budget2006 @ gov.mt

With under three weeks to go, there is no sign how many respondents may have tapped into the above e-mail address to submit to the government their views on the pre-Budget document. They were invited to do so by September 30. There will be no extension, given the tight time-frame - the finance team will have only some six weeks left to Budget Day, which is to be brought forward because of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.

Those who will actually make submissions, mostly constituted bodies, unions, NGOs perhaps, possibly some individuals as well, will be able to discard the often coloured analysis in it, which takes up a chunk of the 82-pages total.

That analysis was not, one should think, the input of the small team roped in to provide a view that is not "factory blind", and to indicate priorities and to float new ideas. Those who do accept the invitation to file in their reaction may not feel they need to be constrained by parameters of the document. They will focus on the priorities and innovations, but are likely to add a few of their own.

The government anticipated that. It was careful to try to condition reactions, even as it called for them. The document asserts, thereby not necessarily proving, that the target to arrive at financial sustainability within the period 2006-10 remains imperative "from the point of view of economic competitiveness". It stresses that submissions should keep that aspect firmly in view.

"...Suggestions to increase spending in one particular area will surely carry more weight if they are accompanied by indications as to where offsetting reductions can be made," says the document.

That is like the police asking the public to tell them when and where to enforce the law. Not that that the public at large has not, often enough, pointed a finger at excessive, unnecessary public spending.

It is given more than one example by the public auditor annually, and expands on that lead. Nevertheless, those who have a clear and firm opinion as to where public spending can be curtailed should still e-mail it to the budget 2006 address, even if thereby they repeat themselves.

My own reiterated, simple proposal is easy to implement, and as manifestly evident as the left ear of the mammoth.

It depends on the will and action of one man alone - the Prime Minister. He ought to realise that it is ridiculous to continue to appoint well over half (19 out of 35) his side's parliamentary strength as ministers or parliamentary secretaries.

The PM should slash the total to, say, himself plus another eight ministers and four parliamentary secretaries. He should also reduce the size of their private secretariats. The measure could yield a recurrent saving of around Lm1 million. Five years - Lm5 million.

The PM can take the opportunity to do that the moment the Budget debate is over, and the various votes are passed. He can increase the boldness of the move by reshaping his team, infusing new blood to make it not only lean but also more energetic.

Lawrence Gonzi's ratings may go down with those he puts out to grass, but they cannot go much lower with the public than his confidential polls tell him. Instead of dropping even further, as they predict, they might actually rise.

Such a measure would be financially and politically sound, and set a challenge to the Opposition - should it win the election, would the new Prime Minister be as sensible? The present PM and Opposition leader could also consult on how to trim the size of the House of Representatives.

I will not follow my proposal up with suggestions where to increase spending. Outlays need to be contained, not raised. There can be suitable repositioning to release resources for the most deserving.