Territory mangoes to flow back into WA as agreement reached on fruit fly
WA suspended market access for NT mangoes in October over fruit fly concerns.
A temporary program was implemented in 2024 after sudden changes to post-harvest chemical treatments in 2023.
Now, a permanent agreement has been signed, which is recognised nationally and internationally.
Growers are rejoicing at the new biosecurity protocols, weeks out from this year's NT mango harvest.
Katherine mango grower Marie Piccone sends about 20 per cent of her mangoes to Western Australia.
"I'm so relieved that we are going to have access to the Western Australia market. There are a lot of mango lovers in Western Australia who are probably quite relieved as well," Ms Piccone said.
The Northern Territory is renowned for its high-quality mangoes, producing half of Australia's supply.
Currently, only four varieties can be sent from the NT to WA — Honey Gold, R2E2, Calypso and Kensington Pride — but it is hoped this list will be expanded with time.
Travelling to Katherine for a pre-season industry event, Barry Doran, a sales manager for a Perth-based distributor, was on the lookout to build relationships with Territory growers, where he can source more produce than from small-scale Kununurra farms.
"I think it's good news for the growers that want to come in from Katherine," he said.
"We probably average maybe 20 pallets a week out of Kununurra, and here we can get 20 pallets a day out of one grower in Katherine.
"So consistency in volume is probably the biggest factor in WA, and that's what we need."
Western Australia has strict protocols in place to prevent Queensland fruit fly incursions across its borders.
In September 2023, dimethoate, used as a post-harvest treatment dip for mangoes, was suspended by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority due to excess residue levels.
Mid-harvest in 2024, WA suspended NT growers over compliance issues during a trial period using the fumigator dimethyl-bromide.
This left biosecurity officers and growers scrambling to find alternative agreed methods of treatment. The latest in place was vapour treatment, which is effective, but has limited capacity.
Mitchael Curtis, who owns King's Farm, a few kilometres south of Katherine, last year decided not to sell to Western Australia because of the chemicals and sprays required.
"We're trying to get a real good balance in our orchard of good and bad insects, then they come out and say we have to nuke the whole orchard with these horrible sprays and that mucks up our whole farming strategy," he said.
"It's a decision for us; some farmers are happy to spray.
"If we want to sell our fruit, we have to do what we have to do."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
39 minutes ago
- ABC News
Selling out or selling up? The battle for Santos takes a twist
The gloves are off. The battle for control of oil and gas giant Santos moved up a gear this week after Ryan Stokes, chairman of Beach Energy and son of billionaire Kerry, took a swipe at the Abu Dhabi government's tilt for a large slice of Australia's energy market. A clearly incensed Stokes delivered a blunt assessment of the Middle Eastern gas giant's $36 billion takeover, suggesting it could end up denying Australians access to their own energy source. "A question we'd have is: 'Is that right in the national interest, given the importance of domestic gas?'" he asked. He didn't have to wait long for a response. The Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) quickly slapped him down, dismissing the criticisms as "clearly opportunistic and [reflecting] a commercial interest in the outcome". With $36 billion on the table — the biggest all-cash takeover offer in Australian history — ADNOC too has a significant commercial interest in the outcome. There's been surprisingly little, if any, debate around the merits of the takeover or the identity of the purchaser. Had the Australian government announced plans to purchase Santos, there undoubtedly would have been furious debate over the nationalisation of a vitally important commercial operation. Instead, a foreign government with potentially shifting global allegiances and a track record of dubious activities across Africa and Asia has stumped up a stupendous amount of cash for the same crucial energy infrastructure with nary a hint of community or political questioning. He's best known in the west as the money man behind the fabulously successful Manchester City Football Club. Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan, the younger brother of the United Arab Emirates's all powerful ruler, is one of the richest men in the Middle East and the UAE's deputy prime minister and vice president. Rarely seen in public, he never attends Manchester City games and has managed to maintain a low profile despite controlling key institutions like the Emirati central bank, the Abu Dhabi criminal authority and the nation's rapidly growing $330 billion sovereign wealth fund. He also chairs the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, the entity leading the Santos takeover. But his influence extends well beyond the UAE's borders. An in-depth investigation by the New York Times, published just last month, outlines a web of shadowy connections, linking Sheikh Mansour to several long-running conflicts in Africa. Until recently, he's somehow escaped scrutiny. But last year the British government intervened to prevent the sheikh buying The Telegraph over concerns it could diminish press freedom. His name was also raised in trials in the United States and Malaysia amid accusations Sheikh Mansour profited from 1MDB scandal, one of the world's biggest financial frauds. More recently, Manchester City has been accused of breaching funding rules on 130 occasions to purchase star players that have transformed the club from mediocre also-rans to top of the Premier League, accusations denied by the club. But it is the revelations of Sheikh Mansour's associations with regional warlords, outlined in the New York Times, that are concerning. For years, he has been aligned with Lt General Mohamed Hamdan, the powerful Sudanese commander who seized power in a coup and who, two years before the latest conflict erupted in the war-torn North African enclave, he had hosted at an Emirati arms fair. Just weeks before the conflict erupted into outright civil war in 2023, the NYT reported Hamdan was a guest at Sheikh Mansour's Persian Gulf palace. US Democrats have called for a ban on weapons exports to the Emirates. The UAE, meanwhile, has vehemently denied any involvement in arming Hamdan's forces, which have been accused of massacres, mass rape and genocide in the ongoing war. It is a conflict that has resulted in the death of 150,000 and displaced more than 12 million people, making it the world's biggest humanitarian crisis. For a country swimming in surplus energy, it seems almost inconceivable that Australia's most populated areas have faced gas shortages and soaring electricity prices for much of the past decade. The blame can be sheeted home to a series of bungled decisions that allowed gas to be exported from the east coast by three giant consortia without ensuring adequate domestic supplies. Domestic gas prices, which previously had traded around $3 a gigajoule, trebled and then quadrupled to match global prices and beyond. Much of the blame could be sheeted home to Santos. At the last minute, it doubled the size of its liquifying export plant on Curtis Island just off the Queensland coast near Gladstone without fully shoring up its gas reserves. Finding itself short of feed to meet its export contracts, it then proceeded to drain the domestic market. The ongoing shortfalls drove energy intensive manufacturers to the wall and were a major contributing factor to the inflation outbreak for the past three years that only now is under control. It is into this charged environment that ADNOC has parachuted. Santos, for decades a chronic investment underperformer, has been offered a price that far exceeds the company's value. According to one financier who requested anonymity, the UAE based group has suddenly decided it needs to be a global entity and is executing that strategy regardless of price. "There are only a handful of assets globally that are available if you