budget 09
12 May 2009
Budget 2009: A Gamble Posing As Prudence
Wayne Swan's second budget is economically sound, but politically risky, writes Ben Eltham
This is a budget framed by one over-arching reality: the global financial crisis and the collapse in growth and government tax revenue that it has produced.
"Forged in the fire of the most challenging global economic conditions since the Great Depression," Wayne Swan has proclaimed a "nation building" budget. The old strictures of permanent surplus have been stripped away by the global financial crisis to reveal Kevin Rudd’s administration as a very "old-fashioned" Labor Government. As Swan was at pains to repeat in his speech’s conclusion, "we will support jobs today by building the infrastructure we need for tomorrow."
After the boom times of the Howard years, Wayne Swan has responded to the specter of recession with some old-fashioned deficit spending. Partly by good luck, but also by good management, Labor’s commitment to fiscal stimulus and debt-financed government spending has probably ensured the recession here is milder than it might have been, and much milder than it already is for many of our trading partners.
Swan and Rudd promised they would move "heaven and earth" to protect jobs, and in many respects they have actually delivered. One of the worst deficits in recent history is one of the best budgets. According to Swan, if we are to believe the figures, the stimulus packages worked.
The crisis has also given Labor an opportunity to invest in the sort of "nation building infrastructure" Kevin Rudd is so fond of. This budget finally announces the winning projects of the Government’s infrastructure process, allowing Swan to announce billions in new spending on "roads, rail, ports, jobs and unis" — $13 billion in new spending this budget alone, and that’s not counting the money being spent from money that has been socked away in the infrastructure and education funds. Labor’s spin doctors have put "Nation Building" bunting all over the budget documents and press conference podium, and these "shovel ready" projects give it much scope to rebut the Coalition’s sneers about the "cash splash".
And the budget even contained some surprises! Despite the countless strategic leaks in the lead-up to Swan’s speech, it still contained some big, risky announcements. The most notable of these was a fundamental reform to Australia’s age pension. Labor has made the once-in-a-hundred-years decision to raise the pension eligibility age to 67.
Not until 2023, mind you. There will be so many elections between then and now that it’s frankly ridiculous to call this a "reform".
Indeed, more than most, this budget is a statement of good intentions rather than actual commitments, if only because the commitments now are mainly about spending to stimulate the economy. That’s because Australia is in a recession, as the Treasury forecasts reveal, with unemployment set to hit 8.5 per cent before falling again in the longer-term.
And that’s where the political risk for Swan and Rudd lies. Australia’s Treasury is now in the red: an eye-popping $57 billion in the red, to be precise. Despite pruning tens of billions of dollars in "middle-class welfare" from the budget’s bottom line, the federal Treasury will still be running a $44 billion deficit in 2011. And that’s if Treasury’s rosy forecasts for above-trend growth figures of 4.5 per cent four years from now turn out to be correct. In the budget press conference, the ABC’s Stephen Long repeatedly probed Swan on whether these forecasts were overly optimistic. He’s got a point: if the recession lingers, both the deficit and unemployment could be much worse.
Labor’s election only 18 months ago must seem like a nostalgic idyll to Swan just now. Then, the boom times were fuelling a massive budget surplus which Labor was only too happy to put to good works. In retrospect, of course, we now know Labor inherited an economy on the brink of global crisis. Within a year of taking office, Swan was presiding over what he describes as the Australian economy’s "worst six months since the Great Depression".
The result was a $210 billion write-down in government revenue, which has punched a massive hole in the government’s coffers. It will take years for the bottom line to recover from the hit.
To understand why the deficit is so large, it’s worth exploring recent economic history. The sea of Commonwealth red is not just the result of the recession — and John Howard and Peter Costello’s policy of running up large tax transfers to families — as Swan claims. It’s also the fallout from Australia’s own case of the dreaded Dutch disease: the economic hangover after Australia’s long mining boom party of the early 2000s.
As the Treasury Department now realises — but apparently failed to at the time — the mining boom conferred a once-in-a-generation shift in Australia’s terms of trade, pumping up commodity prices, corporate profits and the corporate tax revenues that flowed from them.
