Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1457526
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 6 MARCH 2022 8 INTERVIEW changed, since 2017' self. Would you agree, then, that the overdevelopment of Malta is the direct result of the Labour Party's failed envi- ronmental policies? No: because the rate of development is not dictated by government policies, but by the economic situation of the coun- try… But if the standards of enforcement are so low; and if controversial permits are still dished out by the PA, despite nega- tive recommendations by case officers, and agencies such as the Superintend- ence of Cultural Heritage…? You've opened up a whole new – and very long – discussion there. But let me start with this. When a case officer rec- ommends refusal of any given project… you have to look at the merits of the in- dividual case. Sometimes, development applications will be recommended for re- fusal because – for example – they didn't have clearance from the CPRD. What happens, though, when the developers do get the necessary clearance, in the end? The Planning Board overturns the rec- ommendation... Yet there is a perception out there, that every time a planning commission board overturns a case officer's recommenda- tion… it's like some kind of 'scandal'… But it very often IS a scandal. Take Xlendi, for example. The project was recommended for refusal, because a five-story block would completely ruin the aesthetics of the entire bay. Yet the permit was granted all the same. Sure- ly, this could be controlled through bet- ter, more serious planning policies: so what is Labour proposing, to that end? I certainly agree that there is need for more awareness, and better regulation. This is why, in our manifesto – apart from all the projects we have already announced; and will keep announc- ing, every day, until the manifesto is launched [at next Friday's AGM] - there will be an an entire chain of inter-linked proposals, to safeguard the urban and rural environment. So yes: if we're talk- ing about the environment… we're talk- ing about setting standards in design aesthetics, too. Onto some other campaign promis- es now: some of which – including tax cuts, increased salaries, increased pen- sions, etc. – seem to be exaggeratedly 'generous'. But is this really sustaina- ble, given the unfolding war in Ukraine – which has already cost government its lucrative Russian passport sales - not to mention the post-Covid economic situ- ation; the imminent tax harmonization; and other issues which now threaten government's revenue? Again, I disagree with your interpreta- tion. You're assuming, for example, that all those issues you mentioned, represent 'loss of revenue' for government. But in recent years, I think we have all seen very clearly how the politics of austerity did not work, anywhere in Europe. Our own experience, by way of contrast, is that if you reduce taxation… you can, at face value, look at it as 'lost revenue', yes; but then, you have to also look at the eco- nomic projections. And if even the European Commission's projections - which are certainly not written by the Maltese government – are more generous than our own, by forecast- ing an economic growth of 6%; and if, just a few days ago, NSO statistics revealed that in 2021 – the year of the pandemic - Malta's GDP actually grew by 500 mil- lion, over 2019: i.e, the last year before the pandemic… That, to me, is a certificate of how suc- cessfully Malta has handled the COV- ID-19 crisis. For if the government had not dug its hands deep into its own pock- ets, and spent a LOT of money to ensure that businesses did not fail… today's situ- ation would be very, very different… But today's situation is already differ- ent, from when those projections were made. The Ukraine war will impact the prices of energy, foodstuffs, etc. So shouldn't the Labour Party's promises be readjusted accordingly? That's what I was coming to. The above statistics show that there is a cer- tain economy consistency, and certain trends, that we can base our electoral promises on. But yes: there are also ex- ternal factors, that have to be accounted for. Now: if the pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that 'economic growth' does not exist just for the money to be squandered capriciously. You have to make sure you have enough reserves, to withstand those external factors when they arise. We see this even now, that the effects of the conflict in Ukraine are already being felt: as confirmed by the Finance Minis- ter. The important thing, however, is that Maltese government is in a financial po- sition to both withstand those challenges; and also guarantee, as far as possible, to maintain the same standards, and quality of life, for its people. This is why it is no coincidence, that Malta's energy prices are still the cheap- est in Europe. Because the government took a conscious decision to absorb as much of the energy price-hikes as pos- sible, to ensure that – when it comes to re-igniting the Maltese economy – we won't have to do 'bring it back from the dead', through CPR. It will still be up-and-running; and all it would need are the necessary incentives, and the necessary confidence… which I think our government has already shown; and will keep showing, in our election manifesto. But there are other interpretations. Our columnist Josanne Cassar, for instance, described the recent bonanza of tax re- funds as: 'It's raining money'. Couldn't it be argued – especially in view of the recent dip in polls – that the PL is so des- perate not to lose any more votes, that it is now promising 'heaven and earth' to everyone? That's a very unfair assessment. Why? Because if there's one thing everyone agrees upon, it is that today's inflation is 'imported'. It is not the result of gov- ernment's own actions; and as such, it is not something that government has any direct control over. So if government did not respond, by sending out a clear mes- sage that it would be financially assisting the people, at this time… I can assure you, the criticism would be very different. Besides: it's also unfair, because - if you look at the past five years – tax refunds have been handed out each year; not just because there's an election. It was even included in our 2017 manifesto… But that's exactly my point: with each election, the Labour Party seems to be 'upping the ante' of how much it can of- fer the electorate, in the way of freebies. And what is that, if not the 'power of in- cumbency' all over again? No! No, it's not like that at all! Look: we can even go 'promise by promise', if you like. Obviously, many of those promises are going to eventually revolve around a 'better return for people'. This is after all inevitable: because our whole vision, as a Labour Party, is ultimately all about im- proving the people's quality of life. If we are talking about pensions, for instance: just ask the pensioners them- selves, how much things have improved – and will continue to improve – since the days when pensions were frozen, at two- thirds of COLA. Because it's all a question of perspective, at the end of the day. You might see it as 'raining money'; but when I speak to pensioners, the first thing they always ask me is... 'what are you going to do about pensions'? And if it's parents, they will ask me about 'children's allow- ance'; teachers, about salaries; students, about stipends… So personally, I prefer the criticism that 'it's raining money': when all the 'money' that 'it's raining', will actually help people fight the effects of inflation, in difficult economic times… PHOTO: JAMES BIANCHI / MALTATODAY