There's no doubt that Treasurer Jim Chalmers had a tough job, delivering cost-of-living relief without putting upwards pressure on inflation, but there was no sign of the major tax reforms needed to address Australia's long-term revenue problems in this budget.

The quarter-of-a-trillion-dollars stage three tax cuts remain, the changes to the petroleum resource rent tax are so small as to be nearly indistinguishable from a distance and there was little to stop the expansion of the fossil fuel industry.

Chalmers has repeatedly described inflation as the "dragon we need to slay", but I'm hoping a different dragon has been slayed once and for all: the idea that delivering a budget surplus is a sign of "good economic management". This ridiculous concept has had a grip on Australia's economic debate for far too long.

A surplus has only ever been a tool to use, not an economic end in itself and Chalmers has been wise not to make a fuss of what looks to be a temporary surplus at best.

Of course, once Labor kicked the surplus goal, the Coalition promptly shifted the economic goalposts. Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor whined that "a drover's dog could have delivered a surplus", which, if you think about it, is quite a mean reflection on the combined talents of Joe Hockey, Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenburg, who failed to deliver one surplus between them over close to 10 years in office.

This was billed as a cost-of-living budget, with a $14.6 billion package including small rises in the Jobseeker rate, rental assistance payments, and greater access to the single parent payment, alongside cheaper medicines, bulk billing incentives and help with power bills.

Individually and collectively, they are all great measures, but with inflation high, real wages going backwards and rents going through the roof, it barely touches the sides of what's really needed to close the growing gap between rich and poor in this country.

The government is giving $14.6 billion over four years to the most vulnerable, and $69 billion over four years that mainly goes to the highest income earners, in tax cuts.

When seen in those terms, the cost-of-living package looks positively miserly and the Stage 3 tax cuts only look more obscene and reckless by comparison.

The stage three tax cuts were a bad idea when Scott Morrison introduced them, prior to the pandemic, and they are an even worse idea now. It's no wonder the tax cuts didn't rate a mention in the budget papers.

As Samantha Maiden quipped on budget night, the stage three tax cuts are ''the Voldemort of the budget'', the Tax-Cuts-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named.

To give you an idea of just how expensive the stage three tax cuts are, my colleague Greg Jericho crunched the numbers and worked out that the government could raise Jobseeker to the level of the minimum wage ($1625 per fortnight) and have it go up with inflation as usual, and it would still cost $70 billion less than the stage three tax cuts over their first nine years.

When it comes to assistance with the cost of living, the government has delivered precision-targeted $2.87 a day drops of relief for those on low incomes, while staying silent about the $21.5 billion a year firehose aimed at those earning $200,000 a year, starting next year. It's not good enough, and it's going to be a big political problem for Labor heading into the next election.

READ MORE BENNETT:

The budget papers paint a bleak picture for the economy over the next few years and we still have some really big problems to solve - the housing crisis and the climate crisis among them.

While the US teeters on the edge of recession and defaulting on its debt, Australia's economic activity is expected to slow down a lot, with economic growth is predicted to more than halve from 3.25 per cent this year to 1.5 per cent next year. Consumer spending growth, hit hard by interest rates rises, will be slashed from 5.75 per cent this year to 1.5 per cent next year and unemployment looks set to rise.

If Australia is going to be in a strong position to tackle the big problems, we need a serious debate about tax reform, but there was no sign of that in this budget either. Reforming the petroleum resources rent tax should have been a no-brainer for this budget.

Gas companies are raking in tens of billions of dollars in windfall profits and Australians are getting bupkis from the petroleum resources rent tax, even with the government's proposed changes.

The fact Australia will generate more revenue from tobacco excise ($13.4 billion), visa application charges ($3.3 billion) and beer excise ($2.8 billion) than from the petroleum resources rent tax ($2.7 billion) should tell you just how broken the taxation of our resources really is.

But not only is Australia still not taxing fossil fuels enough, federal and state governments are still subsidising these polluting industries to the tune of billions of dollars. And late on Thursday evening, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek even approved her first new coal mine.

All the household electrification plans and hydrogen announcements won't amount to much if the Albanese government keeps approving new fossil fuel projects. But it would be a good start to stop approving and subsidising the problem.

That's why this budget seems so disappointing. It has many excellent and well-targeted measures, but too many opportunities have been left on the table.

In any case, don't forget to raise a glass to all the smokers and beer drinkers of Australia this weekend, who are doing more for the budget bottom line than petroleum resources rent tax payments from Australia's gas industry. Cheers!