wanted to scale up. There's a few in America and then there is Woodside and Santos. "So ADNOC is willing to deal on non-commercial terms." But there are concerns about the Middle Eastern energy giant's ambitions. Some believe that, despite its statements and assurances, it isn't the slightest bit interested in Australia's domestic gas market, Instead, the thinking is that the firm has its sights set on the Barossa gas field in the waters north of Darwin along with Santos's Papua New Guinea operations and its prospective play in Alaska. Ryan Stokes and his father Kerry have a direct interest in the outcome of this mega-deal. Their Beach Energy has a joint venture with Santos in one of the world's largest carbon capture and storage projects, in the Cooper Basin, a major gas field smack in the middle of Australia, that has supplied the east coast for decades. While Stokes has since gone to ground, insiders believe the pair were miffed at not being informed of the deal, given their commercial link, and may now be looking to expand Beach's domestic gas operations by purchasing Santos assets. ADNOC isn't alone on the transaction. There's another Abu Dhabi government entity along with US private equity group Carlyle. Exactly what role Carlyle will play has yet to be spelt out. It may be in the consortium to pick up the Australian domestic gas interests if the deal goes ahead. Or it could there to play a role in smoothing the way in the US, given the Alaska gas fields. First, however, the deal needs Jim Chalmers' tick of approval. ADNOC is still going over the Santos books and has yet to confirm a formal takeover offer. So the Foreign Investment Review Board has yet to receive an application. But ADNOC may face a tougher time than it anticipated. Foreign ownership has become a politically charged issue, highlighted by the federal government's determination to return the Port of Darwin to local ownership from Chinese control. Energy, and particularly gas, is in another realm altogether, given it is supposed to be the transition fuel to a renewables future. Then there's the history. Three prime ministers, Turnbull, Morrison and Albanese, were forced to personally intervene in the market. Such is the distrust of the gas exporters, the competition regulator has been charged with the task of keeping the east coast market under permanent review. Its most recent report forecasts ongoing and growing domestic shortages out to 2036. Not surprisingly, investors aren't all that confident the deal will proceed. The Santos share price hasn't risen above $8 since the bid was announced. That's an 11 per cent discount to the $8.89 offer.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
23 big ideas to boost Australia's productivity
'Productivity' is said to drive rising wages, faster growth, and better living standards. However, to many workers, it sounds like a code word for being asked to work longer and harder. This week, the government is bringing together a group of experts and advocates to discuss ideas to revive Australia's struggling productivity engine. Our invite must have gone missing, but that didn't stop us from pulling together some bold, surprising, and thought-provoking ideas. "If a business is spending one hour of their week complying with regulation, that's one hour of their time they're not spending on attending to the business. But if it's the 15th hour or the 25th hour, that's starting to really eat into valuable time." — Michael Brennan, chief executive, e61 Institute From one-off approvals for large mining projects to your local cafe owner navigating workplace health and safety requirements, every business in Australia has to deal with red tape. "It's really about identifying those significant downside risks that we're really trying to prevent and being much freer about what goes on beyond that," says Michael Brennan, the chief executive of e61 Institute and former chair of the Productivity Commission. He says the culture of our regulators has become too risk-averse. "The incentives for regulators are very asymmetric — they won't get thanked for being business friendly, but they will certainly be criticised for being too lax when something goes wrong, so nobody wants to be that regulator that was seen as missing in action," he says. "We have to be shifting the needle back in favour of not adding to the weight on economic activity." While red tape affects all industries and sectors, much of the current focus is on AI and housing. How might it affect productivity? Regulations are designed for safety and protection, but too much regulation can also stifle growth. Mr Brennan says it's not about reducing safety or environmental protection but rather streamlining to speed up the process. "There are not a lot of obviously palpably dumb regulations. Every regulation has a purpose and some motive; the problem is, we tend to ignore the cumulative impact. And there is a cost." For example, Australia's housing shortage and affordability crisis has been exacerbated by too much regulation, which can mean developments take years to get off the ground. Mr Brennan says rationalising the number of regulators could help, or a 'one-stop shop' approach where both state and federal governments are involved. "Can we combine an assessment, work out that we're both comfortable with this, and then it's streamlined and we know we've satisfied both state and federal regulations?" What are the challenges? Relaxing red tape will involve a difficult balancing act, says Mr Brennan. "Where do you draw the boundary between freeing up business, but at the same time protecting workers or the environment, or consumers, or investors?" And while many governments have come to power pledging to cut red tape, actually making it happen is often another thing entirely. Figure out exactly what AI might be good for "One of the things about the field of AI is that people love to make predictions about the future, and they're pretty much universally wrong." — Dr Jon Whittle, director of Data61 at CSIRO What would that look like? AI, we're told, is going to disrupt every industry and revolutionise workplace productivity. But as with any new technology, the exact impact of AI on the economy (not to mention society) is hard to forecast. CSIRO's Dr Jon Whittle, who has worked in AI for more than three decades, says AI's specific use cases are difficult to point to because of its ubiquity — it's a general-purpose technology. But it's also in its infancy, and its output is perfectly imperfect. Workers and companies alike are embracing the technology, but no one quite knows where it's all leading. After all, the impact of other new technologies on productivity in recent decades hasn't always been revolutionary either. How might it affect productivity? The short answer from Dr Whittle is we just don't know yet — and so far, the numbers on AI's impact on productivity are mixed. One US study found individual staff members randomly assigned to use AI performed similarly to a team of two without AI, while a recent CSIRO study found about 30 per cent of participants did not report any productivity benefits. "We found that for the most part, people were just using it to write emails or summarise minutes of meetings, but they weren't really getting step change improvements out of that," Dr Whittle says. "So I think the antidote to that is that rather than it being a kind of solution looking for a problem, you've got to start with the problem." The Productivity Commission estimates that AI will boost labour productivity by 4.3 per cent over the next decade. But Dr Whittle says that analysis likely doesn't account for the realities of applying AI in the real world — from uptake to cultural factors like a resistance to change. "What I always say is that you can get those productivity increases if and only if AI is introduced properly — in a way that fully takes into account the way that people work, the human element of things." Nonetheless, Dr Whittle says AI has huge potential, and the goal should be to throw it at solving our biggest problems. "If you look at some of the major challenges that we face as a society … AI could really help provide solutions in every single one. "We know there's a strong link between national figures on productivity and standard of living, and there's a potential, if it's done right, to bring major economic benefits across most of our major industries." What are the challenges? One of the challenges with AI might be Solow's productivity paradox, Dr Whittle explains. Essentially, as investment in computer technologies grew between the 1970s and 1990s, the productivity improvement did not meet expectations. "So the first thing I would say is if you are an organisation trying to adopt AI, the first question you should ask is: 'Why am I trying to adopt AI?'" he says. "If you're using AI to automate some bureaucratic process, probably because of the nature of organisations, there'll just be another bureaucratic process that is introduced to take its place. "So this comes down to organisational change, and if you're going to introduce AI into an organisation, you really have to think deeply about where you think you can get the benefits." Tackle our mental health crisis — and benefit everyone "Mental ill health and suicide cost the economy $70 billion a year in presenteeism, absenteeism and lost productivity. More than half of that comes from poor practices and mentally unhealthy workplaces. If we invest in the mental health and well-being of our workforce, the Australian people, that to me is the obvious starting place." — Georgie Harman, CEO, Beyond Blue What would that look like? Beyond Blue CEO Georgie Harman says we need more investment in designing mentally healthy workplaces, especially for smaller and medium-sized businesses. That means people having clarity in their roles, having managers who have been given leadership training, and staff being stretched without being pushed to burnout. Outside the workplace, Ms Harman says state and federal governments also need to agree on a long-term mental health and suicide prevention strategy and funding. How might it affect productivity? Improving our collective mental health might not be the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the word 'productivity', but Ms Harman says it's not just a health or social issue, but an economic one. If you can act early and stop people from reaching a crisis point, you not only help them, but also help the economy. "We know that for every dollar invested in effective work placement health interventions, there's at least a $2.30 return to a business. "It's good for the bottom line, it's good for your people, and it's gonna be good for the economy." What are the challenges? It's big, it's complex and it's costly. It also involves state and federal governments coming together and thinking beyond election cycles. Reshape corporate taxes to encourage more investment "This isn't a giveaway to companies, it's actually giving companies more incentives to invest and grow and create jobs." — Professor Robert Breunig, ANU What would that look like? The Productivity Commission has recommended cutting the corporate tax rate from 30 per cent to 20 per cent for all but the very largest Australian companies. Around 500 companies with revenues higher than $1 billion a year, in industries such as mining, energy, and banking, would pay the higher rate. Smaller companies (with turnover under $50 million) currently pay 25 per cent, which means they would receive a 5 percentage point cut. At the same time, the commission suggests introducing a 5 per cent tax on net cashflow (a world first) for all businesses. The new tax would reward firms that invest more back into their businesses by allowing them to immediately deduct capital expenditure. How might it affect productivity? Australia's current corporate tax rate is higher than most other countries in the OECD, explains Australian National University's Professor Robert Breunig, who has been invited to attend the government's economic roundtable to speak about tax reform. "Our current settings probably discourage investment and risk-taking, which you need for productivity," he says. This change would give Australia one of the lowest worldwide rates, encouraging local and foreign firms to invest in Australia. The additional 'net cashflow' tax would also encourage investment and productivity growth. What are the challenges? "Changing the tax system seems pretty difficult in Australia," Professor Breunig admits. Critics say cutting the tax rate won't boost productivity but just give the government less revenue. There are also concerns that the main beneficiaries would be the big companies, which already have enough money to invest if they want to. And cutting corporate taxes is not popular with Australians. "Critics of cutting corporate tax worry you're giving away money. There's this idea that taxing corporations is somehow taxing rich people, which isn't really true," Professor Breunig says. "This isn't a giveaway to companies, it's actually giving companies more incentive to invest and grow and create jobs." Anyone want a four-day work week? "It forces a reframing of what work is and shifts the conversation from presenteeism and time at work to outcomes." — Dr Rowena Ditzell, University of Sydney What would that look like? A full-time job would be spread across four days instead of five, without taking a pay cut. University of Technology Sydney lecturer Rowena Ditzell says it means changing the focus of work from 'hours' to 'outcomes', as well as shifting perceptions of what makes an 'ideal worker'. One model being trialled is the 100-80-100 work week, where 100 per cent of the work is completed in 80 per cent of the time, while the employee receives 100 per cent of the pay. How might it affect productivity? Dr Ditzell says research shows working shorter hours can boost productivity. "The way that that works is employees need to eliminate wasted time, and they also need to use their time more efficiently," she says. According to Dr Ditzell, the four-day work week also has the potential to increase female participation in the workforce, enable greater equity in caring responsibilities, and improve mental health across the community. What are the challenges? Regardless of the research, it's not likely that all businesses or bosses are going to jump on board. Not to mention, the prime minister and treasurer have said they have no plans to back the idea. Dr Ditzell says the trials also show it's not always easy to apply the model to every role, or when it comes to managing workload spikes, or different stakeholder expectations. "This requires systemic change across the business and that can be really hard because to do this properly, best practice requires training across the organisation," she says. The government would also have to reduce the maximum weekly hours for it to be adopted across the board. Enlist big business to help tackle serious research "We need research and development so that we can continue to enjoy the living standards we enjoy today, you know all of the innovations we use — telephones, computers, banking, medical solutions, medicines — they don't appear fully grown. They start as ideas and then turn into innovations and products and processes and services." —Anna-Maria Arabia, Australian Academy of Science chief executive What would that look like? Actively incentivising companies that make over $100 million to spend money on research and development by imposing a 0.25 per cent or 0.5 per cent levy on those that don't. How might it affect productivity? Ms Arabia says large businesses have built their success on the fruits of long-term taxpayer-funded research. She says that research is what drives progress in our economy, but there is a $32.5 billion underinvestment by business when compared with the OECD average. "It's time for business to contribute their share to R&D development in Australia, especially because many of their businesses are profitable because of public investment in R&D. "They've built their successes on public investment in R&D, and investment in R&D means they continue to be innovative and become even more profitable, and we all enjoy the benefits of that." What are the challenges? Despite business lobby groups recognising they need to boost R&D investment, there would be pushback at the idea of a levy. Revolutionise our buildings so our indoor air stops making us sick "Think about this — we breathe in air at least 12 times a minute and if that air contains something which makes us sick, which