Far from husbanding the proceeds, Howard and Costello used the money to finance a huge new social welfare system of family tax payments. According to the Treasury’s own paper, The Architecture of Australia’s Tax and Transfer System, "the value of tax expenditures like Family Tax Benefit A has more than doubled in the past 12 years or so, rising from an estimated $23.5 billion in 1996–97 to an estimated $50 billion in 2006–07". Tax payments to families represent $17 billion this year alone. On top of this, huge new tax cuts were given away across the spectrum, and particularly at the higher income end.
When he took over from Kim Beazley in 1996, Peter Costello made great mileage out of Labor’s supposedly crippling "$10 billion blackhole". He finally got his revenge on Labor this budget, by leaving Wayne Swan with an even bigger fiscal problem of his own making.
The result is that the Australian budget is in "structural deficit" — in other words, it won’t return to surplus even after the recession is over. This means the Government is borrowing on the bond market to fund its continued spending.
Of course, as I pointed out here on newmatilda.com last month, Australia’s deficit is small by international standards and will be relatively easy to service. Even so, Swan was at pains to point out he would eventually bring the budget back into the black. To do this, Swan hinted that he might have to cut savagely into future federal expenditures. But, in reality, he hasn’t actually cut to the quick. Instead he has opted to shave, prune and pare back various measures in a way that mainly affects those earning more than $150,000 a year. The Howard Government’s aversion to means-testing has helped him in this task, allowing the Treasurer to save billions by tightening measures like superannuation concessions, private health insurance rebates, company and trust taxation provisions, and family payments.
In fact, Swan could easily have cut more deeply and effectively. There is a swathe of obvious savings available to Swan and other future Treasurers, if they have the will. Capital Gains Tax concessions, tax breaks for family trusts, the $7000 First Home Owner’s Grant (as opposed to the extra $7000 the Government added last year as a "boost"), the rest of the Private Health Insurance rebate, and the vast array of superannuation concessions (valued at an astonishing $25 billion a year by the Treasury) are all ripe for future picking. And that’s before we even consider Australia’s ludicrous Defence White Paper commitments to expensive and unproven military hardware.
And that’s just the spending side. Swan has failed to do any meaningful work on tax reform, for instance in shifting the burden of Australia’s taxation system away from ordinary PAYG workers and further towards taxing social costs and harms like alcohol, tobacco, salty and sugary processed food, and pollution. There are easy gains of billions to be had here, as Malcolm Turnbull recognised in 2008.
The decision to increase the eligibility age of the pension is in a different category.
It is indeed an unpopular decision, and one which Swan and Rudd can not have made lightly. By announcing such a measure so far into the future, it postpones any pain until long after the life of this Government. But that doesn’t mean Labor won’t feel the heat. Demographic change and a commendable respect for our elders make pensioners and the aged the true sacred cows of Australian politics. By raising the issue of the sustainability of Australia’s pension arrangements, Swan really is making a courageous contribution. It can only hurt Labor in the short term, and in the long term this Government will have joined John Maynard Keynes in the here-after.
Pension reform is perhaps the best illustration of the way this budget’s political and economic risks are mismatched. With an ageing population, pension reform is fundamental and necessary to Australia’s future. But this very trend means more and more voters are elderly.
It’s the story of this budget in a nutshell: economically, it’s nearly as sound and responsible as Swan says it is. You could even argue it is straight out of the Keynesian text-book. Politically, it’s a gamble posing as prudence, and may put the first sustained dint in Labor’s poll standings.
Could the honeymoon be finally over? Time will tell. We’re now in the run-up to the election and the next budget will be an election budget. Then again, it’s never wise to bet against Kevin Rudd.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
There’s a lot to like in the budget,
A fair amount of Howard’s middle class pork has been removed, and that’s a good thing.
But oh the permanent tax cuts! Why would you want to erode your tax base at a time like this?
Why couldn’t he have made them 3 year tax cuts and with an automatic review period? That would at least have been a vaguely credible stimulus idea. But permanent…It’s not now that cutting tax is the issue.
The difference between a big deficit and a bigGER deficit is little NOW. It’s the value of those tax cuts when things start to move in the right direction again that is real loss to the government.
This is because as incomes begin to rise again, more tax payers will ‘creep’ into zones who received large proportional tax cuts, making the budgets return from deficit considerably longer than it could have been.
Our debt is $678 billion in foreign terms already, our domestic debt to income ratio is over $1.5 trillion.
