Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1245222
PHOTO BY JAMES BIANCHI 8 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 10 MAY 2020 INTERVIEW Government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic included a number of financial packag- es aimed at re-stimulating the economy. However, these pack- ages have been criticised (by the constituted bodies, among others) for overlooking certain sectors. What is the Nationalist Party's position on the govern- ment's economic recovery pro- gramme? First of all, the government is- sued three economic packages in sequence… but the first wasn't really a 'package' at all. It was when government first intro- duced quarantine measures. At the time, it announced that an- yone who was forced to go into quarantine would be compensat- ed… but the onus was placed on the employers. So it wasn't really a government aid measure. The second package was de- scribed by government as 'very generous', among many other adjectives… but my first reaction was that it wasn't going to save or help anybody. All the same, government spent the next 48 hours talking about this package as if it were something out of this world… when we had the expe- rience of other countries which were giving immediate, direct financial assistance to companies that were in danger of bankrupt- cy. Later, when government saw that all the constituted bodies had come out with the same po- sition as ours - because we spoke to them, we didn't just decide it was a poor package ourselves – it realised there was a problem. This is why I described the gov- ernment as 'reactive': because it only took action after it saw that things were already collapsing. In business, your biggest ene- my is uncertainty: not knowing how long the situation will last, whether you'll be able to recov- er, what the government is going to do about it… and yet, govern- ment's communication strategy was practically non-existent. That may well be an accurate chronology of events; but it tells us nothing about the situation as it stands today. There are companies – including some that were doing very well, un- til recently – that are suddenly not receiving any income at all. How does the PN propose to ad- dress this reality? Let's start with the basics. Be- fore looking at companies, or economic sectors, or anything else… we need to look at people. Human beings. We have 172,000 people who are employees. Of these 172,000, the government chose to assist only between 50 and 60,000. Let's make it 70,000… it doesn't matter. Fact remains that the other 100,000 workers are receiving no help at all. The government has abandoned them. Don't these people also have families to feed? So… what message are they get- ting from government? "You're on your own. See what you're going to do about it, because the government of this country is not here for you..." That's how these people are being treated. Now: in order to help people, you have to under- stand the mechanisms of society, and the economy. If we're talking about employees… what can be done to keep them in employ- ment? You have to look to the needs of their employers, in all the different sectors. What the government told them, however, was that they will not need to pay taxes for the time being. But if these peo- ple are not even in business any more – they're not earning an- ything; they have no revenue of any kind – what sort of 'help' is that? What good is a tax holiday, if you're not earning any money to pay taxes on? Meanwhile, other countries adopted a different approach: targeting specific sectors that most needed assistance. To do that, however, you have to talk to people. We [the PN], for in- stance, have been holding two or three meetings every day, with all the various economic sectors. Some of them have not been giv- en any assistance at all. At the same time, however, the country's coffers are not an in- finite resource. Can any govern- ment afford to offer limitless assistance to everyone equally? That is all the more reason to act now. As you say, government resources are not infinite: so if government doesn't make this investment today… it will be- come more expensive to do so in future. Because if companies go bankrupt for lack of government assistance, their employees will lose their jobs. And that means they'll up receiving unemploy- ment benefits anyway… But given the reality of the cur- rent crisis… isn't it also a fact that everybody is going to have to make sacrifices, sooner or later? Let me explain the difference between the government's ap- proach, and ours as Opposition. The government's perspective is that: 'I have this amount… so I will distribute it little by little so that it doesn't run out'. But this is totally flawed. Government is sharing out assistance bit by bit, like it's donating to charity… instead of investing the 100 'tal- ents' it has (to quote the parable from the New Testament). According to that parable, three servants were given 100 talents each; one of the servants buried his talents; another one squandered them… and the third invested them. Now, government is saying that it doesn't want to 'squander' its resources… that's the word it's using… so our position is: let's look at how those resources can be invested instead. So: where should we be investing? What are the aid packages we should be giving… the incentives, the ideas? Rather than allowing destiny to take its course, it should come from us to work towards a new and better future, as from now. This is a crisis; but it is also an opportunity. What is our vision to understand tomorrow's reali- ty, and be prepared for it? How are we going to use this moment of 'hibernation', to make all the necessary changes to transform our economy… so that, as from now, we'll be ready for a new world? Opposition leader ADRIAN DELIA argues that government's economic recovery roadmap lacks any clear sense of direction; while also tearing into the hospital concession agreement with Steward Health Care This is not just corruption; Saviour Balzan sbalzan@mediatoday.com.mt