Earlier this week, government, through the Minister for Justice, tabled in Parliament its proposals to amend the First and the Second Schedules attached to the Standards in Public Life Act. These schedules define, separately, the Code of Ethics applicable to Members of Parliament and Members of Cabinet.
A superficial reading of the proposed amendments leads one to conclude that while the requirement for a ministerial asset declaration is being axed, this responsibility is being shifted to the individual Member of Parliament declaration. It is also emphasised that a number of important improvements are being proposed, reinforcing the Code of Ethics and making it more relevant to this day and age. The fact that all Cabinet members are also MPs superficially implies that the proposed changes are an improvement. One is also led to conclude that the proposed amendments are an exercise in reducing unnecessary paperwork and duplication of submissions.
The drafting trick, diabolically, however, is in the removal of just one word in Schedule 1: the word spouse.
A detailed comparison of existing and proposed texts reveals that the present text of the Code of Ethics for Members of the House of Representatives includes the duty of the MP to report annually as to the immovable property owned by the MP and his or her spouse, when the Civil Code provision relative to the community of acquests applies. This duty is being amended in the proposed new text such that immovable property owned by the spouse of the MP will in all circumstances no longer be subject to Code of Ethics reporting.
This is the crux of the amendments proposed. It is camouflaged and overshadowed by a number of new reporting requirements which have merit. However, the issue remains that immovable property acquired by the MP's spouse, when applicable, will now be hidden from view.
There is a specific background to all this. In the past months, online media has published allegations relative to the spouse of a member of Cabinet whose actions, possibly, are leading to an unexplained accumulation of wealth. It is not possible for me to verify whether these allegations are correct, and as a result, I will refrain from mentioning names, circumstances and other relative details.
It has to be borne in mind that holders of political office wield executive authority. It is appropriate that even their spouses should at all times be above suspicion. This is the reason for the Code of Ethics, in its present state, emphasising that their immovable property should be declared and the declaration be updated annually. Alternatively, when the community of acquests applies, we risk facilitating the accumulation of unexplained wealth.
Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. So runs the Latin wisdom attributed to Julius Caesar. Even the mere appearance of impropriety of those closely associated is damaging to the ethical reputation of holders of political office.
The independent media has been requesting the declaration of assets submitted by Members of Cabinet for a long time. The Commissioner for Standards in Public Life has been on record stating the refusal of the office of the Prime Minister to release these declarations for public scrutiny is inappropriate. Unfortunately, the office of the Prime Minister has repeatedly resisted this basic exercise in transparency and accountability.
In these circumstances it is logical to query: what on earth is the OPM trying to hide.
Transparency and accountability will be much weaker as a result of the proposed amendments to the schedules attached to the Standards in Public Life Act. However, let it be known by one and all, that it is only a question of time when all that is hidden will be discovered. It may take some time, but it is inevitable. Then, even Caesar's wife will have to settle her account with public opinion.
An architect and civil engineer, the author is a former Chairperson of ADPD-The Green Party in Malta. [email protected] , http://carmelcacopardo.wordpress.com