Maltese Terrorists? - Terroristi Maltin?

Maltese Terrorists?

 

What's he on about, I can almost hear you think!

 

I need to say up front I have no one in particular in mind who fits this description.  Nevertheless, it's not an outlandish proposition to imagine a situation where there could be people who could be so described.  Le me explain.

 

Yesterday, I was watching the programme 60 Minutes on the commercial station Channel 9.1  Part of the program was about an Australian citizen called Oliver Bridgeman, a young person who converted to Islam two years ago and a few months back told his family he was going to Indonesia for humanitarian work, and instead went to Syria.

 

Many people and newspapers concluded that Oliver was a terrorist.  Other people who knew him declared that this was against his character.

 

A journalist managed to find and interview him in Syria.  On the contrary to those having a similar story, Oliver did not talk against Australia, did not utter threats, denied having any links to terrorism and declared all he was doing was humanitarian work with local people who were suffering due to the civil war that has been raging for years.

 

I have no idea whether he's sincere in what he's doing and saying, although he gave every impression of so being.  I don't want to enter into the merits of that, but rather to raise the point that if this person is in fact sincere, why would Australia consider him to be criminal?

 

The latter consideration is a result of the Australian Criminal Code, which says that anybody who simply goes to a place that is proscribed (like the province of al-Raqqa in Syria2), would be considered to have committed an offence (see Article 119.2 of the Criminal Code), with its penal consequence (10 years jail).

 

There are harsher penalties, including life imprisonment, for other acts.

 

The law mentions exceptions, including whether the person's presence is humanitarian, or whether it's serving a foreign government including its armed forces (but not other forces defending the government), however the accused needs to prove this.  In other words, if the accused cannot prove his legitimate nature of his presence in a proscribed location (which in the chaos of war is to be expected), the presumption is that his presence is not legitimate.

 

What has this to do with the Maltese?

 

One does not commonly hear in Australia that 330 kilometres to the south of the land of our forefathers, in Libya there are groups of people allied to Islamic State (IS) or other terrorist groups like Al Qaeda.  This are doing everything possible to use the chaos created after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi to establish an extreme Islamic reign there.  What would it take to glance north at that little island in the middle of the Mediterranean, and attempt to finish the job what had been unsuccessfully tried by another caliphate 500 years ago?

 

Needless to say, I don't expect something like that to actually come to fruition, and currently the main enemies of these terrorist groups seems to be similar groups3, however let's overlook this realism for a moment.  Imagine a situation like that, with predominantly Christian Maltese people face to face with followers of IS who believe that the only people who have a right to live are those who agree with them, and anyone else is only suitable as a slave or dead.

 

I would expect that many Maltese still with a beating heart, even if having emigrated to other countries, would consider going back to that sweet land, to fight for their families, friends and the country of their ethnic identity.  This fighting would probably involve violence and the use of arms, and participation in some armed force which would not necessarily be either official or formal, even if fighting in favour of the local authorities.

 

What would happen if the situation got so bad that the Australian government decided to add Malta as a proscribed location as is al-Raqqa in Syria?

 

With the current Australian law, if a Maltese-Australian citizen decided to go to Malta to defend the Maltese people, he would be breaking the law, unless there was a declaration according to Article 119.8 that this person, or class of persons, would not be subject to the preceding clauses.

 

And what would happen until this declaration was made?  And what about if it is never made?  Should our family member be left to be cut to pieces?

 

There is a similar situation in Syria, where ethnic Kurds are going there from Australia and other countries, not for humanitarian work, but to defend their people from the advancing IS.4  The Kurds were one of the ethnic groups in Syria and Iraq, that were heavily attacked by the IS terrorists.  Until now, the Australian government has not declared Kurdish armed forces as legitimate, after months and years of this civil war.

 

It's a scary and tragic situation for Australian Kurds who decide to risk everything for the land of their birth, to end up being considered terrorists for having the courage and bravery to defend their people.

 

It would be a scary and tragic situation if, God forbid, the same situation happened in Malta, and Maltese-Australians end up having the same predicament.

 

So help us God!

 

 

Terroristi Maltin?

 

Hawn b'xiex ġej, qed naħsibkom tgħidu f'qalbkom?

 

Irrid ngħid mallewwel li m'għandi 'l ħadd partikulari f'moħħi li nista' niddiskrivih hekk.  Però mhix ħaġa ta' barra minn hawn li timmaġina sitwazzjoni fejn ikun hemm nies li jiġu deskritti hekk.  Ħalli nispjega ruħi.

