It was last week when the Victorian Government released their long-awaited 2023-24 budget, one which we were warned was going to be painful.
They had already laid the groundwork in the days leading up to budget day with some shocking leaks which were astonishing in their hypocrisy on every level - WorkCover would no longer apply for anxiety and burnout - The public service would face 4,000 job losses - Funding for 372 programs was under threat, including (but not limited to) programs linked to domestic violence.
The biggest shock of the lot though is that they had decided that there was a Covid Bill that had to be paid. That bill they decided was $31 billion but they tried to message it as though it was a separate debt from the rest of government debt. Unfortunately, that isn't how debt works. You can't decide whether this is Covid Debt and this is Government Debt. It's all debt and it basically comes back to this government's mismanagement, plain and simple.
The budget day comes and they make their mandatory speeches with the usual spin and crap. One claim is that apparently we'll have a surplus in 2025-26 or was it 2026-27...doesn't matter because there's no chance of that happening under this regime.
We could talk about the $260 million investment in women's health which will allow treatment for various medical conditions including endometriosis.
We could talk about how as part of that investment, they are planning to open 20 women's health clinics. This is something that is a great idea.
We could talk about how they are closing down the timber logging industry but providing $200 million to help those impacted find other work. Again, this is a good idea to assist in transition but this is like the arsonist starting a fire and then wanting praise for trying to put it out.
They claimed that we could have BOTH health AND infrastructure but with infrastructure spending slowing, they clearly lied before the last election.
It is however the "Covid Levy" which has caused the most controversy and most Victorians are sleepwalking towards the danger it's about to inflict.
Measure 1 is outside the Covid Levy but Measures 2-4 will target the Covid Levy specifically while Measure 5 is so outrageous it deserves a special mention.
Measure 1: Increased Business Premiums for WorkCover Now let's be clear, WorkCover is important despite the questions surrounding certain actions they've taken over the last couple of years (specifically relating to Hotel Quarantine) but herein lies the problem. For this decision to have been taken, it obviously means that something isn't working or costs have gone up. The decision to remove anxiety and burnout from WorkCover claims despite us apparently having a mental health crisis according to the Mental Health Royal Commission back in 2021is hypocrisy upon hypocrisy but what happens when there's an increase in business premiums...the costs get passed onto the consumer Verdict: Increase Guaranteed in Cost of Living
Measure 2: Removing Payroll Tax Exemption for the Top 15% of non-government schools by fee level I know this is a foreign concept to a lot of people, especially the rusted-on Andrews diehards but NOT ALL FAMILIES WHO PUT THEIR KIDS THROUGH PRIVATE SCHOOLS ARE RICH. Many of these families have to sacrifice a hell of a lot in order to give their kids the best education they can.
This isn't to start an argument of whether public or private is best in the slightest.
This is the choice that parents make to give their kids what they believe to be the best chance of success. There is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Nothing wrong unless you're Tim Pallas and Daniel Andrews trying to get some money back.
So, let's come up with this thought bubble of removing the payroll tax exemption and Victorians will be fine because it targets the "rich." Except it doesn't wholly target the rich and that's what the government doesn't get.
Liberal Leader John Pesutto came out today to announce that he would axe the "Private School Tax" and in amazing but entirely predictable scenes in parliament, ALP Education Minister Natalie Hutchins was asked today which Private Schools would be affected. She couldn't answer because she doesn't know, because they haven't thought through who would be affected and frankly don't have a damn clue. If you're going to announce a policy of that sort, surely you'd have the details on hand, or perhaps not apparently.
Verdict: This cost will get passed onto all families whose kids attend Private Schools and disproportionately affect those who have sacrificed so much and aren't as rich as others.
Measure 3: Charging an extra tax on big business (0.5% for those with national payroll of $10 million; 1% for national payroll of $100 million) We can all agree that big business should be paying their fair share of tax and we can all agree that many big businesses have gotten away with paying little to no tax for too long. Is this necessarily a bad idea? No, it actually isn't, in isolation. There is however one slightly itty bitty problem that both Tim Pallas and Daniel Andrews have ignored or perhaps they just don't care. They seem to be under the delusion that businesses will accept this extra tax without complaint. It's easy for both Pallas and Andrews to assume that with their ridiculous 6 figure wages where they can easily absorb extra costs.
THIS ISN'T HOW IT WORKS! How stupid could they be to possibly think that? Businesses get taxed extra and guess what, they pass that on to consumers. That's how it works in capitalism unfortunately and is the reality. We already have a messed up cost of living crisis. This is going to make it worse and the damning bit...they don't care.
