tip off

Think of the children: govt grasps at straws to sell budget

A desperate government won’t get much help from the Business Council when it comes to intergenerational issues.

There’s desperation, there’s clutching at straws … and then there’s the Abbott government’s attempts to save its budget.

The government has tried pretty much everything. It has tried insisting that the budget is fair. “[T]he load is fairly shared because that’s the Australian way,” the Prime Minister insisted just days after the budget was released, saying “the fair go principle, which is very important for our country, continues in this budget”. It tried insisting there was no alternative and that the budget would be passed no matter what. It tried leaving Treasurer Joe Hockey, whose popularity with the electorate has suddenly plummeted, out of its sales pitch. It has tried to convince voters of a budget emergency. It has tried a charm offensive with the eccentric mob of crossbenchers who now hold the key to legislation in the Senate. It — or at least Hockey — tried darkly suggesting if the Senate didn’t like the budget, cuts would be found elsewhere.

And, usually, it has tried all or most of those things at the same time, reflecting the confused nature of a budget that emphasises punishment without economic reward. The latest strategy, David Crowe reported today, is to bring forward the next Intergenerational Report in order to help convince voters, and maybe crossbench senators, of the dire fiscal circumstance in which Australia will find itself in decades to come. Oh, and by the way, what’s the bet the report won’t mention the burden of addressing climate change that we’ve dumped onto our kids?

That’s less a straw to be clutched at than a carbon nanotube. And to the extent that the report — population, productivity, participation, etc, etc — enters into the public consciousness, it won’t help the government: voters already believe there’s a need to get the budget back to surplus; the problem is that they dislike how the government has proposed to do it, believing it to be fundamentally unfair. It’s the fairness issue the government needs to address, not the need for fiscal discipline. But, of course, making the budget fairer would require more substantial measures against high-income earners and companies than a temporary, small rise in income tax for very high-income earners. And this government is in the business of looking after high-income earners and companies, not hurting them.

The head of the Business Council, Catherine Livingstone, meanwhile, made her own contribution to intergenerational issues by telling Fairfax she thought “there are too many people going to university” and not enough got a vocational education.

Coming just days after she revealed a major new report and an economic vision for Australia, you’d assume Livingstone and the Business Council had explored this issue of too much book-learnin’ in detail in preparing its, ahem, “visionary” Building Australia’s Comparative Advantages. Peculiarly, Livingstone mentioned education just once in her speech, to argue that international education was an area of comparative advantage for Australia. Otherwise, education didn’t get a guernsey. The paper itself discusses vocational education, but only offers motherhood statements like recommendations to “better integrate the VET system with other parts of the education system and with industry”.

Nor does the original report on which the paper is based discuss the balance between university and vocational education. In fact, the only detailed discussion education got from the Business Council last week was about how Australian higher education was a great export earner and one of our few areas of comparative advantage that we should concentrate on.

So, shorter Livingstone: university education is great, but only for foreigners so we can generate export dollars. Not, you know, that this is about picking winners.

As Livingstone might know if her consultants or the BCA’s staff had bothered to do some research, university education is associated with significantly higher lifetime earnings (and thus higher tax payments), better health outcomes, lower transfer payments and more civic engagement. But the issue shouldn’t be whether business figures, or governments, should arbitrarily decree that too many people are going to university, but providing an education system that enables students to choose what works best for themselves, whether it’s vocational education, university education or a mix of both. That includes more effectively integrating vocational training into secondary schools — something the previous government had a strong focus on via trades training centres, but which the Coalition reflexively dislikes — and minimising  educational disincentives, like fee payment systems that will actively deter low- and middle-income students from choosing courses they might otherwise take.

It also includes more effectively targeted education spending to improve outcomes and address disadvantage — something that was at the heart of the Gonski recommendations that the government has now abandoned in favour of its traditional obsession with looking after private schools.

All of these areas have significant implications for the long-term impact of an ageing population: a more skilled, healthier, higher-earning workforce that lifts economic growth and tax revenue, and the identification and early remediation of educational disadvantage that lifts participation and lowers transfer payments. But chances are, when the Intergenerational Report does appear, you won’t hear any of that over the cries of “budget crisis”.