 

Ilbieraħ, kont qed nara l-programm 60 Minutes fuq l-istazzjon kummerċjali Channel 9.1  Parti mill-programm kien jirrigwarda ċittadin Awstraljan jismu Oliver Bridgeman, żagħżugħ li sentejn ilu sar Musulman u ftit xhur ilu qal lill-familja tiegħu li kien sejjer l-Indoneżja biex jagħmel xogħol umanitarju, u minflok mar is-Sirja.

 

Ħafna nies u diversi ġurnali kkonkludew li Oliver kien terrorista.  Nies oħra li jafuh stqarrew li dan ma kienx fil-karattru tiegħu.

 

Ġurnalist irnexxilu jsibu fis-Sirja w intervistah.  Oliver, kuntrarju għal nies oħra li kellhom storja simili, ma tkellimx kontra l-Awstralja, ma qalx kliem ta' theddid, ċaħad li kellu rbit terroristiċi u stqarr li kull ma qiegħed jagħmel hu li jagħmel xogħol umanitarju man-nies tal-post li qegħdin ibatu minħabba l-gwerra ċivili li ilha għaddejja snin.

 

Jien ma nafx jekk hux sinċier f'dak li qed jgħid u jagħmel, għalkemm ta kull impressjoni li kien.  Jien ma nixtieqx nidħol f'dak il-mertu, imma rrid inqajjem il-punt li jekk dan il-persuna fil-fatt huwa sinċier, għalfejn għandha l-Awstralja tqisu li huwa kriminali?

 

Din tal-aħħar tirriżulta mill-Kodiċi Kriminali tal-Awstralja, li tgħid li kull min sempliċement imur f'post li huwa meqjus proskritt (bħall-provinċja ta' al-Raqqa fis-Sirja2), ikun meqjus li għamel offiża (ara Artiklu 119.2 tal-Kodiċi Kriminali), bil-konsegwenzi penali tagħha (10 snin priġunerija).

 

Hemm pieni iktar ħorox, inkluż l-għomor il-ħabs, għal atti oħra.

 

Il-liġi ssemmi eċċezzjonijiet, inklużi jekk il-preżenza tal-persuna hijiex ta' natura umanitarja, jew li qed isservi lil gvern barrani inklużi l-forzi armati tiegħu (imma mhux forzi oħra li qed jiddefendu l-gvern), imma min ikun akkużat irid jipprova dan.  Fi kliem ieħor, jekk l-akkużat ma jistax jipprova n-natura leġittima tal-preżenza tiegħu f'post proskritt (li fil-ġenn ta' matul il-gwerra ta' min jistenniha li tiġri), ikun hemm il-preżunzjoni li l-preżenza tiegħu ma tkunx leġittima.

 

Il-Maltin fejn jidħlu?

 

Fl-Awstralja ma tantx jissemma li 330 kilometru biss fin-nofsinhar ta' pajjiż missirijietna, fil-Libja hemm gruppi ta' nies li huma allejati ta' Stat Islamiku (SI) jew ta' gruppi terroristiċi oħra bħal Al Qaeda.  Dawn qed jagħmlu minn kollox biex fil-kaos li nħoloq wara l-waqgħa ta' Muammar Gaddafi, jistabbilixxu renju estremist Iżlamiku hemmhekk.  X'iridu li jixirfu ħarsithom lejn dik il-gżira ċkejkna f'nofs il-Mediterran, u jittantaw iwettqu dak li ma rnexxielhomx jagħmlu dawk minn kalifat ieħor ta' 500 sena ilu?

 

M'għandniex xi ngħidu, m'iniex qed nistenna xi ħaġa bħal din li tiġri fis-seħħ, u bħalissa l-għedewwa prinċipali tal-gruppi terroristiċi jidher li huma gruppi simili oħra3, imma ejja nwarrbu dan ir-realiżmu għall-mument.  Immaġina sitwazzjoni bħal dik, b'Maltin predominantement Insara jsibu ruħhom wiċċ imb'wiċċ ma' segwaċi ta' SI li jemmnu li l-uniċi nies li għandhom dritt jgħixu huma dawk biss li jaqblu magħhom, u li ħaddieħor tajjeb biss bħala skjav jew għall-mewt.