makes us feel unwell, our productivity immediately goes down." — Lidia Morawska, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, QUT What would that look like? Queensland University of Technology's Professor Lidia Morawska recommends starting with voluntary monitoring of indoor air quality in public spaces and workplaces, a task force to advise on ventilation and air quality design, and eventually moving towards mandating air quality standards. How might it affect productivity? Professor Morawska says the pandemic brought to our attention the effects poor indoor air quality can have on our productivity. She says it's not just airborne diseases but harmful pathogens and pollutants that are making us feel sick, increasing absenteeism, and reducing our focus at work. "Imagine that you employed somebody and paid that somebody $100,000, and that person, because of what's in the air, doesn't feel well and operates on, let's say, 70 per cent of their capacity — effectively, you are overpaying [by] $30,000 a year." What are the challenges? There is currently no government body or task force that regulates indoor air quality. To begin with, it would require more employers to recognise the cost-benefit analysis of monitoring air quality and improving ventilation. Cut pointless meetings (oh, and fix management culture) "We've all spent probably months, if not years of our lives in meetings where nothing important got discussed and nothing meaningful actually got decided." — Dr Libby Sander, Bond University What would that look like? Smaller and less frequent meetings that have clear purposes would free people up to do more productive work in less time. That's according to Bond University's Libby Sander, who says an issue in modern organisations was the need for constant updates on every aspect of work through meetings. "Managers need to look across the organisation and think how many meetings are actually going on," Dr Sander says. "Because I think you'd be hard pressed to find people in an organisation who would say, 'we don't have enough meetings, we should definitely have more meetings.'" How might it affect productivity? Studies in recent years have highlighted the productivity issues surrounding meeting culture. Shopify, the Canadian-owned online store, found that the average meeting, which went for 30 minutes and included at least three people, cost between $1,075 and $2,450. The company says cutting three meetings from each person's weekly calendar could cut costs by at least 15 per cent. "If people don't feel like they can get to their work that they need to get done and urgent things that are happening because they're sitting in meetings, they're feeling quite stressed," Dr Sander says. "So it's natural that reducing the meetings is going to probably make employees happier as well as more productive." Of course, while too many is a problem, so is too long. The Australian Council of Trade Unions says poor management practices are one of the major factors dragging down productivity performance. What are the challenges? Holding meetings is an easy fallback option to help people position themselves as relevant within an organisation, according to Dr Sander. That could see a reluctance to end the meeting culture because there are few other ways outside of meetings to do "performative productivity". "It's hard to just walk into the boss's office and go, 'look at all the things I've done this week,'" she says. "But in a meeting, you can sort of do that under the guise of, well, here's the update from the marketing department or the finance department." Shift our mindset (and our money) away from property as an investment "If I was to invest $1 million in a house to rent out, that's not going to improve productivity at all. A house is a house, it doesn't generate any great output or anything. It's much better for productivity for me as an investor to invest either in a company or a start-up or to do something with that $1 million." — Dr Greg Jericho, chief economist, Australia Institute What would that look like? There are many different proposals to change the shape of our housing market, but Greg Jericho suggests a good starting point would be to remove the capital gains tax discount for investment properties. The discount means people only pay tax on 50 per cent of any profit made from selling their property if they have held it for more than 12 months. How might it affect productivity? Dr Jericho says way too much capital is spent on property, which not only makes housing unaffordable for many Australians but does little to increase productivity and drive the economy forward. Taking the incentive out of investment properties, he says, would make it more appealing for people to put their money into other (more productive) parts of the economy. The Parliamentary Budget Office has estimated that the capital gains discount and negative gearing will cost $13.35 billion in 2025-26. Dr Jericho says the government could spend that money on things that increase productivity, like education, training workers, or investing in housing itself. "Why don't you, as a government, do like every other investor in Australia does: borrow money — and they can borrow at a lot better rate than we can — build, buy vacant properties, and rent them? "Everyone knows if you're in the Defence Force, you're going to have a place to live [due to the Defence Housing Australia program] … Why isn't there Nursing Housing Australia? Why isn't there Teacher Housing Australia? Why isn't there Housing Australia?" What are the challenges? Every time there is talk about changes to negative gearing or the capital gains discount for property, there is outcry from vested interest groups who say the moves would discourage long-term investment and drive up rental prices. Dr Jericho says our housing policy should focus on giving people a place to live, not as a means of generating income and wealth. "We always suggest you tax things you don't want and you subsidise and offer tax breaks to things you do want — and at the moment Australia's tax system is acting as though we want higher house prices," he says. "I've got no problems with wealthy people investing to get wealthier, but I don't think the taxpayers should be in effect funding that." Here comes OzGPT — a home-grown AI capability "[Sovereign AI] will help us to be winners, not losers, in the AI race." — Toby Walsh, scientia professor of AI, UNSW What would that look like? Australia building its own sovereign artificial intelligence would require a different kind of infrastructure project, according to Professor Toby Walsh from the University of New South Wales. There are currently about 199 data centres across the country, with that number expected to more than double by 2030. Professor Walsh says, given this growth, creating our own sovereign AI capacity would be an investment in national security and prevent Australia from sending sensitive data overseas. "We don't really want to share that information with overseas entities who are then going to charge us money for any of the insights that they may make," he says. How might it affect productivity? Professor Walsh says the productivity gains would be similar to those after big infrastructure projects because it's both an investment in an ecosystem and in people and capacity. Building our own AI could also help put the focus on solving uniquely Australian problems. "No one is going to provide AI tools to help us deal with our bushfires [or] our flooding," Professor Walsh says. It could also position Australia as an AI leader in the Indo-Pacific, and if Australia invests in finding fresh solutions, it could position itself to provide clean, green data centres across South-East Asia. What are the challenges? In Australia, it's estimated there will be at least 400 data centres by 2030. AI is already changing the amount of energy required in the system, and that's expected to more than double by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Data centres also use large amounts of water. Currently, a large data centre can consume up to 18 million litres of water a day, which is equivalent to the water consumption of a town with a population between 10,000 to 50,000. But Professor Walsh believes there are ways to counteract the water use of data