
Election 2025: What will definitely change once the votes are counted
The 2025 federal election has been tightly fought in several areas.
But Australia's two major parties, Labor and the Coalition, have agreed on some key policies, meaning there are certain changes coming, no matter who wins on Saturday.
The major parties are offering vastly different plans of attack on housing and how to reduce the cost of living, while the Greens and independents could hold even more power in the next parliament.
Saturday's election result is up in the air, but there has been some common ground with the two major parties.
The area both major parties are willing to talk about, where they differed the least this election campaign, has been health care.
The area they share common ground, but evidently aren't willing to budge, is tax discounts for property investors.
Health
Labor's flagship election promise is an extra $8.5bn for Medicare to fund 18 million more bulk-billed GP visits each year, nursing scholarships and more doctors.
The Coalition quickly matched this and promised a $9bn boost.
The Coalition has also pledged to match Labor's cap of $25 per prescription for medicines covered by the PBS, tipped to cost $689m over four years.
Both of the major parties have also pledged $200m for a 24-hour telehealth service, dubbed '1800MEDICARE', $575m to add oral contraceptives, menopause hormone therapies, endometriosis and IVF drugs to the PBS, $32m towards Movember, men's sheds and male-specific mental health services, and funding for healthcare hubs in Burnie, Tasmania and at Adelaide's Flinders University.
So no matter what the parliament looks like after this weekend – or once all the votes are finally counted – seeing a GP and accessing medicines should be easier for most people.
Housing
Housing has been central to this election, and the two major parties are coming at the crisis from different angles.
Economists warn most of what they're offering will push up house prices by allowing people to get bigger mortgages.
A chorus of progressive politicians have called for negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts to be scrapped, but this is a change both of the major parties have ruled out.
Both Labor and the Coalition will ban foreign investors and temporary residents from buying existing homes for two years.
Under the next government, first-home buyers may find it easier to scrape together a deposit, but under which scheme will depend on the election result.
Labor has promised $10bn to help developers build 100,000 new homes just for first-home buyers.
The Coalition would let first-home buyers pull money from their superannuation for a deposit and allow the mortgage interest repayments to be tax deductible.
Energy
Energy is arguably the area where policies from the two major parties differ most significantly, with Labor staunchly opposing the Coalition's plan for nuclear power.
Despite the stark difference in ideas on how power should be supplied to the national grid, both major parties agree Australians need relief from cost-of-living pressures and will knock an extra $150 off each household's power bill.
A Coalition government would immediately lower petrol and diesel costs by halving the fuel excise (for one year), while Labor would lower the lowest tax rate from 16 per cent to 14 per cent over two years for broader household relief.
The Coalition has a scheme directed at lower income earners too, where such taxpayers would get a one-off tax refund of up to $1200.
Both Labor and the Coalition have also committed to a $10m investment in a new Bureau of Meteorology weather radar for regional Queensland.
AUKUS
Both sides have resoundingly stuck fast with the AUKUS submarines deal, so voters should not expect that $368bn commitment to be unwound.
Defence
For defence more broadly, Labor committed an extra $50.3bn to the armed forces last year and brought the increased spending forward in the March budget. On the campaign trail, the Coalition announced it would spend an extra $21bn by 2030; this included a commitment to lift total defence spending to 3 per cent of gross domestic product within the next 10 years. Australia's defence spending in 2024-25 is about 2 per cent of GDP.
Both parties have also pledged to regain ownership of the Port of Darwin.
Immigration
Under both parties, net overseas migration will drop significantly. The latest federal budget predicted the net overseas migration count would drop to 260,000 in 2025-26 and then 230,000 in 2026-27
After some confusion, Mr Dutton said his government would reduce Australia's net overseas migration levels by 100,000.
Net overseas migration was 446,000 in 2023-24, down from 536,000 a year earlier.
The Coalition pledged to triple the cost of student visa applications to $5000 (up from $1600), while a re-elected Labor government would increase the cost of student visa applications to $2000.