 

Jien nistenna li diversi Maltin b'qalbhom għadha tbaqbaq, anke jekk emigraw f'pajjiżi oħra, jitħajru jmorru lura lejn dik l-art ħelwa, biex jitqabdu għall-familji tagħhom, ħbiebhom u l-pajjiż li tagħthom l-identità etnika.  Dan it-taqbid aktarx jinvolvi l-vjolenza u l-użu tal-armi, u l-parteċipazzjoni ma' xi forza armata li mhux neċessarjament ikun uffiċjali jew formali, anke jekk tiġġieled favur l-awtoritajiet tal-post.

 

X'jiġri jekk is-sitwazzjoni tant teħżien li l-gvern Awstraljan jiddeċiedi li jżid lil Malta bħala post proskritt bħal ma hu al-Raqqa fis-Sirja?

 

Kif inhi l-liġi Awstraljana llum, jekk xi ħadd b'ċittadinanza doppja Maltija-Awstraljana jiddeċiedi li jmur Malta biex jiddefendi lill-Maltin, ikun ukoll qed jikser il-liġi, sakemm ma ssirx dikjarazzjoni skont l-Artiklu 119.8 li din il-persuna, jew klassi ta' persuni bħalu, ma jkunux suġġetti għall-klawsoli ta' qabel.

 

U sakemm issir din id-dikjarazzjoni, x'jiġri?  U jekk ma ssir qatt?  Inħallu l-familjari tagħna jitqattgħu biċċiet?

 

Hemm sitwazzjoni simili fis-Sirja, fejn persuni ta' etniċità Kurda qed imorru hemm mill-Awstralja u pajjiżi oħra, mhux biex jagħmlu xogħol umanitarju, imma biex jiddefendu lil nieshom mill-avvanzi ta' SI.4  Il-Kurdi kienu wieħed mill-gruppi etniċi fis-Sirja u l-Iraq, li ġew attakkati bl-aħrax mit-terroristi ta' SI.  S'issa, l-gvern Awstraljan ma ddikjarax forzi armati Kurdi bħala leġittimi, wara xhur u snin ta' din il-gwerra ċivili.

 

Hija sitwazzjoni tal-biża, u tal-biki, għall-Kurdi-Awstraljani li jiddeċiedu li jirriskjaw kollox għal art twelidhom, li jispiċċaw jitqiesu terroristi għax għandhom il-kuraġġ u l-qlubija li jiddefendu lil nieshom.

 

Tkun sitwazzjoni tal-biża, u tal-biki, jekk allaħares qatt tiġri l-istess sitwazzjoni f'Malta, u Maltin-Awstraljani jiġu fl-istess predikament.

 

Hekk Alla għinna!

 

1http://www.9jumpin.com.au/show/60minutes/stories/2015/august/missing-in-syria/ retrieved 24/8/2015

2http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/WhatAustraliaisdoing/Pages/Declaredarea-al-RaqqaProvinceSyria.aspx, retrieved 24/8/2015

3http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/08/the-islamic-state-wants-mokhtar-belmokhtar-dead.php, retrieved 24/8/2015

4http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-28/recruitment-moves-by-kurds-and-what-may-happen-to-matt-gardiner/6051596, retrieved 24/8/2015

Cardinal Pell and Hypocrisy -- Il-Kardinal Pell u l-Ipokrisija

Cardinal Pell and Hypocrisy

 

A number of journals around the world, as well as the past issue (no. 107) of The Voice of the Maltese, reported an interview with Cardinal George Pell on the Financial Times of the past 16th July.

 

In this interview, the cardinal is reported to have said that Pope Francis' encyclical (letter to the churches) Laudato Si' on the environment, although having many interesting elements, the Church has no mandate by God to pronounce itself on scientific matters as it is not expert on science.  “We”, continued the cardinal, who was probably including himself in that personal pronoun, “believe in the autonomy of science”.1

 

Such a declaration by a cardinal of the church is quite surprising, on many levels.

 

The encyclical2 refers to what is happening around the world, including the environmental impact on pollution, the throw-away culture, climate change, the problem of access to water and the loss of biodiversity.  It also talks about effects on humanity such as immigration, the reduction in the quality of life, inequalities of individuals and peoples, the injustice of rich countries which benefitied from the resources of poor countries while expeting the latter to pay more than they can to get themselves out of their situation.

