object(WP_Post)#9072 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(47943) ["post_author"]=> string(2) "75" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2026-05-20 04:07:51" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-05-20 04:07:51" ["post_content"]=> string(13873) "

Why PR and comms teams need to take LLM visibility seriously — and what to do about it

The next time a journalist, investor or potential customer wants to know about your organisation, it’s now increasingly likely they won’t Google you. They'll ask an AI.

They'll type a question into ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini, something like "Who are the leading renewable energy companies in Australia?" or "What's the best PR agency for healthcare in Singapore?" and the AI will give them an answer. The question is whether your own organisation shows up in that answer.

The implications are significant for communications professionals, whether they’re in the agency-side working with clients or in-house managing a brand. The rules of reputation and discovery are being rewritten, and there’s a new kind of playbook that we all need to adapt to. That’s what’s going to take us forward.

The shift no one saw coming, but perhaps should have

For decades, earned media has been the backbone of credibility. A strong piece in a respected outlet signalled trust, authority and relevance. This hasn't particularly changed, but the way that coverage gets used has.

Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of publicly available content - news articles, company websites, industry reports, social media, expert commentary. When someone asks an AI a question, it synthesises all of that material into a single answer. If an organisation has a strong, consistent, well-sourced presence across those channels, it is more likely to show up. If it doesn't, it becomes invisible and is absent from the conversation entirely.

Gartner's latest predictions for Chief Communications Officers underline how serious this shift is. They forecast that as LLMs increasingly replace traditional search, PR and earned media budgets will double by 2027. What they say is that this is a communications challenge, one that requires PR expertise to build trust, secure quality coverage, and maintain consistent messaging across stakeholders.

Their research also predicts that by 2029, 45% of CCOs will be using narrative intelligence technologies to monitor reputation amid rising disinformation, a recognition that the old keyword-based approach to media monitoring simply can't keep up with the way stories now form, spread and multiply. 

The AI-generated content loop and why it matters

One of the less obvious risks in this new landscape is what happens when AI starts feeding on itself.

Catherine Arrow, Executive Director of the PR Knowledge Hub, raised this point during Isentia's recent Inside the AI Shift webinar. As she explained, "AI can identify and interpret some publicly available commentary. The difficulty is that we have to be careful about what it is actually reading. You can already see this in AI overviews where the system may refer to online discussion without digging deeply enough into whether the original sources are genuine, reliable or themselves AI-generated. So we end up with AI nested inside AI, nested inside AI."

That creates a real problem for anyone in communications. If the content landscape is increasingly populated by AI-generated material which is optimised to be found by algorithms rather than to inform real people, then the signals that LLMs rely on to build their answers become less trustworthy. Human judgement, original thinking and genuine expertise become harder for these systems to find, precisely because they're being drowned out by content that was designed to game them.

Catherine puts it simply, "People can become immune to this kind of content because it does not sound like the way we speak to each other, nor does it reflect the way genuine relationships are built. Then, when conflict or outrage is layered on top, the environment becomes even harder to interpret."

For PR and comms teams, it's not enough to produce more content. The right content needs to be produced, one that is original, expert-led, and well-placed in the channels and formats that LLMs are most likely to surface.

What this means in practice

So what does it actually look like to build LLM visibility into your communications strategy? It starts with the fundamentals, but applied with new intent:

• Expert commentary placed in credible publications. 
• Thought leadership that's genuinely distinctive, not a rehash of what everyone else is saying. 
• Consistent messaging across channels. 
• Media coverage that's authoritative enough for an AI system to treat it as a reliable source.

This is where the gap between media monitoring and media intelligence becomes critical. Monitoring tells you what's been said. Intelligence tells you how stories are forming, which perspectives are shaping them, and where your organisation sits within those narratives — including how AI systems are representing you.

Dr Nici Sweaney, Founder and Director of AI Her Way, made this distinction sharply during Isentia's AI as a New Stakeholder webinar. "What will set people apart, and what AI cannot replicate is the human lens. The judgment, the relationships, the institutional knowledge, the strategic read of a room. The organisations that lean into supporting their people to harness these tools, rather than just deploying the tools, will be the ones best placed.”

That's an important framing. The answer to AI disruption is to get clear on what only humans can do and then make sure the tools we’re using actually support that.

Staying credible when the noise is deafening

There's a temptation, when faced with a challenge like this, to throw more content at the problem – more posts, more articles, more releases. But Catherine Arrow points out the risks of that approach.

"Maintaining credibility and authenticity means being yourself and not allowing AI to suffocate your identity. That will become harder to do as digital twins, synthetic voices and other tools make it easier for organisations to use it as a mask. The real challenge is not so much maintaining credibility. It is about maintaining humanity, empathy, kindness and a genuine wish to connect with others beyond the AI-intermediated space.”

That advice matters just as much for organisations as it does for individuals. Brands that let AI do their thinking, generating bland, interchangeable content at scale, will find themselves blending into the noise rather than cutting through it. The brands that show up in LLM answers will be the ones with a clear, consistent, well-evidenced point of view.

Dr Nici Sweaney reinforced this from the operational side. "Ethical use is not about not using AI. It’s about using it with intention, honesty, and a clear sense of what good looks like on the other side.”
She was also direct about the risks of rushing in, "Don’t add new shiny AI projects on top of already overloaded teams. That creates resentment, not buy-in. Start by solving the problems people already have."

The cultural dimension

There's another layer to this that often gets overlooked and that’s the cultural one.

Catherine Arrow raised important concerns about how different AI systems can distort or flatten cultural context. Many of the most widely used models are shaped by US language, commercial assumptions and social norms. Chinese models operate within a different political and cultural framework. For organisations working across the Asia-Pacific region, it directly affects how the brand, messaging and the market are understood and represented by AI.

"Different AI systems may distort cultural context by privileging dominant languages, simplifying complex meanings, mistranslating concepts, omitting local histories or reproducing the worldview of their developers and training environments. They may flatten culture by making everything sound the same.”

For communicators operating across diverse markets, this means paying close attention to where content sits, who produced it, and whether the AI systems the audiences are using can actually interpret it with the nuance it deserves.

Where Isentia's platform fits with its new toolkit for AI visibility

This is precisely the challenge that Isentia's Lumina suite was built to address. Lumina is an intelligent suite of AI tools trained on the language, workflows and realities of modern public relations and communications, designed to empower, not replace, the human element of communications strategy.

Isentia's Lumina AI View feature will allow organisations to track how their brand, competitors and key topics are described by leading LLMs, with auditable claims, citations and transparency with regards to the sources. It's the difference between wondering whether AI is getting your story right and actually being able to see for yourself. These aren't generic AI features bolted onto a monitoring tool. They're intelligence systems built for the way communicators actually work.

The bottom line

The communications landscape has shifted. AI isn't just a tool the team might use, it's a stakeholder in its own right, actively shaping how an organisation is discovered, understood and evaluated.

For PR and comms professionals, the priorities are to ensure experts, commentary and evidence are placed widely enough for LLMs to find them and include them in their answers. Intelligence is imperative and required to how narratives are forming across both traditional media and AI platforms. All of this needs to be done without losing the human credibility that makes communications worth paying attention to in the first place.

As Dr Nici Sweaney put it, "The people who get the most from AI aren’t the ones who use the most tools, they’re the ones who understand their work deeply enough to know exactly where AI can add the most leverage."

That's the opportunity. The question is whether we’re set up to take it.

---

To explore how Isentia's Lumina suite can help your team navigate AI visibility, get in touch or discover Lumina.

" ["post_title"]=> string(51) "If AI can't find you, neither can your stakeholders" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(140) "We explore why LLM visibility should be a priority for PR and comms teams — and why harnessing AI, not just deploying it, is what matters." ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(49) "if-ai-cant-find-you-neither-can-your-stakeholders" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2026-05-20 04:07:57" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-05-20 04:07:57" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=47943" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }

object(WP_Post)#11789 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(47756) ["post_author"]=> string(2) "75" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2026-05-14 02:10:10" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-05-14 02:10:10" ["post_content"]=> string(17033) "

What 71 stories, 400+ perspectives, and 50 million audience impressions reveal about the media narratives shaping the 2026–27 Federal Budget.

