Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here’s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The 2011-12 Budget: making insufficient room for the expected boom?

By Geoff Carmody - posted Friday, 13 May 2011


The 2011-12 Commonwealth Budget can be evaluated from at least three different perspectives.

Perspective #1:  ‘What’s in it for me?’

Most assessments are from this perspective and I won’t add to them.  Individuals, interest groups and the media have done this type of assessment to death already, and no doubt more are coming.

Advertisement

Perspective #2:  The Budget as a vehicle for longer-term structural reform

The second perspective asks whether the Budget has introduced reforms that improve productivity, labour force participation, and generally improve supply-side flexibility and capacity.  The more the Budget enhances sustainable supply-side capacity, the better off Australians can be over time.

From this perspective, there are a number of measures included in the 2011-12 Budget that are useful moves in the right direction, including:

  1. The measures to increase (skilled) labour supply, including increased immigration, increased spending on training, increased incentives and penalties encouraging more people to move from welfare to work. These are all moves in the right direction.
  2. Tighter targeting of government benefit payments to reduce ‘middle class welfare,’ is also sensible.
  3. A (partial) move to reduce FBT concessions that at present encourage wasteful use of vehicles simply to meet driving distance thresholds, is good for the economy and for the environment.
  4. Mental health initiatives are also potentially worthwhile attempts to deal with long-standing problems in this area.

Some might take comfort from the fact that these sorts of initiatives have been introduced while keeping the estimated increase in Budget spending to less than 1% in 2011-12 and across the next few years.

This looks good relative to an annual real spending growth limit of 2% per annum set by the Government as it responded to the global financial crisis with its ‘cash splash’ and other spending initiatives.  (Of course, part of this apparent discipline simply reflects cessation of ‘cash splash’ and similar initiatives that boosted spending in the previous years.)

Advertisement

But the official forecasts have the Australian economy booming next year and beyond.  Why should an annual spending cap of 2% real growth (i.e., more like 5-6% growth in current dollars) be appropriate with the economy stretched to the limit, and forecast to become even more stretched?  Surely there’s a need for the Budget to play a counter-cyclical role, ‘making room’ for a burgeoning private sector?

This brings me to the third perspective from which the 2011-12 Budget should be assessed.

Perspective #3:  The Budget as a shorter-term macroeconomic policy manager

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Geoff Carmody is Director, Geoff Carmody & Associates, a former co-founder of Access Economics, and before that was a senior officer in the Commonwealth Treasury. He favours a national consumption-based climate policy, preferably using a carbon tax to put a price on carbon. He has prepared papers entitled Effective climate change policy: the seven Cs. Paper #1: Some design principles for evaluating greenhouse gas abatement policies. Paper #2: Implementing design principles for effective climate change policy. Paper #3: ETS or carbon tax?

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Geoff Carmody

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy