Chalmers’ budget challenge is to balance politics with the cost-of-living reality

The International Monetary Fund report, released this week, outlined an uncertain international outlook and forecast Australia’s growth at only 1.6 per cent this year and 1.7 per cent in 2024.

Australia’s inflation was set to fall back more quickly than forecast by the Reserve Bank, shrinking to 4 per cent by the end of the year and 3 per cent by the end of 2024.

Chalmers said in February inflation was the “defining feature” of the Australian economy this year, with the government planning to address it by “responsible cost-of-living relief, dealing with supply chain issues, and keeping spending under control”.

The treasurer wants to seize for Labor the “responsible economic manager” mantle the Liberals always try to wear at election time.

So in the budget decisions, some of which are still being taken, he is the man frowning at spending demands, encouraging savings, and wanting to bank as much as possible of any windfalls.

Budget watchers will have an eye on any big interventions Anthony Albanese, with a concern about the politics, might make. Last year, Albanese shut down the flirtation with remodelling the stage 3 tax cuts due to start in mid-2024 (these are not on the table this time).


The budget has long-term structural problems because of the projected growth in big spending areas, such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme and defence (with a revised capability program about to be announced).

And debt has to be tackled, although Chalmers’ constant use of the “trillion dollars” of debt he inherited from the Liberals should be put in context. Chalmers is talking about forecast 2023-24 gross debt – current net debt is something over $500 billion.

In the medium to longer term, the need for budget repair is a serious problem. But for this budget, Chalmers will have the advantage of windfall rewards from higher-than-expected commodity prices (as he did in his first budget, in October).

Independent economist Chris Richardson observes: “There is still a budget problem, but the gods are conspiring to give him a vast amount of wriggle room”.


So why not be generous with cost-of-living relief? Because that might fuel inflation (depending on how it was delivered) and put fresh pressure on interest rates. As Richardson says, this is where the politics and the economics of the cost-of-living issue clash.

There will be some relief, of course. The government late last year announced modest help with energy bills and details will be in the budget, after the negotiations with the states.

There will also be assistance for those on welfare payments. As part of a deal with Senate crossbencher David Pocock last year over legislation, Albanese agreed to set up the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. It is led by former Labor minister Jenny Macklin.

Its brief is “to provide advice on economic inclusion including policy settings, systems and structures, and the adequacy, effectiveness and sustainability of income support payments ahead of every federal budget”.

The committee’s clout is strengthened by the fact its wish list has to be made public a couple of weeks before the budget.

The government may respond to the committee’s recommendations when they’re released. It doesn’t have to accept what the committee wants, but it won’t be able to avoid doing something substantial.

Whether there are any “surprise” cost-of-living initiatives in the budget remains to be seen.

One item that will not be there is the government’s “Measuring What Matters Statement”. This goes beyond traditional economic measures to look at a broad range of social and environmental indicators of wellbeing.

The October budget had a very limited first cut of a wellbeing statement. Among other measures, it found Australia at or better than the OECD average (and stable or improving) on household income, the employment rate and housing affordability, and worse than the average (and declining) on household debt, labour underutilisation, and the gender gap in feeling safe.


The coming, much more elaborate, statement is to be released around mid-year. Treasury has received more than 160 submissions. The most common areas raised include children, inequality and poverty, health, mental health, First Nations peoples, environment and climate change. Housing affordability, intergenerational wellbeing, and digital inclusion have also been raised.

The government says so far five broad themes have emerged for considering wellbeing: prosperity, inclusion, sustainability, cohesion and health. It stresses they are not necessarily the final themes – there’s another round of consultations to be held.

Chalmers says: “It’s clear there’s a real appetite to look at new ways that we can measure progress in our economy and measure the wellbeing of our communities and our society”.

Chalmers didn’t say so, but these wellbeing statements will also open new channels for demands on future budgets.

Michelle Grattan is professorial fellow at the University of Canberra. This article was first published on The Conversation.

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.

Source link