---

The 2026–27 Federal Budget was released on 12 May and included some of the most ambitious policy changes in years. 

Labor Treasurer Jim Chalmers described it as a budget of ‘reform and resilience’, and the media coverage that followed reflected just how much there was to unpack.

We used Lumina, our AI-powered media intelligence suite, to surface the biggest stories, map different perspectives, and identify the key drivers behind each narrative. This clustered over 48 hours before and after the Budget into 71 different stories, more than 400 perspectives and the total audience reach topped 50 million cumulative views. 

Below are the five stories that stood out, what the different perspectives tell us, and what communicators should be watching out for.

Key stories at a glance

▸ Property Tax Reform — Two evenly matched perspectives: affordability for buyers vs. reduced housing supply. Key drivers: Anthony Albanese, Jim Chalmers, Master Builders Australia, Property Council ▸ The Policy Reversal — Government says circumstances changed; opposition says trust was broken. Key drivers: Angus Taylor, Bill Shorten, Peta Credlin, Sean Kelly ▸ NDIS Changes — Sustainability concerns meet advocacy from families and disability organisations. Key drivers: Katy Gallagher, People with Disability Australia, ACOSS ▸ Market Reaction — Investors moved ahead of the speech; banks fell, miners rose. Key drivers: BHP, CSL, DroneShield, Tony Sycamore (IG) ▸ Small Business Support — Permanent write-off welcomed, but owners want more help with rising costs. Key drivers: Jim Chalmers, CPA Australia, Xero

Australia’s biggest property tax change in a generation

The centrepiece of this budget was a major overhaul of property investment tax. It was the most covered story of the night, and the perspectives on the announcement were split right down the middle.

The Government positioned the reforms as a step toward fairness. Negative gearing will be restricted to newly built properties from July 2027, and the 50% CGT discount will be replaced with an inflation-indexed model. 

Furthermore, a 30% minimum tax will now apply to distributions from discretionary trusts. Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reiterated that these changes will aid a projected 75,000 Australians to buy their first home over the next decade. This perspective accounted for about 50% of coverage across the story (ABC Online).

Industry groups like the Master Builders Australia and the Property Council warned the changes would reduce new housing supply by 35,000 homes, push up rents, and discourage investment. 

These perspectives made up approximately 50% of total coverage. That near-perfect split is notable. In most policy debates, one side tends to lead in terms of coverage, yet here, the two perspectives are running neck and neck 

That balance tells us the debate around these reforms is far from settled. Neither side has won the narrative.

Why it matters for communicators: This is going to be a long-running conversation. Both sides have credible data. If your organisation has a stake in property, construction, or financial services, now is the time to develop your position and prepare for sustained engagement.

The policy reversal and what it means for trust

Behind that policy detail, however, was a more political story. The government had made promises before the 2025 election that it would not change negative gearing or CGT. This budget announcement made changes to both policies, and the coverage explored what that means.

The Government’s explanation around the changes took up about 43% of coverage. Previous Labor Minister and now Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra, Bill Shorten argued that the housing situation had worsened since the election ,and the government had a responsibility to act. Unsurprisingly, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese held the same position. In his interviews, Shorten pointed to the earlier redesign of the stage three tax cuts as an example of a policy change that voters ultimately accepted.

Political commentators offered an analytical view, making up about 40% of coverage. Former Labor adviser Sean Kelly and others noted that the fallout from changing a position depends on context, and that history offers examples of both successful and costly reversals.

The opposition’s framing accounted for about 18% of coverage so far, as we wait for their formal response to the Budget next week. Liberal leader Angus Taylor and his colleague Michaelia Cash described the move as a trust issue. A leaked government document giving Labor MPs talking points to explain the change added another dimension to the story (The Australian).

