I actually enjoyed liveblogging the Budget a tad more than I thought I would, perhaps because it forced me to think quickly about the politics rather than sitting back and watching the flights of rhetorical exuberance which were missing - deliberately. The media meme about Wayne Swan’s speaking style misses the point - Kevin Rudd’s no more flashy. The whole message of this government is that they are careful, measured guardians of the nation’s future, thinking long term, thinking about fairness, and thinking about all Australians.
The presentation is the politics - because the politics is all about disabling the political game, and leaving the Opposition very little space to operate in, while the Government occupies a space above the fray. So Swan - and Rudd - are speaking way over the heads of the punditariat and the press gallery, and carefully targeting budget messages on one hand, and using the set piece of the budget speech on the other to reach a citizenry who are usually disengaged from the day to day noise of the parliamentary and media cut and thrust. Hence all the reiteration of election promises - first to build trust (and contrast with Howard’s non-core promises) and secondly to announce them once again to people who missed them during all the frenzy of the campaign. They’re also wrapped up in a narrative of Labor’s choosing - designed to put to rest any lingering suspicions of “me-too-ism”. The Libs? They become the background noise.
If you were expecting a Keatingesque or Costelloish performance, you’ve missed the change to the rules of the game. As I remarked earlier tonight, it’s a very niche piece of political theatre. For most people, it’s not the decisive political moment the press gallery thinks it is. And Swan and Rudd are putting much more effort into swaying the electorate rather than wow-ing the political commentators (the market wonks are a different matter, of course).
There’s another attempt going on here to build on what Labor’s research told it during last year’s campaign - people didn’t expect the government to solve all their problems, and they recognised many of the global financial winds were outside any government’s control. So to rubbish Swan’s “feel your pain” message is also to miss the point. The choice of the word “help” is very important - it’s about protecting Australians and assisting them, and investing for the future, not about declaring that all problems can be solved by fiscal fiat. Labor’s polling has been telling Ministers that people don’t expect Labor to magic away their financial problems, but to offer support. The politics of this budget are all about not just “helping working families” but also about being the anti-Howard - planning for the future, not election winning handouts. Will the media be able to understand this supersedes the “winners and losers” paradigm?
Because another element of Swan’s “shared sacrifice” rhetoric - and all the comments about “fairness” - is about flicking the switch to a more collective and less individual conception of our national destiny. So the ALP are trying to wean people off the entitlement mentality Howard built up with his politics of handouts, and to think in broader terms about challenges the country faces, and how wealth and risk are distributed. In that sense, it really is a “good Labor budget”.
Cross-posted at PollieGraph.
Elsewhere: More from Trevor Cook. Crikey, who made it into the lockup this year, react.
Update: More instant commentary from the blogosphere - Graham Young doesn’t like Labor budgets, and John Quiggin’s pleased to see the back of Peter Costello.
Meanwhile, the budget papers can be found here.
“it really is a “good Labor budget”.
I think so. Swan on the 7.30 report was also impressive. No substitute for hard work.
Whereas, Turnbull was?
It’s a budget that could have been delivered by a responsible conservative government (that is, one that wasn’t spending like mad to get re-elected). Anyone doubting that Rudd meant what he said when he described himself as a fiscal conservative will see that they were wrong.
Big surplus to appease the financial scrfeen jockeys? Check.
Big, big investment in generic future funds? Check
Income tax cuts? Check
Cuts in upper middle class (not middle class) welfare? Check. (According to Andrew Leigh’s numbers, household income above $150,000 is in the top 15%.)
Big increases in defence spending? (Can’t ben seen to be weak on national security.) Check
Turnbull actually made some good points on the 7.30 report. But it was a technocrat’s response that was piss-weak politically.
“Whereas, Turnbull was?”
Can’t remember. I might, if he could make a point. Maybe tomorrow when the media advisors do a polish. Badly needed.
He whinged about the alcopop and Audi taxes. And won’t someone please think of the private health industry?!
I dunno, I thought Turnbull really didn’t have much to work with.
