budget 2008

			
14 May 2008

			
Swan's Rules

			
By Mark Bahnisch

						

																											

						
If you were expecting the Treasurer to deliver a Keating or Costello-esque performance last night, you've missed the change to how the game is played, writes Mark Bahnisch

			Ever since the new Parliament first sat in February, media commentators have been buzzing about Wayne Swan's performances in the House, sternly warning that Budget night would be a very high bar to leap. Pundits solemnly intoned that the ability of the Treasurer to leave his political opponents dazed and confused was as fundamental as his ability to produce a "beautiful set of numbers". 


But could they have overestimated the importance of the Budget as an opening night, and misunderstood the role Swan had been cast to play?




The lack of a "budget bounce" for the Coalition in recent years led to (accurate, I think) commentary that the importance of the budget as a political event had been massively overplayed. This year, everyone knew the tax cuts were coming, making it a much more complex communications event - as Bernard Keane captured well in Crikey yesterday, noting that the pre-Budget leaks were finely targeted to particular publications and demographics (for instance, "soak the rich" luxury car tax stories going to the tabloids, climate change to the Sunday Fairfax papers).




Commentary about whether the Budget will establish or damage the Rudd Government's "economic management" credentials is a similarly elite preoccupation. 




As demonstrated in an analysis of Newspoll on Larvatus Prodeo, that famous phrase is a piece of bad polling anyway - literally asking the wrong question. It's much more likely that people are waiting around their kitchen tables to see whether Labor will do their utmost to protect them from economic uncertainty, than that there'll be some sort of collective scoring exercise on what is increasingly a very niche piece of political theatre. 




So the media meme about Wayne Swan's speaking style misses the point (Kevin Rudd's is no more flashy). The message this Government is trying to communicate is that they are careful, measured guardians of the nation's future: thinking long term, thinking about fairness, and thinking about all Australians. 




The presentation is the politics: all about disabling the political game and leaving the Opposition very little space to operate in, while the Government occupies a space above the fray. Swan and Rudd are speaking way over the heads of the punditariat and the press gallery; targeting Budget messages carefully on one hand, and using the set piece of the budget speech on the other to reach a citizenry who are usually disengaged from the day-to-day noise of the parliamentary and media cut and thrust. 




Hence all the reiteration of election promises from Swan last night: first to build trust (and contrast with Howard's non-core promises) and secondly to announce them once again to people who missed them during the frenzy of the campaign. They're wrapped up in a narrative of Labor's choosing now, designed to put to rest any lingering suspicions of "me-too-ism". The Libs, meanwhile, have become the background noise.




If you were expecting a Keating-esque or Costello-ish performance, you've missed the change to the rules of the game. Only political junkies assess the Budget as a of piece political theatre. For most people, the Budget just isn't the decisive political moment the press gallery thinks it is. Swan and Rudd are putting much more effort into swaying the electorate than wowing political commentators (the market wonks are another matter, of course).




Swan's speech showed an attempt to build upon what Labor's research told it during last year's campaign - people don't expect the government to solve all their problems, and they recognise that many of the global financial winds are outside any government's control. 




The choice of the word "help" is very important here. It's about protecting Australians and assisting them - and investing for the future - not about declaring that all problems can be solved by fiscal fiat. It's also about being the anti-Howard; planning for the future, not election winning handouts. Will the media be able to understand that this supersedes the "winners and losers" paradigm?




Because another element of Swan's "shared sacrifice" rhetoric - and all the comments about "fairness" - is about flicking the switch to a more collective and less individual conception of our national destiny. The ALP is trying to wean people off the entitlement mentality Howard built up, and to think in broader terms about challenges the country faces, and how wealth and risk are distributed. 




In that sense, it really is a "good Labor budget".


						

	
Share this article with

	
	

	
More information…


						
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register

					revilo 14/05/08 8:49PM

					

						
If this is a "good labor budget", then maybe "labor" needs redefining.


If the libs had been more interested in fairness than conning the electorate this budget would have been a corker, whether Labor or Liberal brought it down.


But in their haste, Swan and co have tried to redress some longstanding issues too clumsily.


They have set arbitrary cut off values for who is "needy" and who is greedy.


Sure a $50K salary 10 years ago, probably equates closer to $100K today, but, it won’t come across to young fit and healthy people who don’t perceive they need health insurance that way.


They simply will keep the money for other purposes, free from the impost of the medicare levy.

Not only will this create a mix of older sicker members, it will throw more of the uninsured into the already inefficient public health system.


The double whammy comes when, no longer subsidized by the govt.the health insurance co’s up their fees to their members and/or reduce the benefits.

The result is more exiting the private for the public system.

Ultimately collapsing the whole health care system in 2-3 years.

Then there will be a genuine reason for a double dissolution, and the well and truly disillusioned electorate will vote accordingly.


10 billion dollars is a huge injection into health, and one third of that is earmarked for spending by June 30 2008!

This will test the goodwill of the new federalism to the hilt.

If the states can’t get it together after that, it is good night Irene.


Just look at Mental Health in Sydney! Not enough nurses or beds in our psychiatric hospitals.

Why is Labor closing the enrolled nurses training program in regional areas?

Then there’s infrastructure, water, transport, and the education revolution.

Workers continue to abandon their unions, while the government has abandoned the workers. The only glimmer of a hope on the horizon is that new labor eventually remembers why they actually came to power and gets on with it.