Boredom and the budget

A new pointer for Pravin: Keep it simple, keep it short.

While I was preparing for a recent radio interview with Ashraf Garda on the Sunday SAfm media slot about jargon in the budget speech and journalists’ responsibility to simplify that, it occurred to me to look at budget speeches elsewhere.

I looked at only two others, those of Commonwealth countries that would have the same traditions of a finance minister standing up in Parliament and reading a budget speech, a tradition inherited from the British Parliament.

Both speeches were short by comparison with the most recent budget speech by Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan: Around 3 500 words compared with around Gordhan’s 9 300 words — more than twice as long.

The speeches of both the Australian and Canadian ministers cut out all the preamble, the reference to the President’s vision, the mention of worthy people present, and the thank yous at the end.

For example, Wayne Swan addressing the Australian Parliament in May last year got straight into it:

Mr Speaker, of Australia’s 18 years of continuous economic expansion, Australians can be proudest of the one just passed.

Not just because together we avoided recession when almost all other advanced economies did not.

Not just because together we created 225 000 jobs when many other advanced economies were shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs.

But because our shared successes put us in a position of strength from which we will build growth and opportunity, and secure the future.

A position of strength from which we will build a modern tax and retirement incomes system, invest in renewable energy, and deliver historic health and hospital reform.

A position of strength from which we will build the skills base and capital stock we need for a new generation of prosperity.

Tonight we meet the highest standards of responsible economic management.

Or take the Canadian Finance Minister:

As I rise in this House today, our nation is at a crossroads.

We have passed through some steep and rocky terrain.

Much of the territory was uncharted.

We were prepared, and we protected ourselves.

We are making our way through, and our compass has not failed us.

The way forward remains challenging.

Some would urge us to turn at this crossroads.

Experience tells us this would eventually lead us backward.

We need to keep helping those who need a hand up.

We need to stay on course.

We can see our destination on the horizon.

It is a high point, not only in our nation’s history of increasing prosperity, but also a high point to which the world will look for inspiration.

It is a Canada in which our children and grandchildren will surpass us.

It is a Canada for which they will be grateful.

They will be grateful as we are grateful for the work and wisdom of Canadians before us.

As for actual jargon, the Canadian and Australian ministers had some, but not much. And they kept the mention of figures to a minimum.

But never mind what they do elsewhere. There is all the more reason not to have long-winded speeches in South Africa because of our regime of transparency.

There is really little need for so much detail in the speech. All the figures, and much more, are available on the Treasury’s website. Callers who phoned in to complain about a lack of detail either don’t know or are too lazy to look for what they want in the nicely sorted information available there.

In South Africa, as I told Ashraf, big chunks of Gordhan’s budget speech would have gone straight over most people’s heads. Terms like “gross fixed capital formation” and “debt-to-GDP ratio” are hard enough to understand if you’re a mother-tongue English speaker. Yet most of our nation speaks some other language. And most of them don’t understand what journalist and commentator Allister Sparks once called South Africa’s 12th official language, economics.

I realise that the budget speech is not a straightforward information exercise, but is a highly political exercise of sending out messages to various constituencies. To be successful the budget has to balance a wide variety of interests. Taxpayers and investors need to be re-assured, ordinary citizens encouraged, the union movement appeased, and the South African Communist Party placated.

It also has to set out where the ruling party stands on key issues — witness the opening statements of the two speeches by the Canadian and the Australian Finance Ministers. And witness Gordhan’s quiet but public refusal to be influenced by Cosatu into having a bigger and unsustainable gap between State spending and revenue.

Yet does the budget speech have to be such a test of patience?

Former finance minister Derek Keys once delivered a speech of a few pages long, and when questioned about it pointed out all the necessary information was in the voluminous Budget Review already.

I don’t remember anyone complaining.

Perhaps Ashraf’s suggestion is the way to go. Effectively have two budget speeches: One for ordinary people; one for business, economists and investors. The budget for ordinary people would be the official one; a later speech, more formal than present post-budget briefings, would set out economic impacts, forecasts and spending and tax plans in great detail.

A simpler, shorter budget speech will not affect the role of journalists, who still have a role to play in ferreting out stories in the budget, and in explaining some of the financial jargon and examining how it represents reality. It does make sense for the ruling party to communicate better with its supporters and potential supporters.