Politicians need to be held to the highest standards, they are, after all, meant to be leaders of society. This is even more so if they hold a position in Cabinet.

But the government's recent actions are showing that this is not the case. Yes, we had a former minister (Clayton Bartolo) recently resign, and rightly so, over a scandal involving an alleged kickback given to his wife. But by the Prime Minister's own declarations it is clear that the same minister getting his wife a consultancy job she did not actually do (albeit before they were married) was not enough to merit his resignation. This is also why there has been no resignation by Gozo Minister Clint Camilleri, who Bartolo's wife was supposedly working as a consultant for also.

The ethical breach was clear, and was even accepted by both sides of Parliament, so how exactly can such a blatant waste of public taxpayer funds not merit a resignation?

That is something that the Prime Minister will need to keep answering for.

But the above example also serves to highlight just how important the introduction of the post of a Commissioner for Standards in Public Life a few years ago was. The Office of the Commissioner has served to hold those who breached ethics to account, to a certain extent. We say this as there is room for improvement.

There need to be more stringent penalties being issued by the Parliamentary committee when blatant breaches are found. A reprimand, as in the above case for the Gozo minister, just does not cut it.

This leads to another point. The composition of the Standards Committee itself should be debated. Should the committee just be made up of two MPs from either party, and the Speaker with the casting vote? Or, rather, should there be individuals who both parties agree on, who are not politicians, also on the committee? Opposition Leader Bernard Grech had once proposed that the committee be composed of one MP from the PL, one MP from the PN, and three independent persons approved through a two-thirds parliamentary majority, with the chairman being one of those three. Such a move if done right could, for example, result in decisions which do not have a shadow cast over them.

Then there is the issue that not all reports are made public. For example, if a Standards Commissioner's report finds that there was no breach of ethics, or if the Standards Committee votes not to publish a report that finds someone in breach, then it would not be published. This, however, does not really make sense. These reports should automatically be made public. If an MP is found innocent of an ethics breach, then that should be made public. If an MP is found guilty of a breach, then it should definitely not be left up to the committee to decide whether or not to publish it, the publication of the report should be automatic.

The question can also be raised as to whether mayors and local councillors should also fall under the remit of the Standards Commissioner, although if that were to happen, one would imagine that the resources of the Office would need to improve significantly. 

A debate on updating the role of the Standards Commissioner should take place, with the ultimate aim being to increase the Commissioner's oversight and strength.