The budget celebrated a significant milestone on Friday. It turned one month old. But instead of popping the Krug and ordering the mini burgers, the celebrations might be more appropriately handled with a sad scotch in the corner. One month since Treasurer Joe Hockey stood in the chamber and talked about lifters not leaners, bits of the budget are leaning at a most precarious angle.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Along with the protest marches, which continue, and the post-budget polls, which continue to be eye watering, key measures – from the paid parental leave scheme to the GP co-payment and increased pension age – don’t look like they will make it through the Parliament. Everywhere you look there are cranky politicians willing to do the Senate block. Even in the government’s own ranks.
This week, as Prime Minister Tony Abbott was out of the way on the other side of the world, it was up to his Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister to continue the budget flog. And so, on Tuesday, Joe Hockey warned that, if the Senate said “no” to everything, it risked becoming “irrelevant”. “It is just simply a road block and we either have to smash through the road block or the Australian people get the chance to change the government.”
Out and about the next day, Warren Truss conceded details of the Coalition’s signature paid parental leave scheme were still being worked out. He told ABC Rural the government was talking to the National Farmers’ Federation and rural women’s groups to ensure farmers would be eligible.
Then on Wednesday evening, Hockey turned up at the Sydney Institute to argue that the budget was fair. More than half of Australian households receive a government payment, he said. “The average working Australian, be they a cleaner, a plumber or a teacher, is working over one month full-time each year just to pay for the welfare of another Australian. Is this fair?”
Taken together, these three examples highlight much of what has gone wrong with the budget sell so far. Firstly, as Hockey’s “irrelevant” Senate comment shows, the government has dangerously underestimated the opposition to the budget. There has been a dismissive “smash through” mentality, based on the idea that by virtue of being the government, the Coalition should be able to legislate its budget measures. (Even if some of them go against pledges made before the election.)
In opposition, Abbott made hay out of sticking to an unrelenting line. But government is different from opposition (duh). The hard, uncompromising approach is a lot harder to pull off when you have to convince other players to play along with what you want.
And yet there are no serious negotiations at this stage with the crossbenchers and other parties. The government is still hoping to stare down its opponents.
Secondly, Truss’s concession about the paid parental leave is a prime example of another issue that has plagued the post-budget month: the lack of certainty about what it actually means. Despite taking the “signature” paid parental leave to two elections, it seems wacky that details are still being worked out. But that’s the case right here.
This feeds into broader doubts about the budget, which has been fuelled by senior Coalition MPs not appearing to understand the fine print of measures such as the GP co-payment and changes to HECS repayments and university fees. If the government isn’t sure about what’s in the budget, how can voters or other parties expect to be?
It also says something about the budget sell that there has even been confusion over whether or not there will be a budget advertising campaign.
Thirdly, Hockey’s Sydney Institute speech underscores the government’s struggle to persuade the public that the budget is a proper and reasonable response to Australia’s fiscal situation. While the case has been made that savings need to be found, it has not been convincingly made that they need to be found by making young unemployed people wait six months for welfare. Or by sick people paying $7 to see a doctor.
It is telling that Hockey feels the need to stand up a good four weeks after budget night to argue that it is fair. And yet, even in doing so, he has reinforced the image of a government that is unsympathetic towards people on low incomes.
Labor has immediately leaped upon his welfare comments, describing them as his “Mitt Romney moment”. (In 2012, the millionaire presidential candidate told donors that half of the US population is dependent on the government and believed they were entitled to “you-name-it”.) Apart from anything else, it doesn’t help the image of a Treasurer who was snapped smoking a cigar pre-budget and lives in a nice house in Sydney’s Hunters Hill.
With the Prime Minister and Parliament back on Monday, the budget debate will continue in earnest. Just don’t expect any champagne.
Judith Ireland is a Fairfax Media journalist.
