tip off
17

Budget sales bungle was built in from the start

Fairness, infrastructure, or emergency management? The problems with the government’s explanation of its budget were consolidated even before budget night.

The government’s hopelessly confused rhetoric over its budget didn’t start on budget night. By that stage, its lines were already hopelessly muddled. The post-budget sales process merely created more opportunities for the government to fluff its lines, and it has seized them with both hands.

Central to the government’s fiscal positioning, of course, was the “budget crisis” narrative. In fact the government rarely, if ever, used words like “crisis” or “emergency” — although the Prime Minister in December referred to the “fiscal emergency we face”. Instead it spoke about the need for budget repair and, to try to personalise the narrative, explain how much debt each Australian “man, woman and child” was accumulating. As we’ve previously noted, the government even confused this particular message, using multiple numbers about how much each of us apparently owed; recently, it appears to have settled on “$25,000 for every Australian man, woman and child” as its phrase of choice (google the line and see how often it comes up).

But prior to the budget, the government also decided that it couldn’t merely sell the budget as a set of tough decisions with a long-term pay-off. It took the first step toward mixing its messages by deciding that the return to fuel excise indexation — a courageous and correct decision — would be sold not as a tough decision, but as an infrastructure funding measure, even though not a single extra dollar was guaranteed to go to roads-building (something the Greens never worked out). And the Medicare co-payment would be sold as providing a vast medical research fund, even as the government declared (incorrectly) that health spending growth was unsustainable.

So, two of its most controversial “tough decisions” were to be sold not as tough decisions at all, but as providing a payback to voters.

To be fair to the government, and especially the Treasurer, this was partly because Joe Hockey understood that the fiscal task was one of consolidation, not of urgent return to surplus, because the economy wasn’t in a condition to withstand a significantly faster fiscal tightening than that already planned by Labor. The economy had softened in 2013, partly in response to Wayne Swan’s 2012 budget, which for the first time in over forty years actually reduced spending in nominal terms, albeit partly via some fiscal smoke and mirrors. As Swan, who had to halt a savage program of spending cuts in the lead-up to the 2008 budget out of concern for the looming financial crisis, could have told Hockey, mixing austerity and growth narratives can be a tricky business. But in the end, the bell and whistles of roads-building and medical research were political judgements that would only confuse the message. It was the first misstep in what would become a sequence of errors.

Then there was the Commission of Audit report, which started life as a proud Coalition boast about its willingness to aggressively interrogate the entire role of government, and ended up a policy polecat that no one wanted around as the budget drew nearer and the government came to worry that it would be interpreted as a Coalition wishlist, not that of an old white businessman. The Commission of Audit challenge became not to how to sell it effectively, but how to dispose of it thoughtfully.

All of this came together in Joe Hockey’s speech to a Spectator gathering in April. Hockey’s speech had the lot: extensive detail about the fiscal mess the government had inherited and the need to ensure future generations were relieved of debt; the Commission of Audit report that “has provided an important perspective for the framing of the May Budget” and which Hockey drew on for many of the numbers in the speech; and, almost as an after-thought, a mention of increased infrastructure spending. Jobs were barely mentioned in the speech — except, of course, for the “budget repair job”.

Central to Hockey’s explanation of the budget situation was that “Australia has a serious spending problem”. What he failed to mention was that he was in the process of substantially increasing spending. In Chris Bowen’s Economic Statement before the election, Labor had forecast $396 billion in spending for 2013-14, or 5.7% real growth from Swan’s ferocious 2012-13 effort. In May, Hockey announced he’d lifted spending in 2013-14 to $410.7 billion, or 8.9% real growth. Hockey also lifted spending this year by over a billion dollars, and left spending forecasts for the subsequent two years intact. For anyone bothering to check the figures, Hockey was lamenting a “serious spending problem” while worsening it.

Immediately after the budget was delivered, however, this sort of arcane debate was replaced with fairness, an issue the government appeared to have done no preparation for, as if it simply didn’t foresee that measures primarily targeting low and middle income earners would be interpreted as unfair. Hockey even encouraged the perception of divisiveness by ending his budget speech referring to “lifters” and “leaners”. In response to the “fairness” complaints, the Prime Minister insisted vociferously that the budget was indeed fair. Hockey even attacked the criticism as “class warfare” –- as we know, the claim of “class warfare” is one to which the Coalition tends to default.

