Bruce Golding, Leader of the Opposition, makes his contribution to the 2006/07 Budget Debate at Gordon House on Thursday, May 4. - FILE
THIS WEEK the focus is the Opposition reply to the Budget Debate, through Audley Shaw, Andrew Holness and the leader of the Opposition, Bruce Golding. These three speakers who have obviously never heard the phrase that brevity is the soul of wit nevertheless gave presentations that should inspire much thought and analysis.
It was clear that they have risen to the challenge although given their constant reference to the debt millstone (which it is) I have to keep asking how they expect to jump-start certain policies that they would carry out, if it will require the Government taking the lead role (and risking substantial fiscal losses and incurring further debt) in showing the way? It's a question that those crying out for development strategies need to answer.
Mr. Shaw delved less this year in identifying areas of corruption (I said less, as it is something that seems ingrained in Shaw's DNA) and took up the challenge of presenting useful alternative strategies. In brief, he argued that the JLP would be a better macro-economic manager than the PNP.
NO SOLUTION
Shaw, however, still has to give us his party position on how it would treat massive loss-making state-owned companies: Air Jamaica, Sugar Company of Jamaica, National Water Commission, Jamaica Urban Transit Company. Would all of these parastatals have to run with small losses, or be closed if unprofitable?
This must be clearly spelled out, not hinted at. The JLP did come out and argued against a pet subject of its former leader, that is a fixed exchange rate, recognising that it is the surrounding environment that causes things to work, not just having a policy in place (useful while it may be).
This leads me into one of the criticisms of Golding's speech. While he had many good things to say (especially those that will not require much expenditure but only the will to change things) Golding continues to believe that by putting laws in place the problem will disappear (e.g. the debt maximum limit, and a deficit level limit). One would be fooled into believing that Golding was a lawyer, like so many of his colleagues on both sides, who believe that presto, pass a law and things will be all-right with the world (e.g. pass a law requiring child maintenance or raise the age of consent and we stop social and economic evils). Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. In countries like the U.S.A. the attempt to pass a balanced budget law has been breached often and forced Congress to pass exemptions when it is breached. In Jamaica there are limits on what the debt level can be but the Government (especially this one) goes to Parliament and raises the level whenever it tends to near the maximum limit. It's a lot like hanging in Jamaica, it's the law for certain dastardly acts but that does not mean it will ever be done in the next decade (law or no law).
Holness raised some pertinent concerns but he needs to remember that when education was so-called 'free' the schools (especially the 'new secondary' ones) had problems finding funds for subventions on chalk, teaching materials etc., when ministry funds went only to pay school fees. Schools without an effective PTA, especially in poor communities, will have a hard time raising funds unless we can develop partnerships with overseas (and more wealthy) schools. The issues of cost and maintenance in education could also be looked at in relation to health care, as funding both are costly ventures. We have to decide on whether we will use a means test to fund these institutions and then watch them crumble under the weight of underfunded and over-burdened facilities if totally user-free, or find a better method of delivering health care and education care that doesn't leave these state facilities struggling to pay their way. Which brings me back to my first question, what loss-making institutions are we prepared to accept in this market-driven environment?
Debt reduction strategies (involving Petro-Caribe funds, if allowed) and development strategies covering agriculture and tourism and an industrial freeport plan (a Seaga strategy that it accepted) were all put on the table. Like the social partnership concept, well examined by Golding, we also have to find means of coming to consensus on initiating some of these plans. However the Kingston freeport concept has to be accepted or rejected soon, given the Port Authority's expansion plans.
While not consumer friendly in terms of language and presentation, the Opposition showed that it had not lost its bite and was prepared to take up the challenge thrown out by the Finance Minister to present an alternative Budget. I have to commend them for delivering.
