Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 15

The consequences of sustained budget deficits

Last December, the Federal Government discarded its oft-repeated promise of delivering a budget surplus this year. In April, it ’fessed up to the deficit being a big one. And instead of a run of surpluses as our economy returns to good health, we’re now told we’ll ‘fail our future’ if we don’t run budget deficits for a while. The Government is only beginning to tell us how grim the budget outlook really is. The risk is that we’ll run a substantial budget deficit over the whole cycle in varying economic conditions.

It’s timely to consider what this abrupt switch in fiscal strategy might mean for the economy and for investors, particularly those planning for, or already in, their retirement years.

The long-held promise of a budget surplus

The promise of a budget surplus in the financial year that’s now ending was made back in 2010. The Government wanted to reassure voters that the large budget deficits it would be running during the global financial crisis would soon be wound back and reversed; there’d not be a sustained build up in government debt. Also, the Cabinet had wanted a way of restraining some of their big spending colleagues and backbenchers (older readers might recall the ‘trilogy’ adopted by the Hawke-Keating government to impose fiscal discipline).

On many occasions, the Gillard Government took the commitment to deliver a budget surplus too far, arguing the surplus would be delivered ‘come hell or high water’ and Australia running a budget surplus this year would stand as ‘one of the eight economic wonders of the modern world’.

The deterioration in the budget numbers

The deterioration in the budget numbers for the current financial year mainly reflects the fact that the Government and Treasury have now moved to more realistic numbers for tax revenues, replacing the highly optimistic numbers they’d earlier employed both for the current financial year and for the forward estimates.

Also, the Government is committing to, but is only partly funding, significant new spending programs such as the Gonski reforms to schools policies and DisabilityCare (formerly called National Disability Insurance Scheme). There’s no doubting these policies’ appeal and there’s a good deal of bi-partisan support for them. But they will have to be paid for one way or another.

Government revenues from income taxes haven’t collapsed. Instead – and has been apparent for some time - growth in tax revenues has slowed because of modest growth in nominal incomes. However, from the start, projected revenues from two new taxes had been fancifully high.

The Minerals Resource Rental Tax, which the Government rushed through in 2010 after the debacle of the Resources Super Profits Tax, included revenue forecasts based on commodity prices that, though never made public, were extremely ambitious. They must have assumed that prices for coal and iron ore would stay near record highs for three or four years.

Forecasts for receipts from the carbon tax were built on expectations of a carbon price of $29 a tonne in 2015 – and were not downgraded even when Australia first tied its carbon price to the European price, which was always likely to be weak because of the over-supply of permits and sluggish economies there. The amended forecast is a carbon price of $15 in 2015 (still more than three times the current European price).

Why the structural deficit or surplus is important

Both major parties have long expressed the view – shared, I think, by a majority of voters – that the budget should be balanced over the economic cycle. This enables the budget to be used to moderate the business cycle via both its ‘automatic stabilisers’ and through discretionary changes to revenue and spending, while still avoiding excessive build up of government debt over the medium-term and longer. This anchor for fiscal policy has served Australia well for many years.

For this reason, the budget deficit or surplus has to be looked at in structural (or cyclically-adjusted) terms as well as in cash terms. Deutsche Bank ran the numbers prior to the release of the 2013 budget numbers, and concluded that “the structural deficit (ie abstracting from the impacts of higher commodity prices and the economic cycle) will be around 2¼% of GDP in 2012-13. Looking forward we estimate the structural deficit will still be around 2¼% come 2016-17 … we see the structural deficit averaging more than was seen under either the Whitlam or Fraser governments.”

Of course, most other western countries have structural budgets and levels of government debt on issue significantly higher than ours, although Canada and New Zealand are likely to return to surplus before we do. And the Coalition Government didn’t run surpluses as large as the prosperous times before the global financial crisis really dictated they should have. Norway’s larger surpluses, fed in that country’s sovereign wealth fund, suggest the route we should have followed.

