There was plenty of material for the Federal Opposition Leader to work with as he delivered the budget reply. But it's hard to tell how much of it merely reflects the diabolical nature of the proposed changes to longstanding social compacts such as universal healthcare and youth unemployment assistance, and how much signals a genuine, substantive escalation of Labor opposition.
If the response from the public gallery and social media is any measure, then Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Treasurer Joe Hockey may have just done Bill Shorten a huge favour.
In the decade under John Howard, Labor leaders in opposition slid to the middle, perhaps in the belief that offending the least number of people was a suitable strategy for winning office. Kim Beazley and Simon Crean, with three turns between them, were an unremarkable blur. Mark Latham proved a combustible anomaly.
Then came WorkChoices. It came into effect in March 2006, exempting companies with under 101 employees from unfair dismissal laws, removing the 'no disadvantage test' for workplace agreements and restricting industrial action. Kevin Rudd became leader of the Labor Party later that year. Notwithstanding his merit as a candidate, including that his candidacy came at the tail-end of Howard's fourth term as Prime Minister, there is no doubt that the unions-led campaign against WorkChoices was pivotal to handing government to Labor.
In other words, successful opposition seems to rely heavily on people getting terribly het up about something. But it takes a clever opposition leader to channel this in his favour. What Shorten has been handed this week is several WorkChoices with which to galvanise people. He needed it.
Since he became Labor leader in October last year, the running gag whenever someone mentions the Opposition Leader is to feign shock and say 'We have one?' It seems harsh until one takes into account the tepid response over the past few months to the strangulation of the Gonski school funding reforms, the National Broadband Network (NBN) and DisabilityCare (NDIS). These are legacy items. Frankly I had expected far more screaming and eye-gouging from the Opposition. A bit of blood on the floor, even.
I'm not alone in my exasperation. Prior to the Budget reply, the descriptors people offered to me about Shorten included 'invisible', 'wet lettuce' and 'damp loo paper'. These are people I think of as critically engaged and progressive. It's not a good sign when natural allies think you're letting them down whether or not you turn up.
Shorten should find their disappointment encouraging. Despite the abysmal theatrics of the past few years, complicity in ever more severe immigration policies, the persistent threat from the Greens and ensuing punishment at the polls, Labor is still — perhaps inexplicably — expected to have something to say. People expect it to say so forcefully, with the ring of conviction. They want it to get in the way of the Coalition.
Shorten seems to have delivered last night, offering a glimpse of the sort of Opposition Leader that Australians deserve. Those who had expected a bland presentation were caught by surprise, which is probably the nicest thing that has been said about a Labor leader in a long time.
The speech employed revivalist Labor rhetoric regarding family budgets and equity in education. But it also prioritised battlegrounds that set up a poll-friendly fight: the six-month delay for Newstart payments for unemployed under-30-year-olds, the loss of family tax benefits when the youngest child turns six, the $7 co-payment for GP visits and the $80 billion cut from schools and hospitals.
There is an element of predictability here, of course. The hazard of being in Opposition is that you oppose, the terms of your reaction set by somebody else. People tune out. This is why Shorten's anaemic presentation style has been a liability.
He can take better lessons in this regard from Julia Gillard's failed salesmanship than Abbott's scorched-earth opposition strategy. Labor made that strategy effective through its own missteps and internal conflicts. It is therefore too simplistic to suggest Shorten mimic the hollow thuggery that became the Coalition's signature. Nor would it be enough for him to reason sensibly with the public, a strategy that failed Julia Gillard spectacularly.
Somewhere between these, Shorten might be able to craft an approach that will unlock the support of the majority of Australians. The Federal Budget has given him plenty of opportunity to do so. We can only hope it won't be squandered.
Fatima Measham is a Melbourne-based social commentator who contributes regularly to Eureka Street. She tweets as @foomeister .