NSW budget 2025: Treasurer Daniel Mookhey hands down Minns government's third budget
While announcing a $5.7 billion deficit for 2025-26, Mookhey said the coming year would be one of 'tight spending', with a surplus targeted by 2028-29.
'For most of the last three years, the rising cost of living and higher interest rates have put pressure on households and dragged on economic growth,' he said.
'The challenge is no longer high inflation, but low growth.
'In this Budget, we show that cost of living pressures and interest rates are easing and opportunities for economic growth are emerging.'
Here's how the budget could affect you.
Housing developers and home buyers
The NSW Government is investing $1 billion into the Pre-Sale Guarantee, aimed at helping developers secure finance earlier and speed up construction timelines.
The initiative is expected to fast-track more than 5000 homes over five years and create 1500 jobs.
'We promise to buy anything that's unsold,' the Minister told reporters.
The government is also making the 50 per cent land tax discount for build-to-rent projects permanent, giving long-term certainty to investors and boosting rental supply.
The state will park $145.1 million into the Building Commission for the building regulator to continue to conduct inspections, investigate complex building issues, progress key building reforms and educate the industry.
Child carers
From January 1, 2026, foster carers will receive a 20 per cent increase in their allowance.
A carer of a five-year-old will get an extra $131.20 per fortnight, and that of a 14-year-old, the increase is $176 per fortnight.
The budget includes a record $1.2 billion investment in child protection, marking the largest-ever commitment to reforming the out-of-home care (OOHC) system, which supports children who can't safely live at home.
Hospitals and healthcare
The Minns Government is committing $12.4 billion to health infrastructure over the next four years.
Key investments include $910 million for Western Sydney's first new hospital in 40 years at Rouse Hill, $700 million for the construction of the new Bankstown Hospital, and $492 million to build a state-of-the-art pathology hub at the Westmead Health Precinct, replacing a facility built more than 50 years ago.
Commuters using public transport
The NSW Government is committing $522.2 million to improve public transport across the state, including $82.3 million to deliver 75 new buses.
It will allocate $70 million to enhance transport access to the new Sydney Fish Market, with $30 million to build a scenic ferry wharf on Blackwattle Bay, and $40 million to upgrade the nearby Wentworth Park light rail stop with new lifts, ramps, and improved safety features.
Regional residents
Residents in the Riverina Murray region will benefit from $206 million in road upgrades, while the Illawarra-Shoalhaven region is set to receive $680.5 million to continue works on the Princes Highway.
Small businesses and startups
The government is pouring nearly $80 million into its Innovation Blueprint to give emerging tech companies more financial and structural support.
Another $17.7 million will go towards setting up the Investment Delivery Authority, which is designed to make it easier and faster for major projects to get off the ground in NSW.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
13 hours ago
- News.com.au
‘Makes no sense': South Australian ban exposed
Soy milk, rice cakes and ham salad sandwiches aren't usually the first things that come to mind when you think of 'junk food'. Yet, here we are, in the first week of the introduction of the South Australian food and beverage advertising bans on government assets, still debating what has been banned and what has not. Confusion and uncertainty reigns as businesses, the public and even nutritionists are scratching their heads as to why everyday nutritious food and drinks have been caught by the ban and whole groups of food are permitted. Let's look at the facts. Under these new rules, everyday products like some soy milk, oat milk and rice cakes are banned from appearing in advertising on South Australian government assets. This is because these products contain small amounts of added sugar and that is enough to land them on the blacklist. Under the new regime, if any sugar is added, it is banned. That means a number of plain, unflavoured soy milks with only 1 gram (per 100ml) of added sugar cannot be advertised. On the other hand, according to the South Australian Government Implementation Guide, all condiments (including dips), and all jams and spreads are considered acceptable. Ham salad sandwiches were banned. Then they were not – if the ham was incidental to the advertisement. But, you need to submit the advertisement to a departmental panel for approval, creating more unnecessary bureaucratic red tape. Sound confusing? It is. This simply doesn't pass the pub test and is creating confusion and uncertainty for business and the community. We agree with the government that this needs a commonsense approach. The problem is the current approach doesn't make any sense. The fact that we are still having this conversation about which foods are objectively healthy and which are not, points to the flaws in this policy. All the industry is asking for is a credible independent nutritional test that creates certainty about what food and beverages are permitted to be advertised by the South Australian government. The industry is not asking for a free pass. We are asking for a fair go. That is why we are calling on the South Australian Government to adopt the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criteria – a nationally consistent, scientifically rigorous framework – developed by an independent government agency under the Federal Government Department of Health. It is already used by all States and Territories as a credible tool to assess the nutritional value of food. The next step surely is collaboration. The industry, public health experts, and government need to come together to empower Australians to make healthier choices – not through ad bans and confusion, but through smart policy, positive messaging, and evidence-based regulation. The food and beverage industry is already taking steps to help consumers switch to healthier options through product innovation and reformulation. Australia also has some the strictest rules in the world around food and beverage advertising, which effectively ban the advertising of unhealthy food to children, across all advertising and all media, at all times. So here is our ask: pause and review this broken system and replace it with a better one based on nutritional science. Let's work together to promote healthier choices, through clarity, consistency and commonsense without throwing healthy foods under the bus. And let's put an end to policies that confuse the public and businesses and, fail to deliver results. Because if soy milk and rice cakes are the enemies in this fight against obesity, we are targeting the wrong culprits.