I wonder how the “infrastructure funds” will play. They sound great, but of course, the government can cut funding from consolidated revenue to those areas to compensate. The real question - and it’s where Turnbull did have a reasonable point - is where the money ends up getting spent. And we don’t get to find that one out yet.
“The real question - and it’s where Turnbull did have a reasonable point - is where the money ends up getting spent.”
Every spiv, con artist and shyster in the land will be beating a path to Canberra to get a slice of the 40 bill. It’ll take a lot of discipline to resist them all.
As I said in the liveblogging post, Infrastructure Australia has already been established by statute, and I imagine they’ll do the spending. It’s an arms-length process - I think they’ll be determined not to repeat the Nationals’ rorts by ministerial discretion process. Tanner’s already issued instructions circumscribing the latter.
I would think states and local government will be the chief mendicants, and big biz as well.
I don’t see Turnbull as having made much of a point.
I was rather disappointed about that. I was hoping the new government would take the opportunity to move on from this “war on terror” and divert the funds to where they’re actually needed.
Mark, it was interesting that my wife, who watched the whole thing [”Why?”, I asked “Cos there’s nothing else on” she replied.] made almost exactly the same points as you do in the first two paragraphs of your post.
So you must be right.
Her other comment was that Turnbull comes across as an empty fool.
Now I wonder how the OO will tell us how to take it?
They’re going to have to work hard to spin this one negatively.
Chris (a different one) May 13th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
“would take the opportunity to move on from this “war on terror”
By not mentioning it, they already have. There is a new narrative but don’t tell anyone. A slow dawning?
Well said Mark.
“I try to think of the Labor movement, not as putting an extra sixpence into somebody’s pocket, or making somebody prime minister or premier, but as a movement bringing something better to the people, better standards of living, greater happiness to the mass of the people. We have a great objective - the light on the hill - which we aim to reach by working the betterment of mankind not only here but anywhere we may give a helping hand. If it were not for that, the Labor movement would not be worth fighting for.
“If the movement can make someone more comfortable, give to some father or mother a greater feeling of security for their children, a feeling that if a depression comes there will be work, that the government is striving its hardest to do its best, then the Labor movement will be completely justified.”
(Ben Chifley)
and
“I dont think there is a government in the world that hasnt proclaimed itself an education government in recent years. And it is quite true that education must be at the core of any governments response to the challenge of the new age. But a new sort of education and literacy is required. We may need a different kind of education system to cope with it. One which not only makes better use of the new technology but which understands that kids brought up with computers and the internet learn in new ways.
Peter Drucker recently wrote that Fifty years hence we may well conclude that there was no crisis of education in the closing years of the 20th century there was only a growing incongruence between the way late twentieth century schools taught and the way late 20th century children learned. Something similar happened in the 16th century university, 100 years after the invention of the printing press and moveable type.”
(Paul Keating: Transformations - 3 November 1999)
and
Labor’s primary goal isn’t extending public ownership. It isn’t extending the welfare state. It’s not even extending labour market regulation, though we’re engaged in a life-or-death struggle over Workchoices. Our primary goal is to extend access to learning, to ensure everyone can participate fully in our society and live good, fulfilling lives. Everyone’s good at something. We have to ensure everyone can turn that ability into a worthwhile contribution to our society, and be rewarded for it.
(Lindsay Tanner, 2006)
and
“The concept of social inclusion in essence means replacing a welfarist approach to helping the underprivileged with one of investing in them and their communities to bring them into the mainstream market economy. It’s a modern and fresh approach that views everyone as a potential wealth creator and invests in their human capital.”
(Julia Gillard)
and
“Labor’s message then is this: we believe in a strong economy; we believe also in a fair go for all, not just for some. That is Labor’s message in a nutshell. When it comes to fairness, a fair go, some people think that this just mysteriously grew out of the soil one day in Australia. Do you know that it did not? Our movement etched it into the Australian soul through the 19th century and the 20th century. If you read the history of 19th century Australia, you will not see much about a fair go; there is nothing about fairness. With our industrial movement — which has been so criticised by those opposite today — with our political movement from the 1890s on, we took fairness and a sense of the fair go; we won political office; we obtained concessions in the workplace; and we entrenched fairness in the statutes of the nation. We etched the fair go also into Australia’s consciousness, our political consciousness. It is our legacy to the nation — a legacy that the current government seeks to peel apart bit by bit, step by step and legislation by legislation.”
