Government budget trickery


I would like to state upfront that I already had the word ‘trickery’ in this title before Bill Shorten used it in his Budget Reply speech. I could say he stole it from me but I suspect he thought of it himself. It is such an appropriate word for this budget.

One thing Bill Shorten didn’t mention was the blatant strategy adopted by Abbott and his minions in the lead-up to the budget. First there was the approach that the budget would be ‘dull’ and ‘boring’: the government basically trying to tell us ‘nothing to see here’, forget about it and just go about your normal business. They were initially telling us that, after last year, this year’s budget would be a do nothing budget that we could ignore.

Then there was an apparent change. They had three new words: that the budget would be ‘reasonable, measured and fair’, that it wasn’t quite something to ignore but nothing to worry about, something that would not raise our hackles. And after the reaction to the previous year’s budget, this one would be ‘fair’. (I will come back to that word.)

Then came the final stage in their three-part plan. (Why do they have a fixation on ‘three’?) As you are aware the government began making announcements about budget measures prior to budget night but they were the ‘positives’: such as the child-care package and the benefits of the changes to the pension, including dropping the previous idea of linking pension increases to CPI rather than growth of the average wage. At that time they weren’t saying very much about how the new measures would be paid for — although they occasionally mentioned, when pressed, that there would be off-setting savings, there wasn’t much in the way of detail regarding those savings.

They had learned the lesson from the previous year when their mantras of ‘debt and deficit disaster’ and ‘Labor’s mess’ had failed to convince people that the draconian cuts were necessary. This time they were trying to influence our mind-set going into the budget: rather than focusing on a negative, they wanted us to see the positives that would be announced and were making sure we noticed by announcing or leaking them in advance. We were being softened up and, to my mind, it was so obvious and contrived (partly because it was such a stark contrast to last year) that it was almost laughable. You could see that it was planned, that ministers were still being given their daily messages, the lines they needed to follow at ‘door stops’ and interviews: first, ignore the budget; then don’t worry about it, it will be measured; and finally, ‘gee whiz’, look at this, look at the offer we have for you. Do they really think the voters are so stupid as not to see through that?

After last year when their budget was widely lambasted as unfair, this year they decided to come out fighting and try to control the debate around that word ‘fair’. Now they were claiming that everything about this budget was ‘fair’. Again they were trying to shape our mind-set to their interpretation of the word and not let it be controlled by the Opposition and the media. Rather than being a word that could be used to attack their budget, this time they were trying to attach it in our thinking to what was to come on budget night.

While it may have been ‘fair’ to reduce the asset limit for the part-pension, they took fairness too far when they claimed that women receiving both government-paid and employer-provided parental leave were ‘rorting’ the system. Hockey even refused to rule out that it could be ‘fraud’ when Laurie Oakes used that word. At the very least, it was ‘double dipping’. The new proposal was that the stay-at-home parent (they seemed to have forgotten that men can also claim parental leave) could access only one form of parental leave and that this was ‘fair’ because we all know that double dipping is unfair (unless, of course, you are a board member of four or five companies and government authorities/inquiries/businesses). As others have pointed out, when the current government system (based on the minimum wage) was introduced by Labor it was designed to operate with employer-provided schemes to allow people to top up their income or to extend their period of leave: in other words, it was a compromise proposal to support parental leave without becoming too expensive for government (as Abbott’s gold-plated version would have been — which was one reason it was abandoned; the other being that he was asking big business to fund it with an extra 1.5% tax).

To further undermine their argument, it turned out that some Liberal ministers’ wives had used both. They tried to justify it by saying that the current system allowed it — but was that ‘fair’? It was double dipping! They told us so. If they already knew it was double dipping, why didn’t they act on principle and refuse the additional support?

On budget night, they finally made clear that their new child care package would be funded by major changes to Family Tax Benefit Part B. This was something left over from the previous budget that had not passed the Senate but now it was being ‘sugar coated’. While people may like the new child-care package, they won’t get it unless the savings measure is passed by the Senate — in plain language, a bribe. Of course, it is also tied to the change to parental leave entitlements. People will be forced to accept the new child-care package because they will be forced back to work earlier if they can only receive the minimum wage for a maximum of 18 weeks.

These approaches are justified by the government (by Scott Morrison) in terms of being ‘workforce’ measures. They are not about supporting people (welfare) but only supporting people who are in work or seeking work. They are aimed solely at improving workforce participation.

That fits with the government’s philosophic approach that focuses on individuals and families and their role in the economy — ‘communities’ do not exist (it was the same under the Howard government). In Hockey’s budget speech the word ‘community’ (or communities) is used in only three contexts: ‘regional communities’ (probably The Nationals’ influence), assisting jobseekers where ‘community workers’ are mentioned, and in relation to terrorist threats to ‘our communities’. Families are mentioned 11 times. For the Liberals, a community cannot exist in its own right but only as an agglomeration of families and individuals. There is no such thing as ‘community spirit’ because that is counter to the spirit of ‘individual self-interest’ that is the basis of their philosophy and, they believe, of economic growth. You will rarely, if ever, see a Liberal government of recent ilk providing funding for ‘community’ services — only services for individuals and families (even if they are delivered by ‘community’ organisations).

