Menu lock


May 23, 2014

How the government bumbled into a budget disaster

A series of errors by the government's strategists have turned the 2014 budget into a political disaster. The narrative has gotten away from Tony Abbott.

Until last week, the worst budget in political terms in the modern era was John Dawkins’ 1993 budget, delivered after “the sweetest victory of all”, which lifted indirect taxes, cut spending and delayed the L-A-W tax cuts. It was called “indefensible” by the then-ACTU president Martin Ferguson and sparked a caucus revolt, led by a newly elected Wayne Swan.

The 2014 budget has yet to spark a party room revolt, but in political terms it makes 1993 look like a masterwork. And it’s the product of a series of errors that will need to be fixed if the government is to get back on course.

The one success of the budget has been in convincing voters there’s a real crisis. Treasurer Joe Hockey and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann were successful in preparing the groundwork for the budget by repeatedly emphasising the fiscal chaos Labor left behind: over half of voters believe there’s a “budget emergency” of some kind, according to this week’s Essential poll — including 39% of Labor voters. One of the repeated failings of the Rudd and Gillard governments was an inability to explain to voters what exact problem they were trying to solve with controversial policy proposals, but Hockey and Cormann convinced more than half of voters that there was a budget problem.

But the budget messaging process descended into chaos well before the budget. A key moment was the leaking of the deficit levy to Sam Maiden at News Corporation. There was no clear policy detail of the levy, and no confirmation of it, so the government couldn’t articulate any position while debate erupted about it. One of the things the Howard government became good at was ensuring that backbenchers were given the tools they needed to sell difficult policies — MPs would be given talking points and some background, including the financial impacts in their own electorates if possible, in order to respond to worried constituents. But in this instance, Coalition MPs were given nothing because there was literally nothing to give them in the absence of a settled policy.

Worst of all, it was a clear broken promise.

It was here that the first major mistake was made by the Coalition: instead of accepting that the budget would require the government to break faith with voters and explain it as being in the national interest, the preferred line was to insist that a deficit levy, or petrol excise indexation, was no broken promise, either because no commitment had been given about no new taxes, or because they weren’t a new tax, or because, as we heard post-budget, the Coalition had before the election made a kind of bedrock promise, beneath any specifics, about fixing the budget.

Call this the reverse dog whistle — Hockey and Abbott claim to have been communicating about promises at a frequency evidently too low for voters to hear.

The core of these arguments is that voters are wrong to think there’d been any broken promises. And no politician is going to get far by insisting voters are wrong — the effective political messages are ones that reinforce, not contradict, voter perceptions. But, having achieved office partly on crucifying Julia Gillard for breaking promises, and having seen Gillard unsuccessfully try to cop the broken promise charge sweet and argue the merits, the Prime Minister and Treasurer spent much of their time during the post-budget “selling” period arguing the toss over whether they’d broken promises, rather than explaining the budget.

The second error was a more culpable one and reflects badly on the Prime Minister’s Office and the Treasurer’s staff. In the course of selling the budget, both Abbott and Hockey made errors on the detail of high-profile measures — Hockey on the Medicare co-payment, Abbott on university fees and the impact on the states of cuts to education and health funding indexation. The impression was created that the government didn’t understand the very policies it was inflicting on voters. If Abbott and Hockey couldn’t get it right, could you blame pensioners for thinking their pensions were under threat, or low-income earners for thinking the Medicare co-payment had started already? This week it seemed the Prime Minister’s Office needed to issue a Nixonian “that statement is no longer operational” clarification as Abbott winked his way from error to error.

“There’s one more thing that Howard and Costello never faced: social media.”

This may reflect the nature of the budget preparation: there’s a persistent rumour in Canberra that some key decisions weren’t made until very late in the process, just days out from the budget — in particular, the decision to dud the states of health and education funding. That would explain why Abbott got it wrong on when the states would be hit by funding indexation cuts, and why there was no consultation with enraged premiers.

The third key error was also a matter of poor judgment from the Coalition brains trust. Releasing the Commission of Audit report less than two weeks before the budget confused the economic fantasies of an old, rich businessman with actual government policy, especially in relation to the pension, which Hockey had been publicly musing about. While Hockey, Cormann and Abbott were repeating ad nauseum that the Commission of Audit was “to the government, not by the government”, the message appeared not to get through to pensioners. When a wily old campaigner like LNP backbencher Warren Entsch warned that the Commission of Audit had “frightened the bejeezus” out of pensioners, governments strategists should have realised there was a potential for the budget to simply snowball into Tony Shepherd’s obsessions, not be distinct from it.

