IS THIS
GOV
COOKED?
25 years of budgets, debt, and accounting tricks — in plain English. No spin. No party loyalty. 7 Prime Ministers scored on the same algorithm. Just the numbers and what they mean for your wallet.
Gross debt crosses $1 trillion for the first time. We'll publish the verdict before the spin starts.
FINANCIAL
PRESSURE
GAUGE
5 economic indicators — deficit trajectory, real wages, housing costs, interest rates, and future tax commitments — are weighted and combined into a single probability score. Based on 25 years of data, here's where things are heading.
The media talks about the numbers. Politicians argue about the numbers. Nobody shows you the actual numbers.
This site is the actual numbers. Verified. Sourced. Explained three ways. No ads. No agenda. No party loyalty.
Just the facts — and what they mean for your mortgage, your rent, your groceries, and the country your kids inherit.
Is this PM cooked?
Pick a Prime Minister and a factor. Raw score = weighted average of 8 factors. Final score = raw × deception multiplier (lying PMs get bumped up). Same formula for all.
The inflation surge Albanese inherited (7%+ CPI) was primarily a global phenomenon. The RBA estimates 60-70% of Australia's excess inflation was supply-chain and global energy driven. The domestic fiscal contribution is estimated at 30-40% of excess inflation. Cost-of-living scores reflect this proportional attribution, not full responsibility for global conditions.
The immigration factor scores accountability to the government's OWN stated forecasts — not a judgment on whether immigration is good or bad policy. The government forecast ~200,000 NOM/year. Actual was 538,000 in 2022-23 (169% above forecast). The 690,000 cumulative over-run against own targets over 3 years is what's scored. Some post-COVID rebound was structurally inevitable regardless of policy.
Raw score: 60
Deception adjustment: +8
Final score: 68
Grade: D
A PM who breaks promises or makes misleading statements gets their entire score bumped up. Multiplier = 1 + (deception score ÷ 100 × 0.30). So deception can add up to 30% to the final score. We show both raw and final so you can see the effect.
Data version 2.0.0 · Last updated 2025-03-18 · Algorithm identical for all PMs
PICK A YEAR. SEE THE TRUTH.
📚 Historical context — How does this compare to the 20 years before?
Benefited from commodity boom, asset sales (Telstra), and strong global growth. Net debt eliminated by 2006. However: bracket creep not returned, GST introduced.
GFC stimulus (2008-09) widely credited with avoiding recession. Peak deficit -4.2% GDP (2009-10). Recovery slower than forecast. Structural deficit emerged from middle years.
Promised surplus in first year. Never delivered. Debt ceiling raised. 2014 budget widely seen as politically undeliverable — Senate blocked key measures. Deficit remained ~2% GDP.
Source: ABS data.gov.au historical CFS series (1995-96 onwards). Full historical data available at: data.gov.au ↗
Accrual surplus $10B (the number in press releases). Underlying cash -$15.8B. $25.8B gap = depreciation, non-cash items, timing. Debt servicing costs rising.
The gap between the $10B accrual surplus and $15.8B cash deficit is the key story.
Net operating balance: +$10.0B (the number in press releases). Underlying cash balance: -$15.8B (actual cash in vs out). $25.8B gap = depreciation, non-cash items, timing, and actuarial movements being included in the accrual but not the cash measure.
HAFF draws, CEFC, NRF tranches totalling $14.2B classified as equity. The $10B accrual surplus would be −$4.2B if equity injections were treated as expenses — meaning there was no real surplus.
5 TRICKS THEY USE.
These aren't illegal and they aren't new. Every government since Howard has used them. The tricks got bigger as debt grew. Click any to see how it works.
THE REAL BASELINE.
To compare years fairly you need to strip out accounting tricks and measure everything as a % of GDP. A $50B deficit in 2017 is very different to one in 2024 — the economy grew. Here's the level playing field.
A 1% of GDP difference is about $27 billion in 2024 terms. When governments grow from managing a $1.8T economy to a $2.7T economy, raw dollar comparisons are meaningless. The fair measure is always relative to the size of the economy.
