Opinion
While it is the most important politically - if not economically - for many years, the build up is both sanguine and low key, the opposite to what you would expect.
Typical budgets are preceded by a softening up process; the laying down of markers; the development of a clear narrative; and the odd officially-sanctioned leak.
This one - the one that precedes a formal election campaign and that has to achieve so much - has none of that.
Unlike Wayne Swan and Joe Hockey before him, Scott Morrison decided not to go to the meetings of the IMF and the World Bank in the United States, which conveniently happen just before the budget every year. The events help the treasurer to frame economic strategy against a global background.
But neither is Morrison locked away in treasury, beavering away and eschewing public appearances.
Morrison is both active on social media and in the marginal seats.
But for all that he's not saying much at all.
Typically, his Twitter message is this:
If that is because there really is nothing particularly earth shattering about the budget - that it really will be modest and free of political risks - then that in itself is a risk, especially now with expectations so high.
As Niki Savva wrote in The Australian on Thursday, this budget:
On a second front, the Government's tactics are unusual, turning political orthodoxy on its head.
All week - with a break for the submarines announcement - the Government has been running dual scare campaigns against the Opposition. Usually it's the other way around.
Of course ministers should attack the policies of their opponents if they disagree with them. But is that the priority with the budget just days away? And with the submarine decision still to be further exploited?
Doubtless over time the Government will pressure Labor on climate change and negative gearing. But the scare campaign won't be quite the "horror show" that the Daily Telegraph suggests it might be, for several reasons.
The negative gearing campaign lost some of its momentum when the Prime Minister and the Treasurer handpicked the Mignacca family as the best example of "mum and dad" investors. It turned out they had negatively geared a property for their daughter, Adison, who is not yet one.
And to compound their problems, the Grattan Institute has forcefully put the case for a dilution of concessions around negative gearing.
The Liberal Party's Victorian president, Michael Kroger, hit back saying the institute "is not an intellectually independent organisation ... it comes from a left political bent ... and always argues for higher taxes."
And - he neglected to mention - the Prime Minister's wife is on the board!
The scare campaign around climate change got off to a more promising start when Bill Shorten used words similar to Julia Gillard's "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead."
That was - and is - the stuff of instant internet advertisements.
Despite that, however, Labor's new policy is vastly different from Gillard's.
Her government put a fixed price on big emitters - initially $23 a tonne. Shorten's model returns to a market mechanism, but it has no carbon price, and therefore, semantics or not, no carbon tax.
Video: Interview: Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (7.30)
It is closer to Turnbull 2009 than Gillard 2012.
The fact is Malcolm Turnbull cannot scare like Tony Abbott can scare - or the Telegraph can scare. He doesn't have it in him.
He appears to constantly wrestle with his conscience, as if there's an invisible Jiminy Cricket on his shoulder. In his exchange with Leigh Sales on 7.30, he didn't embrace discredited modelling, preferring instead to argue "commonsense".
"So you have to trust my analysis on this?" Sales suggested.
And that's pretty much where he left it.
Here's Turnbull's character trait/problem - call it what you will.
Most politicians are wired to see just black or white. Cabinet can sit around for hours arguing the merits, for example, of ridding negative gearing of the "excesses". It might narrowly decide - after robust discussion - to leave the thing alone. Then, politics being what it is, ministers go out with a hard line that ignores the nuances of their previous discussions. They go on the attack, warning that anybody who goes down that track will ruin the economy. That's how it always works. It's either black or white.
Once a decision is taken, there is no longer a middle ground; no room for compromise. Any argument to the contrary is lost in that "take no prisoners" approach.
Some politicians are shameless; they carry that off ruthlessly and often convincingly. Others, like Turnbull, find it hard to conceal their discomfort.
That's because his natural home is in the grey area.
He knows - he's demonstrated this in the past - that on some issues - many issues in fact - the strength of the arguments on both sides demand a mature debate.
But politics as we have come to know it doesn't allow for that anymore.
Barrie Cassidy is the presenter of the ABC TV program Insiders
Updated
Nothing about this time in politics makes much sense. We have a budget that could not be more politically
important, but no one wants to sell it. And we've got a Prime Minister
who loves the grey when everything we know about elections calls for
black and white. Barrie Cassidy writes.
There's a real paradox around next week's federal budget.While it is the most important politically - if not economically - for many years, the build up is both sanguine and low key, the opposite to what you would expect.
Typical budgets are preceded by a softening up process; the laying down of markers; the development of a clear narrative; and the odd officially-sanctioned leak.
