The gloss of the sales pitch for the Youth Employment Package that will be ‘working to get more than 100,000 vulnerable young people into jobs in the growing Australian economy by giving them real work experience with real employers that leads to real jobs’[i] sounds like a good and welcome new initiative.

The reality is that this needs to be seen in the context where there was already an existing program targeting youth jobseekers called the Job Commitment Bonus (alongside an existing raft of job seeker measures which are not limited to youths for which access depends on your time registered on benefits and your jobseeker classification group[ii]). Digging into the details in Budget Paper no. 2 show that changes to the employment measures include the cessation of Job Commitment Bonus, and the youth employment package includes ‘efficiencies’ and ‘saving’ [i.e. cuts in expenditure] for Work for the Dole. The Youth Employment Package – Youth Jobs Path will ‘achieve savings’ and the funding for the wage subsidies component ‘will be provided from within the existing funding for wage subsidies’. Essentially the Youth Employment Package is not a new idea, it tinkers with the details of what is provided, when it is provided and to whom. At the same time, looking for example at 2017/18, the expenses figures for the youth targeted measures Youth Employment Package and the Job Commitment bonus reveal that there are falls of -66.1 and -120.7 and rises of 70.1 and 24.2 which result in an overall fall of 92.5 (in millions of dollars), So this appears a cutback measure for the Department of Employment and Department of Human Services programs of services for youth.

Apart from this funding cut aspect, there can be gains from improving employment services by redesigning them. Some of the types of services in the Youth Jobs Path program have some robust evidence from overseas to show that they can result in additional job/training or off-benefit outcomes for the participants. In particular, wage subsidies have been shown to be effective at improving these outcomes. This is just a cursory overview, but there are some notable points beyond the overall reduction in funding to youth services that may also constrain what might be any gains from this switch to the Youth Employment Package. Amongst other limits, the primary issues might be firstly, that there is a limit on how many eligible youths can access the Youth Jobs Path so demand may be constrained (‘up to 30,000… each year’); secondly the wage subsidies funding appears constrained as youth wage subsidies must compete with the alternatives and come ‘from within existing funding for wage subsidies’ [perhaps on a first in first served basis?]; thirdly, the ‘employer mobilisation strategy’ is critical to the ‘real jobs’ part of the spiel, as the 2014-15 Work for the Dole evaluation[iii] shows that it may be hard to engage employers beyond the not-for-profit sector and evaluation evidence from overseas shows that participation by a full range of employers is important for successful outcomes of the program; fourthly, the April 2016 monthly leading indicator of employment[iv] suggests future Australian employment overall is falling in which case many such employment programs can hope simply to shuffle the queue so that a mature jobseeker might be offset with a youth jobseeker who is moved into the opportunity of employment after the end of participating in the program.

Overall, the devil is in the detail for this budget initiative. This initiative ‘funded in last night’s budget show that the Government is not funding, as it appears to be a reduction in expenditure for youth employment services. Better targeting and improved employment services can be laudable. Whether this reform should pave the way for greater employment opportunities for youths than its predecessor programmes would require time to pass and a robust, independent evaluation of the program to be constructed that explores whether there are additional outcomes. On the back of an envelope, it has a funding cut and delivery limits to climb over to get there. This suggests additional investment and policy work are required in all the areas targeted by these initiatives if it is not to be just smoke and mirrors.

The Government is maintaining support for the science budget: the Academy is pleased to see this indication of a long-term commitment to science in Australia.

We warmly welcome the announcement of additional funding for Australia’s Antarctic program. Australia is a leader in Antarctic science, and it’s great to see a long-term commitment like this.

I’m delighted to see this major new investment from the Australian Government to undertake new modelling of mineral resources. The Academy identified the need for such work in this area through its UNCOVER project and it’s good to see the government responding in this way. Our mineral wealth has helped to sustain long-term economic growth in Australia. This announcement will help us find new mineral deposits and has the potential to deliver long-term economic gains for Australia.

The MRFF being announced as part of the 2014 budget was a big win for our sector, and important recognition of the critical role it plays in our economy, and the health of the community, through improved diagnostics and treatments, and tremendous savings to the health system.

Hopefully this additional funding will reassure many concerned medical researchers that they have a future in Australia, after a recent survey by Professional Scientists Australia found four out of five medical researchers were considering leaving the sector due to a lack of job security primarily stemming from funding issues.

As a nation we invest hugely in the training of our talented medical researchers, and we simply cannot afford to keep wasting this talent. We must ensure our best and brightest continue to work in Australia, conducting world-class research that helps save lives, and money.

The MRFF will be a huge boost for medical research funding in Australia, and should encourage our best and brightest to stay here and make the discoveries that will help our people and our economy.

The MRFF is the sort of far-sighted public policy we so often cry out for in Australia. If jobs and growth are what Australia needs, then there is no better investment than in medical innovation.

The increase in tobacco tax alone will translate to tens of thousands of cancer deaths avoided, with trend data showing that the recurrent increases will lead to around 320,000 smokers quitting and 40,000 teenagers deterred from taking smoking up."

Key commitments also included:

• $29.9 million over three years to integrate Australia’s cancer screening registries;
• $63.8 million to subsidise medicines for breast and prostate cancer and melanoma;
• $21.3 million to trial up to 200 Health Care Homes, with the aim of integrating prevention and care for people with chronic and complex conditions; and
• $5.3 million for continued promotion of the Health Star Rating food labelling system.

"Additional investment and policy work are required in all the areas targeted by these initiatives, but the Government should nonetheless be commended for its commitments. 
 
For example, the screening register has great potential to monitor screening participation, but we will need to do more to increase participation itself – particularly in bowel cancer screening, where the benefits are extraordinary but awareness is low.
 
