Talk:2014 Australian federal budget

	Australia portal 2014 Australian federal budget is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Incomplete

I've added an incomplete tag as this article requires serious expansion - it is almost all pre-budget. I've added the under 30s Newstart bit and linked ABC's winners/losers in external links that can be drawn on for article expansion. There's a lot that still isn't covered. It also wasn't linked anywhere in a wikipedia article except Australian federal budget and templates so i've linked to it in Abbott/Abbott govt articles. Timeshift (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would any reasonable person expect a complete article less than 48 hours after the budget is delivered? I don't disagree with you however I don't think the template aids anyone. A list of topics which should be included as a priority would be more useful. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not complete, but it is wikipedia. I'd expect this would have been encapsulated in the article within a few hours. But maybe I expect too much these days. Timeshift (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent removal

User:Andreas11213 recently removed a couple of sentences including a reference which explained changes to expenditure affecting education and health, claiming it was false. However the matter was in the news for days and the premiers called an emergency meeting in response. They were expecting the funding and they were caught off-guard. Therefore the sentences are not false and should be included. Further clarification regarding the changes may be appropriate but removing is not. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unpopular and broken promises

This article and this article from the Australian explain how unpopular the budget it. This article gives a succinct account of promises made and promises broken. At the end of the video on the previous article it is put to Abbott that he broke promises and in his answer he doesn't deny that was the case. Many more of Abbott broken promises have been documented with links to sources here. I am not sure where the IP editor who wants to remove a single sentence from the lead which explains this to our readers is getting their news and information from but from my understanding of the matter the budget's unpopularity and the repeated broken promises are widely understood, basic facts on the matter which belong in the article and are not simply someone's opinion. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polls showed the budget to be the most unpopular in federal history - far worse than 1996. Abbott makes Howard look like a bleeding-heart leftie. And a cut is a cut no matter how you cut it. It's not just one or two media outlets either. Reducing the indexation of the pension is a cut. There's a really simple rule here - if a pensioner will get less than they otherwise would have got, it is a cut. A cut is a cut is a cut. And the fact that Abbott won't admit it just rubs salt in to the wound. He has a lot to think about, as do his sycophantic supporters. Sorry I had to say it, but refusing to admit a cut is a cut really is bordering on the fringes and an insult to Australians. Timeshift (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its unpopularity is almost the budget's key attribute. Depending on the political outcome in a few years it may be its most important characteristic. Abbott's credibility issue is lost at the 'any reasonable person might assume' threshold. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So much for magic pudding Hockeynomics before the election that said you could cut taxes, increase spending, and reduce debt. Now they've been shown for the vacuous frauds they are. It's not just a broken promise here or there, it's broken social-fabric-ripping promises strewn right through the budget, and what's worse, it was planned and calculated, but all we got was Hockeynomics. Pity they got elected by default. Australians don't easily forget. Two more years is too long... Timeshift (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, i'm not happy with the lead sentence in the article... "including a 1% cut in funding to the ABC and SBS" makes it look like that's the biggest and/or only issue. It's just the tip of the iceberg. Timeshift (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent addition regarding Hockey's claims

The article states the budget was expected to deliver a deficit of $29.8 billion when it was delivered in May 2014. Current figures claim the figure is now $38 billion. That means his budget was $10 billion worse not $3 billion better. This would have to be one of the lamest attempts at fudging the numbers I have seen. It is a very misleading claim which should not be included here. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether it is accurate or not, Hockey still claimed this was so - and now there is commentary coming out saying that that claim is inaccurate. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]