Federal Budget 2025:
Future Generations Analysis
In response to the Federal Budget, EveryGen led an analysis of its implications through the eyes of a child born on budget night. This analysis covers deep dives into the budget measure and its relationship to the five major forces in the Intergenerational Report 2023, the Measuring What Matters Framework, and questions set out by the Welsh Government to assess the intergenerational implications of policy.
Deep Dive 1: Tax Cuts
What is the Budget Measure?
The revised stage three tax cuts mean that all 13.6 million taxpayers in Australia will get a tax cut amounting to an average benefit per taxpayer of $1,888 a year. This includes a reduction of the tax rates for low and middle-income earners and an adjustment of income thresholds for upper-middle and high-income taxpayers. The government claims that will disproportionately benefit low and middle-income individuals, although expert analysis points to the short-lived nature of this windfall, likely to be eroded due to inflation in just a few years. What’s more, over half the population, many of which are vulnerable Australians – those who aren’t paying tax due to being unemployed or elderly – will receive no benefit from what is being touted as by far the government’s most significant cost-of-living measure this budget.
How does this Budget Measure relate to the five major forces in The Intergenerational Report 2023
Population Ageing
Expanded use of digital and data technology
Climate change and a net zero transformation
Rising demand for care and support services
Increased geopolitical risk and fragmentation
Income inequality is an enduring issue in Australia with the potential to erode social cohesion and drive domestic and international political instability. According to Treasury figures, our level of income inequality has shifted very little since 2007-08. This is a concern because income inequality has been resoundingly linked to declining trust in government, growing political polarization and the global trend towards populism.
Whilst we are yet to see an Australian Donald Trump come to power, failing to make bold policy decisions to tame income inequality might yet see the world gain another ‘strong man’ populist leader, increasing geopolitical risk in an already tense region. In any case, we should be worried about the domestic political risk posed by increasingly discontented voters. Failing to act on income inequality could leave future generations in a world less stable and socially cohesive than the one we currently live in.
How does this Budget Measure relate to the Measuring What Matters Framework?
The Measuring What Matters Framework (Framework) has five wellbeing themes:
Healthy: A society in which people feel well and are in good physical and mental health, can access services when they need, and have the information they require to take action to improve their health.
Secure: A society where people live peacefully, feel safe, have financial security and access to housing.
Sustainable: A society that sustainably uses natural and financial resources, protects and repairs the environment and builds resilience to combat challenges.
Cohesive: A society that supports connections with family, friends and the community, values diversity, and promotes belonging and culture.
Prosperous: A society that has a dynamic, strong economy, invests in people’s skills and education, and provides broad opportunities for employment and well-paid, secure jobs.
Inclusion, equity and fairness are cross-cutting dimensions of the Framework.
In both the medium and long-term, the current approach to tax cuts will do little systematically increase the financial security of Australians. The government needs to think more boldly than playing inflation catch-up when it comes to creating a more equitable tax system that ensures the financial security of generations now and into the future.
Although average household wealth in Australia is the fourth highest in the world, this is mostly due to home ownership. With little guarantee that future generations will be able to afford homes with the same ease that their parents and grandparents did, aiming to distribute income more equally becomes all the more important in creating a society that is both prosperous and fair.
Applying the Welsh Government Budget Questions
Does this Budget measure:
Move the country away from its vision for the future? Not actively, although it represents a missed opportunity to advance towards a fairer Australia
Disadvantage any generations, alive now or in the future? No
Disadvantage people at any specific life stage? Those who are out of the tax system (e.g., the unemployed and the elderly) will be relatively worse off
Strengthen the transmission of inequality through generations? Yes, this budget measure makes no substantial attempt at tackling the issue of income inequality
Restrict the choice of future generations? No
Analysis - Happy baby or sad baby?
Tax cuts provide immediate financial relief to many Australians, but these effects are unlikely to be long-lasting. Whilst a progressive tax system is better than nothing when it comes addressing the enduring problem of income inequality, the government needs to think more ambitiously if it wants to fix this problem and avoiding the looming threat of social and political discontent that might arise if we continue down this path.
Isabella Vacaflores | Global Institute for Women’s Leadership
Isabella is currently working as a research assistant at the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership. She has previously held research positions at Grattan Institute, Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet and the School of Politics and International Relations at the Australian National University. She has won multiple awards and scholarships, including recently being named the 2023 Australia New Zealand Boston Consulting Group Women’s Scholar, for her efforts to improve gender, racial and socio-economic equality in politics and education.
Deep Dive 2: Mental Health
What is the Budget Measure?