Why it matters for communicators: Past commitments stay in the public record. For communicators working on policy-related messaging, it’s worth thinking about how your stakeholders weigh trust against outcomes, especially as this story continues to develop.

NDIS changes spark a deeply personal conversation

The NDIS story stood out in Budget coverage for a different reason. It was one of the most emotionally resonant conversations of the night.

The government framed its changes as essential for the scheme’s long-term sustainability, and this perspective made up about 58% of coverage. Ministers pointed to cost growth and fraud as reasons to tighten eligibility, with the Fraud Fusion Taskforce positioned as the mechanism to protect genuine participants while saving $37.8 billion over four years (Sydney Morning Herald).

Disability advocacy groups responded with concern, accounting for about 42% of coverage. Organisations like People with Disability Australia highlighted that over 160,000 participants could be affected, many of them children. 

The Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) noted the budget also lacked additional support for people on income support. By budget night, advocacy groups had organised a press conference and gathered more than 13,000 petition signatures. This was a story where the personal weight of the coverage mattered more than the volume. 

Why it matters for communicators: Personal stories and advocacy will shape this conversation more than policy. If you work in health, disability, or social services, this is one to monitor closely and maintain the human element in the approach.

The market moved before the speech

One of the more interesting stories of budget day was how the share market reacted before the Treasurer even stood up to speak.

The ASX 200 fell across the day. Banks were under pressure because of their exposure to residential mortgages, with analysts pointing to the risk of falling property prices if the tax reforms reduced investor demand. 

Rising oil prices from the Middle East added to the mood (NEWS.com.au). And earlier in the week, Australian stock market stalwart CSL dropped over 16% on a separate profit warning, dragging the healthcare sector with it.

But mining stocks went in the opposite direction, with BHP hitting a record high on strong commodity prices for copper and iron ore. Different parts of the economy were reading the same budget in very different ways.

Why it matters for communicators: When investors move before an announcement, it tells you the narrative is already established. For organisations with listed exposure or investor-facing communications, the property reform story is one to address proactively.

Small business: welcome news, but not the whole answer

Making the $20,000 instant asset write-off permanent was a positive headline, but the coverage revealed a gap between the announcement and business owners’ lived experience.

The government’s framing dominated, making up about 75% of coverage. The write-off sat alongside a broader $3.5 billion tax relief package, which Treasurer Chalmers called part of the most comprehensive productivity push in decades.

But the remaining quarter of coverage tells a different story. Xero research showed only 35% of small businesses were confident the budget would address their challenges. Many described the $20,000 threshold as too low for the investments they actually need to make, especially given rising fuel and material costs. 

The broader sense was that while the write-off is helpful, it doesn’t change the fundamentals of a tough operating environment.

Why it matters for communicators: Headline announcements and on-the-ground sentiment don’t always match. For industry groups and advocacy organisations, grounding your messaging in real-world experience will resonate more than repeating the numbers.

Looking at the budget through comms: what does it mean for strategy and messaging?

There are two factors that emerge as key considerations.

First, the property tax conversation is set to continue for the months ahead. Both sides have credible arguments and strong stakeholder backing; these sentiments will undoubtedly be reinforced by the Opposition next week. If your organisation is connected to housing, property, or financial services in any way, a long-term narrative strategy will serve you better than a one-off reaction.

Second, keeping an eye out for how the election reversal narrative evolves is important. It will become a reference point for future government commitments. For anyone working on government-related messaging, it’s worth considering how your audiences balance trust with outcomes. Media outlets are actively searching for inconsistencies – as are social media users – so any change must be clearly explained and a credible narrative developed.

How budget perspectives shape the media landscape

The 2026-27 Federal Budget was a budget that asked big questions and looked to a new future. The media coverage showed a public working through what these changes mean, with perspectives spread evenly across the biggest stories of the night.

For communicators, the value is in looking beyond the headlines. Understanding the different perspectives, the people and organisations driving them, and the patterns connecting them is what turns a reactive media response into a strategic one.