Aside from the changes to Family Tax Benefit Part B, there are other measures in this budget that are left over from the previous budget. The government didn’t mention them but Bill Shorten, state premiers and media commentators did. The big one is the reduction in funding ($80 billion) to the states for schools and hospitals over the next decade. Although the premiers will be meeting with Abbott at a ‘COAG retreat’ in July to discuss that, the savings from the measure are built into the forward estimates. That is one of a number of matters that make a mockery of Hockey’s claim that the government has established a ‘trajectory’ to a surplus. If the government has to find at least some of that money to meet state demands, surplus projections move ever further into the future.

A future surplus is now almost entirely dependent on real GDP growth and the commentators have suggested that the estimates contained in the budget are optimistic: they are higher than the current estimates of GDP growth by the Reserve Bank. There is nothing inherently wrong with allowing for GDP growth except when it is optimistic and future revenue does not match the forecasts based on that optimism (see my piece ‘Are budgets worth the paper they’re written on?’).

The other aspect that will contribute to better future revenue for the government is ‘bracket creep’, when pay-as-you-go wage earners move into higher tax brackets as their wages rise. Talk of reducing taxes to overcome the effect of bracket creep has disappeared for now in favour of achieving a surplus.

Neither of those was spoken about by the government and yet they underlie its future projections. They could possibly have gotten away with that if they hadn’t made such a hue and cry about the ‘debt and deficit disaster’ the previous year. Last year the government had to fix ‘Labor’s mess’ — which, they said, comprised high spending and growing debt. This year that doesn’t seem to matter. No wonder people are left wondering which is true — one budget must be based on a lie but which one? Or are they both based on lies, just different lies!

Associated with that, they again rolled out, when interviewed after the budget, that they had inherited a $48 billion deficit (as I recall, it was $46 billion — I am not sure where the extra $2 billion has come from, other than the rubbery figures of Hockey-nomics). That figure has been disproven previously. The actual deficit at the time was $30 billion: the additional $18 billion (or a major 60% increase in the deficit) came from decisions made by the Abbott government after it came to office and before it issued the 2013 MYEFO. Their decisions also added to future deficits and debt by abandoning Labor’s revenue measures (see ‘Abbott continues to tell porkies’).

I will concede that on the ‘plus’ side, the government realised at last that the economy was faltering badly (that it wasn’t just Wayne Swan’s fault) and it needed to do something to stimulate it — hence the tax reduction and accelerated depreciation for small business. Unless the economy grows, and business invests and wages rise, the government’s revenue will remain in the doldrums. So on this side of the equation they have their new catch-cry: ‘have a go’. It should be noted, however, that one of the measures it had previously removed was Labor’s accelerated depreciation scheme: it wasn’t quite as generous as the current proposal but it was built into the system whereas Abbott and Hockey’s proposal is only for two years — what happens after that we don’t yet know. Might I suggest, however, that the $5 billion now for small business will become the same $5 billion for the child care package when it is introduced in two years’ time — that’s a neat trick if they can pull it off!

Now just a few figures (after all we are talking about a budget). First it is interesting that the main income figures are ‘cash accounting’ but the main spending figures are ‘accrual accounting’: there are tables that allow one to match the systems but why the main figures are done in two different ways I don’t know. (A clue to the two accounting methods in the budget documents is contained in the words: if it refers to ‘revenue’ and ‘expenses’, then it is accrual accounting, but if it refers to ‘receipts’ and ‘spending’ or ‘payments’, it is cash accounting.) Following my piece, ‘Are budgets worth the paper they’re written on?’, I will, for consistency, stick with accrual accounting figures.

For 2015-16 they are estimating revenue of $405.4 billion which is more than $21 billion above the estimate for this year: this year’s estimate has come down from $411.6 estimated in 2013-14, to $391.3 billion estimated in the original budget, to 385.9 billion in the MYEFO and now $384.1 billion. Revenue has come in below the budget night estimate every year since 2010-11, so why should revenue now jump by 5.5%? There is no apparent answer other than the government hoping it will based on a few ‘green shoots’ as Hockey called them. This positive approach seems to be a result of the government finally coming to the realisation that continued negativity, although perhaps good politics, was having an adverse impact on business and consumer confidence and thus also impacting the economy — so from a false sense of doom and gloom they have moved to a false sense of optimism after successfully creating doom and gloom.

Government expenditure for 2014-15 has also increased above the original budget night estimate: from $414.8 billion to $420.3 billion. No doubt that can be blamed on the Senate not passing all of their ‘savings’! Expenditure for 2015-16 increases to $434.5 billion, an increase greater than just the concessions for small business but in the budget they claim:
… new spending measures will be more than offset by reductions in spending elsewhere within the budget …
The final expenditure figure does not seem to justify that claim.

