The rising cost of the Australian Treasury

Fun fact and public interest scorecard

Cost comparison 2020–21 to 2024–25 | Prepared 2 November 2026

Treasury is the Australian Government’s lead economic adviser. Across the five reported financial years, its year-end workforce increased 28.1%, employee benefits rose 68.9%, and total departmental operating costs increased 49.7%. Costs grew substantially faster than staffing, requiring a clear explanation of the additional public value delivered. [1] [2] [3]

Five year cost comparison

Measure	2020–21	2024–25	Increase	Change
Employees at 30 June	1,291	1,654	363 employees	28.1%
Employee benefits	$172.8m	$291.9m	$119.1m	68.9%
Total departmental operating costs	$277.6m	$415.5m	$137.9m	49.7%
Indicative cost per year-end employee	$133,827	$176,484	$42,657	31.9%

Employees are measured at 30 June, while employee benefits and operating costs cover the full financial year. Cost per employee is therefore indicative only. Financial figures are nominal and not adjusted for inflation. Employee benefits form part of total operating costs. [1] [2] [3]

The annual employee bill is $119.1 million higher than in 2020–21, equivalent to approximately $9.9 million more a month.

Employee benefits increased even when the reported year-end workforce declined in 2024–25. This can reflect salary increases, superannuation, leave movements, workforce composition and average staffing during the year. The cost increase is not, by itself, proof of waste, but it raises a legitimate productivity and accountability question.

Head of the department and remuneration

Jenny Wilkinson PSM became Secretary to the Treasury in June 2025. The office of Treasury Secretary carries total annual remuneration of $1,009,790 from 1 July 2026. This is the statutory remuneration package for the office, not cash base salary alone. She led Treasury for only a small part of the five-year comparison period. [4] [5]

Public charter and taxpayer expectations

Treasury’s stated purpose is to advise government and implement policies and programs that achieve strong and sustainable economic and fiscal outcomes for Australians. As the lead economic adviser, it should be assessed on the quality, candour and practical effect of its advice, while recognising that elected ministers make final policy decisions. [6]

Fiscal sustainability: Advice that identifies structural deficits, long-term debt pressures and credible paths to sustainable budgets.

Forecast quality: Transparent assumptions, revisions and uncertainty around inflation, growth, revenue, expenditure and interest costs.

Productivity and living standards: Practical reform advice that improves investment, competition, workforce participation and output per person.

Tax and regulatory quality: Policy design that is efficient, administratively workable and attentive to incentives and unintended consequences.

Demonstrated efficiency: Published evidence that Treasury’s own higher staffing and expenditure are producing proportionately better advice and delivery.

Public interest scorecard

Assessment covering 2021–2026. Scores and weights are editorial judgements informed by the evidence cited. They are not official Treasury, ANAO or government ratings.

Responsibility	Score	Result	Assessment
Own expenditure discipline and demonstrated productivity	7/20	Poor	Staffing rose 28.1%, employee benefits 68.9% and operating costs 49.7%. Public reporting does not clearly demonstrate proportionate productivity gains. [1] [2] [3]
Fiscal sustainability and structural budget advice	8/20	Mixed	Treasury reports fiscal risks and long-term pressures, but Australia continues to face a structural deficit, rising debt and high expenditure. Ministers make final decisions, limiting attribution. [6] [7]
Economic forecasting and transparency	9/15	Mixed	Forecasts and sensitivities are published, but large revisions to inflation, revenue and budget outcomes show the need for clearer forecast-error reporting and scenario analysis. [1] [6]
Productivity and structural reform	6/15	Mixed	Weak productivity is clearly identified, yet sustained improvement in productivity per person remains elusive. Advice is only one input into government action. [6] [8]
Tax markets and regulatory stewardship	11/15	Good	Treasury administers major tax, competition, financial-system and investment frameworks, but complexity and policy uncertainty remain material costs. [1] [6]
Program delivery consultation and institutional capability	10/15	Mixed	Treasury has expanded housing, data and implementation functions and reports broad delivery, but stronger outcome measures are needed to establish value from the larger institution. [1] [6]

Indicative overall result 51 out of 100 — mixed and below expectations

Weights total 100. Ratings reflect the percentage of available points: below 40% Poor; 40–69% Mixed; 70–89% Good; 90–100% Excellent. The score distinguishes Treasury’s advice and administration from decisions made by ministers. It is not an estimate of waste or a measured productivity decline.

Fiscal control and the limits of Treasury accountability

Treasury prepares economic forecasts, budget analysis and policy advice, but the government decides taxation and expenditure. A persistent deficit or poor policy outcome cannot automatically be attributed to Treasury. Equally, Treasury’s role as lead economic adviser requires candid warnings about structural deficits, debt, inflationary fiscal settings and policies that weaken productivity.

Administrative accuracy is necessary but not sufficient. A budget can be correctly prepared and still embody weak expenditure discipline. Revenue upgrades can improve a headline result while being absorbed by new spending, leaving the underlying structural position unresolved.

What full accountability should show

Treasury should publish a clearer reconciliation between forecast and actual outcomes, separating policy decisions, economic surprises and parameter changes. It should also report whether material policy advice improved fiscal sustainability, productivity or regulatory quality, without disclosing confidential Cabinet advice.

Higher staffing and cost should be accompanied by measurable gains in forecast quality, implementation reliability, policy evaluation and public transparency.

Key conclusion

Treasury performs essential work and operates in a difficult environment. It has absorbed new responsibilities, responded to major shocks and continued to publish detailed economic and fiscal information. These strengths should be recognised.

However, a 28.1% increase in year-end employees, a 68.9% rise in employee benefits and a 49.7% increase in operating costs demand a stronger account of results. Growth in inputs is not evidence of improved outcomes.

The broader fiscal position also matters. High government expenditure, structural deficits and rising debt suggest that accurate budget administration has not translated into convincing fiscal control. Ministers own spending decisions, but Treasury should be judged on whether its advice identifies risks early, presents credible alternatives and improves policy quality.

The standard should be transparent forecasts, candid fiscal advice, measurable productivity improvements and clear evidence that a larger Treasury is delivering better economic policy.

My thoughts