Don’t be deceived by the tip of the iceberg
Likes, shares, comments and retweets. These social media metrics are often used by marketers to measure the performance of their campaigns or contents. However, this is just the tip of an iceberg. In this whitepaper, Isentia reveals why.
Loren is an experienced marketing professional who translates data and insights using Isentia solutions into trends and research, bringing clients closer to the benefits of audience intelligence. Loren thrives on introducing the groundbreaking ways in which data and insights can help a brand or organisation, enabling them to exceed their strategic objectives and goals.
R U OK? is a public health campaign founded in Australia, focusing on creating a world where we’re all connected and protected from suicide. Their mission is to inspire and empower people to meaningfully connect with those in their world and lend support when they are struggling with life.
R U OK? focuses on building the motivation, confidence, and skills of the help-giver—the person who can have a meaningful conversation with someone who is struggling with life. R U OK? encourage four steps to have a meaningful conversation:
R U OK? have a host of free resources to help you ask, ‘are you OK?’ and lend support to the people in your world every day of the year. Because when we genuinely ask, ‘are you OK?’, and are prepared to talk to them about how they’re feeling and what’s going on in their life, we can help someone who might be struggling to feel connected and supported long before they’re in crisis.
The annual R U OK? Day campaign is their National Day of Action, where people are reminded that every day is the day to start a meaningful conversation that could change a life.
To assess their impact and gauge progress towards their goal of behavioural change, R U OK? sought to evaluate the effectiveness of their campaign messaging, ambassadors, and public discourse in their communities. Additionally, they wanted to understand the main narrative in these communities to shape their future campaign themes and strategies.
Through a number of different datasets, Isentia provided the organisation with comprehensive insight into its campaign messaging as well as the volume and quality of media reporting on R U OK? This valuable information was obtained through Isentia’s Media Analysis reports shedding light on common themes, trends, and messages associated with R U OK? through media coverage.
“We know Isentia are trusted friends. We know we can come to the team with any ideas or queries and be provided with a great solution. Our long term partnership has allowed us to go on this journey together, seeing such change in the Australian landscape for health and suicide prevention.
Isentia’s reports have helped us (and continue to) understand the impact of our coverage and the reach of our campaign messaging, and that every day is the day to ask, are you OK?”
Katherine Newton, R U OK? CEO
The analysis revealed the following:
Isentia’s support to R U OK? has helped them measure their campaign impact consistently over time.
Our analysis quantified the success of R U OK? in reducing negative portrayals of suicide and stigma in the media and R U OK? events. With an impressive 87% national brand awareness and a 25% participation rate, it highlights the positive and supportive behaviour that emerges when individuals actively engage in these conversations.
Media coverage, including increased editorial attention, has effectively promoted R U OK?, raising awareness and fostering an important culture around meaningful conversations.
The organisation’s brand mentions, advertising space rate (ASR), and cumulative audience figures have consistently increased each year, also indicating the successful penetration of their messages. The most prominent messages, in terms of volume, emphasise that R U OK? builds awareness of suicide and mental health issues, while the annual campaign day helps to build community capacity to have meaningful conversations with the people in their world.
Our analysis demonstrates the positive changes in the Australian landscape regarding health and suicide prevention. People are more engaged, have a better understanding of their role in suicide prevention, and desire deeper connections. This means genuinely asking, ‘are you OK?’, and knowing how to connect with and support others when they express they are not okay.
Isentia’s data and analysis not only fulfilled their objectives but exceeded their expectations. The reports provided are invaluable, so much so that we are their sole earned media insights provider.
These Media Analysis reports helped the organisation understand the impact of their messaging on their audience. They learned what worked and what didn’t, providing insight for future messaging and their content development strategy. These reports have also served as a valuable tool for reporting to the R U OK? board of directors, funding partners, and government. Providing concrete evidence of the organisation’s campaign impact in the media and success in stimulating community action for suicide prevention.
“Isentia’s Media Analysis reports help us look at the narratives to see where people are at and where we can take them next.”
For more information on how Isentia's data and insights can help your organisation, simply fill out the form below.
