The Coalition government, led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, did announce in April 2019 that Australia was "back in black," projecting a return to surplus [1].
Specifically, Frydenberg declared: "The budget is back in black and Australia is back on track," forecasting a $7.1 billion surplus for the 2019-20 financial year [2].
The government had specifically projected surpluses totaling $35.9 billion over the following three years; instead, actual deficits totaled $251.4 billion—a $287.3 billion variance [5].
By September 2020, Treasurer Frydenberg himself acknowledged that targeting surpluses would be "unrealistic"—a striking reversal from the 2019 budget's promise of expanding surpluses toward 1% of GDP within a decade [7].
The claim requires careful interpretation because the government's statement was technically about a *forecast* surplus, not an already-achieved surplus.
This was an unforeseeable crisis that justified the deficit spending, making the original projection mathematically obsolete through no fault of forecasting methodology.
**Pre-COVID Forecast Accuracy:** Even before COVID-19's impact, the 2019 projections were questioned.
The Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) of December 2019 (pre-COVID) had already revised the 2019-20 projection to a smaller surplus of approximately $8 billion—suggesting the initial April forecast was optimistic [4].
This indicates the issue wasn't solely COVID-related.
**Election Timing Context:** The budget was delivered just before the May 2019 federal election and featured substantial personal income tax cuts and infrastructure spending.
This timing raised legitimate questions about whether projections were optimized to support the Coalition's electoral pitch rather than based on conservative economic assumptions [3].
**Historical Comparison:** The Labor government had previously delivered actual budget surpluses in earlier years (most recently in 2007-08), providing a contrast with the Coalition's unfulfilled 2019 promise [8].
所 suǒ 提供 tí gōng 的 de 原始 yuán shǐ 來源 lái yuán ( ( thenewdaily thenewdaily . . com com . . au au ) ) 是 shì 一家 yī jiā 主流 zhǔ liú 澳洲 ào zhōu 新聞 xīn wén 媒體 méi tǐ , , 其 qí 編輯 biān jí 立場 lì chǎng 偏向 piān xiàng 中間 zhōng jiān 偏左 piān zuǒ , , 但維持 dàn wéi chí 專業 zhuān yè 的 de 新聞 xīn wén 標準 biāo zhǔn 。 。
The original source provided (thenewdaily.com.au) is a mainstream Australian news outlet with a center-left editorial perspective, though it maintains professional journalism standards.
Primary sources consulted include: Treasury official budget outcome documents, Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) government finance statistics, parliamentary records, and mainstream news outlets (ABC News, The Conversation, Guardian Australia).
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Search conducted: "Labor government budget surplus promises forecasts accuracy Australian budgets"
Labor has made similar deficit/surplus projections with varying accuracy.
* * * *
However, the Labor government that immediately preceded the Coalition (2007-2013, Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governments) inherited a strong fiscal position and initially delivered surpluses, before the Global Financial Crisis forced significant deficits [9].
When the Coalition returned to power in 2013, they inherited a deficit situation and gradually improved the fiscal position, eventually forecasting (in 2019) a return to surplus.
The key difference: Labor's subsequent projections (2022-2025) included more conservative surplus assumptions, partly informed by the Coalition's experience that even modest surplus targets could prove unrealistic [10].
However, the Coalition's 2019 projection proved uniquely optimistic, suggesting issues with either forecasting methodology or political motivation to present rosy pre-election scenarios.
Critics argue this demonstrates either: (1) poor economic forecasting, (2) political optimization of projections to support election prospects, or (3) both [11].
The magnitude of revision—from $35.9 billion in projected surpluses to $251.4 billion in actual deficits over three years—was massive and raised questions about the rigor of Treasury modeling [5].
The fact that Treasurer Frydenberg abandoned the surplus goal as "unrealistic" within 18 months suggests the original commitment was politically rather than economically grounded [7].
**Coalition's Perspective and Context:**
The government could argue that: (1) The original projections were based on economic conditions in April 2019, which were reasonable at that time [2]. (2) COVID-19 created an unforeseeable emergency that made deficit spending both necessary and widely accepted across the political spectrum [4]. (3) The forecasting errors that became apparent even in MYEFO December 2019 reflected genuine economic uncertainty, not intentional deception [4].
The Coalition maintained that emergency spending during COVID was appropriate fiscal policy and that long-term structural improvements were still occurring despite cyclical deficits [6].
**Independent Analysis:**
The Conversation and other independent observers noted that: (1) The 2019 budget contained several optimistic assumptions even before COVID-19 [3]. (2) Delivering the budget just before an election created incentives to present rosy scenarios [3]. (3) Even adjusted for COVID, the initial forecasting errors suggested overly optimistic economic assumptions [5].
This appears to be a systemic issue across Australian governments—tendency toward optimistic forecasts during election cycles—rather than unique to the Coalition [12].
**Key Context:** The 2019 budget projections were both technically a forecast (not a false claim of current surplus) AND substantively inaccurate even before COVID-19 occurred.
Whether this constitutes "lying" depends on intent: if the government knowingly used inflated projections for electoral advantage, it approaches deception; if the projections reflected genuinely optimistic but erroneous economic assumptions, it reflects poor forecasting rather than dishonesty.
The Coalition government did announce a return to surplus in the April 2019 budget, making the claim technically accurate as a statement of what was announced [1][2].
The 2019-20 financial year produced an $85.3 billion deficit instead of the projected $7.1 billion surplus [4], and subsequent years saw even larger deficits.
While COVID-19 provided unavoidable fiscal pressures, the initial projections were questionable even before the pandemic, as evidenced by December 2019 revisions [4].
Characterizing this as "lying" may overstate the case if the government genuinely believed the optimistic projections, but "misleading" is justified given the dramatic inaccuracy and the election-cycle timing of the announcement [3][11].
The Coalition government did announce a return to surplus in the April 2019 budget, making the claim technically accurate as a statement of what was announced [1][2].
The 2019-20 financial year produced an $85.3 billion deficit instead of the projected $7.1 billion surplus [4], and subsequent years saw even larger deficits.
While COVID-19 provided unavoidable fiscal pressures, the initial projections were questionable even before the pandemic, as evidenced by December 2019 revisions [4].
Characterizing this as "lying" may overstate the case if the government genuinely believed the optimistic projections, but "misleading" is justified given the dramatic inaccuracy and the election-cycle timing of the announcement [3][11].