http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130826/local/government-mps-demand-ansers-for-abysmal-record-keeping-by-oil-procurement-committee.483670

I mean, just read this.

‘ The issue on the reference in the report to ‘undue ministerial interference’ was first raised by committee chairman Jason Azzopardi, who asked the NAO officials to explain their comment.

The officials said the minister had a duty to set political direction but not to go into a certain level of detail when decisions were taken.

Dr Azzopardi noted that during the period under study, Enemalta profited by €19 million in hedging. Wasn’t that a result of good policy direction?

Mr Charles Deguara, deputy Auditor-General, said the minister’s role stopped at policy level.

Dr Fenech Adami said the audit report spoke of ‘undue interference’ by minister Austin Gatt. That was based on an e-mail sent by the minister to the Risk Management Committee. But procurement decisions were taken by the Oil Procurement Committee.

Nowhere was it said that Dr Gatt issued instructions on oil procurement. Therefore, those who claimed that Dr Gatt interfered in procedures for oil procurement were wrong.

The e-mail by Dr Gatt to the Risk Management Committee communicated a decision by the Cabinet on the parameters to be followed during hedging negotiations. Certain parameters had to be followed.

Article 12 of the Enemalta Corporation Act said the minister may, in relation to matters which affected public interest give the corporation directions of a general or specific character.

Therefore, Dr Fenech Adami said, the law did not preclude the minister from interfering by issuing directions. Indeed, it practically obliged the minister to issue whatever directions were needed of a general or specific character.

This did not amount to ‘undue interference,’ as the audit office had claimed. The minister had done something which the law obliged him to do. “That is a hell of a difference,” Dr Fenech Adami said.

Furthermore, Dr Fenech Adami said, he wondered how the National Audit Office had decided it had the right to censure the minister for exercising his authority as laid down by the law.

The law setting up the Office of the Auditor-General said the audit office could not go into government policies. Therefore, Dr Fenech Adami said, the audit office had acted ultra vires.

Replying, the Auditor-General and his deputy denied Dr Fenech Adami’s claims. NAO never questioned government policy, they said, but once there was a technical committee responsible for oil procurement, the minister should not have issued directions. The minister should be involved in policy, not strategy.’

So, an email outlining cabinet decisions happens to be undue interference. Saving 19 million doesn’t quite cut it.

Then there’s this other funny bones,

‘…Parliamentary Secretary Owen Bonnici noted how in two-emails on risk management, Dr Gatt had told the risk management committee not to exceed a benchmark price for crude oil purchases of $81.80 for 2010. The direction of the government, the minister had said, was price stability.

Dr Bonnci said that that in locking prices at $81.80 as a result of the ministerial direction against technical advice, Malta had lost $3 million because the average market price in 2010 had dropped. Malta made a net gain of $14m in 2010 only thanks to a gain of $17m in foreign exchange transactions.

Dr Fenech Adami said Dr Gatt had not issued instructions to lock prices, but for the committee not to exceed a price of $81.80.’

Bonnici needs English lessons. Thank goodness Beppe can do sums, and read an email.

Honestly Daphne, x’cuc hu Tonio u l-arlogg.

Yes, but they advised him not to.