The federal budget will be stronger than suggested in last month’s budget, according to Treasurer Jim Chalmers who released Labor’s costings on Monday.
Many of the policies included in the costings were already detailed in either the 2025 Budget or the Pre-Election Fiscal Outlook, so are shown as having a net zero cost.
But that does not mean they are costless. It means simply that their costs were included in previously published budget updates.
Monday’s media announcement is akin to the reconciliation table published in each update, prepared by the Treasury and Finance departments setting out how the numbers have changed.
It seems likely this media release drew on the same methodology.
It includes two savings measures. One is relatively small: $700 million from increasing the visa application charge for primary student visas. The big saving is $6.4 billion from further reducing spending on consultants, contractors, labour hire, and non-wage expenses such as travel, hospitality and property.
Travel, hospitality and property expenses are small bikkies. Undoubtedly departments could make savings on these, but they won’t get anywhere near the total. The bulk of the savings will come from reducing spending on consultants and contractors.
Labor has shown that such savings on consultants are possible; it did it in its first term. However, counterbalancing this, we saw increased spending on the public service.
It is the same problem as with the Coalition’s promise to make savings by cutting public servants. Without cuts to programs and activities, work remains to be done. People have to be employed to do that work, leading either to more spending on the public service (Labor) or bringing back consultants (Coalition).
There was no independent signoff suggesting Monday’s release included all of Labor’s policy announcements. We won’t get that until the Parliamentary Budget Office does its election commitments report.
But this full list of costings is not released by the Parliamentary Budget Office until well after the election. This is either 30 days from the end of the caretaker period or seven days before the new parliament first sits, whichever comes later.
However, Monday’s costings release does appear comprehensive, including not only the large headline announcements but several announcements of less than a million dollars a year.
What are missing, though, are costings of items that are off-budget because they are balance sheet adjustments – for example, the reduction in student HECS debt.
These do have a financial impact but due to their accounting treatment are not disclosed as hitting the budget balance. Ideally, these should be disclosed as well.
The Lunar Gateway is planned space station that will orbit the Moon. It is part of the Nasa‑led Artemis programme. Artemis aims to return humans to the Moon, establishing a sustainable presence there for scientific and commercial purposes, and eventually reach Mars.
However, the modular space station now faces delays, cost concerns and potential US funding cuts. This raises a fundamental question: is an orbiting space station necessary to achieve lunar objectives, including scientific ones?
Cancelling Gateway would also raise deeper questions about the future of US commitment to international cooperation within Artemis. It would therefore risk eroding US influence over global partnerships that will define the future of deep space exploration.
Gateway was designed to support these ambitions by acting as a staging point for crewed and robotic missions (such as lunar rovers), as a platform for scientific research and as a testbed for technologies crucial to landing humans on Mars.
It is a multinational endeavour. Nasa is joined by four international partners, the Canadian Space Agency, the European Space Agency (Esa), the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and the United Arab Emirates’ Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Centre.
Most components contributed by these partners have already been produced and delivered to the US for integration and testing. But the project has been beset by rising costs and persistent debates over its value.
If cancelled, the US abandonment of the most multinational component of the Artemis programme, at a time when trust in such alliances is under unprecedented strain, could be far reaching.
It will be assembled module by module, with each partner contributing components and with the possibility of additional partners joining over time.
Strategic aims
Gateway reflects a broader strategic aim of Artemis, to pursue lunar exploration through partnerships with industry and other nations, helping spread the financial cost – rather than as a sole US venture. This is particularly important amid intensifying competition – primarily with China.
China and Russia are pursuing their own multinational lunar project, a surface base called the International Lunar Research Station. Gateway could act as an important counterweight, helping reinforce US leadership at the Moon.
In its quarter-century of operation, the ISS has hosted more than 290 people from 26 countries, alongside its five international partners, including Russia. More than 4,000 experiments have been conducted in this unique laboratory.
