Whatever happened to the Albanese government’s wellbeing agenda?

The Albanese government devoted time and energy in its first term to developing a wellbeing agenda for the economy and society.

It was a passion project of Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who wanted better ways to measure national welfare beyond traditional economic indicators such as growth, jobs and inflation.

Chalmers developed the Measuring What Matters framework to try to better align economic, social and environmental goals as

part of a deliberate effort to put people and progress, fairness and opportunity at the very core of our thinking about our economy and our society.

As Labor settles into its second term, what has happened to its wellbeing agenda? And how much was a poor consultation process to blame for it apparently falling by the wayside?

Measuring What Matters

Measuring What Matters was badged as a wellbeing framework to improve the lives of Australians and help better inform policy-making across all levels of government.

It tracked 50 indicators spread across five overarching themes:

• healthy
• secure
• sustainable
• cohesive
• prosperous.

There was also a standalone indicator on life satisfaction.

The data is updated annually by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, with the Treasury due to report on outcomes every three years.

The first Measuring What Matters statement in 2023 showed improvements across some indicators, such as life expectancy, job opportunities and accepting diversity. But it also revealed higher rates of chronic illness and problems with housing affordability.

The fanfare surrounding the release has since fizzled, and wellbeing is now seldom mentioned.

Furthermore, there is little evidence insights have been taken up by the government. The Australian National Audit Office recently noted the challenge of embedding Measuring What Matters in policy, as well as the absence of any evaluation work to gauge its effectiveness.

The wellbeing agenda appears to have been sidelined for two reasons: an insufficient consultation process to properly develop the framework, and the cost-of-living crisis.

Poor consultation

Wellbeing frameworks have high potential to impact policy. But they need to be developed and implemented in the right way.

One crucial factor is adequate community engagement, which would have helped ensure accurate representation of what people truly value in terms of wellbeing. Done properly, it could also have secured buy-in from the community, depoliticised the initiative, and even strengthened democracy.

But adequate time was not taken to get the consultation process right, with the government in a rush to release Measuring What Matters. Announced in the October 2022 Budget, two consultation phases were undertaken.

The first, mainly with technical experts, took three months. The second, which sought feedback from individuals and community groups, was even shorter. It was over in just one month.

Measuring What Matters was released shortly after, in July 2023.

Our research, recently published in the Australian Journal of Social Issues, analysed the public consultation phase. We found it was inadequate across four areas.

Comprehensiveness: the timeframe for phase two was too short to allow organisations and communities to meaningfully engage.

Reach: there was limited engagement with the general public.

Transparency: the community was not informed how feedback would be incorporated in the framework and no consultation report was published.

Genuineness: while some feedback was incorporated in the framework, key topics raised in the consultation were not acted on, including greater involvement of First Nations people.

Greater community engagement would have ensured the framework, and any policy it produced, better reflected what Australians value for their wellbeing. It would have also promoted people’s ownership of the framework, helping to foster greater understanding and support for the initiative.

Although Measuring What Matters is now established, it is not too late to realise proper community engagement.

Taboo subject

The other factor to run interference was the cost-of-living crisis, which dominated the government’s first term.

Ministers were hesitant to talk about much else. Any references to wellbeing, which for some may elicit images of people meditating or practising yoga, might have been seen as risky.

This is a shame. Wellbeing policies have the potential to improve people’s lives.

We can draw some inspiration from an alliance of countries, including New Zealand, Scotland, Finland, Iceland and Wales, which have at various times put people’s wellbeing at the forefront of policy development and evaluation.

For example, while progress has been slow and there have been key challenges to overcome, the Welsh Well-being of Future Generations Act has led to policy changes such as a moratorium on roads being built to improve people’s health and the environment.

Perhaps if the Albanese government had leaned in to its own wellbeing framework to help navigate the cost-of-living crisis, people may have fared better.

The agenda’s future?

The Albanese government’s large majority gives it space to revitalise its wellbeing framework.

Undertaking a national conversation, similar to the one rolled out in Wales, would help build grassroots support and ensure it truly “measures what matters” to people.

A stronger Measuring What Matters would not only provide the electorate with a clear indication the government is listening, but would also help ensure policy improves people’s lives in a meaningful way.

Kate Sollis is a consultant to the Wellbeing Government initiative at the Centre for Policy Development and President of the Bega Valley Data Collective. She was previously employed at the Australian Bureau of Statistics

Paul Campbell is a research fellow, whose work is supported by the ANU-Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Government Wellbeing Framework research partnership. He was previously employed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Nicholas Drake does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.