To explore these kinds of insights for your own industry, discover what Lumina can surface for you. For more insights from the Isentia team, fill in the form below and we’ll get in touch.

---

" ["post_title"]=> string(70) "The latest stories and perspectives from a budget that broke the rules" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(201) "The 2026 Federal Budget has landed, and what PR and comms professionals need to observe is how the media conversation has split into dozens of competing narratives depending on who's telling the story." ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(70) "the-latest-stories-and-perspectives-from-a-budget-that-broke-the-rules" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2026-05-19 09:10:49" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-05-19 09:10:49" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=47756" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }

object(WP_Post)#8851 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(47629) ["post_author"]=> string(2) "75" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2026-05-12 13:13:06" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-05-12 13:13:06" ["post_content"]=> string(26056) "

Isentia’s budget night analysis of stakeholder reactions straight from lock-up this evening in Parliament House as they addressed the Conga-line, along with fresh analysis of key media releases from a range of sectors.

The 60-Second Summary

The 2026 Federal Budget is a story of broken promises and big bets. The Labor government went where it said it wouldn’t in the last election just 12 months ago, scrapping the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount, winding back negative gearing on existing properties, and imposing a 30 per cent minimum tax on discretionary trusts. 

The dominant mood from stakeholders? Split right down the middle. Unions and social services groups cheered what they called a once-in-a-generation rebalancing of the tax system. Business groups, property investors, and the Coalition called it a betrayal that will scare investment offshore.

Behind the tax headlines, the Budget committed an additional $14 billion over the next four years and $53 billion over the decade to defence, $25 billion in extra public hospital funding, $14.8 billion for fuel security, and $2 billion for housing enabling infrastructure. But the cuts were deep, in particular the $37 billion savings from the NDIS. 

For many, this is a budget of trade-offs: young homebuyers gaining ground, while older Australians and people with disability are left anxious about what comes next.

Independent Senator David Pocock’s initial reaction to the Budget commended the Treasurer on many elements, however Pocock noted changes to gas company taxes were sorely missing. 

Senator Pocock said many Australians will be looking at the Government’s Budget and wondering why it didn’t put their best interests ahead. “When you read through the budget papers, clearly, it sucks to be poor, it sucks to be old, and it sucks to be a native species. And we have to make sure the Australian Government is spending its money on the priorities the Australian people want”.

Key Numbers at a Glance

Defence spending	$14 billion over the next four years and $53 billion over the decade, along with other measures, brings total funding in the portfolio to $887 billion to 2035-36
NDIS savings	$37 billion in cuts
Public hospital funding	$25 billion additional
Fuel resilience package	$14.8 billion
Housing infrastructure	$2 billion for 65,000 homes
Working Australians Tax Offset	$250 per worker

Sector Scorecards

Tax & Cost of Living  [Mixed]

The headline reforms in this budget are all about tax. The government replaced the 50 per cent Capital Gains Tax (CGT) discount with an inflation-indexation model capped at 30 per cent. They went further - restricting negative gearing to new builds (limited to two properties), and imposing a 30 per cent minimum tax on discretionary trust distributions. 

Dubbed as ‘once in a lifetime’, tax reform proposals include the introduction of a permanent $250 Working Australians Tax Offset, and cuts to the low-income marginal rate from 16 to 15 per cent (dropping to 14 per cent in July 2027). These CGT and negative gearing changes are forecast to raise $3.6 billion in their first two years.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) welcomed the measures as a generational rebalancing. ACTU President Michele O’Neil said this Budget was about fairness, giving workers a better shot at housing and ending a system that taxed work harder than wealth. 

But the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) warned the changes would drive investment offshore. ACCI acting CEO, David Alexander said matching spending blowouts with tax hikes would lock in a slow-growth economy. 

The Business Council of Australia (BCA) took a middle path, welcoming productivity measures but flagging concern about the CGT and negative gearing changes making Australia less competitive.

