He is a stickler for parliamentary procedure – but is Joe Mizzi’s and Labour’s strategy going to inflict unnecessary losses, or are they right to stick to their position?
As Labour whip for the past two decades, Joe Mizzi takes his responsibility as the Labour Party’s drill-sergeant seriously – especially now that the opposition faces a fragile, one-seat majority government. But is the same opposition’s intransigence in parliament a turn-off for moderate voters?
Mizzi insists that his party is only reacting to the government’s habit of constantly bending the rules to ride roughshod over parliament.
Still, there is a risk that the opposition’s bellicose reaction will end up playing into the government’s hands by shifting attention away from the irregularities mentioned in the national auditor’s report on the Delimara power station’s contract. Mizzi however insists that ultimately, the opposition’s main concerns are with the financial irregularities and the costs of the power station contract in terms of public health and the environment.
“It is true that what happened has deviated public attention to something which is also important…”
But for Mizzi the opposition had no choice but to register its protest against what he sees as a complete travesty of parliamentary rules.
Contrary to popular perceptions fanned by Nationalist pundits, last week’s walkout was not the result of anger for losing a vote despite Mario Galea’s genuine mistake. It was triggered by the Speaker’s decision to heed a point of order by Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg, who claimed that he had heard Labour MP Justyne Caruana voting against the Opposition’s motion.
“For us it was not a question of winning or losing a vote. What is at stake is that the government side does not want to abide to the rules of parliament, and that in order to save themselves from the embarrassment of losing a vote, they committed a frame up in the highest institution of the country.”
Is the use of the word ‘frame up’ – usually used with reference to cases involving a miscarriage of justice – not a bit of an exaggeration?
“We are merely calling a spade a spade. I am 100% sure that she voted yes… I heard her. I am very assiduous in my job and I confirm the vote of every MP who votes.”
He also notes that nobody from the government benches reacted to Caruana’s vote at the time it was taken, and it was only after Mario Galea’s mistake was noted that Caruana’s vote became an issue for the government’s side.
But isn’t Labour simply clutching at straws by harping on the legitimacy of a freak vote brought about by a lapsus on the part of a government MPs?
Mizzi insists that what matters for Labour is not the result of the vote, but the lack of respect for the rules.
“Had the Speaker declared the validity of the vote won by the opposition because of Galea’s mistake, the government would have simply presented another motion which would have made the approval of the opposition’s motion irrelevant,” Mizzi counters.
This however doesn’t change the fact that opposition failed in its bid to outvote the government on the Delimara motion, after the expected backbench revolt failed to materialise.
Mizzi disagrees that the aim of the motion was to defeat the government, insisting that the sole aim of the opposition was to present the facts to the public.
“As long as the government enjoys a majority there is no way the opposition can win a motion in parliament… But that does not mean that we should not do everything to expose the facts to the public. Finally it is up to each MP to vote according to his or her conscience, and it is up to the public to judge the way MPs vote.”
He also claims that by presenting the motion, the opposition was speaking on behalf of the people.
“The people know that the contract involved a waste of public funds, and that it contradicted previous reports by Enemalta officials who first excluded the use of heavy fuel oil, but are now keeping silent.”
At the same time, Labour appears to be sending contradictory messages: first it sounded conciliatory by seconding Michael Frendo’s nomination as Speaker; then it proceeded to rubbish his rulings. Mizzi insists that Labour is simply being consistent in its “non-partisan respect for the country’s institutions.”
“We have always shown our goodwill towards the government by respecting its prerogative to appoint the Speaker in a democratic way. But we expect the Speaker to rise above partisan politics by being loyal to the house in a unbiased way.”
According to Mizzi the Speaker is not behaving impartially.
“He acted wrongly and did not abide by procedure. I am sure he was influenced by others in his decision. He should not have acted in that way.”
Asked to substantiate his claim that Frendo had disregarded procedure, Mizzi recalls another incident which happened in November 1997, when Eddie Fenech Adami insisted that in parliament vote should always be declared by the Speaker.
“It is inconceivable that the speaker withdraws from the House to hear a recording. There is no mention of recordings in the standing orders.”
According to Mizzi the Speaker has every right to ask MPs to repeat their vote if he has any doubt, but he has to do so immediately.
“As long as the Speaker does not say anything he is accepting their vote as it was recorded, and he is duty-bound to declare the result of the vote.”
If it transpires that something irregular took place during the vote, the Speaker can even correct the vote at a later stage, but he can’t refrain from declaring the first vote.
Mizzi recalls that in 1995, when Lawrence Gonzi was Speaker, the vote resulted in a 30/30 tie, and Gonzi had to give his casting vote.
“As the vote was being taken, we realised that someone was missing from the government’s benches. I immediately told the Speaker about this but I was ignored and he proceeded with the result because he can’t take a point of order at that stage.”
But Mizzi went on to investigate the matter and it turned out that Nationalist MP George Bonello Dupuis was missing from the vote. This meant that the vote declared by the Speaker was mistaken.
