As Treasurer Jim Chalmers prepares to hand down another federal budget, attention is once again turning to one of Canberra’s most tightly controlled democratic traditions: the budget lock-up.

For decades, journalists from legacy media organisations have gathered in a secure room, phones confiscated, to scrutinise the government’s fiscal blueprint before its public release.

Last year, this norm was disrupted. The 2025 budget lock-up was unprecedented because the Albanese government invited digital creators (so-called “influencers”) into the room alongside legacy media mastheads.

Some saw inviting digital creators into the budget lock-up as a political strategy in the lead-up to the 2025 federal election. For others, it was an acknowledgement that communicating fiscal policy to young Australians requires a shift towards the platforms, formats and voices they already trust.

The shift was not without controversy. Some outlets falsely suggested creators were paid or sponsored, portraying them as “self-obsessed and self-promoting Gen Z and Millennial influencers” who had merely “scored an invite”, diminishing their journalistic rigour and independence.

Despite attempts by creators such as Milly Rose Bannister to push back on these criticisms with wit and substance, the episode points to a deeper tension between legacy media and raises a key question: who deserves a seat in the room where it happens?

Institutional gatekeeping and the budget lock-up

In........

© The Conversation