As Australians head to the polls on May 3, 2025, healthcare remains a defining issue. Both Labor and the Liberal-National Coalition are promising improvements in accessibility and affordability — but a closer, critical look reveals important questions about their viability, especially given Australia’s static healthcare spending relative to GDP, a growing multicultural and ageing population, and the demands of nationwide reforms in aged care and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

🟥 Labor Party: Expanding Medicare and Access

Labor’s healthcare strategy is anchored in strengthening and expanding Medicare — the universal public health system — with initiatives intended to ease emergency department congestion and make basic care more accessible:

• 1800MEDICARE Hotline: A $1.4 billion commitment to launch a 24/7 free national telehealth and nurse advice hotline, aiming to cut 250,000 emergency department visits annually.
• Bulk Billing Expansion: Promises 18 million additional bulk-billed GP visits, aiming for 90% of consultations to be free by 2030.
• Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS): Proposes lowering medication costs to $25, maintaining resistance to international trade pressures that could privatise or undermine the PBS.
• Medicare Urgent Care Clinics: Committed to establishing 87 clinics, offering walk-in care to treat non-critical conditions outside hospital settings.

These initiatives are touted as part of an $8 billion Medicare investment package. However, there is no concrete indication that the overall share of health funding as a percentage of GDP will rise to support this long-term — raising concerns over whether infrastructure and workforce can realistically keep pace.

🟦 Liberal Party: Strengthening Medicare and Women’s Health

The Liberal Party’s policies are less expansive but still significant, with a focus on strengthening the existing Medicare structure and improving women’s and regional health services:

• $9 Billion Medicare Investment: Targeted at improving affordability and reducing wait times.
• PBS Co-payment Reduction: Like Labor, the Liberals pledge to reduce the PBS general co-payment to $25.
• Women’s Health Focus: Promises new training and research into endometriosis, menopause, and related care pathways.
• Regional Workforce Incentives: Aims to address chronic shortages by recruiting and retaining medical professionals in regional and rural Australia.

While these proposals reflect targeted improvements, they remain reactive rather than transformational — and may struggle to shift national outcomes without broader structural change or investment.

Healthcare Funding: Do the Promises Match the Money?

Australia currently spends about 9.9% of GDP on healthcare — lower than countries like Germany (12.8%), France (12.3%), and the U.S. (17.4%), despite its vast geography and complex demographic needs (OECD Health at a Glance, 2023).

On a per capita basis, Australia’s spending is about $9,597 AUD, placing it in the mid-range of OECD nations. For comparison:

• Germany: ~$11,500 AUD
• France: ~$10,800 AUD
• UK: ~$7,800 AUD
• USA: ~$18,000 AUD

Neither Labor nor Liberal has committed to increasing this significantly. Without boosting funding to match policy ambition, the healthcare system may simply reallocate limited resources, increasing strain on clinicians and infrastructure rather than expanding service capacity.

Demographic Pressures: A Multicultural, Ageing, and Remote Nation

Australia’s demographic landscape further complicates policy execution:

• 28.5% of Australians are born overseas, requiring culturally responsive care. Yet, neither party addresses multicultural healthcare explicitly in their platform.
• The ageing population is growing rapidly, with the number of Australians aged over 85 expected to double by 2040.
• Rural and remote areas continue to suffer from medical workforce shortages, with communities relying on fly-in fly-out (FIFO) services and often experiencing poorer outcomes.

While the Liberals propose recruitment incentives for regional workers and Labor promises new urgent care clinics, neither plan includes structural reforms or funding to tackle the systemic workforce shortages and training pipeline issues that underpin these challenges.

Aged Care & NDIS: Centralisation Meets Complexity

Reforms to aged care (through the Aged Care Act 2024) and the NDIS are fundamentally reshaping the service landscape:

• Aged care is shifting to centralised control of assessments and service funding.
• NDIS reforms are projected to save $14.4 billion over four years, through eligibility tightening and administrative streamlining.

However, aged care providers warn that the new regulatory burdens may overwhelm services, especially in home care — which supports over 800,000 older Australians. Meanwhile, the NDIS faces concerns over equitable access, workforce supply, and whether savings may come at the cost of participant outcomes.

Neither major party has addressed how their broader healthcare policies will integrate with or support these critical reforms.

Global Lessons: What We Can Learn from OECD Peers

Countries with stronger systems often demonstrate:

• Higher investment as a percentage of GDP.
• Integrated, nationalised electronic records and assessments.
• Greater public health emphasis and lifestyle disease prevention.
• Co-ordination between aged care, disability, and primary health services.

Australia has made advances in some of these areas, but progress is piecemeal. Without additional resources or structural integration, the current policies may fall short of their transformative potential.

Final Thoughts Ahead of the 2025 Election

Both Labor and Liberal have crafted popular, headline-grabbing health proposals — but with no substantial increase in health spending as a share of GDP, questions remain about their deliverability. Australians are being offered more of the same system, with promises of access and affordability improvements, but few tools to make those promises reality amid demographic and economic headwinds.

This election, voters should ask not just “what sounds good?” — but “what will actually work?” And, crucially, “how will we pay for it?”