Treasury tacks a 'wellbeing' framework onto their endless-growth framework

Naturally, Statement 4 talks up Australians' world-ranked personal wealth levels. These are largely embedded in expensive housing that increases inequality.

While profits handsomely outpace labour costs. Real wages have fallen to levels of more than a decade ago. We're the OECD's worst per-capita greenhouse-gas emitter. Our State of the Environment reports are dire.

Nations with lower population growth do better in GDP per-capita growth. Nations with rapidly growing population don't seem to do better for equality.

For wellbeing, precautionary population policy is indicated. Not the radical "Costello" Chalmers alternative. Rapid population growth will be a negative for real wages and housing affordability. Will undo the low-unemployment windfall.

It's time Treasurer brought population policy out of the closet. Into his speech and Budget papers. His economic-parameters Table, 1.1, ought to include population growth.

Our national "wellbeing" priority isn't a framework per se. It's about Budget honesty on population, inequality, and environment.

Make the framework inclusive

Any Australian wellbeing framework is playing catchup, with our population policy.

Nevertheless, an inclusive framework might allow voters to see for themselves, domains where Australia does well. But also consider for themselves, is more population more wellbeing? As Treasurer and "stakeholders" assert.

How would a framework handle education, where the political settlement is for pampering church schools, not funding state schools for educational attainment and population growth? Or health, where some query measures such as hospital beds per population?

Here's a range of inequality/environment indicators and measures, that could be sampled, in an Australian framework. Some are reflected in the GPI or OECD Framework.

Under Inequality (or Income & Wealth), Australia versus OECD trends for: