Turnbull’s reply: solid but not PM material
|
Malcolm Turnbull’s Budget reply speech was solid, without really providing the sort of cut-through that he needed. There were no compelling ideas or bold initiatives, nor even a circuit-breaking gimmick like Nelson’s petrol excise move. What we got was more of the same — well-presented, but without any particular change in approach. Turnbull certainly spoke well enough. When Brendan Nelson finished his reply speech last year, he turned and looked at his frontbench like the kid who had just passed a big exam, with a big smile of relief. Not Turnbull, who took in the applause of his troops as his appropriate entitlement, after a strong performance at the Dispatch Box. He ditched the sarcasm, personal mockery and classical imagery of late and settled for serving it up to Labor as the perennial creators of fiscal disasters that the Coalition had to fix up. But like Nelson, he seemed to have trouble filling out his 30 minutes; the final third of Nelson’s speech drifted off into a hazy vision of the Liberals and Australia, and Turnbull had to tread water near the end when he found he’d got through his speech a bit quicker than planned. As for the content, well, there wasn’t much. Turnbull re-announced his plan for small business tax carrybacks and re-announced proposals to change bankruptcy laws, an idea particularly favoured by Turnbull that remains vulnerable to a Government scare campaign about the impact on non-bank creditors (how will small businesses react to being told a collapsed company that owes them money is being allowed to “reconstruct itself” rather than pay them anything?). And he again spoke about cutting red tape and an online small business portal. He also proposed a rephasing of assistance to employers for apprentices. “Modest” proposals, Turnbull called them, rightly. He also proposed a “Commission of Sustainable Finances” after a Coalition election win which, like the business portal, is a rehash of a Howard Government idea — Peter Costello had Bob Officer conduct a National Commission of Audit in the Coalition’s first term, which produced some good and some not-so-good fiscal, governance and privatisation ideas. The only new idea was an Australian version of a Congressional Budget Office, answering to Parliament. That’s not a bad idea at all, and I can already see the immense annoyance such a body would cause to a future Government. Imagine if Paul Keating or Peter Costello had been second-guessed, corrected and constantly scrutinised by a genuinely independent group of fiscal gurus. And, finally, there was the binge smoking measure of the increase in tobacco excise. Cigs up, at last. While changing excise rates does not, in the Coalition’s view, change anyone’s drinking habits, clearly it feels increasing tobacco excise will help reduce smoking rates — or at the very least, replace the savings generated by the private health insurance rebate. A bit hard on lower-income earners, who make up most smokers. And if the Coalition thinks “tobacco is the single most preventible [sic] cause of ill health and death in Australia”, perhaps it should stop taking donations from tobacco companies. Still, Turnbull was brave — courageous, perhaps — to use his Budget Reply to urge a tax rise. Bronwyn Bishop, who now seems to be publicly and unashamedly working to undermine her leader, immediately declared she didn’t support it. And Turnbull risks adding to his “Dr No” reputation by emphasising he will block the private health insurance changes. If the Coalition ends up deciding to block any of the other savings measures, they will only confirm the growing perception that all they do is oppose, ensuring more voters switch off. But more seriously, Turnbull didn’t move the debate forward on the deficit. Half of his argument about deficit and debt is still to say he wouldn’t have got into this sort of deficit in the first place. It’s like that Irish joke about asking for directions and being told “I wouldn’t start from here.” It’s not a position he can take to the next election or, really, one he can sustain for much longer. One of the successes of Kevin Rudd’s Opposition leadership was his realisation that not merely did he have to pick and choose where he fought the Howard Government, but once he decided to fight, he needed to bring something positive to the battle. Turnbull rightly understands that the deficit is a potentially valuable issue for him, but he has yet to offer something positive and simple on the issue. Until he does, he won’t be able to tap into Australians’ reflexive worry about debt and channel it into support. There are some other contrasts with Nelson’s effort last year. Turnbull got a much better roll-up in the Press Gallery, but for some reason the Coalition failed to fill one of the public galleries. Worse, one bunch of Young Liberals, dressed up for the dinner afterwards, rolled in late, like they’d lingered too long over cocktails. And while Nelson stayed to shake every hand of every colleague until the chamber was virtually empty, Turnbull accepted a few and then headed out smartly. Peter Costello left in the other direction, avoiding any possibility of giving even a pro forma pat on the back to his leader. Oh, on an unrelated note — one final call as the 2009 Budget draws to a close (Joe Hockey’s address to the National Press Club will complete things next Wednesday). Last year I noticed Laura Tingle was one of the few Gallery journalists getting accurate pre-Budget information from outside the Government’s carefully-orchestrated leaking system. It’s been the same this year. And her commentary and analysis has been excellent. In particular, today’s “Canberra Observed” is — apart from a too-early call on the Coalition’s stance on PHI — by itself worth the $20 or whatever an issue of the Fin costs these days. |
|
|
|
24 Comments
Turnbull did very well, you didn’t really expect him to solve all Labors errors when they haven’t even finished stuffing things up do you ?
