It was a dribs and drabs Budget. A little for everyone and nothing large to offend anyone. And yes, there is an election in October.
A cynical view of yesterday’s Budget would be that it was a vote-buying one. And there was a certain amount of that. Treasurer and Chief Minister Gary Humphries found his way to dish a few goodies out to a great variety of groups and individuals: cyclists and motorists; public and private school attendees; high culture and petrol heads. A little bit here and a little bit there. Something for everyone.
But several factors soften this cynical view. First, the framing of the Budget and the allocation of the goodies has not been done on an overtly ideological basis, in the way that Mr Humphries’ federal counterparts have engaged in. Secondly, the additional spending (or vote-buying) has not been done in an economically irresponsible way. The Budget remains in surplus. The ACT retains its triple-A credit rating. The economic projections are not hopelessly optimistic. Indeed, the budgetary position now is in far better shape than was projected three budgets ago when it was predicted that the Budget would still be in deficit by $57 million and be some distance from turning the corner to surplus — and at the time that was thought to be optimistic.
Thirdly, whereas some of the goodies in this Budget are a deliberate appeal to the hip-pocket nerve (such as the cut in the registration fee), a lot of the spending initiatives are long-term prospects.
Even if the amounts are often small, these initiatives are commendable. Things like spending on people about to be released from jail or early intervention in child development or disease prevention are not going to sound in immediate budgetary savings that can be translated to vote-buying. They show some welcome long-term thinking which has been quite rare on the Australian political landscape recently.
In many respects Mr Humphries has earned the reward of being able to dispense with a few goodies before the election. The Liberals inherited a budgetary position blown out by over-spending based on debt. The precise amounts involved have been a matter for conjecture and Labor has a point when it says the Liberals have exaggerated the extent of the black hole. Nonetheless, Labor had overspent, as had the Liberal-led Alliance Government before it. However, since attaining Government in 1995, the Liberals have done a lot of hard work in reducing the size of the public sector and with it the unsustainable deficits. True, it got a deal of help by being able top persuade the Commonwealth to chip in more and by an economy that has done well in adverse conditions, but it did not squander those opportunities.
A pleasing feature of the Budget has been that there are no new taxes. Another good feature is that the Government has hedged a little on the possibility of an economic downturn and increased the capital works program – especially on roads. This will help job creation in the event of a downturn in the private sector.
It is reasonable to question the wisdom of free school buses rather than spending more directly on education. Even if viewed as a transport policy rather than an educational one, it does not sit well with the cut in car registration fees which puts the incentive away from public transport to private transport at a time when governments should be doing all they can to discourage environmentally destructive car use.
In all, however, Mr Humphries has done a fairly good job, especially when one acknowledges that no state or territory government has very far to move with a Budget. Most of the spending is pre-determined in wages for teachers, nurses, police and other public servants. And most of the revenue, too, is similarly pre-determined by arrangements with Australia pre-eminent revenue raiser, the Federal Government.