Juan Ameen
Gonzi lambasts Mepa auditor for 'shameful' comments
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi criticised comments on a court ruling made by the planning authority's audit officer, Joe Falzon, saying these were "shameful" because he had not asked for explanations but just jumped to a conclusion.
"I didn't like the auditor's comment. Through his comment he was contradicting the court's decision," Dr Gonzi said yesterday.
Mr Falzon has disagreed with a recent court ruling that meetings between members of the Development Control Commission and developers were "normal practice" and instead said such meetings were illegal.
During a radio interview, Dr Gonzi lashed out at Mr Falzon, saying his comments and the controversy these created was "extra".
The auditor's job was to ensure that the role of Malta Environment and Planning Authority was correct according to the law. "This means the auditor has great responsibility and cannot make certain statements... that there is corruption," Dr Gonzi said.
The Magistrates' Court last week cleared two former DCC members of exercising a private interest in the adjudicating process of the application for an open-air disco in Mistra. Meetings between DCC members and developers were meant to iron out issues between the two, the court said.
However, Mr Falzon disagreed with the ruling, saying the meetings were "illegal" because the planning law clearly stated that all DCC meetings must be held in public.
Dr Gonzi pointed out that Mr Falzon should have taken legal advice before speaking out.
If a decision was not explained, a professional should ask for one instead of simply assuming corruption was the only solution, Dr Gonzi said. "It is very wrong."
The auditor had to understand his statements had "great moral, ethical and legal implications". He had to seek legal advice before making certain statements in order to make sure he was following the principle of natural justice, Dr Gonzi said.
Speaking about the water and electricity rates, which are due to increase again, Dr Gonzi said people and businesses wanted stability in tariffs to be able to plan ahead. Reviewing the tariffs every six months did not allow people to plan ahead but stabilising the rates involved a certain amount of risk. Dr Gonzi explained that oil could be bought in advance for a certain price, at a premium, but nothing could be done if the price dropped.
Specifying that he was not referring to hedging, Dr Gonzi said the government was having talks with experts to see whether there was a way to ensure such stability. The real secret to cut the electricity bills was to use energy-saving measures.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
16 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
j ebejer
Nov 9th 2009, 18:20
@Adrian Borg Cardona. What you are actually saying is that the Development Planning Act should be amended to prohibit such meetings. That is a suggestion which government should consider given the view of the auditor and of other people. The point which I and others are making is that the law AS IT NOW STANDS does not prohibit such meetings, so much so that the Court describes them as perfectly legitimate. The auditor is wrong when he keeps insisting they are illegal. Fllowing the court’s decision, the best he can do is to suggest an amendment to the DPA. Some argue that the Court could be wrong. True but until such time that it is shown otherwise (by another Court), a public officer such as the auditor should respect the decision of the Court, even if he does not agree with it. Ultimately it is the Court which decides what is legal and what isn’t, and nobody else.
victor caruana
Nov 9th 2009, 15:53
Learning from Berlusconi it seems.
Adrian Borg Cardona
Nov 9th 2009, 15:52
According to Dr. Gonzi, the Auditor may not contradict the Magistrate's decision. What will Dr. Gonzi say if on appeal the Court's decision is overturned? Dr. Gonzi and others have commented that the Auditor should not critisize the Court's decision but simply bow his head. But then is it OK for Dr. Gonzi and others to disagree with the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights? According to some bloggers, the meeting between one or two DCC board members and an applicant does not consititute a DCC meeting and so is acceptable. So if one or two judges of the Court of Appeal meet alone with the party to a case, this is acceptable as such meeting does not constitute a sitting of the Court of Appeal. This is a very narrow and dangerous way of looking at these adjudication boards - and leads to justified suspicions of corruption.
g. scerri
Nov 9th 2009, 15:07
Do we now have a new god in Malta? Our Law Courts? If the PM wants people to respect the Law Courts, they have first to respect themselves.
P.Cassar
Nov 9th 2009, 14:06
The trouble for Dr. Gonzi and the blessing for the Maltese is that THE VERY LARGE MAJORITY OF MALTESE ARE ON THE AUDITOR'S SIDE AND VEHEMENTLY SO.
So please heed his message and refrain from attacking the messanger. This strategy is failing and miserably so.
