By the time you read this, I will be stuck somewhere inside the bowels of Parliament House in Canberra, trapped in that peculiar annual ritual known as the Budget lockup.

It’s an archaic process dressed up as transparency. Shortly after 1pm, journalists are herded into a secure area, with security guards stationed at the exits. 

Phones are taken away, internet access is cut off. They even monitor for illegal digital attempts to access the outside world. You can’t leave, other than in the most exceptional of circumstances. 

The outside world ceases to exist until 7.30pm, when the Treasurer rises in the House of Representatives and begins the Budget speech.

Then everyone bolts for the doors, desperate to file copy, breathe fresh air and rediscover whether the world has changed while we were locked in a room being told by Treasury officials and ministerial minders that the Budget is responsible, restrained, reforming and very much in the national interest.

The only people journalists can really speak to inside are each other, Treasury officials and the Treasurer’s media spinners. 

Jim Chalmers himself will no doubt glide through at some stage, like he’s done on four previous occasions, presenting the whole exercise as though he is just about to deliver the greatest Budget in modern Australian history. He and his staff, of course, can come and go from the lockup, while the rest of us look on with envy.

The controlled isolation is one reason Budget coverage is often kinder on the night than it is in the days that follow. 

The initial reaction comes after hours of enforced captivity, with journalists subjected to a form of fiscal Stockholm syndrome, unable to check in with economists, business groups, welfare advocates, the opposition or anyone else who might bring a little oxygen into the room.

And the parliamentary press gallery can be enough of a viper’s nest at the best of times. There are good people down here, of course. 

But being locked away with the gallery for six and a half hours is its own form of torture, not to be wished on your worst enemy.

So while I am imprisoned inside the lock up, trying to work out whether there is anything genuinely new in the Budget, or bad news secretly hidden away in Budget paper three page 267, here is what we think we know so far, based on Labor’s calculated strategic pre-Budget media leaks.

The government wants this Budget to be seen as a serious response to difficult economic circumstances: the oil shock from the Iran war, stubborn inflation, weak productivity, rising unemployment and slower growth. 

Chalmers wants to present himself as the adult in the room, delivering net savings while making tough decisions.

But that is only the sales pitch, the reality looks rather less flattering. This is a government still spending too much, running up debt too quickly, and still pretending that more public spending can somehow coexist neatly with an inflation fight. 

The Reserve Bank Governor has already made it clear that fiscal policy matters and there are too many inflation stimulating handouts. Governments can’t keep pumping money into the economy and then act surprised when inflation proves harder to kill than it promised it would be.

Chalmers wants to argue that he is banking savings. But the real question is not whether there are large headline savings and reprioritisations, of which there are some. It’s how much of that is actually banked to help reduce debt, versus how much is simply recycled into new spending elsewhere.

The Treasurer and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher are expected to claim about $64billion in savings and reprioritisations. That sounds big, because it’s meant to. But ‘reprioritisation’ is often just Canberra code for taking money from one bucket and tipping it into another.

The Budget is also expected to contain a series of politically dangerous tax changes, not least because Labor ruled out some of them before the last election. 

So Jim’s Budget will be packed full of broken promises he hopes to convince you are worth breaking. Which begs the question why were the promises made in the first place?

The 50 per cent capital gains tax discount is reportedly set to be axed in favour of inflation indexation across asset classes, with a one-year grace period before something closer to the pre 1999 system returns. 

Existing assets may receive partial grandfathering, but the political point remains: this is a substantial change to the taxation of investment income.

Negative gearing is also expected to be restricted to newly built homes from July next year. Existing investors are likely to be protected, but properties bought after Budget night could be captured by the new rules.

Anthony Albanese ruled out changes to both capital gains tax and negative gearing before the last election, held less than a year ago. Now he has been softening the ground with the familiar line that good governments make the right decisions for the right reasons. 

That may be true in theory, but in practice it’s also what politicians say when they are about to break a promise.

The government’s argument is that these changes will help shift the housing market away from investors and towards first-home buyers, while also raising revenue and improving intergenerational equity. 

Perhaps there is a policy argument to be had there. But Labor can’t pretend it didn’t explicitly seek voter reassurance on these issues before the election.

Trusts are also in the firing line. A minimum 30 per cent tax on trust distributions is expected to raise billions over the forward estimates. 

Testamentary trusts and farming trusts are expected to be carved out, but hundreds of thousands of other trusts could be caught in the revenue-raising net too. 

That said, it’s hard to argue against some changes being made to how trusts are taxed, even if the ultra-wealthy already have a way around it.

