Coalition costings: Is this a joke? Am I being pranked?

The Australian

01-05-2025

'The impression you get is that the Coalition is too afraid to come clean on the need to hack into the vast thicket of wasteful government spending.'
You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.
You can now listen to The Australian's articles.
From the immortal words of Sonia in Gavin and Stacey (a pal put me on to this comedy): 'Is this a joke? Am I being pranked?'
This was my reaction to the extremely late-in-the-day release of the Coalition's election costings. A $14bn reduction in the cumulative budget deficits over four years and a $40bn cut to government debt.
In fact, the underlying cash deficits are forecast to be higher than Labor's in the first two years of the forward estimates. The gains come in the last two years and are effectively achieved by taking back the recent two-part tax cut Labor has legislated.
Just consider those figures in percentage terms. Labor's cumulative budget deficits – underlying cash balances – over the forward estimates total $152bn. So, a cut of $14bn is 9 per cent over four years. The cut to debt is lower, at 3.3 per cent of the estimated 2028-29 total. That figure is definitely a joke.
If the Coalition is claiming to be the superior budget manager, these figures are a poor start. In fact, they underline an unwillingness to confront the real fiscal challenges ahead of us; the fact is we are spending far too much. Our scope to collect more by way of tax is also limited by the economic harm tax measures impose as well as the unwillingness of voters to cough up.
What I don't understand about the Coalition's costings is that there is a clear intention to cut out whole spending programs, at least in the off-budget account – the National Reconstruction Fund, Housing Australia Future Fund, Rewiring the Nation – as well as refrain from forgiving student debt (estimated cost $16bn). So far, so good.
But then a mere $40bn reduction in government debt is achieved. Should I be suspicious of the funding of regional boondoggles so beloved by the Nats? What is this proposed Regional Australia Future Fund? Why is the cut to government debt so inconsequential? Government spending on the development of nuclear plants is not scheduled to commence before the mid-2030s.
The impression you get is that the Coalition is too afraid to come clean on the need to hack into the vast thicket of wasteful government spending for fear of the political repercussions of doing so. It's in every department, every program.
The NDIS simply cannot go on as it is, even if spending growth is kept to 8 per cent per year. This is around three times the rate at which the economy is likely to grow. In turn, this means spending on the NDIS will be consuming more and more of the economy's output each year. But the Coalition is simply mirroring the ineffective approach of the government in relation to the NDIS.
There is a need to confront the wildly dysfunctional state of federal-state financial relations. We really need to kickstart the reform of the federation rather than allow the states to transfer more and more spending responsibility to the commonwealth without any real accountability. The most recently concluded state education agreements are a case in point.
Don't get me wrong here: what Labor has offered up in terms of its election costings is complete nonsense. Saving all those billions by not using consultants, cutting back on travel and other expenses – it's just made up.
Failing to account for some of the proposed (big) spending – for example, in relation to housing – in its figures is completely unforgivable. So, the idea that Jim Chalmers and Katy Gallagher have miraculously shaved one billion dollars from the cumulative budget deficits over the forwards is total claptrap.
The only conclusion to reach is that Coalition or Labor, we are up a creek without a paddle, fiscally speaking.