Why are we whining about a $50 billion deficit?
Honestly people are financial illiterates.
Home buyers end up borrowing about 700% of their income to buy a house and the world doesn’t collapse does it?
If I was inclined to be kind,I would describe this budget as conservative,a product of a conservative government.
However,after going on 2 years of observing the spineless behaviour of Rudd&Co I would describe it as a plan divorced from reality.
Just in the area of sustainability - there is huge spending on roads,some on urban rail and a continuation of support for CCS.Token spending on solar energy and nothing on long distance freight rail.
Obviously nothing has been learnt by this government and nothing will be learnt as long as they are in thrall to big business and big mining.This budget is yet another lost chance.
Well said thirra and Ben
Unfortunately the “over-arching reality” didn’t included climate change - $2.4 billion to “clean coal” and $1.6 billion for solar. Couldn’t be linked to coal industry donations to ALP?
And Ben, why does everyone misuse Keynes quote that in the long term we are all dead? I understand Keynes was criticizing ridiculous economic models with assumptions that could only be true in the long term. ie that were divorced from reality. So the phrase actually means “crap economic models divorced from reality.” And there’s plenty of economic models still around, mainly pushed by the conservatives (by which I include the ALP), which still make ridiculous assumptions about the long term, perfect market information etc etc.
Kevin McCready
http://kmccready.wordpress.com
Hi Kevin, I admit I have a weakness for Keynes quotes. It must be my animal spirits.
Indeed, Kevin McCready!
So much for the oxymoron, “clean coal”, a total waste of money, which in any case should be being paid by the Coal Industry, not us consumers. So little for sustainable energy. So very little!
And yes, where is all the money for Long Distance Rail Freight to take all those diesel burning trucks off the roads? The trucks that actually cause billions of dollars of damage to roads paid for by Tax Payers, contributing little, and which are responsible for so many deaths on the roads.
You really have to wonder just what world Rudd, Wong (I think we can safely ignore Garrett as a total nonentity) and Co, live in, in their minds. Certainly not the same one I live in!
But yes, with so many dollars coming into Labor coffers from the Polluting Industries, so much lobbying from them, plus the power of the Power and Coal Unions, what chance poor old Australia.
Another totally wasted Budget. Another political document, certainly not one that we can look to for even a start to controlling the rampaging out-of-control Climate.
I think Access Economics had it about right. There were so many avenues of waste, mostly Middle Class and High Class Welfare, so puffed with money from near 12 years of Howard and his mob wasting all that once-in-a-lifetime financial bonanza on their mates.
Rudd/Swan, if they had any courage at all, could have chopped into this, and transferred some of this money to the poor and unemployed, who really need it, and will need it more so in the next few years.
Seems the Very Rich still have their mates in Government. Dazza.
Economically sound, politically risky, BUT ecologically putrid.
If this is governing for all Australians, then there are very few citizens left on the continent.
Why the hell do we entrust our government to politicians? It never works.
We have a “Chinese” friendly P.M. and environment minister whose name suggests friends in High places but within a year they manage to lose $210 billion in tax revenue. What is going on??
Does anyone know what industries/ companies stopped performing?
Where are the announcements closing tax shelters and loopholes?
Tax shelters? There should be no need for tax shelters.
As the world’s failed experiments with Keynesian economics and super state socialism fails, so the age old battle between partisans and the patricians has again begun to threaten the order of things.
Has nobody learnt the simple lessons from economic history? Overspending politically overzealous governments are a threat to peace, prosperity and freedom and they always end in economic ruin.
Tax riots have started across the globe, particularly in the USA where 750 cities recently participated in a nation wide demonstration followed by growing and increasingly popular “tea parties”.
Curiously, this tax revolution is not being televised or publicised by our modern western “Pravda”, our Main stream media. Instead we are fed a daily diet of drivel about the benefits of borrowing, overspending, overtaxing our workers and overburdening our environment, all for the “public good”.
As the pressure on those who produce increases with ever higher tax burdens and the inflationary monetary policies of that fool, Keynes, so will the struggling partisans begin to do what they have done throughout history to avoid punitive taxes.
Firstly they will commit fraud by evading taxes, then we will see the flight of capital and wealth away from high tax countries until, finally, they will fight like they did during the French Revolution and the American Revolution.