Bernard Salt has written a cracking piece in The Australian today asking why the Budget razor has largely missed politician entitlements and instead slashed payments to unemployed youth, the disabled, health and education:
Much was made during the budget speech about politicians sharing the load. Really? The 2 per cent deficit levy applies to income earned above $180,000. Federal backbenchers earn $196,000. That’s $16,000 subjected to the levy which by my calculation equates to $320. That’s it. That’s their grand contribution to fixing the fiscal mess.
The second concession to be made by the political class is the winding back and the eventual closure of the life gold pass travel scheme by which former politicians get access to free business class air travel for the rest of their lives. For the rest of their lives!
Why was not this outrageous rort — for that’s what this is — closed immediately?..
Another concession cited to show that politicians are sharing the pain was the announcement of a pay freeze effective for one year…
Freezing salaries for one year with a possible adjustment catch-up the following year, during a time when economic growth is expected to be sluggish, isn’t exactly the grand concession that politicians might think it is…
So what is it exactly that the political class is giving up? For most there’s a $320 contribution for the deficit levy, there’s no extra money for at least year, and when they retire they won’t be able to fly around at will and be feted accordingly.
Salt’s critique is spot on. Joe Hockey’s claim that “everyone has to live within their means, whether it’s a company, whether it’s a family, whether it’s an individual, whether it’s a government” would hold more weight if politicians also agreed to take a significant haircut, rather than expecting everyone else (and the disadvantaged, in particular) to bear the burden of cuts.
It also highlights why the Government needs to have a consistent and transparent methodology if it is to achieve its goal of “ending the age of entitlement”. Slashing benefits to poorer sections of the community, whilst allowing egregious lurks to remain in others – including politician perks – is likely to breed mistrust, stifling reform and ensuring that the burden of adjustment is not broad-based, undermining its efficacy.
