The resumption of federal Parliament on Tuesday after a six-week break has been described as the start of a make or break period for the Abbott government; one that could determine whether its ability to implement lasting legislative change is reined in by voters at the next election, perhaps permanently. That a federal government elected with a resounding mandate for economic change should find itself in public disfavour this early in its first term is not unusual. John Howard found himself on similar terrain a year into his first term with his unpopular spending cuts aimed at eliminating a budget deficit, and his avid pursuit of contentious initiatives like the introduction of a goods and services tax. The Abbott government, however, has distinguished itself by its seeming incapacity to learn from its mistakes, to correct the unexpected list in its fortunes, and resume normal and productive sailing.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The Coalition's headaches have stemmed largely from an inability to market its economic prescriptions as fair, reasonable and in the national interest, and its failure to shepherd the more contentious aspects of its budget, now more than three months old, through the Senate. Treasurer Joe Hockey's grovelling mea culpa over remarks that the indexation of the fuel excise would not greatly affect lower-income earners as they "either don't have cars or actually don't drive very far" suggests the Coalition is now aware that justifications for the more unpalatable aspects of its budget need to be carefully parsed before utterance. However, it is far from certain the front bench (with the exception perhaps of Malcolm Turnbull) understands the importance of gentle persuasion and compromise when it comes to securing independent and minor party Senate support so that budget measures like the Medicare co-payment and the deregulation of the university sector can pass the Upper House. Finance Minister Mathias Cormann became the latest senior Coalition figure to inflame crossbench sensitivities when he remarked that unless spending was brought under control, it was inevitable taxes would have to rise in order to balance the budget. Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce's observation that Australia's debt problem was like a "financial melanoma" that could kill if hard decisions weren't made was also interpreted by members of the Palmer United Party as an implied threat for them to get with the government's program.
It's not generally known that 98 per cent of the Budget's expense measures, totalling $1.8 trillion, have already been passed by Parliament. Had it chosen to make more of this achievement rather than continue to harp on about Senate obstructiveness and bloody-mindedness – and the "budget emergency" bequeathed it by Labor – the government's slight recovery in surveys of voter support might be more pronounced than it is.
Self exculpation is, in any event, subject to the law of diminishing returns. The longer the Coalition persists in blaming Labor for its budget woes, the more voters will tune out. Not that Labor offers much in the way of solace for disaffected voters. Nor is there the slightest skerrick of public understanding for the government's difficulties in countering Senate interference – not when Tony Abbott made an art form of unprincipled and opportunistic opposition to all of Labor's economic policies and initiatives when it was in power.
The irony, and this may be lost on some in the Coalition, is that while business leaders believe its emphasis on reducing the national debt is correct, they want greater priority accorded to "resolving fiscal issues" like the abolition of the mining tax and associated spending measures. It seems obvious too, reading between the lines, that they expect the government to secure the consensus needed to bypass the Budget deadlock.
The modern template for governments reaching budget deals with minor parties and independents was set by John Howard – though his negotiations were with senators less erratic (and more principled) than those from the Palmer United Party. Mr Abbott could stitch up a deal too, if he were minded. However, his leadership style of crash through or crash militates against such an outcome. That leaves open the possibility of a mini budget, or a ministerial reshuffle. Either way, Mr Abbott needs to act soon to dispel the notion that this is a government stuck in quagmire of its own making, with little idea of how to extricate itself.
