Why we need to do the Federal Budget differently

Why we need to do the Federal Budget differently

Public confidence in the capacity of government to address policy fundamentals is very low. Two surveys conducted in 2016 and 2017 by the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis (IGPA)...

by Mark Evans

Public confidence in the capacity of government to address policy fundamentals is very low. Two surveys conducted in 2016 and 2017 by the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis (IGPA) and Ipsos suggest that a majority of Australian citizens only trust Federal Government to tackle issues of defence and national security (see Table 1). Notably there has been a significant decline in perceptions of the government’s ability to manage economic matters which will be of concern to the Prime Minister. Political trust in political leaders and the institutions of politics matters, as it provides the glue that holds together the Australian political system.

 Is Budget 2017 likely to reverse this trend? Not unless the way in which the budget is presented is systematically changed. The current presentation of the Budget reflects the dominant adversarial politics paradigm which Australians so abhor and the media does so much to propagate through the reporting of Budget “winners and losers” rather than the essentials of good economic management.

Table 1. Confidence in Federal Government to tackle public policy problems

IGPA IPSOS

The Treasurer presents a set piece speech under a broad overarching theme (last year “Jobs and Growth”) which lists a series of tax and transfer measures for the following year combined with a limited number of policy interventions. At best it only provides a partial act of executive accountability as no attempt is provided to reflect on the performance of the previous Budget. What worked? What didn't? What didn’t happen? Where do we need new thinking?

The Budget is tightly locked into the three year electoral cycle and the pathology of the short term. Then of course the Opposition and the chattering classes provide alternative views fuelling the adversarial battle. The Budget itself becomes the preserve of the technocratic elite embodied in the Budget lock-up itself as a symbol of exclusion disconnected from the everyday lives of Australians.

 Does this adversarial, elitist approach enable high quality public policy debate? Does it make for better policy-making in the national interest? Or does it further alienate the Australian citizenry from contemporary politics? Is there an alternative way of doing the Budget that can hold the executive to account and stimulate an inclusive national debate on economic matters?

 We recently asked Australians whether they had an appetite for policy innovation asking them to respond to the following statement: “We need to empower public servants to experiment and maybe even fail, as long as it leads to better services”. Only 16% disagreed and this was in the aftermath of the E-census debacle.

 

 Table 2. Public appetite for policy innovation

2

So what could a reformed Federal Budget look like? A Citizens’ Jury (perhaps called the “Citizens Budget”) with representatives drawn randomly by lot from the public could be held towards the end of each budgetary cycle to allow for scrutiny on the year’s economic performance and reflection on new ways of thinking. The jurors would also be invited to the Budget Lock-up. The Treasurer would then be required to respond formally to jury recommendations as part of the Budget speech.

In line with the need to affect more inclusive decision-making, any new proposal emerging from the Budget speech should include a six week online public consultation process to allow direct input from all Australians. This initiative already has the support of 77% Australians according to our recent survey.

These initiatives may be perceived as radical changes but at a time when public trust in Federal Government is at an all-time low a radical response is required. To fail to respond could be mad, bad and dangerous for the Federation.

Mark Evans
Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis

RT @DelDemUCan: Focusing on ‘best practices’ of democratic innovations comes at the expense of learning from failure and variation. @mattyg…

IGPA Fellow Richard Hu has a new piece in The Conversation: "Xiong'an, Xi Jinping's new city-making machine turned… https://t.co/xJZ8BMKa1W

RT @policy_space: Today: Crisis in the Eye of Beholder: Contingency and Perplexity Along the Balkan Migration Route https://t.co/ELq34lY6HD

RT @NATSEM_UC: If you missed yesterday's NATSEM Budget Lunch or would like to see it again, here's the video! https://t.co/7LOhmVtdVP #Budg…

RT @duxburyjen: Looking fwd to clever fellow PhD colleague @Janealver @UCIGPA @DelDemUCan present her work in progress this morning. ht…

RT @NATSEM_UC: NATSEM modelling finds the "areas that would benefit least from the tax cuts would be on the far north coast of NSW, and are…

RT @1petermartin: Stunning graphic, via @NATSEM_UC. How each wave of budget tax cuts benefits high earners more: https://t.co/OiwlaEehdi @s…

RT @michellegrattan: Grattan on Friday: Shorten gives Turnbull a character-forming task on tax https://t.co/kvjqkMf4JN via @ConversationEDU

RT @SkyNewsAust: .@robtanton from @NATSEM_UC on budget modelling: With these tax cuts, you’re not targeting anyone who’s not working, so un…

RT @Virginia_Hauss: Todays BroadAgenda: Aust Aid at a record low. What's this mean for women & girls in our region? #Budget2018 @CAREAustra…

Please enter your email to subscribe and receive updates:

Institute's Office

Building 23, Level B & Building 24
University Drive South
University of Canberra
ACT 2601
Phone: +61 2 6201 2074

NATSEM

Building 24
University Drive South
University of Canberra
ACT 2601
Phone: +61 2 6201 2780