(Kevin Rudd, 2006)
and
“Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.”
(Franklin D. Roosevelt)
and
“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.”
(Franklin D. Roosevelt)
Thought Swann did well…not surprised he was a bit nervy & excited…he just stamped some of his views on History. And delivered for the bulk of the Australian people.
Thumbs up from N’
I think Costello’s 12 budget was pretty much the same as all his others.
Who was the feller who delivered it and why was he pretending to be from the ALP?
MarkL
Canberra
If ever confirmation was needed that Cossie is outa here it was today… he showed his intention with that doorstop… I mean c’mon! I sympathize with him… If I had dealt with the pack of wild dogs that is the media for 20 odd years I would have lurved the chance to strut up and do what he did… I mean f#(kem, he’s been waiting for the chance for years
The circular media spin thingy was brilliant ( Speers mic gag) jeez, almost reminded me of the careers ‘uproar” but when he goes> Grattan about her glasses (cmon, we all think the’re to big, admit it!
Then you just know he’s off soon and having a laugh as he does it
Mark, that’s the infrastructure fund. There were two others created - the education one, and the health one.
As far as the defence budget goes, the war on terrorism rhetoric is pretty much gone (thankfully) but that was largely orthogonal to the extra defence (and I draw a distinction between defence and intelligence here) spending of the latter Howard years.
Here’s the Ministerial Statement proving some more detail.
http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/ministerial_statements/html/index.htm
I like Alan Kohler’s comments here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/13/2243742.htm
“When the former Treasurer Peter Costello said at a remarkable doorstop press conference this morning that Wayne Swan was the luckiest new Treasurer in history, he was absolutely right - but not for the reason he meant. It’s because there was so much fat left in Government expenditures that could be painlessly cut away..
..whereas the Howard Government spent every cent of the commodities boom windfall, the new Government has so far put it all into the bank, and added another $2 billion to it by cancelling some of its predecessor’s spending.”
in the going, going gorne dept are:
no rugby academy
reduce funding for ANTSO
phasing out of 89 DOD non-operational OS postings and reduction in OS travel budget
subsuming medicare program for dental services for people with chronic diseases
canning 25 national nursing schools for in-hospital nurse training (old skool style)
dumping the Access card
medicare MRI units
roll back parliamentarian’s printing entitlement from $150K to $100
No OPEL - Elders/ blah broadband rollout
canning a parliamentarian local liaison officer program to deal with constituent’s queries
not selling medibank private
closing Nauru & Manus
Australian political parties for democracy program - funding OS activities (??)
$150m special dividend IN from Australia Post
no funding for the bimbiebimbie wildlife park - no proper assessment process
biodiversity hotspots program - not enough projects
no extra money for centrelink call centres
no one off contribution to chamber music australia
no deployable mortuaries
changing way chemo drugs are mixed and purchased
reduced funding for citizenship test advertising, nor administering the values statement
getting rid of lots of duplication and “consumer information” type programs and programs like ‘commercial ready’
reduce CSIRO funding (in recognition of the need for all agencies to achieve further
efficiencies and prioritise resources.)
include super income into Seniors Card income test
dumping community water grants
not cancelling concession cards when os for under 13 weeks
no continence management strategy advertising
Hannah’s dad, I think I’ll take your wife as the vox populi!
Rob, the education one is a rebadging of Costello’s Higher Education Fund and presumably runs on the same principles.
“no continence management strategy advertising”
Really? Are you taking the piss?
Update: More instant commentary from the blogosphere - Graham Young doesn’t like Labor budgets, and John Quiggin’s pleased to see the back of Peter Costello.
Meanwhile, the budget papers can be found here.