 

In many places, the encyclical refers to and accepts the advice of scientists and ecological organisations.  It declares that the church cannot offer definitive opinions and acknowledges divergent views even amongst experts.  Nonetheless it draws attention to signs that the world is moving towards the brink, with many natural disasters, social and financial crises that cannot be analysed or explained in isolation.3

 

The Pope continues to make the biblical and Christian case for the obligation of mankind to treat the world as a gift of God and how it was given a mandate to live off the land and take good care of it.4

 

The encyclical remarks that we cannot expect the market or technology to solve the problems we're creating ourselves.  It exhorts us to look after employment, diversity, ethics, indigenous communities and that when searching for solutions to environmental crises also look holistically at solutions to social crises.  It encourages us to ensure that people have a roof over their head, adequate transport, asking whether we're living too fast a life where we're leaving problems to be resolved by the next generation.

 

Finally, the encyclical augurs that a consensus be found between countries to resolve problems that are beyond a single country to resolve, such as the global use today of energy from fossilised resourced.  It also draws attention to the Rio Declaration of 1992 that a lack of scientific certainty should not be used as an excuse to postpone solutions for environmental damage.

 

In this encyclical, I don't see any pronouncement on scientific matters.  Such pronouncements have been and are being made by scientist and other organisations.  The Pope, after noting these, is showing that man is obliged to take action and, if Christian, is providing biblical and Christian principles why this is so.  This is a moral and political position, and not scientific.

 

It's interesting to note a speech made by the Cardinal to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, at London's Westminster Cathedral in 2011.5  Here he not only asked whether the science of climate change was established and whether there really was a consensus, but also rebutted this consensus by quoting from the mathematicial Lorenz on the impossibility of predicting the future, a number of scientists that don't form part of this consensus by not accepting the computer modelling that is quoted, complains that the influence of the sun and volcanic activity are not given their due importance and mentions many other uncertainties to throw doubt on the conclusion that mankind is the cause of the current change in climate.

 

I'm not here entering the merits of the case, as this is not the scope of my article.  However the intervention by the Cardinal in 2011, eloquent, wide-ranging and not without interest, was purely scientific.  Therefore is it only Cardinal Pell, in the Catholic Church, who can talk about and pronounce himself on the subject?  Did he not then believe in the autonomy of science?  This is nothing except hypocrisy.

 

It's difficult for me to understand how someone with the cardinal's intelligence ends up accusing his superior of doing that which he himself does.

 

Perhaps the answer can be found in paragraph 217 of the encyclical, where the Pope remarks that 'some committed and prayerful Christians, with the excuse of realism and pragmatism, tend to ridicule expressions of concern for the environment.'  These words can be seen to apply perfectly to the current Federal government of Australia, led by Mr Tony Abbott, which ever since taking power has done everything possible so that the use of fossilised sources of energy continues and possibly increases, and investment in sustainable sources reduces.  

 

Just last week, the Prime Minister was bemoaning the the Federal Court's invalidation of approval for a new coal mine in Queensland due to the lack of consideration of endangered species, calling it “tragic for the wider world”.6

 

This is the opposite of what is in the encyclical.

 

By coincidence, the Prime Minister is a personal friend of Cardinal Pell.  Perhaps His Eminence felt the need to come to his defence.

 

 

Il-Kardinal Pell u l-Ipokrisija

 

Diversi ġurnali madwar id-dinja, kif ukoll il-ħarġa li għaddiet (nru. 107) ta' The Voice of the Maltese, irrappurtaw intervista tal-Kardinal George Pell fuq il-Financial Times tas-sittax ta' Lulju li għadda.

 

F'din l-intervista, l-kardinal ġie rrappurtat li qal li l-enċiklika (ittra lill-knejjes) Laudato Si' tal-Papa Franġisku fuq l-ambjent, għalkemm kellha ħafna elementi interessanti, il-knisja m'għandha l-ebda mandat minn Alla biex tippronunzja ruħha fuq affarijiet xjentifiċi peress li m'hix esperta tax-xjenza.  “Aħna”, kompla jgħid il-kardinal, li f'dak il-pronom personali kien preżumibbilment qed jinkludi lilu nnifsu, “nemmnu fl-awtonomija tax-xjenza”.1

 

Stqarrija bħal din minn kardinal tal-knisja hija sorprendenti għall-aħħar, fuq ħafna livelli.

