When he refused to give details on the cost of taxpayer-funded road projects, Infrastructure Minister Chris Bonett was in line… with the Abela administration information management style: the less said the better.
If such attitude is the result of instructions coming from the top just days after the people’s clear message to the government at the latest polls and Robert Abela’s declaration he would be responding with humility, one can only fear what is in store.
Twice, in three days, Bonett would not give information sought in a parliamentary question. Listing various areas, Nationalist MP Joseph Giglio wanted to establish what were the actual costs and the time taken to complete roadworks and what had originally been estimated.
Surely, no state secrets involved and information that is usually readily available. Still, in reply to each of the questions tabled, the minister came up with the same two-sentence answer.
The projects, he would only say, were part of Labour’s seven-year, €700 million, nationwide roadworks plans and “Infrastructure Malta continues to carry out one project after another to prepare Malta for the future; projects that pre-2013 governments did not have the will or vision to carry out”.
Another classic example of a politically arrogant government that disregards the fundamental human right of freedom of expression, which includes the right to receive information.
The speaker may be technically correct when he says he is not empowered to order ministers to answer questions in parliament.
The standing orders lay down when questions may be put and says that “the proper object of a question shall be to obtain information on a matter of fact within the special cognisance of the member to whom it is addressed”.
The spirit of the clause is, of course, crystal clear: ministers giving information, not hogwash disguised as a reply, about anything falling under their political umbrella.
The right to seek information from a minister and to hold that minister accountable are considered to be two essential fundamental principles of parliamentary government.
This has been acknowledged by the present speaker, Anġlu Farrugia. He is on record urging ministers to answer parliamentary questions promptly, describing them as an important tool through which parliament can keep government in check.
If, a decade ago, he felt he could order journalists to name those tabling questions, it surely should be easier for him to make ministers reply by giving the information sought and answer in time.
A decision by the commissioner for standards in public life last summer could put him on the right path. Commissioner Joseph Azzopardi had urged the speaker to investigate misleading answers to parliamentary questions, noting the ministerial code of ethics demands that ministers give correct information to parliament.
And the first standards commissioner, George Hyzler, had noted that if the standing orders did not empower the speaker to regulate replies to parliamentary questions, then the necessary amendments can be made.
Of course, Abela is unlikely to want to push in that direction. He has not lifted a finger to ensure requests made under the Freedom of Information Act are positively accepted rather than denied.
Neither does he seem to be too worried that the public broadcaster has become his mouthpiece rather than a reliable source of information.
He must have forgotten what he said soon after his landslide victory at the polls two years ago: “We will not tolerate any arrogance.”
The people have got the message by now… and have responded accordingly.