Andrew Calleja
Nov 9th 2009, 13:33
An auditor's duty is to carry out investigations and to reach conclusions based solely on the FACTS he has managed to bring to light. He is obliged to adhere to the FACTS. There is no room for hypothesis in his job – conjecture should only come into play during his investigation and not in his conclusions. It is of the utmost importance that he is seen as balanced and objective during his analysis and has to be extra careful that his deductions do not contain debatable reproach against persons when these are not fully supported by the FACTS.
Moreover, when in reaching his conclusions he himself declares that he is not competent to investigate certain concerns and that he will leave this to the competent authorities, common sense and decency dictate that he should not challenge the conclusions reached by others who have the remit to investigate and decide on such matter.
The Prime Minister is totally right in showing his disapproval of the way the auditor is carrying out his job since he is directly responsible for his office. Nobody is beyond reproach especially when the specifics of the case indicate failures from a person holding this sensitive position.
John Azzopardi
Nov 9th 2009, 12:41
A comment directed to MEPA auditor, Joe Falzon:
If your comments were described by the Hon Prime Minister as "shameful", you should be proud of what you're doing.
Immagina dawn l-affarijiet isiru taht amministrazzjoni ohra: tnejn min-nies li jiddeciedu permess jinharigx jew le... jiltaqghu ma' l-applikant.
"Normal practice" my foot.
Joseph Cauchi
Nov 9th 2009, 11:55
People who hold certain responsible positions in society must be extremely careful and not shoot from the hip.
Any auditor’s remark has a lot of weight and therefore a lot of great discretion is required.
If in doubt they should seek expert advice from the right competent people.
I believe that the MEPA’s auditor Joe Falzon might have been too enthusiastic in his quick remarks and might even regret his abrupt blasts!
Should we take any audit report as Gospel truth and take it for granted that this could not be flawed?
After all, even auditors are humans and they also make mistakes!
Is this a question of who polices the police?
JC.
Louise Vella
Nov 9th 2009, 10:34
With reference to the concluding remark: it seems that the days when people used to make fun of AD as "dawk tal-ambjent" are truly over.
Joe Scerri
Nov 9th 2009, 10:28
I quote from the Times Thursday, 5th November 2009:
"Both Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat yesterday in Parliament expressed their disagreement with a European Court of Human Rights ruling that called for crucifixes to be removed from Italian classrooms."
"I disagree with the decision completely, in the most categorical manner, it does not make sense," Dr Gonzi said
Dear PM are you not contradicting the court's decision here ??
J Farrugia
Nov 9th 2009, 10:24
The MEPA auditor is no god. He is not infallible. His judgements are not necessarily sane or logical. He's not the begining or the end. He's just a common mortal who can err just like you and me. So what's all this promotion to sainthood for this MEPA auditor? One man's food is another man's poison, I hear them say.
J Farrugia
Nov 9th 2009, 10:22
@ James Dimech - neither did I have any confidence in the haphazard planning process which used to be used during labour times when cajpelli used to pass hands. Nor do I have any confidence in any new planning process since someone will cry foul while others will cry with joy.
J. Schembri
Nov 9th 2009, 10:11
I disassociate myself with what Advocate Laurence Gonzi stated here on the Mepa Auditor. He brought shame on the PN with his comments. He threw the PN's principles and values out of the window.
Charles Zammit
Nov 9th 2009, 10:07
Obviously the auditor's view was not music to Dr. Gonzi's ears.
James Dimech
Nov 9th 2009, 10:01
At this point Dr Gonzi, Robert Musumeci and whoever can bring all the technical and legal and arguments they want. We just do not have faith in our country's planning systems anymore whatever they say.
MEPA under PN have thrown environmental ethics in planning and the rule of law down to the dumps. It is useless trying to fix things now.
Well done to Mr Falzon who has the courage to call a spade..a spade.
Duncan Camilleri
Nov 9th 2009, 09:35
Dr. Gonzi should know that Mr. Falzon was only speaking the very obvious.
It seems that only Dr. Gonzi fails to see the web of corruption that has engulfed these so-called authorities, including the MEPA. It would be much better for himself and the party to just shut up and let these allegations be forgotten while trying to deal with them in silence.