Opposition leader Joseph Muscat this evening accused the government of taxing the country dry and said that the key to economic growth was actually fair taxation.

In the last part of a two-hour speech about the Budget, Dr Muscat listed 10 points which he said, would characterise a future Labour government.

He said that a future Labour government would base itself on meritocracy not mediocrity, as at present. This would be a governemnt based on a movement which went beyond the limits of a traditional political party.

A Labour government would build on what was good and would not bring in changes for the sake of change but would instead focus on the country’s real needs.

A Labour government would be honest with the people. The people would accept sacrifices when the country’s real situation was explained to them rather than being told one thing before the election, and something different afterwards.

This would be a governemnt which would put the country’s not the party’s interest first.

It would ensure that it was the well off who carried the heaviest burdens and now those with a small income. The people would understand the need for sacrifices when they could see that taxes were raised fairly and spent wisely.

Labour would be radically different from the current government with regard to economic growth. For Labour, the generation of wealth would come first. The government was taxing the country dry. But Labour believed that the key to economic growth lay in taxing less to earn more, by stimulating consumer confidence.

There was a limit to how much a governemnt could reduce its spending, but a Labour government would invest more in key areas of the economy that yielded growth, such as tourism.

And when spending needed to be reduced, that would be spelt out clearly and within seat deadlines, in contrast to the current Budget, which was very vague, saying that spending would be cut by 2% without saying where.

A future Labour government would destroy the tax of corruption, in all its levels, Dr Muscat said. It would also bring about a generational change in tax collection, shifting taxation from income to environmental issues. In this way, people who were enterprising and were successful because of their hard work would not end up being penalised by paying more tax.

In the EU, Dr Muscat said, it was time for Malta to stand up and be counted. Malta should insist on being given what it was promised, and it should no allow itself to be strait jacketed in the financial measures which it needed to take. After all, the big countries did what they wanted when they wanted.

In this context, Dr Muscat said, he was surprised at comments by Dr Gonzi backing the British position to cap the EU’s budget growth. Had he not realised the repercussions on a country such as Malta, which was said to be a beneficiary from the EU budget?

Labour, Dr Muscat said, was in favour of an extended maternity leave and the introduction of paternity leave. Having longer maternity leave would mean a higher participation rate of women in the employment sector. It would ultimately mean more taxpayers, and hence, more sustainable pensions.

Labour would also promote a discussion on the living wage to ensure that all workers had a salary which enabled them to have a proper standard of living. This, he said, would not be an imposition, but a discussion leading to consensus.

Earlier, in his remarks on the various ministries, Dr Muscat reiterated, when speaking on education, his view that Malta should have a second university which did not replicate the current one but offered a choice to students and academics in several areas . Furthermore, he said, the budget of the education ministry was lacking in support services to vulnerable services.

In the health sector, he said, the people would pay more and wait more for the cancer facility to be set up, when this should have been set up already. Furthermore, only €1 million for the new cancer unit were being allocated for next year.

There were still many question marks on the Rehabilitation Hospital, not least where and when it would be set up. The governemnt had also said it would buy St Philip’s Hospital, without saying what its use would be.

The government had lost credibility in its efforts to reduce the waiting lists. This year the government was to have spent €4 million more to cut waiting lists, but it only spent €206,000. The waiting list for cataract operations was supposed to have been eradicated by this year, yet 5,436 were still waiting for operations.

Furthermore, Dr Muscat said, the reform of the primary health sector had made a disappearing act in the Budget and it was clear that the ultimate aim of the government remained to introduce charges. Indeed, charges were being introduced by stealth because medicines were not available in government dispensaries, and, because of the waiting lists, people were opting for private surgeries.

Turning to the environment, Dr Muscat said air quality should be top of the agenda. This was a problem which was affecting all of the country and needed urgent attention. However, the black dust problem was a certificate of government incompetence.

Dr Muscat said it was not credible to introduce a tax on cement as a means to protect the environment. This was only a revenue raising measure which home-buyers would suffer.

The pollution pays principle was something laudable, but taxes in this sense should only replace other taxes, and not be used to raise revenue.

Dr Muscat asked when the wind farm studies would be completed and whether Malta would achieve the EU clean energy targets on time.

Another problem, Dr Muscat said, was how the water table was being rapidly depleted. A proper strategy was needed to cut waste, store rainwater and reuse water for agriculture. Malta could not continue to dump into the sea as much water as it produced from reverse osmosis.

Dr Muscat said much had been made of the Mepa reform, but the Budget speech made no mention of the new tariffs which consumers had to shoulder – house adjustment applications would increase by 400% and applications for garages had doubled, among others. The application to demolish a building would cost 17 times more. This was what the people were getting from the Mepa reform.

Near the end of his speech, Dr Muscat insisted that the government could make considerable savings by eliminating corruption and inefficiency.

For example, €4 million could have been saved on the BWSC contract commission, €40 million on the Fairmount ship conversion contracts, €23 million on the value of the land given away when Maltacom was privatised, €2.5 million on the breakwater bridge to nowhere, and the squandering of millions at Transport Malta and other agencies such as MITA, where a particular driver was paid as much as a lawyer, not to mention Arms Ltd and the VAT Department, where a performance bonus was also to be given to the persons under whose noses the VAT scandal had taken place.

Dr Muscat also mentioned other cases of excessive spending, including high salaries for Mepa officials and for consultant David Spiteri Gingell and thousands spent on the refurbishment of the offices of the Enemalta chairman and the Finance Minister’s secretariat.

In all, he said, without going into the line items, the governemnt could have saved €72 million.

It was that way, he insisted, that the government could get its money, not by austerity measures such as the water and electricity bills.