After chairing the Education Commission of the Chamber of Deputies during 2022, Juan Santana (PS) had the support of his party’s bench to take on a new challenge, under the eaves of the administrative agreement recently signed between the different political forces that allowed a new design in the organization of the commissions – both in the Chamber and in the Senate. In this way, Santana became the new president of the Labor Commission, a key space for the Government, because there will be discussed the processing of its most important social project: the reform of the pension system, an initiative that for the Executive is a priority to move forward.
In this regard, and with the aim of unlocking the project – especially after the failure of the tax reform – the Executive proposed a “technical table” on pensions, whose open call seeks to prevent another legislative failure. The space – headed by Santana – has a period of one month to generate proposals that can be transformed into indications. However, the first technical meeting, organized last week, was not attended by any representative of Chile Vamos, and although Ministers Jeannette Jara (Labor) and Ana Lya Uriarte (Segpres) avoided criticizing that bloc and invited him to dialogue, Deputy Santana’s tone was much more confrontational.
“There is a desire to bog down the effort that was presented by the Government and that explanation is due to the country (…) Are they defending the interests of the AFP, the current model?” asked the socialist parliamentarian, showing leadership – which according to some official voices – could be “complex”, considering the challenge of seeking an eventual agreement on pensions. In a dialogue with El Mostrador, the deputy referred to the main challenges linked to this emblematic reform of the Government of President Boric, whose discussion resurfaces, precisely a week after the hard setback that the Senate’s decision to reject the idea of legislating the tax reform meant for the Executive.
-What are your main expectations before assuming the presidency of the Labor Committee? Which bills correspond to the Government’s legislative priorities in labour matters?
-I am very happy to represent the PS caucus in this challenge, because among other things, there are many tasks that in the context of the Labor Commission we will have to address. Without going any further, this Tuesday, March 21, the long-awaited bill to reduce the working day – the 40-hour project – is finished in the Senate, which will have to return to the House for its last procedure, and we hope there in the Labor Commission to give it a quick processing so that it can become Law before May 1, which seems to us that, as the Government has pointed out, it is an emblematic date.
But in addition, there are a series of legislative initiatives that the Government contemplates, and it seems to me that they are relevant from the point of view of strengthening the working conditions of workers in Chile. In fact, the Undersecretary of Labor (Giorgio Boccardo) himself announced a reform whose objective is to be able to achieve branch bargaining in our country, which is essential to improve the labor condition of those who work in industries or in activities with a high number of workers, such as retail or mining. And therefore it is also a historical demand of the trade union world that we hope can materialize.
How important is it for the government to move forward with this reform? Do you think the time is right for discussion? Is it feasible to advance the progress of its legislative process in Congress by 2023?
Undoubtedly, the reform of the pension system, as we have pointed out on previous occasions, must be without exaggeration the main reform of this administration, a reform that unfortunately on two previous occasions has failed. We believe that there is no excuse to continue delaying a modification in our pension system that allows older people to achieve better incomes. That speaking of citizen urgencies, talking about priorities on the part of the Executive, it seems to us that it is the main thing, and that is why we have also pointed out that as soon as the work of this technical commission constituted by the Executive is finished.We are going to immediately process the pension reform, because our main objective is that it advances and can materialize, and that hopefully during this year we will have a reform of the pension system that allows more decent income for the elderly of Chile.
How can the ruling party avoid a failure similar to that of the tax reform, whose idea of legislating was recently rejected in the House?
I think there are two tasks that must be fulfilled. One of a political nature, which is within the functions that the Government must perform, particularly the Ministry General Secretariat of the Presidency (Segpres), in order to dialogue and deepen that dialogue with opposition actors, with the PDG, with the bench of the former parliamentarians of the DC. And any input that can be made from those spaces will be valuable, that is why we value that in the technical table that was constituted this week, PDG parliamentarians have participated, in addition to deputies Eduardo Durán and Francisca Muñoz – who even without the presence of Chile Vamos – were present and expressed the willingness to contribute to this reform. Therefore, I believe that the government has to make a great effort to be able to dialogue with them, and if there is a will on the part of Chile Vamos más adelante, welcome.
Do you consider it necessary for the Government to optimize the dissemination of the reform of the pension system? How can you improve that process?
Obviously, there is a task that corresponds to parliamentarians and government political parties, which has to do with how we are able to disseminate the reforms and the impact that they will eventually have on the population. I remembered, for example, when the tax reform was rejected, Minister Mario Marcel pointed out that the rejection of this reform would finally impact the increase to $ 250,000 pesos of the Universal Guaranteed Pension (PGU). The impact that this had on the population, to measure the effects that the rejection of such an important reform was going to have, is surely a task that should have been done beforehand. I believe, and this is what I have told different government authorities, that it is necessary for the Executive to launch a national campaign about the reform of the pension system.
