For all its complexity, Scott Morrison's first federal budget will sink or swim on a very simple question. Is it fair? It's a question that has little to do with economic theory nor with the glossy reams of graphs and tables accompanying the 2016 blueprint.
And it's a question that if the government is not successful on Tuesday, will end up being defined by its opponents"
This is hardly news to Malcolm Turnbull who identified precisely this imperative upon replacing Tony Abbott last September. Abbott had lasted a turbulent two years but Turnbull believes his demise had begun inexorably just months into his reign via the pigheadedness of the 2014 Hockey budget.
In Turnbull's assessment, Abbott's failure was structural, just as his eventual fall was locked in. But as sure as Turnbull was that he had time on his side against Abbott, he knows now that he has no time to recover if this budget goes over badly. This is a one-shot deal.
All budgets, of course, are political but none have been delivered in quite the short-order sequence required of this one where the campaign will kick off just days later.
This unorthodox concertina means everything rests on the framing. Get that wrong, or fail to make it stick, and the budget will go from manifesto to albatross in a heartbeat.
Budget 2014 invokes memories of broken promises, rigid dogma, harshness, and unfairness. But that was not what Abbott and Hockey intended. Their talking points had stressed positives: fiscal discipline, economic responsibility, a future surplus, and user pays.
This is what happens when you have a budget designed by the government but then defined by the opposition.
Already these same lines are being drawn up. In Parliament on Monday Labor hammered the theme that by lifting the income threshold for the second highest tax bracket of 37 cents, the government is actually handing the well-off a cut while giving nothing to those below.
Ditto for the company tax cut. Turnbull will point to superannuation assistance for the low paid and cuts on tax concessions at the top end. Who wins this argument wins the election. It's that simple.
