Labor budget reply long on sentiment, short on detail

Coming from an aspiring prime minister heading to the polls, Anthony Albanese’s budget reply on Thursday night was long on rhetoric but with next to no substance. It proffered no specific criticisms of Josh Frydenberg’s budget apart from deriding “the big bucket of money ready to be splashed around in an election campaign” and branding it a “budget for the next six weeks when we need a plan for the next six years”. On that score, temporary, targeted cost-of-living relief is preferable to handouts baked into the system.

Neither did the Opposition Leader have anything noteworthy to say about recovery, employment (the Morrison government’s strong suit) or budget repair. Mr Albanese wants defence spending lifted to improve “technology and capabilities”. But he did not specify how much it should be lifted, what capabilities he wants improved or how it should be funded. Would being “flexible” about tax mean higher taxes – or would the process of budget repair be slowed to buy more defence equipment? The alternative prime minister, unfortunately, has yet to confide in the electorate. Cracking down on multinational tax rorts, which Labor has foreshadowed previously, can raise only so much.

Mr Albanese’s centrepieces – aged care and childcare – are important topics. But his sentimental rhetoric – “put the care back into aged care’’ – was not backed up with costed proposals. His specific promises on aged care have sufficient merit that their impact on the national budget deserves to be detailed. The promises include: registered nurses on site in nursing homes 24/7; more carers with time to care; a pay rise for aged-care workers; better food for residents; and new funding going to care. “That’s how a Labor government will solve the crisis in aged care.” If only it were that simple.

The opposition’s plan for cheaper childcare is no less vague. It is good for workforce participation, productivity and economic growth, as Mr Albanese said. But who is to pay for it, and how much?

The tone of the speech suggested Labor is preparing to run as Coalition-lite, a fresher version of the Morrison government, without Mr Morrison. Mr Albanese promised renewal, not revolution, and a renewal of Australian values – fairness, decency, supporting aspiration, looking out for each other, rewarding hard work. But, he said, the nation deserved a leader who would “hold a hose”. It also deserved a leader with the economic policy credentials to lead the complex process of recovery, employment growth, controlling inflation and longer-term structural reform.

Again, without detail, Mr Albanese promised impressive advances on wages, climate change and transforming Australia into a “renewable energy superpower”, more resilient and less dependent on global supply chains. The “what” was there, the “how” was missing.

Mr Albanese recently has aspired to govern in the style of Bob Hawke and John Howard if ­elected prime minister. On the strength of Mr Albanese’s budget reply, which did little to dissect the policies of the Morrison government or offer detailed alternatives, it would be more accurate to argue that Mr Albanese, anxious not to unsettle voters as Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen did in 2019, is emulating Kevin Rudd, who presented himself to the electorate in 2007 as a kind of a “John Howard lite”. Such ploys do not work across the mid to long term, which quickly became apparent with the Rudd government. As Mr Howard said in response to Mr Albanese identifying with Hawke, Paul Keating and himself: “The real question for someone standing for election as prime minister is what you intend to do and how you ­intend to do it.” Thursday night’s speech cast little light on Mr Albanese’s plans but was not short on motherhood statements, from references to the fact he and his mum “didn’t have much but had each other” to education being the nation’s most powerful weapon against disadvantage.

A day after delivering the budget, the Treasurer challenged Labor to reveal its alternative economic platform, accusing it of trying to win power by saying it would be a “mini-me of the government” and waving through the Coalition’s policies. Mr Albanese failed that challenge in his budget reply. As Mr Frydenberg said on Wednesday: Labor hasn’t laid out an economic plan. “They should be telling the Australian people now … They don’t come up with any costings, and just think that they can sail into government.” In pursuing that goal, Thursday night’s speech was a major opportunity lost for Labor.