The Albanese government was once again “crowing” this morning, as it confirmed a $15.8 billion surplus for 2023-24 — the first back-to-back surplus since 2008, and the first Labor consecutive surplus since Paul Keating in the late ’80s. Treasurer Jim Chalmers was eager to boast of a $6 billion improvement on the May forecast, claiming it came down to lower spending, and was therefore “proof of our responsible economic management”.
Independent Senator Jacqui Lambie, however, was not impressed. “Nobody gives a stuff about a surplus,” she told the Today show, in typical Jacqui fashion. “Mate, I can assure you right now, people are doing it hard out there. Nobody’s talking about a surplus.”
So does anybody give a stuff about this windfall, coming at a time of acute economic pain for so many, outside of the pundits convinced that The Surplus® is the only measure of Good Economic Management™?
It’s far from the first time this government has demanded pats on the back for delivering a “better than expected” bottom line; as Crikey noted in April, Chalmers mentioned his 2023 surplus at least 141 times ahead of this year’s budget. We’ve watched this play out repeatedly since Labor came to office, and each time anti-poverty advocates express dismay that Labor’s surplus has been built on the backs of those suffering on JobSeeker. “People are homeless & starving jim,” wrote one X user in response to Chalmers’ post. “Take ya surplus & stick it up ya.”
Chalmers this time credits “reduced spending” for his bigger surplus. Is this not the same government that was just 10 days ago claiming indexation as a payment increase, as it often does? Are we to applaud its generosity or its restraint? Even Labor diehards seem confused by this one, pointing to things this windfall could have funded.
Meanwhile, those who might be impressed by balanced budgeting seem underwhelmed — or at least unwilling to give Labor any credit. The surplus barely rates a mention in the News Corp pages (“Exports shock on ore to hit $39bn,” The Oz summarised, on a front page dominated by the Middle East), while Sky suggests Labor is running “one of the biggest deficits” (two years from now) in a “deteriorating” economy.
These headlines would be far worse without the surplus, of course; much of this is about Labor heading off Coalition attacks, while twisting the knife over the fact its “predecessors” failed to achieve such a surplus. But what is the point of appeasing the deficit hawks, buying into their game, when they will simply ignore your “win”? It remains to be seen whether the Reserve Bank, the harshest of critics, will be impressed enough to offer a rate cut ahead of the next election, with the first surplus failing to secure its favour.
Do regular punters give a stuff about this back-to-back surplus? Are they reassured by what Finance Minister Katy Gallagher calls “a key part of our plan to take pressure off inflation while providing relief to families”, when many are struggling to keep their own budgets balanced?
Perhaps, as pollster Kos Samaras suggests, Labor might like to tell voters what it is going to do with that banked up capital, how it is going to actually “invest in vital services that will help Australians navigate these challenging economic times”. If that, of course, is what it intends to do.
Lambie, as she often does, seems to have her finger on the pulse, even if she doesn’t have a clear solution. “People are really hurting out there,” she told Today. “Honestly, give them more. Find a way to do it.”
Chalmers, for his part, seems more eager to find a way to break out the Coalition’s “back in black” mugs, desperate for the approval of those who are never going to give it.
Do you give a stuff about a budget surplus? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
