BUSINESS analysts are hoping that tomorrow’s national debate on finance and the economy will address major issues such as tax and pension reforms, and explain how proposed programmes will be funded.

Owen James, journalist and entrepreneur, said some of the things that happened in the first debate, which focused on socio-economic issues as it relates to youth, should not be repeated in the contest between Finance Minister Audley Shaw and the Opposition’s finance spokesman, Dr Peter Phillips.

“It’s not fair to highlight them (programmes) without saying how they will be funded”, James told the Business Observer. The youth debates “degenerated and unfortunately some things went unchallenged. Don’t come to me with a programme and not say how it will be funded.”

The media lost as much as the political parties did, James said. Going forward, he hopes that reporters will do their due diligence and fact check what was said. He also wants journalists posing the questions in the next debates to be specific and follow up on responses that seem vague.

“The (youth debate) format was unfortunate”, said John Jackson, CEO of Investor’s Choice magazine. “Critical and complex issues could not have been discussed in the time given.” The journalists needed to have honed their questions on particular subjects. Some of the issues that came up should have been reserved for the financial and economic debate. This would have allowed for greater focus on issues that had a direct impact on youth, he said.

Jackson hopes the panel of journalists for the next debate will have “done their homework” and will be familiar with the issues on which they pose questions. Then, if they recognise that a response is “erroneous” they can tell the public so. While some facts may be interpreted differently, he said, for the most part, incorrect information should not be allowed to pass unchallenged.

“What I suspect may well come up is the International Monetary Fund agreement,” Jackson said. The matter of interest rates, (economic) stability and measures to address debt are issues he expects will also be raised.

Among the issues that James would like to see covered are the parties’ intent for the productive sector. Any party that forms the government should not overtax that sector, which he said must be the engine of growth. Rather, the debate should highlight how the parties plan to widen the tax net to include those informal traders who often don’t contribute, instead of taxing “the same people all the time.” The private sector should be “nurtured” and the government should provide an enabling environment that allows it to thrive and foster job creation.

Similarly, he expects public sector assets that are underperforming to come under scrutiny. The question is not so much how to revive them as how to get rid of them, James said, insisting that they cannot be kept solely for sentimental reasons.

The national airline, Air Jamaica, and several sugar factories have already been sold.

Waivers must be discontinued and inefficient businesses allowed to fail, as a free market requires, James said. This will create opportunities for more efficient businesses to survive.

Additionally, both parties need to address matters of bureaucracy that are affecting the ability of businesses to thrive and employ more people.

James said health care and pension reforms need to be addressed, as the nation “cannot afford a welfare system”.

Jackson agrees that health care and pension reform will probably feature prominently, adding that civil service rationalisation; the cost of education to government; job creation; economic growth and management of the scandal-hit Jamaica Development Infrastructure Programme will also be debated.

Tomorrow’s debate will be the second of three. The third, focusing on a range of topics including governance, will be staged on Tuesday. The Prime Minister and leader of the Jamaica Labour Party, Andrew Holness will square off against the Opposition Leader and PNP president Portia Simpson Miller.