 

L-enċiklika2 tirreferi għal dak li qiegħed jiġri madwar id-dinja, li jinkludi l-impatt ambjentali tat-tniġġis, il-kultura tar-rimi u t-tibdil fil-klima, il-problema tal-aċċess għall-ilma, u t-telfa tal-biodiversità.  Titkellem ukoll kif qed tiġi affettwata l-umanità inkluż immigrazzjoni, it-tnaqqis tal-kwalità tal-ħajja, l-inugwaljanza ta' individwi u popli u l-inġustizzja ta' pajjiżi għonja li stagħnew fil-passat minn fuq dahar riżorsi li ġew minn pajjiżi foqra filwaqt li jistennew lill-pajjiżi foqra jħallsu iktar milli jistgħu biex joħorġu mis-sitwazzjoni.

 

F'ħafna postijiet, l-enċiklika tirreferi u taċċetta l-pariri tax-xjenzati w organizzazzjonijiet ekoloġiċi.  Tistqarr li l-knisja ma tistax toffri opinjoni definittiva u li hemm veduti diverġenti anke fost l-esperti.  Madankollu tiġbed l-attenzjoni għal sinjali li d-dinja qed tittarraf, b'ħafna diżastri naturali u kriżijiet soċjali u finanzjarji li ma jistgħux jiġu analizzati jew spjegati waħedhom.3

 

Il-Papa jkompli billi jagħmel il-każ bibbliku u nisrani ta' x'inhu l-obbligu tal-bniedem biex iħares id-dinja bħala rigal ta' Alla u kif ingħata mandat biex jgħix minnha u jindukraha.4

 

L-enċiklika tirrimarka li ma nistgħux nistennew li s-suq jew it-teknoloġija jsolvu l-problemi li qed noħolqu aħna stess.  Teżortana biex inħarsu l-impjiegi, id-diversità, l-etika, il-komunitajiet indiġeni u li meta nfittxu soluzzjonijiet għal kriżijiet ambjentali nħarsu b'mod ħolistiku wkoll lejn soluzzjonijiet għal kriżijiet soċjali.  Tinkoraġġina li nagħtu każ li n-nies ikollhom saqaf fuq rashom, trasport adekwat, ssaqsi jekk wasalniex biex ngħixu ħajja mgħaġġla wisq fejn il-problem nħalluhom għall-ġenerazzjoni ta' warajna.

 

Fl-aħħar, l-enċiklika tawgura li jintlaħaq kunsens bejn il-pajjiżi biex jissolvew problemi li huma kbar wisq għal pajjiż wieħed, bħall-użu llum globalment mifrux ta' enerġija minn sorsi ffossilizzati.  Tiġbed l-attenzjoni għad-dikjarazzjoni ta' Rio fl-1992 li n-nuqqas ta' ċertezza xjentifika m'għandhiex tintuża bħala skuża biex soluzzjonijiet għal-ħsara ambjentali jiġi pospost.

 

Jien f'din l-enċiklika, ma rajt l-ebda pronunzja fuq affarijiet xjentifiċi.  Il-pronunzji saru u qed isiru minn xjenzjati u organizzazzjonijiet oħra.  Il-Papa, wara li jinnutahom, qiegħed juri li hemm obbligu tal-bniedem biex jieħu azzjoni, u jekk hu nisrani, jagħti r-raġunijiet bibbliċi u l-prinċipji nsara għaliex għandu jagħmel dan.  Din hija pożizzjoni morali u politika, u mhux xjentifika.

 

Huwa interessanti li ninnutaw taħdita li ta l-Kardinal lill-Fundazzjoni fuq il-Politika tat-Tibdil tal-Klima, fil-katidral ta' Westminster f'Londra, fl-2011.5  Fiha mhux biss jistaqsi jekk ix-xjenza dwar it-tibdil tal-klima hijiex stabbilita u kemm hemm kunsens fuqha, imma jirribattiha billi jikkwota lill-matematiku Lonrenz fuq l-impossibilta' li tipprevedi l-futur, lil diversi xjentisti li ma jiffurmawx parti minn dan il-kunsens li ma jaċċettawx l-immudellar bil-kompjuter li jiġi kkwotat, igerger li l-influwenzi tax-xemx u tal-vulkani ma jingħatawx importanza, u jsemmi ħafna u ħafna inċertezzi oħra biex jitfa dubju fuq il-konklużjoni li l-bniedem huwa l-kaġun tat-tibdil preżenti fil-klima.