“Higher taxes will scare away investment in Australian businesses and send this funding to more welcoming overseas jurisdictions,” said Mr Alexander.

Queensland Independent Senator Bob Katter called the low-income tax cut so small it “doesn’t even buy a beer” and accused the government of breaking its promise not to change CGT and negative gearing. 

The Australian Industry Group’s, Innes Willox noted Australia now has among the highest CGT rates in the world, however Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie broadly welcomed the tax reforms. Goldie did however criticise the $250 tax offset, saying it was ‘going to everyone in paid work while 4 million people on the lowest incomes; those on JobSeeker, Youth Allowance, the Disability Support Pension got nothing’.

Housing & Property  [Mixed]

Housing dominated the Budget narrative yet again. The CGT and negative gearing changes were framed as the government’s answer to the affordability crisis, backed by $2 billion in water, roads and sewage infrastructure to support 65,000 new homes over the next decade. 

A $60 million National Youth Housing Supplement will unlock social housing for over 4,000 young people, fixing a long-standing “youth housing penalty”, making young tenants financially unviable for community housing providers.

Homelessness Australia CEO, Kate Colvin called it a hard-won win for young people failed by a system that catches them in crisis, yet never houses them. The Australian Community Housing sector’s Mark Degotardi said the Budget restores balance to a housing system long overdue for reform.

But others were sharply critical. Master Builders Australia CEO, Denita Wawn said the government’s own modelling showed the tax hike would reduce supply by 35,000 homes, and even with productivity measures adding 65,000, the net gain of 30,000 was nowhere near enough when Australia already falls short by around 200,000 homes. The Property Council’s Mike Zorbas called the tax changes a roll of the dice, warning the government must closely monitor investor behaviour.

“If the tax hike on property had not been introduced tonight, we would instead be up by over 100,000 homes over 10 years,” said Ms Wawn.

The Greens were scathing from the other direction, saying property investor tax perks were largely intact, with around 95 per cent of the benefit remaining, and no new money for public housing.

Healthcare & Medicare  [Mixed]

The budget proposed $25 billion in additional funding for public hospitals under the new National Health Reform Agreement and introduced a three-year-old health check through GPs, funded by Medicare. 

But the Australian Medical Association (AMA) said the rest was thin. AMA President, Dr Danielle McMullen warned of a remaining funding gap of at least $9.6 billion in hospital funding and criticised the lack of broader Medicare modernisation.

“Urgent care centres and targeted bulk billing in certain geographic areas are not long-term solutions. We need to see true reform of Medicare,” Dr McMullen said.

The AMA also raised alarm over cuts to the private health insurance rebate for over-65s, warning it could force older Australians to drop or downgrade cover and pile extra pressure on public hospitals. 

The Australian College of Nursing called for a national nursing workforce strategy, warning of a projected shortage of more than 70,000 nurses by 2035. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) also welcomed the three-year-old health check and RSV vaccination funding but flagged disappointment with racism in the health system.

Disability & NDIS  [Negative]

The Budget’s single biggest savings measure is a proposed $37 billion cut to the NDIS through tighter eligibility, stronger fraud controls, mandatory provider registration and a target of reducing participant numbers by 160,000 by 2030. 

The Business Council of Australia supported the structural reforms as necessary to return the scheme to its original intent. The BCA commended the government's "tough decisions" to make the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) more sustainable and expressed approval for the expected return to a budget surplus earlier than previously forecast, but disability advocates and welfare groups remain alarmed.

ACOSS CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie said people with disability were frightened about what the reforms mean and urged the government to keep them at the centre of any changes. 

The Greens accused the government of cutting $37 billion from disability services to fund $53 billion in weapons spending, where Independent Bob Katter acknowledged the NDIS needed restructuring to tackle rorting, but said the measures targeted eligibility fraud while the bigger problem, rorting by scheme administrators, remains unaddressed.

“It is outrageous that fraudulent businesses have been created with the primary purpose of effectively thieving from, neglecting and defrauding some of the most vulnerable members of our society,” Mr Katter said.