" ["post_title"]=> string(65) "How R U OK? harness Isentia Insights for their campaign strategy" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(35) "how-r-u-ok-harness-isentia-insights" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2024-09-09 02:45:49" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2024-09-09 02:45:49" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=27946" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }Challenge R U OK? is a public health campaign founded in Australia, focusing on creating a world where we’re all connected and protected from suicide. Their mission is to inspire and empower people to meaningfully connect with those in their world and lend support when they are struggling with life. R U OK? focuses on […]
The Your Right to Know Campaign was established in response to deteriorating media freedom. It prompted an unprecedented collaboration between competitors including Nine, News Corp, the ABC, SBS, The Guardian and journalists’ union in the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. All in an effort to call for reforms to protect public interest from Australia.
On Monday 21 October, Australian media organisations blacked-out text on print newspapers, instead of showing front-page headlines. The first bold statement instigated by campaign members. As a result, it created a lot of chatter in the media - mentions spiked at 3,042 across across social and traditional media.
Data analysed by Isentia, shows in the week October 21 to October 25 2019 there were a total of 6,242 mentions of "press freedom."
While it was the media who started the campaign on Monday, through the week politicians had 60% share of voice on the topic. Prominent journalists followed with 22.8% and CEOs of media organisations 15.3%.
Despite journalists and media organisations instigating the campaign, politicians dominated the conversations. The top spokespeople discussing the topic for the week period were:
1.Scott Morrison, Australian Prime Minister - 95 mentions
2.Anthony Albanese, Federal Opposition Leader - 38 mentions
3. Barnaby Joyce, Nationals MP - 33 mentions
4.Hugh Marks, CEO Nine Entertainment - 33 mentions
5. Campbell Reid, Senior Journalist, News Corp - 32 mentions
Dominating the discussions, politicians generated negative sentiment around “press freedom”.
Over the past two decades, 75 laws related to secrecy and spying have been passed through parliament. These laws criminalise some practices within journalism and penalise whistleblowers. Government wrongdoings could be hidden and important decisions regarding public information may be concealed. As a result, Australia has been described by the New York Times as the world’s most secretive democracy.
Media organisations are taking action with the ‘Your Right to Know’ campaign. They’re determined to change the government's approach to media freedom so they can provide Australians with essential information. They’re pressing for the introduction of a Media Freedom Act, which they say would be advantageous for national security, press freedom and democracy, and ensure legitimate journalism is not subject to criminal charges.
If you would like to receive unparalleled media insight or to better understand trends in the media, get in touch with us today.
" ["post_title"]=> string(66) "Your Right to Know: Who is leading the Media Freedom conversation?" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(240) "The Your Right to Know Campaign was established in response to deteriorating media freedom. It’s prompted an unprecedented collaboration between competitors. All in an effort to call for reforms to protect public interest from Australia. " ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(27) "your-right-to-know-campaign" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2020-01-23 05:07:22" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2020-01-23 05:07:22" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(31) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=4160" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }The Your Right to Know Campaign was established in response to deteriorating media freedom. It’s prompted an unprecedented collaboration between competitors. All in an effort to call for reforms to protect public interest from Australia.
What 71 stories, 400+ perspectives, and 50 million audience impressions reveal about the media narratives shaping the 2026–27 Federal Budget.
The 2026–27 Federal Budget was released on 12 May and included some of the most ambitious policy changes in years.
Labor Treasurer Jim Chalmers described it as a budget of ‘reform and resilience’, and the media coverage that followed reflected just how much there was to unpack.
We used Lumina, our AI-powered media intelligence suite, to surface the biggest stories, map different perspectives, and identify the key drivers behind each narrative. This clustered over 48 hours before and after the Budget into 71 different stories, more than 400 perspectives and the total audience reach topped 50 million cumulative views.
