If, as many say, Dr Chalmers handed down a classic pre-election budget on Tuesday then Peter Dutton certainly responded in kind. His budget reply, arguably one of his stronger performances to date, was a pitch to position himself as an alternative prime minister and the LNP as an alternative government.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
While, as was to be expected, the speech included the usual Coalition Canberra bashing, he did target numerous weaknesses in Tuesday's budget and took advantage of almost every opening the government's lacklustre recent performance presented.
That said, there is no doubt that he and the Coalition are planning a highly populist campaign for an election some say could be held before Christmas. It's hard to fault them for that, however. As populism goes it's hard to top a $300 electricity bill handout that goes to every household in the country, regardless of how well off its members might be.
With a laser-like focus on the cost-of-living crisis and the collapse of housing affordability, the opposition is attacking the government at its weakest point. When, as he asked on Thursday night, "are you better off than you were two years ago?" Mr Dutton wasn't just upcycling a line from his 2023 budget reply. He was treading a well worn path laid down by many contenders before him.
The question, then expressed as "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" was famously asked of voters by Ronald Reagan during his debate against President Carter in 1980. It was seen as a turning point in that election campaign with Carter's numbers tanking in the weeks and months that followed.
While time, and repetition, has turned this into a political trope, there is no reason to believe it has lost its power to resonate with the electorate.
The same goes for Mr Dutton's last question to the electorate in the final moments of his speech: "Do you feel safer and more secure than you did two years ago?"
In light of recent events within Australia and what is happening in Gaza, Ukraine and many other parts of the world a lot of people would say "no" to that.
There is no question Labor is vulnerable on border security, law and order and the issue of anti-Semitism as a result of recent boat arrivals, the university protests, domestic violence and the Bondi Junction murders.
Mr Dutton is, once again, playing to what have traditionally been Coalition strengths while at the same time arguably dog-whistling to many on the right who are against immigration, government intervention, and the like.
While he was careful to preface his proposed cuts to immigration with an acknowledgment of the role migrants have played in developing Australia, there is no doubt the policies themselves would be well received by supporters of One Nation and others. It's also quietly ironic given that, as recently as two years ago, Mr Dutton was saying "we do need an increase in the migration numbers".
And, while once again Mr Dutton reaffirmed the LNP's support for nuclear power, we are still waiting on the detail. This is despite reports earlier this year that an announcement on possible sites was expected before the budget.
There are also, of course, the vexed questions of what technology to use, how much nuclear would cost and how long it would take.
The reality is that despite its small sprinkling of announcables and policy proposals the budget response was a classic "attack" speech straight out of the Abbott playbook.
Can the LNP win government by simply throwing rocks at Labor's glass house? Just because that worked in 2013 doesn't mean it would work today.
More detail is needed.