Mental health and suicide prevention - The Government will provide $888.1 million over 8 years from 2024–25 (and $139.8 million per year ongoing) to respond to the Better Access evaluation and to strengthen Australia’s mental health and suicide prevention system Budget Paper 2, page 116
This funding includes:
$29.7 million allocated to youth mental health funding over three years to improve child and youth mental health services with a focus on uplifting workforce capacity and co-designing new models of care.
$12.8 million over four years from 24-25 to extend the ‘Indigenous Youth Connection to Culture’ program to support young people in 12 communities through placed-based activities aimed at reducing suicide rates and improved mental health outcomes.
$163.9 million investment into a national early intervention service that anyone can access for free mental health support.
Primary Health Networks, in partnership with GPs, to be funded $71.7 million to commission the services of mental health nurses, counsellors, social workers and peer workers, to provide that ongoing and wraparound care and care coordination for people with high needs – in between their GP and specialist appointments.
A $29.9 million investment into providing free mental health services through a network of 61 walk-in Medicare Mental Health Centres, building on the established Head to Health network.
$588.5 million over eight years (and $113.4 million per year ongoing) from 24-25 to establish a national low intensity free digital mental health service.
How does this Budget Measure relate to the five major forces in The Intergenerational Report 2023
Technological and digital transformation – the significant investment in a digital low intensity digital support service, depending on how it is developed and delivered could transform access to supports for people with lower severity mental ill-health. As with any move into digital adaption, innovation and constant adaptation is critical. There will be a need to envision this service beyond online chat services, chat bots and provision of static online resources. There are examples of advanced mental health platforms utilising algorithms, interactivity, personalised content along with clinical and evidence-based resources that could be drawn on. The biggest risk is that the implementation of this measure will fail to keep up to date with the latest advances in digital technology.
Rising demand for care and support services – the expansion of the 24 previously known as Head to Health hubs into 61 Medicare Mental Health Centres across the country could provide Australians with greater access to free mental health supports, particularly if they are experiencing more complex and serious mental health issues. Measures which support workforce development, including the placement financial supports through the Higher Education measures for social work students, and extended support for the headspace early career program to employ students and graduates from social work, psychology and occupational therapy in headspace centres nationally will further build and protect the future workforce.
How does this Budget Measure relate to the Measuring What Matters Framework
Healthy: There are steps here to improve Australians access to mental health services with welcome consideration of providing more supports to people currently too unwell for primary care and not unwell enough for tertiary services through the expansion of the Medicare Mental Health Services and the funding to PHNs to provide allied health and wrap around supports for mental health presentations at GP clinics. Given the crisis in youth mental health we would have expected more service investment for this age group.
Secure: There are measures in this budget specifically to support youth homelessness services and young people who are in family violence situations who need access to safe accommodation - homelessness and mental ill-health are strongly linked.
Cohesive: Community connection and belonging is a strong preventative factor in mental health and there was a lack of mental health prevention funding in this budget.
Inclusion, equity and fairness are cross-cutting dimensions of the Framework. There is an intent from several of the mental health budget measures to provide greater access to free mental health supports, particularly at points for early intervention. These are steps to respond to the Better Access Review which found disproportionate access to the 10 sessions of mental health care for people in high socioeconomic and inner-city locations compared to people on lower socioeconomic and regional/rural areas. Salaried centres such as the Medicare Mental Health Centres will assist to deliver greater equity in service access.
Applying the Welsh Government Budget Questions
Does this Budget measure:
Move the country away from its vision for the future? The steps toward improving access to mental health care, particularly in early intervention continues to move the country in the right direction. However, significantly greater spend in mental health care is needed to be proportionate with its contribution to burden of disease and economic costs both in terms of future health system costs and lost productivity.
Disadvantage any generations, alive now or in the future? The lack of focus on youth mental health service provision was notable, particularly given the increase in youth mental health prevalence over the past 15 years and the demand on the current network of youth mental health services.
Strengthen the transmission of inequality through generations? There are measures in this mental health budget which seek to address the inequalities in the main mechanism for accessing federally funded mental health treatment in the Better Access program.
Restrict the choice of future generations? No, this budget does not place any greater restrictions on choice for future generations regarding access to mental health care.
Analysis - Happy baby or sad baby?
While there was some signals of the Australian Government redesigning a mental health system that is fairer, more accessible and more targeted to need, we would want to see a much greater spend in mental health as a proportion of the overall health spend in future budgets to address the growing mental health crisis among young people and protect future generations from the intergenerational impacts associated with the disadvantages and poor life outcomes that untreated mental ill-health can result in.
Vivienne Browne | Associate Director, Government Relations and Policy, Orygen
Vivienne has worked for over 15 years in policy development, project management and program delivery in state government, local government and the community sector. Prior to working at Orygen, she held senior policy positions within the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Department of Health and Human Services in the Victorian Government.
