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.

Simplistic ideas HB?
Well, I guess I have to bow to your expertise there mate?
However, given the outstanding paucity, of your own intellectual contributions or alternative/new ideas; (complex or simple) your principle skill seems contained to bagging the more progressive ideas of others, and with less than well thought through, ultra simplistic labels?
Rhrosty.

Rhosty

You have much to say on a great deal. I have much to say on a few subjects. I listen to everyone.
While I won't judge you nor stoop to simpleminded name calling I will offer this criticism.

None of us holds all the truth. All of us hold some of the truth. When one thinks they hold all the truth on everything generally I've found their hold on truth tenuous.

"The Liberal Party does have a view of the world, and it needs to be enunciated especially at times like these. Not everyone will like it, "

In fact about 80% of the population wouldn't like it, since the Liberal Party is now dominated by neo-liberal free-market fantasists, the very last thing Coalition politicians would ever be prepared to do, is, to actually enunciate their policies honestly and clearly, unlike some of the billionaire oligarchs who bankroll the party and who are alarmingly honest in expressing their contempt for social democracy. Certainly there's plenty of scope to reform our tax and welfare systems, however the current clique of reactionaries have no interest.

So instead of honesty, Abbott and his clique manufacture a phoney fiscal 'crisis', and then propose to save us from it, by lining the pockets of the plutocrats.

Who gives a rat's for the monumentally arrogant and ignorant opinions of arts and law graduates on climate change. The Coalition and its corporate supporters are playing a game that's is as old as the Industrial Revolution, deny the costs of externalities and transfer the burden on to the taxpayer, whether it's, asbestos, nicotine or climate change.

Many of the hardest working members of our society rely upon raises of the minimum wage to get their entitlement of the pie. The liberals always campaign against raising the minimum wage. Clearly explaining your worldview leaves you more open to criticism.

Excellent post, Don. I presume you've sent it to Abbott and Hockey?

Wolly B, says:

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

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

You've described the Labor-Green-Left parties whose every move is dictated by the union movement for the self interest of the union leaders, not their members and certainly not for the overall good of Australia.

Are you unaware of what the Abbott government was voted in to do and is already doing? Are you unaware of the Treasury's expenditure and revenue projections and the ever increasing debt? Are you unaware of the successes in International relations, Foreign Affairs and Trade already. In just 9 months, the Abbott Government has arguably been more successful in achieving these trade agreements than any previous government.

Why don't you take your ideological blinkers off and give credit to a genuinely honest and decent PM and a much more competent team than the Labor government we recently voted out in a landslide?

Just a question about negative gearing. I know many hard working couples who have bought a second house as an investment for their old age, or to provide housing for a child in years to come. They are only able to afford this because of negative gearing.
My question is. If negative gearing is removed, and all these small investors are pushed out of the market, who is going to provide the rental housing for the millions unable or unwilling to purchase their own home. Given the housing crisis, can we afford to reduce the number of rental homes available?

My fellow Australians.

I begin this speech the American way, because America is the country I want Australia to be and because Australia is not American enough.

We in government are a group of well-born, hyper well-off men (and some women), all educated at the most prestigious schools our taxpayers can subsidise. That gave us a silver-tailed network of equally well-off men (and some women) that opened all the right doors which led to the fabulous salaries and perks we earn today.

We are committed to the values that ensure men like us (and some women) will remain wealthy long after the electorate boots us out, so that we will be head-hunted by all the best mega-corporations we so aim to please.

We all know the greatest danger to democracy is a profitable government enterprise, one that earns revenue for the people instead of profits for private mega-corporations. So we are selling off what little remains of our public assets as quickly as possible.

We are proud of our macho Anzac tradition and will continue to screw the poor so we can afford to spend 100s of billions of taxpayer dollars on big shiny war weapons. That’s what courage and mateship is all about.

We are committed to the demonisation of all Australians who fall on hard times, because they are the losers and we are the winners. Hopefully, they’ll all disappear if we ignore them long enough. If not, we’ll just let them starve.

Thank you.

Big Nana, we already have the second highest house prices in the world, with Sydney already the most expensive city in the world.
And that's largely due to the follow on effects of Negative gearing.
As for intending retirees, well, there's another better option, called positive gearing!
In fact, if you are already a home owner, with a modest disposable income, you could, if courageous, buy some mining tenement houses?
New, on no deposit, and the tenant not only repays the loan, and $60.00 @ wk to you, but provides you, the eventual retiree, with a freehold retirement nest egg investment. All guaranteed by various mining co's?
The best options for the early bird, is around Australian operated mines, with an expected commercial life of not less than 90 years.
I can't mention builders by name here, but there's a debt free, competitive Queensland builder, who specializes in steel framed housing, that has a structural guarantee of fifty years; and comes replete with a water tank and solar power.
That said, at least 35% of today's population will never ever be able to afford a home, and are condemned to rent forever!
And that's hell for really cash strapped retirees! I mean and for heavens sake, a Sydney bedsit, already cost more than the single pension!
And given the new debt imposts on tertiary students, this tenant number can only ever grow!
At least, if we ended the welfare for the rich, that is negative gearing, [we are the only nation dumb enough to have it,] housing costs could then come down as debt laden speculators, were virtually forced to cut their losses and flee the market.
An outcome, which would be no bad thing, given the number of foreign speculators, and indeed, what their various nefarious activities inside the residential housing market, did to the Celtic tiger, and a burgeoning Spanish economy!
Not examples to emulate, I assure you!
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty,

Agree, I heard a report on the ABC that quoted third highest in relation to income, which is probably the more significant data. There's a real estate bubble and it will burst sooner or later and take a large proportion of the middle class down with it when their McMansions are valued at less than than their mortgages.