Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 62

Budget time and Labor v Liberal on fiscal discipline

Part 1: Which political party has produced more government surpluses and deficits?

Much of the media coverage and debate surrounding the federal budget is coloured by political bias, uninformed rhetoric, misinformation and value judgments about whether deficits are inherently good or bad. Here we stick to the facts. While the impacts of fiscal policy on such things as jobs, pensions, debt burdens and the implications for current and future taxpayers make for heated dinner conversations, investors are primarily interested in the impacts on investment markets.

This 3-part series will put the federal budget into perspective and address questions such as:

  • How often have governments produced budget surpluses? (Part 1)
  • How do Labor and Liberal governments compare when it comes to deficits? (Part 1)
  • How do Labor and Liberal governments compare when it comes to running up (or paying off) debt? (Part 2)
  • How serious are the current levels of deficit and debt? (Part 2)
  • Have government deficits been good or bad for stock markets? (Part 3)

Issues such as whether deficits are good or bad for the country as a whole or what the money is actually spent on (i.e. productive assets or recurrent welfare, etc) are questions for another day.

History of federal government surpluses, deficits and debt

The first chart shows the history of federal government fiscal balances and debt levels since Federation, and it also shows the various governments in power. Labor governments are shown in pink and ‘right-leaning’ governments, mainly Liberal and Liberal Coalitions, in blue.

Chart 1: Federal government deficits and debt since FederationAO Chart1 160514

AO Chart1 160514

The top section shows the annual government balance (surplus or deficit) expressed as a percentage of GDP, for June years up until June 2013. (Gross Domestic Product, or ‘GDP’ is a common measure of total national output, production, income and spending). A government surplus or deficit in a given year is the total amount of government revenues collected (mostly through taxation) minus total government outlays.

Most of the media attention each year is centred on the budget speech in May of each year (was August in the early years) for the following fiscal (June) year. The budget speech is a statement of policy and intent, but budget measures announced are often amended or modified during the year. What we are concerned about here is the actual outcome each year. That is not just talk or policy or politics, it is fact.

We can see that federal governments have run surpluses (green bars in the top section of the above chart) in only a very small number of years since Federation.

Chart 2 shows that Labor governments have achieved government surpluses in just 18% of all years they were in power, while right-leaning governments have done marginally better, with surpluses in 26% of years in power.

Chart 2: Surplus/Deficit years

AO Snip2 160514

Surplus years are rare

Surplus years have been few and far between. Aside from the early years of balanced budgets (before Canberra existed!), the only surplus budget outcomes have been in the following years:

  • 1933, 1934 and 1936 resulting from the depression austerity plan under Joe Lyons (UAP). Deficit spending to stimulate the economy was not an option because foreign credit markets refused to lend to Australian governments following the default and restructure on the entire stock of domestically held government bonds in 1931. The government had no option but to balance the budget by imposing austerity measures including savage cuts to wages and spending
  • 1949 (just) under Chifley (Labor)
  • 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 under Hawke/Keating, in the late 1980s boom prior to the deficit spending in the 1990-1991 recession
  • 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 under Howard/Costello, in the ‘dot-com’ boom prior to the impact of the ‘tech wreck’ slowdown
  • 2003 through to 2008 under Howard/Costello (although Labor under Kevin Rudd won the election during the 2008 fiscal year), in the 2000s mining/credit boom prior to the ‘global financial crisis’.

Chart 3 shows Labor budget balances have been worse on average than Liberal/right governments (ie deficits under Labor governments have been double the size of deficits under Liberal/right governments).

Chart 3: Median government balance since federation (as percentage of GDP)

AO Snip3 160514

Even if we just look at the post-war era the differences are still significant, and reflect the philosophical differences between the major parties on the role of government in society and in the economy.

Changes in government fiscal balance

More important than the actual level of government fiscal balance from year to year is the change in the balance. This is the case for a couple of reasons. The first is that every government inherits the budget position from the prior government and so the incumbent government has more control over changes in government spending and revenues than it has over the levels of spending and revenues.

The second reason is the change in balance rather than the level reflects the incumbent government’s fiscal stance and its effects on the economy. For example if a government goes from a deficit of $50 billion in one year (as it will in 2013-14) to a deficit of ‘only’ $30 billion in the next year (as is forecast in 2014-15), the $20 billion in lower spending and/or higher taxes in the second year represents a substantial tightening of fiscal policy even though the deficit in the second year appears expansionary if viewed in isolation.

Chart 4 shows that Labor governments have a slightly better record of reducing deficits over the whole period since Federation and also in the post-war period, although in the majority of cases it was reducing their own deficits, since Labor governments also ran significantly larger deficits than Liberal governments.

Chart 4: Median change in government balance (as percentage of GDP)

AO Snip4 160514

Some conclusions

Some conclusions include:

  • Apart from the golden era before Canberra existed, and in the 1930s depression when Australian governments were excluded from foreign debt markets (and therefore unable to run deficits) following the default, government surpluses have been very rare.
  • The surpluses occurred in unsustainable economic booms – the late 1980s credit-driven ‘entrepreneurial’ boom, the late 1990s ‘dot-com’ boom, and the 2000s credit and mining boom.
  • Australia’s unusually high levels of population growth, economic growth, favourable demographics and broadening tax revenue base are conducive to central governments running modest on-going deficits, as long as the deficits are used to invest primarily in productive assets rather than recurrent spending and welfare. To date this has tended to be the case in Australia.
  • The string of government deficits during Labor’s most recent period in office was not unusual compared to prior Labor or Liberal/right-leaning governments.
  • Labor governments have run fewer surpluses and larger deficits (expressed as per cent of GDP) compared to Liberal/right-leaning governments.
  • In the post-war era, Labor has produced four surplus years compared to the Liberals’ eleven. In the pre-war era, the big debt build-ups in WW1 and WW2 were bi-partisan, but the 1930s surpluses were the result of partisan austerity measures of the Lyons UAP governments (forerunner to Liberal Party).
  • The pre-WW1 period was a golden fiscal era of balanced budgets and no Canberra!