Wait till we have the complete series of stuff ups ordered in alphabetical and debt number order then the Libs will have the complete picture and start to fix things, while Rudd is composing essays at the UN no doubt.
The tobacco tax hard on low income earners ?
So is lung cancer if you hadn’t noticed.
That suggestion was fabulous common sense and so simple, even Swan might understand it.
Malcolm Turnbull did, at least, present his speech well. I was shocked that he didn’t follow his good opening with some good philosophy/ideas for the future. Instead we got the same old stooping to party politics and useless potting of the government.
This should have been a golden opportunity for him. His speech was in good order, he looked good, and the eyes of the nation-or at least they should have been-were upon him. Why, oh why did he squander this golden moment? He had everything going for him, absolutely everything. But in the end it was blah, blah, blah.
Also, as a non-smoker, I don’t give a stuff about the price of cigarettes. If the blanket-heads allow themselves to get hooked they should be forced to pay twenty dollars for a packet of cigarettes. I speak as an ex-smoker. If I could have given them up so could anyone else.
Am I the only person who was badly distracted by a jug-eared gentleman on the opposition benches. A man whose fixed expression sort of half-way between adoration and quizzical, one who was plainly in awe of Malcolm. Every time the camera switched to Malcolm there was this adoring mutt hanging on MT’s every word. I would have thought he was a plant by the government, perhaps the next time Malcolm has minor speech-which should have been major- he might rearrange his followers.
PS. As BernardK said. “Well at least he wasn’t wearing a table-cloth like JulieB” At which point I got the giggles.
How dare you denigrate the greatest man that ever walked passed a mirror, and stopped… for half an hour or so? How dare you belittle the economic genius of the man that peter Costello sees as the next former Leader of the Opposition? How can you ignore the greatest Leader of the Opposition since Brendan Nelson?
I mean, Malcolm’s speech was exciting. Just ask all of the Liberal MPs who understood it and then those (1 or 2) who agreed with it.
If the truth be known, all that he does IS to oppose - NEVER to create, to offer real ideas, to show his loyalty to the national economy. In fact let’s be absolutely blunt. The GREATEST enemy that our economic prosperity has is a lack of confidence and all that Mal and Joe offer is a total lack of confidence in anything
Until that changes, and with a new leadership team, the Libs will be the intellectual minority partner in the Coalition
Rudd has done nothing but tell us how bad things are for months, we all know he was just lining up excuses in advance to cover the monumental stuff ups that only Labor can deliver.
The Libs will pick up the mess but lets wait till the destruction is finished so we know just how bad it will be before we start offerring solutions.
In the meantime lets see if Labor can grasp the monumantal intellectual task of determining if raising the price of cigarettes is a good or bad thing.
The real backbreaking mountain the Australian people will need to overcome is the partisan nature of the Canberra press gallery.
Gallileo was famously supposed to have remarked:
“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.”
The Australian people are going to have discover the truth about this cowboy PM despite rather than because of the Fourth Estate as this disparaging assessment of Turnbull’s speech shows.
If Bernard Keane and this media pack, (in the centre of which he is docilely shepherded), continue to have their way the people will be paying for it for decades more to come.
Peter Costello….nothing to do with the budget reply but mention prominently…. tick, Bronwyn Bishop nothing to do with the budget reply but mention prominently….. tick, belittle the substantive measures to improve small business and employment no matter how good or original they are …tick, minimise the recommendations for an independent statutory body to report to parliament on the true fiscal position as opposed to the political partisan bullcrap we’re sold by Ken Henry….tick, although its irrelevant compare and contrast his own colleague’s reaction to Brendan Nelson’s speech last year to Turnbull’s colleagues reaction this year…..tick, although its irrelevant compare and contrast Brendan Nelson’s reaction to Brendan Nelson’s speech last year to Turnbull’s reaction to Turnbull’s speech this year….tick, nauseating slimy innuendo after dishonest innuendo to take the gloss of a fine and forceful speech by the Opposition leader that the PM himself would be incapable of matching in class…………..tick.
Mission accomplished.
Partisanship and mediocrity win the day.
The Australian people lose.
Great assessment…….
Glen and Jimmyk you obviously go dancing together, I hope you enjoy a long and happy life together.
Oh, come on James, you’re harping now. So what, you think BK is slightly biased against the most unpopular opposition in living memory? He’s not against them because he hates them; he hates them because they’re shit. Same as the Howard Haters before them. They didn’t hate Howard because he was John Winston, they hated him because he took Australia to war and was an ahsehole to boot. You’re smarter than that. Why not at least dabble with the actual politics at hand, rather than carping on about bias in the media? I suppose you think the ABC and university campusses are hotbeds of Communist thinkers too. Start by reading the Aus, that should make you feel better.
I thought the speech was pretty good. He did labour the debt point a little to heavily for my taste, but I guess he’s pitching at a certain audience, and the best way to reach them is repetition. I thought some of his statements were disingenuous and misleading, eg the “$48B cost of the NBN”, but hey, that’s politics.
The smoking excise increase makes good sense, and should probably be adopted. As mentioned, it would be awful hypocrisy on the part of the Libs though to push this through and still accept donations from PhillipMorris etc. Again, I doubt awful hypocrisy is outside of the scope of politics either.
I don’t understand the details of the bankruptcy legislation yet, but gee whiz it sounds like a chronic subversion of market forces. Failed business being propped up by the State? Where does survival of the fittest go?
But, kudos for Turnbull for articulating ANY policies; I didn’t think he had it in him. They’re getting warmer, getting a better idea of their heartland. The talk of small business would have warmed some hearts. It’ll be very interesting to see if there’s a blip, or a dip, or a blippety-dip in the TPP’s etc next week. Maybe finally they’re getting some cut through, and they’ll start participating in our democracy again.
The opposition are shit ?
I know you love the money for nothing in the mail BUT -
Libs = full employment and prosperity.
Labor = recession, high debt and unemployment
You can argue with me but you cant argue with the facts.
Evan Beaver: Malcolm T started out well. Composed, yet strong. This was his great golden moment. The eyes of Oz were upon him-or they should have been, I suppose they were in fact looking for the footy. But he had an audience at his feet. Most of whom were interested in the Libs great ideas/thoughts for the future. What did we get for our interest. A good-looking man, a good speech writer AND ONE FUCKIN’ idea about the budget. All too soon it got worse. He played into the government’s hands by stooping to pointless carping.
Was this the vision needed in Australia? NO! He offered NOTHING with any content, or substance. Rank amateur theatrics.
With the best leader in yonks, the Liberals have proved they continue to be a cliché. A gang of losers griping about their imaginary place in the sun. Sorry folks, they’ve got to grow up before they become electable.
One thing that has not been remarked upon is how Tanner has locked Turnbull into backing an increase in tobacco duty. Tanner has hinted that this will be the first tax increase out of the blocks once the Henry review is complete.
Glen, that’s a pretty shallow assessment. Are you suggesting that because of the change of government 18 months ago, the economy has crashed and employment has dropped? It’s so simple I’m surprised I didn’t see it earlier.
Don’t forget either that criticism of the Libs does not imply carte blanche support for all Labour policies. Frankly, the actual party in power doesn’t matter a damn to me, if they’re still producing good, workable, fair, policy.
No Evan it’s just a co incidence that every time labor are in power Australia goes down the toilet.
I dont care who’s in power either but it has to be someone that knows what they’re doing.
Rudd knows exactly what he’s doing, spending away our future to shore up his popularity.
He will go down as the most hated at the end of the day.
I’m puzzled that nobody has equated taxing the Battlers’ cigs with defending the entitlement to SUBSIDISED (so much for self reliane) private health care of the Well-Off - those on over $150pa.
How about a bit of bi-partisanship? Abolish the subsidy for the Silvers AND tax the Fibros’ cigs? That way everybody will be happy. Or equally pissed off.
