Greens press for MHRA eco-tax contract

ADPD has demanded publication of an agreement that gives the Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association a role in administering the tourism eco-contribution, calling it a conflict of interest and another broken promise to local councils.

The issue is not that MHRA collects the tax into its own accounts. Its chief executive, Andrew Agius Muscat, told Newsbook that contributions go directly into the Malta Tourism Authority’s bank account and that the association’s role is limited to reporting, reconciliation, collection support and related operations. The issue is who government chose to place inside the machinery of a levy paid by the same industry that MHRA exists to represent.

According to Newsbook, the agreement was signed with the Malta Tourism Authority in April 2026 and approved by Finance Minister Clyde Caruana. It was not publicised, and the financial terms have not been disclosed. MHRA president Tony Zahra confirmed the arrangement but did not provide those details.

That matters because the eco-contribution is no minor administrative stream. Budget 2027 raised the nightly charge from €1.50 to €8 for hotels and €10 for short-lets from January, with government estimating €214 million in revenue. MHRA has publicly opposed that increase on competitiveness grounds. Even if the association has no control over the money once it is paid, ADPD’s point is narrower and stronger than some party rhetoric usually is: a lobby group for liable businesses should not be embedded in the administration of the same charge without full public scrutiny.

Government has left itself an obvious question and no public answer. Why was this function outsourced or shared with an industry body at all, and under what terms? An agreement can be lawful and still be a poor institutional choice. Secrecy does not help the case.

ADPD chairperson Sandra Gauci tied the deal to a second failure: local councils are still waiting for the 50 cents from each €1.50 charge that had previously been promised to them. That criticism goes to use of revenue rather than collection mechanics, but the two now meet in the same place. Central government retained control of the money, councils did not get the share they were told to expect, and an industry association was given an operational role under a contract the public could not inspect.

MHRA appears to have recognised the political problem, if not the principle. Agius Muscat said the association had already asked for a review of the agreement to ensure the Budget 2027 changes do not create any unintended benefit.

That is not the same as publishing the contract. If ministers are confident there is no conflict and no special advantage, the quickest way to prove it is to release the document, including its financial terms. Until then, the public is being asked to trust an arrangement it was not told existed.