Oh noes! A blatantly left wing ideological attack on the deployable mortuary industry!
What is a deployable mortuary?
“that Wayne Swan was the luckiest new Treasurer in history”
Boll*cks!…w/ a little help from their friends & allies Labor fought hard, imaginatively & courageously to take control of that parliament house, turned into a bloody castle by King John & his mocking minions…quickly & efficiently Labor drove the MENACE out & grabbed the treasure chest before the Coalition could distribute all the goodies to their mates…they took over before the Coalition could fully sabotage the economy for a Labor Party that were not expected to get in til at least 2009. Now the well begins to dry up for King John’s mates…they have to cop more tithes…and the pillaging of the people lessens. Robin Hood would be smiling today. Long way to go yet tho.
I saw Costello being foolish but what was more astonishing today was Tony Abbott’s pre-budget statement that the budget was going to be “anti-mother and pro-bludger”. Talk about to the right of Ghengis Khan … I can’t imagine who he thinks he’s appealing to with that sort of rhetoric. (Well, I hate to imagine.)
“Australian political parties for democracy program - funding OS activities (??)”
Oh dear. There’s goes one previously useful source of consultancy money for the Bite my Latte team!
Yes, there is (erm … was) a political party capacity development funding run by ALP International, and its Coalition equivalent (maybe called the Republican Institute?). They worked with political parties in the pacific, and … I dunno.. maybe also Timor.
Shortest eva Paul Kelly column:
That’s it!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23694079-5017094,00.html
I’m not sure whether we’re lucky the old duffer isn’t paid by the word, or the contrary.
chop chop chop
Fishing Hall of fame
drought assistance advertising
Drought Package 2007 re-establishment assistance - not enough takers
Employment Entry Payment
reducing ethanol distribution & production program
flemington racecourse alternative water supply program axed
mental health link to drug-taking advertising program axed
illegal drugs and sports information program
no funding of local govt. plebescites in NT
support for reversing elective sterilisation rather using IV technologies (who knew)
rationalise funding for pathology testing on one sample
extending repeat prescription period from 6 to 12 months
no National Nanotechnology Strategy
reduced funding for the National Psychostimulant Initiative
No National Training Centre for Aerial Skiing
More of the sport hatin!
(And the nanobots get socked too!)
What is a deployable mortuary?
At a guess, one which can be deployed to disaster areas and suchlike. Not a silly thing to have.
Do we already have some perhaps?
” The Government will not proceed with funding for the purchase of deployable
mortuaries announced in the 2006-07 Budget. The Attorney-General’s Department has
determined that deployable mortuaries could be more effectively delivered through a
service agreement with a commercial provider.”
There are alot more cuts than I’ve listed, and the big ticket items of course are being well covered by the MSM - and just as many programs are either being re-directed back to normal departmental operations, or into new Rudd Programs, including some I’ve listed - you’ll have to check the details, sorry!
A final list of Howard Govt programs being put out to pasture:
so long and farewell…
Nuclear Collaborative Research Program.(no nukes, sorry robert)
reduced funding for Office of Transport Security’s overseas representation
Protecting Australian Families Online program. (The program will be replaced by the new Cyber-safety Plan.)
No funding for operational trials of ‘rainfall enhancement technology.’ Malcolm will be upset!
redirect funding from Regional Partnerships
Pandemic influenza preparedness — rapid deployment teams for thermal scanning at airports
Practice Incentives Program to remove funding for a mental health incentive that is no longer available.
Renewable Remote Power Generation program - insufficient projects
reduce the Medicare Benefit Schedule fee for collecting pathology specimens where collection centres are co-located with pathology laboratories.
no Service Pension for partners who are separated from, but still legally married to, a veteran after 12 months.
Research Vessel - Southern Surveyor
Increase in the number of audits of funding claims submitted by residential aged care providers.
Rugby League Hall of Fame — contribution
Sustainable Regions - due to terminate eoy 2009
Townsville International Sports Centre
Women’s representation in decision making
And lastly…..reduced funding for HREOC in relation to now, not expected WorkChoices related workload increases.