You’d have thought a key part of the response to the “fairness” issue, rather than demonising those raising it, would have been to emphasise that the budget was aimed at infrastructure spending that would drive jobs growth — the best form of welfare is a job, etc etc. But infrastructure disappeared, almost completely, from the budget debate. Or, more correctly, it only appeared in a way that, amazingly, harmed the government. Hockey’s ingenious asset recycling proposal became bogged down in arguments about privatisation — something so loathed by voters that it unites Australians right across the political spectrum. Only belatedly did jobs reappear in the government’s rhetoric, once unemployment had risen to 6.4%, prompting the government to claim that the passage of a budget that it had argued was all about “tough decisions” and spending cuts would create jobs.

By that time Hockey had taken to warning he would find savings elsewhere if the budget wasn’t passed in full, a line he was immediately criticised for from within his own ranks — although that line has now returned, presumably in authorised form, with Education Minister Christopher Pyne and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann saying on the weekend that spending cuts and tax rises elsewhere would have to go ahead if the budget measures weren’t passed.

Confusion also plagued the government’s attitude toward the process of getting budget measures through the Senate. The Prime Minister seems to regularly declare that all the measures would be passed no matter what. Hockey, who would go on to successive misadventures over the revelation he wanted a tougher budget and that he thought poor people didn’t drive, also called incoming crossbench senators “the coalition of the irrelevant”, the sort of language presumably intended to endear him to them. Soon after, Senate leader Eric Abetz was charged with undertaking a “charm offensive” with the new arrivals — Abetz being the sort of person one immediately thinks of when charm is required. And belatedly, the government realised that its own narrative of urgent budget repair was adding to its political difficulties, not helping them, with a noticeable switch in rhetoric elegantly symbolised by Cormann claiming the budget would be a marathon, not a sprint (the Terminator is, of course, capable of both).

If nothing else, Cormann’s comment suggests the government’s budget-inspired pain won’t be ending anytime soon.

17

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



  • 1
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 25 August 2014 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    I’m surprised they’re not telling us that passing their budget will “stop the drownings and terrorism” too?

    I’d like them to reinstate those taxes - to the level before Howard (with much of this same government) white-anted our bottom line to buy votes - to watch them sell it, the way they’re selling this Limited News Party packapoo.

    And Abetz - how true - Hero of Utegate - Mr Poisonality - the “Mr Burns of Canberra”?

  • 2
    rhwombat
    Posted Monday, 25 August 2014 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    I do miss the functional competence of Gillard’s government.

  • 3
    Jaybuoy
    Posted Monday, 25 August 2014 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    For a man who has had a bariatric band installed due to his inability to control himself to be sarcastically saying that it was quite likely that Malcolm Turnbull had run into Clive Palmer by accident because “Clive has two meals every night”says a lot about Hockey and none of it good..

  • 4
    The Old Bill
    Posted Monday, 25 August 2014 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    So do I rhwombat, Julia would have managed to broker a deal with Clive for a start. Maybe mot Bob Day or Leyonhjelm, but now that Clive is a global warming believer, a Greens, PUP, Labor Coalition could have ruled us happily.

  • 5
    Steve777
    Posted Monday, 25 August 2014 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    At the heart of the Government’s problems selling the budget is that the Budget is not about fixing the nation’s finances so much as implementing a radical reform agenda. This agenda was not disclosed before the election. Little or no effort has been made to sell this agenda. The Government prefers to pretend that it’s all about fixing the previous Government’s ‘waste and mismanagement’.

    The savings measures hit those who can least afford it for very little return to the bottom line. The Medicare Co-payment would only save several hundred million dollars per annum in return for effectively ending bulk billing, (which I suspect is its real purpose). Meanwhile, billions in revenue have been thrown away, including Carbon Pricing, the Mining Tax and FBT tax reforms. On the other hand, low-handing fruit like the truly unsustainable superannuation tax concessions have been ignored.

    Add to this wasting billions on a ‘Direct Action’ plan supported by no one, an absurdly generous parental leave scheme and red-herrings like medical research funds and it’s a complete mess.

    The Budget doesn’t need a tweak here and there or major surgury. It needs to be dumped and started again from scratch.

  • 6
    CML
    Posted Monday, 25 August 2014 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    Klewso 1 is correct. The tax rates need to be returned to the levels they were at pre-Howard - especially for those at the top-end.
    There, in all seriousness, I’ve said it! Now you can all pick yourselves up off the floor and ditch the fake outrage!!
    We need to get real here - we have a REVENUE problem. Where does the government get the bulk of its income from? TAXES!!!!!!
    And I’ll say it yet again - the $7 co-payment is a load of nonsense. If we need more money to provide good quality health care, we do what we have always done. RAISE THE MEDICARE LEVY. Good Lawd, someone with half a brain should be able to work that out. It seems that rules out the rAbbott’s front bench!!!