Deep Dive 3: Transport
What is the Budget Measure?
Infrastructure Spending: Better transport for cities, regions and suburbs – “The Government is focusing its over $120 billion ten-year infrastructure investment pipeline on nationally significant projects which improve the prosperity, accessibility and liveability of our cities, regions and communities. This Budget provides $16.5 billion over 10 years from 2024–25 for priority road and rail infrastructure projects” Budget Paper 1, page 13.
This funding includes additional funding of $3.3 billion for the North East Link in Melbourne, an additional $1.4 billion to existing METRONET projects in Perth, $1.9 billion for priority road and rail projects in Western Sydney
1.2 billion for the Direct Sunshine Coast Rail in South East Queensland and $2.6 billion in road and rail projects in regional Australia.
The majority, around 50% of the budget is focused on road transport, with 30% on rail and only $100 million (0.6%) over four years from 2025–26 for an Active Transport Fund to support the construction and upgrade of bicycle and walking paths across Australia.
How does this Budget Measure relate to the five major forces in The Intergenerational Report 2023
Climate change and a net zero transformation: Increased roads will increase traffic, which will only support decarbonisation with a rapid shift to electric vehicles. It is likely that in the short term increased roads will significantly increase transport emissions.
How does this Budget Measure relate to the Measuring What Matters Framework
Healthy: A society in which people feel well and are in good physical and mental health, can access services when they need, and have the information they require to take action to improve their health.
Increased road traffic will result in increased health impacts, including road injuries and deaths (especially of children) and air pollution health impacts. The Welsh Commissioner for Future Generations has notes that “An over-reliance on the car has led to increased noise, poorer air quality, time wasted in traffic and an unacceptable burden on communities living near our most congested roads, often in areas where fewer people drive a car.” https://www.futuregenerations.wales/news/sophie-howe-future-generations-commissioner-for-wales-welcomes-the-news-that-all-new-road-building-projects-in-wales-are-being-paused-by-welsh-government/
Increased opportunities for cycling through the $100m investment in cycle ways might encourage cycling, including among school children and the younger generation, which could contribute to improved health. However, investment in cycling consists of only 0.6% of new spending in the budget.
Sustainable: A society that sustainably uses natural and financial resources, protects and repairs the environment and builds resilience to combat challenges.
Road transport and road building is in response to congestion caused largely by private vehicles. Public transport is significantly more sustainable, regardless of any shift to electrification. Continued focus on road building will not support more sustainable transport use, while encouraging a dependency on private roads.
Funding for rail and light rail transport is likely to encourage more sustainable transport and travel.
Funding for cycling and walking infrastructure will support more sustainable, active travel but accounts for only 0.6% of funding in the budget.
Inclusion, equity and fairness are cross-cutting dimensions of the Framework.
The Welsh Commissioner for Future Generations highlighted the multiple issues and unfairness of continuing car-dependency. They note that “Transport poverty is exacerbated by policy-making geared towards motorised travel as the main means for accessing employment and services, as it excludes people who don’t have access to a car or adequate alternative transport options.” and “Equal access to affordable public transport is key to achieving effective, sustainable mobility in cities of all sizes. An imperative for urban design is to make walking, cycling and taking a bus or riding rail transit more attractive than sitting in traffic. https://www.futuregenerations.wales/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/20180912-Transport-Fit-for-Future-Generations-C-1.pdf
The same issues apply to Australia. With approximately 50% of the new money to be spent on road-related spending, the budget continues to increase car dependency, the continued focus on cars does not address longterm social inequities.
Applying the Welsh Government Budget Questions
Does this Budget measure:
Move the country away from its vision for the future?
The continued focus on car transport moves Australia away from its vision of the future, especially in terms of sustainability.
Disadvantage any generations, alive now or in the future?
Continued road building locks in car transport dependency, disadvantaging future generations.
Strengthen the transmission of inequality through generations?
Restrict the choice of future generations?
Increased road building locks in car transport dependency, reducing options for future generations.
Analysis - Happy baby or sad baby?
Continued focus on car transport and limited finding on public transport and particularly active travel – walking and cycling – locks future generations into car dependency, with associated health, climate change, pollution and inequity issues.
Ed Morgan | Griffith University
Dr Ed Morgan is a Research Fellow and Director of the Policy Innovation Hib at Griffith University. He is a highly skilled and experienced transdisciplinary researcher and facilitator focused on policy, planning and governance. He focuses on turning knowledge into action using collaborative, systems approaches in support sustainable development and climate change action.
Deep Dive 4: Future Gas Strategy
What is the Budget Measure?
