In his late 30s, PN secretary-general Paul Borg Olivier feels old enough to talk to the people as a father talks to an errant child. But he remains apprehensive about next year’s MEP elections

James Debono

Seven months after an electoral victory, four months since his own election as party secretary-general and a few days after the party’s first post-electoral general council, Paul Borg Olivier thinks that with some “cushioning”, the government will be able to steer the country through the stormy waters of the global recession.
This seems to jar with the tone set before the election, when people were told that the country’s finances were solidly protected by a ‘safe pair of hands’. Now, they are being asked to make up for Enemalta’s deficit by paying more for their water and electricity bills. So... wasn’t all the pre-electoral rhetoric deceptive?
“The country’s finances are indeed solid,” Borg Olivier replies. “That is why we can now take bold decisions in favour of education, the environment and job creation. But there is the international reality determined by the price of oil and cereals.”
Paul Borg Olivier defends what he terms his party’s ‘consistency’ before and after the election.
“Even in the middle of the electoral campaign, the Prime Minister warned that there was a storm on the horizon and that we need a safe pair of hands to protect us from the storm.”
Yet at the same time Gonzi, who prophetically warned us that a storm was on the horizon, had the audacity to promise drastic tax cuts. Wasn’t this contradictory?
“In the electoral programme, there is no promise that income tax will be revised in the first year after the election. What we can surely say is that in the last two years a Nationalist government did change income tax rates to the taxpayer’s benefit. ”
But Borg Olivier promises that the Nationalist Party will act like “government’s conscience” to ensure that it is implemented.
“But it has to be implemented at the appropriate time. Today is not the opportune time.”
But is this not a repeat performance of the political cycle characterising all Nationalist administrations since 1987, where the first three years of each administration are characterised by blood and tears, while the final two years are left for the government to buy its way back to power? Is this not a case of taking people for a ride?
“I disagree with this argument that the government has a strategy of first being tough and than to dispense money in the final year. The government is only exercising thrift.”
In his paternalistic frame of mind, the PN’s secretary-general compares the government’s thrift to that of a father saving money for his daughter before her marriage.
“But is this not what people do when they are saving money for their daughter before she gets married or when she buys a new car? Should we exercise thrift to ensure that we have money for the future? The government has a five-year programme.”
But he points out that it is not just a case of electioneering.
“Had all our considerations been electoral we would have introduced rent reform before the election.”
Would that not have irked tenants in rent-controlled properties?
“Definitely not the case, because today there are more owners than tenants.”
Another well-known Nationalist strategy is that of making apocalyptic announcements which scare everyone out of their wits, only to have them toned down when they are actually announced. Is this not an effective psychological tool, to prepare the public for shock decisions?
Borg Olivier rebuts this argument as a “cliché”.
But is this not exactly what is happening now with the government talking about phasing in the new water and electricity tariffs. Couldn’t the government have proposed a phasing in of the new tariffs when it announced them?
For Borg Olivier, this is simply an example of dialogue à la PN.
“This is this what we mean by dialogue… The government went to MCESD with five tough proposals. Yet from day one, the government declared that it was willing to take up the sixth proposal if it is viable. Let’s hope that there is a sixth proposal...”
He contrasts the PN’s ability to take tough decisions to the MLP’s failure to come with a realistic proposal.
“On the present proposals on electricity tariffs the MLP remains in the dark. Or it prefers to keep the people in the dark on its proposals. It’s the easiest thing to do to be critical. But it is not making any proposal.”
Yet a month ago Austin Gatt gave the clear impression that the government would not backtrack on its commitment to recover all of Enemalta’s costs.
“The principle will remain the same. We remain committed to recovering all costs. Yet we are willing to cushion the impact. We want to be sensitive towards those affected and towards the needs of industry. It’s like buying a new car for your son, and asking him to pay it back in three years instead of one.”
But does the logic of doing away with all subsidies contrast with the prevailing common sense that governments should intervene by pumping money into the economy and desist from stringent fiscal criteria?
But Borg Olivier sees a role for government only as far as cushioning the impact on industry.
“The tough decisions have to be taken, but the cushioning effect is also necessary. Our reaction to cushion the impact must be seen in the light of the present situation. Yet we cannot behave like ostriches.”
But is it wise to make people and industry pay more at a time of global recession?
Cleverly, Borg Olivier replies to this question by showing off his party’s new green attire, linking the government’s decision to make people pay the full cost of energy use to its efforts to promote energy conservation.
“We should not do like those countries in Europe who tried to use the current international crisis as an excuse not to dilute their commitments on climate change. The new tariff system is aimed at ensuring that the polluter pays. This is the only way of introducing a morality in consumption.”
What does this new morality consist of?
