News

25 March 2025

With $17 billion in tax cuts, this budget will benefit working Australians, but the government has again avoided meaningful tax reform. Of note, there is a downgrade to revenue from weak Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) with forecast revenue slashed from $10 billion to $6.3 billion by 2026-27. Australia is collecting more tax from beer drinkers than fossil fuel companies. The government has again failed to scale back support through the diesel fuel tax credits for mining companies, now predicted to increase to $46 billion.  

The extension of the energy bill relief ($150) is welcome but not means tested so includes an element of spending waste. Continued investment in community batteries and social housing electrification are steps in the right direction. However, there remains an urgent need for the government to prioritise renewable household energy through rooftop solar and battery programs which offer lasting cost-of-living reductions and emissions cuts.

The budget includes a number of positive measures in health and education, particularly for women’s health and affordable childcare, and continues some investment in future-facing industries like green metals.

One of the most promising developments in the budget is the government’s adoption of the Productivity Commission’s recommendation to eliminate non-compete clauses for low and mid-income workers—a measure that while not a headline grabber, will provide a much needed boost to productivity and labour mobility.

It was also good to see a modest increase in foreign aid, in line with calls for Australia to strengthen its leadership in the region.

However, this budget fails to respond adequately to the climate and nature crises. Alarmingly, fossil fuels continue to receive six times the funding allocated to nature. There is no meaningful investment in environmental protection, or additional funding for an EPA despite the enormous and growing fiscal impact of natural disasters.

It's a false premise to think we can prioritise a cost-of-living budget over climate measures as climate change is already costing us, and the longer we wait to mitigate and adapt, the more expensive it will be.

It is disappointing that the government announced a mere $28.8 million over two years to ‘improve Australia's resilience to natural hazards and preparedness to respond to disasters’ in the same section it notes that Cyclone Alfred is estimated to cost $13.5 billion in disaster support and recovery, a cost incurred over only a few days. Piecemeal upgrades to roads in marginal electorates do not constitute a genuine resilience strategy.

Defence spending is accelerating, but national security isn’t just about weapons and wars – it’s about regional stability. Defence spending alone isn’t enough. When disasters strike, fragile infrastructure turns climate shocks into prolonged crises, fuelling unrest and displacement. True security means helping our neighbours build resilience before disaster strikes.

JobSeeker and Youth Allowance remain unchanged, so our most vulnerable are falling further below the poverty line. There is also a glaring gap in support for women and children escaping domestic violence, with only a $2.5 million increase for crisis accommodation—far below what is needed to address the scale of the crisis.

On balance, I give this budget a C+ as it represents cautious fiscal management in challenging geopolitical and economic circumstances—but it lacks the ambition and reform required to address climate risks, close equity gaps, and secure a strong, fair economy for future generations. 

We have seen the government’s plan – but with a May election just weeks away, I’ll be watching the Opposition’s reply with equal measure.