Below are the five stories that stood out, what the different perspectives tell us, and what communicators should be watching out for.
| ▸ Property Tax Reform — Two evenly matched perspectives: affordability for buyers vs. reduced housing supply. Key drivers: Anthony Albanese, Jim Chalmers, Master Builders Australia, Property Council ▸ The Policy Reversal — Government says circumstances changed; opposition says trust was broken. Key drivers: Angus Taylor, Bill Shorten, Peta Credlin, Sean Kelly ▸ NDIS Changes — Sustainability concerns meet advocacy from families and disability organisations. Key drivers: Katy Gallagher, People with Disability Australia, ACOSS ▸ Market Reaction — Investors moved ahead of the speech; banks fell, miners rose. Key drivers: BHP, CSL, DroneShield, Tony Sycamore (IG) ▸ Small Business Support — Permanent write-off welcomed, but owners want more help with rising costs. Key drivers: Jim Chalmers, CPA Australia, Xero |
The centrepiece of this budget was a major overhaul of property investment tax. It was the most covered story of the night, and the perspectives on the announcement were split right down the middle.
The Government positioned the reforms as a step toward fairness. Negative gearing will be restricted to newly built properties from July 2027, and the 50% CGT discount will be replaced with an inflation-indexed model.
Furthermore, a 30% minimum tax will now apply to distributions from discretionary trusts. Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reiterated that these changes will aid a projected 75,000 Australians to buy their first home over the next decade. This perspective accounted for about 50% of coverage across the story (ABC Online).
Industry groups like the Master Builders Australia and the Property Council warned the changes would reduce new housing supply by 35,000 homes, push up rents, and discourage investment.
These perspectives made up approximately 50% of total coverage. That near-perfect split is notable. In most policy debates, one side tends to lead in terms of coverage, yet here, the two perspectives are running neck and neck
That balance tells us the debate around these reforms is far from settled. Neither side has won the narrative.
Why it matters for communicators: This is going to be a long-running conversation. Both sides have credible data. If your organisation has a stake in property, construction, or financial services, now is the time to develop your position and prepare for sustained engagement.
Behind that policy detail, however, was a more political story. The government had made promises before the 2025 election that it would not change negative gearing or CGT. This budget announcement made changes to both policies, and the coverage explored what that means.
The Government’s explanation around the changes took up about 43% of coverage. Previous Labor Minister and now Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra, Bill Shorten argued that the housing situation had worsened since the election ,and the government had a responsibility to act. Unsurprisingly, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese held the same position. In his interviews, Shorten pointed to the earlier redesign of the stage three tax cuts as an example of a policy change that voters ultimately accepted.
Political commentators offered an analytical view, making up about 40% of coverage. Former Labor adviser Sean Kelly and others noted that the fallout from changing a position depends on context, and that history offers examples of both successful and costly reversals.
The opposition’s framing accounted for about 18% of coverage so far, as we wait for their formal response to the Budget next week. Liberal leader Angus Taylor and his colleague Michaelia Cash described the move as a trust issue. A leaked government document giving Labor MPs talking points to explain the change added another dimension to the story (The Australian).
Why it matters for communicators: Past commitments stay in the public record. For communicators working on policy-related messaging, it’s worth thinking about how your stakeholders weigh trust against outcomes, especially as this story continues to develop.
The NDIS story stood out in Budget coverage for a different reason. It was one of the most emotionally resonant conversations of the night.
The government framed its changes as essential for the scheme’s long-term sustainability, and this perspective made up about 58% of coverage. Ministers pointed to cost growth and fraud as reasons to tighten eligibility, with the Fraud Fusion Taskforce positioned as the mechanism to protect genuine participants while saving $37.8 billion over four years (Sydney Morning Herald).
Disability advocacy groups responded with concern, accounting for about 42% of coverage. Organisations like People with Disability Australia highlighted that over 160,000 participants could be affected, many of them children.
The Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) noted the budget also lacked additional support for people on income support. By budget night, advocacy groups had organised a press conference and gathered more than 13,000 petition signatures. This was a story where the personal weight of the coverage mattered more than the volume.
Why it matters for communicators: Personal stories and advocacy will shape this conversation more than policy. If you work in health, disability, or social services, this is one to monitor closely and maintain the human element in the approach.
One of the more interesting stories of budget day was how the share market reacted before the Treasurer even stood up to speak.
The ASX 200 fell across the day. Banks were under pressure because of their exposure to residential mortgages, with analysts pointing to the risk of falling property prices if the tax reforms reduced investor demand.
Rising oil prices from the Middle East added to the mood (NEWS.com.au). And earlier in the week, Australian stock market stalwart CSL dropped over 16% on a separate profit warning, dragging the healthcare sector with it.
But mining stocks went in the opposite direction, with BHP hitting a record high on strong commodity prices for copper and iron ore. Different parts of the economy were reading the same budget in very different ways.
Why it matters for communicators: When investors move before an announcement, it tells you the narrative is already established. For organisations with listed exposure or investor-facing communications, the property reform story is one to address proactively.
Making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent was a positive headline, but the coverage revealed a gap between the announcement and business owners’ lived experience.
The government’s framing dominated, making up about 75% of coverage. The write-off sat alongside a broader $3.5 billion tax relief package, which Treasurer Chalmers called part of the most comprehensive productivity push in decades.
But the remaining quarter of coverage tells a different story. Xero research showed only 35% of small businesses were confident the budget would address their challenges. Many described the $20,000 threshold as too low for the investments they actually need to make, especially given rising fuel and material costs.
The broader sense was that while the write-off is helpful, it doesn’t change the fundamentals of a tough operating environment.
Why it matters for communicators: Headline announcements and on-the-ground sentiment don’t always match. For industry groups and advocacy organisations, grounding your messaging in real-world experience will resonate more than repeating the numbers.
There are two factors that emerge as key considerations.
First, the property tax conversation is set to continue for the months ahead. Both sides have credible arguments and strong stakeholder backing; these sentiments will undoubtedly be reinforced by the Opposition next week. If your organisation is connected to housing, property, or financial services in any way, a long-term narrative strategy will serve you better than a one-off reaction.
Second, keeping an eye out for how the election reversal narrative evolves is important. It will become a reference point for future government commitments. For anyone working on government-related messaging, it’s worth considering how your audiences balance trust with outcomes. Media outlets are actively searching for inconsistencies – as are social media users – so any change must be clearly explained and a credible narrative developed.
The 2026-27 Federal Budget was a budget that asked big questions and looked to a new future. The media coverage showed a public working through what these changes mean, with perspectives spread evenly across the biggest stories of the night.
For communicators, the value is in looking beyond the headlines. Understanding the different perspectives, the people and organisations driving them, and the patterns connecting them is what turns a reactive media response into a strategic one.
To explore these kinds of insights for your own industry, discover what Lumina can surface for you. For more insights from the Isentia team, fill in the form below and we’ll get in touch.
The 2026 Federal Budget has landed, and what PR and comms professionals need to observe is how the media conversation has split into dozens of competing narratives depending on who’s telling the story.
Isentia’s budget night analysis of stakeholder reactions straight from lock-up this evening in Parliament House as they addressed the Conga-line, along with fresh analysis of key media releases from a range of sectors.
The 2026 Federal Budget is a story of broken promises and big bets. The Labor government went where it said it wouldn’t in the last election just 12 months ago, scrapping the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount, winding back negative gearing on existing properties, and imposing a 30 per cent minimum tax on discretionary trusts.
The dominant mood from stakeholders? Split right down the middle. Unions and social services groups cheered what they called a once-in-a-generation rebalancing of the tax system. Business groups, property investors, and the Coalition called it a betrayal that will scare investment offshore.
Behind the tax headlines, the Budget committed an additional $14 billion over the next four years and $53 billion over the decade to defence, $25 billion in extra public hospital funding, $14.8 billion for fuel security, and $2 billion for housing enabling infrastructure. But the cuts were deep, in particular the $37 billion savings from the NDIS.
For many, this is a budget of trade-offs: young homebuyers gaining ground, while older Australians and people with disability are left anxious about what comes next.
Independent Senator David Pocock’s initial reaction to the Budget commended the Treasurer on many elements, however Pocock noted changes to gas company taxes were sorely missing.
Senator Pocock said many Australians will be looking at the Government’s Budget and wondering why it didn’t put their best interests ahead. “When you read through the budget papers, clearly, it sucks to be poor, it sucks to be old, and it sucks to be a native species. And we have to make sure the Australian Government is spending its money on the priorities the Australian people want”.
| Defence spending | $14 billion over the next four years and $53 billion over the decade, along with other measures, brings total funding in the portfolio to $887 billion to 2035-36 |
| NDIS savings | $37 billion in cuts |
| Public hospital funding | $25 billion additional |
| Fuel resilience package | $14.8 billion |
| Housing infrastructure | $2 billion for 65,000 homes |
| Working Australians Tax Offset | $250 per worker |
The headline reforms in this budget are all about tax. The government replaced the 50 per cent Capital Gains Tax (CGT) discount with an inflation-indexation model capped at 30 per cent. They went further - restricting negative gearing to new builds (limited to two properties), and imposing a 30 per cent minimum tax on discretionary trust distributions.
Dubbed as ‘once in a lifetime’, tax reform proposals include the introduction of a permanent $250 Working Australians Tax Offset, and cuts to the low-income marginal rate from 16 to 15 per cent (dropping to 14 per cent in July 2027). These CGT and negative gearing changes are forecast to raise $3.6 billion in their first two years.
The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) welcomed the measures as a generational rebalancing. ACTU President Michele O’Neil said this Budget was about fairness, giving workers a better shot at housing and ending a system that taxed work harder than wealth.
But the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) warned the changes would drive investment offshore. ACCI acting CEO, David Alexander said matching spending blowouts with tax hikes would lock in a slow-growth economy.
The Business Council of Australia (BCA) took a middle path, welcoming productivity measures but flagging concern about the CGT and negative gearing changes making Australia less competitive.
“Higher taxes will scare away investment in Australian businesses and send this funding to more welcoming overseas jurisdictions,” said Mr Alexander.
Queensland Independent Senator Bob Katter called the low-income tax cut so small it “doesn’t even buy a beer” and accused the government of breaking its promise not to change CGT and negative gearing.
The Australian Industry Group’s, Innes Willox noted Australia now has among the highest CGT rates in the world, however Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie broadly welcomed the tax reforms. Goldie did however criticise the $250 tax offset, saying it was ‘going to everyone in paid work while 4 million people on the lowest incomes; those on JobSeeker, Youth Allowance, the Disability Support Pension got nothing’.
Housing dominated the Budget narrative yet again. The CGT and negative gearing changes were framed as the government’s answer to the affordability crisis, backed by $2 billion in water, roads and sewage infrastructure to support 65,000 new homes over the next decade.
A $60 million National Youth Housing Supplement will unlock social housing for over 4,000 young people, fixing a long-standing “youth housing penalty”, making young tenants financially unviable for community housing providers.
Homelessness Australia CEO, Kate Colvin called it a hard-won win for young people failed by a system that catches them in crisis, yet never houses them. The Australian Community Housing sector’s Mark Degotardi said the Budget restores balance to a housing system long overdue for reform.
But others were sharply critical. Master Builders Australia CEO, Denita Wawn said the government’s own modelling showed the tax hike would reduce supply by 35,000 homes, and even with productivity measures adding 65,000, the net gain of 30,000 was nowhere near enough when Australia already falls short by around 200,000 homes. The Property Council’s Mike Zorbas called the tax changes a roll of the dice, warning the government must closely monitor investor behaviour.
“If the tax hike on property had not been introduced tonight, we would instead be up by over 100,000 homes over 10 years,” said Ms Wawn.
The Greens were scathing from the other direction, saying property investor tax perks were largely intact, with around 95 per cent of the benefit remaining, and no new money for public housing.
The budget proposed $25 billion in additional funding for public hospitals under the new National Health Reform Agreement and introduced a three-year-old health check through GPs, funded by Medicare.
But the Australian Medical Association (AMA) said the rest was thin. AMA President, Dr Danielle McMullen warned of a remaining funding gap of at least $9.6 billion in hospital funding and criticised the lack of broader Medicare modernisation.
“Urgent care centres and targeted bulk billing in certain geographic areas are not long-term solutions. We need to see true reform of Medicare,” Dr McMullen said.
The AMA also raised alarm over cuts to the private health insurance rebate for over-65s, warning it could force older Australians to drop or downgrade cover and pile extra pressure on public hospitals.
The Australian College of Nursing called for a national nursing workforce strategy, warning of a projected shortage of more than 70,000 nurses by 2035. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) also welcomed the three-year-old health check and RSV vaccination funding but flagged disappointment with racism in the health system.
The Budget’s single biggest savings measure is a proposed $37 billion cut to the NDIS through tighter eligibility, stronger fraud controls, mandatory provider registration and a target of reducing participant numbers by 160,000 by 2030.
The Business Council of Australia supported the structural reforms as necessary to return the scheme to its original intent. The BCA commended the government's "tough decisions" to make the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) more sustainable and expressed approval for the expected return to a budget surplus earlier than previously forecast, but disability advocates and welfare groups remain alarmed.
ACOSS CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie said people with disability were frightened about what the reforms mean and urged the government to keep them at the centre of any changes.
The Greens accused the government of cutting $37 billion from disability services to fund $53 billion in weapons spending, where Independent Bob Katter acknowledged the NDIS needed restructuring to tackle rorting, but said the measures targeted eligibility fraud while the bigger problem, rorting by scheme administrators, remains unaddressed.
“It is outrageous that fraudulent businesses have been created with the primary purpose of effectively thieving from, neglecting and defrauding some of the most vulnerable members of our society,” Mr Katter said.
As previously announced, the government is proposing commitments of $425 billion to defence over the next decade, targeting 3 per cent of GDP by 2034. This is a proposed increase of $14 billion over the next four years, and $53 billion across the decade.
Spending targets include accelerating nuclear submarines and surface ships under AUKUS, expanding long-range strike capabilities, and boosting uncrewed systems. Bob Katter welcomed the spending direction but said it failed to shore up foundations, calling for action to regain control of strategic assets like ports and airfields and to increase the number of combat-ready civilians.
Energy policy drew some of the sharpest reactions. The government committed $14.8 billion to a Strengthening Australia’s Fuel Resilience package and $10 billion to extend domestic fuel stockpiles.
The ACTU welcomed these as job-saving measures. But the Climate Council slammed the government for the proposed $19 billion in annual fossil fuel subsidies and for forgoing gas export tax revenue, calling it a massive free kick for fossil fuel corporations.
“This Budget maintains the $19 billion gravy train for big fossil fuel corporations,” said Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie.
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) claimed seven times more funding was being spent on initiatives that damage nature and climate than protect it. Both the Climate Council and ACF criticised the government for failing to impose a 25 per cent tax on gas exports, which they estimated could raise $17 billion annually.
Small business had some wins: the $20,000 instant asset write-off was made permanent, and companies under $1 billion turnover can now carry back tax losses against tax paid up to two years earlier (at a budget cost of $2.3 billion over three years).
ACCI welcomed both measures. But the 30 per cent minimum tax on trust distributions alarmed the sector. ACCI’s David Alexander warned the trust tax would damage business operations and productivity due to management having their pay permanently cut by the government. Trusts are commonly used by small businesses to protect assets and ensure continuity.
Education seemed a lower priority in this year’s Budget. The Greens’ Senator Faruqi rallied with the National Union of Students to demand the reversal of job-ready graduates' fee hikes that have produced $52,000 arts degrees.
The Student’s Union National President Felix Hughes said the words “student” and “university” were not mentioned once in the Treasurer’s speech. The Australian Education Union welcomed the housing commitments that could help teachers locked out of the areas where they teach, but flagged concern about $472 million in savings to disability funding.
“Budgets are about priorities and young people will look at this budget and wonder if they are a priority at all,” said Felix Hughes, NUS National President.
The government reclassified personal care as clinical care in aged care, removing co-contributions for services like showering and mobility assistance.
Uniting Care welcomed the $3 billion investment but said it wasn’t enough for high-quality residential aged care. Council of the Ageing’s Patricia Sparrow noted no new home care packages were announced in the Budget, despite older people waiting up to a year for support.
Sparrow also raised alarm about the private health insurance rebate changes hitting 2.6 million older Australians. National Seniors’ Chris Grice said older Australians were already contacting them, unhappy about the insurance changes, and questioned how a 30 per cent minimum tax on shares helps create affordable housing.
The R&D tax incentive threshold was raised from $150 million to $200 million, and the refundable offset was lifted from $20 million to $50 million, and CSIRO received a $387 million funding boost.
The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering welcomed the investment in publicly funded research agencies. But Science & Technology Australia’s Ryan Winn warned the sector had alost $1.5 billion in research funding, including $800 million from the Australian Economic Accelerator program, making the research landscape much leaner.
The $2 billion housing-enabling infrastructure fund was the main infrastructure announcement. Civil Contractors Federation CEO Nicholas Proud welcomed the direct connection between infrastructure and housing as the missing piece.
Big-ticket items include $3.8 billion for Melbourne Rail and $50 million for Sydney-Canberra rail. Bob Katter slammed the regional infrastructure spend as ridiculously low, demanding funding for North Queensland projects.
The tourism sector was hit by a $10 increase in the passenger movement charge (from $70 to $80), which Tourism and Transport Forum CEO Margy Osmond called a shocker, generating over a billion dollars over the forward estimates.
This Budget includes reforms to employment services, which ACOSS said it hoped would transform a system that has treated low-income people shockingly for far too long. Skills recognition for overseas qualifications was welcomed as a productivity measure.
But the Electrical Trades Union’s Michael Wright warned that despite record investment in vocational education, electrical apprenticeship commencements have fallen every year since 2022, with a forecast shortfall of 40,000 electricians by 2030.
ACOSS CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie gave the Budget’s starkest welfare critique: 4 million people on the lowest incomes - on JobSeeker, Youth Allowance, Disability Support Pension, or the Age Pension - got no cost-of-living relief.
The remote area allowance, at $9 per week, has not increased in 25 years. The government’s own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee has recommended fixing income support adequacy four years in a row, and four years in a row those people have been left waiting.
The Parenthood’s Georgie Dent called the Budget a missed opportunity for families with young children. There was no expansion of paid parental leave and no clarity on the future of the 15 per cent early childhood educator wage increase set to expire.
With 260,000 educators unsure whether their wages will go backwards and 1.4 million families paying childcare as their second-highest household expense, Dent said parents needed answers immediately.
The CPSU said overall Australian Public Services sector staffing levels were maintained, but job cuts already underway at the Department of Health, Home Affairs, and Social Services would continue.
The union welcomed a $387 million CSIRO funding boost and continued funding for nearly 4,000 frontline Services Australia staff but criticised $3.7 billion spent on contractors and consultants while trained public servants lose their jobs.
This is a Budget that will be dissected for months to come. The government has taken a clear political gamble, hoping that Australians care more about housing affordability and tax fairness than they do about investment incentives and keeping promises.
The dominant narrative from our analysis of stakeholder reaction is ‘broken promises’ versus ‘long overdue reform’, and which framing wins depends heavily on whether house prices actually begin to ease.
For communicators and PR professionals, the biggest story to watch is the investor response. The Property Council, Master Builders and the Financial Services Council have all flagged they will commission independent modelling of the supply impact.
We will no doubt continue to hear about the impacts of the NDIS cuts, with $37 billion in savings and 160,000 participants potentially losing access, the disability sector will mobilise. This will become a rolling story as implementation details emerge.
Meanwhile, the silence on income support, nothing for JobSeeker, nothing for the remote area allowance, leaves Labor exposed to the criticism that its cost-of-living relief leaves some large big gaps.
Lastly, the health insurance “rebate cut”. Over three million older Australians have just been told they will pay more for cover. That is a large, politically engaged demographic.
Expect aged care, seniors' advocacy, and private healthcare groups to run hard on this in the weeks ahead. And the veterans' cuts, $780 million stripped from allied health could turn into a longer-burning issue, especially with a Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide still fresh in public memory.
The reactions will keep rolling in over the coming days as sectors digest the detail, and the opposition delivers its budget reply. Watch this space for the latest stories and perspectives around the Budget, and in the coming weeks as Senate Estimates begins.
If you're interested in how Isentia can support you with media and parliamentary monitoring, fill out the form below and we will be in touch.
Isentia’s budget night analysis of stakeholder reactions straight from lock-up this evening in Parliament House as stakeholders addressed the Conga-line, along with fresh analysis of key stakeholder media releases from a range of sectors.
Get in touch or request a demo.