Lessons from an embarrassing experience

A report of an inquiry by the Auditor General into the issue of the honorarium paid to ministers over and above the salary they received for the posts they hold has described the case as “embarrassing” and, also, as “a good example of bad practice”. Even though the Audit Office found no evidence of illegal misappropriation of public funds, the verdict confirms the people’s general opinion that the government had erred badly.

What irked most was the secret manner in which the Cabinet members had gone about awarding themselves the payment of the honorarium in addition to their salary and the rise in duty allowance. The revised remuneration package had been agreed upon soon after the election but the taxpayer was not properly informed about it.

Equally disturbing was the fact that, while the ministers and parliamentary secretaries had begun receiving the honorarium at the increased rate as from 2008, the rest of the MPs, as well as the Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker, had remained without the rise.

Although there have been other hot issues dominating the national agenda since then, including the badly-handled public transport reform, the honorarium fiasco is unlikely to be forgotten.

One of the aims of the inquiry was to ascertain whether any illegal misappropriation of public funds was involved and whether the procedure applied was in conformity with the financial regulations.

The National Audit Office concluded that, although best practice demands that relative funds should have been appropriated and, subsequently, accounted for under a different incidence of charge, no evidence of illegal misappropriation of public funds was found. The office feels that the principle that ministers and parliamentary secretaries receive one single payment, incorporating all amounts due to them, cannot be termed incorrect.

However, it also argues that, from an accounting perspective, a transfer voucher to source the honoraria payments from the respective ministry’s recurrent vote, from where they were charged in the first instance, to the Parliament’s vote should have then been made by all ministries.

The office also made a number of recommendations, one of which should have been considered elementary. This is that Cabinet decisions involving parliamentary remuneration are communicated to Parliament, as used to be done before, to avoid any potential misunderstanding.

Actually, there are more proper ways how to deal with salary rises to ministers, MPs and political office holders. Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat is proposing, for instance, the working out of a mechanism that would lay down the remuneration levels. He has also pledged that, if elected, his party in government would withdraw the rise given to ministers.

Another recommendation made by the Audit Office is that taxpayers should be duly informed of any increases. After all, it is the taxpayer who pays the MPs’ salaries, allowances and honoraria.

The government had admitted its mistake and the ministers and parliamentary secretaries are now refunding the rise given in the honorarium, which they are keeping over and above the salary they get.

While the Audit Office hopes that lessons have been learned from the embarrassing experience, the taxpayer, no doubt, justifiably expects that any exercise involved in awarding salary and honorarium increases to ministers and MPs will be acceptable and totally transparent.