As Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's first budget nears, Canberra is abuzz with speculation about what programs may get the chop - or at least whittled.
Grim assessments of past federal budgets aren't uncommon for incoming governments, according to Nick Economou, senior lecturer in politics at Monash University.
It's typical for new governments to announce that finances are worse than people were told. The government then has an excuse to "put nasty things in place in the interest of economic and financial responsibility'', he said.
With room to manoeuvre on priorities firmly established, the government gives and it takes away. Historically, a skilled government can afford to alienate voters in the near term as long as it wins them back - group by group - over the long run.
That cycle is likely to begin again.
Here's a look at budgets that mattered over the years.
The 2000 budget of prime minister John Howard introduced various GST measures. They brought about a slowdown in the building sector "partly because (it) anticipated the change and people were rushing to get things finished before it took effect," Dr Economou said.
"There was a dramatic decline in building activity," he said, "which in turn led to Howard considering the First Home Buyers scheme."
The 1998 Howard budget moved the Australian government from deficit to surplus, a position it has held consistently since. "It was a major turning point in fiscal policy," said University of Canberra economics professor Phil Lewis. "It's a marked success for the Australian economy."
Running surpluses meant lower taxes and no need to pay for interest on debt.
"Australia remains alone in the developed world in not running a deficit," Professor Lewis said. And the surplus predates the resources economy, which really only began to be felt by the government after 2005.
The 1996 Howard budget introduced significant social spending cuts, with only defence protected. It also set the stage for the future introduction of the GST.
"We see that sometimes in first-year budgets, they dispense with the nasty stuff and try to mitigate what they've done in the lead-up to the next election," Dr Economou said.
The 1993 Keating budget, known as "The L-A-W law tax cuts" budget, after prime minister Paul Keating legislated for tax cuts before election. When asked if they would be delivered, he said they were "L-A-W law".
"They never did come, did they?" said Dr Economou. "Clearly it's one of the things that contributed to the unpopularity of the Keating government by 1996."
Mr Keating "had just been re-elected by opposing the GST," said Simon Banks of government lobby group Hawker Britton.
Mr Banks, who managed the Kevin07 campaign, said Mr Keating, "had to announce spending cuts and make the decision to transfer income tax cuts into superannuation".
"It was regarded as controversial at the time," he said.
In the same budget, treasurer John Dawkins proposed removing certain health-care coverage. The move fomented an electoral backlash that eventually ushered the Keating government out of office. He lost to John Howard in 1996.
"It shows the first signs his government was falling apart," Dr Economou said.
In 1987, when he was prime minister Bob Hawke's treasurer, Paul Keating cut expenditure to states and limited government spending. The shift forced states to look for alternate sources of revenues, such as those from gambling licences. Soon after, states began licensing pokies and building casinos.
The changes took effect as the stock market crashed in 1987 and the country entered a recession. "It put the burden on state governments" said Dr Economou. That brought about a complete turnover in state governments by 1992.
"He put in place circumstances to make the recession even worse," Dr Economou said.
The first Hawke budget of 1983 established Medicare, which was financed by a 1% levy on income, introducing universal state-funded health care, which continues to enjoy broad public support.
Mr Hawke used the budget to stimulate the economy, which was in recession then, by putting money into programs aimed at hiring people, increasing welfare and providing tax cuts aimed at increasing demand.
The 1983 budget floated the dollar and moved control of its rate of exchange from the Reserve Bank to the global market.
Soon after, the Reserve Bank of Australia took over the job of setting interest rates.
Ironically, the changes lessened the economic importance of the federal budget. It also reduced the need for secrecy before rate change disclosures.
But governments remain tight-lipped today in the lead-up to the budget lock-up, when the media get a few hours to get a preview of the federal budget before the public does.
The budget of 1975 is considered one of the most important, according to Mr Banks, because the Opposition refused to pass appropriate bills to allow prime minister Gough Whitlam's budget to become law.
Governor-general John Kerr then installed Malcolm Fraser as the head of a caretaker government to resolve the impasse.
It's worth noting that the budget itself was considered economically responsible and was later passed by Mr Fraser, Dr Economou said.
"Mr Fraser had no quarrel with the budget, but it served as an excuse to dismiss the Whitlam government," Dr Economou said.
