The dynamics, the needs and the ‘distractions’ of everyday life make most people overlook the public and media discussion that takes place every year, weeks before the announcement of the Federal Budget in early May.

This year, the first year of the Coalition in power, what has become public so far through leaks and through the efforts of the government and its allies who wish to test the waters and to build up political support, is the following? The intention to raise the pension age at some stage in the future to 70 years, ‘thoughts’ about cutting the budgets of the ABC and CSIRO, cuts to family benefits, the possible introduction of a $6 charge for every visit to the doctor, or the idea to allow private colleges to access government funding for undergraduate tertiary students.

All these cutting priorities are in the name of turning the deficit of the budget into a surplus. Cuts and structural reforms are needed in order to increase efficiency, productivity and the overall growth so that everyone can benefit, argues the government and its allies.

Raising the pension age to 70 is justifiable and desirable in view of the ageing of the population, says the government and others. Australia will have the oldest pensionable age in the world if the Federal Government lifts it to 70 by 2030, say its opponents. Without mention of the fact that compared to OECD countries, Australia has quite a favourable demographic profile due to immigration.

However, as much as it is important to have arguments for and against specific policies, it is equally important to use the specifics in order to highlight other greater strategic alternatives that exist and if taken into consideration might alter a budget and its priorities.

For example, the issue of who pays the bill, when it comes to budgetary revenues or expenses, is of the utmost importance. The government is aiming to cut down on its expenses and at the same time is cutting down on its revenue, by advocating the abolition of the mining tax and of the carbon tax.

The government and its allies concentrate on cuts and they deliberately leave entirely out of the equation the revenue side of the budget. If such a discussion is to take place or is to be heard, then one of the fundamental issues that will come up is who is paying what through their taxes, for what purposes and whether or not there is a need in Australia to broaden or to alter the tax-revenue base of the country.

Another issue that is left almost entirely out of the discussion when we address budget priorities is whether or not the deficit is by definition something bad. Is it bad to borrow money, as a government, or as a private individual, or as a business, in order to create wealth? Is it bad for the Australian government to borrow money and to be in debt if this debt ensures the building of the infrastructure of future wealth, such as the National Broadband Network, or the funding of the CSIRO?

Does the Australian public know, for example, that according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, where all economically advanced countries belong, the gross public debt of its member countries, in relation to their Gross Domestic Product (GDP), this year is expected to topple the 117 per cent mark?

Does anyone tell the Australian public that the government debt to GDP ratio in Germany is 80 per cent, in the UK almost 90 per cent, in France 93.5 per cent, in the US debt above 100 per cent, in Japan above 230 per cent and in Canada around 85 per cent? In contrast, the Australian debt sits at around 30 per cent!

Furthermore, public debt at all levels of government is tiny by historical standards and it is sustainable. This country’s history shows that increases in the public debt to GDP ratio have two causes; world wars and responses to economic downturns caused by private debt-financed speculation. Worth mentioning is also the fact that private debt in Australia, as a proportion of GDP, is overwhelmingly larger than public debt.

Until the public debate takes into consideration all of the above, the budget in May and the dominant economic discussion in Australia will be defined by the pro-Coalition forces and their ideologies.