Joseph Muscat yesterday promised to open the divorce debate with a view to presenting laws in parliament and allowing a free vote if he is elected Labour leader.
Speaking on TVM programme Dissett, Muscat also spoke about the need to come clean about the past, with both parties apologising for the hardships they made their opponents endure between the ‘60s and the ‘80s.
Muscat said it was “about time” there was a free discussion on divorce leading to proposed legislation in Parliament.
“I can personally envisage a situation where there is proposed legislation presented to parliament and where MPs, definitely those on our side, are given a free vote.”
He also spoke about the need to come clean about the past.
“Parties need to take a step back and assess their contribution in our history,” Muscat said.
“People were hurt by the PN in the ‘60s, and an apology is in order. In the same way, the MLP, besides the good it accomplished, also did the bad things in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Wherever we’ve hurt people, we have to apologise. This historical chapter has to be closed once and for all.”
Asked about his lack of experience and about the fact that he never served as minister, Muscat said this was actually “an advantage as it lets you see things openly”.
Muscat said he disagreed with Jason Micallef’s comments on George Abela made on Xarabank, and that such comments should not have been made.
He said as leader he will not only “open doors” but also meet personally all the people who were distanced from the party.
“I’ll go to them myself,” he said. “Whoever did not feel comfortable with the MLP, I want to tell them we can be a party of moderate progressives.”
Another contender for the leadership, Michael Falzon, started his intervention saying that it would not be realistic for someone to hold a fixed long term plan when reality was changing all the time, in what sounded like a dig to Muscat’s claim that he has a 15-year-plan for Malta.
“I want to offer success,” he said.
Falzon reiterated his idea not to contest again for deputy leader if he is not elected leader, saying he would keep his parliamentary seat for the whole legislature, and even contest the following elections.
Asked if this meant it was a do or die election for him, Falzon said only God could answer that question as he could “die within two seconds” – repeatedly taking questions literally.
At one point, asked if he could appear as “servile” given his initial opposition to the 1998 early election but then going on to take more responsibilities within the party, Muscat said he always liked “to serve” the party.
According to Falzon, the party “has financial problems” but not a crisis, adding that the financial situation has improved “tremendously” over the last years.
Asked about his infamous lunch with contractor Charles Polidano, who used to be attacked by the MLP itself, Falzon said it was a professional meeting he held with him on behalf of the bank he worked for, adding that the media was unfair towards him as it ignored all the other “180 people eating there”.
“I think it’s a fact that Michael Falzon is grilled by certain newspapers; and whether I like it or not I have to take it in my stride,” he said.
Meanwhile Evarist Bartolo, speaking to the University students’ newspaper The Insiter, said that as party leader he would like to make electoral changes that would make possible the election of the third party into parliament.
“Another issue that we need to tackle is that of making sure that a small party that manages to get the average of a national quota is represented in Parliament,” Bartolo said. “I know that this sounds strange coming from a member of a big party, but I think that a party that gets 3,800 votes, which is how much an average MP needs to get elected, should have a voice in the national Parliament. We must then obviously create mechanisms in the system to ensure governability, because a small party that has one seat cannot run the country.”
He added that public party funding would “cut off the umbilical cord between the parties and those who finance them. That would liberate policy making and make it more in tune with tax payers rather than with party financers.”