Editorial: Cook and Saffioti ‘under pressure' as they prepare to deliver Labor's first post-election Budget
There's no way of knowing what might be running through the minds of Premier Roger Cook and Treasurer Rita Saffioti as they walk into Parliament House to deliver Labor's first post-election Budget on Thursday.
If the people of Western Australia had any say in the matter, they might suggest the pair be humming the impossibly catchy melody to David Bowie and Queen's 1981 hit, Under Pressure.
Because the pressure is certainly on for the re-elected Cook Government to deliver on a number of fronts — cost of living, health and housing, chief among them.
Having been handed a landslide victory by WA voters, the Government must now offer real world solutions to the State's many problems.
They've certainly got the means with an iron ore royalty windfall jacking the State's surplus to around $3.5 billion, $300 million higher than expected.
Soaring gold prices have also helped boost the balance.
But now is not the time to be frivolous, with many critics already pointing to Saffioti's $217 million Burswood Park racetrack as evidence Labor has its priorities wrong.
Because while the Government may be cashed up, voters are not.
And things are set to get worst with many WA households factoring in a 50 per cent hike in their annual electricity spend following speculation that Labor will dump its $400 power bill credits, which have been handed out for the past three years.
It is expected to result in a $600 increase in annual electricity bills for the average household from next month.
It would be very bad optics indeed if the Government opted to ditch the credits at a time when voters are still struggling with high cost of living, astronomical rent and mortgage pressures.
Cook and Saffioti are no doubt well aware that there will be intense blowback if they do not offer some kind of fiscal solution to help fix WA's broken health system.
Health Minister Meredith Hammat, in particular, will be hoping Saffioti has an ace up her sleeve when it comes to doing something about WA's seemingly ever-increasing hospital ramping figures.
Housing is another major thorn in the Cook Government's side. WA currently holds the title of Australia's rough sleeping capital — a badge of shame given our State is the economic powerhouse of the nation.
Experts also warn that without a major injection of funds, WA's housing crisis will likely hinder opportunities for economic growth and diversification into the future.
The lack of adequate inner-city housing options could mean the skilled migrants that are expected to flood our shores as part of the predicted IT boom will simply bypass Perth in favour of other more affordable and better-equipped capitals.
The Government holds all the cards, and the strings to a burgeoning purse. It's time to reward the confidence WA voters have placed in them by prioritising the needs of the community.
To quote that earlier 80s hit, this may not be Labor's 'last dance' but it is certainly a government under pressure.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AU Financial Review
2 hours ago
- AU Financial Review
BHP and Rio's hopes for carbon millions dashed by sceptical officials
BHP and Rio Tinto's proposals to earn a windfall from environmental projects has been rejected by federal officials who have knocked back the commodity giants' hopes of earning valuable credits by storing carbon in mine waste and producing carbon-neutral diesel from trees. The country's two biggest mining companies have been urging the government to use Australian Carbon Credit Units to encourage a wider range of projects as part of Labor's push to give industry a bigger say in what should be eligible under the lucrative emissions permits scheme.
