"So far, all the new Albanese government has given us is the Treasurer’s dire warnings about the tough times ahead …."

Yes. Chalmers has been described as a Town Crier rather than a Treasurer. But who listens anyway: a couple of economists and the usual windbags, with most of us just having to suck up whatever comes our way. I doubt that many people would be riveted to televised budget speeches.

One thing for sure, the honesty of a Labor Gvt, died with Whitlam.
What is presented as change of Government and its new policies, is nothing deeper than a change of Administration, not ideology, make no mistake.

New palms to grease, and old scores to settle, if they have the nerve of course; aptly pointed out here, Whitlam lacked the nerve to push ahead with cost savings that interfered with his hierarchy of friendships, like the scams of the Pitt Street farmers.

But, the continued attack on Welfare can be equally assured. while sectionalism will continue as a joint policy of previous look alike administrations, (The ambiguation of that one is the other end of pandering to the influential and ideologically favoured subjects, at the expense of democratic inclusiveness).

Dan

There are better ways in revenue garnering/spending. Real tax reform would first of all recognize what actual revenue reaches the ATO after all reductions/reconciliation issues are met. With that done, acknowledge that the highest tax in actual dollars after all tax deductions were made by any company, topped out at 13% with as many as 40% of companies doing business here paid no company to anyone. With other paying as little as 4%!

Allowable due to the complexity of the tax act which is so flawed as to allow such outcomes. We need to jettison the current tax act/tax collection methodology entirely, so as to ensure all profit/income earned here is taxed above a more than generous tax-free threshold.

For mine that's an unavoidable flat tax of 15% collected through the banking system as cash is transferred/withdrawn. This would include the billions take from this country by foreign firms operating here but like some of the offshore bookies taking more than 25 billion PA.

That's just a tip of a very large iceberg no government has seriously been willing to touch for reasons that escape me! We need to revisit the era of the Great Depression/look to volunteers to run boards/councils in return for expenses incurred only.

NDIS would be a good place to start, where there are obscene salaries/clear price gouging (fraud) of recipient's entitlements.

Those found or reported doing the two-tiered billing may need to earn some jail time or volunteer to work for free for a considerable period to avoid jail time, works for me. The CEO's position needs to be declared vacant, readvertised with very revised down, top salary

As for cutting spending, we need to bring back means testing, instead of funding service providers. Issue grants to means tested recipients who would then be free to direct that income that best served their needs in health education auxiliary service.

We need to get out of the business of outsourcing government responsibility! Which has simply increased outlays/reduced service provision/public amenity. TBC
Alan B.

I'm not an economist and much of the federal budget is
way over my head. However I a bit of what Katharine
Murphy had to say and to me it made sense.

She tells us that "Australia has big problems, and the
new government wants to bring the institutions of the
country to the table to start solving them."

She tells us that - "For a new Labor government, this model
of policy making has a couple of advantages. Building consensus
constructs and extends the base. It embeds rather than pits
against forces that would resist."

"A Labor program is harder to demonise when some of the most
powerful interests in the economy are at the tables, working on
solutions. That model of policy making bought the Hawke and
Keating governments 5 terms in office."

Cont. Then we need to seriously address energy policies, where some safe clean very cheap carbon free alternatives are off the table, due only to idiotic ideological imperatives/embargoes.

With those same embargoes removed, the nuclear option can be seriously examined on actual merit rather than current ideological imperatives, basically, all that stands in the way of power prices as low as 1.98 cents PKWH or less! And the huge economic boost/growth that would incur!

Pragmatists would allow the return/import of nuclear waste for the huge annual income that would provide, in the knowledge, that in MSR technology this is just unspent (carbon-free) fuel. Fuel that would power a robust economy for centuries, to very safely, in complete safety, to reiterate, power robust/debt draw down, economic growth.

Rooftop solar and wind turbines are as good as it goes, but we need something vastly better/less prohibitively costly for transport, industry, farm production, retail and service provision.

Simply put, a good businessman knows when to cut his losses and get out. Unfortunately, that's not also true of penny wise, pound foolish, recalcitrant, spend like a drunken sailor, tin eared Pollies. (Most of them.)
Alan B.

It's not the spending that needs cutting, it's the wasting on excessive salaries & idiotic projects funding. !