Malta’s demography has always been defined by migration. In the 1950s and 1960s, many Maltese citizens left for Australia. Today, we are witnessing an influx of third country nationals (TCNs) entering our country for work, much like the Maltese once did in Australia. Their motivations appear to stem from two factors: more opportunities and the desire for an improved quality of life for themselves and their families.

Surveys have consistently shown that foreigners are the top concern for people. However, this time, it seems more challenging to identify who these foreigners are, leading to confusion about whom to blame.

Who are the foreigners?

Are they the Indians or Pakistanis coming in to work the jobs that many do not want, the Africans seeking better lives, the Ukrainians fleeing war or tourists coming in masses to our country overwhelming our infrastructure?

Those frequently identified by the Maltese are TCNs who live here and contribute with their taxes and expenditures. The excuse is that tourists spend more money during their brief five-day visits compared to TCNs who live here all year round, paying rent and taxes daily.

For this article, let’s compare the contributions made by TCNs and tourists. Both are essential to our economy and the livelihoods of our people, but there will be no one without the other, as our Maltese workforce alone cannot sustain mass tourism.

Tourism

Tourism is one of the strongest sectors in our economy. Last year, visitor numbers returned to pre-pandemic levels, and in the first two months of this year, there was an increase of more than 26 per cent, which goes to show how strong this industry is.

What many overlook is that it is useless to have customers with no one to serve them. Maltese people cannot sustain our booming economy due to a shortage of workers to fill the jobs demanded by the industry. There have been cases where employers have closed shop or could not expand because they could not find enough employees.

Ironically, tourism relies heavily on a predominantly foreign workforce (TCNs), while its success depends on attracting more foreigners (tourists). This creates a contradiction, with many criticising foreigners but yet all praying more come because they continue to fill up our restaurants and hotels, boosting our economy even more.

During the summer, many Maltese voice their frustrations related to power outages, drainage issues polluting our seas, and littering. These problems are often linked to the surge in tourists during peak season. Many have mentioned a solution by shifting strategy to attract quality over quantity but are we ready to tell our hoteliers and restauranteurs to close because there are simply way too many, and with fewer tourists, they will no longer be needed, risking their livelihoods?

TCNs

In the past, TCNs viewed Malta as a stepping stone to reach Europe but as Malta started to grow, employers needed a larger workforce, so they started providing more opportunities with better pay resulting in many choosing to stay here.

Many do not plan on retiring in Malta, they come to work to eventually return to their families. Consequently, they rent property providing stability and a regular income to numerous Maltese families who own properties.

With a median age of 43, half of the Maltese population is older than this age. Given a low fertility rate, Malta is unlikely to sustain its ageing population. Consequently, Maltese citizens cannot solely fund their parents’ pensions through taxes unless the government substantially increases them.

Currently, this is not a concern as foreigners are offsetting the cost, with about 60,000 TCNs paying about €85 million to the government as reported by the finance minister. If foreigners leave, will the Maltese be expected to make up the amount of money the foreigners used to pay?

Pensions are just one aspect of the contributions made by TCNs, yet they significantly impact every Maltese citizen, reaching beyond business owners to everyday people.

Change is necessary, but a plan is needed

The government has repeatedly promised change, whether through pledges for a new economic model or enhancements to the current one; the difference boils down to political semantics. However, change has to be implemented gradually with a plan, which doesn’t shift every five or 10 years.  Shocking our system or forcing too much change too soon will lead to catastrophic results.

In all scenarios, change will come at a cost, but proper preparation will ease the burden on our people.

I hope that whatever changes our policymakers propose in the upcoming budget will avoid populist approaches and prioritise the long-term well-being of our people.

Pamela Cann Rodgers is a lawyer and consultant.