Working out your result…
We look at the shape of your budget — how much of the total you gave each area — and find the countries, past budgets and party platforms that split their money the most like you did. It is a lookalike, not a verdict: nothing here predicts what would happen, and nothing here is saying you are right or wrong.
With Australian Greens's costed platform loaded, Australia lands at
−$322.3B
−$322,338,183,000
In the holedeficit
−$11,594 per person
That is $304,383,300,000 worse off than the budget Australia actually handed down (−$17,954,883,000).
Happy with that? Share the score — not what you changed.
Every line you moved, against every year-on-year move Australian governments have made since 2002-03.
Bigger than every comparable increase in the record since 2002-03.
Closest real examples
Bigger than every comparable cut in the record since 2002-03.
Nothing in the published record from 2002-03 onwards matches this move, so there is no precedent to show.
No Australian government has moved this line year-on-year in the published record, so there is nothing to rank this against.
Nothing in the published record from 2002-03 onwards matches this move, so there is no precedent to show.
Bigger than 93% of comparable increases since 2002-03. Rare company.
Closest real examples
No Australian government has moved this line year-on-year in the published record, so there is nothing to rank this against.
Nothing in the published record from 2002-03 onwards matches this move, so there is no precedent to show.
No Australian government has moved this line year-on-year in the published record, so there is nothing to rank this against.
Nothing in the published record from 2002-03 onwards matches this move, so there is no precedent to show.
Middle of the pack — bigger than 46% of comparable increases.
Closest real examples
No Australian government has moved this line year-on-year in the published record, so there is nothing to rank this against.
Nothing in the published record from 2002-03 onwards matches this move, so there is no precedent to show.
No Australian government has moved this line year-on-year in the published record, so there is nothing to rank this against.
Nothing in the published record from 2002-03 onwards matches this move, so there is no precedent to show.
No Australian government has moved this line year-on-year in the published record, so there is nothing to rank this against.
Nothing in the published record from 2002-03 onwards matches this move, so there is no precedent to show.
No Australian government has moved this line year-on-year in the published record, so there is nothing to rank this against.
Nothing in the published record from 2002-03 onwards matches this move, so there is no precedent to show.
No Australian government has moved this line year-on-year in the published record, so there is nothing to rank this against.
Nothing in the published record from 2002-03 onwards matches this move, so there is no precedent to show.
Where your budget sits against the published record — not a forecast of what it would do.
These are modelled estimates, not predictions. Each one is calculated by a data rule — a set formula applied to the figures you changed — using the assumption stated with it. Expand a consequence to see that assumption and its source.
No Australian government has raised education's share of its budget this hard in a single year since 2002-03. The largest on record: In Australia, education's share of spending rose from 7.8% to 11.7% between 2008-09 and 2009-10 (3.9 percentage points).
DistributionalNo Australian government has moved defence's share this hard in a single year since 2002-03.
DistributionalThis economic affairs increase is larger than 93% of the ones Australian governments have actually made since 2002-03. The closest real example: In Victoria, economic affairs' share of spending rose from 4.4% to 8.4% between 2019-20 and 2020-21 (4.0 percentage points).
DistributionalWe compare where you put the money against where each party says they would put it. It is a measurement, not a label — and it stays on this page: it is never part of what you share.
Turns out you're a bit of everything.
Measured on where the money goes, your budget is similar to Australian Greens 94% · Australian Labor Party 6%. That is a comparison of two spending splits, not a statement about what you believe.
The federal Parliamentary Budget Office prices the parties’ promises after each election and publishes the lot, which is what the comparison above is built from.
To compare a party to your budget we need to know what their promises cost. Where most of a party’s promises have no price tag yet, there is not enough to work with — so they are listed here, but left out of the comparison above rather than ranked as if we knew more than we do.
OECD general government, COFOG basis, share of total expenditure.
13% of this budget is spending that other countries do not record the same way — that is Other, Recreation & Culture, Agriculture & Fisheries, Industry & Construction and Payments to the States, so it is left out of this comparison. The match below uses the other 87%.
You've built Denmark.
Denmark — 88% similar
Closest match: Denmark (88% similar). You would need to shift about 12% of the budget to match it exactly. The largest single difference is Education, where you allocate 7.4 percentage points more.
Where your split and Denmark’s differ most
| Function | Your budget | Denmark |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 19.3% | 11.9% |
| General public services | 7.8% |
Every jurisdiction-year the Parliamentary Budget Office has published.
Nothing out there looks like this. Genuinely.
Nothing in the past Australian budget set is a close match to the budget you built. The nearest, Queensland 2002-03, still differs too much to report as a result. A ranked list here would imply a resemblance that the figures do not support.
Compared against 36 OECD/EU countries (COFOG general government, 2022) and 223 Australian jurisdiction-year budgets across 9 jurisdictions (2002-03 to 2026-27). “Closest” means closest within those sets, not closest of every budget ever written.
These comparisons are about how a budget is split up, nothing more. If yours comes out looking like 2009-10, that does not mean it would do what 2009-10 did — it means the money was divided in a similar way. That is the whole claim.
| Party | Promises with a price tag | Similarity | Used in the comparison? |
|---|
| Australian Greens | 359 of 361359 of this party's 361 promises have a price tag worked out. Another 146 have a price but do not say which part of the budget it comes out of, so only 213 can be shown in the numbers. The remaining 2 are listed further down without a price. | 100% | Yes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Labor Party | 65 of 6765 of this party's 67 promises have a price tag worked out. Another 12 have a price but do not say which part of the budget it comes out of, so only 53 can be shown in the numbers. The remaining 2 are listed further down without a price. | 84% | Yes |
| The Coalition | 224 of 230 only 8 usable here224 of this party's 230 promises have a price tag worked out. Another 216 have a price but do not say which part of the budget it comes out of, so only 8 can be shown in the numbers. The remaining 6 are listed further down without a price. | — | No — too few we can place in the budget |
| Pauline Hanson's One Nation | No promises recorded yet | — | No — nothing priced yet |
| Katter's Australian Party | No promises recorded yet | — | No — nothing priced yet |
| Jacqui Lambie Network | No promises recorded yet | — | No — nothing priced yet |
| Independents and unaligned | No promises recorded yet | — | No — nothing priced yet |
| Housing & community amenities | 4.0% | 0.3% |
|---|
Next closest