Their continued claim to be a low taxing government is also undermined by the fact that taxation revenue in 2013-14 was 21.4% of GDP but has risen to 21.9% in 2014-15, rises to 22.3% in 2015-16 and rises each year to reach 23.4% in 2018-19 (that is only taxation revenue). Total revenue rises from 23.5% of GDP in 2014-15 to 25.2% in 2018-19.

Overall, as Jonathon Green wrote:
There is a purity about the play of politics in this budget week. Nothing is, but what I say it is. I can be a big spending, big taxing government — verifiably so — and yet claim that the opposite qualities are in my very marrow.
It is very much a Humpty Dumpty budget because it does things that they say they do not do and it is tricky because even when they are doing something it is not what it appears.

What do you think?

About Ken

Following the budget, the Fairfax-Ipsos poll put voting intention at 50‒50 although both Newspoll and Galaxy suggested the budget had not made any difference to the government vote. Do you think people have seen through the budget? Should the budget have done more to boost the economy? Or, as many commentators have suggested, was it just a ‘political’ budget?

Come back next week when 2353 considers the NAPLAN test run in our schools and asks whether it provides a guide to help teachers and schools or creates a competition between schools.


Hope for the homeless


Throughout the world there are people who ’sleep rough’ every night. For a few, that is the way they choose to spend their lives; for the majority, however, the habit is not one of choice or desire — the choice is made for them due to circumstances relating to employment or their personal lives. While Australia is not immune to this social problem, generally those in Australia who are sleeping in the park, under the bridge or in their car do not suffer the climatic extremes as those who ‘sleep rough’ in other parts of the world.

Homelessness or living in cars and so on is not just a problem because it ‘makes the place look untidy’: it is an indicator of how society looks after its members who have usually hit the bottom — and are looking for some help to re-establish their lives — frequently as a result of circumstances the person had no control over. A network of organisations attempts to assist those who are homeless as well as those who through misfortune are likely to become homeless. Most of the organisations that provide this service in Australia are owned and operated by the non-government sector (some of these organisations do receive government support but nowhere near enough and most have suffered cuts since the Abbott government came to power). As you would expect there are organisations in other countries that perform similar activities — some of which use a counterintuitive process with great success thanks to government funding.

There are a number of practical issues when you are in a position where you don’t have a ‘usual’ address, a bed to sleep on at night and all that is represented by having a roof over your head. Probably the most important one is there is no certainty in your life — you literally don’t know where your next meal is coming from, if you will be safe if you do fall asleep, where you will find a place that is sheltered that evening and what tomorrow will bring. In addition, your family does not know where you are; services such as Centrelink require an address to ‘put you on the books’ and access to a computer to receive correspondence; and employers will react to you far more favourably if you take some care with your personal hygiene (a bit hard if you don’t have access to running water) as well as having conventional contact details. If you do manage to scrape together enough for the bond and rental for a property, the real estate agent, under the guise of looking after the interest of the property owner whom they represent, will generally require a reference from a previous landlord prior to renting you a property to live in — a bit hard if your previous address was the third park bench from the light pole.

Anglicare recently published its 2015 rental affordability snapshot as a continuation of the process it has followed for at least the last four years. In 2015, the survey looked at 65,614 properties across Australia and measured where a tenant in the bottom 40% of household income distribution would spend greater than 30% of their disposable income to rent a place to live — the definition of ‘housing stress’. The results are frightening. From the 65,614 available properties:

  • 3.4% of properties met the affordability requirements of a couple who relied on the age pension
  • 0.9% (or 600 properties) met the affordability requirements for a single age pensioner
  • 10 out of the 65,614 (that is not a typo) properties would be affordable for a single person on Newstart; and
  • 8 (again not a typo) properties meet the affordability requirements for a single beneficiary of Youth Allowance.
It doesn’t get much better if you do have a job. Anglicare calculates that around 2.3% of the rental properties available at the time of the 2015 survey would be affordable if you are single and living on the mandated minimum wage; which is slightly over $33,000 per annum. Should you be a part of a young family comprising two adults on the minimum wage and receiving full child support and child care payments for your two children, still only somewhere around 24% of the properties surveyed would be suitable for you.

Clearly if you are in any of the situations above, you are probably reading this on a computer you don’t own — as discretionary expenditure such as internet connections, electricity supply, car and contents insurance, car repairs and, possibly at times, even food are all dispensed with so that you can retain that roof over your head. Again according to Anglicare, around 65,000 Australians do not have the financial security to ensure that they will have sufficient food each day.

The reality is that Australia is certainly not the worst place in the world to be homeless. Our climate in large population areas is rather benign in comparison to some parts of Europe, the USA and Canada, where some major population centres have similar climates to Mt Buller or Perisher. Despite never having been fortunate enough to travel to New York City or London, I am certainly aware of the stories of people that effectively live in subway stations and similar areas as they are (relatively) warm and sheltered — until they are ‘befriended’ by the relevant city’s transport police.

