Parliament derives its authority in virtue of its representative nature. This is a constitutional principle enshrined in the 1215 Magna Carta between John, King of England, and his rebellious barons. "No taxation without representation" are the words enshrined in the charter by those who were fed up of being fleeced by their King in order to finance his wars.
It follows, from this general constitutional authority of Parliament to determine the level of taxation, that it is also empowered to ensure that the taxes collected are adequately applied. In these 800 years this constitutional principle has been gradually entrenched as being basic to democratic government, everywhere.
In carrying out its duty to ensure adequate financial administration Parliament is assisted by its officers. The Auditor-General, in this respect, is on the frontline. The Public Accounts Committee too plays an important role. That, however, applies when it is not in the mood for political posturing!
Government has to seek Parliament's approval of its financial plans. But it has also to give account of its spending and general administration to Parliament. Parliament has to hold government continuously to account. A matter which at times is not at all clear in view of the fact that our Parliament is made up of the representatives of just two political parties. The members of parliament belonging to the party in government, unfortunately, as a general rule, do not hold government to account. Most of them are afraid that if they speak up, if they do their duty, they can say goodbye to their career progression. History provides us with a multitude of examples, proving that this is certainly the case. It is definitely one of the many negative consequences of two-party Parliament. Hopefully we can be in a position to address this in the not-too-distant future.
In this context the role of the officers of Parliament, namely the Auditor-General, the Commissioner for Standards in Public Life as well as the Ombudsman, is more important than ever. They have to compensate for the lack of a substantial section of Parliament which continuously abdicates its responsibilities in holding government to account.
It is for this reason that, earlier this week, on behalf of ADPD-The Green Party, I have once more requested the Auditor-General to investigate the operations of Government. This time it is the turn of Project Green. An agency which was primarily established in order to implement the project of increasing the footprint of green open spaces on the islands.
The agencies of government do not form part of a different republic. They are broadly subject to the same rules of operation as the rest of the public sector. It is not a free for all. Even the agencies of government and their officers are accountable for their operations and use of public funds.
The Shift News has published a couple of investigative stories on the operations of Project Green.
One of them was published this week and entails the dishing out of a direct order to the tune of one million euro to cover an architect's professional fees relative to a car park in an area originally earmarked for the American University at Cospicua. It was reported that this was decided by Joseph Cuschieri, CEO of Project Green. Now Project Green, a government agency, is not exempt from the Public Procurement Regulations. Unless an emergency has unknowingly cropped up, a public competitive tender is required in such a case. Why flout the rules? I have heard some ridiculous explanations for this direct order. Explanations which, if correct, make matters even worse than they appear at first glance.
The second case published some weeks ago involves the employment at Project Green of some 19 managers at exorbitant pay rates. These managers are described by The Shift News as "primarily friends and acquaintances" of Joseph Cuschieri, CEO of Project Green. As far as I am aware, Project Green, as part of the wider public sector, is subject to regulations on recruitment which were enacted in terms of the Public Administration Act, particularly the manual attached to what is known as the civil service Directive 7.
This is not the way to run a government agency. But then Mr Cuschieri is no ordinary CEO: tried and tested he was found to be ethically deficient. Some years back he resigned from the post of CEO of the Financial Services regulator on the same day that a report reviewing his operations was presented to the Board of Governors of the Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA). The review was authored by a Board presided over by Chief Justice Emeritus Joseph Azzopardi, currently Commissioner for Standards in Public Life.
The review report delved deeply into Cuschieri's work ethics and found various instances of ethical breaches: specifically, blatant conflict of interest.
In the light of the above the workings of Project Green should be examined meticulously by the Auditor-General to ascertain the manner in which public funds are being used and abused and also to ascertain the role of nepotism as a recruitment policy of the agency.
An architect and civil engineer, the author is a former Chairperson of ADPD-The Green Party in Malta.