Introduction by Croakey: Researchers have rated the recent Federal Budget against the five themes of the Measuring What Matters framework developed by Treasury as Australia’s “first national wellbeing framework”.
Their analysis suggests the Budget scarcely manages a pass, receiving a green light on only two of the five measures – security and prosperity. The Budget’s outcomes for health and cohesiveness received an amber rating, while on sustainability the Budget rated red for fail.
Their findings may help explain why the Government seems to have gone silent on its plans for the Measuring What Matters framework.
Chelsea Hunnisett and Alexandra Jones write:
Budget season can be a bit like a feeding frenzy for those of us advocating for more funding for issues of intergenerational significance, like preventive health or action on climate change.
We spend a lot of time formulating policy best-buys, working up our arguments to government, costing out solutions, and developing a narrative to explain the personal impact that funding – or lack thereof – will have on the constituency we represent, knowing that we’re competing for airtime with many issues that deserve attention. On Budget night we hope that our advocacy has made a difference.
When it comes to post-budget commentary on intergenerational equity issues, the common refrain often equates to “a good start, not far enough, doesn’t take a systems approach”. The headline issues change, the policies evolve, but the landscape remains the same.
We are stuck in the loop of short-term solutions to intergenerational issues like slight changes to student loan indexation, rather than providing free higher education for all, or funding for urgent care clinics, rather than evidence-backed preventive health policy.
Rarely does a government come along that is willing to tackle the big issues that won’t win them short-term votes but will improve lives long after they leave Parliament.
We don’t wish to be unfair – over successive generations, Commonwealth Governments across the political divide have made enormous investments in the social safety net.
Ongoing investment in Medicare, for example, has been crucial to maintaining the health and wellbeing of all people living in Australia. It is now so embedded in our national identity that most people accept Medicare maintenance as a priority area for funding, regardless of party politics. The reality remains, however, that examples of such bold policy action are the exception and not the rule.
Treasurer’s focus
On the evening of May 14, the Treasurer Dr Jim Chalmers, delivered his 2024/25 budget speech, outlining the Commonwealth Governments’ priorities for spending. In his speech, the Treasurer justified spending by speaking to the immediate cost-of-living challenges for people across society, and especially for those in most need.
Several of Treasurer Chalmer’s announcements aim to boost the economy in the short-term and bring down inflation, via rent and energy bill relief, changes to immigration rules, and investment in housing.
These measures seek to address the immediate equity impacts of the widening wealth gap and are welcome.
However, what also remains true is that they are short-term solutions that perpetuate a primary focus on growing the economy, without questioning what is needed to improve it to deliver a more inclusive, fair and equitable Australia for all.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
Measuring What Matters Framework
In 2022, Treasurer Chalmers introduced the ‘Measuring What Matters’ Framework, an important first step in Australia’s approach to a wellbeing economy.
It promised to “track our progress towards a more healthy, secure, sustainable, cohesive and prosperous Australia”, a crucial start to understanding where Australia stands when it comes to wellbeing.
Annual monitoring of wellbeing metrics through a Measuring What Matters Statement was also proposed to allow Australians to track how their government is performing against key indicators of wellbeing, providing a potential trigger for remedial action.
Two years on, there remains a disappointing lack of public information on what the Commonwealth Government plans to do next.
We know that there are plans to move forward, with funding dedicated in this year’s budget to enhance data collection that can support updates to Measuring What Matters.
However, it remains unclear from the 2024/25 Budget Papers how Prime Minister Albanese’s Government plans to move from measuring, to doing what matters to improve intergenerational equity.
A rapid analysis for wellbeing
In lieu of concrete updates on Measuring What Matters this Budget season, we did a rapid analysis of how the 2024/25 Budget Papers stack up against the Measuring What Matters Framework and the Governments’ own priority areas for action.
Using the five Measuring What Matters themes – healthy, secure, sustainable, cohesive, and prosperous – we identified where there were areas of strength, where more work is needed and where the Government isn’t doing nearly enough in terms of funding for intergenerational equity and wellbeing.
Measuring What Matters themes, ‘prosperous’ and ‘secure’ received a green rating owing to the Governments’ major budget commitments on metrics including increasing rates of higher education, commitments under the Future Made in Australia Plan like skills development and green energy, and funding for programs aimed at reducing gender-based violence. Outside of the metrics, the Budget has also made significant commitments to addressing cost of living – a significant driver of intergenerational equity – that shouldn’t be overlooked.
