Promises, Policies, And Polling Day 2025 Budget Breakdown

By Amanda Wright

The 2025 Federal Budget was never just about dollars and cents—it was about the direction Australia takes in the years ahead. Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ latest budget, delivered on 25 March, makes clear where the Albanese government believes that the future lies: in cost-of-living relief, housing, and a transition to a more sustainable economy. But with an election now set for 3 May, it’s impossible to ignore the political stakes. Is this a responsible economic plan or a budget designed to win votes?

Katter's Australian Party Federal Member for Kennedy, Bob Katter, has issued a critical response to the 2025 Federal Budget, saying it has a lack of proactive infrastructure planning, onerous regulatory overreach, and an obvious lack of investment in agriculture and mining industries.

"The 2025 Budget reveals a government more focused on reactive policies rather than proactively addressing the needs of our nation," Mr Katter said.

"Our agriculture and mining sector is the backbone of our country's economic growth and prosperity. But it is clear that the country is nothing more than a quarrying nation. Its income comes from iron ore, coal, bauxite, and silicon – none are processed.

“We are giving our most vital resources to foreign landlords while shutting down our most lucrative industry: coal."

Carole Stanford, Greens Candidate for Kennedy had a different viewpoint to Mr Katter, saying, “The two big parties continue to pour away our money in the form of subsidies to the tune of $14.5 billion in 2023-2024 to largely foreign-owned companies to dig up our fossil fuels, export them, keep the bulk of the profits and worsen the climate crisis they choose to ignore to the detriment of our children.

“It is both bizarre and scandalous.”

Tax Cuts, Energy Rebates, And Election Shadows

A centrepiece of the budget is further personal income tax cuts, with the rate for incomes between $18,201 and $45,000 dropping from 16 per cent to 15 per cent in 2026, then to 14 per cent in 2027. That means up to $536 in additional tax relief per year, building on earlier reforms. While tax cuts were expected, the timeline—stretching beyond the next election—raises questions about whether the government is laying economic foundations or setting political traps for future governments.

Immediate relief is also a key theme. Energy bill support continues, with a $150 rebate for households and small businesses. Pharmaceutical costs will drop under the PBS, and HELP/HECS debts will shrink by 20 per cent. These are measures designed to help Australians struggling with rising costs, but critics argue they are band-aid solutions that don’t address the structural drivers of inflation.

Ms Stanford agreed with the opposition, saying, “Our young people are starting their work careers with a ridiculous debt burden while at the same time paying exorbitant rents and trying to support themselves.

“Twenty per cent isn’t enough but it is a start.

“The Greens are arguing for genuinely free public schooling - $800 per student to cover uniforms, excursions, school supplies - and extra funding for schools themselves.”

Housing remains a crisis point, and the budget throws billions at the problem. A two-year ban on foreign purchases of established homes is meant to ease competition, while modular and prefabricated housing get a funding boost to accelerate supply. The "Help to Buy" scheme expands, making home ownership more accessible—at least in theory. But with supply chain issues and soaring construction costs, it remains to be seen whether these policies will deliver real change or simply shift the goalposts.

Mr Katter also took issue with the government's approach to housing, calling for the removal of land restrictions in non-metropolitan areas to encourage growth and alleviate pressure on urban centres.

"Whilst this measure has been noted in repeated budgets, all housing development is still hamstrung by onerous regulatory oversight, making housing unaffordable and out of reach for everyday Australian families.”

As the Liberal National Party candidate for Kennedy, Annette Swaine said she was disappointed at the lack of long-term, transformational plans to stop businesses closing at record rates, to drastically improve telecommunications in the regions and get more people into housing.

“This was obviously a rushed Budget full of short-term sweeteners designed to win an election but which will bake in huge debt and even more spending,” she said.

“It’s hard to find one credible, impartial mainstream commentator who has praised this Budget, and rightly so. Australia, and especially regional Australia, can’t afford what Anthony Albanese is offering in another Labor Government.”

Ms Swaine also said there was little in the Budget to help the residents in Kennedy.