Thanks, jo!
Btw, props to Rob in his post for correctly pinging the fact that some spending surprises would be coming.
Quite possibly! Somebody on the other thread might know: http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/05/08/disaster-resilience/
I can hear Paul Kelly & the right-wing, “missed out on tax cuts” News Corp quartet now:
“Bah, Humbug!, Bah, Humbug!, Bah, Humbug!……..BAHHHHHHHHHH…..HUMBUG!!!!”
As for the nukes thing, minorly sad, but unless Labor does a complete 180 on the issue there’s going to be no substantial work on Gen IV reactors done here anyway.
More concerned about the funding cut for CSIRO…
I’ve come out of last night with new respect for Brendan Nelson. Absolute masterstroke giving his leadership rival an important portfolio in which he is absolutely clueless.
The CSIRO cut sounds worrying.
And the National Psychostimulant Initiative sounds like a lot of fun. Is this to do with taking party drugs?
The ABS cuts are also worrying - particularly insofar as some of the data that underpins assessment of the economy’s performance (ie the labour market series) will now be based on smaller and less reliable samples.
My DSP didn’t go up.
Swan mentioned examining the basis for the adjustment of pension rates, Paul.
Mark,
You can see by the smiley I wasn’t complaining. I am already much impressed by the $125 per qr. utilities allowance and the miniscule increase in phone internet allowance.
DSP rates probably will have to be adjusted. I was grandfathered bhut anybody on DSP since 1 July last year is receiving DSP at Newstart rates. One would hope these poor buggers have their pensions adjusted upward.
Actually, I wouldn’t nind an extra $20-30 pw to cope with inflation.
Come on you guys in ALP branches out there. Do a bit of lobbying, putting forward motions for the disabled. Let Kev know what’s really going on. If you check my facts, you’ll see they’re right.
btw, when your mobility is limited in some way, (which I might speculatively suggest is why the majoeity of people get DSP)its a bit hard and very exhausting to go out and look for work.
Radio National Breakfast this a.m.: Malcolm Turnbull thinks the budget is All Wrong and will cause huge suffering to those struggling families who earn one cent!!! more than $75,000 in the first half of a financial year.
In other news, a bear has been reported shitting in a forest, and studies have emerged which conclude that Pope Benedict XVI is a catholic.
So it doesn’t have enough spending cuts to combat inflation, but spending cuts are teh evil? Is that Malcolm’s message?
Dunno, Kim. Neither does Malcolm.
I am SOOOOOOOOOOOO looking forward to Brendan’s budget reply tomorrow night!
Yeah. Might even buy some marshmallows and muffins for that one.
Kim, I think we’ll all be waiting for a while for Petit Mal to come up with a coherent policy response to the Budget.
Again with the spending cuts:
no National Nanotechnology Strategy
That’s going to come back to bite us when the Grey Goo Disaster strikes.
reduced funding for the National Psychostimulant Initiative
I won’t even ask.
No National Training Centre for Aerial Skiing
As Mark said, more sport hatin’. Oh noes! This will cut deeply into all those hordes of little Aussie battlers who just want to go aerial skiing!
I likes sport hatin’ Governments. Though John Coates (he of the Olympics) has warned the pipple won’t like it. (Last week some time.)
Suz @24, well the Mad Monk’s getting his salary, albeit reduced to a pittance at $127,000, so the budget can’t be pro-bludger. I guess it means no baby bonus or A & B tax benefits, though. Oh well.
Helen @ 48 - I was going to say the same thing about the nanotech cuts.
I have a childlike faith in the capacity of nanotech to both solve and create all the world’s troubles. Which leads me to this link: http://www.accelerando.org/_static/toughguide.html#NanoTechnology
Could it be that people are as sceptical about predicted problems with Grey Goo as they were with Global Warming in the 70s? Is it remotely possible Howard was actually planning for more than one electoral cycle? Kev, I think this is a serious oversight, of the kind Bindi Irwin is sure to pick up on when you’re old and grey (the way Ratty is now.)