When you remove equity injections and measure against GDP, Across the full 25-year period, genuine structural cash surpluses were only achieved in the Howard years (1997-98 to 2007-08, excluding 2001-02). Every government since the GFC has run structural deficits. The 2022-23 and 2023-24 accrual "surpluses" were real improvements, but on a cash basis after equity injections, both years were still in deficit. Net debt as % of GDP has exceeded the Fair Centre target of 20% since 2019-20, peaking at 26.4% in 2021-22. The structural position worsened significantly 2019–2022 and has been recovering since — but has not returned to the pre-COVID baseline.
WHO RAN IT BETTER?
All 25 years ranked (1999-2024). Plus: all 7 Prime Ministers ranked overall. No political bias — just the data. The same methodology applied to everyone, equally. Note: context matters — 2020-21's F grade was COVID, not ideology.
Six criteria, 0–10 each: (1) Cash balance as % GDP, (2) Net debt trajectory, (3) Accrual vs cash gap, (4) Net worth management adjusted for actuarial swings, (5) Inflation and cost of living outcomes, (6) ANAO audit findings severity. Average → A–F grade. This grades fiscal management, not policy quality.Note: Years before 2008-09 use pre-AASB 1049 accounting. Comparable on cash measures but some balance sheet items differ. See methodology.
| Rank | Year | Gov | Grade | Score /10 | Cash % GDP | Debt % GDP | Inflation | Key Issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1🥇 | 2006-07 | Coalition Howard/Costello | A | 8.7/10 | 1.6% | -2.2% | 3% | — |
| 2🥈 | 2005-06 | Coalition Howard/Costello | A | 8.3/10 | 1.4% | 0.0% | 3.5% | — |
| 3🥉 | 2007-08 | Transition Howard → Rudd | A | 8.3/10 | 0.4% | -3.4% | 4.4% | — |
| 4 | 1999-00 | Coalition Howard/Costello | A | 8.2/10 | 1.9% | 8.0% | 2.9% | — |
| 5 | 2004-05 | Coalition Howard/Costello | B | 7.8/10 | 1.4% | 1.7% | 2.4% | — |
| 6 | 2000-01 | Coalition Howard/Costello | B | 7.7/10 | 0.8% | 6.6% | 6% | — |
| 7 | 2003-04 | Coalition Howard/Costello | B | 7.3/10 | 0.9% | 3.1% | 2.8% | — |
| 8 | 2002-03 | Coalition Howard/Costello | B | 7.2/10 | 1.0% | 4.2% | 3.1% | — |
| 9 | 2018-19 | Coalition Morrison | B | 7/10 | -0.7% | 17.8% | 1.6% | Best structural position — near balance |
| 10 | 2008-09 | Labor Rudd | C | 6.3/10 | -2.2% | -0.9% | 1.8% | — |
| 11 | 2016-17 | Coalition Turnbull/Morrison | C | 6/10 | -1.8% | 17.8% | 1.9% | Structural deficit, super trick softened it |
| 12 | 2017-18 | Coalition Morrison | C | 6/10 | -1.0% | 18.1% | 2.1% | Narrowing fast — super loss hit net worth |
| 13 | 2001-02 | Coalition Howard/Costello | C | 5.7/10 | -0.1% | 5.6% | 3.1% | — |
| 14 | 2023-24 | Labor Albanese | C | 5.7/10 | -0.6% | 22.0% | 3.8% | Improving — but cash still deficit, debt costs rising |
| 15 | 2015-16 | Coalition Abbott → Turnbull | C | 5.2/10 | -1.9% | 20.4% | 1.3% | — |
| 16 | 2019-20 | Coalition Morrison | D | 4.8/10 | -2.7% | 20.6% | 0.9% | COVID arrived — trajectory broke |
| 17 | 2012-13 | Labor Gillard → Rudd | D | 4.7/10 | -1.2% | 10.4% | 2.4% | — |
| 18 | 2014-15 | Coalition Abbott | D | 4.7/10 | -2.3% | 17.8% | 1.7% | — |
| 19 | 2021-22 | Transition Morrison → Albanese | D | 4.3/10 | -1.4% | 24.9% | 6.1% | $95B super accounting gain — misleading |
| 20 | 2022-23 | Labor Albanese | D | 4.3/10 | -0.9% | 22.4% | 7% | Revenue boom, 9 audit findings, inflation peak |
| 21 | 2011-12 | Labor Gillard | D | 4/10 | -2.9% | 10.2% | 1.7% | — |
| 22 | 2013-14 | Transition Rudd → Abbott | F | 3.8/10 | -3.0% | 15.4% | 2.5% | — |
| 23 | 2010-11 | Labor Gillard | F | 3.7/10 | -3.4% | 6.5% | 3.3% | — |
| 24 | 2009-10 | Labor Rudd | F | 3.2/10 | -4.2% | 3.7% | 2.8% | — |
| 25 | 2020-21 | Coalition Morrison | F | 3.2/10 | -5.3% | 26.4% | 3.8% | Worst year — COVID stimulus peak |
WHAT WOULD A FAIR BUDGET LOOK LIKE?