“No Evan it’s just a co incidence that every time labor are in power Australia goes down the toilet.”
lol
“just a coincidence…”, yeah I’m baffled by that statement as well. This sort of comment contrubutes nothing to the argument at all and just can’t even respond. The suggestion that the name of the party in power is the only thing that affects ‘the economy’ (what ever that means) is utterly ridiculous. Every economist in the world, apart from those in the extroardinarily unpopular Australian Opposition has recommended that the way to fend off the recession is by spending surplusses on stiumlatory measures. I don’t agree 100% with the way it was done, but spending the surplus was the right thing to do.
Which economic indicator tells us the economy has gone down the toilet? Budget surplus is neither here nor there; a surplus means nothing if you don’t use it in harder times. Employment is dropping, mostly due to closing of big mining operations and some financial services. Not sure how Labor caused that but I’ll look into it. The big problems have come from a drop in company taxes, mostly because we’re not doing as much business over seas. Was that uncertainty caused by foreign investors seeing that ‘Oh, God forbid, the Labor Govt is back in, the economy is about to go down the toilet’, and pulling out their funds. Or more likely, is it related to international financial institutions falling over and closing local branches, and China ordering less steel.
The point of the whole thing is that something had to be done in the face of dropping demand, Rudd made a call and acted. The opposition hae remained irrelevant because they’re not articulating alternate visions of what they would have done instead. Suggesting they would have delivered a surplus is nonsense without detailing where they would have saved the $50B required. I notice they’ve stopped complaining about the stim-packs now that the improved retail trade figures have been released. So to bring it back to the article, all I wanted from MT was a plan of how the would have done it differently, and I didn’t get it. I see no reason to vote Liberal now that I didn’t have 18 months ago and until that changes they will remain in the wilderness.
What is actually baffling Evan is that you feign bafflement.
Even though you are clearly a Ruddite, is it unnecessary to follow in Kev’s and Wayne’s footsteps by dishonestly feigning emotions?
In a statement by the IMF on 12 September 2007:
“Executive Directors commended the Australian authorities for their exemplary macroeconomic management, which is widely recognized as being at the forefront of international best practice”
and
“Directors praised Australia’s very strong fiscal position, with fiscal policy firmly focused on medium- and long-term objectives.”
The average real growth in spending under the Coalition was 2 per cent (excluding the GST year), while it was 3.8 per cent under Mr Hawke. The 2008-09 Budget papers estimate that it will be 2.8 per cent under Mr Rudd, which will rise dramatically when the slush funds are spent.
The Coalition reduced spending relative to the size of the economy – four times since 2001-02, paid off over $96 billion in Labor debt, saved $60 billion in the Future Fund, and placed $5 billion in the Higher Education Endowment Fund and provided over $200 billion of tax relief. When the Coalition left office, superannuation assets had risen to well over $1 trillion.
The Liberal Party at state and federal levels generally has a better reputation than Labor in fiscal discipline terms.
It is entirely reasonable to argue that and say this government has demonstrated fiscal responsibility (I would disagree but that is irrelevant to the point).
However it is unreasonable to feign ‘bafflement’ about this widely forwarded argument that Labor was forced to counter and demonstrate to the contrary if they were to have a hope of electoral success.
Hence Rudd’s cigarette paper analogy of his “unapologetically” fiscal conservative likeness to John Howard.
Real growth in spending reflects nothing other than economic philosophy; it is not in and of itself a bad thing. I view the difference between traditional Left and Right politics as a choice between the ‘user pays’ model and the ‘higher taxes/more services’; of course this means that the 2 parties will definitely have different spending regimes. To suggest this is indicative of anything at all is laughable. There will surely be times (such as during the mining boom) where a surplus is a smart idea; building for the future. But the flipside is that after the boom, that surplus is there for a reason.
I am not a Ruddite, and have criticism for most of his policies to date. However, I’ve got stronger criticisms of the way the Libs are doing business at the moment, and so when forced to choose between 2, at the moment I’d vote Labor.
