Editorial: Equality needs cross-party support

Malta’s Equality Bill has once again failed to make it to law. The first time around, the Labour government had no appetite to fend off a minor culture war from the conservative right at the height of its political crisis back in 2020. This time, the Nationalist Party has refused to lend its support for the two-thirds vote, citing a lack of public consultation.

It would sound obvious to say that no worker “should be denied a job because of the colour of their skin, the religion they practise, or the gender they identify with”, or because of their age, their politics, or their nationality.

And yet, Maltese law contains many loopholes that allow employers to discriminate against workers without consequence.

The creation of a National Commission for Human Rights and Equality would have established a robust framework for the monitoring of human rights compliance. The NCHRE would be able to initiate investigations into suspected violations of public interest and individual complaints, provide mediation services, and participate in court proceedings on behalf of or in support of victims.

Crucially, the proposed law includes important obligations prohibiting private sector employers from discriminating against any person in recruitment, job offers, terms and conditions, promotions, work distribution, or dismissals; or any discrimination in the access to or supply of goods and services by private sector establishments.

These are, in fact, part of a necessary evolution in Maltese law: the moral necessity can be exemplified by cases in which private schools or those run by the Maltese Archdiocese’s Catholic education secretariat (both of which are directly subsidised by the State, or indirectly through tax refunds) will not be able to refuse teaching posts to meritorious, suitably qualified non-Christians, or on other grounds of  protected characteristics such as race or sexual orientation – with an exception for teachers of Catholic doctrine.

Essentially, it stands as a safeguard for the exceptions to non-discrimination on specific roles that today can be justified under Malta’s employment rulebook, the Employment and Industrial Relations Ac. Article 26(3) of the EIRA, the general prohibition on discriminatory treatment in employment, does not apply on exclusions that are “reasonably justified” – for example, the need for an able-bodied person to carry out the role of a rescue worker.

What is clear is that without any strong foundations for a powerful standalone human rights institution with legal force, no existing body in Malta would be capable of sustaining Malta’s equality framework.

The Nationalist Party certainly raised valid concerns that the NCHRE might not be an independent institution in line with the Paris Principles – would it keep the government in check over violations and discrimination in racially-profiled immigration arrests for example?

But a full decade since the tabling of the Equality Bill, the opposition – in a month of passive victories against the government’s struggles with overtourism and power cuts – has sent a reminder that it goes hard on ‘culture wars’ instead of applying positive energy to lend cross-part legitimacy to the creation of Malta’s equality commission.

The government, however, should have sought to amicably keep the opposition on board of this important law, rather than adopt a headstrong position.

A republic that upholds the values of equality should rightfully not allow the prejudices of the few to dismantle the foundations of our modern, democratic society.

Nor should we allow our political games to treat this important body as another exercise in finger-pointing.