“It is like a father who used to lend his car to his son. As long as the son uses it for free he remains carefree, using it go for the gym and to anywhere he likes as he is not paying for the petrol. But if instead of lending the car for free, the father lends his son money to buy a new car, the son will soon realise that petrol costs money.”
According to Borg Olivier the government’s new challenge is to ensure that quality of life is not undermined although consumption is decreased.
“This can only be done through more incentives for alternative energy.”
Paul Borg Olivier gives another reason why subsidies to Enemalta should stop.
“Just as subsidies for the dockyard were stopped, so should subsidies to Enemalta. In this way we will have money for the environment, education and job creation. It is in these sectors that we should invest our money.”
But it is ultimately the government’s fiscal discipline which enables it to cushion the impact of tough decisions like the privatisation of the dockyard.
“We are only able to cushion the social impact of tough decisions like the privatisation of the dockyard because our finances are solid and we can afford to spend money in retirement schemes to cushion the impact.”
So what’s the role of the Nationalist party in the next five years?
Borg Olivier wants the Dar Centrali to become an “agora of politics” where dialogue takes place.
“We cannot rest on our laurels. The party’s electoral programme has become a programme for the country. Our responsibility as a party is that of ensuring that this programme is implemented. But we cannot stop there. We need to continue sowing new ideas which have to be inserted according to present day circumstances.”
The PN’s latest document speaks of the need for better balance between work and family life. Is this not just hot air for the people who have to work extra hours to pay the bills?
“The family is the basis of society and therefore the party’s policy. Our vision is to continue strengthening the family. But these are not just words. There are 2,000 persons in the public sector benefiting from flexible hours and other family friendly measures. There are 1,000 employees with reduced hours to have more time with their families.”
Still, we have the lowest maternity leave in the European Union...
“This is a policy which we want to strengthen. We are promoting a policy which opens new opportunities for women to join the workforce while trying to promote family friendly work practices.”
There is no mention of cohabitation rights in the PN’s latest document. Neither was there any reference to cohabitation in the electoral programme. Is this an indication that the party is still lukewarm on this issue?
“Granting rights to cohabiting couples is part and parcel of the government’s programme. It was part of the President’s speech from the throne. There is no doubt on this.”
The PN’s electoral programme promised that “appointments to government boards will be made after a public call for applications.”
Yet the government keeps on appointing PN activists and candidates in its boards. Will the party call on the government to respect its commitment?
Paul Borg Olivier still believes that this commitment should be honoured.
“The fact that people were appointed without a public call is because we still lack a regulatory framework. In the absence of this framework we cannot refrain from making appointments.”
But ultimately Borg Olivier believes that appointments should remain a prerogative of government.
“We need to find a workable balance between governing effectively and meritocracy. It would be a recipe for disaster to have an entity composed of people with no other loyalty but towards themselves. But at the same time we have to be meritocratic. One can have a public call to see who is interested in a particular post but the ultimate prerogative to appoint people on boards should remain that of the government.”
When asked about his party’s prospects on these elections, Borg Olivier unleashes a verbal attack on Joseph Muscat’s EU credentials.
“The MLP and its leader Joseph Muscat have changed their policy on the EU. It only took one sentence for Joseph Muscat to change his views on Europe but it took him at least hours of debates and pages of newspaper comments to speak against the EU. Joseph Muscat was the mastermind of the plot against Europe. Joseph Muscat was his master’s voice. He described the European Union as the ‘cross of the millennium’ (salib tal-millennju), as if it was the worst disaster ever... even worse than the Second World War or the Great Siege.”
He compares this to the PN’s European credentials.
“We are the most consistent pro-European party. The past four years are testimony of this. In four years, €400 million have been committed. We have completed 70 EU-funded projects costing €230 million. Thirty other projects have been committed. We have delivered these to the people. The people should make the comparison on which party is really pro EU.”
But does the PN’s victory in 2003 give it a divine right to win these European elections?
While denying that this is the case, Borg Olivier goes one step further by taking full partisan ownership over the referendum result.
“The people have a right to vote for whoever they like. In 2004, the MLP won a majority of seats in the European elections. We respected the verdict of this election. A year before the PN won the referendum which was not respected by the MLP.”
Is he scared that the PN is heading towards a repeat performance of 2004?
“We have to work hard for this not to happen. But now there is a difference. The people have by now seen the positive effects of EU membership. And this is a success of the Nationalist party. It was the euro which saved us from the current financial crisis. It was Muscat who said that it was too early to adopt the euro. This shows that the PN is consistent and is full of substance. Our efforts in the next eight months will be to take merit for the policies we have consistently advocated for the past years.”

PRINT THIS ARTICLE