It was interesting to read the acres of newsprint devoted to Budget specials today for two reasons - one to note that so much of the “interest group” reaction is typical - one headline - “teachers say more is needed for schools” - probably writes itself, and could be run nearly every year. That’s not to have a go at the teachers, but it might be more to the point if the media spent more time on doing specialist analyses of each portfolio (as New Matilda has been doing for a few) and less on highlighting understandable (from the point of view of those concerned) calls for more spending. An assessment of priorities and discrete policy initiatives might be more informative than a de facto assumption that the cake is of infinite dimensions - which it would almost have to be if every interest group were placated. In some ways, being Treasurer would be an unenviable task, and as I argued last night, the politics of the budget include a real attempt to persuade people to look at the collective public good rather than “what’s in it for me?”. Obviously people want to understand how they (and policy areas they care about) are affected, but the sort of “thinking” that goes into this sort of nonsense - “Yet again, Generation X gets screwed” - makes me wince, even as a member of said generation (not to mention the factual vacuum contained in that silly little article).
This leads me onto my other observation - the paucity of any reference to any views that the opposition might have. Shadow Ministers were clearly not - on the whole - interested, informed enough or motivated to release anything portfolio specific. So all we got was short shrift - at least in the print media - to the rather inconsistent and confused bleatings of Malcolm Turnbull and Brendan Nelson, who according to Trevor Cook, looked like he was “on life support” on the telly. A couple of paras on average across the two 30 something page budget liftouts I read. So, how do the attention deprived respond?
By musing (threatening might be far too strong a word) about blocking the changes to the baby bonus in the Senate. Blind Freddy could see Malcolm Turnbull has a credibility problem defending welfare for the rich (and on Andrew Leigh’s figures, we’re talking households in the top 15% of the income distribution). And, the polling on the support on the part of Coalition and upper income voters themselves for means testing makes its political purpose quite puzzling, not to mention the fact that the public mood last year was clearly for an end to Howard’s culture of handouts. But there’s at least two other big reasons why they should eschew such tactics.
First, some of the best analyses of Labor’s period in opposition point to the huge handicap they placed themselves under by maintaining a governing psychology - and by believing that electoral repudiation was some fluke, and all the psephological planets would soon once again align, leading to a return to the Ministerial limos. This was compounded by the fact that Labor held power in the Senate - negotiations with minor parties, deal making, and a governing mentality were all at best a double edged sword. In a way, Labor were liberated from this mindset only when Howard won control of the Senate in 2004. They could then get on with not just proper opposition, but also avoid any responsibility for any mess that the Howard government produced legislatively.
The second, and related, point is the grave danger that opposing the budget, or even bits of it, in the Senate poses. Labor fell into this trap in 2005 with a too clever by half alternative tax plan, which Howard and Costello cleverly painted as creating new losers and worse - possibly holding up the proclamation of the new tax scales. If you go back and look at Beazley’s approval ratings, it was at that point that his personal ratings went into freefall and never recovered. As I’ve argued, the budget is by no means the centrepiece of the universe for voters it is for pollies and the press gallery, and therefore it’s not difficult for the government to represent a threat to block part of the budget as a rejection of the budget in toto. And the Whitlam era has also led to a bit of a subterranean fear of oppositions blocking supply. If there’s one thing people elect governments to do in this country, it’s to make economic policy, and the opposition should remember that.
They’d be much better off trying to fashion some sort of coherent message for Nelson to deliver on Thursday night - and/or hoping that no one pays any attention.
Dying in a ditch for top income earners’ welfare is dumb politics for all sorts of reasons, and opposing budget measures only compounds its political stupidity.
Ps: As I mentioned, there’s a plethora of budget commentary around the shop today, but let me just recommend two posts - both by Possum - on the end of me-too-ism and how the opposition have been snookered.
Update: Things change quickly in Opposition land. Now it’s the alcopops tax they’re threatening to block.
Cross-posted at PollieGraph.
I read that Fiona Connelly article on GenX.
IMHO there’s actually a grain of truth to her comments.
But still, wow. I didn’t know it was possible to have a chip on three shoulders.
She’s correct to point out that GenXers have tended to play by the rules, only to find out that the rules state “you lose”:
1) Stay in school and work hard, only to graduate into the middle of Keating’s jobless recession.
2) Pay your HECS while being lectured that “you’ve had it too good for too long” by politicians who got their degrees for free.
3) Then do the right thing by the Lifetime Healthcover rules, only to be hit by the triple-whammy of Medicare levies, health insurance premiums and the inevitable four-figure out-of-pockets.
4) Work on statutory contracts throughout your career. What do you mean you can’t plan for a mortgage or kids when you don’t know whether you’ll have a job next week? That’s the trouble with you Xers, you’re irresponsible and commitment-phobic.
5) Need government assistance to get you through a lean period? Why, certainly, just fill out this fifty-page form and wait 3 months. Then call us and wait on hold for an hour when your casual wages change every time you get paid. It’s called mutual responsibility. You’re responsible for yourself, and we’re responsible for making sure you don’t forget it.
And yet, even so, for Fiona Connelly to channel all this animus at other generations is just misdirected. It needs to be sheeted home to the policy architects, and more importantly, working to fix it instead of just having a whinge.
