This is an early assessment of the health components of the Budget, based on the lock-up, briefings, reporting, and an initial pass of the papers. We will return with a fuller assessment once the detail has been worked through.
The Government has framed this as a record investment in health, as governments do each year. That is expected in a growing system. Each year should set a new high. The question is whether funding meets demand and is backed by the workforce to deliver care.
The Budget sets out headline health investments of $32.3 billion, including $3.9 billion in additional funding. Much of this sustains existing services, with some targeted expansions. The Government has committed more than $100 million over four years to children’s care, including 45,000 additional specialist appointments and 4,000 extra planned paediatric surgeries. There is $284 million to open and expand services, including the upgraded emergency department at Werribee Mercy Hospital and activity across community hospitals in growth areas. Maternity services in Melbourne’s west receive $249 million. There is also funding to improve access to endoscopy, alongside initiatives to manage paramedic demand and improve response times.
The additional investment in paediatric care is most welcome. Members working in children’s services have been clear about the strain on clinics and theatres, and on staff who are already working under sustained pressure. That strain is being felt by families when care is delayed. The task now is to turn this into real activity. That comes back to staff, theatre lists, and outpatient capacity. Without that, the numbers will not move in the way intended, and there is an opportunity here to ease some of the current pressure on an already stretched workforce.
That sits within a system that remains under sustained pressure. We are hearing this consistently across services. Access block remains the central issue. Expanding emergency departments or opening new facilities will not resolve it if the rest of the system cannot absorb demand. More beds in wards, and the staff to run them, are what make the difference. We will continue to advocate on this.
General practice is largely absent from this Budget. That is a familiar reality given the Commonwealth’s control over the MBS and other relevant policy levers, but it does not mean the State has no influence. The Victorian Government has funded primary care initiatives before, including, lamentably, pharmacy prescribing, and there is continued investment in Urgent Care Clinics. Our members see limited value in UCCs in their current form, given the risk of fragmenting care if not properly integrated. We will continue to put forward the GP perspective, particularly on scope, safety, and system coordination.
For both general practice and indeed private specialist practice, the more direct relevance of the Budget sits in the broader business environment. Many of our members run practices. They are managing rising costs and a growing tax burden. These pressures shape the cost of doing business and whether practices can operate, expand, and take pressure off the public system. We will work through these aspects of the budget and advocate where needed.
Community health funding needs more clarity. Interim funding for cohealth expires in July and the independent review has not been released. We are hearing from staff and services who are uncertain about what comes next. This goes to continuity of care and workforce confidence. This needs resolution.
On mental health, there is continued investment across services and capacity. The issue is not policy intent. It is delivery. Services are already stretched and workforce shortages persist. For example, beds at Thomas Embling Hospital are welcomed, but the question is whether they can be safely staffed. Without the workforce, capacity will not translate into improved access.
Prevention funding is referenced, notably around $78 million directed towards “keeping Victorians healthy”. With VicHealth funding now absorbed into the Department, there is a real risk that prevention is diluted within broader health expenditure rather than maintained as a distinct priority. It is not clear from the Budget that this funding remains visible or protected. We will be seeking clarity and arguing for dedicated, ring-fenced investment in prevention.
The Budget continues the move towards Local Health Service Networks, with funding directed at more coordinated care. There is an opportunity here if it improves referral pathways and reduces fragmentation. It will depend on how it is designed and whether clinicians are properly involved. The same applies to digital health. Progress on interoperability and information sharing is essential. What is needed over time is a coherent, statewide approach rather than a patchwork of systems.
This is a reasonable Budget for health in the current context. It sustains core services and targets some clear pressure points, particularly in paediatrics. The larger question is whether the system has the workforce to deliver on it. That includes resolving the public hospital doctors’ EBA. It sits outside the Budget papers, but it does not sit outside the Budget reality. An outcome will require substantial funding and will shape recruitment, retention, and safe care across the system.
We will provide a more detailed assessment once we have worked through the full papers and their implications.