Tracing the labour market back to Independence days, the Leader of the Opposition burst the employment bubble which the Gonzi administration has been blowing for a number of months.
While Gonzi has insisted that his government had a record in job creation, Dr Alfred Sant explained that Gonzi was the Prime Minister to have created the fewest full-time jobs. The labour market has shifted from providing full-time jobs to a pattern where part-time employment was ruling the day. And when it came to part-timers the government did not provide anything for them in the budget. He elaborated on the slogan: Too Little, Too Late, explaining that it was ‘too little’ when compared to the huge millions that the Maltese were asked to fork out during the last three years.
The government had collected more than Lm600m in taxation placing Malta among the most heavily taxed countries in the EU. At the same time it was also ‘too little’ in economic growth compared to the EU benchmark. Eurostat had placed Malta at the bottom of the list among the countries which had created new jobs. To add insult to injury we had one of the lowest incomes among our European partners. This led the government to a panic on the eve of a general election and prompted him to dish out a few million liri, to regain popularity and attract lost votes.
The Leader of the Opposition listed the many broken promises the government had made among which were the building of various schools, a park at Marsascala, a centre for the cure of animals, the development of Zammit Clapp Hospital, the curtailment of the operations waiting list and many others which also feature as projects in this year’s budget.
To highlight the lack of ideas in government quarters, Sant mentioned at least 13 proposals in the budget speech which were taken lock, stock and barrel (‘cut and paste’) from the MLP’s own proposals already published in book form under the title Pjan ghal Bidu Gdid (Plan for a New Beginning). He gave a long list of examples ranging from the extension of maternity leave by one week, to exemptions from VAT to sport and cultural organisations, the establishment of an animal care centre and assistance to voluntary animal sanctuaries, housing aid to youngsters, etc. Government, said Sant, had no ideas and it could only borrow his party’s plans to make good for the creative deficiency. An old government should be replaced by a party who had been working on its plans for the last three years.
Throughout his speech Sant explained the Labour programme. A Labour government would address the anomalies of certain government employees employed in the 1970s and would adjust the pension of those who had a foreign pension. In accordance with EU laws, his government would reduce VAT on education and would establish regional sixth forms. The water and electricity surcharge would be halved. He explained that the country would afford this expense if the government would eliminate waste and corruption.
Delving in children’s allowance he criticised the Nationalist government for grabbing children’s allowance from many families and that the re-introduction of it in this year’s budget was the result of panic. A new Labour government would improve children’s allowance by raising it to the levels of 1995, the year when the Nationalist government had massively reduced it.
The Labour leader explained that a Labour government would re-introduce the ‘lost holidays’ which fall on a Saturday or Sunday adding that this would not affect the country’s competitiveness. Competitiveness would grow as a result of a holistic approach to the economy by removing bureaucracy and reduce unnecessary government induced costs. Certain important medicines bought by pensioners would be provided for free by the government. The cost of living would be controlled by an agency geared to protect consumers’ rights.
‘There are measures which do not cost money’, explained Sant, highlighting a zero tolerance for corruption which was eating into the countries hard earned resources. For a Labour government everyone was important and the talents of all the Maltese would be utilised to the full. While workers’ rights would be protected, the private sector would be encouraged and assisted to continue flourishing.
Alfred Sant’s speech was conspicuous for its content. In a calm way he criticised the government with style and his various suggestions of how the country could move forward are a first in Maltese politics. The only moment where he appeared a little bit angry was when he made reference to the government’s promise of introducing breast screening when government fully knew it had no infrastructure to do so. He accused the government of immorality in making such empty promises. The professionals at St Luke’s Hospital had not been consulted and had declared publicly that they did not have the means to honour the government’s promise.
They did not mince their words and emphasised that a thorough breast screening programme could only be provided after all apparatus and trained staff were in place. Sant’s speech was constructive, forward looking and imaginative; we expect more of the kind from other political leaders.