CLOSING BUDGET DEBATE PRESENTATION Wednesday, May 25, 2016 HONOURABLE AUDLEY SHAW, CD, MP MINISTER OF FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE ========================================================= A. INTRODUCTION I wish to once again thank the staff of the Ministry of Finance and the Public Service and other agencies for their assistance in the course of preparations for this Debate. I also wish to thank the Prime Minister, Opposition Leader, and the Opposition Spokesman on Finance for their contributions. Mr. Speaker, coinciding with the Budget Debate was an IMF review mission which ended on Friday last. I am pleased that the review went well. All targets for the quarters ended December 2015 and March 2016 were met. The Mission in its Concluding Statement said: “ The ongoing phased reform of the personal income tax is a bold step to rebalance the tax system towards indirect taxation. The shift from direct to indirect taxes will reduce the marginal and average tax rates for the majority of the income tax taxpayers, improve work 1
incentives, and encourage workers and employers to move out of the informal economy. The decision to take offsetting measures to safeguard revenues and avoid undermining debt sustainability was both bold and essential . ” Mr. Speaker, GDP growth rates have been so low in Jamaica for such a long time, that indeed we need to be bold in order to give Jamaicans the hope that their lot in life can be improved during our time. B. THE BUDGET - SOME CLARIFICATIONS Debt-to-GDP Mr. Speaker, I will begin by bringing some clarification to various points that the Opposition Spokesman on Finance raised when he spoke during the budget debate. He critiqued the budget (which he should) but there were errors in many of the figures he presented, which need to be corrected for the record. I will start with the Debt-to-GDP ratio. The Opposition Spokesman on Finance said the debt to GDP ratio for 2016/2017 will remain flat to where they brought it to last year. I agree that the Fiscal Policy Paper does indeed show that debt forecast for FY2016/17 is flat relative to that of FY2015/16. It is very important that we 2
understand what is behind these figures before making disingenuous remarks and drawing spurious conclusions. Three critical factors have contributed to this flat profile of the debt-to-GDP ratio as follows: (1) Some budget support funding (US$100 million) that was expected from multilaterals in FY2015/16 did not materialize and are now programmed in FY2016/17. Had those inflows materialized as expected, then the debt stock and the debt-to- GDP would have been higher in FY2015/16 and the debt trajectory would have shown a reduction in FY2016/17. (2) A portion of the planned borrowing for FY2016/17 is for pre- funding of maturities in May and June 2017. The Opposition Spokesman knows that it is prudent fiscal planning to secure resources ahead of when the obligation becomes due. (3) The fiscal deficit is expected to increase from 0.3% to 1.0% of GDP in FY2016/17, with the most significant contributor to the increase being higher External Interest Cost, due in large part to the take out of low cost PetroCaribe debt with high cost borrowing on the global financial market, moving from 1% interest cost to 7% interest cost. 3
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition Spokesman on Finance boasts that the debt-to-GDP ratio has fallen from well over 140% in 2011 to current levels of 126.8%. Well Mr Speaker, the Fiscal Policy Paper dated 18 th April 2013 has debt-to-GDP for Fiscal 2011/12 at 131.5%, not “well over 140%” the Spokesman on Finance would have us believe. Recurrent Expenditure Estimates With regards to recurrent expenditure estimates, the Opposition Spokesman also said “ The Budge t here is smaller in real terms” . He said, “ although in nominal terms it is 7.3 per cent more than the expenditure for last year. When we take account of projected inflation of about 5 per cent, the result will be less resources in real terms to provide the services needed by the people. ” I want to clarify that actually if there is a nominal increase of 7.3 per cent and projected inflation of 5 per cent then Recurrent Expenditure would be larger in real terms by 2.3 per cent. Check your math again Mr. Opposition Spokesman on Finance. Mr. Speaker, as indicated in the Fiscal Policy Paper, the Recurrent Programmes are budgeted to increase by approximately 5 percent, broadly in line with inflation and hence no reduction in REAL terms. The Capital Budget, which includes developing the country’ s infrastructure are budgeted to increase by over 31 percent. In terms of providing the services (both Recurrent and Capital) needed by the people, the budget has been increased by 10%. That’s a real increase of about 5%, rather than a real 4
