New Zealand sails in Australia's wind. Local economists, assessing what the change of government in Canberra might mean for New Zealand, looked first at Tony Abbott's budget policy. ANZ's Cameron Bagrie thought he was likely to play the austerity card which could crimp Australia's growth in the short term but produce better growth in the long run. BNZ's Stephen Toplis agreed, saying tighter spending could be a "headwind" for a while but beneficial eventually.
Unfortunately, they are wrong. The outgoing Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made a fearful hue and cry in the election campaign about the spending cuts Mr Abbott supposedly had in mind. But it suited Mr Rudd's campaign to suppose so. In fact, as an Australian commentator pointed out on our pages on Wednesday, Mr Abbott's deficit reduction target is practically meaningless.
It amounts to just A$1.5 billion a year in a budget of A$400 billion currently running a deficit of A$30 billion. As Geoffrey Garrett, dean of business at New South Wales University, said, a $1.5 billion cut in a deficit of $30 billion is in the region of a rounding error.
He pointed out that Mr Abbott's actual proposals will do exactly the reverse. A paid parental leave scheme he promised, in the hope of improving his vote among women, will be very expensive. He matched Labor's promises on education and disability care. He is committed to cutting company tax and repealing carbon and mining taxes. All of those would raise the deficit.