centres. "You can run closed-circuit data centres so that you don't have to use any water at all. In fact, they can recycle the water." Another limitation in Australia, Professor Walsh says, is that we cannot do everything. "We gotta be careful and strategic about picking where we are going to develop the capabilities, where we're going to develop the expertise." Aim for energy abundance ""We have an opportunity for the first time in our history to use the capacity of storing electricity in the same way we store lots of other things in our lives." — Tony Wood, Grattan Institute What would that look like? Renewable energy and battery storage offer an opportunity for Australia to revolutionise our energy supplies, according to Grattan Institute senior fellow Tony Wood — and in the process "dramatically improve the energy productivity of our economy". Australia's energy market operator forecasts almost 80 per cent of homes will have rooftop solar by 2050. Mr Wood says battery technologies open up new horizons, as seen in the uptake of the federal government's home battery subsidy, which in its first month installed more than 19,000. "Right now, nearly 40 per cent of homes in Australia have rooftop solar. They're producing so much electricity in the middle of the day it's either being dumped or it's disrupting the stability of the electricity grid. "By storing it, we could unlock some of that value, and the consumer wouldn't basically have to change the way they use electricity." How might it affect productivity? There's a clear link between cheaper electricity and higher productivity. The Superpower Institute has highlighted Australia's unique opportunity, noting it covers about 5 per cent of the world's land surface, saying it could supply about 8 per cent of the world's renewable energy. What would happen to the economy if, instead of simply aiming to power Australia with 100 per cent renewable energy, the nation created 200 per cent — or even 600 per cent — as much power as it does today? Mr Wood says the productivity wins from renewables are simple, because the cheapest forms of electricity, wind and solar, are abundant in Australia. "What this would mean is the amount of GDP we create by using less energy, by spreading that energy over, we'd still use the same amount of energy, but the system we build to deliver that energy would be dramatically lower cost," he says. What are the challenges? The biggest challenge is implementation, Mr Wood says, because batteries are still fairly expensive. He says the current government subsidy scheme for household batteries is not the only model available, because not everyone owns a home. "This is being trialled at some level already, and that is you could have batteries at the local electricity substation level," he says. "Those batteries would absorb electricity from the local rooftops and then be able to provide that electricity back into the local grid when it's needed. "Now, that one requires a significant change in our regulatory structure because even though those benefits will be very clear now." Plant the seeds to grow our next big cities "Our ambition should be to grow the population of regional Australia by 1 million people by 2032. And how would we do that? We would focus on up to 10 regional city locations to provide a heightened level of focus and investment." — Paul Fowler, Westpac chief executive, business & wealth What would that look like? Westpac recommends the government choose the next 10 major cities to grow across the country. It says government and business could then target investment, construction and infrastructure development in those concentrated areas. How might it affect productivity? Given we live in a huge country with a sparse population, Mr Fowler says identifying those locations will help give the private sector confidence to invest. "I think it's confidence, I think it's clarity, and I think it's consistency in terms of being able to identify those locations where, as a country, we're going to really lean in and support and invest in," he says. "It'll be the broader region, the broader hub that flows around those cities that will be the benefactors and the national economy overall." What are the challenges? A key challenge is aligning the private sector along with federal, state and local governments. Another is picking the locations. Mr Fowler says ideally they would be cities — like Wagga Wagga or Townsville — that already have critical infrastructure to support a large and growing community. "This needs to be a national story," he says. "We need to ensure that by selecting those cities that we really want to lean behind, that is for the benefit of the entire country, not just those individual locations." Make our homes ready for a warming world "As climate risks intensify, boosting our resilience can lower the costs of disaster recovery and create a healthier, safer and more productive Australia." — Productivity Commissioner Barry Sterland What would that look like? Retrofitting our homes to make them more resilient to extreme heat and natural disasters, and making sure new houses are built to higher standards. That involves making houses more resilient to bushfires, floods and cyclones but also better able to cope when, say, the power goes out during a heatwave. The Productivity Commission has already put some ideas forward to help households adapt. For starters, they have recommended a climate resilience rating system for homes. "One of the early priorities here is to create some benchmarks and good information sources that are accessible for households to know what the impacts are and also how to judge what they could do and how much would that increase their resilience," Mr Sterland said on the Productivity Commission's podcast. The commission also wants governments to facilitate investment in retrofitting for existing houses and to ensure climate risks are part of planning and zoning decisions. How might it affect productivity? Not only will it reduce capital destruction, aka houses being destroyed, but it will make our homes more comfortable, leading to a healthier and more productive population and a better quality of life. Natural disasters fuelled by climate change are expensive for governments, households and businesses, and they're only expected to get costlier. The estimated total economic cost of natural disasters is forecast to increase from $11.8 billion in 2023-24 to $40.3 billion in 2049-50, according to an independent review of Commonwealth disaster funding. Those estimates don't even account for the underlying impacts of climate change. By making our homes more resilient to the impacts of climate change, many of those costs could be avoided, and it would allow people to get back on their feet faster. What are the challenges? Cost. Despite the fact that natural disasters are expensive, we tend to be bad at putting money into adaptation, with nearly 90 per cent of the federal government's funding going to recovery. It's also a big job, with around two in three homes likely vulnerable to extreme heat and an increasing number of homes at risk from climate disasters. Advance Australia fairly — in the digital realm "When we are connected, we are able to engage deeper in the world around us … in really innovative ways." — Dr Tamika Worrell, Macquarie University What would that look like? Making sure all members of the Australian community have access to the opportunities afforded by the digital economy. At present, almost a quarter of Australians are digitally excluded, with a disproportionate impact on First Nations communities and people living outside of the capital cities. Making digital inclusion a universal idea would take investment in infrastructure, access and literacy, according to Dr Tamika Worrell from Macquarie University. "What types of resources are we providing for people to identify misinformation and disinformation when it comes to online technologies?" she says. How might it affect productivity? Dr Worrell says greater digital inclusion could dramatically shift opportunities for people who do not have access, because technology is intertwined with so much of modern society. "More and more, we're seeing that things can't be done without digital access, and we will see people left behind if we don't close that