Beer
The Coalition has backed Labor's position to freeze the alcohol excise on draught beer for two years, starting from August 1, 2025. The much-hated tax adds about 1-2 cents per pint bought at the pub, and the move will aid brewers and publicans.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Australians must not follow Trump's road to ruin
It would appear as through Parnell McGuinness (' JD Vance chastised Europeans on free speech. He wasn't wrong ', June 8) and similar-minded conservative commentators such as Sky News After Dark, are continuing on their ideologically driven warpaths oblivious to the voice of the Australian people as expressed in the May 3 election. While these media darlings of the right still want to rant and rave and feed each other's egos with negativity, doom and gloom, the great mass of Australians are getting on with life, comfortable with their government which is safe, stable, secure and focused on traditional Australian positive values of a fair go, kindness and friendliness. To become relevant again and play a meaningful role in modern Australia, the right-wing media needs to jettison these antagonistic Trump-like approaches which were clearly rejected by the Australian people. Warren Marks, Richmond (Tas) Parnell Palme McGuinness warns against the suppression of ideas, quoting the US vice president's controversial advice to the Munich Security Conference in February that 'governments must listen to and respect their citizens'. However, she, like JD Vance, can't resist cherry-picking just which ideas and citizen groups are worthy of respect. She uses the case of the phrase 'identified as' being currently questioned and 'no longer [deemed] acceptable' by some activists, as an example of 'groups trying to control public conversation'. But is this really a 'kind of slippery censorship', or just the progression of an idea so it more accurately conveys the lived experience of a group? Wasn't JD Vance's speech realistically more of an attempt to control? It's a shame Palme McGuinness sabotages her own argument, adopts the culture war cover, and portrays progressive ideas as threats. Everyone counts, Parnell. Kerrie Wehbe, Blacktown EVs not for me After 60 years of driving, I recently explored the hybrid option (' The sweet spot: How to get the most out of your super and the pension', June 8). I currently drive a diesel SUV, and being a self-funded retiree, I receive no government pension. I spend about $100 per fortnight on fuel. The hybrid currently comes with no spare wheel and no tow-bar, which I need to tow my boat. The changeover figure is $12,000 in the dealer's favour. The cost of a one-off tow-bar is an extra $2000, and a spare wheel costs a couple of hundred more. That equates to about six years' driving if I continue to use diesel. There is no government incentive for me to change. Free rego for all EV-driving retirees might sway me. I think I will stay with my diesel as I am not that green. David Sayers, Gwandalan Undeserved reward This just brings discredit to the whole honours system (' Politicians, scientists and costume designer feature in King's awards ', June 8). The highest honours go to those who have already achieved a higher role in society, often just for doing what that job requires. Isn't achieving that position (and the salary that goes with it) reward enough? Meanwhile, those who make a real sacrifice and give true service to others might receive a lower honour (when nominated), if any at all. In the case of the honour given to Scott Morrison, one hopes that it is primarily because most ex-PMs have historically received a similar award. Otherwise, it wouldn't seem to be merited. The citation says it's for 'his leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic and his key role in the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal'. Doesn't that come with the job of being PM? His role in the pandemic overlooks the refusal to require those already wealthy to pay back JobKeeper payments for which they were ultimately found to be ineligible, the 'stroll-out' of vaccines, and the needless antagonism of China over the pandemic's origins (which damaged Australia's trade). And the value of the AUKUS deal remains questionable. And then there are the multiple ministries, robo-debt, claims to not hold a hose, and statements that women protesters were lucky not to be shot. I predict that this will prompt many other letters to the editor.

