This commentary examines how Australian government departments justify their spending. It compares the health portfolio with education and defence portfolios. The health portfolio is projected to spend AU$70.8 billion in 2025-26. Education and defence are projected to spend AU$72.5 billion and AU$83.2 billion respectively. Health funding requires rigorous formal evaluation. Other portfolios mostly use informal approaches like strategic alignment or narrative reporting.
The study highlights a structural asymmetry in how evaluative expectations are applied. This creates a situation where health faces greater barriers to funding than other areas. The Federal Government has a framework called Measuring What Matters. This framework supports broader ideas of value including wellbeing and equity. However, these ideas are currently absent from funding decisions made by the Expenditure Review Committee.
The commentary suggests this gap undermines efficient allocation of public resources. It proposes Social Return on Investment as a potential framework. This approach could extend proportional evaluative standards across all portfolios. Currently, some portfolios are assessed through informal mechanisms. The gap between stated policy priorities and practice is widening.