digital divide." Recent studies have shown that almost half of the remote First Nations communities surveyed were highly excluded online. But even in one of Australia's largest urban First Nations communities in western Sydney, access is difficult. In one study, at least 27 per cent of those surveyed reported cutting back on medicine to stay online. "So when it comes to digital inclusion, repeatedly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are left behind in the digital divide," Dr Worrell says. What are the challenges? Broadly, access has improved with the Australian Digital Inclusion Index rising year on year. In 2020, the index scored Australia 67.5 out of 100, and rose to 73.2 by 2023. Dr Worrell says the solutions are practical and material. "So, people actually having the physical means to be online and digitally connected. Thinking about things like internet access, that's stable technology access, that isn't shared amongst multiple family members. "Thinking about things like, 'Can you afford credit this week?' Or, 'Do you have to focus on getting your medications or your groceries in the cost of living crisis?' So these are all the types of barriers that we're seeing." Get more men to step up and take parental leave "It's changing that mindset that the mother has to be the primary carer and that needs to continue throughout the first few years of the child's life." — Alia Lum, KPMG Australia tax policy lead What does that look like? KPMG's Alia Lum says parental leave needs to be accessible for men and women equally — and removing any stigma from the idea of men taking leave to look after their children could help drive both equality and productivity. She says one way to provide an incentive would be to offer bonus weeks of paid leave if parents share existing leave entitlements between them. How does that impact productivity? Ms Lum says getting women back to work sooner has huge economic and societal benefits. "It helps narrow the gender pay gap, so if women are able to go back to work sooner, they're more likely to get promoted, they're able to participate more fully in the workforce. "[It] has a long-term effect on not only their own careers and within the family itself, but also in the long term with boosting productivity and across the whole economy." Having affordable childcare also comes into this. Some women have very little left from their wages once they pay childcare fees. "It becomes a real quick question of whether it's worth going back to work for a lot of families, and then that has a long-term effect again on typically the female's career over the long-term, trying to get back into the workforce later on." What are the challenges? Ms Lum says there is still a stigma around men taking parental leave, which needs to change. She says not only do parental leave schemes need to continue to improve, but employers need to actively encourage men to share that care. Don't obsess about productivity in health and education (choose quality instead) "You should have productivity where you can get it but be careful to get it in areas where it won't come at the expense of quality." — Stephen Bartos, University of Canberra What would that look like? It might seem strange to say you can improve productivity by not focusing too much on productivity. But University of Canberra professor of economics Stephen Bartos says in parts of the economy like healthcare and education, obsessing about productivity could backfire. "You should have productivity where you can get it, but be careful to get it in areas where it won't come at the expense of quality," he says. "We should be focusing on how we can get better quality for the same amount of investment." How would that impact productivity? Professor Bartos says there is plenty of low-hanging fruit, like incessant paperwork and processes, but it's not about making people do more with less or obsessing with measurements across all areas of society. "That has flow-on effects for the whole of the economy, so the whole of the economy depends on having workers who are well educated. "You want people to be healthy, to be able to do whatever job they do in the state of good health, so these are things that are actually really quite important, and that's why the quality of the teaching and the healthcare that we provide is actually an important dimension." What are the challenges? Health and education are huge and growing parts of our economy. Naturally, if there is talk about improving the nation's productivity, they have to come into the equation. But Professor Bartos says widespread productivity measures in these spaces could risk leaving the human out of the equation. "If you get a nurse who previously was looking after four patients to look after eight in intensive care, well, that's technically a productivity improvement, but the quality of care for those eight patients is arguably much diminished. "You could improve teacher productivity by taking class sizes and doubling them; that's much more productive, the teachers are technically teaching a lot more kids for the same amount of effort. In practice, the quality of teaching will probably fall." Draw on ancient knowledge systems for a sustainable future "First Nations leaders and their responsibilities as Lore Men and Lore Women are in the best position to determine how to successfully unlock greater productivity potential within the Indigenous estate." — Darren Godwell, chair, Indigenous Business Australia What would that look like? Darren Godwell, a Kokoberren man from north Queensland, says harnessing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge could drive the next stage of innovation. In a statement, he says First Nations values around living in partnership with Country have ensured the land and waters provide not just for this generation, but for at least seven generations ahead for tens of thousands of years. This could also involve greater investment in biomimetic technologies — innovation that is inspired by nature. How might it affect productivity? IBA says more input from First Nations voices can help us make smarter decisions around where we live and how we can grow industry in a sustainable way that focuses on the role of maintaining and caring for Country. "Doing so would promote investment certainty, boost economic investment decisions, reduce the time drag on development pipelines, reduce development friction, and advance the national interest." Investing in Indigenous businesses, Mr Godwell says, also creates stronger regional, rural and remote economies, and provides education and employment now and into the future. What are the challenges? Like many of the other ideas here, this is a big and complex area, politically and economically. Mr Godwell acknowledges Indigenous businesses need to adapt to changing market expectations. But he says First Nations leaders need a seat at the economic table. "That requires greater respect to be accorded to them, their position and their knowledge." Stop spying on workers "Our employers have really sweeping powers to watch us …That excessive surveillance affects productivity. It affects our commitment to the job. It affects our enthusiasm to go to work. And it affects our ability to do our jobs." — Alysia Blackman, Melbourne Law School What would that look like? University of Melbourne's Professor Alysia Blackman says there needs to be more regulation around how and why people are monitored in the workplace, and what is done with that data once it's collected. How might it affect productivity? Professor Blackman says employers may have legitimate reasons to monitor their workers; however, that needs to be proportionate, and privacy laws have not kept up with the level of workplace surveillance. She says minute-to-minute monitoring, like 'pick rates' in warehouses, can damage workers' physical and mental health. "There is a real risk of injury, of workers dying, of people having to withdraw from the workplace because of the way they've been pushed to work in that scenario." But she says productivity measures can also focus on the wrong thing. "The real risk here for productivity is that many of these tools, they measure the thing that is easy to measure. "So keystrokes are really easy to measure, right? You can put a number on it, but they're