Sky News AU
3 hours ago
- Sky News AU
NSW Nationals vote to dump net zero emissions by 2050 target, putting pressure on federal Coalition
The NSW Nationals have made the decision to abandon support for the net zero emissions by 2050 policy. Members of the party voted resoundingly in favour of dumping the commitment during a state conference in Coffs Harbour. The motion passed "with applause", a party member told The Daily Telegraph. The state Nationals committed to the policy in 2021, but members of the party didn't always see eye-to-eye on the issue. In response to the vote, NSW Opposition Leader Mark Speakman said the net zero target would still remain Coalition policy. 'In 2016 the previous NSW Coalition Government adopted a net zero by 2050 target for NSW,' he said. 'That remains our policy, with the bipartisan NSW Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap adopted under our government to help achieve it. 'In government we also adopted interim 2030 and 2035 targets for NSW. Subsequently in opposition we voted to support legislating those interim targets.' Net zero has been a major talking point at a federal level, particularly over the last few months in the election run-in and in the Coalition's post-mortem following their heavy defeat. The Liberal Party and National Party split after the election initially, following the breakdown of negotiations over policy, before forming a Coalition once more. Their combined stance on net zero however, is still unclear, and the move from the NSW Nationals could put more pressure on Opposition Leader Sussan Ley to discuss with federal Nationals leader David Littleproud whether the Coalition will keep or withdraw support for the policy. Mr Littleproud last week said Australia's goal to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 is not possible without nuclear energy and other "pragmatic approaches" as he criticised Labor's "all renewables approach" and suggested it would bring a "far more harsher" experience for Australians than just energy bills going up. 'We're living with the physical consequence of our prime agricultural land being ripped up with transmission lines, solar panels and wind turbines, and the actual natural environment's also being destroyed in trying to achieve this,' he said.

Sky News AU
4 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘Bad policy': Former ACTU President Bill Kelty condemns Chalmers super, unrealised gains tax as rancour mounts within Labor ranks
Well-known figure of the Australian Labor movement Bill Kelty has unloaded on the Albanese government, revealing his distaste at the proposed super, unrealised gains tax whilst railing against the excessive levies imposed on small businesses. Labor's plan to double the tax rate from 15 to 30 per cent on super accounts over $3 million is set to dominate the political arena when parliament resumes in late July. The policy, which includes targeting unrealised capital gains has sparked widespread furore from industry magnates, former Treasury and RBA officials and senior economists who have railed against the unprecedented nature of the move. Experts have expressed fierce disapproval of Labor's insistence to target unrealised capital gains, of which are often fleeting and illusory and have stated the policy will undermine confidence in the superannuation industry. Mr Kelty, who served as the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions from 1983 to 2000 lashed the move as 'bad policy' and said taxing gains that a person had not yet realised in their own accounts was flawed. 'I don't mind taxing people but not unrealised earnings,' Mr Kelty told The Australian. Mr Kelty, who was an influential force in legislating compulsory superannuation alongside former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating said pursuing unrealised gains would establish a dangerous precedent and undermine the entire concept of super. 'I think taxing unrealised capital gains is bad policy. It distorts the effective tax. Changes your income flows, and if it was on superannuation generally, there would be a revolution about it. It would destroy super.' The ex-trade union boss also attacked Treasurer Jim Chalmers' argument that the changes would only impact 0.5 per cent of superannuants, and argued the policy itself was fundamentally errored in principle. 'If you want to tax rich people in this way, why wouldn't you actually reform the tax system?' Mr Kelty questioned. "This is a circuitous revolution against the rich, is it? It seems a strange thing to do. Bad policy is bad policy – for rich or poor.' Mr Kelty called on the government to instead turn its attention to reforming the mounting tax burden lumped on small businesses and said that operators faced an impossible system to navigate. 'You have got to keep records of this, records of that. You have got to go to your accountant to get depreciation scales for this and that. You have got to keep logbooks for your car. You have got to employ people to collect and maintain all your records. You have got to go to your accountant. You're making $100,000 a year, and $10,000 of that is to try and operate your tax system. Labor has also resisted repeated calls to index the $3 million threshold, with experts despairing that younger Australians would fall victim to the tax due to CPI and wage shifts over the coming decades. The contentious policy is expected to pass both houses of parliament unopposed, with the Greens set to join forces with Labor in the Senate.