Defence & National Security  [Positive]

As previously announced, the government is proposing commitments of $425 billion to defence over the next decade, targeting 3 per cent of GDP by 2034. This is a proposed increase of $14 billion over the next four years, and $53 billion across the decade. 

Spending targets include accelerating nuclear submarines and surface ships under AUKUS, expanding long-range strike capabilities, and boosting uncrewed systems. Bob Katter welcomed the spending direction but said it failed to shore up foundations, calling for action to regain control of strategic assets like ports and airfields and to increase the number of combat-ready civilians.

Energy & Environment  [Negative]

Energy policy drew some of the sharpest reactions. The government committed $14.8 billion to a Strengthening Australia’s Fuel Resilience package and $10 billion to extend domestic fuel stockpiles. 

The ACTU welcomed these as job-saving measures. But the Climate Council slammed the government for the proposed $19 billion in annual fossil fuel subsidies and for forgoing gas export tax revenue, calling it a massive free kick for fossil fuel corporations.

“This Budget maintains the $19 billion gravy train for big fossil fuel corporations,” said Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie.

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) claimed seven times more funding was being spent on initiatives that damage nature and climate than protect it. Both the Climate Council and ACF criticised the government for failing to impose a 25 per cent tax on gas exports, which they estimated could raise $17 billion annually.

Small Business  [Mixed]

Small business had some wins: the $20,000 instant asset write-off was made permanent, and companies under $1 billion turnover can now carry back tax losses against tax paid up to two years earlier (at a budget cost of $2.3 billion over three years). 

ACCI welcomed both measures. But the 30 per cent minimum tax on trust distributions alarmed the sector. ACCI’s David Alexander warned the trust tax would damage business operations and productivity due to management having their pay permanently cut by the government. Trusts are commonly used by small businesses to protect assets and ensure continuity.

Education  [Negative]

Education seemed a lower priority in this year’s Budget. The Greens’ Senator Faruqi rallied with the National Union of Students to demand the reversal of job-ready graduates' fee hikes that have produced $52,000 arts degrees. 

The Student’s Union National President Felix Hughes said the words “student” and “university” were not mentioned once in the Treasurer’s speech. The Australian Education Union welcomed the housing commitments that could help teachers locked out of the areas where they teach, but flagged concern about $472 million in savings to disability funding. 

“Budgets are about priorities and young people will look at this budget and wonder if they are a priority at all,” said Felix Hughes, NUS National President.

Aged Care  [Mixed]

The government reclassified personal care as clinical care in aged care, removing co-contributions for services like showering and mobility assistance. 

Uniting Care welcomed the $3 billion investment but said it wasn’t enough for high-quality residential aged care. Council of the Ageing’s Patricia Sparrow noted no new home care packages were announced in the Budget, despite older people waiting up to a year for support. 

Sparrow also raised alarm about the private health insurance rebate changes hitting 2.6 million older Australians. National Seniors’ Chris Grice said older Australians were already contacting them, unhappy about the insurance changes, and questioned how a 30 per cent minimum tax on shares helps create affordable housing.

Science & Research  [Mixed]

The R&D tax incentive threshold was raised from $150 million to $200 million, and the refundable offset was lifted from $20 million to $50 million, and CSIRO received a $387 million funding boost. 

The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering welcomed the investment in publicly funded research agencies. But Science & Technology Australia’s Ryan Winn warned the sector had alost $1.5 billion in research funding, including $800 million from the Australian Economic Accelerator program, making the research landscape much leaner. 

Infrastructure & Transport  [Mixed]

The $2 billion housing-enabling infrastructure fund was the main infrastructure announcement. Civil Contractors Federation CEO Nicholas Proud welcomed the direct connection between infrastructure and housing as the missing piece. 

Big-ticket items include $3.8 billion for Melbourne Rail and $50 million for Sydney-Canberra rail. Bob Katter slammed the regional infrastructure spend as ridiculously low, demanding funding for North Queensland projects. 