Future Gas Strategy - The Government has provided $6.7 million to develop a forward strategy for gas in Australia. The strategy envisions the continued, but reducing, extraction and use of gas to 2050 and beyond https://www.industry.gov.au/publications/future-gas-strategy
How does this Budget Measure relate to the five major forces in The Intergenerational Report 2023
Climate change and a net zero transformation
This budget measure increases risks of failing to meet decarbonisation targets by supporting new gas developments beyond 2050. The Climate Change Act 2022 requires reductions of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions to 43% below 2005 levels by 2030. The strategy claims that use of gas to support a renewables will support this goal. However, it also supports new gas developments beyond 2050, implying that demand for gas will be significant beyond 2050. The strategy does not seek to limit domestic gas usage, e.g. by regulating new household gas appliances.
This budget measure will increase climate change impacts by causing more fossil fuel emissions. Although many of these will technically be outside of Australia, given the majority of gas is exported, they will add to global carbon emissions and the latest IPCC report made it clear that every tonne of emissions matters as the world aims to keep warming under 2 C. The International Energy Agency has have made it clear there can be no new coal, oil or gas projects if the global energy sector is to reach net zero emissions by 2050 and help avoid catastrophic climate change, the International Energy Agency.
Increased geopolitical risk and fragmentation
The gas strategy may provide reassurance to trading partners concerned about supply chains disruptions, supporting stability. However, gas exports will rely on stable geopolitical trade routes. At the same time, it also assumes ongoing demand for gas from export partners, which is incompatible with global goals on net zero. Also, continued reliance on gas in Australia will be subject to international market prices, and increased geopolitical instability tends to increase domestic gas prices significantly, as seen in recent times.
How does this Budget Measure relate to the Measuring What Matters Framework
The Measuring What Matters Framework (Framework) has five wellbeing themes:
Healthy: A society in which people feel well and are in good physical and mental health, can access services when they need, and have the information they require to take action to improve their health.
In addition to greater risk of climate-related disasters, with accompanying injury and death, burning gas adds to air pollution, increasing air-pollution related health issues. There is also increasing evidence of health impacts of household gas appliances.
Secure: A society where people live peacefully, feel safe, have financial security and access to housing.
Recent events have demonstrated that gas prices are highly dependent on international prices and consequently strongly affected by international events. Over-reliance on gas exposes societies to these shocks, in contrast to renewables, which are less affected by this.
Sustainable: A society that sustainably uses natural and financial resources, protects and repairs the environment and builds resilience to combat challenges.
Gas is non-renewable and therefore not sustainable, especially on intergenerational timescales. In addition, unconventional gas sources, such as coal seam gas, which are likely to provide much of any new gas supply, have significant unknown long-term environmental risks, including risks to groundwater.
Prosperous: A society that has a dynamic, strong economy, invests in people’s skills and education, and provides broad opportunities for employment and well-paid, secure jobs.
Further gas exploration and exports may provide some economic benefits. However, it is not clear where these benefits will fall, and the gas industry is a small employer and benefits. Gas prices are defined by international markets, potentially making gas very expensive for Australian consumers (depending on international events) or the risk of stranded assets if the world decarbonises rapidly.
Applying the Welsh Government Budget Questions
Does this Budget measure:
Move the country away from its vision for the future?
The Future Gas Strategy moves Australia away from the decarbonisation, climate change and sustainability goals laid out in the intergenerational report and Wellbeing Framework by extending investment in, and dependence on, fossil fuels. It potentially moves Australia away from 'healthy' due to the health impacts on air quality and climate change impacts. It moves Australia away from reducing impacts from geopolitical risks because of risks to gas prices from geopolitical events.
Disadvantage any generations, alive now or in the future?
The Future Gas Strategy disadvantages future generations through increased climate impacts and other potential environmental impacts of gas extraction, while not providing any benefits to them.
Disadvantage people at any specific life stage?
Continued use of fossil fuels disadvantages young people by locking in greater climate change.
Strengthen the transmission of inequality through generations?
Greater climate impacts will be increasingly felt by the most vulnerable into the future, strengthening the transmission of inequality through generations.
Restrict the choice of future generations?
Use of gas now prevents option in the future, e.g. if carbon capture and storage is practical or alternative, non-polluting uses of it are found.
Analysis - Happy baby or sad baby?
The Future Gas Strategy, by extending use and investment in fossil fuels, is very likely to harm a child born on budget day far more than any potential benefits from tax revenues.
Ed Morgan | Griffith University
Dr Ed Morgan is a Research Fellow and Director of the Policy Innovation Hib at Griffith University. He is a highly skilled and experienced transdisciplinary researcher and facilitator focused on policy, planning and governance. He focuses on turning knowledge into action using collaborative, systems approaches in support sustainable development and climate change action.
