Nineteen days into the election campaign it really seems fair to ask where the big spending cuts will be made
The Coalition has run out of excuses for not releasing its costings.
The "they did it too" excuse was always a bit pathetic.
True, Labor waited until the final three days of the 2007 campaign before submitting more than 100 policies for formal costing by the departments of Treasury and Finance, but in this campaign the Coalition has circumvented that process altogether, submitting its policies to the new parliamentary budget office in a way that ensures the results will not be released until a time of the Coalition's own choosing – during the final frantic week of the campaign when there will be little time for scrutiny.
And while oppositions of both persuasions have tried to game the formal costings processes, individual policies have almost always been released with their full price tags detailed over four years.
The Coalition's health policy, released on Thursday, had one line under costings which read: "The Coalition's policy to support Australia's health system will cost $340m over the forward estimates." Some of that – we were told on "background"– would come from cuts inside the health portfolio, an$100 Australian dollar notesd some from "elsewhere". In other words: they'll get back to us.
The "PBO has still got our homework" schtick has also worn thin since the Coalition has been telling us for months they already have everything fully costed and figured out.
The "Labor is running a scare campaign" excuse worked for a little while – aided by the ALP's silly insistence on using the $70bn figure for the Coalition's costings black hole, which by a quick reckoning is clearly overstated.
But even the $30bn costings black hole revealed by credible independent estimates means that to equal Labor's budget bottom line the Coalition has to make some big cuts somewhere. Nineteen days into the election campaign it really seems fair to ask them where that will be.
In the absence of any official information, the respected economist Saul Eslake has taken a stab at calculating the Coalition costings for them. He figures they need to find almost $30bn worth of savings over four years.
He gets to that figure by:
• Calculating forgone revenue from the Coalition's stated policy to abolish the carbon price ($12.9bn) and the minerals resource rent tax ($5.9bn), the proposed company tax cut ($7.7bn) and abandoning the changes to FBT on company cars ($1.7bn). Total: $28.4bn in revenue forgone.
• Calculating additional spending promises on the direct action climate policy ($3.2bn), road projects around the country ($10.5bn) and smaller promises like the green army and the Tasmanian growth plan. Total: $14.8bn extra spending.
He then subtracts spending cuts already announced by the Coalition including reducing the size of the public service by 12,000 ($2bn), abolishing the schoolkids' bonus ($4.6bn), abolishing the supplementary allowance for people on unemployment benefits ($1.1bn), abolishing the tax rebate for low income superannuation contributions ($2.9bn), delaying the proposed increase in superannuation ($500m), rescinding the increase in Australia's humanitarian intake to bring it back to 13,750 people a year ($455m), cuts to car industry assistance ($500m) and interest savings on money not needed to be borrowed to pay for the rollout of Labor's NBN ($1.2bn). Total: $13.4bn in savings.
Adding it all up, Eslake calculates that the Coalition needs to find $29.8bn in savings just to get the budget bottom line back to where it is under Labor.
Given the absence of any other information it was a very helpful exercise, but it brought the wrath of the Coalition upon the economist's head.
The shadow assistant treasurer, Senator Mathias Cormann, said Eslake had made lots of mistakes. He said the Coalition would save $900m more from cutting the refugee intake, $3bn more from cutting the public service and $1.5bn more from pushing back the increase in superannuation – a total of $5.4bn extra in savings.
Let's assume Cormann – who has access to the parliamentary budget office costings the Coalition won't show us – is correct on all counts. That's still a $24.4bn costings hole as things stand.
The Coalition is hinting it wil make more cuts from already-pared-back clean technology programs that were introduced to help companies adapt to the carbon tax. And despite ducking and weaving about how it will pay for the paid parental leave policy, we learnt enough this week to figure the $1.6bn cost the Coalition will effectively pass on to shareholders by not counting the levy for tax credit purposes delivers extra savings on top of what is needed for Abbott's PPL scheme, although the company tax itself will reap inconveniently little in the first few years because companies will arrange their affairs to avoid it.
It's possible we're still guessing about all this because Abbott has got some nasty cuts up his sleeve that he wants to hide until the last moment, as Labor claims.
It's also possible they've made the numbers add up through fudged figures and accounting fiddles, which would make their whole debt and deficit attack looking a bit hollow and leave them open to the same accusations they have levelled against Labor for the past three years.
Either way, 15 days from an election, we shouldn't have to be guessing. Reported by guardian.co.uk 4 hours ago.
