They are obviously worried with the Abbott/Turnbull governments having lost more than 60 Newspolls, and facing an electorate that increasingly doesn’t believe in, or trust, governments anymore, taking any political promises with a large grain of salt.

Experiencing an unexpected boost to revenue, the government decided to spend some, give some modest tax cuts, initially targeted to low income earners, and promise to return the budget to surplus next year, one year earlier than promised last year.

There are some modest spending cuts to the ABC, migrants, welfare, and foreign aid, with new spending concentrated on pensioners, spies, churches, and infrastructure, although the latter is now mostly moved “off budget”, as major projects are now being assumed to be commercially viable, where the government takes an equity position, rather than funding them out of grants, thereby, initially at least, minimising the impact on the budget’s cash balance. 

Revenue is topped up significantly, from combating illicit tobacco, and clamp downs on the black economy, the research and development tax incentive, and superannuation – indeed, these four initiatives equate to about 85 percent of the cost of the personal tax cuts over the Budget period. 

The personal tax cuts are strange, initially concentrated on low income earners offering up to just $10 per week, but to be paid as an offset to this year’s tax, so not to be received as a lump sum until next July/August, after the next election.

Then, over the period to 2024, after probably at least two elections, the tax scales will be flattened to three scales, with the second scale for incomes from about $41,000 to $200,000 per year (about 74 percent of taxpayers) facing the same marginal tax rate of 32.5 percent, thereby dramatically reducing the progressivity of the personal tax system. The government wants to legislate this as a package.

This has allowed the Shorten Opposition to run a large part of their election campaign on fairness, accusing the government of paying out to the rich, the banks, and other multinationals, while not offering low income earners very much, and not increasing the Newstart unemployment benefit, or the base of the aged pension.

Again the return to surplus has been assumed, that is by assuming a significant improvement in wages and overall economic growth. These assumptions may prove particularly optimistic, against the risks and unpredictability of the global economy, and global geo-political tensions, especially as Trump threatens to wage various wars on trade, and maybe others.

Our economy is not all that strong, with household debt at record levels, and mounting job insecurity, where our policy authorities, especially the Reserve Bank, have very limited capacity to respond to another GFC, or a stock, bond, property, and/or currency market correction.

The big question for the government is whether this very modest tax relief, and some targeted spending, will be accepted by voters struggling to meet the ever mounting costs of living, day-in-day-out, rather than an attempt to deal directly with rising electricity prices, collapsing housing affordability, and the increasing costs of childcare, school fees, medical insurance, and so on.

It’s a political gamble. I suspect most voters will vote for good government, even if it costs them a little more in some cases, rather than shallow, and perhaps undeliverable, attempts to buy them off.