated Fund, the Attorney General advised that the Bill is referred to the Cabinet. “[This] with a view to a decision being communicated to you as to whether the President’s message is to be recommended or otherwise,” the Attorney General told the Speaker’s Office.

The heated meeting of the House Business Committee was concluded with the members asking Speaker Anglu Farrugia for two rulings, including whether the Bill was in fact a money bill and whether next Thursday had been reserved for the government or opposition.

Justice Minister Owen Bonnici and Jason Azzopardi met over the past days to discuss the government’s own Bill for a judicial reform, that includes a reform of the Commission for the Administration of Justice and the working conditions of the judiciary.

“I can say that we agreed on 95% of the points,” Bonnici said. He went on to propose 8 March to initiate the debate in parliament.

Opposition whip David Agius however strongly objected to the proposed date, arguing that the opposition wanted to use its own time on Thursday to start debating their Bill. Bonnici cautioned that he wanted to allow enough time to be able to consult with the members of the judiciary before proceeding in parliament.

The justice minister went on to suggest that the opposition withdraws its motion, removes the parts that make it a money bill and retable it. This, he added, would make it possible for a debate without requiring the Cabinet’s referral.

Agius appeared adamant on wanting Thursday’s debate, repeatedly insisting that a President’s message on increasing the retirement age was not required. He went on to add that the President’s message had not been sought in the past when the retirement age of the members of the judiciary and the Attorney General was increased.

“We disagree that increasing the retirement age makes it a money bill,” he said.

Agius also argued that he wanted to hear what the parliament’s lawyers had to say on the matter. The clerk of the House explained that it was standard practice for a Bill to be referred to the Attorney General. The opposition's whip also suggested that deputy speaker Censu Galea should deliver the ruling: the private member's bill was presented following the nomination of two lawyers to the bench, one of whom is the Speaker's daughter.