not necessarily the thing that is valuable. "If we're a computer programmer and we want to produce a piece of code that does a particular function, we could produce thousands of keystrokes to produce a program that's full of bugs and doesn't do what it's meant to, but that would look really good to keystroke software. "But if we thought about it for a long period of time and produced a really elegant piece of code with no bugs that achieved its stated purpose with very few keystrokes, that would look really bad to keystroke software. But arguably, it's actually far more productive to work in that way." What are the challenges? There is little existing regulation in this space and there would likely be pushback from employers. Some critics would argue that regulation of surveillance should be done via collective bargaining, but Professor Blackman says that's difficult because many workforces are not unionised. Put a proper price on carbon emissions "Australia's economy is being reshaped by climate change — a carbon price gives us the direction and focus to build new job-creating clean industries that we can sell to the world." — Anna Malos, Climateworks Centre Australia What would that look like? Australia already has a price on carbon through the safeguard mechanism, but it only applies to the biggest emitters in the country — a third of national emissions. Climateworks Centre's Anna Malos says properly pricing carbon would create clear incentives to lower emissions. "Carbon prices are fairly common worldwide — just under a third of global emissions are already covered by some form of carbon price," she says. "Countries with carbon prices are considering adding tariffs or levies to imports from places without a similar policy, to protect their local industries. That means Australia's exports could be subject to a carbon price if it doesn't have a similar policy." How might it affect productivity? The Productivity Commission has recommended a broad price on carbon because it can help businesses and investors use resources more effectively. Ms Malos says properly pricing carbon emissions would force businesses to be ready for the opportunities of a net-zero economy. "It directs investment to where emissions reductions are cheapest — as essential to business as turning a profit and can help create new clean industries," she says. "Carbon pricing can also drive productivity improvements through driving business innovation and investment in technological improvements." What are the challenges? Australia, of course, has found carbon pricing to be politically contentious territory. So action in this area has been sporadic. And Ms Malos says carbon pricing alone is no silver bullet: there are some sectors, such as buildings, where incentives and standards are more important. "The exact way this incentive works depends on the design," she says. "Some designs can generate government revenue that can be spent on supporting innovative technologies or ensuring that groups that may be disadvantaged have support to switch to cleaner production or use." Break down barriers to work "People often think that people with significant disability are incapable of productive work, but this shows a lack of information about real outcomes when the right supports to work are provided." — Professor Erin Wilson, Swinburne University What would that look like? Professor Erin Wilson from Swinburne University says Australia needs to redefine how it looks at 'supported employment' for people with a disability. Currently, the minimum hourly rate for workers under the award starts at $6.03, but under the supported employment system, some people can be paid less. Professor Wilson wants to see supported employment have more flexibility so people can work across a number of different settings. "The goal is real jobs with the right supports, wherever they are, so more people can choose work that suits them, whereas currently [it is] often limited to what used to be called Australian Disability Enterprises." How might it affect productivity? Over the past two decades, labour force participation rates for people with disabilities have risen by about 6 per cent, while for people without disabilities, they have grown almost 20 per cent. Professor Wilson believes changing the supported employment system could shift the opportunities for those with high or ongoing support needs. "By funding job redesign, customisation and technology, and upskilling support staff, you can lift productivity for workers on supported wages and justify higher pay," she says. What are the challenges? The current funding rules and markets are not working, according to Professor Wilson. Some of the key challenges, she says, include the Inclusive Employment Australia payments excluding low-hour jobs, funding complications with NDIS employment, and multiple funding streams for employment providers to navigate. Professor Wilson says a solution could be shifting our approach. "Ecosystem approach also refers to a holistic approach across government policy and financing, and business capability to address employment outcomes," she said. "Not just thinking about the individual supports someone receives in an enterprise." Let drones spread their wings across industries "Do we really need a mailman in 2025 or is it sufficient to just have drones deliver parcels? What I envisage is in the future everybody will just have a little drone landing site instead of a mailbox." — Akshay Vij, associate professor at UniSA Business What would that look like? University of South Australia associate professor Akshay Vij suggests starting by allowing drones to deliver mail and small parcels. Initially, drones would involve human control, but he expects they will become completely automated in the future. How might it affect productivity? "That's a task that would previously have required more than 45,000 people that can now be done automatically," Dr Vij says. He says it will be followed by all food and goods delivery, and eventually, he expects driverless vehicles will be used in most transport and logistics industries. Dr Vij says he sees huge opportunities not only for productivity but for increasing health, services, and quality of life for regional and remote communities. "When there isn't that density, it becomes quite expensive to just get medication to a single household that's living in the middle of nowhere, and the nearest town is 200 kilometres away," Dr Vij says. "In the future, I imagine we'll have drones that are big enough and safe enough to transport passengers." What are the challenges? Before drones dominate our airspace, there needs to be advancements in technology and the conversations around regulation, safety and privacy. Adjusting to a world where drones buzz all around is another thing we as a society would have to come to terms with. And then there are impacts on our workforce. Dr Vij says stopping this technology is a losing fight. "There's no way that the genie can be put back in the bottle," he says. "Technology is coming, and it will replace these jobs, there's no question about it. "But what is a good and responsible way to react to that is to make sure that we slow down that process of disruption, so that it's not overnight, and we allow enough or we build in enough lead time into this period of transition … so that these people don't get crushed in the machinery of capitalism and new technology." As the economic round table gets underway, these 23 ideas are just some of the many being floated to help boost our nation's productivity. The Productivity Commission alone has received hundreds of submissions and published five reports on the subject in recent weeks. Australia Institute chief economist Greg Jericho says there is no doubt that talking about productivity is important. However, there is one big thing he wants everyone to keep in mind this week — the economy is people. "The Amazon factory might be really productive, but is that what we want for everyone? Is that the goal? How are their workers paid? Are they allowed to be in a union, or is it just generating massive profits? "We always want to improve productivity, but the reason we do it is because we want better living standards and a better society. "And if that's not the outcome, then why are we doing this?"
