Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1309486
8 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 15 NOVEMBER 2020 INTERVIEW PHOTO BY JAMES BIANCHI Over the past two years, a lot of criticism has been levelled at this Commission because of certain 'limitations' to its actual remit, for instance, that it can- not investigate cases preceding 2018 – and also about the lack of any punitive measures ac- companying its decisions. Are people justified, then, in feeling that the Commission is actually 'toothless'? It's ultimately a question of whether you see the glass as 'half-full, or half-empty'. Those who complain that this office does not have the power to go back in time, might – if they had a different attitude towards life – look at the same situation and say: 'OK, so before we had a glass that was empty… and now, it is half-full'. bGt bBecause before this office was set up, there was no way to hold anyone to account at all. There was a code of ethics, yes; but no one to actually do an- ything about it. Now, however, there is an institution that can look into a complaint, and take action… Perhaps, but what's the point of determining that there was an ethical breach… if nothing ac- tually happens as a result? I wouldn't go as far as to say 'nothing happens'. Here we are talking mainly about ethics: and in the field of ethics, 'naming and shaming' is, in itself, already a remedy. Some people might not agree with that; but the fact we now have an institution, that is sup- ported by both sides of the House, is already much more than we've ever had before. I don't want to go into specif- ic cases; but let me take, as an example, the most controver- sial decision I have taken so far. Former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat's visit to Dubai. In that case, I decided that the information that had been given to me by the prime minister, at the time, did not amount to a breach of the Code of Ethics; and because it was explained to me, in detail, what the purpose of his Dubai visit was… I took it upon myself to decide that it was of a private nature; and therefore, the information did not need to be shared publicly. Obviously, this attracted a lot of criticism. And I can understand that; because an office that was set up for the purpose of trans- parency, was itself perceived to be 'hiding information'… In that case, however, it wasn't just the purpose of the Dubai visit that was questioned: but also, who paid for it… Yes: it was the whole package. But the question still remained: was it, or was it not, in breach of the Code of Ethics? If the in- formation that was given to me – and believed by me; because there was no evidence to the contrary – did not amount to a breach, then the second point becomes: should I share the in- formation? In this case, I took it upon myself not to share that infor- mation; and it was extremely controversial. But the point is that – at any time before this office was set up – what would have happened is simply that a journalist would have thrust a microphone into the prime min- ister's face, as he stepped out of Castille, and asked: 'Why did you go to Dubai, and who paid for the trip?". The prime minister would probably have replied: 'None of your business'… and that's it. The matter would have stopped there. Now, however, there is an in- stitution that can actually ques- tion him on the matter; in a way that – unlike before – he has to answer… At the same time, you are also proposing changes to the Code of Ethics itself. Should these changes extend to introducing punitive measures for politi- cians who have been found to have acted unethically? First of all: the law already pro- vides for punitive measures. But these are imposed by Parliament, not by my office. Once I decide that there has been wrongdo- ing… my decision goes to Par- liament, through the Standards Committee; and it is up to them to decide whether or not to im- pose any disciplinary actions. So far, I have not recommended any 'punishments' myself: firstly, because it's not my own decision to make. But also because… let me put it this way: I am afraid that, if I do recommend punitive measures, it would take all the public attention away from the decision itself. In the case of Joseph Muscat having accepted a gift of Petrus wine, for instance. Imagine if, in that case, I ruled that: 'Jo- seph Muscat should issue a public apology'. You'd get half the country saying: 'What, after all that fuss, the only outcome is an apology? What's the big deal?'; but the other half would say: 'Only a public apology? He should be put in prison for that…' I don't want to fuel political controversy, over an issue which is not my decision in the first place. If it was my decision – as in, if the law placed the onus of deciding punishments on me, instead of the Standards Com- mission – I'd do it. But as things stand: the de- cision of whether 'it's right or wrong' is mine to take; and I'll stand by it. But then, the actu- al choice of 'torture tool' is not mine. So why take it… when it We need to take a good Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt The Commission for Standards in Public Life was set up exactly two years ago; but while its decision may not always meet public expectations, Commissioner GEORGE HYZLER argues that an important first step towards higher standards has nonetheless been taken