In Part 2, we will look at the record of Labor versus Liberal governments in running up (or reducing) government debt levels. Then in Part 3, we will examine the impact of government deficits and surpluses on stock market returns, under Labor and Liberal governments.

 

Ashley Owen is Joint CEO of Philo Capital Advisers and a director and adviser to the Third Link Growth Fund.

5 Comments
Alan Austin
May 08, 2022

The problem with this analysis is that it fails to take into account the global economic conditions at the time of each government.
A much more sound approach is to look at where Australia ranked in the world, or among developed economies, on deficits and debt for each year. That is the approach taken here and elsewhere:
https://michaelwest.com.au/scott-and-josh-superior-economic-managers-not-according-to-the-imf/
Can you please try this, Ashley, and see how your results compare with those in Michael West Media.
Happy to discuss. Cheers, AA.

mkin
November 19, 2017

Govt deficits help grow the economy to the point where the non govt sector booms. Then when the economy is net spending govt debt falls. Govt borrowing is for liquidity control not to fund spending.
A fiat currency govt creates dollars when it spends. The is the whole reason govts abandoned the fixed exchange rate system.

James Davey
May 16, 2014

As Dickens correctly said "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery".

LKB
May 16, 2014

And as a mentor of mine once drilled into me: when in debt, a dollar spent is a dollar borrowed.

Pat Connelan
May 16, 2014

The state of the budget is largely a reflection of what's happening in the global and local economic cycles.

It's in the media's interests to talk up whether brand Pepsi or brand Coke is better at balancing the budget, but discretionary outlays are just one part of the input to the process.

Howard and Costello governed during a boom; Rudd, Gillard and Swan during the worst developed economy recession since the 30s.

When comparing outcomes you need to look at what was achieved given the parameters of the time. Arguably, a government which delivers small surpluses at a time of glorious prosperity and massive tax receipts is less capable than one who manages aggregate demand successfully during a global bust but at the expense of modest deficits.

Budget surpluses aren't ends in themselves. There is no right or wrong about them. What matters is good policy attuned to the needs of the cycle and the social and civic obligations of government.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Running up and paying off government debt

Federal Government budgets and their impact on the stockmarket

Which political party is best for share prices?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Lessons when a fund manager of the year is down 25%

Every successful fund manager suffers periods of underperformance, and investors who jump from fund to fund chasing results are likely to do badly. Selecting a manager is a long-term decision but what else?

2022 election survey results: disillusion and disappointment

In almost 1,000 responses, our readers differ in voting intentions versus polling of the general population, but they have little doubt who will win and there is widespread disappointment with our politics.

Now you can earn 5% on bonds but stay with quality

Conservative investors who want the greater capital security of bonds can now lock in 5% but they should stay at the higher end of credit quality. Rises in rates and defaults mean it's not as easy as it looks.

30 ETFs in one ecosystem but is there a favourite?

In the last decade, ETFs have become a mainstay of many portfolios, with broad market access to most asset types, as well as a wide array of sectors and themes. Is there a favourite of a CEO who oversees 30 funds?

Betting markets as election predictors

Believe it or not, betting agencies are in the business of making money, not predicting outcomes. Is there anything we can learn from the current odds on the election results?

Welcome to Firstlinks Election Edition 458

At around 10.30pm on Saturday night, Scott Morrison called Anthony Albanese to concede defeat in the 2022 election. As voting continued the next day, it became likely that Labor would reach the magic number of 76 seats to form a majority government.   

  • 19 May 2022

Latest Updates

Superannuation

'It’s your money' schemes transfer super from young to old

With the Coalition losing the 2022 election, its policy to allow young people to access super goes back on the shelf. But lowering the downsizer age to 55 was supported by Labor. Check the merits of both policies.

Investment strategies

Rising recession risk and what it means for your portfolio

In this environment, safe-haven assets like Government bonds act as a diversifier given the uncorrelated nature to equities during periods of risk-off, while offering a yield above term deposit rates.

Investment strategies

‘Multidiscipline’: the secret of Bezos' and Buffett’s wild success

A key attribute of great investors is the ability to abstract away the specifics of a particular domain, leaving only the important underlying principles upon which great investments can be made.

Superannuation

Keep mandatory super pension drawdowns halved

The Transfer Balance Cap limits the tax concessions available in super pension funds, removing the need for large, compulsory drawdowns. Plus there are no requirements to draw money out of an accumulation fund.

Shares

Confession season is upon us: What’s next for equity markets

Companies tend to pre-position weak results ahead of 30 June, leading to earnings downgrades. The next two months will be critical for investors as a shift from ‘great expectations’ to ‘clear explanations’ gets underway.

Economy

Australia, the Lucky Country again?

We may have been extremely unlucky with the unforgiving weather plaguing the East Coast of Australia this year. However, on the economic front we are by many measures in a strong position relative to the rest of the world.

Exchange traded products

LIC discounts widening with the market sell-off

Discounts on LICs and LITs vary with market conditions, and many prominent managers have seen the value of their assets fall as well as discount widen. There may be opportunities for gains if discounts narrow.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.