In 2030, the ISS is due to be succeeded by separate private and national space stations in low Earth orbit. As such, Lunar Gateway could repeat the strategic, stabilising role among different nations that the ISS has played for decades.
However, it is essential to examine carefully whether Gateway’s strategic value is truly matched by its operational and financial feasibility.
It could be argued that the rest of the Artemis programme is not dependant on the lunar space station, making its rationales increasingly difficult to defend.
Some critics focus on technical issues, others say the Gateway’s original purpose has faded, while others argue that lunar missions can proceed without an orbital outpost.
Sustainable exploration
Supporters counter that the Lunar Gateway offers a critical platform for testing technology in deep space, enabling sustainable lunar exploration, fostering international cooperation and laying the groundwork for a long term human presence and economy at the Moon. The debate now centres on whether there are more effective ways to achieve these goals.
Despite uncertainties, commercial and national partners remain dedicated to delivering their commitments. Esa is supplying the International Habitation Module (IHAB) alongside refuelling and communications systems. Canada is building Gateway’s robotic arm, Canadarm3, the UAE is producing an airlock module and Japan is contributing life support systems and habitation components.
Gateway’s Halo module at a facility in Arizona operated by aerospace company Northrop Grumman. Nasa / Josh Valcarcel
US company Northrop Grumman is responsible for developing the Habitat and Logistics Outpost (Halo), and American firm Maxar is to build the power and propulsion element (PPE). A substantial portion of this hardware has already been delivered and is undergoing integration and testing.
If the Gateway project ends, the most responsible path forward to avoid discouraging future contributors to Artemis projects would be to establish a clear plan to repurpose the hardware for other missions.
Cancellation without such a strategy risks creating a vacuum that rival coalitions, could exploit. But it could also open the door to new alternatives, potentially including one led by Esa.
Esa has reaffirmed its commitment to Gateway even if the US ultimately reconsiders its own role. For emerging space nations, access to such an outpost would help develop their capabilities in exploration. That access translates directly into geopolitical influence.
Space endeavours are expensive, risky and often difficult to justify to the public. Yet sustainable exploration beyond Earth’s orbit will require a long-term, collaborative approach rather than a series of isolated missions.
If the Gateway no longer makes technical or operational sense for the US, its benefits could still be achieved through another project.
This could be located on the lunar surface, integrated into a Mars mission or could take an entirely new form. But if the US dismisses Gateway’s value as a long term outpost without ensuring that its broader benefits are preserved, it risks missing an opportunity that will shape its long term influence in international trust, leadership and the future shape of space cooperation.
South Korea is proposing laws to protect jobs from AI, balancing innovation with workers’ rights amid rising automation.
South Korean lawmakers are taking bold steps to protect workers from the growing impact of AI on employment. The proposed legislation aims to safeguard jobs and support workers transitioning into new roles as machines increasingly enter the workforce.
Professor Karen Sutherland of Uni SC joins Ticker to break down what these changes mean for employees and industries alike. She explains how the laws are designed to balance technological innovation with workers’ rights, and why proactive measures are crucial as AI adoption accelerates.
With major companies like Hyundai Motor introducing advanced robots, labour unions have raised concerns about fair treatment and the future of human labour. Experts say South Korea’s approach is faster and more comprehensive than similar initiatives in the United States and European Union, aiming to secure livelihoods while improving the quality of life for displaced workers.
Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker
At Munich Security Conference, U.S. NATO ambassador discussed defense autonomy, hybrid warfare, and transatlantic cooperation amid rising tensions.
At the Munich Security Conference, the U.S. ambassador to NATO faced tough questions on global order as European allies explored greater defense autonomy amid rising geopolitical tensions. The discussion highlighted the challenges NATO faces in maintaining unity while responding to evolving threats.
The ambassador addressed criticisms directly, emphasizing the importance of transatlantic cooperation and NATO’s role in ensuring international security. European nations voiced concerns about independent defense capabilities and the impact of hybrid warfare from Russia on regional stability.
Oz Sultan from Sultan Interactive Group provides analysis.
Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker
