Introduction

The report outlines global movements towards wellbeing-centred government, emphasising holistic, long-term and future-focused approaches. Wellbeing frameworks seek to shift decision-making away from narrow economic metrics and reflect broader social, environmental and economic outcomes. Examples include Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness (GNH) and Wales’ wellbeing legislation, which demonstrate how embedding wellbeing across government can reshape policy priorities, such as Wales’ shift from road building to active transport. The report notes that Australia previously led in this space through the Treasury wellbeing framework (2004) and the ABS Measures of Australia’s Progress, though both were discontinued. It highlights the need for renewed national effort, including recognition of Indigenous perspectives and devolved decision-making, such as in the latest Closing the Gap agreement.

Measuring wellbeing

Countries increasingly use multi-dimensional dashboards combining subjective and objective data. There is strong convergence around domains such as health, environment, income, education and social connections. Wellbeing measurement requires careful design: timely data, capacity for disaggregation, consistency across jurisdictions and explicit acknowledgment of gaps. For example, Italy expanded its indicators from 130 to 152 following COVID-19. Bhutan weights objective indicators more heavily, while Canada and Luxembourg weight all indicators equally. The report notes challenges in subjective measurement, including hedonic adaptation and gaps for groups such as children. Australia’s previous MAP framework, and newer state-level initiatives, demonstrate domestic momentum but also fragmentation.

Policy analysis and selection

Few governments systematically embed wellbeing measures into policy appraisal. The report emphasises that frameworks must guide how decisions are made, not only what is measured. Wales’ Future Generations Act provides a detailed model, requiring public bodies to set objectives aligned with seven wellbeing goals and use five “ways of working”: collaboration, integration, involvement, long-term focus and prevention. This has influenced decisions across sectors, including transport and health.

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) can incorporate wellbeing metrics, as shown in New Zealand’s CBAx tool, which standardises modelling and monetises selected wellbeing impacts. In Porirua, including wellbeing benefits shifted the business case in favour of regeneration despite high costs. Where monetisation is difficult, cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) using WELLBYs (wellbeing-adjusted life-years) can complement CBA. Bhutan uses an expert-panel screening tool for project selection, with minimum thresholds and equity requirements. The report notes that clear, prescriptive guidance improves consistency, but may reduce flexibility.

Embedding wellbeing within an entire system

Embedding wellbeing across institutions requires cultural change and clear guidance. Training for public servants is essential, as shown in Wales and Scotland, where senior officials are equipped to apply wellbeing tools. Central coordinating units, such as New Zealand’s Child and Youth Wellbeing Unit or Scotland’s National Performance Framework Unit, support standardisation.

Local governance structures, such as Scotland’s Community Planning Partnerships and Wales’ Public Services Boards, aim to align local priorities with national goals, though challenges include limited community participation, unclear responsibilities and overlapping frameworks. Evidence from Scotland shows positive impacts from participatory budgeting and improved local leadership and data use.

Creating accountability and transparency

Regular reporting on wellbeing outcomes creates baseline accountability, but reporting alone rarely drives change. Independent oversight strengthens integrity. Wales’ Future Generations Commissioner can audit public bodies, require formal responses to recommendations and publicly highlight misalignment. This oversight influenced major decisions, including the rejection of the M4 corridor proposal.

Restructuring government can strengthen cross-agency coordination. Scotland reduced departmental silos by consolidating director-general portfolios, while Ireland introduced performance targets linked to equality domains. Increased transparency of wellbeing assessments, similar to Infrastructure Australia’s public evaluations, can improve trust and reduce opportunities for post-hoc justification.

Conclusion

Wellbeing frameworks remain emergent globally, but four elements increase the likelihood of success: robust measurement, integration into policy analysis, embedding across institutions and strong accountability. Long-term political commitment is critical, as shown by Wales and Bhutan. The report argues that Australia is well positioned to advance a national wellbeing approach, building on existing experience and growing public support.