Smaller government is never going to be achieved by government policy -- read Parkinson's Law for a good explanation why. It's going to take a constitutional change, which in turn will require a move to legally-binding citizen-initiated referenda like those now operating in California. They have their problems, but at least they allow genuine democracy to operate.

What the PM might have said, or better yet, given in writing before the election, goes like this!
Fellow Australians, we are planning a budget, which will leave the rich and welfare for the rich largely untouched.
We do this because, this demographic are our core voting constituent.
We plan to tighten real welfare for the real needy, with cuts to tertiary education, which we plan to make much more expensive.
We plan to widen the gap between the haves and the have nots, and quite dramatically increase the numbers living below the poverty line.
We do this, spin and obfuscate, because we feel this ideological inspired outcome, is for the privileged classes, and our principle voting demographic, a better Australia.

We did have other choices, such as ending negative gearing, 5 Billion per.
Ending preferential treatment of wealthy individuals' super, 30 rising to 50 billions in the second term of our government, saved.
We could have ended health insurance subsidies, and accompanied that with mandated means testing of all currently free health services.
Which would have clawed back in total, another 18 billion per.

A sub total of around 53 billions; meaning not only no deficit, but a modest surplus as well, stretching out as far as the eye could see!

Finally we could have wound up Family trusts, and saved or clawed back another 30 or so annual billions.

However, doing any or most of the latter, would have destroyed the illusion of a budget emergency, and completely destroyed our possibly last remaining chance, of reinstating ideologically inspired, unearned privilege!

Ended Family Trust assisted tax avoidance, could have been redirected at the much touted HMRD fund, and fully funded it, in just a single year!
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty are you really not aware that Labor under Keating tried many of those simplistic ideas, & found themselves rushing headlong into a catastrophe at an alarming rate. They reverted to better systems, & have continued with them.

They did learn for a little while, the law of unintended consequences.

It appears you did not, & want to reinvent the wheel, but have yet to realise, a wheel must be round to work.

Obviously the dills now running labor have similar ideas, or are professing they do, if only to pick up the young & foolish. We must pray they never get the chance to destroy what they left us of our economy, after the last bunch.

"We are open for Business", wonder what that really means?

Backdoor deals, corruption, bribery, Tax dodging, dishonesty.

Let us in Australia make a deal for you, a deal you can't refuse.

Don,
Have you only been listening to the ABC and listening to or reading only Fairfax because all of what you have said has been said by Abbott and his Team since the budget?

And to paraphaseTurnbull, they are all senior ministers in government and won't take dictation from mere commentators. I'd add; especially from those hard of hearing or with only one blinkered eye or from those with limited comprehension skills.

Hasbeen, the Law of unintended consequences, simply cannot be applied to something never ever tried!
Keating's only problem, was internal dissent and a loss of bottle?
And from the historical record, which of my ideas and his, were in any which way, similar or the same!?
One of the unintended consequences of a flat earth, would be the rapid loss of all our water, which would run away over the edges.
So contrary to popular if very ignorant opinion, the world clearly is not flat.
Even so, some extremely ignorant believe it to be true, given their ideologically generated belief system demands that it is!
Patently, when ideology replaces reason and logic, not only do we get people who belong to the flat earth society, or the tea party, (same diff) but just such budget outcomes!?
And I don't say that Labor has any better ideas, or sharper pencils in the packet.
I mean, it takes no intelligence whatsoever, to just say no!
Or worse, ignore really good ideas, cause they came from the wrong side of the isle!
I don't prefer one side ahead of the other, but generally tend to "dislike" all politicians equally, but particularly, those that learn nothing and simply keep repeating the mistakes of the past, or worse, nation harming divide and rule policies!
An honest politician?
Well, that's one hell of an oxymoron eh?
We can do so much better than this!
Rhrosty.