Deep Dive 5: Defence
What is the Budget Measure on Defence Spending?
Defence Minister Richard Marles’ had already made a major budget announcement in April that defence spending will double to $100bn within the next decade, in response to China’s military intensification.
This Budget announces an extra $5.7 billion in defence funding over the forward estimates, which is the single biggest increase to affect the budget balance, but with $3.8 billion not due until 2027-28.
The federal government is planning to spend an extra $50 billion on defence over the next decade, meaning Australia's total defence spend will be equivalent to 2.4 per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP) within 10 years. including the $11.1bn already announced for the navy’s surface fleet. Some funding has been redirected to make the ADF "more amphibious".
Long term, the government is planning to invest a total of $330 billion through to 2033-34, which includes the initial cost for the AUKUS initiative to purchase nuclear-powered submarines. This means the annual Defence budget will grow to an estimated $100 billion by 2033-34 compared to $53 billion this financial year.
$750 million to be allocated in the budget for the "hardening" of bases in Northern Australia in the 2024-2025 financial year, and more than $1 billion of that funding will also be spent on an immediate boost on long-range missiles and targeting systems.
Foreign Affairs spending
In the Pacific, Australia has committed $110 million to fund development initiatives in Tuvalu, including an undersea telecommunications cable and direct budget support. The government has also pledged $492 million to the Asian Development Bank to provide grants to vulnerable countries in the Asia-Pacific.
The Australian aid budget will be around $4.96 billion next financial year, around $130 million higher than the $4.83 billion projected in the last budget. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) will receive more than $400 million over nine years to "enhance and expand" Australia's diplomatic missions in the Pacific, as well as another $228 million over four years to upgrade diplomatic properties and communications systems around the globe.
This Budget notes the influence of armed conflict in many indirect ways, referenced in the need for supply chains, and minerals. Treasurer Jim Chalmers attributed high energy prices to Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, for example.
How does this Budget Measure relate to the five major forces in The Intergenerational Report 2023
This Budget Measure speaks to the force identified as ‘Increased geopolitical risk and fragmentation’ in the Intergenerational Report 2023 and these Budget Measures are closely aligned.
The report stated:
The global strategic environment has deteriorated sharply over the past decade. The Indo‑Pacific faces a challenging strategic outlook, amid the largest military build-up in the post-war era. The use of coercive statecraft has become the centre of geostrategic competition. The international rules and norms that have underpinned Australia’s security and prosperity are under increasing pressure. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and rising geostrategic competition, has sharpened global tensions and disrupted the global economy.
The Budget papers respond:
In a world of rapid economic change and heightened strategic competition, investing in modern defence industries serves our economic and national security interests. That’s why we’re injecting $50.3 billion over the decade to deliver the capabilities we need to keep Australians safe – as part of the National Defence Strategy.
However, the Intergenerational Report also speaks to using all the tools of statecraft in a strategic manner to achieve a stable and prosperous region, which these Budget papers show only a long term vision for defence spending.
How does this Budget Measure relate to the Measuring What Matters Framework
The Measuring What Matters Framework (Framework) has five wellbeing themes, all of which presume an Australia whose territory is safe from incursion in a stable region. This Budget Measure particularly focuses on Australians feeling secure and cohesive.
Healthy: A society in which people feel well and are in good physical and mental health, can access services when they need, and have the information they require to take action to improve their health.
Secure: A society where people live peacefully, feel safe, have financial security and access to housing.
Sustainable: A society that sustainably uses natural and financial resources, protects and repairs the environment and builds resilience to combat challenges.
Cohesive: A society that supports connections with family, friends and the community, values diversity, and promotes belonging and culture.
Prosperous: A society that has a dynamic, strong economy, invests in people’s skills and education, and provides broad opportunities for employment and well-paid, secure jobs.
Inclusion, equity and fairness are cross-cutting dimensions of the Framework.
Applying the Welsh Government Budget Questions
Does this Budget measure:
Move the country away from its vision for the future?
Disadvantage any generations, alive now or in the future?
Disadvantage people at any specific life stage?
Strengthen the transmission of inequality through generations?
Restrict the choice of future generations?
The Defence Strategic Review notes that Australia’s ‘national security and our national prosperity are based on a stable peaceful region where the global rules-based order is preeminent and respected’. The efficacy of Defence spending is difficult to judge except in hindsight, as the best-case scenario is that the capability is not used for warfighting at all and Australia is not threatened. In this case, ADF spending could still be seen as having deterrence value. It has been argued that the current significant increase in defence moves Australia away from a more peaceful future by responding to Chinese signals with a military buildup and the AUKUS alliance. If China changes course, there might be future regrets over the level of investment at the expense of other threats to Australian security, such as climate impacts or pandemics. There is already tension about the ADF’s role in dealing with disasters on Australian soil. Should security always trump social and environmental policy?