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Australia warned it could 'never replicate' at risk AUKUS deal as Anthony Albanese prepares for crucial talks with Donald Trump
A foreign policy expert has warned Australia and the United Kingdom could "never replicate" AUKUS without support from the United States ahead of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's crucial meeting with President Donald Trump. Concerns about President Trump's approach to AUKUS were raised to new heights following the announcement last week his administration was launching a review into the the trilateral pact. Set to be led by AUKUS sceptic Elbridge Colby, the review has stoked fears the US could walk away from the agreement in what would come as a huge blow to Australia's defence and strategic plan. Mr Albanese is now facing significant pressure to convince President Trump of AUKUS' value, with many analysts expecting the US leader will pressure his Australian counterpart on defence spending when the two meet on the sidelines of the G7 on Wednesday. British Foreign Policy Group senior research and programs manager Eliza Keogh warned there was a "real possibility" President Trump would pull out of the pact, with the Australian and UK governments now jointly scrambling to keep the deal alive. "AUKUS offers clear strategic advantages for the US - from regional proximity to China, to access to Australian facilities for docking and servicing - and there is a possibility the review could just be the Trump administration increasing pressure on Australia to boost its defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP," she told "Nevertheless, there is a real possibility the US could withdraw from AUKUS, particularly with AUKUS sceptic Elbridge Colby leading the review. "The Trump administration's tendency to prioritise short-term political calculations over strategic foresight means that it may opt to withdraw from AUKUS, despite its long-term focus on countering the rise of China, as short term interests - predominantly keeping US-built submarines at home - will win out." Several analysts and observers have highlighted flagging US submarine manufacturing as a potential dealbreaker, with the nation at risk of missing its goal to increase the size of its fleet to 66 vessels by 2049. Debate over the provision of Virginia class submarines to Australia - a stop-gap measure to ensure Australia remains well equipped while AUKUS vessels are constructed - has raged for almost two years and has drawn scrutiny from both Democrats and Republicans. Some have suggested President Trump may demand Australia increase the $3 billion it will send to the US to help offset production costs for the submarines in order to ensure the deal remains on tract, although Mr Albanese ruled out that possibility in 2023 and appears unlikely to change course. Instead, the Prime Minister is expected to emphasise the in-kind benefits AUKUS provides the US during his sit down with President Trump, while also pointing to Labor's $57 billion boost to defence spending over the next decade. According to Ms Keogh, highlighting Australia's role in deterring Chinese ambitions in the Indo-Pacific is likely to be another effective tactic given the US' desire to see "partners stepping up in the region". She also offered a more radical solution, which, while likely to appease President Trump, could also leave Australia dependent on the US until the first AUKUS vessels come online in the 2030s. "If they are looking to placate Trump, UK and Australian negotiators could look to renegotiate parts of the deal, including offering to loan submarines back to the US if necessary," Ms Keogh said. It remains to be seen what, if any concessions, Mr Albanese makes to the US President, but the foreign policy expert warned it would be impossible to replace AUKUS should Australia and the UK fail to maintain American support. "The UK and Australia have already agreed to negotiate a bilateral AUKUS treaty, but this could never replicate the scale and weight of the trilateral agreement," Ms Keogh said. Publicly both nations have sought to downplay the risk of US withdrawal, with Britain's Labour government highlighting the fact it held a similar review after it came to power. However, Ms Keogh explained officials were privately "very nervous" about how the Trump administration would proceed. The UK has made a flurry of announcements, including a pointed commitment to boost its own submarine production in coming years, as it attempts to demonstrate it is serious about raising its defence spend. Meanwhile, the Australian government has taken a different approach, pushing back against US calls to increase spending and insisting its current strategic plans are adequate. This has prompted intense criticism from a number of leading defence experts, who warn Australia is both weaker and less capable then in previous decades while also at risk of jeopardising its relationship with its most significant defence partner.
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Liberals need to deliver tough love policy on welfare reform as Australians grapple with recent rise in food insecurity
There are two primary methods for estimating the extent of poverty in Australia. The first step is to apply a statistical formula to a dry dataset measuring disposable household income. The second is to see for yourself, as I did, when I joined the volunteers at the Community Cafe on the outskirts of Western Sydney on Tuesday evening. Anyone prepared to sit outside in five degrees for the chance of a free feed and some company is almost certainly living below the poverty line. On Tuesday evening, I counted 130 such people, men, women, and children waiting in line to be served a nourishing hot meal on a paper plate. The eldest I person I spoke to was in the 80s. The youngest was a baby just a few months old. It would be crass to make judgements about ethnicity at a cafe that runs on the admirable principle that every human being deserves equal respect. Suffice it to say Tuesday's gathering passed the diversity test, since poverty is indiscriminate. Kirsty Parkes, the founder of the Community Café charity, says the attendance of families is relatively recent and illustrates the rising level of food insecurity. Bob Hawke lived to regret the