Budget talk: Rhetorical constraints and contests

Abstract

This article examines the budget surplus debate that occurred during the Gillard minority government (2010–13) to broaden the range of linguistic phenomena that are typically scrutinised in relation to Australian political rhetoric. The budget debate reveals the persistent efforts of both major parties to compete for control of the normative force that derives from using what Skinner calls ‘evaluative–descriptive terms’. In this case, ‘responsible economic government’ was the legitimating principle, yet use of this term became entwined with the issue of trustworthiness. Delivering a budget surplus by 2012–13 was converted from a judgement regarding prudent macro-management into an election promise. Thus, Labor surrendered rhetorical control of a flexible legitimating principle for an immobile test of morality, to its political misfortune.

本文研究了杰拉德少数党执政（2010—13）期间发生的关于预算剩余的辩论，这个辩论扩展了一般会与澳大利亚政治修辞结合起来考察的语言现象。预算的辩论显示，两个主要政党总是争夺规范性力量，这力量即斯金纳所谓“评—述词汇”。“负责任的经济政府”是成为了价值的原则，但这个词的使用与是否值得信任的话题纠缠在了一起。兑现2012至13年的预算剩余，从一个关于审慎宏观管理的判断转化成为了选战承诺。工党放弃了一种灵活的合法化原则而取一种固定的道德检查，这在政治上是不幸的。

Keywords:

• Australian politics
• budget politics
• language
• rhetoric

Notes

¹In the British context, the political effects of the GFC played out in a different way. Consider Watson's assessment:

The money that was thrown at the difficulties in the banking sector did not allow the Brown government to retain control over New Labour's own cherished credibility discourse. As it surrendered its long-held lead on questions of economic governing competence, it was unable to stop the financial crisis from becoming a political event which fatally holed its re-election chances. (Watson 2013: 18)

²Within this field, the present study is especially indebted to the work of Grube (2010, 2011) and Kane and Patapan (2010). Corcoran's (1979) Political Language and Rhetoric was a pioneering study in the Australian context. The international literature is enormous but for a penetrating account of the stakes of the ‘rhetorical turn’, see Finlayson (2004).

³Johnson (1989) is the best-known exponent of the continuity thesis, which holds that the supposed break from Labor tradition is typically overstated. For statements of the ‘discontinuity thesis’, see Maddox (1989) and Battin (1997). Bramble and Kuhn (2009) also state the continuity case, but from the perspective of the ‘material constitution’ of the ALP, so they are less interested in ideas or ideology. As Johnson (2011: 563) noted, the terms ‘continuity’ and ‘discontinuity’ are probably misleading, since the differing positions are not as starkly contrasting as the labels suggest. See Condren's (1994) exemplary study on the difficulties faced when studying word use as if that were the same thing as studying ideas and ideology. Maddox, another participant in the ALP tradition debate, repeatedly signalled the importance of language to ideology, albeit without putting this insight to empirical use (see Maddox 1989, intro., ch. 8). In doing so, he drew on Dunn (1984). This emphasis was noted by Burgmann (2005).

⁴This was acknowledged when the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998 (Attorney-General's Department 1998) was initially debated. Gareth Evans, then deputy leader of the opposition, said that the principles of fiscal management represent a ‘rather bland and meaningless set of motherhood statements […] these kinds of principles are essentially meaningless in statutory guise’ (Hansard 1997).

⁵Such practices might be unavoidable given inadequate prescription of how government accounts are to be presented (see Wines and Scarborough 2006).

⁶Consider, by contrast, the word ‘courageous’, which requires that someone (a) takes an action that is dangerous, and (b) they do so voluntarily and in full consciousness and awareness of the danger. We take this example from (Skinner 1989: 9–10).