West Australian
16 hours ago
- West Australian
Michelle Grattan: Free speech fight reignites as sparks fly in Australian politics
Political and news cycles often work in a certain and predictable way. Issues flare like bushfires, then rage for weeks or even months, until they are finally extinguished by action or fade by being overtaken by the next big thing. On two very different fronts this week, we're reminded how these cycles work. Last term, the Opposition constantly hammered the Government over its handling of the former immigration detainees released after the High Court found they couldn't be held indefinitely. These included people who had committed murder, child sex offences and violent assaults. On Sunday, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke admitted in a Sky interview that the legislation the Government passed to re-detain some of these people was, in effect, impossible to use. Burke's comments attracted only limited attention. The other reminder of an old story came when the Federal Court ordered a militant Muslim preacher to remove inflammatory lectures from the internet. He had lost a case brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. More than a decade ago, political passions ran high in conservative circles about the alleged evils of 18C. First, to the Burke admission. Burke said he had 'a lot of resources' dedicated to trying to get applications to court for preventative detention orders. But 'no one has come close to reaching the threshold that is in that legislation.' For a long time, the Government had kept saying it was working up cases to put to the court. But, realising the difficulty, it also passed legislation facilitating the deportation of these people to third countries. There are now three former detainees due to be deported to Nauru, following a financial agreement with that country. But there's a hitch: their deportations are tied up in court appeals. (They can however be held in detention while the cases proceed.) The challenge still presented by the former detainees is no small matter, despite the political storm having calmed and the media interest dissipating. According to the Home Affairs department, 300 people had been released as at the end of February. Of these, 104 had offended since release, and 30 were incarcerated. Some 83 had only a State or Territory criminal charge; seven only a Migration Act charge; 14 people had both a Migration Act charge and a State or Territory charge. In recent weeks, one former detainee is alleged to have murdered a photographer in Melbourne. The political context can be very relevant to whether the embers of an old issue re-spark into something major. Anthony Albanese's decision last year to put Burke into home affairs was something of a political masterstroke. If Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles had still been in their former respective portfolios of home affairs and immigration, the present failure to deal more successfully with the former detainees would have been a much bigger issue. Burke is skilled at throwing a blanket over contentious areas. On the other side of politics, James Paterson was moved out of home affairs in Sussan Ley's reshuffle. Paterson pursued the former immigration detainees relentlessly. The new spokesmen, Andrew Hastie (home affairs) and Paul Scarr (immigration) haven't hit their strides yet. The Government would have been under more pressure on the issue if Parliament were sitting. But the new Parliament doesn't meet until July 22. When it does, one of the new arrivals will be a former face, Liberal MP Tim Wilson. Way back when, Wilson was a player in the story of 18C. For him, the way 18C resurfaced this week contains more than a little irony. In February 2014, Wilson took up his post of Human Rights Commissioner, appointed by the Abbott government with the special brief of promoting freedom of speech. That government was strongly opposed to 18C, which made it unlawful to 'offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate' a person or group because of their race or ethnicity. The assault on 18C ran into vigorous opposition from ethnic and other groups, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. Eventually PM Abbott retreated. A disappointed Wilson tweeted: 'Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18c and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed.' In his 2025 bid for election, Wilson — who had been member for Goldstein in 2016-2022 — was helped by the Jewish vote, after the rise of anti-Semitism. The debate about free speech has moved on a great deal since the Abbott government days, when conservatives were particularly agitated about 18C following a court judgement against journalist Andrew Bolt, who'd disparaged some fair-skinned Indigenous people. Today's debate is in the context of 'hate speech' associated with the Middle East conflict. Hate-crime laws have provoked another fierce round of controversy about the appropriate limits to put on 'free speech.' The Executive Council of Australian Jewry brought its case under the 18C civil law against preacher William Haddad, from Western Sydney, after no action was taken by the authorities under the criminal law. In lectures, Haddad made highly derogatory comments about Jews. Finding against Haddad, Judge Angus Stewart said the lectures 'were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia.' Reflecting on the decision, George Brandis — who was attorney-general during the 18C furore — says, 'My view hasn't changed. It should not in a free country be either criminally or civilly actionable to say something that merely offends. However, in this case the conduct went far beyond mere offence, to intimidation. It did not require 18C to get the redress that was sought in the case.' Wilson doesn't wish to re-enter the debate. The new Opposition industrial relations spokesman says his focus is 'my portfolio responsibilities'. It's likely many of those who fought 18C years ago hold to their original view, while having to applaud the judgement made under it this week. That's another irony.
ABC News
a day ago
- ABC News
Vic government working on ongoing Indigenous representative body
The Victorian Government says it's working on how the First Peoples' Assembly can become an ongoing representative body to advise on certain government decisions. It says the peak Aboriginal body will have a direct line to ministers and departments to consult on laws that directly affect First Peoples, but will not have veto powers on policy or legislation.
