{"id":14714,"date":"2019-04-03T12:25:45","date_gmt":"2019-04-03T01:25:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.socialpolicyconnections.com.au\/?p=14714"},"modified":"2019-05-31T11:27:04","modified_gmt":"2019-05-31T01:27:04","slug":"the-2019-election-budget","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.socialpolicyconnections.com.au\/?p=14714","title":{"rendered":"Editorial. A budget for an election."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Peter Whiting.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Aus PM Visit to APTC Joint Training Centre FNU Derrick Campus<\/em>. Australia Pacific Training Coalition<\/a>. flickr cc.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

With a Federal election being tipped for mid-May 2019, and an April budget to accommodate it, it is hardly surprising that the budget handed down on 2 April had a number of initiatives clearly focused on specific community groups and marginal electorates in the hope of influencing electors’ voting decisions. It just would not be a pre-election federal budget without such sweeteners. But let\u2019s not confuse the issues addressed by such a budget with those upcoming electioneering should be addressing! <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It has been a lament regularly repeated in this newsletter that both government and opposition have consistently failed to lay out a coherent vision for where Australia should be heading. Policy initiatives have been reactionary rather than visionary, short-term rather than encompassing medium to long-term perspectives, political rather than statesmanlike.  Focus has been disproportionately placed on economic outcomes and budget results, with insufficient regard to the social and ecological contexts within which they sit. The very changeable nature of our contemporary world calls for a shared vision and strong effective leadership.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this issue of SPC News<\/em>, Terry Moran<\/a> shares this view of an absence of \u2018big ideas\u2019 in the thinking of governments, and addresses some of the critical relationships in Australian democracy needed for improved outcomes. One uplifting remark drawn from the research of the Centre for Policy Development is quoted below:  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Australians are asked what they think the main purpose of democracy is, the answer twice as popular as any other is \u201censuring people are treated fairly and equally, including the most vulnerable in our community\u201d.  <\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

It would seem that the Australian concept of a \u2018fair go\u2019 is still alive, albeit not well served by current economic and social government policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SPC readers will also recognise in the second part of Moran\u2019s article<\/a> the need to embrace the approach of subsidiarity (which he also refers to as localism) into the policy conversation. This is a principle firmly embedded into Christian social thinking which also incorporates the principle of a \u2018fair go\u2019 by reference to the concepts of the common good and the dignity of the human person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, the principles of Christian social thought do not of themselves constitute the \u2018vision\u2019 much needed in Australian political life. They do, however, constitute a sound ethical framework from which such visionary development could be undertaken. When party election manifestos are exposed, it would serve us all well to subject them to such an ethical critique. Each of us could doubtless produce our own list of areas which should be embraced by these manifestos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this issue, we have captured but a few of them in an incomplete and non-prioritised list. Some recent associated references may provide some perspective:<\/p>\n\n\n\n