Opposition leader Simon Busuttil yesterday asked Prime Minister Joseph Muscat whether Parliamentary Secretary Michael Falzon had visited Argentina accompanied by Mark Gaffarena, who is at the centre of the controversy over the expropriation of a property in Valletta which netted him a huge profit.
Dr Busuttil was speaking in Parliament following a prime ministerial statement on the last two EU summits, one on Eastern partnerships and the other involving Latin American countries.
Dr Busuttil said he agreed that the EU should widen its relationships with countries from these parts of the world. However, he wanted to point out that Malta actually did have a presence in Argentina, because Dr Falzon, who fell under the PM’s responsibility, had just been there.
He then launched into a series of questions: Why had Dr Falzon gone there? How long did he stay and with whom had he gone? Did he go with a certain person named Mark Gaffarena?
Since Dr Muscat was so interested in Latin America, the public deserved to know what was happening right under his nose.
Why did he go, how long did he stay and with whom did he go?
Dr Falzon had admitted in a Sunday newspaper interview that he had met Mr Gaffarena before the expropriation of the Old Mint Street property, and that it was Mr Gaffarena himself who had asked the government for the property to be expropriated, Dr Busuttil said. Could the Prime Minister confirm this? Could he also confirm that Mr Gaffarena had chosen the properties he was given in exchange for half of the Valletta property? Could he confirm that a person in a position of trust from Castille had gone to the Lands Department with Mr Gaffarena? Who had he spoken to?
Dr Busuttil asked how Dr Muscat was going to shoulder responsibility for this “scandal”.
Dr Muscat rose and accused Dr Busuttil of being “disrespectful to the concept of accountability in Parliament”.
He said he had no problem replying to Dr Busuttil, revealing that in the investigation going on into the case, even older files of what had happened in the past were coming to light.
Dr Muscat said he believed in accountability, always and everywhere. Dr Falzon had assured him there had been no political interference, and he looked forward to reading the results of the inquiry.
However, he said he had spoken about two very important summits and Dr Busuttil showed he was not even capable of coming up with any questions about international policy. The Opposition leader, he said, “simply does not get it”.
Parliamentary ethics required that one should stick to the subject at hand, because this was ridiculing Parliament. “What type of impression would we be giving to the diplomatic community when we had so much international turmoil and refugees being displaced because of war, and here Dr Busuttil is asking questions about a visit to Argentina?”
There were plenty of other occasions when one could raise such an issue, he said, but today the Opposition leader had cut a very poor impression.