https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/03/24/angus-taylor-horrendous-performance-policy-free-liberals/

QUOTE BEGINS

The Coalition is in economic and fiscal disarray. And Peter Dutton’s shadow treasurer is exhibit A.

In a parallel political universe, Angus Taylor would be a key figure in the Australian political landscape. Along with Sussan Ley, he is the most senior Liberal in the country. As shadow treasurer, he would normally be the opposition’s first option if Dutton underperformed. He should be central to economic debate, given Dutton has no economic or fiscal background worth mentioning.

A few weeks out from the election, Taylor should be poised either to become treasurer, or to challenge Dutton for the leadership in the new Parliament if the Coalition fails to dispatch a weak Labor outfit.

Instead, not only does the latter looks improbable, but the prospect of Taylor as treasurer is evidently worrying even his own colleagues.

There’s always been something vaporous about Taylor. He has spent extended periods as shadow treasurer virtually invisible. Even when he is out in public, it’s like he’s communicating from the realm of the spirits; reach out and try to determine if there’s any there there and all you’ll come away with is a fistful of smoke.

If all that time in an undisclosed location was in service of developing a coherent economic and fiscal plan, it might be time well spent. But here we are, less than a week from the election being called, and no-one knows what, exactly, the Coalition’s position is on spending, taxation, migration, competition policy, defence spending, or any number of other matters.

For reasons best known to himself, Taylor elected to go on Insiders the Sunday before the budget. It wasn’t to reveal any policies — most of David Speers’ question were met with the response that Taylor wouldn’t be saying anything until he’s seen the budget. Indeed, Taylor seemed not merely to refuse to confirm any policies, but cast doubt on the ones we thought were locked in.

For instance, that nuclear power policy? The one that, according to the modelling commissioned by the Coalition and released as its policy, would cost $331 billion? The one that Taylor back in December agreed would cost $331 billion? Taylor now refuses to say what the cost will be. He says instead it will be 44% less than Labor’s plan (a fanciful claim based on garbage modelling). But after chanting “44% less” over and over, he switched tack and claimed the seven nuclear power plants each would cost less than $20 billion. $331 billion? $140 billion? Something else?

So, we thought we had a fact about the Coalition’s policies, but it’s turned into smoke.

Perhaps Taylor is traumatised by being repeatedly rolled in shadow cabinet. Despite all that talk of being fiscal disciplinarians, over and over the Coalition has said “me too” to big Labor spending, especially in health, where the opposition agrees so fast to new spending that its media releases come out before the government’s. Another such defeat looms on defence spending. Have Taylor and the Coalition’s waste-of-space finance shadow Jane Hume managed to defeat any spending proposals inside the Coalition?

In 2022, the Coalition left spending at over 27% of GDP — and planned to have it still at 26.3% this coming year. According to MYEFO last December, it’s still at 26.5% of GDP. With all that additional health and energy rebate spending (untargeted — bizarrely, Jacqui Lambie has emerged as the voice of economic rationalism on rebates, urging them to be means-tested) plus higher defence spending, are Taylor and Hume going to even match the modest ambitions of Josh Frydenberg on spending?

This acute absence of economic leadership within the Coalition mightn’t be a problem if the economy was on a smooth trajectory. In fact we’re in for some of the most dangerous times in recent history: a global trade war, the transformation of the United States from a benign ally to an economic threat and unreliable security partner, threats to China’s continued prosperity. And, of course, the lingering consequences of the Reserve Bank’s continuing policy of punishing households for corporate profiteering.

On that front, the February jobs data out last week raised the question of whether employment growth — traditionally a lagging indicator — is finally succumbing to gravity. Unemployment remained steady on 4.1%, but full and part time jobs together fell 53,000 and there was a drop in hours worked. It was a substantially lower participation rate (down 0.4% in February) that saved the unemployment rate from rising. Lower participation is never a good sign, but it’s still 0.1% higher than a year ago, so no reason to panic just yet.

Was it just a wobble? Or the first sign of something more serious, after a slow decline in the strength of jobs growth through 2024? It could be confirmation that the Reserve Bank should have really cut rates last November or December, when many of us urged it to, instead of waiting until February.

It might mean a Coalition government, led by Treasurer Angus Taylor, has to confront a softening jobs market, a tariff war and demands for billions more a year in defence spending while trying to live up to his rhetoric about shrinking government. No wonder his colleagues are nervous.

Bernard Keane is Crikey’s politics editor. Before that he was Crikey’s Canberra press gallery correspondent, covering politics, national security and economics.

QUOTE ENDS

#AusPol #ClimateCrisis #WomensRights #ShitParty1 #ShitParty2 #FsckOffDutton #WhyIsLabor #NoNukes #VoteGreens #ProgIndies #TuckFrump