TMID Editorial: Parliamentary Amendments

The Nationalist Party plans to ask this parliament for many changes, and their ideas are generally very good.

One suggestion is the introduction of the Prime Minister’s question time. This is a concept used in the United Kingdom, where the Prime Minister has a dedicated time frame to answer questions from Parliament each week.

Such a move will help the government’s transparency and give Congress an opportunity to get explanations and answers from the Prime Minister about the government’s plans and operations. To be honest, this is a concept that should be introduced many years ago, and this newsroom doesn’t understand why it’s not yet part of the system.

PN Whip Robert Cutajar told the newsroom that PN expects the minister, who was asked in writing by lawmakers, to attend during normal parliamentary questioning hours. Nowadays, we often see other ministers intervening to read the minister’s written answer actually asked. Because the minister is not in Congress. Of course, this causes obvious problems. For example, if the answer is not clear, it may not be possible for the minister to read the answer on the spot. You may not be able to answer any additional questions on this topic. Of course, if the minister is working abroad or is ill, that’s one thing, but the minister should do his best to attend Congress at the time of the question.

Another proposal by PN includes Opposition Day in Parliament. CCurrently, opposition parties may submit a legislative bill or discuss motions once every three to six months during the session on Thursday. Cutajar told the newsroom that this alternates between the government and the opposition every three months devoting themselves to private business. In effect, he said, this meant that the opposition would take two days a year.

PN added that he wanted to reduce this frequency to a few weeks so that the opposition could present more private citizen bills and discuss the item more. Obviously, the government will hold most of the session to present its own bill, but PN’s recommendation to increase the number of seats on Thursday for a private citizen bill isn’t that bad after all. I’m wondering. Given that regardless of who is in the government and who is against it, it can provoke more often important discussions on the issue and the government may not want to discuss certain things. Discusses more often, allowing those who disagree to bring those issues to the forefront.

Looking at this from an analytical point of view, it will benefit the country as a whole, not just which party is against it.

The party also wants to prevent the government’s backbencher from chairing it. Government lawmakers should be able to criticize the government as needed, but the question is whether they can really be fair if given such a role in the first place.