The fourth error wasn’t the politics, it was the policy of the budget. As Howard and Costello showed in 1996 and 1997, you can get away with a harsh budget — even with breaking promises — if you show it’s in the national interest and you show there’s equity in the harshness. But there was no equity in the budget — instead, it looked like a Coalition hit list of groups that had annoyed it or whom they simply enjoyed beating up on — the unemployed, poor foreigners, the ABC, low-income earners — while the wealthy enjoyed ever-burgeoning tax breaks and companies were given tax cuts. Even Liberal voters, according to Essential, disliked measures like deregulating university fees and raising the pension age and thought the well-off came out much better from the budget than the poor.

Moreover, it delivered pain without apparent purpose. The budget did not return to surplus within the forward estimates, because the government refused to target corporations and high-income earners, depriving it of a clear benefit to which it could point as a product of the pain.

There’s one more thing that Howard and Costello never faced: social media. News Corp might be desperately trying to prop up the budget, and in the process demonise what’s left of their readership, but the budget has been copping a hiding on social media, both of snark and factual criticism, from the moment of its release. That creates a feedback loop in which the mainstream media report how social media has covered the budget (why, who on earth knows, but they do it), intensifying the remorseless criticism of it.

Some of this can correctly be blamed on this being the government’s first budget. None of the errors reflect fatal flaws in the government’s decision-making process. But all of them reflect internal problems and misjudgements that need to be examined. An improving economy could make voters forget all the pain in six months. But the government can’t afford another debacle like this.

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola


Leave a comment

29 thoughts on “How the government bumbled into a budget disaster

  1. paddy

    [None of the errors reflect fatal flaws in the government’s decision-making process.]

    I think you let the Govt off a bit lightly there Bernard.
    Fatal is exactly what it looks and smells like.
    They’re simply not equipped to govern.

  2. Dez Paul

    Exactly what paddy said. Can’t see Abbott recovering from this, and Hockey’s ambitions (assuming he had them) are mow completely cruelled. Awesome.

  3. klewso

    Let’s face it, Shonkey and Shagger Cormann had help selling that negative message.
    [Open a paper every day, for 6 years, to negativity – when it’s 4:1 on that the paper you read is one of Murdoch’s. Or listening to rodeo shock-jocks like Singo’s “Cock-or-Two Circus” feeding off their dregs?]

    And I loved Tony Shepherd reported as criticising “sectional interests” – as if he isn’t one? How much did he donate to this Limited News Party?

  4. Repete

    Klassy Klewso “Limited News Party”, Haha!!

  5. Steve777

    Even if there is a budget problem, Abbott told us everything will be fine if we stop the boats and stop the ‘waste’. When asked to give examples of waste, opposition spokesmen muttered about batts and cheques to dead people. They forgot to tell us they regarded spending on Medicare, Hospitals and education as wasteful.

  6. Paddy Forsayeth

    How come there is no examination about the “prosetylsing program” being increased in schools (the so called school chaplains.) As a retired teacher I can say that the school chaplain is simply a front to pushing religion. No comment on the amazing contrast between the reduction in funding for say the CSIRO and the increase in the ‘religion for schools’? Is it coincidence that Abbott and the Cabinet are catholics in the majority? Abbott will blurr the separation of Church and State. Will we also have imams going into our schools? The BOHICA model is well and truly alive and well.

  7. zut alors

    ‘… over half of voters believe there’s a “budget emergency” of some kind, according to this week’s Essential poll — including 39% of Labor voters…’

    My elderly mother believes this tosh. I put the case that Australia is one of only eight countries boasting a AAA credit rating & asked her how that tallies with an economic crisis. Silence…it’s easier to read a Murdoch headline than to apply logic or engage thought.

  8. AR

    Why does Crikey keep repeating the “repeating ad nauseum” error which would ad nauseam?
    And, “News Corp might … demonise what’s left of their readership“… what part of their ‘readership’ would that be, the ones that moves their lips when they think?

  9. JMNO

    The budget is awful. There are no two ways around it. Not only is it mean, it is myopic and mindlessly ideological. It is poorly conceived and poorly thought through. The cuts will adversely affect the economy as well as the social fabric.

    This might be their first budget but Abbott and Hockey have been in parliament for a long time and have been in government before. They should be able to do this by now.

    I am wondering if Abbott has the flexibility to change. He has always been a tribal warrior. He’s good at wars but as with other fighters, is he capable of running the peace? I am not sure he is. And his response to criticism is not to take on board a widely held sentiment that it is mean but to think that his critics are all supporters of the Opposition. If he thinks like this, he isn’t going to have the skills to negotiate.

  10. tonysee

    The answer is becoming quickly apparent, JMNO.

    Labor, for all its faults presided over a very productive parliament despite its minority status. They had to negotiate ad nauseam (thanks AR) and deal with an aggressive, snapping opposition.

    Now the Libs, in a very workable majority early in their term, are bleating on social media about Shorten ‘sabotaging’ democracy. And the evidence? A op-ed from the Daily Smellegraph.