The media’s response to the 2015 budget is as predictable as it is planned. The government told us we were going to get a fairer budget, the media informed us we were going to get a fairer Budget, and so inevitably we got a fairer budget, the narrative having been written well before the event. What this tells us, other than the relationship between the government and the media in setting the agenda, is just how warped our view of fairness has become. When the criticism came, it was not that the budget had been too tough – rather that it had not been hard enough. ‘Soft’ is now the pejorative of choice in the Australian political lexicon. Hockey’s second budget is not to be criticised as heartless – as the former was universally declared – but as spineless. It lacks a long-term economic vision, they say, and is only concerned with immediate political outcomes. But at least the government has worked out how to avoid upsetting the electorate. Yep, they’re listening now. We can be thankful. Now it’s time to turn our scrutiny to the Opposition.

This is the narrative we’re supposed to digest, but it doesn’t stack up. It doesn’t stack up because nothing has been done about negative gearing, superannuation concessions, capital gains tax, corporate tax avoidance and the lingering threat of university fee deregulation. If we want to talk about fairness, let’s start by ditching the government-sponsored definition of a word that apparently shifted meaning overnight.

What is unfair is that investors who want to buy a second home can price first home buyers out of the market thanks to negative gearing. There’s now only one way you can afford to buy a house in Sydney or Melbourne – already own one. We are becoming a nation of investors and renters. The Australia Institute notes that more than a third of the negative gearing rebates go to households in the richest 10 per cent, and more than half go to the richest 20 per cent. In other words, we are subsidising the rich to buy more property – so the poor can pay them rent. Does that pass the government’s fairness test?

Let’s look at superannuation. As it stands, every individual earning up to $300,000 a year pays 15 per cent tax on their superannuation contributions, while those earning over $300,000 pay 30 per cent. This means that someone earning between $180,000 and $300,000 a year gets a tax concession of 30 per cent for their super contributions, while those earning between $37,000 and $80,000 only get a concession of 17.5 per cent. In plain English, the more you earn, the greater the tax concession you can receive. Sound familiar?

What about capital gains tax? Since 1999 there has been a 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax if an asset is held for more than 12 months. So, if you buy an investment property and the price of it goes up (virtually guaranteed if you buy in Sydney or Melbourne), only half of that capital gain is subject to tax. The other half you’re using to buy another property – er, invest in the economy. Nearly three quarters of the total of all CGT discounts go to households in the top 10 per cent. Those in the bottom half account for only 7.4 per cent. Are we detecting a trend here?

If the government wants to talk about addressing the national debt (although, curiously, that crisis seems to have fallen by the wayside as ‘fairness’ has come to the fore), then these are just three revenue raising measures. We haven’t even mentioned corporate tax avoidance (a third of Australia’s largest companies pay 10 per cent or less of the 30 per cent corporate tax they’re supposed to pay), or the fact the government is still allocating $4 million of funding for climate change sceptic Bjorn Lomborg’s Australian Consensus Centre, despite the University of Western Australia pulling out of its offer to host the organisation. Meanwhile, foreign aid will be cut by a further $3.7 billion over the next three years, and the move to deregulate university fees, allowing universities to charge students whatever they want, is still being pushed through the Senate. Some might argue it’s unfair to hand out concessions to the wealthiest Australians while we simultaneously reduce our aid to the poorest people in the world. But then, that all depends on your definition of fairness.