A wink’s as good as a nod

WAYNE CRAWFORD

It was, of course, all off the record – “Don’t quote me, boys – you know I can’t tell you what’s going to be in the Budget.” But a wink’s as good as a nod, if you know what I mean.

We, on the other hand, tried to appear blasé, as if he wasn’t really telling us anything we didn’t know or hadn’t previously worked out.

But no sooner had he left the room than we all hit the phones, breathlessly filing dramatic stories back to our respective newsrooms on how “informed sources” had warned we were in for a horror state budget; that government services were sure to be slashed; and that it looked inevitable a new consumption tax would be struck on cigarettes and tobacco.

When the stories appeared the next day, it set the hares running. The state opposition jumped on the bandwagon, condemning the government for its inability to manage the State’s finances; there were screams of complaint from interest groups who speculated their funding would be cut back; and from the public service unions, frightened of more enforced belt-tightening.

WAYNE CRAWFORD’S COLUMN

published in the Mercury Wednesday May 20, 2009 …

ONE evening at State Parliament House back in the early 1970s, the then premier and treasurer Eric Reece wandered nonchalantly into the Press room for a chat. He parked himself on the edge of a desk, exchanged jokes, and then mentioned almost in passing how he was having great trouble in framing the upcoming State Budget.

He was confiding, almost as if seeking advice and input from his mates in the media.

Tasmania was having particular difficulty at the time in squeezing enough money from the Commonwealth to balance its books, and there was talk of a new “consumption tax” to be applied by the State Government to cigarettes and tobacco to fill the gaping black hole, which in those days was measured in mere hundreds of thousands or at worst millions of dollars. Billions and trillions were the stuff of science fiction.

Eric chatted away amiably for half an hour, confiding in the assembled reporters, as they puffed on their cigarettes (as was then fashionable). He was very worried about where to find the necessary money to fund state services. It was clear something dramatic would need to be done – that it was all adding up to a horror Budget with major cuts in services and that the parsimonious attitude of the Federal Government looked like forcing the State’s hand on a new tax.

It was, of course, all off the record – “Don’t quote me, boys – you know I can’t tell you what’s going to be in the Budget.” But a wink’s as good as a nod, if you know what I mean.

We, on the other hand, tried to appear blasé, as if he wasn’t really telling us anything we didn’t know or hadn’t previously worked out.

But no sooner had he left the room than we all hit the phones, breathlessly filing dramatic stories back to our respective newsrooms on how “informed sources” had warned we were in for a horror state budget; that government services were sure to be slashed; and that it looked inevitable a new consumption tax would be struck on cigarettes and tobacco.

When the stories appeared the next day, it set the hares running. The state opposition jumped on the bandwagon, condemning the government for its inability to manage the State’s finances; there were screams of complaint from interest groups who speculated their funding would be cut back; and from the public service unions, frightened of more enforced belt-tightening.

Premier Reece was asked for comment, but held his counsel, reiterating the standard mantra that it would be highly improper for him to comment on what might or might not be in the Budget.

The following week when eventually the Budget was presented it turned out to be quite mild compared with expectations – quite restrained with no particularly nasty bits and certainly no consumption tax on cigarettes or anything else. We were all left with egg on our faces and Eric Reece was credited with, yet again, working miracles with the State’s finances by delivering a mild budget with no nasty surprises.

From memory it was actually a pretty ordinary budget, but compared with what had been feared, it was a wonderful relief.

Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan used much the same tactic in preparing us for last week’s Federal Budget. They spent weeks softening up the community for a tough Budget which would make a Robin Hood attack on the rich to fund pension increases and help offset the loss of revenues.

The Prime Minister went so far as to predict there would be “howls of protest” about the Budget.

But apart from the Opposition, few were howling – muttering disapproval, more like. Anyone on $150,000 a year or more and salting away superannuation by salary sacrificing would feel some pain (although the other 98 per cent of the community don’t feel much sympathy for them). And there are complaints from those who resent the Government breaking its election promise not to meddle with the private health premium rebate (although Mr Rudd characterises it not so much as a broken promise as a “policy commitment that we have not fulfilled” (shades of John Howard’s core and non-core promises).

But the Government decided not to break the promise to pensioners of a pension increase; and to taxpayers of the tax cuts pledged by both parties at the election.

Then there was the $22 billion allocated for “nation building” through infrastructure development. But Tasmania’s allocation was conspicuous by its absence, despite the fact that Tasmania has a State Labor Government, and that all Tasmanian House of Representatives seats are held by members of the Rudd Government.

One cannot but wonder how we managed to miss out so comprehensively. Someone clearly wasn’t concentrating on his or her job.

Next month there will be the State Budget – the first framed entirely by the Bartlett Government, the 2008 Budget having been largely bedded down before Paul Lennon resigned as premier last May.

Like Messrs Rudd and Swan, Mr Bartlett and his Treasurer Michael Aird have been softening us up for a tough Budget.

And with the State Government even feeling the need to set an example by freezing MPs’ salaries, indications are that things really might be as serious as is being painted.

Wayne Crawford