Mizzi immediately informed the Speaker’s officer and a point of order was raised by Labour MP Joe Debono Grech who insisted that the vote should be corrected.
According to Mizzi – unlike Tonio Borg who made a point of order while the vote was being taken – Debono Grech was respecting the rules as he only raised the point of order after the vote was taken and declared.
“It was only at that point that Gonzi suspended the sitting,” Mizzi recalls.
When Bonello Dupuis admitted that he was not in the chamber when the division was taken, Gonzi proceeded to change the vote.
“What this incident illustrates is that while the rules foresee that a voting result can be changed, the Speaker cannot simply refrain from declaring the first result by calling for another vote”.
And even if, for the sake of argument, one were to accept the Speaker’s decision to withdraw from the House to hear the recording, there was still no reason to call for another vote.
“If he could not understand what Justyne Caruana said because the recording was not audible it simply means that he had found no evidence that she had voted against the motion, as claimed by Tonio Borg in the point of order.”
In this way, according to Mizzi the Speaker ended up making two fundamental mistakes: first allowing Tonio Borg to make a point of order while a vote was still being taken; then by calling for another vote without even declaring the result of the first vote.
Should we not change the way MPs vote, to avoid a repetition of these incidents?
Mizzi points out that mistakes are always possible irrespective of the voting system used, and the government always has the possibility to redress such mistakes by presenting a counter motion.
“Even if the government loses a money bill due to a mistake, the government will not fall if a motion is presented to change the first vote. The voting system is not the issue at stake. What is at stake is the impartiality of the Chair.”
In a tit-for-tat with Nationalist whip David Agius during a breakfast show on TVM, Mizzi declared that the Nationalists should not have allowed Mario Galea to drink whiskey before the debate. Was Mizzi ethical in saying this?
While expressing his regret on saying these words, Mizzi insisted that his words must be seen in the full context of what Agius was saying before his outburst.
“I was cornered, because it was David Agius who had tried to score political points by referring to Mario Galea’s illness. I could not leave him at that… I should not have said those words, but it was spontaneous. But I am sincerely sorry as I never intended to hurt anyone…”
I ask Mizzi whether Labour risks putting off the moderate voters it needs to win the election, by resorting to antics like walking out of parliament.
But Mizzi would not budge from his strictly procedural approach to the question. “We had no choice but to walk out as the Chair was acting ultra vires. If we remained in parliament we would have been accomplices. If we stayed there we would have given legitimacy to the Speaker’s decisions.”
I point out to Mizzi that the average citizen, who is not well versed in parliamentary procedure, would simply conclude that the Opposition was being disruptive by turning every sitting into a procedural battle which lasts till the early hours of the morning.
Mizzi doubts whether people have this perception, insisting that many others say the very opposite.
“There are also those who tell us that we have not been harsh enough, considering the way the government shifted the goalpost in order to correct an own goal.”
But the Opposition’s protest was not limited to a walk-out. It also reacted by withdrawing both its deputy speaker and also its representatives from the parliamentary committee to discuss the strengthening of Maltese democracy.
Is it not ironic that in this way, the Opposition is undermining a committee which was appointed at its own request to discuss on important aspects like electoral reform and party financing?
“It is true that this committee was appointed on our initiative. But the government is simply taking us for a ride, for it is useless to talk about strengthening democracy when the government is undermining the standing orders of the country’s highest institution.”
Mizzi insists that the opposition is willing to return to the committee if the government apologises over the ‘calumny’ against Caruana.
Mizzi underlines the seriousness of the situation: “In my experience in parliament I cannot recall any other case in which, to save itself from the embarrassment of losing a vote, a government MP tries to undermine another MP.”
He also refers to the fact that 33 opposition MPs who have taken an oath that Justyne Caruana had voted yes.
“Is the government saying that the whole opposition is committing perjury?”
Despite the procedural mess it found itself in due to its one-seat majority, the government has not lost its political majority. Mizzi refuses to dwell on the government’s longevity.
“All I can say is that the government is unstable. It might fall or it might not. Nobody can predict what will happen. It is not up to the opposition to bring the government down. It is only its own MPs which can bring it down.”
But Mizzi warns that backbenchers are also susceptible to the influence of the people.
“This pressure has an effect on those government MPs who have a conscience and this increases the instability of the government.”
Joe Mizzi
Age: 58 Status: Married to Joyce and father of Matthew and Charmaine Previous posts: Parliamentary whip since 1989, elected in every election since 1987, Minister without portfolio in Prime Minister’s Office (1996-1998) Worked as: Technician on a vessel conducting seismic surveys around Malta in 1971 and as radio officer on another ship between 1972 and 1975, appointed technical director of government-owned RTV Ltd in 1983 Hobbies: Gardening, fishing, breeding rabbits, collecting butterflies
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Search:
MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY
Download MaltaToday Sunday issue front page in pdf file format
