Why we built this

Every night, the news tells you how to feel about the economy. A journalist interviews a politician. The politician says something. An economist disagrees. A commentator has a hot take. Nobody shows you the spreadsheet. Nobody shows you that the government reported a '$10 billion surplus' while simultaneously running a $15.8 billion cash deficit. Nobody explains that there's $85 billion in spending next year that doesn't appear in the headline deficit figure — because it's classified as 'investment' not 'spending.' Nobody tells you that Australia's GDP grew — but GDP per capita fell for six consecutive quarters. Meaning the economy only looked okay because we added more people, not because each person got wealthier. The media covers politics. Politics is about who wins. This site covers finances. Finances are about what actually happened. These are not the same thing.

Every number on this site comes from one of three places: (1) The Commonwealth Consolidated Financial Statements — published annually by the Department of Finance, audited by the ANAO. The actual books. The real numbers. 500+ pages most Australians never see. (2) The ANAO Audit Reports — the government's own auditors flagging what they're worried about. They've raised concerns about military asset valuations, capitalisation decisions, and accounting practices — every single year across the 25-year dataset. Nobody reports this. (3) The Budget Papers — the government's own forward estimates. Their promises, in writing. We compare these to what actually happened. We've done none of the interpretation. We've just made the primary sources readable. And then we've built tools to help you understand what the numbers actually mean for your daily life.

We know not everyone wants the same depth of explanation. So everything on this site has three modes: Plain English — for anyone. Analogies. Simple language. No assumptions. Straight Talk — for people who want facts without jargon. Numbers, context, what it means. No economics degree required. Deep Dive — for people who want the full picture. Technical terms. Policy nuance. Primary source citations. Everything you'd need to have an informed argument with an economist. The same data. Three ways in. You choose your depth.

Both sides of politics claim to be managing the economy responsibly. Both sides claim the other side is lying. We built something different: a mathematical baseline for what a centrist, evidence-based government would actually do. Not left. Not right. Just: what does the data from comparable countries, long-run Australian averages, and independent economic institutions say is structurally sustainable? We call this the Fair Centre baseline. Then we score every government against it across 25 years. The result: neither party gets a pass. Howard years were near or above-centre fiscally. Coalition and Labor since the GFC have run left-of-centre on spending. The most centrist year in the full 25-year period: 2006-07. In the recent period, 2018-19.

The Cooked Metre is not about who you voted for. It's not about policies you agree or disagree with. It scores Prime Ministers on measurable, verifiable outcomes: Did the economy grow per capita? Did real wages go up or down? Did they deliver what they promised? What do independent fact-checkers say about their statements? Did immigration match the housing capacity they planned for? What did the government's own auditors flag? Every score links to the source. RMIT FactLab. ABS data. ANAO reports. Parliamentary Budget Office. You can click through and verify every single number yourself. If you think a score is wrong, raise a GitHub issue. We'll look at the evidence and update it if you're right.

This entire site is open source. That means: every line of code is publicly visible on GitHub; every data point is cited with a source URL; the AI chatbot's system prompt is visible in the source code; the scoring algorithms are documented in detail; anyone can fork this project, run it themselves, and verify the results. We've done this deliberately. The moment you have to trust us, we've failed. You should never have to trust us. You should be able to verify us. If a politician or journalist claims we've got something wrong, they can raise a GitHub issue like anyone else. We'll publish the evidence and update the data if they're correct. This is how accountability should work.

This site is not telling you how to vote. This site is not anti-Labor or anti-Coalition. This site is not funded by any political party, lobby group, media organisation, or government body. This site does not take advertising. This site does not have a view on immigration as a policy. This site does not have a view on climate policy. This site does not have a view on social policy. What this site HAS a view on: Transparency. The numbers should be public and readable. Accountability. Governments should be held to what they actually said. Evidence. Decisions should be based on data, not narrative. Fairness. The same methodology applied to everyone, equally. If you're Labor, you'll find things here that challenge you. If you're Coalition, you'll find things here that challenge you. If you're a swing voter, you'll find things here that cut through the noise and let you make a more informed decision. That's the point.

We're building an AI agent that will update this site automatically. Every quarter when ABS releases new data — this site updates. Every time a fact-check organisation rates a political statement — this site updates. Every time a new budget is handed down — this site updates. The goal is a permanent, living, maintained public record of Australian government financial performance. Searchable. Comparable. Always current. Always cited. This isn't a media project. It's infrastructure. The same way roads and electricity are infrastructure that Australians depend on — accurate, readable, primary-source financial data should be infrastructure too. It should just exist. For everyone. For free.

Found a data error? Raise a GitHub issue with the source document. We'll fix it within 48 hours. Want to add a new section? Fork the repo and submit a pull request. Found a broken source link? Tell us. Think a methodology is unfair? Open a GitHub Discussion. We'll debate it publicly and update the methodology if you're right. We're especially interested in: data verification against original source documents; additional historical years as CFS documents are released; opposition party policy analysis; accessibility improvements; mobile experience improvements. The only thing we ask: leave your party card at the door. The methodology has to be the same for everyone.