 

Jien m'inix se nidħol fil-mertu, għax dan mhux l-iskop tal-artiklu tiegħi.  Imma l-intervent tal-kardinal fl-2011, elokwenti, wiesgħa u mhux nieqes mill-interess, kien wieħed purament xjentifiku.  Allura huwa l-Kardinal Pell biss, fil-Knisja Kattolika, li jista' jitkellem u jippronunzja ruħu fuq is-suġġett?  Dakinhar ma kienx jemmen fl-awtonomija tax-xjenza?  Din mhi xejn ħlief ipokrisija.

 

Huwa diffiċli biex nifhem għalfejn xi ħadd bl-intelliġenza tal-kardinal jasal li jgħajjar lis-superjur tiegħu b'dak li jagħmel hu.  

 

Forsi r-risposta qegħda f'paragrafu 217 tal-enċiklika, fejn il-Papa jirrimarka li xi nsara devoti, bl-iskuża tar-realiżmu u l-pragmatiżmu, għandhom il-ħabta li jirredikolaw stqarrijiet ta' tħassib dwar l-ambjent.  Dawn il-kliem japplikaw perfettament għall-gvern preżenti Awstraljan, immexxi mis-Sur Tony Abbott, li kemm ilu li tela' għamel minn kollox biex l-użu tas-sorsi ffossilizzati tal-enerġija jitkompla u possibilment jitqawwa, u jnaqqas l-investiment f'sorsi sostenibbli tal-enerġija.

 

Il-ġimgħa l-oħra biss, il-Prim Ministry kien qed jiddeplora deċiżjoni tal-Qorti Federali li waqqfet l-approvazzjoni ta' minjiera ġdida tal-faħam f'Queensland minħabba nuqqas ta' kunsiderazzjoni ta' żewġ speċji ta' annimali fil-periklu, deċiżjoni li sejħilha “traġika għad-dinja”.6

 

Dan huwa l-oppost ta' dak li hemm fl-enċiklika.

 

B'kumbinazzjoni, il-Prim Ministru huwa ħabib personali tal-Kardinal Pell.  Forsi l-Eminenza ħass li kellu jaqbeż xi ftit għalih.

1http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7f429c28-2bc6-11e5-acfb-cbd2e1c81cca.html#axzz3iMYiWgeL, retrieved 10/8/2015

2Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' - On Care For Our Common Home, Holy Father Francis, Holy See

3Ibid., para. 61

4Ibid., para. 67

5http://www.sydneycatholic.org/people/archbishop/addresses/2011//20111026_1463.shtml, retrieved 10/8/2015

6http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tragic-for-the-wider-world-tony-abbott-decries-court-ruling-against-adani-coal-mine-20150807-gitp64.html, retrieved 16/8/2015

GST

GST

You may remember the film Meet Joe Black which came out in 1998, with the actors Brad Pitt and Anthony Hopkins. It was the first time I had heard the idiom 'as sure as death and taxes'.

The latter are gathered by those in charge of the state, to be able to finance the service offered by the state and, if the leaders have no scruples, to line their own pockets. However this is not the topic of today.

In the past 2 weeks, the NSW Premier Mike Baird has proposed that the rate of GST increases from 10% to 15%.¹ No one enjoys speaking tax, and paying it even less. However I wanted to talk and comment about some terms that are often bandied about.

First of all, what is GST? It's an abbreivation for Goods and Services Tax, a form of tax that is collected bit by bit at all stages in the construction of the product or service, instead of being collected all at once at one stage, such as a customs duty or income tax.

Several countries have a GST apart from Australia, like Canada. In other countries such as those in the European Union including Malta, it is called VAT (Value Added Tax).

In Australia, GST is collected by the federal government, and distributed entirely to state and territory governments. The main advantages (for government) are:

• it covers most of the economy (with some exclusions such as food and health) to the same extent, and does not target specific parts such as stamp duties on property transfers, or taxes on income (which discourage the targeted activity, resulting in a distortion in the economy);
• that it starts being collected gradually much before the product or service is purchased by the consumer.

The downside of this tax is its regressive nature. What does this word mean - are we moving backwards?

This term is used to distinguish GST (and similar taxes like VAT) from 'progressive' taxes like income tax. With the latter, the higher the income (money earned), the higher the rate paid. In Australia, rates go from 19% to 45%. In many countries including Australia, those on very low incomes don't pay any tax on income.

With GST, everybody pays the same rate (today 10%), notwithstanding income or wealth. If one compared how much tax is paid by a poor person compared to his income, and did the same with a rich person, you would notice that the former would pay more, or much more, than the latter². For that reason, GST is called regressive.