The Coalition has run out of excuses for not releasing its costings.
The "they did it too" excuse was always a bit pathetic.
True, Labor waited until the final three days of the 2007 campaign before submitting more than 100 policies for formal costing by the departments of Treasury and Finance, but in this campaign the Coalition has circumvented that process altogether, submitting its policies to the new parliamentary budget office in a way that ensures the results will not be released until a time of the Coalition's own choosing – during the final frantic week of the campaign when there will be little time for scrutiny.
And while oppositions of both persuasions have tried to game the formal costings processes, individual policies have almost always been released with their full price tags detailed over four years.
The Coalition's health policy, released on Thursday, had one line under costings which read: "The Coalition's policy to support Australia's health system will cost $340m over the forward estimates." Some of that – we were told on "background"– would come from cuts inside the health portfolio, an$100 Australian dollar notesd some from "elsewhere". In other words: they'll get back to us.
The "PBO has still got our homework" schtick has also worn thin since the Coalition has been telling us for months they already have everything fully costed and figured out.
The "Labor is running a scare campaign" excuse worked for a little while – aided by the ALP's silly insistence on using the $70bn figure for the Coalition's costings black hole, which by a quick reckoning is clearly overstated.
But even the $30bn costings black hole revealed by credible independent estimates means that to equal Labor's budget bottom line the Coalition has to make some big cuts somewhere. Nineteen days into the election campaign it really seems fair to ask them where that will be.
In the absence of any official information, the respected economist Saul Eslake has taken a stab at calculating the Coalition costings for them. He figures they need to find almost $30bn worth of savings over four years.
He gets to that figure by:
• Calculating forgone revenue from the Coalition's stated policy to abolish the carbon price ($12.9bn) and the minerals resource rent tax ($5.9bn), the proposed company tax cut ($7.7bn) and abandoning the changes to FBT on company cars ($1.7bn). Total: $28.4bn in revenue forgone.
• Calculating additional spending promises on the direct action climate policy ($3.2bn), road projects around the country ($10.5bn) and smaller promises like the green army and the Tasmanian growth plan. Total: $14.8bn extra spending.
He then subtracts spending cuts already announced by the Coalition including reducing the size of the public service by 12,000 ($2bn), abolishing the schoolkids' bonus ($4.6bn), abolishing the supplementary allowance for people on unemployment benefits ($1.1bn), abolishing the tax rebate for low income superannuation contributions ($2.9bn), delaying the proposed increase in superannuation ($500m), rescinding the increase in Australia's humanitarian intake to bring it back to 13,750 people a year ($455m), cuts to car industry assistance ($500m) and interest savings on money not needed to be borrowed to pay for the rollout of Labor's NBN ($1.2bn). Total: $13.4bn in savings.
Adding it all up, Eslake calculates that the Coalition needs to find $29.8bn in savings just to get the budget bottom line back to where it is under Labor.
Given the absence of any other information it was a very helpful exercise, but it brought the wrath of the Coalition upon the economist's head.
The shadow assistant treasurer, Senator Mathias Cormann, said Eslake had made lots of mistakes. He said the Coalition would save $900m more from cutting the refugee intake, $3bn more from cutting the public service and $1.5bn more from pushing back the increase in superannuation – a total of $5.4bn extra in savings.
Let's assume Cormann – who has access to the parliamentary budget office costings the Coalition won't show us – is correct on all counts. That's still a $24.4bn costings hole as things stand.
The Coalition is hinting it wil make more cuts from already-pared-back clean technology programs that were introduced to help companies adapt to the carbon tax. And despite ducking and weaving about how it will pay for the paid parental leave policy, we learnt enough this week to figure the $1.6bn cost the Coalition will effectively pass on to shareholders by not counting the levy for tax credit purposes delivers extra savings on top of what is needed for Abbott's PPL scheme, although the company tax itself will reap inconveniently little in the first few years because companies will arrange their affairs to avoid it.
It's possible we're still guessing about all this because Abbott has got some nasty cuts up his sleeve that he wants to hide until the last moment, as Labor claims.
It's also possible they've made the numbers add up through fudged figures and accounting fiddles, which would make their whole debt and deficit attack looking a bit hollow and leave them open to the same accusations they have levelled against Labor for the past three years.
Either way, 15 days from an election, we shouldn't have to be guessing. Reported by guardian.co.uk 4 hours ago.