The practice of presenting the budget to parliament came out of a crisis, and illuminates its political nature. In 1733, after months of heated rumour, the British Prime Minister Robert Walpole (pictured) announced a plan to impose an excise tax on wine and tobacco.
The purported intent was to curb customs fraud, but it was seen to shift the tax burden borne by land-owning gentry onto consumables, with greater impact on the poor.
It was met with vehement outrage. The first budget reply was published by Walpole's fellow Whig, William Pulteney, who mocked the announcement of an open secret as the 'art of political legerdemain'.
In other words, budget presentation did not start out as a neutral exercise in transparency but as a mishandled piece of political communication and a misreading of what commoners are willing to bear. This would have felt the case for the Coalition government for most of last year, as it struggled to justify proposed changes to Medicare, university fees and youth allowance.
Few would now contend that a massive deficit is inconsequential, but in framing revenue decline as a spending problem rather than a fiscal or structural one, Treasurer Joe Hockey last year delivered a budget that had the greatest impact on those least able to bear it. The intense political backlash and ensuing policy reversals seem to have raised a degree of circumspection.
For instance, the upcoming budget seeks to consolidate the Childcare Benefit and the Childcare Rebate into a single, means-tested payment. It is a sensible move. The non-means tested rebate cannot be sustained when so many families struggle to pay fees upfront. It is worth asking, however, how far the proposed tapering goes in improving childcare accessibility for struggling parents, when families earning more than $250,000 are still eligible for 20 per cent subsidy.
Tightening the asset test for pensions is also a tempered approach to the budget deficit. Retirees who own their own homes and have other assets worth more than $823,000 will no longer be able to claim a part-pension. The policy would leave low- to middle-income retirees $30 better off each fortnight, while also saving the government around $2.4B over two years.
In other words, the Abbott government seems to have found a few savings options that it can sell. Rigorous means or asset tests that recalibrate social expenditure in favour of those in greater need are easier to justify than an indiscriminate hack-and-slash.
It also