TWO particular sets of numbers caught my attention in the federal budget brought down last week by Treasurer Joe Hockey, and in the subsequent deluge of post-budget analysis.
Subscribe now for unlimited access to all our agricultural news
across the nation
or signup to continue reading
First, we heard from Jolly Joe that the savings provided for in the budget should reduce government debt by nearly $300 billion after 10 years, reducing the national interest bill by some $16 billion.
Second, we learned that while this budget would slice an average five per cent off the disposable incomes of the lowest 20pc of income earners, it would strip just 0.3pc off those in the top 20pc.
These two sets of numbers starkly illustrate two of the truisms of this first Abbott-Hockey budget: first, that something had to be done to rein in spending; second, that some of the remedies chosen are inherently unfair.
As others have noted, Australia was not yet facing a budget "crisis", by OECD member country standards, but the time had certainly come for a bold government to start the painful process of balancing the books.
Farmers know better than anyone how interest on runaway debt can sap the life out of a business and constrain productive endeavour.
So it is with nations, and as Hockey told us in his budget speech, the money the government is projected to save in interest after 10 years would be enough to build 15 new teaching hospitals each year.
But just how much of the projected savings outlined in the budget will be achievable is a moot point, given the opposition most of the measures will encounter in the Senate.
It was no surprise the Abbott government used the budget to start clawing back on welfare spending, given the recent revelation one in five Australians is now on the government "take", in one form or another.
But perhaps, in the interests of equity (and navigating a hostile Senate), the cuts should have been directed more at over-generous middle-class welfare - a legacy of the Howard era - than at the young jobless and students.
The "earn or learn" mantra is easy to roll off the tongue, but many young people who are trained and willing to work can't get jobs, and the fault lies not with them, but our inflexible, reality-defying wage system.
On the other hand, access to the age pension needs to be tightened, to prevent it being drawn (as it is now) by people well able to provide for themselves.
Negative gearing should be on the table for discussion, and Abbott's paid parental leave scheme has no place in the 2014 budget mix.
As for the $80 billion hit over 10 years to health and education, it's quite clear only a ramping-up of the GST will enable the States to discharge their responsibilities in these vital areas, and the Feds should be championing that reform, not flick-passing it to the States.
One of the positive elements of the budget, from a nation-building point of view, was the new support measures announced for TAFE students and apprentices.
We need more skilled tradespeople and fewer academics.
Also welcome was the announcement of a further $11.6b funding for much-needed infrastructure projects, provided rural areas get their fair share.
The farm sector appears to have come through the budget process with only minor abrasions, and the vital $320m drought support measures announced earlier this year remain intact.
With some 16,000 public service jobs to go, it's evident the government is counting on a re-energised private sector to pick up the slack in the economy as the mining boom winds down.
Agriculture and food processing will be a key part of this new growth phase - but only if they can afford the labour to keep the wheels of industry turning.