Progressive taxes are considered measures of social justice, positive (and to be increased) by leftist political parties. They are considered negative (and to be decreased) by rightist political parties. As you would expect, these parties have the opposite attitude to regressive taxes.

For this reason, there is always a political fight whenever GST (or VAT) is to be introduced or increased in a country. This happened in Australia in the year 2000, when the Labor Party opposed (without success) the introduction of GST, and I remember the same happening in Malta in 1995 when the Labour Party opposed the introduction of VAT, removed it when the tables turned, and saw it re-introduced when the tables turned once again in 1999.

As we said, the Australian GST rate is 10%. It's much lower than in the EU, where the lowest standard rate permitted is 15%³. In practice though, the lowest rates are those in Luxembourg (17%) and Malta (18%), and the highest is that of Hungary (27%).⁴ In New Zealand, the rate is 15%.

On the other hand, the rate in Canada is lower at 5%.

The fact is that GST and VAT are taxes considered to generate much less unintended distortion to the economy, which means it does not discourage one part and encourage another. I think this is a positive attribute, and Premier Baird's proposal, apart from providing income for the states to provide services such as health, has the potential to reduce the need for the number, (about 125, considered too high⁵), of taxes and their related complications, that exist today in Australia.

Nevertheless, I also believe in social justice, and so maintain that the poorest in society need to be taken care of, with substantial and and permanent compensation for what will become high costs for them, and/or simultaneous changes to other progressive taxes so that equity (i.e. giving a fair go with the poor) is maintained. Hence, we should be looking at other taxes as well rather than concentrate just on the GST.

Such a package would have my approval.

GST

Ma nafx tiftakrux il-film Meet Joe Black (Iltaqgħu ma' Joe Black) li ħareġ fl-1998, li kien fih l-atturi Brad Pitt u Anthony Hopkins. Kienet l-ewwel darba li ltqajt mal-idjoma 'ċert daqs il-mewt u t-taxxi'.

Dawn tal-aħħar jinġabru minn dawk li jmexxu l-istat, biex ikunu jistgħu jiffinanzjaw is-servizzi li joffri l-istess stat, u jekk min imexxi jkun bla skrupli, biex iħaxxen butu. Imma mhux fuq hekk nixtieq nitkellem illum.

Fil-ħmistax li għaddew, il-Premier ta' NSW, Mike Baird, għamel proposta biex ir-rata tal-GST tikber minn 10% għal 15%.¹ Ħadd ma jieħu gost jitkellem fuq it-taxxa, u wisq inqas iħallasha. Biss xtaqt nitkellem u nikkummenta ftit fuq xi termini relatati li spiss jissemmew.

L-ewwel ħaġa, x'inhi l-GST? Hija abbrevjazzjoni ta' Goods and Services Tax (taxxa fuq il-prodotti u s-servizzi), forma ta' taxxa li tinġabar ftit ftit f'kull stadju fit-tiswir tal-prodott jew servizz, minflok tinġabar f'daqqa fi stadju wieħed, bħal tariffa tad-dwana, jew taxxa fuq id-dħul.

Hemm diversi pajjiżi li għandhom il-GST apparti l-Awstralja, bħall-Kanada. F'pajjiżi oħrajn tissejjaħ VAT (Value Added Tax - taxxa fuq il-valur miżjud), bħall-pajjiżi tal-Unjoni Ewropea inkluża Malta.

Fl-Awstralja, il-GST tinġabar mill-gvern federali, u titqassam kollha kemm hi lill-gvernijiet tal-istati u t-territorji. Il-vantaġġi prinċipali tagħha (għall-gvern) huma:

• li tkopri l-biċċa l-kbira tal-ekonomija (ħlief esklużjonijiet bħall-ikel u s-saħħa) b'mod ugwali, u mhux partijiet speċifiċi bħat-tariffi fuq il-bejgħ tal-proprjetà, jew it-taxxa fuq il-pagi (li jiskoraġġixxu dik l-attività, u għalhekk iwasslu għal tagħwiġ fl-ekonomija);
• li tibda tinġabar gradwalment ħafna qabel ma l-prodott jew is-servizz jiġi mixtri mill-konsumatur fl-istadju tal-konsum.

Il-kritika għal din it-taxxa hi n-natura rigressiva tagħha. Din il-kelma x'inhi - mela sejrin lura?