Every government leans left or right. This is the political bias detector — built from four independent data sources, no ideology.
Four independent sources: (1) Australia's long-run revenue/expense averages as % of GDP, (2) OECD peer averages (Canada, NZ, UK, Germany), (3) Parliamentary Budget Office structural estimates, (4) midpoint between what each party actually delivered. Where all four converge — that's the centre.
Revenue normalising as commodity windfall fades. Spending discipline improving. Accrual surplus $10B but cash still deficit $15.8B — the gap between the two bottom lines is the story.
Above-centre revenue and spending. Centrist: convert cash deficit to $7.1B surplus. The full 25-year centrist path would have left cumulative debt $200B+ lower, with the Howard surpluses invested and post-GFC recovery faster.
Neither party has consistently governed from the centre. Coalition years (2016–2022) ran structurally below-centre revenue — tax cuts produced structural deficits even pre-COVID. Labor years (2022–2024) ran above-centre revenue from commodity/inflation windfalls, with above-centre spending — producing accrual surpluses but still cash deficits. The most centrist year: 2018-19 — the year nobody talks about. The centrist gap has widened over time. In the Howard years, Australia was near or above-centre fiscally. Since 2013, both parties have governed left-of-centre on spending relative to the OECD structural benchmark.
THIS IS WHAT'S COMING.
The 2024-25 and 2025-26 budgets have locked in the next four years. These are the government's own numbers — not speculation.
Pre-election budget — handed down 3 weeks before the 2025 election. Tax cuts AND more spending, all borrowed. Gross debt crosses $1T. Off-budget $85B over 4 years is the biggest use of equity injections in Australian history. A decade of deficits locked in.
$85 billion off-budget spending — the largest equity injection program in Australian history — not reflected in headline deficit
Gross debt crosses $1 trillion for the first time in Australian history by end of 2024-25
Spending as % of GDP peaks at 28.5% — highest since WWII excluding COVID years
A decade of forecast deficits — no credible return-to-surplus path modelled in budget papers
Tax cuts announced simultaneously with running deficits — structural revenue reduction while structurally deficit
Independent economists broadly characterised as 'politically savvy but fiscally concerning' (KPMG, EY, CPA Australia)
Coalition committed to repealing tax cuts if elected — creating policy uncertainty on the revenue side
Tax cuts while running deficits is textbook fiscal looseness — borrowing to give money back. Coalition vowed to repeal. Creates structural revenue gap.
Continued subsidy. CPI impact -0.25pp. Masks structural energy price problem rather than fixing it.
The biggest use of off-budget equity injections in Australian history. Real cash outflow — just not counted in the headline. The actual fiscal position is dramatically worse than the -$42B number.
Genuine structural health investment. Addresses declining bulk-billing rates that hit low-income households hardest. Broadly centrist — bipartisan problem.
