So what really did save Australia's economy?

Those who came closest to Australia in spending as a percentage of GDP are Mexico and the USA. Both survived better than most other nations.

By the end of 2010 Australia had spent more than 10% of its 2007 GDP – a staggering $79.1 billion all up.

Figure 3.3 shows the increase in investment spending as a percentage of GDP. Clearly Australia's was greatest. Poland was second, although its percentage was only half Australia's.

Of all 34 OECD countries, only two experienced just one quarter of negative growth in 2008, thus averting a technical recession – Australia and Poland.

Authorities advancing this analysis include Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University, Unicef consultant Bruno Martorano, UBS chief economist Scott Haslem, World Bank managing director Juan Jose Daboub, Queensland University's John Quiggin, Sydney University's Rodney Tiffin, the Australian Trade Commission's Tim Harcourt and most of Australia's government, business and union peak bodies. Plus economics journalists outside Australia.

The consensus outside Australia is compelling. As Prof Stiglitz wrote, "Kevin Rudd … realized that it was important to act early, with money that would be spent quickly, but that there was a risk that the crisis would not be over soon. So the first part of the stimulus was cash grants, followed by investments, which would take longer to put into place. Rudd's stimulus worked: Australia had the shortest and shallowest of recessions of the advanced industrial countries."

Why does this matter? Two reasons. First, Australians are entitled to base their vote on valid analysis rather than the falsehoods rife in the mainstream media.

Second, according to the OECD, another severe downturn is likely.

Will Australians stick with the managers who took Australia from 12^th-ranked to top of the world during the last downturn? Or switch to the Coalition whose proposed policies saw the nations which implemented them fare poorly?

The world will watch with interest.