  • 7
    Neutral
    Posted Monday, 25 August 2014 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    I do miss the functional competence of Gillard’s government.”

    Haha yeah it’s getting that way but I still blame her and Rudd and Shorten for the lot we have now…

    Elsewhere it’s bit of a surprise that it is recognised as a budget. But I suppose it is in a GW Bush sense in that it has a lot of numbers…

  • 8
    mikehilliard
    Posted Monday, 25 August 2014 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    No wonder Abbott et al keep daring Shorten and Bowen to say what Labor would do as the Coalition certainly doesn’t have any idea.

  • 9
    Draco Houston
    Posted Monday, 25 August 2014 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    Easy to see now why the Coalition would not give details during the election, they just didn’t have any.

  • 10
    Duncan Gilbey
    Posted Monday, 25 August 2014 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    That’s right Draco, the “plan” was to win the election.

    They’ve been demonstrating that they didn’t have a clue what to do once they did (win the election) ever since.

  • 11
    David Hand
    Posted Monday, 25 August 2014 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

    The simple fact is that the Coalition didn’t have the numbers in the senate to pass the budget before July and they don’t have them now either.

    We’ve now got Lazarus threatening to vote down tax increases so it seems that no proposal to restore Australia’s deficit problem will be achieved until after the next election.

    The Senate is the beginning and the end of the problem.

    I suspect that the Coalition will simply continue on with Labor’s deficit just like it is continuing on with Labor’s massive social welfare giveaways. If they get thrown out at the next election, well, the voters are always right. They’ll put someone in to fix the mess eventually.

  • 12
    klewso
    Posted Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 12:15 am | Permalink

    Big Ears or Noddy?
    Sadly this isn’t Toyland?

  • 13
    rhwombat
    Posted Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    Oh bullshit, Hand. The essence of our society that lies in the social capital that your side wants to control - the non-exclusive access of the rest of us to the facilities of the commons that your plutocratic masters want to commercialise and ration (like Medicine, Law, Education, opportunity of immigration & Information) together with the - is what will condemn you Tea Party Tories to oblivion. What we are seeing in Rupert’s puppets is what your side is and always will be. That way lies Nixon, Thatcher, Reagan, Blair, Cheney, Howard, their masters (Murdoch, Hancock, the Bankers, the Miners, old King Coal, the Oiligarchs and the other Koch-suckers), and their gibbering acolytes in the News Corpse PR court. The ‘someone to fix the mass’ was Gillard - and look what your mob did to her.

  • 14
    oldskool
    Posted Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    @ DH
    “I suspect that the Coalition will simply continue on with Labor’s deficit just like it is continuing on with Labor’s massive social welfare giveaways. If they get thrown out at the next election, well, the voters are always right. They’ll put someone in to fix the mess eventually.”

    Nice try, but this is now all their debt- they removed the ‘carbon tax’,mining tax, and did not push through the changes to leasing to increase the tax take. These are all labor revenue initiatives that are worth billions that the Libs either removed or did not follow through on. Therefore, ANY revenue issues from the current clowns are solely their responsibity, not the senates, on that funny I don’t recall you blaming Labors woes solely on the senate, yet they managed…

  • 15
    MJPC
    Posted Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    @DH
    “Labours massive social welfare giveaways” as against the LNP massive paid parental leave giveaway to the rich? When they shelve that elephant in the government then we’ll know they are fair dinkum.

  • 16
    Andrew Dolt
    Posted Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    No matter how clueless and incompetent the Abbott government demonstrates itself to be, it will always retain one voter who is unwilling to throw his Hand in. But I suppose, until someone has the wit to set up the Stubborn Stupidity Party, the stubbornly stupid have little choice but the Coalition.

  • 17
    Dogs breakfast
    Posted Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    The class warfare jibe, which always comes out whenever abhorrent Lib/nats policy is criticised, quite gets up my goat.

    What is the medicare co-payment, denying welfare to the unemployed, the abolition of the carbon and mining tax while leaving superannuation and negative gearing rorts in place, if not ‘Class Warfare’.

    They are the masters of class warfare and cry poor too frequently.

    Although it may be that they have no idea what they are talking about.

Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :



Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...