PL MP Michael Falzon went on a rampage last night during his Parliamentary adjournment speech, attacking the National Audit Office.

The PL MP spoke about the two NAO reports released earlier this week, the first regarding the acquisition of Valletta properties and the second regarding the transfer of the former Löwenbräu brewery site in Qormi.

“I would like to draw everyone’s attention to the inconsistency and political agendas by some of those within the National Audit Office,” he said.

He referred to a response to a Parliamentary Question he had filed, where he requested a list of pending reports on special investigations. “The four cases that were put forward by government were going to be put into one report,” he said. “More than this, the names of the cases weren’t even mentioned. The NAO intended to put four cases into one report to confuse things”.

“In a letter written by Auditor General Charles Deguara in July this year, he said that the office is intensifying its work on the investigations and plans to publish the investigations as a single report by the end of year”.

The PL MP said that between 2008 and 2016 there was never a single instance of more than one case being placed into a single report, yet twice “the Auditor General states that they would put it into a single report”.

“In the end he realised that you can go quite low, but then there is a limit as to how low one can go”.

“The truth is that the NAO has two faces, depending on who they are dealing with”.

He drew the Speaker’s attention to a certain individual “known for his political motivation” stating that the Auditor General at the time Anthony Mifsud and his then deputy Charles Deguara also had their attention drawn to the situation. “In response to whether they would take action or not, they said that internal situations are sorted out confidentially. The NAO is supposed to guarantee transparency, yet where they want hides behind the constitution”.

There is clear political motivation, he said.

He asked the NAO through another Parliamentary Question: “whose agenda does the office follow, what they investigate and when. I don’t expect for a year to pass between the Old Mint Street report to come out and a year pass for the other four reports”.

“I am asking the speaker’s intervention asking what the reason was for the NAO to say on more than one occasion that separate cases would fall into one report”.

He questioned why two reports were presented five days before Christmas, two days before Parliament shuts down for the holidays.

“In the Old Mint Street report, in which I hold that I was not involved, they let Christmas and the New Year pass, and halfway through January, the Times, five days before the report is presented, state that the report will be presented. This is shameful”.

He asked when the other two reports will be presented, “perhaps in Easter?”

Turning to the content of one of the reports, he said that whoever wrote certain parts of the report was a mental gymnast. He quoted from the report. “In response to the request to check whether political pressure was exerted, the NAO did not obtain conclusive evidence, but the NAO established that political direction was manifested in terms of the identification”. This, he said, meant there was no political pressure, but there was political intervention. “The NAO is basically saying listen, this is not a hmar but this is a donkey”.

He went on to read: “Subsequent interventions by the Prime Minister, and the Parliamentary Secretary for Revenue and Land, despite concerns raised by the Permanent Secretary for Finance as to whether government was paying a fair price were noted by the NAO”.

“So it's true,” he said, “that certain reports are written for gods, and some for livestock. I would like to know what this political interference was,” he said.

Referring to the Old Mint Street scandal, he said: “In one report, when one signs off on an expropriation, that is referred to as ‘readily facilitated’. Then having clear political direction against the Permanent Secretary of the Finance Ministry, then there nothing happened”.

Turning to the Qormi report, he said that the emphyteusis conditions were removed without government taking anything in. “More so, government took nearly €700,000 yet the land is estimated to be worth around €9 million”.

“How can anyone sell anything in 2012, yet the value request is that of 1990. This report states that certain political responsibility should be carried”, he said.

PN Reaction 

The Nationalist Party has denounced the "fierce attack" that former Parliamentary Secretary Michael Falzon launched against the Auditor General and his staff during Parliament.

 The contemptuous words Mr Falzon used such as  "low", "scum" and "obscene" loses any argument and only seeks to weaken an independent institution who is trying to do its work without interference, the PN said.

 The Labour Party has its back against the wall when defending its corruption and has ended up attacking the Auditor General since they have found nothing wrong with Jason Azzopardi, the statement read.