Malta’s guardian of the public purse, the National Audit Office, is alive and kicking, throwing the spotlight on matters that fall short of what is generally expected to ensure good governance. It seems busier than ever, which in a way shows that this key constitutional institution in the democratic process is working well, fulfilling its function to bring those responsible for shortcomings to account for their actions.
As the Gaffarena property scandal rages on, the public is becoming increasingly aware of the important role the audit office is playing in the promotion of accountability, propriety and best practices in government operations. Unfortunately, however, there are times when politicians torpedo the work of the auditor through ill-advised criticism, such as that made by former parliamentary secretary Michael Falzon, following the office’s damning report on the scandalous Gaffarena property deal.
His attack on the audit office was both undignified and unwarranted. However, sadly, but not unsurprisingly, he was not censured either by the government or the party to which he belongs. This was a mistake of the first order as it indirectly undermined the standing of a constitutional office essential to the democratic process.
It makes no sense either to attempt to justify such an attack by bringing up times when the Nationalist Party in government did the same. Unwarranted attacks on the audit office are reprehensible, whichever quarter they come from.
Other than the report on the Gaffarena land deal, the audit office recently also published its annual performance report on government departments and, lately, the audits of contractual agreements involving two NGOs, the Inspire Foundation and Conservatorio Vinenzo Bugeja.
The contracts the government had entered into with the two organisations, one offering services to the disabled and the other providing residential homes for adolescents, were found to be inadequate as, in the audit office’s view, they did not fulfil their function as the primary point of reference in contentious issues between the two parties.
Since quite some time has passed since the contractual agreements with one of the NGOs were entered into, it is more than reasonable to expect that any shortcoming found has by now been seen to and remedied. The advice in both cases was for the parties to fine tune the agreements in order to minimise the likelihood of misinterpretation and ensure the wellbeing of those who use their services.
Far more preoccupying were the findings of the performance audits in government departments and the local councils, which, as in previous years, reveal shortcomings that are often unacceptable. For example, an audit of expenditure at the Office of the Prime Minister revealed instances of lack of adherence to public procurement regulations.
This is a most serious matter, particularly in a ministry that should lead by example. The audit office found shortcomings in matters relating to inventory and general-use vehicles as well as in compliance with fiscal obligations.
A number of councils do not appear to be making any improvement at all in so far as good governance is concerned. On the contrary, the parliamentary secretary responsible for the councils has described the situation as “very worrying”. He has now warned councils operating haphazardly that as from next year he plans to bring the law to bear on errant councils.
Healthy economic indicators may camouflage maladministration but if shortcomings are not checked in time they may grow to an extent that they could jeoparidise further progress.