Measuring what matters: Rhetoric vs reality in wellbeing budgeting in Australia

Sammendrag

This paper examines the emergence and implementation of wellbeing budgeting in Australia through analysis of official documents, policy reports and stakeholder submissions to Treasury consultation processes. Addressing a limited body of empirical research, the study investigates the extent to which the Measuring What Matters framework has been integrated into core budgeting and fiscal decision-making. A qualitative case study supported by content analysis is used to compare policy rhetoric with operational practice. The findings indicate that, despite strong rhetorical commitment, wellbeing budgeting has primarily evolved as a measurement and reporting exercise rather than a framework embedded within budget formulation. Stakeholder submissions reveal persistent concerns regarding indicator selection, inequality, regional disparities, wealth distribution and the representation of First Nations perspectives. The analysis highlights ongoing challenges in defining meaningful wellbeing metrics, ensuring data reliability and transparency, and translating multidimensional indicators into policy priorities. The paper concludes that Australia’s experience reflects a continuing tension between wellbeing-oriented policy narratives and conventional fiscal settings emphasising balanced budgets and economic growth. It identifies implications for policymakers and outlines directions for strengthening the practical integration, governance and accountability of wellbeing frameworks.