This one - the one that precedes a formal election campaign and that has to achieve so much - has none of that.
Unlike Wayne Swan and Joe Hockey before him, Scott Morrison decided not to go to the meetings of the IMF and the World Bank in the United States, which conveniently happen just before the budget every year. The events help the treasurer to frame economic strategy against a global background.
But neither is Morrison locked away in treasury, beavering away and eschewing public appearances.
Morrison is both active on social media and in the marginal seats.
But for all that he's not saying much at all.
Typically, his Twitter message is this:
Well it's a week to go until we hand down the budget. This is a critical time for our economy. We are moving from that mining boom through to a more diversified economy.And this:
We are focussed on a plan for jobs and growth for your future and the future of your family and I look forward to updating you more as we go through the week.Well not so far he hasn't. The messages are just as vague and general as they've always been.
If that is because there really is nothing particularly earth shattering about the budget - that it really will be modest and free of political risks - then that in itself is a risk, especially now with expectations so high.
As Niki Savva wrote in The Australian on Thursday, this budget:
...has to fulfil the Liberal credo of lower spending, lowering taxes and lowering or eliminating the deficit; it has to be economically credible and politically appealing ... and cement the Coalition's standing as superior economic managers.It will certainly need to go beyond the rhetoric and the promises of every budget since the country went into deficit eight years ago. All of them promised improvements in the bottom line and so far none of them have delivered. Cynicism on that front is building faster the deficit itself.
So little time, so little money, so few options. Everything about this budget promises to be modest, except what it is expected to achieve.
On a second front, the Government's tactics are unusual, turning political orthodoxy on its head.
All week - with a break for the submarines announcement - the Government has been running dual scare campaigns against the Opposition. Usually it's the other way around.
Of course ministers should attack the policies of their opponents if they disagree with them. But is that the priority with the budget just days away? And with the submarine decision still to be further exploited?
Doubtless over time the Government will pressure Labor on climate change and negative gearing. But the scare campaign won't be quite the "horror show" that the Daily Telegraph suggests it might be, for several reasons.
The negative gearing campaign lost some of its momentum when the Prime Minister and the Treasurer handpicked the Mignacca family as the best example of "mum and dad" investors. It turned out they had negatively geared a property for their daughter, Adison, who is not yet one.
And to compound their problems, the Grattan Institute has forcefully put the case for a dilution of concessions around negative gearing.
The Liberal Party's Victorian president, Michael Kroger, hit back saying the institute "is not an intellectually independent organisation ... it comes from a left political bent ... and always argues for higher taxes."
And - he neglected to mention - the Prime Minister's wife is on the board!
The scare campaign around climate change got off to a more promising start when Bill Shorten used words similar to Julia Gillard's "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead."
That was - and is - the stuff of instant internet advertisements.
Despite that, however, Labor's new policy is vastly different from Gillard's.
Her government put a fixed price on big emitters - initially $23 a tonne. Shorten's model returns to a market mechanism, but it has no carbon price, and therefore, semantics or not, no carbon tax.
Video: Interview: Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (7.30)
It is closer to Turnbull 2009 than Gillard 2012.
The fact is Malcolm Turnbull cannot scare like Tony Abbott can scare - or the Telegraph can scare. He doesn't have it in him.
He appears to constantly wrestle with his conscience, as if there's an invisible Jiminy Cricket on his shoulder. In his exchange with Leigh Sales on 7.30, he didn't embrace discredited modelling, preferring instead to argue "commonsense".
"So you have to trust my analysis on this?" Sales suggested.
And that's pretty much where he left it.
Here's Turnbull's character trait/problem - call it what you will.
Most politicians are wired to see just black or white. Cabinet can sit around for hours arguing the merits, for example, of ridding negative gearing of the "excesses". It might narrowly decide - after robust discussion - to leave the thing alone. Then, politics being what it is, ministers go out with a hard line that ignores the nuances of their previous discussions. They go on the attack, warning that anybody who goes down that track will ruin the economy. That's how it always works. It's either black or white.
Once a decision is taken, there is no longer a middle ground; no room for compromise. Any argument to the contrary is lost in that "take no prisoners" approach.
Some politicians are shameless; they carry that off ruthlessly and often convincingly. Others, like Turnbull, find it hard to conceal their discomfort.
That's because his natural home is in the grey area.
He knows - he's demonstrated this in the past - that on some issues - many issues in fact - the strength of the arguments on both sides demand a mature debate.
But politics as we have come to know it doesn't allow for that anymore.
Barrie Cassidy is the presenter of the ABC TV program Insiders
No comments:
Post a Comment