In your opinion, what are the main advances and positive aspects of this pension reform?
-I think that what this could mean for adults and older adults – who have the most precarious incomes in our country – is tremendously relevant, because we are talking about the increase, not only of the PGU, but we are talking about the creation of a social security that will allow the increase in pensions, also of those people who for different reasons could not contribute during their working life. We are talking, for example, of women heads of household, who, because they carry out care work in their homes or in other households, did not have the possibility of generating income for their future pensions. We are talking about independent and informal workers, who for various reasons could not make this contribution in their social security. We are talking about the fact that for the first time the State is going to create a principle of social security that will contribute to the increase of these pensions, so it seems to me that along with it, the separation of the industry that today monopolizes the AFPs – while they can manage the accounts of contributors, But at the same time they can invest their funds – I think it’s also tremendously relevant.
What do you mean by this idea of “separating” the industry?
Some time ago, Minister Marcel, in the Labor Committee, exemplified how virtuous the separation of industry is, comparing it with what happened in the early nineties with the energy industry, which today has separately an industry in terms of generation, another in terms of energy transfer. and another in terms of distribution. And of course, today, we are – neither more nor less – a country that exports energy. In the same way, in this case it is about demonopolizing something as important as social security, which also allows us to improve the performance of our savings by those who administer them, and therefore, it seems to me that this is a comprehensive reform, and that I believe that unlike what has been said by representatives of Chile Vamos, It is completely de-ideologized.
But how do you respond to the opposition’s criticism regarding the ownership of the funds and their heritability, among other aspects of the reform that have been permanently questioned?
-One could, for example, express very clearly that in terms of savings Their property is respected and will remain with the workers, as well as heritability. That is, the individual savings of each worker will be able to remain heritable. But in addition, we advanced in a principle that did not necessarily defend the left during all these years, which is the possibility of choice. And unlike what happens today with the current system – where the only way we have are the AFPs – this reform provides the possibility that private companies can continue to offer this alternative of managing the individual savings of workers, but also creates a public institutionality that will also be able to fulfill this task.
Now, who will ultimately make that decision about which agency will manage individual savings, will ultimately be the worker. That is, progress is made in the possibility for affiliates and contributors to choose, and by personal will, determine which agency will manage their individual savings. I believe that this is a substantial advance in terms of the principle of people’s freedom to choose, and that – I insist – it is a principle that the left did not necessarily defend in recent years, and therefore, it is also a clear sign that this is not an ideological reform – as has been meant. rather, it is a comprehensive reform that incorporates elements that were contributions from different political sectors.
And in that sense, how can you dialogue with the right? What are the possible meeting points in the discussion on tax matters? What should this debate focus on?
I think that the possibility of talking with them (opposition) should always be, permanently, because that is what the processing of a project is about and that is one of the tasks that the Government certainly has. Now, I mentioned the characteristics of the reform of the pension system, only to reveal that its content also raises aspects that were proposed, particularly by right-wing sectors, for example within the framework of the constituent process. One of the things that were most heard during this process in social security matters was the need to advance in property and heritability, plus the possibility of choice. And of course, assuming that one of those principles in the current system did not exist, this reform raises it, which of course is an advance and a consideration of the Government when presenting a reform, collecting the different political views that may exist.
But I think it is necessary for the Executive to carry out an informative task. I have been reporting on the pension reform and I believe that regardless of the political debates that the institutions can give – in terms of separation of industry, in terms of the creation of social insurance, in terms of the principle of solidarity – today the priority for the elderly in our country is that pensions increase. For the same reason, in my opinion, the debate should be focused on how we increase the pensions of the elderly, and here of course the principle of the Chinese ideologue Deng Xiaoping applies, in order that “it does not matter if the cat is black or white; As long as he can hunt mice he is a good cat.” And it seems to me that this reform contemplates and considers several aspects defended by different political sectors, and through different ways seeks to increase pensions. I believe that, therefore, the task of the government is to continue deepening these dialogues with the opposition, but it seems to me that working with civil society – so that the projects have a majority support in the population – is indispensable.
-What do you mean?
A very good example of this is the 40-hour bill, which initially had a lot of resistance from different political sectors and that today in the Senate – finishing the last stage of its processing – has neither more nor less the support and unanimous support on the part of all the senators, after it was approved unanimously in the Finance Committee. I think it is a rather revealing example to realize that when an initiative has popular support, that can also be better translated in Parliament. I think it is essential that the government can make a greater effort, because I believe that in tax matters, it was rightly a function that was not done, and the government was obliged to disseminate the impacts that the rejection of the tax reform had. In this regard, it seems to me that the Executive should try to disseminate – very firmly – the virtuous scope that the reform of the pension system has for the population.
Follow us on
: “Executive must disseminate, very firmly, the virtuous scope of the reform of the pension system”){kind=link}