Well, yes, to be sure, but as you say, the issues are complex and “intergenerational equity” is a lot bigger than “I’m screwed because someone else has it better”. For instance, some issues regarding the changing ratio between tax payers and those who need tax payer support are unavoidable because of the size of the relative demographics, and/or best addressed through increasing skilled immigration (which the government is doing) rather than redistribution of the current pie. There are also a hell of a lot of baby boomer women who have zip superannuation and are going to live in poverty in their old age. Almost all of the typical generational narrative of complaint is wrong, or only partially true, or only true for one gender or one class, or… We’re much better off in any case thinking about how all of us can address these problems as a nation rather than creating (to some degree arbitrary) groups and setting them against each other. Dare I say it, it’s Howard era thinking?
Yep: divide and rule!
One of the better points made here. Post-1975, the electors fully expect governments to make economic policy, and therefore the budget should be implemented as designed. This is why Beazley’s numbers went into the tank in 05, and why the current Opposition should pass this budget untouched.
Also, if any economic problems arise from this budget, then only the government is to blame. No one will remember that the opposition did not oppose the budget, which is all that is needed.
Update: Things change quickly in Opposition land. Now it’s the alcopops tax they’re threatening to block.
Fiona’s little whinge had me staggered. Free uni I got, indeed, (first time - I needed scholarships for the rest) but as for all the rest of the things she mentioned, the negatives happened to me and the positives (baby bonus, first homebuyers etc etc) were too late. Then to conclude that she’d rather be subsidised and 80 years old?? Boy would I like to give my Mum (who is younger than that) a chance to swap her assets for a GenXer’s age. And love to see Fiona accept or eat her words, preferably the former.
On a more serious note, I think Possum’s article and Mark’s call on the content and the sale of the Budget are a good pair. I’ll actually miss Nelson’s reply, but I suspect most of Australia will too.
Finally, on the alcopops bit, although I actually agree it was poor policy (Jim Belshaw’s blog succinctly explains why) I can see (a) Libs block supply and (b) Libs support teen drunkenness as headlines. What a winner.
I’m contemplating liveblogging Nelson’s reply, but we’ll see!
As as a member of Gen X I would just like to say - Quit your goddam bitching. Hecs doesn’t come out of your wages until you earn enough to pay it. You can still get the first home buyers package, and if you had enough to purchase a house before it came in (as I did) then you benefited from much lower prices than people have to pay these days. If you are paying the medicare surcharge it means you are on a pretty good wicket. Keep your private health and don’t pay any surcharge. If money is the only thing stopping you having a child maybe you need to rethink your priorities. Remember all the people out there who do it a lot tougher than you and be bloody thankful. </rant
Opposing the alcopops tax? Looks like the Libs are now taking policy advice from Corey Worthington!
Alcopops is the only issue they can find to run on?
I could make more valid criticisms of the budget than that!
Mind you, imagine the fun you’d have with a dd election where alcopops was the issue…”The Liberals want your teenage daughter to be able to go out and get s**t faced.”
Go, Mindy! For us BBs, there was the Home Savings Grant Scheme for several years. My first husband and I qualified for the maximum of $750 at the time. I believe it reached the dizzying heights of $2,000 at some point, obviously after I’d had my bite at the cherry.
Every generation does it tough. Acquiring your first house, paying the mortgage etc. etc is never easy. I personally don’t like HECS. Getting a tertiary education is never financially easy even when you (or more likely your parents) don’t have fees to worry about.
I think there could be a trade-off similar to the scheme for teacher training which lasted for many years. The government paid the Teacher’s College fees in return for 3 years teaching in regional and remote areas. It worked a treat and lots of teachers who wouldn’t normally have stepped foot outside the city, ended up loving country life and spent their entire careers in the country. This could be applied to many professions, particularly medicine and might go a long way to overcoming the acute shortage of medical professionals in regional areas.
Sounds good Jane!
For the record I belong to Gen X and have a combined household income of less than $150 000. But I don’t think I do it tough.
[… I have strenuously avoided talking about the Australian Commonwealth’s Budget that was ‘handed down’ this week. It is obviously an important one, being the ALP’s first of this term, but went pretty much along with the script …. and then link to Mark Bahnisch at Lavartus Prodeo, who has bothered to say in greater depth what I have been thinking …]
I may as well add that I am also of ‘Generation X’, and agree whole heartedly. I consider myself to have been born at a damn sight luckier time than either my parents or grandparents.
That Gen-X article was a crock. Apart from the whinge, the fact is that Generation X have known more than just the Howard era … a generation Xer (1961-1975) started voting the early 90s at the latest. Just shows a lack of care to basic facts.
I am thoroughly “generation X” and I certainly am thankful for these following things:
- I remember the band it’s named after & the solo artist it spawned
- The greatest arts subsidy of all time, during the greatest artistic period of all time (1980s) Six months sickness benefit for being “sick of working” (!!!)
- the astounding abundance and diversity of good drugs right at the time of my life when i wanted to take them (see above).
- warehouse squats !!!
- full white collar employment after I woke up from my drug haze.
- $150,000+ household income without children and quite contented with the various taxes I’m asked to pay on it
- flexible working arrangement with excellent employing organisations
- I didn’t buy a house and I don’t have a mortgage and I never will!
- being young enough to be completely suspicious of Keating when he was treasurer, mature enough to recognise the magnificence of his Redfern speech, sensible enough to bask in the glow of his 1993 win over the feral abacus, emotional enough to recognise the shock of his loss to the feral rodent, and middle-aged enough to appreciate KEATING! the musical we had to have
- and now i’m middle-aged finally I’m happy that I’ve got a government that wants to look to the big term structural future without sacrificing the politics.
- so stuff it I love being in generation X !!!