Verdict: Pallas and Andrews have just tried to tax businesses but in reality, it'll be those who are struggling to make ends meet who will disproportionately be impacted.
Measure 4: An increase in tax on land that doesn't apply to the family home. Now, this is an absolute A-Grade shocker and the chutzpah on this...if I wasn't seething, I would stand and applaud. They have elected to target the "aspirationally rich." So people who have bought investment properties and rented them out, not only to pay off a mortgage but to provide themselves with a passive income are going to be penalised because of this government's mismanagement...or are they?
1) Threshold on land tax on land not applied to family home lowered from $300k to $50k 2) Annual charge of $500 will apply to landholdings between $50k and $100k 3) Annual charge of $975 will apply to landholdings between $100k and $300k 4) Annual charge of $975 + 0.1% of land value will apply to landholdings over $300k Let's not forget that these people have been hit by multiple interest rate rises and are struggling to pay mortgages etc. Now you want to introduce this extra tax to claw back money? It's easy for Tim Pallas and Daniel Andrews to sit there and say that this will only affect around 860,000 landowners but they are absolutely delusional once again. It's not going to affect the 860,000 landowners because they will pass on some of these costs from interest rate rises and now this tax to renters...you know, those people who can't afford to own a home. Verdict: The housing crisis is about to be made worse with more people potentially being forced onto the streets
Measure 5: Cutting Funding to Integrity Agencies [1] There are a lot of words I could use to describe this, none of which are fit for an article such as this. This is absolutely one of the most disgusting things that I have ever seen in my life and frankly just shows the decline of integrity here in Victoria.
If you believe Daniel Andrews, this is due to an "overspend by IBAC" and anyone accusing him of launching a coordinated attack is "probably playing politics." This coming from someone who is political with a capital P.
So let's put the facts out there IBAC 2022 - 2023 - $62.9m spent 2023 - 2024 - $62.2m allocated Auditor General 2022 - 2023 - $33.7m 2023 - 2024 - $29.8m
Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner 2022 - 2023 - $21.1m 2023 - 2024 - $20.1m
Parliamentary Budget Office 2022 - 2023 - $3.9m 2023 - 2024 - $3.4m
While the Ombudsman got a slight increase, the 4 other integrity bodies all had CUTS to their funding. The government claim that IBAC actually had a $300k increase but here's the thing; IBAC wouldn't have to "overspend" as you call it if they didn't have to keep investigating the various corruption allegations surrounding the government. If the government actually had any shred of integrity, it would allow IBAC to do their job without interference. In fact, if the government actually acted with integrity and ethics, this overspending wouldn't have occurred. They haven't, can't and won't and don't give a crap because no one is able to hold them properly to account.
No matter what way you try to spin it, these are acts of political revenge for daring to hold the Andrews government to account. Any suggestion otherwise is just false because that is a pattern of behaviour that has occurred regularly under this government. You question them or stand up and they come for you, one way or another. Ask Jenny Mikakos! Ask Kaushaliya Vaghela! To say it's not vengeance is flat-out lying.
Extra Note: Since the release of this budget, we have now learnt that Melbourne's Big Build has been subjected to claims of rorts. It's bad enough that businesses are getting kicked off worksites if they're not aligned to the CFMEU (that's another story) and being replaced by businesses that are quoting more than what the original business did. Now we have businesses allegedly rorting funds from the Big Build. This has occurred once again because of government mismanagement which is fast becoming a common theme here in Victoria but it is no longer surprising in the slightest.
Final Word:
Debt is absolutely something that has to be repaid. It actually made good business sense to borrow when interest rates were low and I do not criticise that part in the slightest. The investment in railway crossing removal, the Metro Tunnel and the investment across various sectors including Health and Education is not something I am necessarily opposed to either. I understand that now interest rates are going up with another rate rise predicted next week, we need to address the debt. The problem is that both Tim Pallas and Daniel Andrews are divorced from reality in thinking that their measures will target big business and the "aspirationally rich" because what is going to happen is all these taxes will get passed down the chain to us, the low-income customer who cannot make ends meet.
The essential truth of the budget is this: People who are struggling already to make ends meet are about to be slugged hard because this government can't manage a balance sheet and can't manage projects without ludicrous levels of overspending. We are paying for the incompetence of Pallas, Andrews and others. How the bloody hell is that fair?
1 https://archive.md/Fdcwg#selection-853.0-976.0 "Daniel Andrews defends decision to spend less on anti-corruption watchdog" Herald Sun 25 May
Comentários