16
  • 1
    SusieQ
    Posted Monday, 4 August 2014 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    its traditional obsession with looking after private schools” - says it all really - I’ve not heard one whinge from the over privileged and over funded private schools - I guess the age of entitlement only extends to state schools.

  • 2
    Bill Hilliger
    Posted Monday, 4 August 2014 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    La,la,la, come next election, the coalition’s traditional elderly supporters will be waiting for them with a big electoral stick. Whack! Goodbye coalition government.

  • 3
    fractious
    Posted Monday, 4 August 2014 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    This being the Budget that even Treasury analysis (as reported in Fairfax papers resulting from their FoI) summarises as unfair to those on below-average incomes; and this being the Treasurer who, in response, publicly utters the outright falsehood that “higher-income households pay half their income in tax”.

  • 4
    Theon
    Posted Monday, 4 August 2014 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    The problem isn’t just the Abbott government’s unfairness, it’s their acceptance of unfairness as normal.

  • 5
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 4 August 2014 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    To be fair, check under Coal-ition governments - “The poor are much more used to bearing burdens”.
    I guess this shows where this grizzly bear defecates?

  • 6
    SusieQ
    Posted Monday, 4 August 2014 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    Very true Theon, probably because thats their life experience.

  • 7
    scott redford
    Posted Monday, 4 August 2014 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    It will Julie Bishop as PM by early next year. It’s obvious.

  • 8
    leon knight
    Posted Monday, 4 August 2014 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    Scott, if you are right I don’t think our second female PM will get a much better run than the first, but she will certainly be a lot less capable and principled….

  • 9
    CML
    Posted Monday, 4 August 2014 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    My main worry is Palmer and the crossbench. How many of them will find it expedient to pass some of the more odious elements of this budget?
    After all, if some commentators are correct, not many of this lot will be in the Senate next time around. And given that most of them are ‘right-wing’ sympathisers, it makes sense for them to do as much damage as possible to those in the lower socio-economic groups, while they have the opportunity.

  • 10
    Jaybuoy
    Posted Monday, 4 August 2014 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    Hockey revealed his hollowness when he cried in parliament over the transfer of children to Malaysia claiming it would occur over his dead body..it’s now occurring over his dead reputation..

  • 11
    MJPC
    Posted Monday, 4 August 2014 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    “[T]he load is fairly shared because that’s the Australian way,”
    Patriotism is indeed the last refuge of the scoundrel, even if they be the PM. There can never be a fairness issue with the LNP considering they are in the bed with the big end of town.
    On the remembrance of the start of WW1, take no prisoners when it comes to the LNP.

  • 12
    Bill Hilliger
    Posted Monday, 4 August 2014 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    …as Livingstone might know if her consultants or the BCA’s staff had bothered to do some research. Wot, research never! they’re like the coalition lowbrows they fraternise with, suspicious of that research palaver. Cheap labour that’s what its all about with the BCA. You can’t have cheap labour if the working classes are educated and too clever.

  • 13
    old greybeard
    Posted Monday, 4 August 2014 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    Hmm More tradies is a good thing, so let’s bugger the TAFE system. Hockey is a gutless twerp. And an arrogant uncaring swine. Don’t want to praise him too much.

  • 14
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 4 August 2014 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

    Funny watching this fore-flusher of the hyper-bowl (in Opposition) getting all flushed today, copping a bit of his own “ordure of merit” back, with those “operational Budget matters” figures he was sitting on?

  • 15
    Mal Park
    Posted Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    Yes, perhaps university and school subsidies and high paying jobs should just be reserved for private school graduates, with parents earning over 180K. (Oh, this is the result of the BCA statement).
    The problem currently is too many graduates for the law/business jobs traditionally passed down - in the good old days only wealthy children could go to uni, and thus get those jobs, but now lower income graduates are competing, there are not enough graduate jobs even for the wealthy kids.
    When the wealthy find their kids now have the same problems as the rest getting jobs, something needs to be done !

  • 16
    Mr J
    Posted Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    I’m confused by this assertion, by this Government, that in order to save the systems we like, such as Medicare/PBS, we have to give up on these systems, $7 co-payment, allow more coverage by private health insurance providers? Surely it’s just a matter of prioritising it. The same way they prioritise tax expenditures for the wealthy.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...