The Defence spend could disadvantage future generations, or young people alive now if enough investment is not made in climate mitigation and adaptation. The Government has not released the Office of National Intelligence’s Climate Risk Assessment that assessed climate as a security risk. It is likely that there were significant climate risks identified for the ADF’s bases in Northern Australia, as well as the Navy. The nature of the security threats impacted by climate change such as mass displacement caused by disasters and crumbling of social cohesion deserve the same planning and preparation as traditional security threats.
The Defence spend could restrict the choices of future generations if Australia has not put commensurate long-term funding and strategy around diplomacy, conflict resolution and people-to-people links. Conversely, insufficient investment in Defence could restrict the ability of future generations to defend Australian territory and populations.
Analysis - Happy baby or sad baby?
Ultimately, Defence spending, especially on armaments, creates the risk of a less secure future for a baby born on Budget night. The future-focused Defence spend is not matched in scale or planning with funding for diplomacy and aid, or climate mitigation and adaptation funding.
Susan Harris Rimmer | Griffith University, EveryGen
Professor Susan Harris Rimmer focuses on international human rights law, climate justice and gender equality in the Griffith Law School and is a member of the Law Futures Centre. Sue leads the Climate Justice theme of the Griffith Climate Action Beacon. She is the founder of the EveryGen coalition (www.everygen.online) which seeks to amplify the voices of current and future generations and highlight the long-term impacts of today’s policy decisions. With Professor Sara Davies, Susan is co-convenor of the Griffith Gender Equality Research Network.
Deep Dive 6: Official Development Assistance (ODA) and Foreign Affairs
What is the Budget Measure?
Official Development Assistance (ODA) and Foreign Affairs
How does this Budget Measure relate to the five major forces in The Intergenerational Report 2023
Population Ageing – No specific mention in ODA budget summary, however less budget allocated to global health programs ($36 million reduction compared to 2023-24 budget estimate) and regional health security.
Expanded use of digital and data technology – No specific mention in ODA budget summary.
Climate change and a net zero transformation – Modest increase of $144.4 million for climate change and environment, but no increase in funding to disaster risk reduction, preparedness and response. Continued support for Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific (AIFFP) (announced in 2018), with focus on climate resilient infrastructure and support for net zero transition in the Pacific. Support for $222.5 million Mekong-Australia Partnership (announced at the ASEAN-Australia Summit 2024) focused on water security, responding to climate change, transnational crime.
Rising demand for care and support services – No specific mention in ODA budget summary, but gender equality, disability and social inclusion (GEDSI) funding up by $102.3 million, which has previously included a focus on care economy and future demand of care.
Increased geopolitical risk and fragmentation – Minimal to no additional budget (compared to 2023-24 budget estimate) for multilateral development banks, UN, Commonwealth and other international organisations, cross regional and global programs.
How does this Budget Measure relate to the Measuring What Matters Framework
The Measuring What Matters Framework (Framework) has five wellbeing themes:
Healthy: A society in which people feel well and are in good physical and mental health, can access services when they need, and have the information they require to take action to improve their health.
Secure: A society where people live peacefully, feel safe, have financial security and access to housing.
Sustainable: A society that sustainably uses natural and financial resources, protects and repairs the environment and builds resilience to combat challenges.
Cohesive: A society that supports connections with family, friends and the community, values diversity, and promotes belonging and culture.
Prosperous: A society that has a dynamic, strong economy, invests in people’s skills and education, and provides broad opportunities for employment and well-paid, secure jobs.
Inclusion, equity and fairness are cross-cutting dimensions of the Framework.
Regarding ODA, commitments such as the new five-year $20 million Southeast Asia Gender-based Violence Prevention Platform (2024–29) contribute to healthy and secure wellbeing themes. Commitments such as $492 million towards the Asian Development Bank’s Asian Development Fund (2025-28) contribute to sustainable wellbeing theme, through climate resilient hospital and school funding in the Indo-Pacific. The $30 million increase to education partnerships contribute to prosperous wellbeing theme.
Regarding foreign affairs more generally, DFAT has been allocated a modest increase in funding (compared to 2023-2024), yet this is largely in the domain of security and resilience to cyber threats to upgrade Australia’s communications infrastructure and overseas property (an extra $227.8 million). Minister Wong and Minister Conroy specifically highlight ‘securing Australia’s future in the world’ in their press release, including referencing that our “prosperity, security and economic future is tied to our region”. With diplomacy as Australia’s first line of defence, DFAT’s modest increase aligns with the ‘cohesive’ wellbeing theme.