The tourism sector was hit by a $10 increase in the passenger movement charge (from $70 to $80), which Tourism and Transport Forum CEO Margy Osmond called a shocker, generating over a billion dollars over the forward estimates.

Employment & Industrial Relations  [Mixed]

This Budget includes reforms to employment services, which ACOSS said it hoped would transform a system that has treated low-income people shockingly for far too long. Skills recognition for overseas qualifications was welcomed as a productivity measure. 

But the Electrical Trades Union’s Michael Wright warned that despite record investment in vocational education, electrical apprenticeship commencements have fallen every year since 2022, with a forecast shortfall of 40,000 electricians by 2030.

Social Services & Welfare  [Negative]

ACOSS CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie gave the Budget’s starkest welfare critique: 4 million people on the lowest incomes - on JobSeeker, Youth Allowance, Disability Support Pension, or the Age Pension - got no cost-of-living relief. 

The remote area allowance, at $9 per week, has not increased in 25 years. The government’s own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee has recommended fixing income support adequacy four years in a row, and four years in a row those people have been left waiting.

Childcare & Early Learning  [Negative]

The Parenthood’s Georgie Dent called the Budget a missed opportunity for families with young children. There was no expansion of paid parental leave and no clarity on the future of the 15 per cent early childhood educator wage increase set to expire. 

With 260,000 educators unsure whether their wages will go backwards and 1.4 million families paying childcare as their second-highest household expense, Dent said parents needed answers immediately.

Australian Public Services  [Mixed]

The CPSU said overall Australian Public Services sector staffing levels were maintained, but job cuts already underway at the Department of Health, Home Affairs, and Social Services would continue. 

The union welcomed a $387 million CSIRO funding boost and continued funding for nearly 4,000 frontline Services Australia staff but criticised $3.7 billion spent on contractors and consultants while trained public servants lose their jobs.

What This Means for You

This is a Budget that will be dissected for months to come. The government has taken a clear political gamble, hoping that Australians care more about housing affordability and tax fairness than they do about investment incentives and keeping promises.

The dominant narrative from our analysis of stakeholder reaction is ‘broken promises’ versus ‘long overdue reform’, and which framing wins depends heavily on whether house prices actually begin to ease.

For communicators and PR professionals, the biggest story to watch is the investor response. The Property Council, Master Builders and the Financial Services Council have all flagged they will commission independent modelling of the supply impact. 

We will no doubt continue to hear about the impacts of the NDIS cuts, with $37 billion in savings and 160,000 participants potentially losing access, the disability sector will mobilise. This will become a rolling story as implementation details emerge. 

Meanwhile, the silence on income support, nothing for JobSeeker, nothing for the remote area allowance, leaves Labor exposed to the criticism that its cost-of-living relief leaves some large big gaps. 

Lastly, the health insurance “rebate cut”. Over three million older Australians have just been told they will pay more for cover. That is a large, politically engaged demographic. 

Expect aged care, seniors' advocacy, and private healthcare groups to run hard on this in the weeks ahead. And the veterans' cuts, $780 million stripped from allied health could turn into a longer-burning issue, especially with a Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide still fresh in public memory.

Stay Across the Budget Coverage

The reactions will keep rolling in over the coming days as sectors digest the detail, and the opposition delivers its budget reply. Watch this space for the latest stories and perspectives around the Budget, and in the coming weeks as Senate Estimates begins. 

If you're interested in how Isentia can support you with media and parliamentary monitoring, fill out the form below and we will be in touch. 

---

" ["post_title"]=> string(88) "Federal Budget 2026: Tax reform divides, housing dominates, and the sectors left wanting" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(240) "Isentia’s budget night analysis of stakeholder reactions straight from lock-up this evening in Parliament House as stakeholders addressed the Conga-line, along with fresh analysis of key stakeholder media releases from a range of sectors." ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(85) "federal-budget-2026-tax-reform-divides-housing-dominates-and-the-sectors-left-wanting" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2026-05-13 02:26:57" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-05-13 02:26:57" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=47629" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }