The standards commissioner found the prime minister guilty of breaking the rules. The prime minister offered MPs “a full and unreserved apology” over his late declaration of income, an apology ordered by the standards commissioner.
The commissioner commented that the prime minister’s infraction “suggested a lack of attention to and regard for parliament’s requirements, rather than an inadvertent error”.
“The prime minister’s failure does not demonstrate the leadership one would expect of a senior member of the house, nor compliance with the general principles of conduct.”
While Boris Johnson was apologising, Robert Abela failed to submit his declaration of assets by the deadline of March 2021. He finally submitted it a month late but failed to declare his income. Instead, he wrote “as per 2020 tax return” but failed to attach the relevant return. When journalists requested information about his 2020 earnings, OPM ignored the requests.
Abela should be setting the example. Instead, he was the only cabinet member who didn’t state his income. His late declaration was useless, devoid of the most important information. His non-compliance was not an inadvertent error but an intentional snub.
His yacht Baloo III was not included in his declaration either. The Azumit 50, valued at over €300,000, requires €20,000 annually in running costs. OPM was asked whether the yacht is leased or registered in Abela’s name. They ignored all questions about the yacht ‒ who did Abela acquire the yacht from? How much did he pay for it?
More importantly, why is Malta’s prime minister registering his yacht in Rome? Why is his yacht berthed in Marina di Ragusa? Why is our own prime minister not using his own country’s facilities?
Lord Nolans’ seven principles of public life outline the standards expected of those in power. Abela breaks them all, particularly the most important three.
Openness: information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear lawful reasons for doing so. Honesty: politicians must be truthful. Leadership: politicians should actively promote and robustly support the principles.
When Abela flippantly ignores the rules, he exposes his true nature – arrogant, undisciplined, entitled. He believes the rules don’t apply to him.
While Johnson was compelled to make a humble apology, Abela faces no consequences for disrespecting the rules and the public he should be accountable to.
The system meant to ensure honesty and integrity by those in public life doesn’t work – by design. Which is why we regularly witness such abhorrent breaches of standards – abuse of power, undue influence and cronyism – with complete impunity.
Issues that in other democracies are clear resignation matters – Rosianne Cutajar’s bagging thousands of euros from a murder suspect, Edward Zammit Lewis’ grovelling messages and requests for hospitality, Ian Borg’s direct contracts to his canvasser’s daughter, Justyne Caruana’s direct orders to a friend, Joseph Muscat’s receipt of lavish gifts from a money laundering suspect, Muscat’s abusive €80,000 contract for Konrad Mizzi – go unpunished.
Labour has worked hard to ensure its errant MPs are protected, every time. Muscat slimmed down the code of ethics. The standards commissioner can only investigate breaches if reported within one year. MPs can accept any bribes except during parliamentary debates on legislation. Inducements to vote for handing public land to private ownership are not prohibited.
If he manifestly lacks the fundamental virtues of an ethical politician, how can he be prime minister?- Kevin Cassar
If the standards commissioner finds an MP guilty, he can’t publish the report. The parliamentary committee decides whether to publish. That committee has a Labour majority – Glenn Bedingfield, Edward Zammit Lewis and Anġlu Farrugia. Consistently and unfailingly, Labour’s MPs on the committee undermine the authority of the commissioner, call into question his integrity, challenge his conclusions, refuse to adopt his reports, falsely accuse him of leaking reports and disrupt meetings by walking out, refusing to attend or behaving brutishly.
The speaker has repeatedly neglected his duty by walking out, refusing to cast his vote, or simply toeing the party line. He frustrated the commissioner’s efforts by ruling that George Hyzler could not investigate (the unlawful detention of journalists at Castille) or by questioning his conclusions (Carmelo Abela’s personal promotion using taxpayer funds, Cutajar’s failure to declare money received from Yorgen Fenech).
The speaker conferred the ultimate protection on MPs by ruling that resignation automatically exonerates MPs from sanctions, irrespective how serious the breach.
MPs cannot be trusted to regulate themselves, least of all Bedingfield and Zammit Lewis. Yet, Abela demonstrates his contempt for standards by keeping two of the worst offenders on that committee. That committee must be thoroughly reconstituted to include independent lay people of integrity if it is to shed its stench of chumocracy.
While the UK anti-corruption watchdog concluded that politicians breaching standards should face the toughest sanctions, including fines and resignations, Zammit Lewis insisted that Cutajar should receive the lowest level of sanctions – no sanction at all.
Lord Evans, Chair of the UK Standards Committee, recommended that those guilty of breaches who resigned as MPs should face injunctions prohibiting uptake of business appointments, recouping of former office holders’ pension or their severance payment.
In Malta, the Chair ruled that retired MPs cannot face any sanctions, allowing Muscat to bag €120,000 of severance payment and a €15,000 monthly contract with a company paid millions by Steward Health Care, despite being found guilty three times of breaching ethics.
Abela perpetuates the appallingly ridiculous parody that is Malta’s standards committee. His MPs’ shameless voting patterns must be at his direction. He aggravates their betrayal of the principles of public life by openly breaking the rules himself.
If Abela cannot stick to the rules, how can he ensure his cabinet does? If he is unable to fulfil the most basic of responsibilities, honestly and on time, how can he fulfil the more onerous ones? If he arrogantly abuses his power by flouting basic standards, how can he implement the Daphne Caruana Galizia inquiry recommendations to make abuse of power a crime?
If he manifestly lacks the fundamental virtues of an ethical politician, how can he be prime minister?