Funding for cancer medicines is also welcome, however governments in Australia and elsewhere will need to do more to assist people with rarer cancers who face exorbitant treatment costs.
 
The funding for piloting Health Care Homes also puts some substance to a longstanding need to do more to enhance chronic disease control at the primary care level, and help inform an ongoing commitment.
 
The initiatives funded in tonight’s budget show that the Government is listening. They should pave the way for greater investment and reform over the longer term.

Budget provides higher education clarity from the Government

Higher education needs certainty for the future, with clarity for the coming decade about the balance of Government and student investment. The 2016 Budget provides the needed clarity about the Government’s long-term intention following the failure of its previous higher education packages to gain the support of the Parliament. 

Implementation of major changes from 2018 gives the time to get the settings right.  Set against the Labor position to buttress public investment in universities the electorate has a clear choice in deciding the next Government in the coming election.

The higher education discussion paper provides a solid basis to focus on adjusting the higher education funding system to achieve the outcomes required. 

Ruling out a full system of higher education provider driven charges, the emphasis returns to which combination of Government and student contributions will generate the resources needed at levels Government and student will sustain. The ‘trilemma’ remains.

The discussion paper rightly proposes fundamentally rebooting the grouping of funding and charges to suit current and future expenditure needs.  This is not glamorous nor will it be easy but it is necessary.

The paper devotes much space to the trials of HELP, responding to reports released over the past year.  It is important to review its operations but the outcome should hold to its core intent: a system to ensure all Australians can access undergraduate university education suited to their aspirations without concern about fees.

The budget also contains decisions to buttress the quality assurance system including provision of information to prospective students.

These come at the expense of cuts of over 20% to the Higher Education Participation Program (HEPP).  The HEPP cut risks undermining a program critical for educating all students well.  Following review it is essential that the long term program in the 2018 package sustains the incentive to enrol all suitable students regardless of background.

The loss of the Office for Learning and Teaching, with a commitment to maintain national Teaching Awards, marks the demise of yet another scheme to improve cross sector understanding of how to deliver higher education well.  We now need a discussion about how to maintain the focus on good education delivery that leads to improvements within each institution as part of the delivery of national education outcomes.

The Budget also confirms that the various Indigenous support programs will be combined as IRU has long proposed. This sets each institution the challenge to continue to improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student outcomes.

The AMA tonight condemned the extension of the freeze of the Medicare patient rebate until 2020 – a saving to the Government of almost $1 billion.

AMA President, Professor Brian Owler, said the 2016-17 Health Budget continues the Government’s stranglehold on Australia’s Medicare system by taking $1 billion out of the pockets of Australian patients and household budgets by extending the Medicare rebate freeze.

“The poorest, the sickest and the most vulnerable will be the hardest hit,” Professor Owler said.

Professor Owler said patients will be further disadvantaged by an extension of the pause in the indexation of the Medicare Levy Surcharge and the Private Health Insurance Rebate thresholds – saving the Government a further $370.9 million.

“These measures will be another hit to household budgets, and represent extra disincentives to people accessing health care when they need it.

“The AMA notes that there is inadequate funding for the Health Care Home trials, an important initiative to tackle chronic disease.

“We also have concerns about cuts to Flexible Funds, which will effect important programs in the community.

“This means that the people in the community most in need of support will be paying for the Government’s ‘Budget repair’.

“There are also significant cuts to the aged care sector which require closer examination.”

Professor Owler said that there are some positives in the Budget, but they are overshadowed by the cuts.

“The AMA welcomes confirmation of the almost $2.9 billion in COAG funding for public hospitals, but we see this as a down-payment only.

“The States and Territories will need significant extra funding if they are to build hospital capacity to meet growing demand.

“We also welcome the increase in the tobacco tax, new funding for FASD programs, and continuation of the Health Star scheme.”

The AMA will closely examine the totality of the Health Budget and health initiatives from other portfolios and comment later accordingly.

The latest budget shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the importance of prevention for the economy and the health of the Australian population says Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) Vice President David Templeman. 

The Federal Budget was released this evening with the bulk of funding focused on treatment and clinical services instead of prevention initiatives.

“After tonight’s budget release, it is clear the Government is not prioritising prevention and has missed a significant opportunity to invest in the health and wellbeing of Australians,” said Mr Templeman. 

“This budget is very treatment focussed. We must shift to a model which focuses on prevention rather than waiting for someone to become sick and relying on healthcare and hospital services,” said Mr Templeman. 

PHAA’s election priorities identify ways the Federal Government can save lives and help the economy, for every dollar invested in prevention, the Government can save over five dollars in health spending.

“We know prevention works. While we applaud the Government for reinvesting in initiatives such as the Health Star Rating and tobacco consumption rates but we would like to see a greater level of investment in  public health prevention initiatives such as a sugar tax on soft drinks,” said Mr Templeman.

“A sugar tax on soft drinks would not only improve the health of Australians but it would inject money back into the economy. The funds can be reinvested back into prevention initiatives and research,” said Mr Templeman.

“Initiatives such as these have had flow on affects. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples smoking rate is now at 39% the lowest recorded rate which is attributed to prevention and educational programs,” said Mr Templeman. 

 “People don’t want to be in hospital. A comprehensive approach is vital to keep Australians out of hospital and have the best quality of life. Over the last decade, there has been a significant increase of people living with multiple chronic diseases including type II diabetes and heart disease. This should be a wakeup call to the Government to implement strategies to prevent this from happening,” continued Mr Templeman.

 “The Federal Government has missed an opportunity to consider how the pressure could be taken off the health system. There doesn’t have to be a choice – treatment and prevention can both be funded but investment in prevention can stop the problem before it starts,” stated Mr Templeman.