Pardon my cynicism, but basically the Abbott Government's plan appears to be:

1. "Cook the books" to double the Government deficit after the election.
2. Declare a budget emergency.
3. Commission an "independent" audit producing ideology driven policies so extreme they'll never be adopted.
4. Adopt a budget that takes some of the "milder" policies, so the government appears reasonable, while still able to push their ideological agenda (cut social services, shrink the government, reduce/halt taxes).

Holy crap... this government is worse than anybody seems to have predicted.

Has the ABC given up on self-preservation? I'm sure the Libs will just claim that the reporting is unpatriotic and threaten to cut funding again.

Thank you David for succinctly explaining the situation.

+William Grant My guess was that they figure they better do what they can while they still have a budget. On the plus side, the Coalition's support is the lowest in almost 4 years. They're not making people happy.

+Michael Poloni I still feel like it comes off sounding like a Dick Dastardly-esq scheme that should involve some villain with a handlebar mustache and a catch phase like "Drat, drat and double drat!". I have a lot of trouble rationalizing this beyond almost cartoon greed/a desire to get their own way or just so blinded by their own doublethink that they don't see anything wrong with this (he has a mandate, as Tony Abbott continues to remind us).

"And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!"

So as far as I can gather, here's what happened.

Labor was planning to be 54 bn in debt by 2017. Liberals increased their planned spending by 68 bn, and blamed it on Labor (even though Labor wasn't planning to spend that much). And now they're planning to massively decrease spending and increase taxes (sorry... levies) which will mean they end up with much less debt than their new figure shows.

So they're planning to spend more, but they're planning to plan to spend less, so they plan to end up spending less than they planned to spend. And blame any problems on Labor.

I don't understand why society is so open and accepting of the blame game.

In the workplace I take a dim view of the blame game - sure, poor decisions can be made and bad circumstances can eventuate. But blaming doesn't help.  What I expect to see in the workplace is proposals and actions to address known failings and deficiencies.

I can't think of the last time my respect for a colleague grew because he/she took the blame-game approach instead of constructive-improvement approach.

I understand that politics is different, because (a) people don't want to be well-informed about "everything" and (b) people aren't necessarily sufficiently educated to form a judgement on various matters.  But does this have to mean that "blame" is the only way to bridge that information gap?  Perhaps it serves only the purpose of building distrust, such that on those matters where we are ignorant we'll be less-inclined to believe one side over the other?  That's a hell of a way for improving the moral fibre of our society.

Clearly the fact check unit's budget doesn't include graphic design talent. Just look at that seam around Bowen!