Minister George Pullicino's latest Blogtime, shows that he is more interested in ferreting out the names of who is offering us free purely technical advice on environmental issues that include waste management, than in coming clean and giving us an example of true transparency and openness by making public all the studies linked to both the waste initiatives he proposed, as well as the site selection processes undergone.
I said it last week and will repeat it again - I have no intention of making sacrificial lambs of these people. Recent events that featured in the media make me feel even more justified in doing so.
In spite of his years of ministerial experience, the minister still cannot distinguish between a power point presentation and a full blown consultation session in which all in-depth studies leading to the drawing up of the proposed solid waste management strategy were presented to me. Which in fact they were not to date.
All environmentalist groups I met so far lamented that when Minister Francis Zammit Dimech drew up the waste management strategy document in 2001, he first consulted all the stakeholders before presenting them with the draft document, this time round the minister admitted that he took the more politically expedient and convenient route of presenting us with a virtual fait accompli.
If we rubber-stamp the document we will be classified as "good guys" and as being constructive. But on the other hand, if and when we start asking questions, we are tagged as scaremongers.
The moment we revive dark memories of the past of the minister's environmental behaviour - lack of transparency in running of Mepa, the Mepa auditor's report on the flawed site selection process of the St Antnin project, as well as the Church Environmental Commission's written concerns about the lack of any serious consultation or socio-economic studies on this process, we are rubbished for having allegedly dragged politics into what should have been a purely technical debate.
The minister has my word that if we are presented with all the relevant documentation referred to in his proposed strategy document, our response will be as promised - purely technical.
The minister's blog shows that he is also missing a very important point.
The issue at stake is not whether we should or should not meet the people who drew up the government proposed strategy document, but rather that we should have first hand and direct access to all the studies that the minister is keeping close to his heart for reasons so far unknown. The very same studies mentioned by name in the said strategy document.
While the minister has cheekily expressed hope that there would have been more "maturity" after the St Antnin saga, our hope, and that of many ordinary citizens without any direct political links or interests was, is and remains that after the negative vibes and lack of transparency and accountability with which the St Antnin site was selected, the minister and his cronies would have by now changed their ways.
Unfortunately, even in the environmental sector old habits die hard!
Had I wanted to rubbish the whole document a priori I would not have bothered to either seek professional technical advice or else to meet up with the key stakeholders involved - be they those representing the business and commercial community as well as all those NGOs who have their own in-house technical experts on waste management related issues.
The minister is surely aware of all this, but to be consistent with his by now long entrenched reactive attitude he has resorted once again to a feeble attempt to portray us as "The Bad Guys" and "The Spoilers."