However, this ‘modest increase’ is overshadowed when compared to an additional $5.7 billion committed to Defence over forward estimates – ’the largest increase to Defence spending over a forward estimates period in decades’. Defence’s spending is noted as a ‘generational investment’ – hinting at intergenerational equity particularly as relates to ‘secure’ wellbeing themes. Yet, it could be argued that the increased investments in DFAT as Australia’s first line of defence is insignificant in comparison to the funding allocated to Defence – potentially hampering Australia’s ability to fulfil the promise that DFAT holds in contributing to regional intergenerational wellbeing themes that also benefit Australia’s regional security and prosperity over the long-term.
Applying the Welsh Government Budget Questions
Does this Budget measure:
Move the country away from its vision for the future? No.
Disadvantage any generations, alive now or in the future? Unclear, although gender equality, disability and social inclusion (GEDSI) mainstreaming goes some way to engraining equity in DFAT budget allocation.
Disadvantage people at any specific life stage? Possibly – through decrease in funding to global health programs.
Strengthen the transmission of inequality through generations? Unclear.
Restrict the choice of future generations? Unclear.
Analysis - Happy baby or sad baby?
Overall, Australia’s ODA budgeting is largely dedicated to projects that promote intergenerational justice, although this is more incidental than by design, with the exception of GEDSI mainstreaming in DFAT and ODA which has gone some distance to mainstreaming equity considerations. However, the main criticism lies in Australia’s relative DFAT and ODA financing, which remains a fraction of spending by our allies and international counterparts (e.g. Canada, which had an overall ODA budget of USD$7.8 billion in 2022 as opposed to Australia’s AUD$4.9 billion in 2024-25) as well as a fraction when compared to the increases allocated to Defence.
Elise Stephenson | Global Institute for Women’s Leadership, ANU
Dr Elise Stephenson is the Deputy Director of the Global Institute for Women's Leadership at the Australian National University. She is a multi award-winning gender and international relations researcher with an entrepreneurial background, whose work focuses on research and practical interventions at critical junctures to ensure equality in new and rapidly emerging policy frontiers, domestically and internationally.
Deep Dive 7: Housing
What is the Budget Measure?
Building more homes for Australians- 1.2 million homes over the next 5 years.
The Budget paper 1, Statement 4: Meeting Australia’s Housing Challenge outlines an investment in housing which is comprised of $423.1 million in new and additional funding for social housing and homelessness services, equating to around 55,000 homes through various accords and housing payment programs (Housing Australia Future Fund, the Social Housing Accelerator Payment and other Housing Australia programs)
Namely, the budget has invested in the following strategies:
Kickstart construction of more homes by building infrastructure, training tradies, and cutting planning hurdles.
Deliver the biggest investment in social and affordable housing in over a decade.
Provide more support for renters – including the biggest increase in rent assistance in more than 30 years.
Help Australians buy their own home.
Double its dedicated homelessness funding and provide shelter for people in crisis – including women and children fleeing domestic violence, veterans, and youth.
The Government has outlined issues with undersupply of dwellings, underinvestment in social and affordable housing, barriers to home ownership and fairness for renters, but the provision of the new houses committed within the next 5 years will only be realised through state and privately funded developments, increases in a skilled workforce and a relaxation of planning and zoning mechanisms at the LGA level.
How does this Budget Measure relate to the five major forces in The Intergenerational Report 2023
Population Ageing- Boost to social housing may support ageing populations and boosts to connectivity may assist with ageing in place, but future generations are likely to face similar housing stress when we consider the compounding impacts of climate changes which are likely to diminish appropriate and safe housing stock through social and environmental factors.
Expanded use of digital and data technology- No specific mention.
Climate change and a net zero transformation- Statement 4: Meeting Australia’s Housing
Challenge makes no mention of climate change, sustainability (in the context of climate change, Sustainable Development Goals or environment), adaptation or transition in the context of energy efficiency or mitigation.
Rising demand for care and support services- this budget measure is aimed at providing significant support for at-risk individuals and families, including those in crisis fleeing from domestic and family violence. The provisions are for up to 50,000 new social and community houses within 5 years.
Increased geopolitical risk and fragmentation- no specific mention.
How does this Budget Measure relate to the Measuring What Matters Framework
The Measuring What Matters Framework (Framework) has five wellbeing themes:
Healthy: A society in which people feel well and are in good physical and mental health, can access services when they need, and have the information they require to take action to improve their health.
Secure: A society where people live peacefully, feel safe, have financial security and access to housing. Access to housing is an essential part of feeling secure. Extra funding for new houses may help to avoid future housing crises and reduce prices for younger people to get access to housing sooner, but this is based on the assumption that the goal of 1.2 million new houses is realised, and that they are built to be sustainable and resilient.