A centrist government managing these forecasts would: (1) Accept the $42B 2025-26 deficit as largely locked in. (2) Commit to a credible path back to structural balance by 2029-30 — the current forecasts don't show this. (3) Cap off-budget equity injections at $15B/year not $21B/year. (4) Stage tax cuts conditional on returning to balance — not announce them while running deficits. Net: forward estimates are left-of-centre on spending, right-of-centre on tax, and the combination produces a structural deficit neither side is being honest about.
WHAT RATES ACTUALLY MEAN.
Debt doesn't care who's in government. Every $1 of government debt has an interest cost. Here's what rate movements mean in real numbers.
Australia's gross government debt is $940B (2024-25). At the current 4.3% average borrowing rate, interest costs are ~$25.4B/year. Every 1pp rate rise adds ~$9.4B to annual interest costs — money that must come from higher taxes, reduced services, or more borrowing. This structural cost grows as debt grows, regardless of which party is in power.
Source: Budget Paper No.1 2025-26, RBA Financial Stability Review, ABS Housing Finance Statistics
HOW MUCH DO YOU ACTUALLY KNOW?
5 questions about real government numbers. Most Australians get 1 or 2 right. The rest trust the media to tell them.
What is Australia's government net worth deficit as of June 2024?
HOW IT HITS YOUR HIP POCKET.
Budget decisions aren't abstract. Every dollar borrowed, every equity injection, every interest payment has a real-world impact on prices, rates, and what things cost you.
Government borrowing competes with households for available money. Net debt was eliminated by 2006-07 (Howard) then rebuilt to $595B by 2024. The RBA raised rates 13 times 2022-23. Every 1% on a $600K mortgage = $6,000/year extra. Not all from govt debt — but it's a contributor.
2020-21: $107B deficit pumped into economy. Combined with supply chain disruptions = textbook inflation setup. CPI peaked 8.4% (Dec 2022). The COVID stimulus was necessary — but the inflation aftermath was predictable. The RBA had to raise rates to fix it.
Government interest payments: ~$17B in 2017, over $25B in 2024, forecast $35B+ by 2028. That's structural spending that grows regardless of who wins elections. To fund it: higher future taxes, lower services, or more borrowing. No fourth option.
$14-25B per year in equity injections to govt enterprises. When a government competitor gets subsidised capital, private businesses can't compete fairly. This can reduce private investment — which is what ultimately drives productivity and lower prices.
Defined benefit super liability: $244B (2024). Funded partly by Future Fund (~$200B). Gap is unfunded. As rates rise, the liability falls on paper — but the cash obligation doesn't change. Long-run it requires either Future Fund outperformance or additional funding.
Australia's gross debt at 37% of GDP is low vs US (120%), Japan (250%), UK (100%). The Medicare bulk-billing investment addresses a real structural issue. Non-compete ban is good economic policy. Future Fund provides genuine buffer against super liability. Not cooked — but trending in the wrong direction.
The single biggest cost-of-living driver from government finances is the 2020-21 COVID spending surge — necessary, but with real consequences. The $107B deficit pumped money into an economy that couldn't supply enough goods. Combined with global supply chain disruptions, this contributed directly to the 2022-23 inflation surge (8.4% peak CPI) and forced the RBA to raise rates 13 times. Every mortgage holder felt that directly. This wasn't wasteful spending — it was a crisis response. But understanding the mechanism helps you see why the $85B off-budget forward pipeline carries inflation risk if the economy doesn't have the capacity to absorb it.
WHAT DID THIS COST YOU?
Enter your situation. See how government decisions hit your wallet — in actual dollars.
Enter your details and click Calculate
ASK THE AI.
GET STRAIGHT ANSWERS.
25 years of Australian government financial data loaded. All 7 PMs scored on identical criteria. Ask anything. It won't fluff around, take sides, or give you spin.
Get an API key at console.anthropic.com — your key never leaves your browser. Open source: verify the AI prompt in components/sections/Chat.tsx
New budget? New ANAO findings? New ABS data? We'll send you a plain-English summary — no spam, no marketing, just the update.