There is always some turbulence in the lead-up to a budget. However, this year it has resembled one of those willy-willies that explode in Australia's outback when the wind creates a dust storm.
The administration's capacity to manage how it frames its fifth budget is being tested by a number of factors, including the Middle East war, a fuel crisis, another increase in interest rates, calls for additional cost-of-living assistance alongside cautions against excessive government expenditure, and allegations of prime ministerial dishonesty.
However, the immediate "story" it adds to the budget is one thing; in the long run, it is more important to get its settings correct in these incredibly volatile times, something we will only be able to assess after the fact.
A fuel security plan and changes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme have been unveiled well in advance of Tuesday's big event, as is customary.
At a staggering $22 billion, the NDIS revamp is the budget's biggest cost-saving measure. However, that is predicated on heroic—and undoubtedly dubious—assumptions, chief among them being that the scheme's current 10% annual spending growth can be reduced to an average annual 2% over the next four years.
This definitely defies all prior experience with this approach, unless the numbers are to be adjusted. It appears impossible to apply the brakes because some aspects still need to be worked out and consultations—which frequently result in concessions—have not yet taken place.
There will be a gap in the government's savings program if the NDIS's early cuts are not made.
It would be intriguing to find out if Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock has doubts about the NDIS savings estimate.
Bullock, who has historically been cautious about seeming to criticize excessive government spending, was clear last week in her post-interest rate increase press conference:
Governments should consider whether or not they can help the inflation problem by searching for measures to control demand when they are spending a lot of money and we are running up against capacity constraints.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who maintains he would save more than he spends in the budget, downplayed Bullock's remarks when questioned about this claim, claiming she was responding to a "hypothetical" query. (She had been questioned about whether governments relied too much on central banks to control inflation.)
Bullock acknowledged Chalmers' attempts to limit demand, but given the controversy surrounding everything she says about expenditure, she must have been conscious of how her statements would be interpreted.
The administration made few other tax-related promises going into the 2025 election, but it did promise to reduce income taxes and modify how superannuation is taxed. However it became evident from the post election economic roundtable that Chalmers would advocate for substantial tax reforms in this budget. Would Anthony Albanese allow him to do so?
According to what we now know, the answer appears to be "yes," with expected changes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax (as well as perhaps more stringent tax treatment of trusts).
Albanese, who made a sometimes aggressive pledge prior to the election to refrain from tampering with CGT or negative gearing, is already bearing a political price. The Prime Minister's tone was sarcastic when asked this week if he might have broken his pledge.
Apart from the fundamental question of honesty, does it matter politically if these pledges are broken?
The government will believe it can get away with it as long as it can publish a budget with more "winners" than losers and make the (not disputed) claim that it is advancing intergenerational equity, given that Labor has a sizable majority and the opposition is in disarray.
The budget will provide a small one-time payout to working taxpayers to help with this.
However, the dishonesty progressively erodes public confidence in the political system and its representatives.
The Farrer test
The byelection on Saturday in the Farrer seat of former opposition leader Sussan Ley will serve as an example of how public confidence in the so-called "party of government" has eroded.
The southern NSW border seat, which is centered in Albury and stretches to the South Australian border, has been securely held by the Coalition for 75 years.
Tim Fischer, the deputy prime minister of the Nationals, used to hold it. However, One Nation's David Farley and well-known community independent Michelle Milthorpe will compete this weekend. Milthorpe has been accused by her detractors of being a "teal" due to her receipt of Climate 200 funds, a charge she disputes.
Despite its apparent differences, One Nation and the community independents (including the teals) are two manifestations of the "grievance" politics of today.
The fact that they are both dressed in orange in Farrer is humorous but symbolic.
Cathy McGowan, who won Indi (over the Murray River from Farrer) from the Liberals in 2013, is credited with starting the regional "community candidate" trend. Helen Haines, an independent who has run for Milthorpe, succeeded McGowan in the seat.
Instead of being seen as a safe seat that governments and oppositions could successfully ignore when it came to needs and services, McGowan and her supporters sought to make Indi more politically prominent.
Community candidates take advantage of voters' complaints that they are not being taken seriously. When Milthorpe informed the Guardian, she encapsulated their essence:
I came here because I was not happy with the big gatherings. They do not comprehend the background of our area. It is my responsibility to bring Farrer's voices to parliament and ensure that people are aware of our needs.
One Nation has a far broader perspective on the "grievance" of many voters, reflecting and magnifying, for instance, dissatisfaction with the volume and makeup of immigration.
One Nation wants to turn the political table upside down, while community candidates want a seat at the table for their constituents.
The peculiar Farley in Farrer does not really match the One Nation policy mold, but instead of focusing on the fine print, people are responding to Pauline Hanson and a feeling.
The outcome on Saturday will negatively impact Opposition Leader Angus Taylor's budget week. Regardless of the outcome, the anticipated Liberal defeat will be a blow to him.
It will be more serious if One Nation, which is receiving Liberal preferences, wins because it will fuel the already inflated tires of a party that might seriously harm the Liberals' chances in the upcoming Victorian election.
Regardless of whether it is Farley or Milthorpe, the outcome in Farrer appears guaranteed to trigger a willy-willy.
0 Comments