Opposition leader Simon Busuttil said this evening that the basic issue at the heart of the Panama Papers scandal was that all people should be treated equally, but the 'gods' at Castille were being treated differently

He was speaking in parliament during a debate on a motion by Marlene Farrugia for the appointment of a parliamentary committee to investigate the prime minister’s chief of staff, Keith Schembri in view of his involvement in the Panama Papers.

According to the motion, the committee, having a majority of Opposition MPs, would then recommend whether the prime minister should be censured for appointing Mr Schembri and whether he should be asked to remove him.

The motion was defeated with 35 against and 30 in favour.

Dr Busuttil said the prime minister had failed to take decisive action against Mr Schembri and Dr Mizzi. The former was still chief of staff and the latter was still in the Cabinet.

In Malta there was a law for the gods at Castille, and a different law for ordinary mortals. This was bringing about a total collapse of moral authority and the nation’s institutions.

The Opposition leader underlined the harm being caused to Malta’s reputation by the Panama scandal. Malta was seeing things being turned upside down everywhere. Speaker Anglu Farrugia four years ago voted in a motion of no confidence against Richard Cachia Caruana. Yet last week he declared inadmissible a similar motion of no confidence against Keith Schembri and the motion had to be changed.

In was unacceptable, Dr Busuttil said, that Mr Schembri set up a secret company in Panama after he was appointed chief of staff of the prime minister. He even advised minister Konrad Mizzi to do the same. The two then tried to open accounts in nine banks and gave the go-ahead for an account to be opened despite the requirement that at least €800,000 had to be deposited every year.

And yet an elderly couple on a minimum pension had to wait 100 years to see €800,000.

Where was this money coming from when Mr Mizzi was supposed to only have his ministerial salary and Mr Schembri his salary as chief of staff?

Various claims had been made, including, estate planning, then brokerage, gaming, and waste recycling in India to explain this income. The Panama Papers even spoke on a joint venture between Dr Mizzi and Mr Schembri.

How could this be acceptable to the prime minister?

Mr Schembri had five secret companies in several jurisdictions, while serving as chief of staff, when he was supposed to have given up his business interests. Was this acceptable?

Referring to Mr Schembri’s article in The Sunday Times of Malta, Dr Busuttil said Mr Schembri had claimed he wanted to set the record straight, but he did not admit anything and did not even mention Panama or his other companies.

Furthermore, it was not true that Mr Schembri had given up control of his business. He issued instructions as recently as last December.

The people, Dr Busuttil, were disgusted by what was going on.

COINCIDENCES AND ALLEGATIONS

Dr Busuttil said that apart from the companies owned by Dr Mizzi and Mr Schembri, the prime minister had still not said who owned the third company opened at the same time and in the same manner.

It had also emerged that the same financial consultant based in Castille opened another company – for a Chinese national who negotiated the sale of Enemalta with Konrad Mizzi.

How could the people not have serious suspicions?

Konrad Mizzi in the Panama Papers had declared personal revenue of £5m (€6.4m) – coincidentally exactly 2% of the total price at which the Enemalta stake was sold to the Chinese.

There was also the serious allegation that Mr Schembri paid €400,000 to the former Allied Newspapers managing director (Adrian Hillman). Had the prime minister made enquiries about this?

Could the prime minister allow such an allegation to pass?

Dr Busuttil said the people expected the prime minister to shoulder political responsibility. Had he lost his moral authority by so much? How could he act against any other minister when he had not acted against these two?

Dr Busuttil said ordinary people were currently receiving their tax forms and had to declare everything down to their last cent, while Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri did not.

The Tax Department made enquiries about the people's earnings, but not about Dr Mizzi and Mr Schembri.

That was why the people were disgusted, Dr Busuttil said. The prime minister should not insult their intelligence any longer.

MUSCAT ACCUSES BUSUTTIL OF ‘FILTH’

Replying, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat said the government never claimed it was perfect, but the Opposition today had not come up with anything new. This evening had been a waste of time.

Dr Busuttil had spoken in a disproportionate and dirty manner. He had quoted one Panama Papers document, but not another which gave a different version.

Referring to the motion, Dr Muscat said Dr Schembri, who was holder of a position of trust, was being asked to appear before a committee composed of a majority of Opposition MPs, to be judged there.

Could this be considered fair when the Opposition had already taken its position? Wasn’t it Dr Busuttil who had said when he was taken before the Privileges Committee that it was a kangaroo court, because of its composition?

Dr Muscat said he could not ask a financial adviser to give him information about a company he had set up, as Dr Busuttil expected him to do. This was unheard of. Dr Busuttil used different sets of rules as it suited him.

He said Dr Busuttil’s comparison between Mr Schembri’s money and old age pensions did not hold. Mr Schembri had a long successful career in business before he became chief of staff.

Perhaps Dr Busuttil could have spoken about the €1m awarded to him in consultancy services.

STANDARDS IN PUBLIC LIFE

Dr Muscat confirmed government plans for parliamentary hearings before people were appointed to top posts.

He said local politics needed to be restored to normality where politicians spoke on matters which counted, such as the economy, the distribution of wealth and the Cana Movement report on poverty.

Dr Muscat said the Opposition leader had said many half truths about Mr Schembri. What he could say was that they had worked together to bring to an end 25 years of Nationalist Party rule.

The Opposition, he said, was trying to hinder the government, but it would continue to take decisions and achieve results.

Marlene Farrugia (Ind) asked why anyone would open a company in Panama if he had nothing to hide.

How could anyone be convinced to invest in Malta, when the prime minister's chief of staff invested in Panama?

Mr Schembri was disloyal to the country when he set up a company in Panama after becoming the prime minister's chief of staff. This was a betrayal.

Her motion, Dr Farrugia said, was a simple one, asking for Mr Schembri to be made available for questioning by a parliamentary committee.

Would the government be satisfied if the proposed committee had a majority of Labour MPs? If so, she was prepared to amend the motion. Would the government show it really was transparent?

Dr Farrugia said the government was boasting of a strong economy, but many people could not make ends meet. This government had sold citizenship and, apparently votes, it had sold Enemalta and health services through contracts which were never seen, it was selling Air Malta and land, such as the White Rocks going for €22m. And everything was arranged by the Office of the Prime Minister, with the Privatisation Unit practically having no say.

It was for these reasons, and the inaction of the prime minister, the police, the tax authorities and others, that MPs should directly hear and question the chief of staff of the Office of the Prime Minister.

Keith Schembri, she said, had hijacked the Labour Party for his personal needs. Had it been otherwise, he would have resigned. The Labour parliamentary group, in backing him, was throwing its hard-earned credibility out of the window.

Labour boasted of having lifted prescription on corruption cases. But what about taking action now? There was a strong smell of corruption, but the prime minister was doing nothing. MPs who would vote against this motion were accomplices in her books. Where were the standards in public life? Why was the people's wealth being sold off?

Labour's vote against the motion today would be exactly the opposite of what the Labour Party promised before the election. What was described as wrong in the past was now protected and described as good.

But the people would reach their own conclusions, Dr Farrugia said.