Sustainable: A society that sustainably uses natural and financial resources, protects and repairs the environment and builds resilience to combat challenges.This mechanism does not provide any information regarding sustainability measures, it has proposed additional state and local government powers to ‘fast track’ development approvals to decrease planning wait times.
Cohesive: A society that supports connections with family, friends and the community, values diversity, and promotes belonging and culture. Fair and equitable access to housing supports cohesion by giving people a choice of where to live and allowing communities to establish relationships over the long term. A key point within this measure is allowing for housing to be developed near regional and urban services to support families, education and work opportunities. More housing might help to improve this by increasing supply but this will need to be well-designed if it is within urban centres (increased density dwellings) or in new regional areas.
Prosperous: A society that has a dynamic, strong economy, invests in people’s skills and education, and provides broad opportunities for employment and well-paid, secure jobs. The Government is responding to the skills shortage challenge by investing $88.8 million to grow the pipeline of construction workers through 20,000 additional fee-free TAFE and pre- apprenticeship places. This mechanism also provides streamlined skills assessments for around 1,900 migrants from comparable countries to work in Australia’s housing construction industry. Currently, housing is a significant part of Australian prosperity. However, it is unclear if this reliance on housing as an investment contributes to a strong, dynamic economy.
Inclusion, equity and fairness are cross-cutting dimensions of the Framework.
Current access to housing is highly inequitable, the budget sets out a pathway to increase access and affordability of houses, but the equitable distribution of homes to young people, renters and vulnerable groups is yet to be seen.
Mechanisms within this measure focus on upskilling tradespeople, majority of whom are young men, reducing the benefit for women and girls.
Applying the Welsh Government Budget Questions
Does this Budget measure:
Move the country away from its vision for the future? House building may help improve security in the short term for vulnerable groups and young people, but without regulations or incentives there is little evidence that there will be long-term, intergenerational benefits.
Disadvantage any generations, alive now or in the future? What do we lose in the urgency of addressing the housing crisis? The policy aims to fast track housing development in suitable areas, both in urban and suburban areas, but there is no provision for the building of 1.2 million new homes by 2030 to be climate resilient, meaning they may not be adapted to the future climate (extreme heat and flooding as particular risks) and could fail to support decarbonisation (no requirement for energy efficiency or solar panels).
Disadvantage people at any specific life stage? Poor housing, either by design or location, will impact upon all demographic groups in various ways.
Strengthen the transmission of inequality through generations? The provision of houses which are not fit for future purpose will increase intergenerational impacts stemming from disadvantage, poor access and insecurity. If poorly built homes are allowed to be developed now, we will build a legacy of maladaptive housing which will define the availability, quantity and quality of the homes for future generations.
Analysis - Happy baby or sad baby?
Ultimately, this budget will likely create a whole new and different housing crisis for future generations, including for a baby born on budget night. Criticism of the funding mechanisms include a reliance on State governments and the private market to invest in the additional houses by rushing through approvals; a policy that is targeted in practice at building a small subset of social housing; and funding upskill for tradies, which is a male dominated industry, and does not address concerns of future equitable access to housing.
The budget paper makes no mention of climate change, sustainability, energy transition or adaptation for future housing, which means that there are no assurances that future generations will be provided with adequate, sustainable, or resilient homes.
Natasha Hennessey | Griffith University
Natasha Hennessey is a Senior Research Assistant and Program Coordinator for Griffith University’s Climate Action Beacon. She has a background in Environmental Science and Environmental Management, majoring in Climate Change Adaptation. Her work to date has focused on policy guidance on the barriers to implementation and supporting the development of programs for motivating climate action, climate change adaptation, sustainability and conservation across a broad range of disciplines. She has a particular interest in systems and systems thinking and
ABOUT EVERYGEN.
EveryGen, convened by the Policy Innovation Hub at Griffith University, is a coalition of multidisciplinary policy experts collaborating to create an equitable, just and transformative path towards intergenerational justice. EveryGen promotes policy research, collaboration and action on intergenerational equity and justice and seeks to influence the policy agenda and inspire evidence-based thinking on intergenerational equity and justice. EveryGen promotes a law reform agenda by advocating for a Future Generations Act in Australia and by amplifying the voices of current and future generations to both highlight and transform the long-term impacts of today’s policy decisions.
EveryGen is a member of the Intergenerational Fairness Coalition.
Our collective mission is to see an intergenerational lens embedded in Australian policymaking supported by meaningful intergenerational engagement, data-driven measurement and accountability mechanisms.
We believe in the potential of pragmatic and economically-minded approaches to safeguarding Australia's future to address long-standing and emerging challenges.