Last night’s budget has come under intense criticism for ignoring small business and rural communities, while showering trinkets and favours on our biggest cities and businesses.
The federal budget unveiled last night has drawn sharp criticism from the Nationals and Greens, business groups, and rural health advocates, who argue that it prioritises urban centres and large corporations while failing to address the needs of small businesses and regional communities.
Nationals say budget fails regional Australians
Nationals Leader David Littleproud accused the Albanese government of abandoning regional Australia, citing funding cuts to key infrastructure programs.
“Labor has no new funding for the Stronger Communities program, Local Roads and Community Infrastructure program, Growing Regions program, and the Regional Precincts and Partnership program—critical to building community infrastructure in regional Australia,” Littleproud said.
He also criticised the government for deferring $190 million in funding for major water projects and for failing to provide additional support for regional roads, childcare, or cost-of-living pressures.
“Regional Australians will not only bear the brunt of more infrastructure cuts but also have the extra burden of Labor’s cost-of-living crisis,” he said.
Small business sector feels abandoned
CPA Australia has criticised the budget for lacking long-term vision and failing to deliver meaningful support for small businesses. CPA Australia CEO Chris Freeland said the budget does little to address the growing pressures on small businesses, particularly those facing increased operational costs.
“The budget lacks ambition and a thorough understanding of what business needs,” Freeland said.
“SMEs needed a budget that would significantly alleviate the cost pressures they face every day.”
He also criticised the government for failing to make the instant asset write-off permanent, stating that businesses need certainty to make long-term investment decisions. While some measures, such as the $150 energy bill relief, were welcomed, Freeland argued that the budget lacks incentives for businesses to innovate and adopt new technologies.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry also criticised a new workplace change in the budget that would prevent businesses from imposing non-compete clauses on workers earning under $175,000. ACCI CEO Andrew McKellar called the move “heavy-handed” and said it would particularly impact small businesses that invest time and resources into training staff.
“They then face the risk that if those staff move on, they can go to a competitor, and very quickly you’re at a competitive disadvantage,” McKellar said.
The Labor government argues the measure could add $5 billion annually to the economy by boosting wages and business start-up rates.
Rural health organisations call for targeted funding
The National Rural Health Alliance (NRHA) expressed disappointment over the budget’s approach to rural health, arguing that it fails to provide a comprehensive strategy for addressing healthcare disparities in regional and remote areas.
Declaring the budget to be city focused but country funded, NRHA Chief Executive Susi Tegen cautioned that rural and remote communities still face a significant healthcare funding gap. The NRHA estimates that rural Australia is underfunded by $6.55 billion annually in healthcare spending.
“With the federal election on the horizon, it is not too late to prioritise rural health,” Tegen said. She also emphasised the urgent need for targeted investment: “We need substantial, well-directed funding to close the healthcare gap between rural and metropolitan areas. Anything less is neglect.”
Tegen also criticised the lack of a National Rural Health Strategy, which she said would help coordinate funding for rural health services, but welcomed the $8.5 billion investment in Medicare and the reduction of maximum costs for PBS-listed medicines.
Farmers disappointed with lack of investment
The National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) expressed frustration over the budget’s failure to provide significant investment in agriculture, despite the inclusion of $3.5 million for a National Food Security Strategy. NFF President David Jochinke said the sector needs greater support to navigate geopolitical and environmental challenges.
“Farmers are grappling with major geopolitical, environmental and societal shifts. We need a sharper focus from government to ensure we keep farmers farming and keep food affordable for Aussie families,” Jochinke said.
Trade remains a key concern for the agriculture industry, particularly with looming US tariff decisions that could impact Australian exports. The budget includes $6.8 million for international engagement and market access, as well as $20 million for a Buy Australian campaign, but the NFF says more investment is needed.
Jochinke also criticised the government for a lack of transparency on Murray-Darling Basin buybacks, calling for a shift in funding towards pest eradication and environmental restoration instead.
“We need significant funding to eradicate pests and weeds. The focus on pest management in the budget is a drop in the ocean of what farmers and the environment need,” he said.
The biggest line item for Agriculture in the Budget Measures is $23.8 million over three years from 2025–26 to sponsor agricultural trade events. Funding has also been provided for efforts to resist the tariff agenda of the Trump Administration. The word ‘farm’ does not appear in the budget papers.
Greens say budget is a ‘missed opportunity’
The Australian Greens condemned the budget as failing to deliver real cost-of-living relief. Greens leader Adam Bandt criticised the government for maintaining fossil fuel subsidies while neglecting rental relief and social welfare increases.
“This tiny tax tweak budget was a missed opportunity to provide urgent cost-of-living relief,” Bandt said.
Greens Treasury spokesperson Senator Nick McKim argued that the budget favours corporate interests over struggling Australians.
“This budget is far more notable for what it doesn’t contain than what it does,” McKim said.
Read all the way through to the end of the story? So did lots of other people. Advertise with New England Times to reach New England locals who are interested and engaged. Find out more here.