Extract from The Guardian
It would be truly crazy for the new PM to accept the delusional
analysis that the Abbott government failed because of poor salesmanship
rather than poor policy
Malcolm Turnbull is promising reasoned and respectful leadership but
Scott Morrison is more Tony Abbott in style, a quick draw on the
simplistic political attack line.
Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP
Perhaps Malcolm Turnbull’s office needs its own version of the snowclone started by James Carville’s famous sign
during Bill Clinton’s presidential election campaign. The Turnbull
placard could read: “It was Abbott’s policies that were stupid.”
Not all of them, of course, but it would be truly crazy for Turnbull to accept the delusional analysis that the Abbott government failed because of poor salesmanship rather than poor policy substance.
It was a delusion on full display during former treasurer Joe Hockey’s valedictory speech, when he argued the Abbott government was “good at policy but struggled with politics”. A real-world analysis would suggest it often failed at both, particularly with the 2014 budget which quite obviously tried to reduce the deficit with policies that hit the poorest the hardest.
It should be mightily frustrating for Abbott and Hockey, when they’re old men reminiscing about what might have been, that they came to government with broad support for their goal of reducing the deficit. Handled carefully, explained properly, executed fairly, they might have succeeded in their aim. But they blew it.
Now Turnbull and his treasurer, Scott Morrison, have another chance. Turnbull’s reform meeting proved once again that almost every group, from business, the union movement and the social sector, is willing to discuss sensible, fair, ways to reduce spending and raise more money from taxation.
The question is, when the Turnbull government gets down to legislating, rather than just “changing the tone of the debate”, will it have learned the Abbott government’s lessons? Will it talk to Australians about the services they want governments to pay for, rather than assume smaller government is always better? And when it cuts, will it share the pain?
One of its first actual policies says maybe not entirely.
The new, revamped cuts to family payments that Morrison unveiled this week cut less than the 2014 budget plan that was stuck in the Senate – saving $4.8bn over four years instead of $8.5bn. But they still struggle with the fairness test.
Under the 2014 plan, sole parents and single-income families were going to lose special family payments when their youngest child turned six. Now it’s 13. The rationale is that by that age a stay-at-home parent or a single parent can find work and would be more inclined to look for it if they were denied the government handouts.
True, as far as the argument goes, but the Australian Council of Social Service reckons the impact on single parents is still too harsh and the Coalition has struggled to answer Labor’s questions about the impact on grandparent carers.
And all low-income families also lose end-of-year payments. For a single parent with two primary school-age children, that will amount to $30 a week. Here the government resorts to the old hypothecation game – claiming these spending cuts are the only way to pay for the 2015 budget’s promises on childcare. The new social services minister, Christian Porter, said it was like “snakes and ladders”, the cuts in family benefits being the “snakes” and the extra childcare payments being the “ladders”. (OK, maybe he does need to work a little bit on his salesmanship.)
Morrison said the cuts had to come from somewhere, given the government’s intention to make the deficit smaller, rather than larger, mocking Labor for proposing “somewheres” over the rainbow rather than in the actual budget.
But of course payments to low-income families are not the only possible “somewhere” and the $3.5bn the government plans to spend on childcare is not set in stone – in fact it’s not yet even detailed in legislation, since it doesn’t come into effect until 2017.
Morrison and Porter could have, for example, trimmed the childcare spending itself, so that they reduced the amount they needed to cut from the income of the lowest-income sole-parent families or from the income of grandparents trying to raise a second generation of children.
And that would have been a good idea, since the childcare plan proposes to give an extra $2,500 per child per year to families with annual incomes over $185,000 – taking their total annual per-child payments to a possible $10,000. Meanwhile, the new families package cuts almost $4,000 a year from payments to a family on $65,000 with two children in high school.
Morrison had the new benefits package well under way before Turnbull became prime minister, and it does try to address some of the previous complaints about unfairness. But an acknowledgement that savings can be made by cutting benefits from someone other than the very poorest Australians might have signalled Turnbull and Morrison had learned from Abbott and Hockey’s errors. Maybe they’ll think about it in the negotiations they will still have to have to get the package through the Senate.
Because there are other signs that they have listened. Winding back the very generous superannuation tax concessions for the wealthiest Australians is now under consideration as part of a tax policy the Coalition will take to the next election.
Abbott dismissed the idea out of hand, apparently in the interests of the nice simple slogan that Coalition governments never raise taxes. In his valedictory speech, Hockey revealed he still supported the idea – as he had tentatively done in government before being overridden, yet again, by the prime minister.
Morrison even says the government supports the idea, proposed by the financial systems inquiry, that the government should legislate to clarify that the whole point of the superannuation system is to make sure that when Australians reach retirement age they aren’t reliant on the pension.
If he really means that, he might want to also create incentives for the poorest Australians to save for their old age. Right now it works the other way round – the tax system acts as a disincentive for low-income earners to save. We used to have a policy that addressed this – the low income superannuation contribution – but the Abbott government legislated to abolish it from 2018.
Turnbull and Morrison are a new and untested partnership, and it is how they work together that will ultimately determine the government’s success. The prime minister is promising reasoned and respectful leadership. Morrison is more Abbott in style, a quick draw on the simplistic political attack line and an old hand at the three-word slogan.
Already a few comments have jarred. Morrison started out reading from the old speaking notes and claiming Australia had a “spending problem” rather than a revenue problem – the same (factually incorrect) rationale that led the former government to its disastrous first budget decisions.
Turnbull has promised to explain and discuss his decisions. But if voters judge them to be as unfair as those of his predecessors, no explanation from the new prime minister will prevent them being rejected just as vehemently. It’s right there in the advice of one of the other slogans Carville had on the wall in Little Rock. “Change v more of the same.”
Not all of them, of course, but it would be truly crazy for Turnbull to accept the delusional analysis that the Abbott government failed because of poor salesmanship rather than poor policy substance.
It was a delusion on full display during former treasurer Joe Hockey’s valedictory speech, when he argued the Abbott government was “good at policy but struggled with politics”. A real-world analysis would suggest it often failed at both, particularly with the 2014 budget which quite obviously tried to reduce the deficit with policies that hit the poorest the hardest.
It should be mightily frustrating for Abbott and Hockey, when they’re old men reminiscing about what might have been, that they came to government with broad support for their goal of reducing the deficit. Handled carefully, explained properly, executed fairly, they might have succeeded in their aim. But they blew it.
Now Turnbull and his treasurer, Scott Morrison, have another chance. Turnbull’s reform meeting proved once again that almost every group, from business, the union movement and the social sector, is willing to discuss sensible, fair, ways to reduce spending and raise more money from taxation.
The question is, when the Turnbull government gets down to legislating, rather than just “changing the tone of the debate”, will it have learned the Abbott government’s lessons? Will it talk to Australians about the services they want governments to pay for, rather than assume smaller government is always better? And when it cuts, will it share the pain?
One of its first actual policies says maybe not entirely.
The new, revamped cuts to family payments that Morrison unveiled this week cut less than the 2014 budget plan that was stuck in the Senate – saving $4.8bn over four years instead of $8.5bn. But they still struggle with the fairness test.
Under the 2014 plan, sole parents and single-income families were going to lose special family payments when their youngest child turned six. Now it’s 13. The rationale is that by that age a stay-at-home parent or a single parent can find work and would be more inclined to look for it if they were denied the government handouts.
True, as far as the argument goes, but the Australian Council of Social Service reckons the impact on single parents is still too harsh and the Coalition has struggled to answer Labor’s questions about the impact on grandparent carers.
And all low-income families also lose end-of-year payments. For a single parent with two primary school-age children, that will amount to $30 a week. Here the government resorts to the old hypothecation game – claiming these spending cuts are the only way to pay for the 2015 budget’s promises on childcare. The new social services minister, Christian Porter, said it was like “snakes and ladders”, the cuts in family benefits being the “snakes” and the extra childcare payments being the “ladders”. (OK, maybe he does need to work a little bit on his salesmanship.)
Morrison said the cuts had to come from somewhere, given the government’s intention to make the deficit smaller, rather than larger, mocking Labor for proposing “somewheres” over the rainbow rather than in the actual budget.
But of course payments to low-income families are not the only possible “somewhere” and the $3.5bn the government plans to spend on childcare is not set in stone – in fact it’s not yet even detailed in legislation, since it doesn’t come into effect until 2017.
Morrison and Porter could have, for example, trimmed the childcare spending itself, so that they reduced the amount they needed to cut from the income of the lowest-income sole-parent families or from the income of grandparents trying to raise a second generation of children.
And that would have been a good idea, since the childcare plan proposes to give an extra $2,500 per child per year to families with annual incomes over $185,000 – taking their total annual per-child payments to a possible $10,000. Meanwhile, the new families package cuts almost $4,000 a year from payments to a family on $65,000 with two children in high school.
Morrison had the new benefits package well under way before Turnbull became prime minister, and it does try to address some of the previous complaints about unfairness. But an acknowledgement that savings can be made by cutting benefits from someone other than the very poorest Australians might have signalled Turnbull and Morrison had learned from Abbott and Hockey’s errors. Maybe they’ll think about it in the negotiations they will still have to have to get the package through the Senate.
Because there are other signs that they have listened. Winding back the very generous superannuation tax concessions for the wealthiest Australians is now under consideration as part of a tax policy the Coalition will take to the next election.
Abbott dismissed the idea out of hand, apparently in the interests of the nice simple slogan that Coalition governments never raise taxes. In his valedictory speech, Hockey revealed he still supported the idea – as he had tentatively done in government before being overridden, yet again, by the prime minister.
Morrison even says the government supports the idea, proposed by the financial systems inquiry, that the government should legislate to clarify that the whole point of the superannuation system is to make sure that when Australians reach retirement age they aren’t reliant on the pension.
If he really means that, he might want to also create incentives for the poorest Australians to save for their old age. Right now it works the other way round – the tax system acts as a disincentive for low-income earners to save. We used to have a policy that addressed this – the low income superannuation contribution – but the Abbott government legislated to abolish it from 2018.
Turnbull and Morrison are a new and untested partnership, and it is how they work together that will ultimately determine the government’s success. The prime minister is promising reasoned and respectful leadership. Morrison is more Abbott in style, a quick draw on the simplistic political attack line and an old hand at the three-word slogan.
Already a few comments have jarred. Morrison started out reading from the old speaking notes and claiming Australia had a “spending problem” rather than a revenue problem – the same (factually incorrect) rationale that led the former government to its disastrous first budget decisions.
Turnbull has promised to explain and discuss his decisions. But if voters judge them to be as unfair as those of his predecessors, no explanation from the new prime minister will prevent them being rejected just as vehemently. It’s right there in the advice of one of the other slogans Carville had on the wall in Little Rock. “Change v more of the same.”
No comments:
Post a Comment