Stammer deficits

Stammer deficits

The worry about persistent deficits

In the words of the Grattan Institute, persistent budget deficits “incur interest payments, and limit future borrowings … they can unfairly shift costs between generations, and reduce flexibility in a crisis”. In my view, the problems facing Europe, where the global financial crisis morphed into a sovereign debt crisis, demonstrate the pain that comes from persistent budget deficits (aggravated of course by the common currency). Deutsche Bank adds, “given the budget will be in deficit … the Federal Government is now contributing to the current account deficit”.

A balanced budget over the economic cycle is generally favourable for investors, because it improves prospects that real returns in assets will be more stable, predictable and attractive than they’d otherwise be. Similarly, a balanced budget over the economic cycle generally helps to restrain inflation which, when tolerated, creates pain and uncertainty for investors, particularly for self-funded retirees living from savings.

Deutsche Bank also reminds us that “to the extent that unaffordable policies drive dire projections of the budget position, such policies will not see the light of day in unaltered form” - and, I’d add, they can cause the government to cut deeply into current programmes, even popular and efficient ones. When governments live beyond their means, uncertainties build up and costs are imposed because the bills still have to be paid somehow.

Don Stammer is an adviser to the Third Link Growth Fund, Altius Asset Management and Philo Capital. The views expressed are his alone.


Leave a Comment:



Four steps to resurrecting Australia

Are recessions a thing of the past?

Budget time and Labor v Liberal on fiscal discipline


Most viewed in recent weeks

How to enjoy your retirement

Amid thousands of comments, tips include developing interests to keep occupied, planning in advance to have enough money, staying connected with friends and communities ... should you defer retirement or just do it?

Results from our retirement experiences survey

Retirement is a good experience if you plan for it and manage your time, but freedom from money worries is key. Many retirees enjoy managing their money but SMSFs are not for everyone. Each retirement is different.

A tonic for turbulent times: my nine tips for investing

Investing is often portrayed as unapproachably complex. Can it be distilled into nine tips? An economist with 35 years of experience through numerous market cycles and events has given it a shot.

Rival standard for savings and incomes in retirement

A new standard argues the majority of Australians will never achieve the ASFA 'comfortable' level of retirement savings and it amounts to 'fearmongering' by vested interests. If comfortable is aspirational, so be it.

Dalio v Marks is common sense v uncommon sense

Billionaire fund manager standoff: Ray Dalio thinks investing is common sense and markets are simple, while Howard Marks says complex and convoluted 'second-level' thinking is needed for superior returns.

Fear is good if you are not part of the herd

If you feel fear when the market loses its head, you become part of the herd. Develop habits to embrace the fear. Identify the cause, decide if you need to take action and own the result without looking back. 

Latest Updates


The paradox of investment cycles

Now we're captivated by inflation and higher rates but only a year ago, investors were certain of the supremacy of US companies, the benign nature of inflation and the remoteness of tighter monetary policy.


Reporting Season will show cost control and pricing power

Companies have been slow to update guidance and we have yet to see the impact of inflation expectations in earnings and outlooks. Companies need to insulate costs from inflation while enjoying an uptick in revenue.


The early signals for August company earnings

Weaker share prices may have already discounted some bad news, but cost inflation is creating wide divergences inside and across sectors. Early results show some companies are strong enough to resist sector falls.


The compelling 20-year flight of SYD into private hands

In 2002, the share price of the company that became Sydney Airport (SYD) hit 80 cents from the $2 IPO price. After 20 years of astute investment driving revenue increases, it sold to private hands for $8.75 in 2022.

Investment strategies

Ethical investing responding to some short-term challenges

There are significant differences in the sector weightings of an ethical fund versus an index, and while this has caused some short-term headwinds recently, the tailwinds are expected to blow over the long term.

Investment strategies

If you are new to investing, avoid these 10 common mistakes

Many new investors make common mistakes while learning about markets. Losses are inevitable. Newbies should read more and develop a long-term focus while avoiding big mistakes and not aiming to be brilliant.

Investment strategies

RMBS today: rising rate-linked income with capital preservation

Lenders use Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities to finance mortgages and RMBS are available to retail investors through fund structures. They come with many layers of protection beyond movements in house prices. 



© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

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.