What is the Malinauskas Government’s re-election strategy? Simply Peter himself? David Penberthy

There’s nothing in this budget that will win Labor the election – but does there need to be, or is it just the Mali show? David Penberthy writes.

What is the Malinauskas Government’s re-election strategy? Or is the Malinauskas Government’s re-election strategy simply Peter Malinauskas?

Unless you want to win an election by driving up debt and delivering the world’s tiniest surplus, you would not describe yesterday’s budget as some sort of poll-driven goodie bag which showers voters with riches to lock in their support.

The next election is due in March next year, meaning this is the final state budget to be handed down before polling day.

Usually a pre-election budget like this one is aimed at a couple of headline-grabbing measures to help people deal with their mortgages, or enter the property market for the first time, or some kind of targeted assistance to small businesses or young people starting a family.

There was nothing like that yesterday.

Sure, the law and order measures were welcome, but long overdue. The number of policing has failed to keep pace with the urban sprawl happening at every end of Adelaide.

The fact that there will be more police was not of itself a vote-winner, rather, it’s something voters think should be provided as a bedrock community safety service anyway, especially in areas of new land release where development has outpaced infrastructure.

So where is the whiz and the bang in what will be the final budget before Peter Malinauskas seeks a second term?

There’s nothing in the state budget to get Malinauskas re-elected, Penbo says. But does there need to be? Picture: NewsWire / Dean Martin

There is one number in the budget which suggests there are more goodies on the horizon. At just $18 million this was a tiddler of a surplus, but Treasurer Stephen Mullighan reassures us that it will return to a much more handsome level next year at $179 million. While that higher figure would be welcome, what is interesting is that the mid year budget review last December stated that the surplus for next year’s 2026-2027 budget would be $449 million. That’s a $270 million difference, and a cynic might suspect that amount has been set aside as election play money for a bit of targeted pork-barrelling in the lead-up to polling day in March.

So how does this Budget create a pitch for re-election? The Government can point to record health spending, new police numbers, the fact that it has honoured its promise not to introduce new taxes or go for massive tax hikes like they have over the border in Victoria.

That’s a positive message, but it doesn’t alter two things – things which incidentally were the main headline-grabbing pledges Labor made from opposition when Steven Marshall was still running the joint.

The first was to “fix the ambulance ramping crisis” by returning it to the same 2018 levels when Marshall came to power.

The second was the state prosperity project framed around Mali’s vision for green hydrogen.

Both of these promises are dead and cannot be revived by March next year.

So what does that leave them with to promote the sell job?

It will be Malinauskas himself.

Treasurer Stephen Mullighan and Premier Peter Malinauskas arriving for Budget lockup. Picture: NewsWire / Dean Martin

The broad political narrative will focus on the economy, much of which will involve comparing ourselves with a state in Victoria which is such a basket case that even the worst South Australian administration would look like geniuses in comparison.

You can see the elements of that in Mullighan’s budget speech yesterday, his deliberate comparison of state credit ratings, pointing out that SA is second only to WA which is drowning in mining royalties and GST revenues.

You can see that too in the Government’s shameless and constant milking of the Business Council of Australia’s declaration that there is no better place to invest and do business than SA – surely the luckiest free kick any Labor Government could ask for.

But beyond that, Labor is pinning its re-election hopes on a sense of contentment with the state, and contentment with its leader.

The recent federal election showed the extent to which Malinauskas can bring voters along with him for the ride. Cynics and rusted-on Libs might disagree – or suggest that he has instead taken us for a ride – but the results at that election speak for themselves. It is born out by the fact that several federal Labor candidates and every Labor Senate candidate campaigned with Malinauskas rather than Albanese, and deliberately used photographs of themselves with Mali not Albo.

Peter Malinauskas was the poster boy for SA’s federal candidates. Picture: Brett Hartwig

It is quite amazing, having failed to honour your two biggest promises, that you can still be going so well as a politician.

But there is a defensiveness in the community towards Malinauskas. Whenever someone has a crack at him over ramping or energy policy, one or more will reply that at least he’s got the state going again, that he’s made SA a better place to live and a desirable place to visit.

The comments section on articles like these bear it out, and the support he gets often comes from people who describe themselves as traditional conservatives.

There was nothing in this budget that will win Labor the election. There was nothing in this budget that will make Labor lose the election either.

Not even the scale of the debt and the laughably small deficit, which look more bearable and less embarrassing when contrasted with the fiscal chaos in other Labor states.

But it doesn’t really matter either way, because the budget is not the re-election strategy. Peter Malinauskas is the re-election strategy.

Originally published as What is the Malinauskas Government’s re-election strategy? Simply Peter himself? David Penberthy