Like in Australia, various government and non-government organisations attempt to help the homeless across Europe, the US and Canada. Some do it better than others. In addition to trivialities such as food and shelter, in cold climates across the world people are also responsible for heating their homes; the purchase of warm clothes as well as additional food to stay warm. If there is a constant battle to find shelter, clearly other requirements for life take a back seat. As an example, a CBS Television Station in Minnesota (WCCO) highlighted during April 2015 that their state government reported 43 people died during their winter where exposure to cold was either fully or partly responsible for their death. While not all these people were homeless (one died trying to rescue another person from a lake), the link does look at the fate of some homeless people. Apparently this is an improvement on previous years.

Around 10 years ago in Utah, the Republican Governor was convinced to try a radical plan to reduce homelessness in the state — give them a home. The charmingly named Desert News reports that it saves money!
In one of the leading examples around the nation of counterintuitive thinking, Utah has been giving away apartments to the homeless. It is a program that has actually saved Utah money. For each homeless person, estimates for emergency medical bills alone are more than $16,000 a year on average. Giving them an apartment costs about $11,000. And it has drastically reduced the need for emergency medical visits.
Outside of medical, various other costs, including legal and justice system costs are estimated to add another $20,000 to $30,000 dollars a year (depending on the location). Utah’s housing, and support for the individuals once they are residing in a home, cuts those total costs by over half, all-in-all, from about $19,000 a year to under $8,000.
Utah wasn’t the originator of the idea. Again the Desert News reports:
Designed by the Utah Department of Workforce Services, the program was modelled after the “Housing First” program pioneered in New York City more than 20 years ago. This approach involves putting housing ahead of all other concerns. When followed, alcohol consumption rates have been found to go down, along with drug usage and public nuisance behaviour. Each year some 10 percent leave the program and become fully independent, and only 6 percent are ejected from the program. The rest continue to work year by year with their caseworker.
The Washington Post recently discussed the origins, benefits and economics of the program and celebrated its success in one of the USA’s most conservative states (Utah is the home of the Mormons). Other US states such as Florida and Wyoming also operate similar programs, so the experiment is repeatable.

If a person has a home, they are in a better position to access government services, a job application is easier (as personal hygiene is better and the potential employer has a contact point) and a person can make plans for the future. The Australian Government is in contrast withdrawing money from social service providers. Conservative states in the USA demonstrate that the current Australian Government’s policy is deeply flawed and doesn’t help anyone. At the same time, the Abbott government — to the detriment of our economy — supports processes such as negative gearing, novated leasing and capital gains.

In Joe Hockey’s world, the homeless are ‘leaners’ as they do not contribute to society. The reality is that those that are ‘sleeping rough’ in Australia are not taking much from society either. It’s a pity some of those that Hockey would define as ‘lifters’ are shifting profits offshore or structuring their affairs so that they make a tax loss (which are all still legal activities). The example to Australia from New York and Utah’s ‘homes for the homeless’ program would seem to suggest that if those who fall to the bottom of society are given some support rather than derision, they become overall contributors to society — at the same time as they are lifting themselves out of poverty, danger and risk. All it takes is someone to give them a chance.

What do you think?
As he did in ‘The “trickle-down” effect’, 2353 presents us with an alternative approach that is already being shown to work. Why can’t governments see the benefit of spending money now for longer term benefits — and savings? Should Labor be picking up such approaches and showing the shortcomings in the current approach? Please let us know what you think.

Next week Ken returns with his view of the government's budget, including the way it began selling it before budget night: 'Government budget trickery'.

Are budgets worth the paper they’re written on?


In this little exercise I have gone through commonwealth government budgets from 1999‒2000 to 2013‒14 to study changes in the figures.

The figures for each budget can vary quite significantly. For quite a few years now we have had the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) which updates and revises the figures used in the budget as presented on budget night. Even before MYEFO, it was not uncommon for budget figures to be revised during the year and this often became apparent during the process known as ‘Additional Estimates’. Then there is the next budget: while it provides the figures for the coming financial year, it also provides another set of figures for the current financial year — which still has about seven weeks to run at the time of the budget. And each budget also contains projections for the next three years (the forward estimates). To complete the picture, in about September each year, the ‘Final Outcome’ is released which presents the actual figures, the actual revenue and spending, that occurred in the previous financial year (and it compares those final figures not to the original budget but the figures used on the more recent budget night). So, before the Final Outcome, there could have been at least six different sets of figures relating to any single budget.

I will focus on two sets of figures: the budget figures as presented by the treasurer on budget night and the final outcome (which is why I stop at 2013‒14). That will give us an indication of how accurate (or otherwise) the treasury and treasurer estimates of income and spending actually are.

There is also an issue about accrual accounting and cash accounting, and there often seems to be a few billion dollars difference between the two: for example, in 2007‒08 the ‘final outcome’ revenue for the government in accrual terms was $303 billion but $295 billion in cash receipts. (One reason I have commenced in 1999‒2000 is because that was the year that accrual accounting was introduced.)