No commitment to build dams, no new funding for flood-proofing roads, nothing for regional GP shortages.

“The tax cuts will average about $5 a week for people, which is an insult considering the cost of everything has gone up so much in the past three years. Another electricity rebate is really just Labor giving us back our own money to help pay for higher power prices they created with their renewables-only energy policy.”

Ms Stanford added that neither of the two big parties are addressing major structural reform.

“Tax, for example, capital gains tax discounts and negative gearing on properties, effectively taxing the Australian billionaires who have been revealed by Oxfam to be making $67,000 an hour and the one in three big corporations that pay no tax.”

Spending For The Future, But At What Cost?

Beyond immediate relief, the budget signals a push towards future industries. Renewable energy and green manufacturing receive heavy investment, positioning Australia as a leader in sustainable production. Increased funding for Medicare will support bulk billing, keeping healthcare accessible.

On paper, these initiatives look like long-term plays for a more self-sufficient economy, but the opposition has painted them as distractions from Australia’s immediate productivity challenges.

"This is a budget for the next five weeks, not the next five years," Opposition Leader Peter Dutton fired back.

Federal Member for Kennedy, Bob Katter, agreed with the criticism, highlighting the shortfalls he sees in the renewables race.

"It’s short-term fixes that do not address the long-term problems the nation faces."

"$150 wiped from a family's power bill for the second half of this year" is a shortsighted vote grab," Mr Katter added.

"And a further $8 billion has been allocated for renewables and low-emission projects.

"However, these measures do not acknowledge that the most cost-effective and reliable power source is still from coal-fired power generation.

"We need real measures to reduce the cost of electricity, and investment and upgrade rather than the shutdown of our coal-fired power stations.

“To ensure that Australians can have continued access to cheap, reliable power, we cannot afford the extravagance of renewables," Mr Katter said.

Ms Stanford disagreed, saying, “Allocating more money for improving the quality of water flowing into the Great Barrier Reef is nice, but it is paltry when they do nothing to stop the cause of coral bleaching - increasing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, causing sea temperatures to rise.

“We must attack the root of the bleaching problem by stopping the mining and burning of fossil fuels.”

Mr Dutton’s critique zeroes in on what many see as Labor’s greatest vulnerability—economic management. The underlying cash deficit for 2024–25 is expected to hit $27.6 billion, and while net government debt remains between 21 per cent and 24 per cent of GDP, there is little in the way of broader tax reform or strategies to boost productivity.

The numbers suggest a mixed economic outlook. Real GDP growth is forecast to increase to 2.75 per cent, while unemployment steadies at 4.25 per cent. Infrastructure remains a priority, with $1.8 billion allocated for road and rail over the next four years, as part of a $17 billion decade-long transport program. But with inflation still an issue and global uncertainty weighing heavily, voters will need to decide whether this budget provides genuine stability or temporary relief.

In response to the 2025 Budget, Mr Katter said he was once again left with little faith the country would return to its nation-building potential in any foreseeable future.

“The Budget is a mix of band-aid and tokenistic solutions that will do little to generate the real wealth that our nation needs,” he said.

"It is clearly an anti-development anti-jobs agenda, with no mines and no agricultural consideration, whatsoever.

"This budget is full of metro lollipops and its only outcome is decay."

Ms Swaine said that a Peter Dutton-led Coalition Government has regional development as one of its core aims.

“We will legislate to make the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility permanent, we will build better transport infrastructure to get cattle and minerals to market and help people move around, we will cut spending, reduce taxes, make it easier to do business and we will deliver a sensible energy mix including nuclear,” she said.

“The only way to change Kennedy’s future is to change the government and change the way we’ve done things for the past 32 years in opposition.”

Just three days after handing down the budget, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese fired the starting gun on an election campaign that will now be fought over its details. This is not just a spending plan—it’s a political blueprint.

The question is whether Australians believe it charts the right course or merely smooths the road to polling day.

*Efforts were made to contact the Labor candidate for Kennedy, however this publication did not receive a response prior to print.