Government pushes to formally abolish ministers' asset declarations

Updated 7.15pm

The government is pushing to formally abolish ministerial asset declarations as well as remove obligations for MPs to declare properties solely owned by their spouses.

Legal amendments tabled in parliament by Justice Minister Jonathan Attard on Monday seek to remove the long-standing ministerial declarations from the ministerial code of ethics.

According to the current code of ethics, ministers are obliged to “immediately provide a statement of his assets and interests to the Cabinet Secretary”.

In the proposed amendment tabled by Attard, this section of the code is deleted.

Prime Minister Robert Abela has previously stated his wish to abolish ministerial asset declarations, claiming they add nothing to the separate financial declarations filed by all members of parliament (MP) on a yearly basis.

Standards Commissioner Joseph Azzopardi has in the past raised concerns about the move, saying the declaration filed by MPs is “less detailed”.

The commissioner told Abela in a letter published in January that this effectively means ministers would no longer declare their income, and neither would they declare financial investments and bank accounts held by their spouses.

“Such information was required by the ministerial declaration form, but not the form for MPs. This was a setback for transparency in public life, and it sent a very negative message,” Azzopardi wrote.

Azzopardi further pointed out that the asset declarations by MPs are not published, in yet another blow to transparency.

While technically open to public inspection, journalists and members of the public are not allowed by parliament staff to take copies or even photos of the declarations.

The proposed abolishment of ministerial asset declarations was packaged by the government as part of a wider reform aimed at strengthening the parliamentary code of ethics and expanding the obligations of MPs to declare their assets and interests. 

These revisions would however appear to weaken property ownership reporting by MPs.

While the current code of ethics obliges MPs to declare properties owned by themselves or jointly with their spouses, the new proposed code only obliges MPs to declare “his own immovable property.”

Some areas strengthened

Other aspects of financial and employment reporting have, however, been strengthened.

The proposed code obliges MPs to declare their occupation or profession over the past three years.

This three-year retrospective period is new, as the previous declaration only captured an MP's employment or profession over the previous year.

MPs are also explicitly obliged to declare income generated from professional work and employment, and they must also name their employer. 

The draft code of ethics also spells out the obligation to declare virtual currencies and intangible assets such as patents, trademarks, copyrights and brands.

Those requirements are new. 

A formal register of interests will also be introduced.

MPs would be required to disclose professional interests or consultancy roles connected to individuals or companies with an interest in legislation before parliament, as well as membership of voluntary organisations, trips abroad paid for by such entities and any conflicts of interest related to parliamentary work. 

Guiding principles that MPs must follow are also mentioned in the draft code, including prioritising the common good over private interests, acting objectively and honestly, using public resources responsibly and being transparent about their decisions.

MPs will also be required to respect the Speaker and other members of parliament and avoid abusing the powers and privileges associated with their role. 

'Outrageous decision'

In a statement later Tuesday, the Opposition Nationalist Party said the PM had “once again gone to Parliament to shut down every form of transparency and scrutiny over himself and his Cabinet”.

Rather than improving the lives of citizens, Abela was “more concerned with covering up his and his ministers’ tracks than with governing our country”, the PN said.

The party said Abela was sending the message that those in power were above public scrutiny, with his government “continuing to do everything it can to hide from the eyes of those who entrusted it with power”.

“Those who have nothing to hide do not fear transparency. But this government is choosing to hide, day after day.”

The PN said that should it be elected to government, it would “review” Abela’s decision and was “committed to reversing this outrageous decision”.

In a response, the governing Labour Party said it was "simply not true" that minister's would stop declaring their assets, adding there was "no doubt" that MPs' code of ethics needed to be strengthened.

'Cover-up of illicit activity'

The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation said the proposed changes would “provide cover for profiting from conflicts of interest and criminality... [and] further enable the cover-up of illicit activity and financial gain”.

Highlighting 2016 revelations about then Energy Minister Konrad Mizzi’s offshore Panama company and New Zealand trust, the foundation noted how prime minister of the day Joseph Muscat had defended Mizzi by saying he had viewed his draft asset declaration.

“Under the current government’s proposed amendments, a corrupt minister can set up an offshore company and trust and won’t even need to file an asset declaration”, the foundation said. 

Describing the current declarations system as “already severely lacking transparency”, the organisation said that under the government’s proposals, even “minimal control” would disappear.  

Pointing to the recent case of former Affordable Housing Minister Roderick Galdes, who resigned following revelations about his private property portfolio the foundation said “was only exposed thanks to journalism”, it said this showed how more, not less, transparency was required.  

Highlighting the Standards Commissioner’s concerns, the foundation emphasised that MP declarations were “not a substitute for ministerial declarations, as they are less detailed and they are not published”. 

“It is shocking that ten years after the publication of the Panama Papers, Malta has yet to learn lessons from its failure to protect the public interest”, the foundation said.  

“Rather than increasing transparency, the government’s proposed amendments will enable ministers to cover up malfeasance.”