In other areas, we found overall budget allocations remain inadequate to make a real difference to the outcomes the Framework identifies are critical to a ‘healthy’, ‘sustainable’, ‘cohesive’ Australia.
The ‘healthy’ and ‘cohesive’ themes received an amber rating because, while the Budget does make strides in addressing metrics under Measuring What Matters, funding announcements in these areas continue to foster short-term improvements, with little potential for delivering lasting change.
For health, the budget has increased funding to improve healthcare access for urgent care clinics and mental health services, but continues the trend of a lack of investment in preventive health initiatives, such as the Australian Centre for Disease Control and the National Health and Climate Strategy.
While ‘cohesive’ was particularly challenging to evaluate due to the complexity of aligning budget line items with the metrics, this year’s budget does make commitments to funding for Closing the Gap and improvements to government transparency.
Finally, the ‘sustainable’ theme received a rating of red due to its maintenance of the status quo.
While many commentators post-budget have shone a light on commitments to green energy and the like, the metrics included in Measuring What Matters framework are largely not reflected in this year’s Budget. The omission of funding for mitigation and adaptation through the National Climate Risk Assessment and National Adaptation are particularly troubling gaps, which does not bode well for intergenerational equity.
Green: Area of strength based on budget items reflecting metrics in Measuring What Matters and their potential impact on intergenerational equity.
Amber: Area where more work is needed based on there being some budget items that reflect metrics in Measuring What Matters and some that have the potential to improve intergenerational equity.
Red: Area where lots of work needs to be done based on budget items not reflecting metrics in Measuring What Matters and unlikely to have intergenerational equity impacts.
What next?
Wellbeing economic approaches are now gaining momentum around the world.
From Wales to New Zealand, economies of the 21st century are shifting from a sole focus on growth, to a focus on the drivers of intergenerational inequity.
Countries are going beyond simply defining and measuring the outcomes that matter to holistic wellbeing in their societies, by actually integrating metrics into accountability mechanisms that help steer government decision-making and investment.
In doing so, they have created incentives to escape the political allure of short-term, stop-gap solutions that ease pressure but fail to address the ongoing drivers of inequity in our society.
The same could be true in Australia by developing Measuring What Matters into an enduring practical mechanism that could guide government action toward policies that will address the causes of inequity now and for future generations of Australians.
If our government is to take this bold and necessary action, all people in Australia must call for a paradigm shift on the purpose and function of our economy and how we measure success. As advocates we must stop accepting the status quo and mobilise expertise that facilitates change. Our future, and those of generations to come, depends on it.
Author details
Chelsea Hunnisett is a Laureate PhD Candidate and Government Relations Specialist in the Planetary Health Equity Hothouse at The Australian National University. Chelsea’s research focuses on planetary health equity metrics within Australia’s approach to the wellbeing economy. Chelsea is also an experienced policy, advocacy and government relations specialist with expertise in planetary health, commercial determinants of health and preventive health policy.
Dr Alexandra Jones is a public health lawyer and researcher at The George Institute for Global Health, UNSW. Her research focuses on food governance and the commercial determinants of health, which include political and economic systems that increase commercial influences on all aspects of our society.
Previously at Croakey
Katherine Trebeck, 2024. On the wellbeing economy, is Australia at risk of dropping the ball?
Lesley Russell, 2024. The Health Wrap: a big diabetes investigation, questions for the Treasurer, primary care reforms, and the benefits of crochet.
Chelsea Hunnisett, 2024. As we approach the Federal Budget, whatever happened to “Measuring What Matters”?
Melissa Sweet, 2023. Calling all “frustrated champions” – Australia’s future needs you, now.
Jennifer Doggett, 2023. On the wellbeing framework, and ways forward.
Robert Costanza et al, 2023. Health is key to our first national wellbeing framework.
Melissa Le Mesurier, 2022. With just 56 days left on wellbeing budget consultation, putting some questions and issues on the radar.
Leanne Wells, 2022. Wellbeing budgets are not the soft underbelly of public policy.
Nieves Murray, 2022. How a Wellbeing Budget could help save lives at a critical time.
Jennifer Doggett and Alison Barrett, 2022. To make a proper Wellbeing Budget, what are the essential ingredients?
