The defeat of the parliamentary motion of no-confidence in Konrad Mizzi over the Panama affair was hardly a surprise. It is an outcome the government will come to regret. Wednesday’s vote prevents precisely what Joseph Muscat must have been hoping to achieve: closure.
The consequences of persisting in the disregard for accepted standards of accountability, transparency and good governance will be serious for both the government and the country. The rot at the heart of the Administration has not been stopped. In fact, it can only spread.
First, Malta badly needed to put the scandal behind it, move on and focus on other issues. Dr Mizzi’s continued presence at the centre of government operations, alongside the other local protagonist in the Panama Papers, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff Keith Schembri, will ensure the issue will stay at the forefront of people’s consciousness. The pair are their own bad advert.
Suspicions will now be aroused whenever the government enters into some major financial deal. Independent MP Marlene Farrugia, who moved the motion, has warned that with every new contract, people “will be wondering whether the figures have been manipulated to make up for corruption and brokerage”.
Dr Mizzi’s reputation is in tatters and will precede him in all his dealings on behalf of the government. His attempts at explaining away his New Zealand trust and Panama company and the numerous attempts to set up bank accounts in Dubai and Panama are simply not good enough, and his public apology hollow. Neither could he justify why he felt it necessary to step down as deputy leader of the Labour Party but not from the Cabinet.
The way the whole episode unfolded has also severely damaged Dr Muscat’s credibility. When the scandal first broke he defended Dr Mizzi unreservedly. After public opinion turned against him his line became that his minister had done nothing illegal but was politically naïve. As the crisis worsened, he wanted to have all the facts in hand before taking any action. Yet, his so-called decision on Dr Mizzi was taken despite no sign of any results from the commissioned audits.
Muscat leaves behind a trail of inconsistency that will come back to haunt him. As for Mr Schembri, he has made it clear that he believes his chief of staff did nothing wrong at all, saying absurdly that “he is not a political figure and he enjoys my trust”.
By sending a message that it’s alright to bend ethical principles, Dr Muscat has undermined his own authority if he needs to rein in any other errant members of his parliamentary group. This is a recipe for continued abuse.
Government MPs have not acquitted themselves well either. By voting the way they did they have sent the wrong signal to Maltese society, as well as to the world of business and finance, namely that anything goes and that good governance figures low on their list of priorities.
By voting unanimously against Dr Farrugia’s motion, they tried to give the impression of party unity and satisfaction with the way the Prime Minister has handled the situation. This, however, is not a true reflection of the sentiment within the Labour parliamentary group. This dissatisfaction will remain, distracting the government and infecting the way it functions.
Wednesday’s vote is yet another dent to Malta’s international standing, which could have serious consequences vis-à-vis foreign direct investment, especially from the financial services industry. This is something the government, and the country, now have to live with.
Dr Muscat and Dr Mizzi both said it is up to the people to decide if the Panama case is now closed. Despite the poor turnout, yesterday’s protest shows it is still wide open.