Anġlu Farrugia, that erstwhile hollow waste of space famous mostly for incurable ignorance masquerading, poorly, as a speech impediment, has effectively neutralised the law providing for the self-policing of the political class. He’s broken it to the point that it can’t be used unless it’s rewritten.
There’s a Commissioner for Standards in Public Life who used to be appointed by party consensus but, since Robert Abela changed the law, is now appointed by the government alone. (There’s a Byzantine process written in the law but the effect is that the prime minister has the power to decide alone).
But it’s not like the Commissioner can decide someone is guilty of misconduct and a breach of the code of ethics. They can only decide they think someone is in breach. That half-way decision together with a recommendation for punishment then goes to a committee of 5 MPs who take the decision.
The committee is made up of two MPs nominated by the opposition and three by the government. The third of those three is the Speaker (who is appointed by the House’s majority, which means the government).
In theory the committee’s decision is taken by the counting of four votes (two for the opposition and two for the government) and the Speaker’s vote is only cast when the four votes tie. Which now we know always happens. A government minister hides their income and gets caught, or spends public money on personal propaganda, or accepts mind-blowingly expensive gifts, and the Commissioner recommends punishment. The opposition MPs vote to punish, the government MPs vote not to. It then falls on the Speaker to decide.
In the past the Speaker made inconsistent decisions. But his decision yesterday on a recommendation to order government ministers to pay back money spent on their behalf by their departments on personal advertising on a Labour Party supplement exalting Robert Abela on the second anniversary of his ascension has closed the door in this process for good.
The Speaker voted against adopting the Commissioner’s recommendations. He made it clear that his vote had nothing to do with the content of the report. He doesn’t say he thinks it wasn’t true that the ministers used public money on personal advertising on a publication of their political party. He doesn’t say he thinks it’s not unethical for them to have done so.
His reasons, such as they are, are procedural.
First, he says, using public money for personal advertising on party media is not expressly forbidden by the law. That’s debatable because I think there’s a case for misappropriation here. But that’s by the by. Standards in public life are not about not breaking the law. Not breaking the law is how MPs and ministers avoid not being sent to prison. Standards are about ethical conduct and one can be found (nay, is likely to be found) to have conducted themselves unethically without having broken a law.
If a breach of law is a required test for the approval of a recommendation to punish an MP for misconduct, we would be applying the same test for criminal prosecution and conviction. Why do we need the Standards Commissioner and Committee then if it is only to do the work that the law already gives the police, the prosecutor, and the court?
Also, ironically, the Standards law requires that if there had been a breach of law the Commissioner would have been obliged to inform the police and terminate his investigation.
Anġlu Farrugia’s second point is that the Speaker is guided to always vote in favour of the continuation of a debate, rather than it’s ending. Quite how this was brought in as justification for voting against the Commissioner’s recommendation and the consequent shut down of the debate I cannot begin to imagine. This bit I put down to Anġlu Farrugia’s congenital incoherence.
The consequence of all this is precedent. Anġlu Farrugia has failed this recommendation by the Commissioner on the basis of tests he created (and that are nowhere near the law). There is simply no future report that can pass the test he set.
Every single future report that could admonish a government MP (if there ever was going to be one since an appointee of the prime minister was made Commissioner) will be defeated by the Speaker’s hand who claims to have interpreted Parliamentary teaching to mean that Parliament must abdicate its function of scrutinising, and when necessary admonishing, government misconduct.
Anġlu Farrugia has just hammered another nail in the coffin of democracy.