Is the planned reform of political asset declarations yet another attempt to distract the public, or it is in line with recommendations made by the OECD over a year ago?

What are asset declarations all about? They cannot prevent people in positions of power from feeding at the trough – but transparency is a deterrent as there are much better chances of identifying mismatches between income and wealth.

Do they work? Well, that is debatable: according to the World Bank, over 160 countries have a system of asset, interest disclosure or both for public officials.

Yet, media reports across the world show corruption is a ravenous beast which cannot be appeased. But that does not mean countries should not try to curb the less idealistic side of public service.

The Standards in Public Life Act came into law in 2018, creating the post of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in Public Life. It also established two codes of ethics, one for MPs, and another for ministers and parliamentary secretaries – and, interestingly enough, in theory also regulates ‘persons of trust’.

At present, ministers submit annual declarations of their income and assets while MPs declare their assets but not income.

What is missing from this picture? The OECD recommended that the scope of the reports should be widened to apply to certain persons of trust in addition to ministers and MPs.

It also stressed the importance of ensuring that assets could not be concealed by putting them in the names of family members, spouses or other individuals.

For this, it would be necessary to share information with, for example, tax authorities and the Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit.

So, on paper, the fact that the government is to implement a number of changes can be seen as a positive step.

However, the devil is in the detail – and the fact that the 2023 declarations have not been submitted is a red flag.

Regardless of whether they are submitted in parliament or to the commissioner, electronically or manually, or by ministers, MPs from either side, trusted officials, or family members – what truly matters is that they are filed.

This should not become a political game, sticking to the finer details of the law, or even dumping the issue into the lap of the Speaker. It should be a principle willingly upheld by all those who enter public life.

If we are to trust our politicians – let alone the army of persons of trust with dubious appointments and even more dubious qualifications, experiences and performance, then we need to be sure that there is a deterrent.

Those with nothing to hide should be lining up to prove that there is no “unjustified wealth and illicit enrichment” and no “conflict-of-interest”.

And although Prime Minister Robert Abela claims that the Speaker and the standards commissioner are in a better position than him to analyse the finances of the members of his cabinet, is he merely looking for plausible deniability?

Let us be clear: no matter what is declared, by whom and how is only a deterrent if the prime minister is willing to take meaningful action against those found to be enriching themselves: certainly not by making childish accusations about the opposition.

Wrongdoing is wrong, no matter who does it. And those who do wrong should pay – with more than an apology.

It is no wonder that his reform pledge has been greeted by scepticism.