Full of bribes to ‘split personality’: the commentariat weighs in on the budget

As last night’s budget lockup wound up and the opinion pieces started rolling in, the resounding response to Josh Frydenberg’s 2022 budget was “ehh”. Most considered it an uninspired election pitch with not much substance or detail.

The Guardian’s Katharine Murphy explains in her budget column that although the Coalition would like us to remember we are living “in uncertain times”, the budget is full of short-term thinking. 

“If we move from Frydenberg’s rhetoric to content, we discover this budget isn’t a serious plan for the future crafted by serious people in serious times. This is a plan for the next few months,” she says.

Crikey’s own Bernard Keane called the election pitch a “budget bulging with big bribes” and points out that “the economic story of the budget contradicts — in a fundamental way — the political imperative”. 

Keane notes that despite all indications suggesting the economy is performing well, Frydenberg’s budget continues with the spending. And the only reason for it is short-term electoral gain. 

“There’ll be a price to pay for such profligate spending when the economy is running so hot,” he says.

The AFR’s Phil Coorey called it a “split personality” budget, suggesting its aim is to both bribe voters but also attempt fiscal responsibility. Coorey noted similarities to past budgets, including Howard and Costello’s “bribe budget” in 2001. 

“Frydenberg has borrowed heavily from Costello’s 2001 ‘Golden Oldies’ budget which cut fuel excise to deal with spiraling petrol prices, and gave pensioners and other low- and middle-income earners cheques to help with a rampant cost of living.”

Meanwhile Annabelle Crabb’s analysis for the ABC drew comparison to a budget with very few similarities, that being the Coalition’s shocking first go in 2014. The cuts and austerity of that budget is a world away from the heavy spending of the last two. 

But according to Crabb, there’s one thing they do have in common. 

“This budget is full of treats and nice things that also, very possibly, will not happen,” Crabb writes. 

“Either because its authors lose the election that is due in about five minutes, in which case Labor will shred it and write a new one, or because the fine print is vague about how much money is actually being spent on these treats, and when.”

Also for the ABC, Laura Tingle reckons the measures look a lot like a Labor budget.

“It’s hard to escape the sense that second guessing what Labor may promise during the election campaign has shaped a lot of this budget’s key initiatives”, she writes. 

As for whether the election pitch budget will work, the Oz’s Paul Kelly thinks it gives them “a fighting political chance”.

“Frydenberg and Morrison, behind in the opinion polls, had no option but to bring down a highly political election eve package to support family households. Denial of this reality is fatuous. Given the situation, the largesse could have been worse.”