The Budget is finally out of the bag.
Being an important piece of directional document for a government that is trying find a footing amidst all the scandals in the last year, did this budget deliver that stability platform?
Yes and no.
First of all, one must look at the terms of planning for this budget – a lot of them are for a two year or so period – that sits right in the middle of a re-election campaign programme. There is no doubt that this is a set up for a re-election to stay in power. Fair enough, that’s what all parties will do. However, from a general Australian point of view, would it be enough to think that is a caring government when tax breaks are short term extensions, COVID-19 responses are based on a lot of assumptions and without a clear road map, and money for apprentice program is uncertain after the current extension? The only long-term items are infrastructure, which by now I think a lot of Australians will know they are commitments without commitments, as it paints a vision that may or may not happen depending on who is in government. This is fair enough as infrastructure cannot be rushed, however, there isn’t any item on the list that is revolutionary, but at the most evolutionary. So, if it is a long-term vision, there is not visionary but revisionary.
Then let us look at the beneficiaries of this budget.
After a year of turmoil about how this government and the Prime Minister treated women, it is not surprising to see that women became the centre piece of the budget. Additional money has been allocated over the next two years on women’s safety measures against domestic and sexual violence. How this is going to be allocated is yet to be seen, but it is better than nothing. However, considering this money will be split by all states and all organisations within these states, how far would this $261.4 million will go after all the deductable operational costs are remove is something that needs to be observed and documented. I hope this allocation of the budget is based on empirical cost data not just a slicing of pie just to show this government cares. Of course, it is better than nothing, but how much is ideological and how much is practical is yet to be seen.
I do appreciate additional money for childcare but as usual this big number of $1.7 billion is expanded over 5 years, so how much impact it would make is also unknown. This is especially childcare services costs will just go up by year, and whether this money would be able to cover this inflation rate or be at least inflation resilient is open to question. Of course, the most ideal will be government funded childcare services, allowing women or men to go back to work without worrying about worsening their livelihood and family life. However, this could cost a lot more and definitely will not be a signature piece of policy for the Coalition government. As such expectations should stay low to avoid disappointment. Some money is better than no money at this stage.
Aged care is another serious sore spot for this government especially triggered by the massive death in aged care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic last year. Fingers were pointed, attempts to shift responsibilities were carried out, but this government finally realised that the whole country knows aged care is a Federal responsibility. So here we go, as the sequel to the Royal Commission, additional money was allocated to solve the aged care service puzzle. $17.7 billion was allocated, again over 5 years for different purposes, including home care packages, which I appreciate as a lot of elder people would love to, if possible stay at home instead of going into an aged care facility; $10 per day increase in payment to aged care providers – now really $10 per day? What can it use it for? And finally, additional care minutes for age care residents, which I do not know whether it translates into more staff resources or other means of care. Apart from the home care packages, there seems to be a hard way to assess the effectiveness of this part of the budget, but then if you want people to forget how budgets were cut for this portfolio in the past, putting back a bigger dollar sign back in this year will be a way to go. For me it feels like a re-allocation of a re-allocated fund than an actual investment of a viable aged care policy and strategic direction. But again, it is better than nothing.
Tax wise, income tax relieve for sectors of the Australian population will be extended, which will be good news for a lot of people. However, the key word here is extended – that means the dollars you save could go back into the tax pool eventually. This is similar for business tax, although I still think that 5 billion as a benchmark for eligibility is really too high to make this policy sensible to common Australians, whom a number of them are still struggling from lay off and retrenchment over the last 18 months. As for the rest of whoever for the government, they got $2.1 billion shared among the likes of the tourism industry, the aviation industry, the art industry and the international education providers. I wonder how many grains of rice can be shared among all the organisations and people in this industry, or maybe the government thought that those who lost their jobs are already not part of this industry, so why bother?
Speaking of education, the whole of the university sector got $19 billion. However, judging from the past in this field, what are the fine prints for getting this allocation is still yet to be seen. The higher education sector and the government have been at odds for years from education ideology to funding and social policies. Under such circumstance, the fine prints and funding frameworks are still the crucial pieces to this allocation. But at the same time, operating costs of universities have been climbing with the need to catch up with infrastructure and resources, so how far this money can go will be interesting. Maybe the best bet is to employ more development staff for fund raising, as lots of big corporations might want to further lower their taxes with tax deductable donations, that is on top of their current generous tax breaks.
For me, this budget is not a disaster but nothing really worthy of a full-scale praise. It addresses some issues, albeit some of them are just lip services. It feels like a Rosary Afternoon RSL Buffet with a bit of everything but offered at a limited time to test what sells and what doesn’t. And beyond that it depends on whether the current operator is still in business. It does not offer vision or stability, but a pitch that I am a good operator who listens with a temperamental hearing aid.
What do you think?
