From the very beginning of this legislature, the Labour government was uncomfortable with the 1994 ministerial code of ethics it inherited from the Nationalist administration. The first ministerial casualty of that code was then parliamentary secretary Franco Mercieca who continued with his private practice in breach of the code.

Following a controversy, Mr Mercieca, an ophthalmologist, resigned, and the Prime Minister promised a revised ministerial code that would meet current realities. Two years later, after much bickering, the government has delivered what is, according to its permanent secretary Mario Cutajar, an ‘identical’ code of ethics, or nearly.

The revised code has opened the door to private practice by parliamentary secretaries and ministers if this is deemed in the “national interest”. The code does not define what national interest is and effectively leaves it at the Cabinet’s discretion.

When the controversy over Mr Mercieca arose, the Prime Minister said he had given him a waiver. He did not have such power then, but he does have it now.

This new policy is contentious as it flies flat in the face of one of the most basic principles of political office holders  service. The 1994 code was clear that as soon as a minister is appointed, he is to discontinue his private work to devote all his time to official duties.

The revised version says much the same but now there may be exceptions. Exceptions have become this administration’s hallmark, with compromise now reaching the highest echelons of government.

The tax-paying electorate wanted more rigorous control and accountability from a government that promised so much before the election. Surely, after 20 years, the ministerial code required more than a tweaking or editing exercise. It was expected that the revised code would address issues that have arisen over the years, like for example, the unconvincing declaration of assets by Cabinet members that sometimes led to public incredulity and even ridicule.

The revised code could have addressed the issue of the employment of spouses or partners of ministers and parliamentary secretaries. The works for votes scandal in Gozo involves the ex-Gozo minister’s husband. The appointment of the Energy Minister’s wife as an envoy to China has also been very controversial. The issue of political accountability for people appointed to positions of trust could have been addressed.

With the government exploiting scandals dating back to the previous administration, coupled with its own series of blunders and scandals, public confidence in the political class is being seriously undermined. A more rigid code of ethics would have gone some way to address this public disillusionment. Ethical rules would be an incentive to attract the best men and women into politics.

The slow pace at which the revision was carried out, and the fact that the government kept the revised code under wraps for months, reflects indifference, if not reluctance, on the part of the administration.

The government is clearly out of sync with the public mood. An “identical code” does not placate the public disappointment, cynicism and alienation from a political class that appears increasingly aloof from the standards it expects from them.

The revised code is a missed opportunity and a far cry from Labour’s pre-electoral promises. It is law-abiding citizens who expect the best from the political class who should be disappointed.