Taking any of these economic indicators in isolation does nothing to further the debate, and suggesting that growth in real spending is an indication of economic credentials needlessly cheapens the discussion. Anyone who argues that an economy should never go into deficit doesn’t have all the facts; however the size of the deficit and the nature of the spending is important. I don’t agree completely with the way the economy has been stimulated, but the retail growth and jobs growth (which is probably a statistical aberation) both point to the argument that it ‘worked’ on some level. Countering that, I would also argue that Costello didn’t do enough with the mining boom windfall, and would have been better served reinvesting that into the longer term infrastructure projects that prepare the economy for slower times, rather than giving it back in the form of greater tax cuts. But, that’s where my politics come into it, and we can disagree fundamentally; I would always rather higher taxes and better public services, than lower taxes and higher user pays charges.
So, again back to the article. For Malcolm to have any chance of getting my vote, I want him to articulate how he would have done it differently, and what the outcomes of those measures would have produced. The figures regarding corporate/private tax figures suggest that the income taxes given back in the last few budgets (Labor included) would have eliminated the surplus in any case, so MT needs to tell me what he’s going to do about that. For someone to rebuild the economy to a state where we are genuinely sustainable will require tax rises or huge cuts in spending, and will require political pain. I doubt either of them have the cajones, but MT’s doing a dreadful job of convincing me it’s even on his agenda.
Have a listen to Chris Leithner, makes more sense than most -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTFLM2KdPD4
In parliament during the afternoon of Turnbull’s Budget Reply speech Labor minister after Labor minister told Turnbull, as Evan is sanctimoniously doing here, that unless he named a debt level that was acceptable to his backbench (read those foaming right wing Costelloites), he would be proved a fool and a fraud.
Gillard said: “If, in that speech, he [Turnbull] does not name tonight a debt level or specify a savings target, then he is going to drive a stake through the heart of his dishonest scare campaign about debt and deficits.”
Why the clamorous imperative of leftists to hear what Malcolm Turnbull would do with it if he were prime minister?
Because of course he isn’t.
He made the following points:
1.If the Liberals had been in government the deficit and debt would be less.
“To repay the principal and interest on Labor’s $188 billion debt over the next 10 years will cost taxpayers $25 billion a year - our largest ever surplus, the Coalition’s last, was $20 billion.
And if the debt turns out to be higher - say $250 billion - then the repayments would be $33 billion a year.
Australians wonder how it could have come to this, in only 18 months?”
2.The savings were inadequate (read less than a Coalition government would have made) and the real budget has been deferred until after the next election along with the necessary pain.
“We should have had a Budget that marked a path out of this downturn, offering confidence and hope for a better future.
Instead, what we were offered was a counsel of despair setting out no credible or convincing plan for economic recovery.
A Budget that just doesn’t add up.
A Budget so unbelievable that the Prime Minister is already running away from it - racing to an early election so that he can get to the polls before the full consequences of his mismanagement are felt by the Australian people.”
3.He refused to spell out a debt or savings target and how to get there and quite rightly:
“all we get (from Kev57 & Wayne) are sanctimonious lectures about how the Opposition should either lock in behind this Government’s failed strategies.
Or provide Labor with the policy alternatives, with the map and compass, that will get them out of the mess in which they find themselves.”
Shame he couldn’t win your vote Evan……….
When you listen to Chris Leithner (above) it becomes depressingly clear how little Rudd and Swan really know, it’s all about them, their popularity, they are so dumb it’s astonishing, no point saying the Libs would be the same, they just wouldn’t and everyone knows it.
We are headed for a long dismal time in the dark made all the worse for Rudd’s incompetence.
According to Leithner, we have a “stupid” party and an “evil” party. Given your love for the Liberals Glenn, are you stupid or evil?
Well Daniel, its’ fairly obvious that Rudd and Swan are stupid so the Libs must be evil.
I dont love the Libs it’s just that Labor are so astonishingly incompetent that even when they try to help the underdog they stuff it up.
First home buyers sucked into the housing bubble for a few thousand dollars will take it full on when interest rates rise, Labor are hopeless but Rudd takes the cake for the most stupid Labor leader of all time or is he just rat cunning.
The only ones to benefit from the boost to the FHBG will ultimately be real estate agents, developers and investors wanting to unload their property at good prices.
@Glenn. Chris Leithner obviously subscribes to the Austrian / vonMises’ school of economics.
Thatcher/Regan economic policies are the closest but actually not followers of this nonclassical economic theory.
Basically Liberal is far more than sensible Labor which is far, far more sensible than insane Rudd Labor.
See the comment after Glenn Dyer’s Chinese ore article.