Dan it-terminu jintuża biex jiddistingwi l-GST (u taxxi simili bħall-VAT) minn taxxi 'progressivi' bħat-taxxi fuq id-dħul. Bit-taxxa fuq id-dħul, iktar ma wieħed ikollu dħul (jaqla flus), iktar iħallas rata ta' taxxa għolja. Fl-Awstralja r-rati jibdew minn 19% sa 45%. F'ħafna pajjiżi nkluz l-Awstralja, min għandu dħul baxx ħafna ma jħallas xejn taxxa fuq id-dħul.

Bil-GST, kulħadd iħallas l-istess rata (illum 10%), għandu dħul kemm għandu dħul u għani kemm hu għani. Jekk tqabbel kemm iħallas taxxa ma kemm jaqla bniedem fqir u bniedem għani, tara li tal-ewwel bil-GST jispiċċa jħallas iktar, (jew ħafna iktar) proporzjonalment minn bniedem għani². Għalhekk, il-GST tissejjaħ rigressiva.

Taxxi progressivi jitqiesu miżuri ta' ġustizzja soċjali, u bħala xi ħaġa pożittiva (u ta' min jiżdiedu) minn partiti politiċi xellugin. Jitqiesu bħala xi ħaġa negattivi (u ta' min jitnaqqsu) minn partiti politiċi tal-lemin. Kif wieħed jistenna, dawn il-partiti għandhom l-attitudni l-opposta għat-taxxi rigressivi.

Għal din ir-raġuni, dejjem ikun hemm ġlieda politika meta l-GST (jew il-VAT) ikun se jiddaħħal jew ikun se jogħla f'pajjiż. Dan ġara fl-Awstralja fis-sena 2000, meta l-partit Laburista oppona (mingħajr suċċess) l-introduzzjoni tal-GST, u niftakar l-istess ġara f'Malta fl-1995 meta l-partit Laburista oppona l-introduzzjoni tal-VAT, neħħiha meta inqalbet il-folja u kellu jaraha tiġi reintrodotta meta l-folja nqalbet lura fl-1999.

Kif għedna, fl-Awstralja r-rata tal-GST illum hi ta' 10%. Hija ħafna iktar baxxa minn dik fl-UE, fejn l-inqas rata standard permessa tal-VAT hija ta' 15%³. Fil-prattika però, l-inqas rati huma tal-Lussemburgu (17%) u Malta (18%), u l-iktar għolja huma tal-Ungerija (27%).⁴ Fi New Zealand ir-rata hija ta' 15%.

Mill-banda l-oħra, hija iktar għolja mir-rata tal-Kanada li bħalissa hi ta' 5%.

Il-fatt hu li l-GST u l-VAT huma taxxi meqjusa li jiġġeneraw ħafna inqas tagħwiġ mhux intenzjonat fl-ekonomija, jiġifieri ma jiskoraġġux lil parti u jinkoraġġixxu lil parti oħra. Din naraha bħala xi ħaġa pożittiva, u l-proposta tal-Premier Baird, apparti li tipprovdi dħul għall-istati għal servizzi bħal dak tas-saħħa, għandha l-potenzjal li tnaqqas il-bżonn ta' wħud mill-ammont meqjus kbir wisq (madwar 125⁵) ta' taxxi li jeżistu illum fl-Awstralja u l-kumplikazzjonijiet tagħhom.

Madankollu, nemmen ukoll fil-ġustizzja soċjali, u għalhekk insostni li hemm bżonn li nieħdu ħsieb l-iktar batuti fis-soċjetà, b'kumpens sostanzjali u permanenti għal dawk li se jkunu spejjeż għoljin għalihom, u/jew tibdil fl-istess żmien f'taxxi progressivi oħra sabiex l-ekwità (jiġifieri li timxi bil-fier ma min huwa fqir) ma tkunx mittiefsa. Għalhekk, iridu jiġu kkunsidrati taxxi oħra u mhux nikkonċentraw fuq il-GST biss.

Pakkett ta' dan it-tip ikollu l-approvazzjoni tiegħi.

1http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-premier-mike-baird-warns-of-state-tax-hikes-without-gst-reform-20150725-gik10u, retrieved 27/7/2015

2https://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-the-gst-as-efficient-but-less-equitable-than-income-tax-45052, retrieved 26/7/2015

3http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/topics/rates_en.htm, retrieved 26/7/2015

4VAT Rates Applied in the Member States of the EU; European Commission, Taxud.c.1(2015); 1^st January 2015

5Australia's Future Tax System - Report to the Treasurer; Ken Henry et al; 2009; Overview p.11