Accrual accounting assigns income and expenditure when a commitment is made whereas cash accounting only enters money when it is actually received or spent: for example, if the government promises an organisation $100,000 on 10 June this year but doesn’t pay the money until 10 July, it would appear in the 2014‒15 budget under accrual accounting but the 2015‒16 budget under cash accounting. While the budget papers do contain both cash and accrual tables, I have stuck with the figures from accrual accounting as they now seem to provide the headline figures. (Although from my reading it appears that governments may sometimes pick the figure which best suits them at the time.)

In the eight years from 1999‒2000 to 2006‒07, actual revenue exceeded the budget estimate in every year by an average of $6.7 billion (or about $9 billion in constant 2013‒14 prices), varying from $2.8 billion to $13.1 billion, or from 101.5% to 106.8% of the budget night estimate. We might argue that a difference of 1‒2% isn’t too bad when one is trying to predict the future but it was only that close in two of those eight years (and it has been that close only once since). Also, because in those years the mistake was to under-estimate revenue, it wasn’t a problem for the government. (It also helps explain how Costello managed to achieve his surpluses — the cumulative under-estimates for those years amounted to $54 billion.)

The year 2007‒08 was a turning point but initially for a different reason. It was the year the GST was counted in the government’s revenue — before that it was discussed in a separate budget attachment. For that reason, government revenue jumped by almost $57 billion above the original budget night estimate but $44.4 billion of that was the GST revenue. Without the GST, the final outcome for revenue was still $12.6 billion above the budget night estimate. The influence of the GST on the budget can basically be ignored because although it adds to revenue it is simply offset in spending as a transfer to the states. It does mean, however, that the headline revenue figure in the budget is a little misleading: for example, in 2013‒14 the government’s final revenue was $374.0 billion but that included $55.5 billion in GST, which left $318.4 billion for spending on commonwealth government programs (including additional support to the states for hospitals and schools). Despite that I will use the full budget figure as it becomes too time-consuming to re-arrange every budget to remove the GST.

From 2008‒09, the budget night estimates have tended to over-estimate government revenue, with only 2009‒10 under-estimating revenue (by $2.2 billion).

Revenue Budget estimate (billion) Final outcome (billion) Proportion
2008-09 $319.5 $298.9 93.6%
2009-10 $290.6 $292.8 100.7%
2010-11 $356.4 $309.9 87.0%
2011-12 $350.0 $338.1 96.6%
2012-13 $376.1 $360.2 95.8%
2013-14 $387.7 $374.0 96.4%

In dollars terms that amounts to an average ‒$17.7 billion each year. The cumulative total of budget night forecasts for those six years was $2,080 billion but the actual revenue was only $1,974 billion (95%), meaning the Rudd and Gillard governments had available for spending $106 billion less than they were originally told. That also suggests that when treasury over-estimates revenue it does so by more than twice as much as when it under-estimates revenue.

The forecasts in the ‘forward estimates’ in each budget also provide a picture of how treasury thinking changes over time. (The figures are billions of dollars on an accrual basis and start at 2001‒02 because I would need to go back earlier than 1999‒2000 to get the full three-year forecasts for previous years and those earlier years are cash accounting).

Government revenue Forecast 3 years earlier Forecast 2 years earlier Forecast 1 year earlier Budget night Final outcome
2001‒02 $153.8 $161.2 $158.8 $162.5
2002‒03 $163.1 $171.1 $164.9 $169.6 $175.0
2003‒04 $183.3 $175.5 $179.6 $178.3 $187.6
2004‒05 $185.7 $189.4 $185.0 $193.2 $206.2
2005‒06 $199.3 $194.2 $201.4 $214.5 $221.9
2006‒07 $204.7 $212.2 $222.9 $231.7 $237.1
2007‒08 $223.1 $233.4 $240.7 $246.8 $303.7*
2008‒09 $245.3 $252.1 $260.7 $319.5* $298.9
2009‒10 $265.6 $274.6 $336.9* $290.6 $292.8
2010‒11 $287.3 $350.9* $294.8 $321.8 $309.9
2011‒12 $366.9* $320.8 $356.4 $350.0 $338.1
2012‒13 $349.7 $381.9 $383.1 $376.1 $360.2
2013‒14 $407.2 $405.2 $402.2 $387.7 $374.0

* First includes the GST, which was not included in revenue figures in previous years

If you wonder why Labor had problems in its last budget, check out that last line of figures. The final outcome was below all of the previous forecasts, the only time that has happened since 2000 (although it also appears likely to happen to Hockey’s 2014‒15 budget but we won’t know for certain until September). The previous two years were above only one forecast, the one made two or three years earlier. In contrast, the Howard government during the 2000s saw the final outcome above all previous forecasts.

You can also see that treasury became a little uncertain between 2001 and 2004 after the ‘tech bubble’ burst and adjusted forecasts up and down and that has happened again in recent years, although for 2013‒14, and now for 2014‒15, each subsequent forecast has been lower: for 2014‒15 the figures run:
  • $425.8 billion forecast in 2011‒12
  • $424.8 billion forecast in 2012‒13
  • $411.6 billion forecast in 2013‒14
  • $391.3 billion estimated on budget night (which was reduced to $385.9 billion in the MYEFO)
The forecast three years out tends to be lower than the final outcome: that was the case in 11 of those 13 years. Leaving aside the change that the inclusion of the GST caused for the forward estimate for 2011-12, the only year in which that forcast three years out has been higher was in 2013‒14. That suggests the obvious: that revenue normally grows and it is difficult to predict by how much it will grow (which can also be influenced by inflation as these are ‘nominal’ dollars not adjusted to ‘constant’ or ‘real’ dollars). If you check the above table, you will see that revenue grew in all but two years (2008‒09 and 2009‒10) and, even with the problems since, has continued to grow although not as much as forecast.

Individuals’ income tax and company tax are the two biggest sources of revenue for the commonwealth government. The final outcome for individual income tax revenue was around 102% to 104% of the budget night estimate from 1999‒2000 to 2006‒07, with the exception of 2002‒03 when it fell to 98.1%. The year 2007‒08 was a good one for the government with individual income tax coming in at 105.5% of the estimate but since then the budget night estimates have been very good to poor: for four years (2008‒09 to 2011‒12) the individual tax income was between 99.3% and 100.4% of the budget night estimate, but in 2012‒13 it fell to 98.5% and in 2013‒14 to only 95.8%.

Company tax is more volatile and the forecasts rarely get it right. In the nine years from 1999‒00 to 2007‒08, the company tax came in at 98‒102% of the budget night estimate on only three occasions but, otherwise, it was generally under-estimated (coming in at 117.5% of the estimate in 2002‒03). Since the GFC, however, the estimates have failed to foresee the slowness of the recovery. In 2007‒08 it had come in $210 million above the budget night estimate but collapsed to 82.6% of the estimate in 2008‒09 (‒$12.8 billion). The estimate was better in 2009‒10, although actual revenue was lower — only $53 billion compared to $61 billion in 2008‒09. In the last four years (2010‒11 to 2013‒14), however, the estimate has been wrong every year and has over-estimated company tax by a cumulative $29.1 billion. It has provided as much as 25% of government revenue but in 2013‒14 was down to 18.4% (since 1999 it has averaged just over 19%).

The Howard government claimed to be low taxing but it achieved the highest revenue as a proportion of GDP in 1999‒2000 when it took 26.4% of GDP from the economy (it’s budget night estimate had been a high 25.9%). It did try to lower its GDP take in the following years aiming for 22.5% to 23% of GDP but generally its final take continued to be a little higher (most often just over 23%). Based on the budget night estimates, Labor also aimed for about a 23% take of GDP (other than during the GFC when it estimated 25.5% but actually took 24.9%). Since then the government’s take has been lower, and lower than the budget night estimates, falling to 21.7% in 2010‒11 and even in 2013‒14 was 22.7% (after predicting 23.5% on budget night). The Hockey budget of 2014‒15 estimates a take of 23.6% of GDP. It does seem odd that in the last few years as revenue growth slowed it also became a lesser proportion of GDP: one would think that it would remain more consistent and that revenue would fall if GDP fell or grow at a similar rate to GDP but that doesn’t appear to be the case. (If anyone can explain this, please do in a comment.)

Now I turn to spending forecasts. They could be more difficult as they are subject to government decisions that are taken after budget night and in that sense treasury can’t always be blamed if they are wrong. For example, the Rudd government decisions during the GFC boosted ‘social security’ spending by $22.1 billion above the budget night estimate and education by $3.8 billion. That would not have been the problem it became if the original revenue forecast had been accurate. Even with the increased spending, the total actual expenditure was only $5.1 billion above the revenue estimate on budget night: it was the fact that revenue came in $20.5 billion below that estimate that turned what should have been about $5 billion added to the deficit to over $25 billion. (Although, obviously, that additional expenditure was made because it was becoming apparent that the economy was in danger and revenue was falling.)

Health and social security are two of the government’s bigger expenditure items. While spending has continued to increase over the years (the reasons for that are a separate issue), the estimates of spending have been relatively good. Health, in particular, achieved 98‒102% accuracy in 11 of the 15 years from 1999‒00 to 2013‒14 and social security still managed to achieve 10 years despite the extra spending in 2008‒09. That makes sense because the spending is actually estimated by each line department, not treasury, and they basically know what they will spend under prevailing policies — major changes generally occur only when policy is changed during the year. In this context, I am taking no account of whether or not a government is spending more than it receives in revenue, only that the forecasts of spending are reasonably accurate.

Estimates and forecasts of revenue are important. Governments base their policy and spending decisions on them. When governments introduce new spending proposals, they do so on the basis of forecasts over the forward estimates — they usually allow that the future costs can be met within those revenue forecasts. But when the forecasts are wrong, and over-estimate future revenue, everything goes wrong: the government is locked into expenditure that no longer fits under the available revenue and that leads to deficits. That is a reason that deficits are sometimes considered acceptable when revenue growth slows, as at present — as long as government can foresee better revenue growth in future years.

While I have suggested that a +/‒2% estimate isn’t too bad as an estimate, it can still make a difference to the government in dollar terms. Even with the smaller budgets back in 1999‒2000 a 2% variation in total revenue would have amounted to $3.3 billion and in 2013‒14 would have been $7.8 billion (about three-quarters of the amount raised by the Medicare levy, so it is significant). So getting revenue forecasts and estimates right is important — but it never happens. It demonstrates how little control the government actually has over the economy. The economy moves to its own pace, influenced by many factors, including overseas events, and even the ‘expert’ treasury officials can’t predict it accurately, not even one year ahead.

It is not a problem when the economy is going well because then the errors tend to be under-estimates and every government would be pleased to see more in its coffers than it anticipated. But when the economy is in the doldrums, as now, faulty estimates and forecasts put additional pressure on government programs that are meant to provide services to all of us.

I do wish treasury could get it right but, given the economic reality within which it operates, I won’t hold my breath. And I don’t think this week’s budget will be any different.

What do you think?
After reading Ken’s piece, do you still think we should always blame the government for the financial mess or should treasury share the blame for giving the government faulty advice? Should governments only spend 95% of what treasury tells them they have so as to allow for treasury’s mistakes? We look forward to your comments — and answers.

Next week 2353 looks at a different approach to homelessness in ‘Hope for the homeless’.

The saga of Billy Gordon


On January 31 this year, Billy Gordon joined a very select group — indigenous members of parliament in Australia. He won the seat of Cook in far north Queensland from the LNP and joined the Queensland parliament as part of the minority ALP government. Late in March, the State parliament sat for three days and effectively confirmed that the minority Palaszczuk government had the confidence of parliament.

Queensland parliament sits again this week. During the month of April information relating to Gordon’s past criminal convictions, structuring financial affairs to avoid the payment of child support and claims regarding domestic violence in a previous relationship were given publicity. Palaszczuk, in what could be considered to be a gutsy political move, as she needs the seat to govern in her own right, moved to expel Gordon from the ALP and pressured him to resign his seat. Opposition Leader Springborg wasn’t far behind when talking to 4BC’s Patrick Coldren. Gordon resigned from the ALP prior to the expulsion and has chosen to remain in parliament as an independent, supporting the Palaszczuk government.

Along with a number of other jurisdictions around the world, Queensland has legislation that wipes the slate of certain criminal offences if they were committed a number of years ago. In Queensland the legislation is known as the Criminal Law (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act 1986 and the cleansing of people’s records occurs after 10 years. Gordon’s convictions are considered wiped under this legislation. Gordon is understandably investigating legal action against those who publicised the information.

For some reason, we expect a higher standard of ethics and morality from our politicians than we do of others. Gordon, who also ran for the ALP in the seat of Leichhardt in the 2013 federal election should have disclosed his record, despite obviously not being proud of it. As Gordon was working for an ALP senator, the ALP should have been aware of the convictions in any case. Palaszczuk certainly ‘jumped the shark’ by calling for his resignation from parliament — and we’ll get to the LNP’s response in a minute. Unfortunately it is fair to suggest that Gordon’s life story is not uncommon amongst indigenous people in north Queensland as this government report to a 2014 Crime Enquiry documents. Gordon and the ALP could have declared his history and run his campaign on the basis of how well he understood his community and was a wonderful role model because he had turned his life around.

Up until January 31, the seat of Cook was a LNP seat held by David Kempton. The Guardian, while reporting a potential second government MP being involved in a domestic violence issue, observed:

Meanwhile, the Australian newspaper is reporting that the Liberal National party frontbencher defeated by Gordon at the state election was behind the initial complaint made by his ex-partner.

David Kempton, who lost Cook to Gordon in January, helped the woman make a complaint about unpaid child support in the days after the election, the paper says.

The independent Speaker, Peter Wellington, on Tuesday said it appeared Gordon’s former partner was being “used” by political forces in an orchestrated attempt to bring down the Labor government.

The Australian says Kempton was the first of three current or former LNP MPs to have had close contact with Gordon’s former partner in the weeks leading up to the child support allegations being sent to the premier and ultimately leaked to the media.

The LNP MP Warren Entsch, whose federal electorate of Leichhardt overlaps Cook, has rejected Wellington’s claims but confirmed he helped the woman with the child support issue after he was approached by Kempton.

Asked about rumours that Kempton, a lawyer, is now representing the woman, Entsch said: “He could well be.”

Entsch defended releasing to the media details of his correspondence with the woman, including the abuse allegations and Gordon’s criminal record, saying he had been forced to act because of the premier’s inaction.

The paper says the former LNP MP Gavin King, who until January held the neighbouring seat of Cairns, was also in contact with the woman for three weeks before the initial allegations were made public last Friday.
We should be applauding how the LNP is demonstrating the care and concern it has for the welfare of Gordon’s ex-partner as well attempting to restore faith in the political system — Yeah right!

At the January 31 State Election, the last seat to be declared was Ferny Grove, located in Brisbane’s north west. The seat was held by the LNP and the ALP had a small lead after the distribution of preferences. The fly in the ointment was that the Palmer United candidate was an undischarged bankrupt and therefore ineligible to stand for parliament. The brouhaha was all to do with the preferences of the ineligible candidate and if they had enabled the ALP to get over the line. With the Electoral Commission discussing whether the result should be taken to the court of disputed returns, and Premier Newman losing his seat at the election, the de-facto leader of the LNP at that stage, Lawrence Springborg, ‘kindly’ offered to run a ‘caretaker’ government until the situation became clear which, based upon the last time a similar occurrence happened in Queensland, could take seven months. William Bowe at Crikey explains the issues here and why Springborg was ‘dreaming’ (to pinch a line from The Castle).

Australian political tragics may remember the “Utegate” affair. One of the Rudd government’s responses to the GFC was to propose an alternate vehicle financing system to support car dealers, as some traditional financiers had suddenly removed themselves from the business. Rudd was in possession of a ute donated by an Ipswich car dealer (and fellow Norman Park resident). The car dealer subsequently approached the ALP MP representing the Ipswich area for access to the alternate vehicle financing system; the MP sent an email to Treasury; and suddenly then opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull was producing evidence that the car dealer was receiving preferential treatment due to his donation of a car to the prime minister. The documentation produced by Turnbull was later proven to be fraudulent and assisted in the downfall of Turnbull’s leadership. The car dealership is no longer trading after being inundated by the 2011 south-east Queensland floods.

At the same time as Billy Gordon was elected in the seat of Cook, Rob Pyne from the ALP replaced Gavin King from the LNP (and mentioned above as helping Gordon’s accuser) in the neighbouring seat of Cairns. Rob Pyne self-disclosed an email he received asking for details of a past conviction, which was obviously sent to him in error.

Springborg has claimed that his party will not accept the support of Gordon: an interesting concept considering the government he was a minister in changed parliamentary procedure to one where the major parties’ whips first advise the speaker of the number of votes for and against, before the independent MPs are asked for their vote. In short, the sight of Springborg or Langbroek running from the parliament to ‘void’ the vote of Gordon (in a similar way to Abbott and Pyne running from Craig Thomson) won’t occur — unfortunately!

There are two questions here.

The first is the morals and ethics of those who seem to be involved in promulgating false or damaging information. Churchill is quoted as suggesting ‘A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.’ Are the various constituents of the conservative political parties in Australia so morally bankrupt that the ends justify the means or are they so simplistic that they believe that people will swallow the information provided without question? While there is no doubt the ALP would have damaging information on many LNP MPs across the country, they seem not to publicly release information that is irrelevant to the MP’s current role in life.

The second is how do we expect the disadvantaged to gain a voice in the management of our society unless past ‘sins’ are forgiven. Alecia Simmonds, writing on Fairfax’s ‘Daily Life’ website states the case far more eloquently than I can:

That Billy Gordon may also be a product of a racist society where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are poorer, sicker, more disadvantaged than any other group in Australian society seems to have escaped us. In our rush to pronounce upon his character we have strangely forgotten about his context; one where one in every 43 Aboriginal adults are in prison and Aboriginal people are eight times more likely to be taken into police custody.

It's hypocritical for us to ask Aboriginal politicians to redress their communities' problems and then be shocked when it turns out that they have experienced those problems. Or, in Gordon's case, that they are living examples of them. Many, like Gordon, may come from what he calls a 'troubled and fractured past.' And his past is our own past; Australia's 'troubled and fractured' history of colonisation.
While arguing that, if in fact Gordon is convicted of domestic violence, he should resign, Simmonds finishes her article with:

Finally, if we are to ask politicians to tell voters about their criminal pasts then I would suggest that we also ask politicians to tell voters about any civil matters that they've been involved in. Because it doesn't take a genius to work out that we have two systems of justice in this country: one for the rich and one for the poor. If you're a sandstone-educated white man, sipping mimosas harbour-side in Point Piper, then you're unlikely to have had any underhanded dealings channelled through our civil courts where you'll get a slap on the wrist and a fine. If you're Billy Gordon, cutting sugar cane or working in pubs in Far North Queensland, then you can exchange the fine for a prison sentence and the law's casual disinterest for hawkish vigilance.

If we genuinely want a democracy where our political representatives reflect the diversity of our population, and if we genuinely want these representatives to have had life experiences broader than undertaking an Arts/Law degree at Sydney University, then we need to treat people like Gordon with more empathy. After all, his context is our context; it's a product of our shared history and we need those who have suffered its worst effects to help change it.
What do you think?
2353 questions the ethics of those politicians who use another's past indiscretions for political advantage and the final quotes from Alecia Simmonds raise issues about the 'type of person' we want in parliament. They are important issues. Please let us know where you stand.

Next week, as a prelude to the Budget, Ken asks 'Are budgets worth the paper they're written on?'