Liberalisation is back on the national agenda. Not that it was no longer on the discussion table for the Nationalist Cabinet, but the topic surfaced back and became the hot topic and the ‘buzz’ word during the recent days. Unfortunately, this was prompted by the unfortunate transport stoppage last week. To this day nobody really understood the main motives for the stoppage, when the hearse owners were keen to reach an agreement. However, these unfortunate incidents have lead and pushed liberalisation on the national agenda.
For the PN government, liberalisation is not simply a buzz word, but a vision and a fundamental principle.
Successive PN governments have been gradually liberalising sectors of the economy with caution. In this, the PN governments have encountered numerous obstacles by the various sectors which insisted to maintain the status quo, aided by the continuous and exasperating fear mongering of the Labour Party. You can’t blame certain sectors for resisting liberalisation, since it is inherently human to resist change out of fear of the unknown. What is unethical though are the obstacles and the spooks in the wheel that the opponents threw over time, knowing that it was not beneficial to the Maltese economy.
Immediately after the election in 1987, the first PN government embarked on a series of liberalisations. They started with trade liberalisation, after years of unnecessary protectionism where the consumers were not able to import certain basic necessities. With the welfare and benefit of the Maltese consumer in mind, consumers were able to choose what they consume. Consumers choices were no longer determined by political ministers behind closed doors. Choices were made in the open market. The Maltese consumer became King for the very first time.
Certain industries and manufactures who used liberalisation as an incentive to improve their products, not only survive, but expanded their operations and today they employ much more workers than pre trade liberalisation periods. Others who resisted liberalisation due to their reliance on subsidy and artificial protectionism were wiped out. Certain manufacturers were doomed, because their products were outdated, and were not wise enough to invest in new products and technologies. Unfortunately, artificial protectionism creates false sense of security to the detriment of the consumer.
Other liberalisations followed. One of the successful liberalisation processes occurred in the telecommunications sector. Again, Labour thought that certain sacred cows were untouchable, irrespective of their inefficiencies. Doomsday was again predicted by Labour. Liberalisation was not only successful: consumers today have a wide choice with lower prices, but employment in this sector has soared. And that’s the miracle with liberalisation, it’s not only the consumer who benefits, but also the concerned sector itself, the employees and all the key players involved. All the liberalisations which took place in Malta were successful, one after the other.
The epitome of liberalisation occurred with Malta’s EU membership where the interests of consumers are safeguarded, and the freedom of movement of goods, labour and services is one of the fundamental principles.
The PN government’s deep belief in liberalisation was embodied by its push for Malta to join the EU, a move resisted heavily by the previous and current leadership of the Labour party, since such freedoms conflict with their lack of faith in the Maltese ability to survive, create wealth and move ahead without any protection from the big government, they are so keen on
Today the Labour party has the audacity to accuse the PN government of not being committed to liberalisation, after the results of the last 20 years and fear mongering of the Labour leaders. They have resisted every single move towards liberalisation during the last twenty years. Every decision was resisted. The GWU did not help in any way. They consistently proliferated fear, doomsday and predicted huge losses in employment. Again they resisted the EU out of fear and lack of trust in the Maltese ability to move ahead. They used to claim that we need to move ahead at our own pace, as if Malta operates in a vacuum. Today, the current leadership is paying lip service to liberalisation, but talk is cheap.
When it comes to liberalisation and consumer welfare, we mean business. But, we will never leave the key players on their own as well. However, in the commercial sector, the government should not be the nanny state. Competition is necessary and healthy, both for the benefit of the consumer but also for the sector’s own stimulus. There is nothing worse than a laid back service provider, where he is indifferent to his volume of business and the consumer. Take the taxi drivers as an example. Most of us have traveled abroad, and we all know how easily accessible taxis are. They are accessible and comparatively cheaper. They are used by locals and tourists alike, and that is the way it should be. Locals should feel at ease to make use of a taxi. In the current scenario, there is a market which has been untapped so far. A higher number of taxi providers, combined with lower and reasonable prices would surely boost the demand for their services exponentially which in turn will be shared by all those who provide an adequate and decent service. It is useless to resist the inevitable. Same goes for other forms of transport.
Having said this, public transport (scheduled bus service) needs more careful planning due the nature of the service. Buses provide services to certain areas of the island which might not be catered for if public transport was completely nationalised.
Liberalisation in key areas of the economy has worked, and there is no reason why it should not work in the transport sector. It works in other countries and all the various liberalisations conducted by the previous PN governments have been successful. Most importantly is to constantly keep the consumer in mind because the consumer is King.
David Agius is the Nationalist Party whip