Public officials should obviously never use their position to gain advantage for their private interests. Conflicts of interest damage trust in institutions, as well as in individuals. A perceived or potential conflict of interest can sometimes be as harmful as an actual one.
Private interests cannot always be avoided. That is why it is so important for any conflicts of interest to be managed properly. It is crucial that public officials always make their interests known, and do not try to disguise or downplay them, so that when complex situations arise, they can be handled correctly.
The Panama Papers scandal, linked to Minister Without Portfolio Konrad Mizzi and the Prime Minister’s chief of staff Keith Schembri, still casts a long shadow. The promised audit has not materialised and people are not satisfied with the explanations given so far. Once personal reputation and integrity are dented, defending a difficult position is harder.
Therefore, facing questions last week about an alleged conflict of interest on the Crane Currency deal that has just been struck by the government, it was not that easy for Joseph Muscat to shrug journalists off. If Schembri could gain something privately from this initiative, even if this benefit has yet to materialise, then his position is problematic.
Journalists immediately identified a potential conflict of interest for Schembri in this investment, in which he was instrumental, since his private company is the agent for a supplier of the type of machinery involved. Muscat denied it flatly and said he has “no clue” whether Schembri stands to benefit. When Crane Currency eventually choose their suppliers and maintenance providers, many eyes will surely be scrutinising the matter with interest.
If Keith Schembri could gain something privately from this initiative, even if this benefit has yet to materialise, then his position is problematic
Recognising conflicts of interest is not rocket science and reasonable people can grasp the essence of it without special training. There is also plenty of literature on the subject providing case studies, guidelines and even toolkits.
The OECD defines it as “a conflict between the public duty and the private interest of an official, in which the private-capacity interest could improperly influence the performance of their official duties and responsibilities”.
The public official concerned should take action – for example, by alerting others to his or her interests, and ideally by withdrawing entirely from the decision process, including any liaisons or preparation for the decision, its negotiation, and its management or implementation later on.
Even if nothing untoward actually occurs, the mere potential or perception of conflicting interests coming into play is enough for warning bells to sound. The public, together with the press, naturally watch the behaviour and actions of their elected leaders, as they should do, and a loss of trust is hard to overcome.
■ A considerable number of protected birds have already been shot illegally this autumn. The decision whether to close the season has been shifted onto the Ornis committee.
When in 2007 then environment minister George Pullicino had closed the spring hunting season due to illegal hunting of honey buzzards, he did not ask Ornis. When Prime Minister Joseph Muscat closed the season last spring after a kestrel was shot and fell into a school playground, he did not ask Ornis either.
The difference in the present approach is palpable. Like the government, the Opposition is also not pushing for closure of the season, but only for better enforcement.
While the EU watches spring hunting like, ahem, a hawk, it is not as vigilant about autumn hunting. As birds return to their breeding grounds in spring, hunting is prohibited by the EU in that season.
Malta applies a derogation to bypass this rule in spring, and is at constant risk of legal action if the strict criteria are not adhered to. Not so for autumn hunting, hence the more relaxed response from our authorities in spite of the current spate of illegal hunting.
Where is Jose Herrera in all this? After all, he is Environment Minister and hunting falls within his portfolio. All roads seem to begin and end at Castille.
■ The new initiative to oblige the developers of high-rise projects to donate money to the arts community ranks among the most cynical forms of compensation I have yet seen in the planning sector. People involved in arts and culture have a tendency to take an interest in environmental and heritage issues.
Allow me to spoil the setting of the heritage city of Valletta, and I will pay for bread and games and Notte Bianca in Republic Street. I am all in favour of substantial investment in arts and culture, but this source of funding, at this juncture with such a heated controversy in the air, is inappropriate.
One reason why these huge projects are controversial is that they can create serious inconveniences for residents. Why not direct similar funds towards parking facilities or other amenities and embellishments near Tigné in Sliema, whose residents will actually face the problem?
petracdingli@gmail.com