ABC News
6 hours ago
- ABC News
Focus narrows on reducing regulation to boost productivity ahead of round table
Australia's productivity chief will assert that growth has not been a priority in policy making for years, citing the nation's growing tangle of regulation as evidence, in a speech ahead of Labor's economic reform round table this week. The warning coincides with a separate call from Australia's peak business bodies for red tape to be slashed by a quarter by the end of the decade, as Treasurer Jim Chalmers declared the government does "not want to settle for less" when it comes to productivity. Danielle Wood, chair of the Productivity Commission, will address the National Press Club on Monday, where she will argue there has been "less policy emphasis on growth and a declining reform appetite" across many wealthy nations in recent decades. "This manifests not just in less economic reform but in decisions by governments — federal, state and local — to pay less attention to growth trade-offs in pursuing other policy goals," she will say. "Nowhere is this more evident than in the growth of regulatory burden." Pointing to a significant increase in the number of words and conditional terms in acts and legislative instruments over the first two decades of the century, she will argue this "regulatory creep" is a symptom of the increasing demand for governments "to 'do something' every time an issue emerges". "When combined with Australians' tendency to look to government for answers — our 'Canberra fix' — we have ended up with a system that dampens growth." Business leaders, economists, unions and shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien will descend on Parliament House on Tuesday for a three-day meeting Mr Chalmers has billed as an opportunity to grapple with the big challenges facing the economy. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will address the attendees at the beginning of proceedings on Tuesday, and later on Wednesday, he will host the attendees at the Lodge. But expectations that the forum will lead to significant reform in the short term have been tempered by the prime minister, who earlier this month talked down the prospect of tax changes emerging from the talks. The commission has released five reports in the lead up to the round table, culminating in what Ms Wood called a "to-do list" of recommendations that could "shift the dial" on growth. Among them are many aimed at improving government regulation, including things like employing digital tools to streamline approval processes. A leaked Treasury document prepared for cabinet, first reported by the ABC this week, featured a list of possible outcomes from the round table, including a pause to changes for the National Construction Code, measures to speed up housing approvals, and a national artificial intelligence plan to cut environmental red tape. It led the opposition to label the talks a "stitch up", a claim the government has dismissed, arguing it's not unusual that the department would have provided advice on some of the already received ideas ahead of time. Mr Chalmers and Mr Albanese both once again vowed they would not pre-empt any outcomes on Sunday, with the leader telling reporters in Perth that "the agenda is whatever people want to raise". He said ideas put forward will feed into the government's decision-making, including some that can be done immediately if adopted, others that will be implemented through federal budget processes, and some that tackle "the long-term challenges in the global economy, the impact on Australia, and how we deal with those issues". Ahead of the round table, 29 groups representing small, medium and large Australian businesses have launched a concerted campaign to cull red tape, warning that it needs to be easier to do business in Australia to attract investment. The alliance will also use the forum to call for reform of the approval process for planning and major projects, boosts for investment and innovation, and a process for "productive" tax reform that doesn't raise costs for consumers or businesses. Council of Small Business Organisations Australia chair Matthew Addison said the round table was an "opportunity to reset the economy in a way that supports business, not stifles it". "Our small businesses are buckling under the weight of excessive red tape, with regulatory burden and a patchwork of complex compliance obligations slowing growth," he said. Business Council of Australia chief executive Bran Black echoed that changes were needed to make it easier for businesses to operate, "so a cafe owner in Melbourne doesn't face 36 licences before they can pour a cup of coffee". He also pointed specifically to the need to cut red tape to make it faster to approve and build new homes, something the government has identified needs to happen to solve the housing crisis. Ms Wood will reference Productivity Commission research that found the time it takes to build houses and apartments has ballooned by 50 per cent over the past three decades. "It's not the time laying bricks that's blown out. It's the approvals processes: from planning, to heritage, to building approvals, environmental and traffic impact statements," she will say. "And these regulatory hairballs have found their way into almost every corner of our economy." According to Ms Wood, prioritising growth means there will be uncomfortable trade-offs, for example, heritage and density restrictions coming at the expense of more and cheaper housing, but that a "growth mindset means elevating growth and its benefits across all policy decisions". "It does not mean government should never intervene or pursue other conflicting goals, but the benefits of growth should not be traded away quietly or lightly," she will say. In an interview ahead of the round table, Mr Chalmers told the ABC that there was a lot of appetite in cabinet for cutting red tape and improving regulation where possible, and it would be a "really, really big focus" of the talks. "There are a number of reasons for our productivity challenge and we're going to chip away at trying to address it over time," he said. "We don't want to waste the next decade on productivity, the way our predecessors wasted the last, and that's what drives us." Andrew Bragg, the Coalition's shadow minister for productivity and deregulation, will also lay out the opposition's plan to increase productivity on Monday, arguing Australia has become "inefficient, bureaucratic and unproductive". "Many regulations are well intentioned, but we must now confront their cumulative effect," he will say, arguing it is costing the economy billions each year. Like Ms Wood, he will warn against the impulse of solving issues by simply announcing new laws or regulations. "More rules is always seen as good. The minister can announce the problem is solved. The caravan moves on. The dog barks," he will argue. "There is limited interest in how the new rules are enforced — unless there is a scandal." The Coalition's answer is deregulation, with a focus on "genuine enterprise with limited, rather than repressive, controls".
