Infrastructure Minister Austin Gatt has accused The Times of coming to “contradictory and baseless conclusions” after he was asked questions about why he objected to witnesses being called to appear before a Public Accounts Committee meeting regarding the controversial BWSC contract.
Dr Gatt argued during a PAC sitting that calling witnesses would undermine the Auditor General, who investigated the case for 11 months and presented a report.
The Times pointed out that Dr Gatt himself had criticised the report.
Reacting to the report’s conclusion that the former Enemalta chairman should have resigned due to his conflict of interest, Dr Gatt said last April the Auditor seemed to have “not even read the law”.
The minister was also asked about his call, in 2006, for the Auditor to be probed following his investigation into radio station Voice of the Mediterranean. In that case, witnesses were allowed to testify before the PAC.
Dr Gatt did not answer most of the questions put by The Times but said: “I have made my reasons known to the committee. The simple fact of the matter is the committee asked the Auditor General to investigate and the Auditor did so. The Auditor reached his conclusions, which were then debated in the House.”
“I don’t recall anyone saying the Auditor did an unsatisfactory job,” he added.
He argued that Labour’s request to undertake the investigation all over again expressed “distrust” in the Auditor and his office, a sentiment he and his Nationalist colleagues did not share.
“The Prime Minister has more than once stated that if there is anyone who has anything to report, he should immediately inform the Commissioner of Police. That no one has done so, speaks volumes. That the Labour Party now wants to become the Commissioner of Police says it all.”
He added: “All other remarks you make are conjecture at best, blatant spin at worst and a clear misunderstanding of what the PAC was set up to do.”
The Times also asked Dr Gatt why the government was resisting the interviewing of witnesses if the Auditor had noted some were uncooperative.
The questions
1) In his BWSC report, the Auditor General had said Enemalta chairman Alex Tranter should have resigned from his post due to a conflict of interest over the power station extension. But, last April, Dr Gatt said the Auditor “does not seem to have read the law” on this issue. Was not this undermining the Auditor General? How is it different from having a parallel investigation? Moreover, in light of this previous criticism of the Auditor General, why is the minister now so convinced the Auditor could not have done a better job in other aspects of the investigation? Wouldn’t going through the witnesses who, the Auditor himself admitted were problematic, make the scrutiny process more effective?
2) The Auditor General had noted that some witnesses said they had forgotten various aspects of the negotiations or did not cooperate in their interviews. In light of this, doesn’t Dr Gatt feel the PAC should see if they will speak when interviewed at parliamentary level in an open forum? Why would this process undermine the Auditor General if he himself said he was not given full cooperation?
3) In 2006, Dr Gatt called for an investigation to probe the Audit Office’s conduct in its analysis of the Voice of the Mediterranean issue. Why was it acceptable to undermine the Auditor General’s work then but not now? And why was it acceptable to interview witnesses then too?
4) The move to block the witness interviews could be seen as motivated by the government’s fear of further scrutiny on this issue. How do you respond to this? Isn’t it in the government’s interest to quash the allegations once and for all?