Illustration:michael mucci.com All Hockey had to do was go on the Alan Jones show, make some noises about government debt and the carbon tax, and bask in Jones' furious agreement. The interview was bound to be a free kick, right? Wrong. What followed was extraordinary radio, during which Jones harangued Hockey for subsidising wind and solar power, attacked the entire Medicare system as "unaffordable" and abused the shadow treasurer for not agreeing to his suggestion that Indonesia take Australian cattle in lieu of foreign aid money. He embarrassed Hockey over his recent weight loss, due to stomach stapling surgery, and said he hoped the doctors hadn't taken his spine out during the operation. He demanded Hockey answer why we "feed asylum seekers but not farmers and cattle". The broadcaster also fired off plenty of unsolicited advice. ''You've got to reduce the debt! That's the point! You have to reduce the debt!'' Jones counselled, shrilly.

And later: "Success is about keeping things simple … $190 billion budget accumulated debt. You are going to have to reduce that." The interview was extraordinary not because of Jones' rude bombast, or his insistence that a future Coalition government abandon "this carbon dioxide global warming hoax", or even the impertinent way he referred to the shadow treasurer's personal wealth ("He's a man of means this bloke. He's a rich treasurer to be." Hockey laughed nervously.) It was amazing because of the way Hockey took it. He let Jones chase him around the microphone like a schoolyard bully. The shadow treasurer remained silent while Jones compared asylum seekers to cows - although in fact it was not a straight comparison, because Jones was contending the nourishment of asylum seekers should actually come second to feeding "our" cattle (always amazing how cows assume Australian nationality whenever people wish to make a political point about them). Why did he go on the show in the first place? It doesn't need the likes of Jones.

To be fair, Hockey could barely get a word in. But why did he go on the show in the first place? The opposition has never been in a stronger position. It doesn't need the likes of Jones, and most of his listeners are about as likely to vote Labor as the Prime Minister is to be invited to Jones' Southern Highlands pile for scones and tea. Tony Abbott's opposition has managed well its transition from kneejerk contraposition to responsible differentiation. This process, which has been quietly under way for a while, was cemented on Thursday night with Abbott's budget in reply speech. The Opposition Leader looked and sounded as sober and reasonable as you could want your alternative prime minister to be. He gave the slip to what some were calling the government's attempt to "booby trap" the budget by locking in long-term spending measures and making cuts to programs the Coalition had strong support for, in particular the baby bonus.

Abbott did this by saying that while many of the budget measures were "objectionable", he reserved the right to keep or reject as many of them as he pleased, if elected to government. "The Coalition may decide not to oppose any of them; doesn't commit to reverse any of them; and reserves the option to implement all of them," he said in his budget reply. The Opposition Leader was rather blatantly keeping his options open, but he is able to do so, he argues, because of the "budget emergency" Julia Gillard's government has created. Emergency situations can justify all sorts of things, as the government well knows. Gillard's frontbench team has conspicuously changed its attacks on Abbott from observations about his character - that he is negative, a destroyer with the rage and capacity of a political Incredible Hulk - to attacks on what they believe to be his intentions in government.

This week members of the government repeated, again and again, that an Abbott government would "cut to the bone", that it has a "secret plan" to slash jobs and services. How Abbott's plan can be secret if the entire Labor caucus knows about it has gone unexplained, but there may well be some truth to this line of attack. In his budget reply Abbott committed to $4 billion in annual spending by his pledges to keep Gillard's tax cuts, pension increases and family payments (granted in compensation for the carbon price). To pay for these measures he outlined savings of nearly $5 billion a year. It's all back-of-envelope stuff, seeing as we have no detailed costings, but that represents a saving of less than $1 billion a year. The opposition needs to find better savings than that if it is to return quickly to surplus. Abbott must fund them from cuts, as he is not about to start raising revenue through taxes.

He knows he must make the case for further cuts if they are to be accepted by the electorate, and his response to this week's budget was a careful attempt to do that. But we still haven't seen the detail. He might have planned cuts to services, he may ditch the carbon emission reductions targets both parties have signed up for. He will certainly come down hard on asylum seekers. Polls show voters still don't like Abbott much as a man, but the majority will still vote for him, and he has begun to earn their respect, if not their approbation, by making a sensible case for government. Hockey's battering by Jones was all the more worrying because the Coalition doesn't need the loony right to win votes. Let's hope it doesn't court it in government. Follow the National Times on Twitter