This is not some narrow change affecting only the very rich. Trusts are used by investors, small business owners, professionals, tradespeople and families managing assets. 

The government will call it an integrity reform, but plenty of people affected will see it as just another tax grab.

To offset the politics of tax hikes, Chalmers is expected to unveil a one-off tax offset for working Australians, probably somewhere in the $200 to $300 range. 

But it won’t be paid until next year, apparently to avoid making the RBA’s inflation task harder in the near term. 

The bizarre reactionary decision to delay a cost of living handout measure designed to help people struggling now by a year was clearly political, after the RBA Governor gave the Treasurer a serve the other week.

There will also be some measures for business. A Covid-era loss carry-back provision is expected to return for two years, allowing companies to offset losses against tax paid in previous profitable years. 

The $20,000 instant asset write-off for businesses with turnover below $10million is expected to be made permanent.

The cap on research and development tax credits is also expected to be lifted as part of the government’s productivity pitch, although higher minimum spending thresholds may shut some smaller firms out of the scheme. 

That is very Canberra: announce a productivity measure, then design it in a way that risks making it harder for smaller players to benefit. Slow clap all round.

On defence, the government is expected to announce substantial new spending, including about $14billion over the next four years and $53billion over the decade. 

The spending will focus on areas such as drones, AUKUS-related projects and broader capability. Labor is under pressure from the Trump administration to lift defence spending.

Yet even here the headline numbers need scrutiny. Some of the funding appears to push defence spending only modestly higher as a share of GDP. 

There is also expected to be off-Budget financing, which always deserves close attention. Governments love anything that lets them claim commitment without the full immediate Budget hit sitting on the books.

The global oil crisis has also given Labor room to frame new fuel security spending as necessary and urgent. More than $10billion is expected for fuel security, including money to build stockpiles, finance private storage and examine refinery expansions.

There is also expected to be temporary fuel excise relief, aimed at households and businesses hit by higher energy costs. Perhaps a continuation of what’s already been ruled out?

Again, there may be sensible arguments for parts of this. Australia’s fuel security has been a vulnerability for years. But governments are very good at discovering strategic necessity when they also need political cover for more spending.

Housing will be another major theme. The government is expected to put more money into enabling infrastructure to unlock new housing supply. 

About $2billion dollars is expected for infrastructure that could support up to 65,000 homes, alongside money to fast track environmental approvals.

The policy tweak underlines the gap between Labor’s grand housing promises and the reality of what’s being delivered so far. The target of 1.2million new homes by 2029 already looks increasingly unlikely. Announcing enabling infrastructure isn’t the same as building homes, it’s an admission of failure.

Then there is the Suburban Rail Loop for Victoria. Nearly $4billion more is reportedly being set aside, taking total federal funding above $6billion. It’s hard to think of a clearer example of political spending dressed up as nation building. 

At a time when debt is rising and the Budget is under pressure, this is exactly the kind of decision that invites scepticism about the Treasurer’s claims of fiscal discipline.

The NDIS will be central to the savings story being spun. Health minister Mark Butler’s overhaul is expected to strip tens of billions of dollars from projected costs over the next four years, including by removing about 160,000 people from the scheme and cutting annual growth dramatically.

The NDIS clearly needs reform, its cost trajectory is unsustainable. But Labor will need to show that the changes are real, durable and fair, not merely forecast savings on paper that look good on Budget night but evaporate later.

Public service savings are also expected, including cuts to consultants, outsourcing and external labour. Let’s call it window dressing. 

Every government promises to reduce waste and reliance on consultants. The proof is never in the announcement, it’s in whether the bureaucracy is actually made leaner, or whether the same spending reappears under a different label.

So the broad shape of the Budget seems clear enough before we even get our confiscated phones back post-lockup, but maybe there’s more to be unveiled tonight when the Treasurer gets to his feet in parliament.

The take-out is that Labor wants to tax investment income more heavily, hand some money back to workers, spend more on defence, fuel security and housing infrastructure, while also claiming fiscal discipline through NDIS and public sector savings. 

After which it will wrap the whole package in the language of productivity, fairness and intergenerational equity.

The problem is that this government has already spent too much, promised too much, borrowed too much and broken too many election commitments.

When I get out of lockup, I will file again and let you know whether there was anything genuinely new and interesting in the Budget papers. 

Hopefully it is not a repeat of last year, when so much had already been leaked in authorised drops that locking journalists away for more than six hours felt less like transparency and more like theatrical punishment.

And don’t worry, unlike many others I won’t let Jim’s taxpayer-funded conga line of spinners traversing the halls of the lockup get the better of my own thoughts on how good or bad the Budget really is.