decrease, as incorrectly calculated by the Opposition Spokesman on Finance. Mr. Speaker, let me give more specifics on the expenditure side of the budget in response to the Opposition Spokesman on Finance. Continuing on the critique in terms of Opposition Spokesman on Finance saying: “...budget is smaller in real terms…less resources in real terms to 1. provide the services needed by the people’’. Mr. Speaker, the FY2015/2016 Recurrent Budget included the following expenditures totaling $7.9 billion, which were not re-provided in FY2016/2017: • Oil Hedge Payment - $3.3 billion • Cost of General Elections - $2.1 billion • Final Tranche of One-Off $25,000 Salary - $2.5 billion Therefore, when adjusted for this $7.9 billion, the baseline for FY2015/2016 actually falls to $295 billion instead of $303.0 billion. So, when this $295 billion is compared with the 2016/2017 Recurrent Budget of $321 billion, the nominal increase in the Recurrent Budget 5
relative to the 2015/2016 is actually $25.8b or 9%, well above the 5% inflation projected for 2016/2017. So, there was a real increase. Furthermore, funding from Appropriation-In-Aid for Recurrent Programmes in FY2016/2017 has increased to $25.8 billion up by $2.7 billion from the 2015/2016 Revised Estimates of $22.8 billion. This sum reflects an additional $2.0 billion added to the Recurrent Budget of which $1.7 billion is from the National Health Fund to the Ministry of Health (tabled as a Standing Finance Committee Amendment); and $300m to the Ministry of Education Youth and Information from the Universal Service Fund (to be tabled in the Supplementary Estimates). Turning now, Mr. Speaker, to the allocation for the Ministry of Security. The Opposition Spokesman on Finance said, “....it cannot be sound budgeting p olicy to cut spending on security….” Firstly, it should be clarified that the overall funding to the security forces in FY2016/2017, has not been reduced. The total resources provided for the national security portfolio in 2016/2017 Budget is $59.2 billion up by $2.4 billion from the $56.8 billion provided in the Revised Budget of FY2015/2016. This is the second largest share of the Non Debt Budget after the allocation to the Education portfolio. What seems to have incited this ‘criticism’ of the nati onal security budget from the Opposition Spokesman on Finance and certainly from the Leader of the Opposition (since she identified the Activity by name in her 6
presentation), is the budgetary allocation reflected under the Activity “Purchasing of Stores and Armoury”. The 2015/2016 Revised Budget Allocation for this Activity was $800.0 million. The sum requested by the Police Department in FY2016/2017 for the Activity and supported by the Ministry of Finance is $595.0 million. I am advised that inadvertently, approximately $229m was omitted from the Budget as tabled in April. I am further advised that the error has since been corrected and the Budgetary Allocation to the Activity has been fully restored to $595m by way of a Standing Finance Committee Amendment. Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the sugar industry. The Opposition Spokesman on Finance noted that there is “ ...no provision in either the Central Government Budget or Public Bodies for the take-over of the two sugar factories at Monymusk and Long Po nd.” Mr. Speaker, indeed, no provision was made in the 2016/2017 budget as it is not the intention of the government to provide any further support other than the Subsidy approved by the previous Cabinet. The then Cabinet had approved a subsidy of $216.0 million to assist in transporting canes from Long Pond to other factories. The approximately $186 million remaining from this Subsidy is what has been earmarked for the start-up of operations at Long Pond. The proceeds from the canes milled at the factory, (government will receive 38%) will be used to sustain operations. The Ministry of Industry, Commerce, Agriculture and Fisheries had explained 7
Recommend
More recommend
