Until quite recently, when the independent media was following an investigative story, more often than not they got a ‘no comment’ from state entities. Some would not even bother to reply.

It seems that times have changed. A few days ago, Times of Malta broke the story that Identity Malta was going to expel 22 children who were not from the EU because their parents did not meet its income target. Ministers Michael Falzon and Evarist Bartolo, as well as Parliamentary Secretary Julia Farrugia, hastily called a joint press conference to explain the ‘facts’ which, according to Ms Farrugia, were being “sensationalised”.

It turns out that the financial threshold set by Identity Malta is more than twice the national minimum wage. By Ms Farrugia’s own admission, these parents are paying both taxes and NI. Yet, what is good for Maltese families living on one minimum wage and children’s allowances is apparently not good enough for third-country families.

The policy itself has not changed since 2007; it allowed for discretion by the director that, up to now, was exercised in favour of the families so long as they could show they could live sustainably in Malta. What has changed is its strictly bureaucratic interpretation as from this year.

To add insult to injury, Dr Falzon, Mr Bartolo and Ms Farrugia explained that not granting a residence permit for these 22 children was really for their own good, so they would not live at risk of poverty.

So will these children go and with whom? Archbishop Charles Scicluna rightly pointed out that the logical implication of this policy is that Malta is ready to accept relatively cheap labour without the inconvenience of their living with their families and integrating into Maltese society. Thus, it is much easier to get rid of them on termination of their contract.

Notwithstanding the government’s doublespeak, this policy nudges one of the parents to go back to their country of origin with the expelled children. As University lecturer Ruth Farrugia has pointed out in an opinion piece in The Sunday Times of Malta, this is against Malta’s international obligations.

Julia Farrugia declared that the aggrieved parents had the right to appeal the Identity Malta decision to a tribunal. But were it not for the widespread outrage generated by the spotlight that this news outlet has shone on the issue, would the parents’ appeals really enjoy due process?

In September, we reported that the application of a family was at first refused, only to be accepted a few moments later when the family was accompanied by a journalist from the Times of Malta. There is clearly no transparency in the process. Recently, parents have complained that they were still not even allowed to submit the application for a possible waiver of the director, let alone their appeal.

Does the parliamentary secretary intend to order an inquiry into possible anti-foreigner bias by the Identity Malta staff who, it seems, feel empowered to refuse any application without it being forwarded to their director?

This sad episode has shown, once again, the vital importance of an investigative free press to guarantee democracy. Contrary to Labour leadership candidate Robert Abela’s expectations, a free press is not “neutral”, simply reporting what it is fed. It champions the voiceless in the face of the arrogance of the powerful. This has been, and will continue to be, the mission of the Times of Malta.