moment he went off-script at Labor's 1987 campaign launch and declared that no Australian child would live in poverty by 1990. It is a mathematically impossible goal if we insist on pegging poverty to median incomes. In any case, poverty is not merely an absence of money, as the Centre for Social Justice recognised in its groundbreaking 2007 report 'Breakthrough Britain'. It concludes that poverty cannot be cured by dolling out money. Instead, policymakers should focus on the pathways to poverty, of which the report highlights six: family breakdown, educational failure, worklessness, addictions, problem debt and insecure housing. Judging from my conversations at the Community Cafe, we should add a seventh: loneliness. Community Cafe ensures that on Tuesday nights, at least no one in the neighbourhood is obliged to eat alone. Hawke at least deserves credit for recognising that the goal of welfare policy should be to reduce poverty, not merely to service it by handing out cash. The noble causes espoused by welfare organisations are prone to corruption through rent-seeking. The iron law of government programs is the first and sometimes only beneficiaries are the people who administer them. The true measure of a fair society is not how much money is distributed but whether it is effective. The instinct for generosity must be balanced against the perverse economic incentives welfare payments create. Mark Latham was one the few Labor leaders to acknowledge that the best form of welfare is a job. During his 2004 campaign speech, he spoke about the curse of intergenerational welfare. "We need to confront the problem of 800,000 Australian children growing up in jobless households," he said. "We know what this leads to: poverty, poor health, increased crime rates and, worst of all, lack of hope." Latham understood the challenges of life in postcode 2168 better than most. He was born there in the suburb of Ashcroft, served on Liverpool Council and represented the federal seat of Werriwa, in which 2168 falls. In a 2001 speech, he expressed his despair at the political ideology and point-scoring that were getting in the way of genuine solutions. "It's the equivalent of play-acting, as each side makes its set-piece criticism of the other." The play acting has grown worse. Labor frames any initiative by the Coalition to ensure that welfare spending is effective as a means to achieve its goals. The Liberals are inclined to characterise Labor as a spendthrift. The cashless welfare card experiment, aimed at breaking the curse of addiction, was abolished by the incoming Albanese government in 2022. Labor framed it as a punishment rather than a tool to break the cycle of poverty. Coalition attempts to add work obligations have often been framed as a breach of rights by Labor. They refuse to recognise, as Latham did, that there can be no end to the poverty circle without effort and responsibility. That rule applies to communities as much as to individuals. The Centre for Social Justice highlights how disadvantaged communities develop a poverty culture in which aspiration and mobility seem out of reach. Children who grow up in workless homes are likely to perform poorly at school and have a strong chance of becoming workless adults themselves. Community expectations shift. Educational underachievement becomes normalised, crime is legitimised, middle-class residents leave, and postcodes become stigmatised. The challenges of life in postcode 2168 are hardly unique. It is among the top two per cent of postcodes on the ABS index of socio-economic disadvantage, alongside remote areas of Aboriginal settlement and suburbs such as Elizabeth in South Australia and Broadmeadows in Victoria. The pointers to poverty are dispiritingly dissimilar: high unemployment, low education achievement, high rates of single parenthood, jobless households, and high numbers of people living in social housing. There are high rates of crime, drug addiction and family violence. This should prompt us to reconsider the assumptions underlying the challenges of closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous socio-economic outcomes. The challenges faced by Aboriginal Australians stem from poverty, not race. Mr Albanese's slogan, "no one left behind", will remain empty of meaning unless he is prepared to tackle the complex and politically challenging task of reforming the welfare system as Latham wanted to do. Conservatives are tempted to stay out of this policy area altogether, fearful of the dangers of being framed as the nasty party. Yet reducing social disadvantage is at the core of the liberal philosophy on which the party was founded. Robert Menzies saw no contradiction between prosperity and fairness. The duty of the Liberal Party was to recognise that every citizen is of equal worth and was committed to the principle of economic opportunity. Some of the most important welfare reform this century began on the centre right. The Centre for Social Justice was established by a former Conservative leader, Iain Duncan Smith, during the party's long-term opposition between 1997 and 2010. Conservatives were also at the forefront of welfare reform in New Zealand under the leadership of John Keys and Bill English. They didn't shrink from the harsh love measures required to break the cycle, such as encouraging single mothers to find work, knowing that single motherhood can become an apprenticeship to a life of joblessness without the right incentives in place. We can visualise Sussan Ley flinching at the mention of these kinds of measures. Yet the Liberal Party will never return to government if the trauma of this year's election makes it permanently risk-averse. Its priority is to set its aim beyond the politically expedient and invest its time in Opposition to a blueprint for national reform. It must focus on government efficiency, acknowledging that the current level of public spending is unsustainable and that challenges in welfare, education, and health can be overcome by allocating a smaller budget more wisely. The second task is to learn the art of politics, of which Menzies was a master. It is the art of persuasion backed by the conviction that the goal of their noble profession is not to win votes but to improve lives. Nick Cater is a senior fellow of the Menzies Research Centre.
