|
The current controversy raging between MaltaToday and Government rotates around one fundamental issue namely whether the surcharge on utilities imposed in the budget truly reflects the increase in the fuel oil (not to be confused with crude oil) prices in the last year.
The undeniable facts indicate that fuel oil was cheaper in 2004 than in 2003.
Can government justify the surcharge of 17 percent on electricity and water tariffs on the basis of the prevailing increases in crude oil prices?
MaltaToday has stated and reconfirms its belief that the surcharge was not introduced to reflect the prevailing increases in the price of oil. Prior to the budget the Government, aided by its Party media machine, meticulously put in motion a communications strategy preparing the public for the eventual announcement of the introduction of a surcharge on utilities. This surcharge was repeatedly justified on the basis of a direct increase in the price of oil.
MaltaToday at no stage denied that crude oil prices were increasing but as custodians of the public interest lay bear a number of relevant points. At no point, prior to the explosion of the controversy did government make any reference at all to the different types of oil Enemalta imports, no reference at all was ever made to the type of oil used for generating electricity. Indeed none of the minutes of details relating to the mechanism of the purchasing of oil were at any stage made known to a public that, in the meantime, is being asked to foot an increased utility bill. The public was not taken into the government’s confidence prior to the story being made known by MaltaToday. It now transpires that government acted on the basis of a commissioned report drawn up by PricewaterhouseCoopers, only publicised and made known after and in response to our story. Revealingly, the report includes a disclaimer whereby the auditing firm escalpates itself from any responsibility for figures provided by the ministry. Importantly, the report benchmarks today’s prices of oil and Enemalta Corporation costs with the 1999 costs when the utility rates were reviewed downwards. It would appear that in a like manner government, with the benefit of the report, privately based its argument on 1999 increases yet publicly based its arguments on today’s increases in oil. Herein lies government’s deceit. We fear that government is simply using the increase in crude oil prices as a pretext to introduce the surcharge while the true reason for the increase in utility rates are the losses that Enemata has incurred since 1999. Yet again it is the consumer that is being asked to foot the bill for the inefficiencies of a government corporation. This is the irrefutable truth and no hysterical government press releases will change this reality. Spin-doctors may consider it their role to manage perceptions; MaltaToday reconfirms its total commitment to acting as the custodian of the public interest.
The facts speak for themselves. There is irrefutable proof that the price of fuel oil utilised by Enemalta was more expensive in 2003 than 2004. The value of the dollar, the currency in which oil is purchased has weakened since 1999. As a consequence the justification of the surcharge on prevailing crude oil prices is erroneous and deceptive. Government must come clean with the public by means of an inquiry.
The public is all too often being squeezed financially to subsidise public sector mismanagement and over-manning costs. Government must go back to the drawing board, it must rethink its surcharge policy with the same attention to detail that it gave when it span the increases in the prevailing prices of crude oil as the reason for the introduction of the surcharge. We are encouraged that the social partners too are now demanding an explanation on fuel prices. However it is disturbing to note that none of the social partners had the time and the sense to interpret or ask about the data presented to them by government. This reflects very poorly on the social partners acting as guarantors of the public.
MaltaToday has every intention to carry on acting as the custodian of the public interest.
|
