You know what's a bigger issue than productivity? This culture of entitlement
Unfortunately, many commentators on the left have indicated the focus should be squarely on increasing taxation - both to close the existing budget deficit and to fund additional government spending.
It has been clear for some time that the Treasurer is sympathetic to calls for an expanded role for government.
His much-cited essay on the future of capitalism outlined a vision of government returning to the centre of the economy, using taxpayer funds to direct and shape economic priorities.
This is a bad idea; both on its merits, and in terms of its negative impact on productivity.
The fact is government has been steadily growing in both its expenditure and regulatory dimensions for years now and each of these are a drain on productivity.
Focusing on expenditure, a full tally for all levels of government shows expenditure at 38.3 per cent of GDP in 2023-24 and it is likely to have been higher in 2024-25, perhaps approaching 39 per cent. The same measure before the coronavirus pandemic was usually in the range 34-35 per cent of GDP.
Pandemic-era spending led to a spike above 40 per cent for two years.
However, true to the then-government's word, most of that spending was temporary.
The huge deficits of that era did leave a legacy in the form of ongoing interest expense on the resulting public debt.
But otherwise, the pandemic can't be blamed for expenditure now being about 4 percentage points of GDP higher than before it. That is a massive $100 billion plus, every year.
These increases have happened mainly at the federal level, although a good portion of the additional expenditure amounts to the federal government effectively bankrolling state expenditures and responsibilities.
An examination of program expenditure points to the seeds of increased federal spending being sown long ago.
Looking back to 2012-13 we see the rapid growth of expenses on disability support (the NDIS), aged care, child care, schools, public hospitals, pharmaceutical benefits and medical benefits - all programs that have been boosted by new policy initiatives since 2012-13 to roll out new social benefits or enhance existing ones.
The welfare state has been on a roll, but in addition defence and funding of state infrastructure projects have increased rapidly, as has debt interest expense as a result of the budget deficits.
All these programs together accounted for 35 per cent of federal own-purpose expenditure in 2012-13 but for 63 per cent of the dollar increase in annual expenditure up to 2024-25.
Each item has its own story, and we wouldn't suggest that the growth was all avoidable. For example, some of it reflects population ageing and the increase in defence is a normalisation from a historically low level.
However, the growth in social spending also includes wasteful and ineffective spending.
That growth reflects the priorities of an earlier Labor government, and the subsequent Coalition government largely went along with it or felt they had to.
Unfortunately, this political dynamic has created a situation where the main sources of growth in terms of employment and spending in the economy have been focused in areas that are relatively low productivity (the care economy in particular).
To make matters worse, the current Labor government is doubling down on its previous spending increases in most areas.
Aged care, childcare and Medicare are all areas where the government has unveiled substantial new spending commitments.
The government has agreed to increase its share of Gonski school funding. And it has promised or hopes to go further with "free" TAFE and universal child care, while pressures for further increases in defence can be expected.
READ MORE SIMON COWAN:
Of course, this additional spending, though significant in its own right, is dwarfed by the growing costs of the NDIS.
The CIS warned long ago that the NDIS was likely to grow far faster than had been predicted at the time. Despite these prescient warnings, both sides of politics have made only modest efforts to rein in the NDIS monster.
Consequently, there are good reasons to be sceptical of rosy predictions of the NDIS cost-curve flattening (although staying at a level well above the growth of the economy) without substantial intervention.
It should be noted as well, that despite the rapidly burgeoning costs, many participants and providers in the scheme report dissatisfaction with how the scheme is being managed.
While increases in spending in individual programs and areas are the measure of the increase in the size of government, this is not the root cause.
The bigger issue is the culture of dependency and entitlement has taken root in the population and political behaviour has become only too willing to accommodate and encourage it.
We have reached a point where a sizeable proportion of the voting age population - perhaps more than half - is dependent on government directly or indirectly through social benefits and employment for most of their income.
It is difficult to see the current government reversing this trend without a major change of mindset.
While there is some hope for the broader centre left of politics in movements like the "abundance agenda", left-wing parties across the Western world have become the parties of higher taxes and bigger government.
Despite the political difficulties, the economic and social consequences of the growth in government spending and dependency on government will have to be faced one day.
The economic consequences include the unrelenting pressure for more deficits and more debt, which will make the economy more vulnerable to future crises and the government less able to respond.
Governments' insatiable appetite for revenue also creates more pressure for taxes to rise, which in turn saps incentives for work, saving and investment - and thereby potentially compounds the problem of weak productivity growth.
The simple fact is that people respond to incentives. When the incentives encourage innovation, investment and ingenuity, people respond by increasing productivity. Our living standards grow.
However, when the incentives encourage us to fight over the distribution of the pie, even as it shrinks, the rot of entitlement and waste sinks in.
Turning this around will require more than a summit.
As we get closer to the productivity roundtable that the government hopes will solve all problems, various players are tipping their hand as to what they want the focus to be.
Unfortunately, many commentators on the left have indicated the focus should be squarely on increasing taxation - both to close the existing budget deficit and to fund additional government spending.
It has been clear for some time that the Treasurer is sympathetic to calls for an expanded role for government.
His much-cited essay on the future of capitalism outlined a vision of government returning to the centre of the economy, using taxpayer funds to direct and shape economic priorities.
This is a bad idea; both on its merits, and in terms of its negative impact on productivity.
The fact is government has been steadily growing in both its expenditure and regulatory dimensions for years now and each of these are a drain on productivity.
Focusing on expenditure, a full tally for all levels of government shows expenditure at 38.3 per cent of GDP in 2023-24 and it is likely to have been higher in 2024-25, perhaps approaching 39 per cent. The same measure before the coronavirus pandemic was usually in the range 34-35 per cent of GDP.
Pandemic-era spending led to a spike above 40 per cent for two years.
However, true to the then-government's word, most of that spending was temporary.
The huge deficits of that era did leave a legacy in the form of ongoing interest expense on the resulting public debt.
But otherwise, the pandemic can't be blamed for expenditure now being about 4 percentage points of GDP higher than before it. That is a massive $100 billion plus, every year.
These increases have happened mainly at the federal level, although a good portion of the additional expenditure amounts to the federal government effectively bankrolling state expenditures and responsibilities.
An examination of program expenditure points to the seeds of increased federal spending being sown long ago.
Looking back to 2012-13 we see the rapid growth of expenses on disability support (the NDIS), aged care, child care, schools, public hospitals, pharmaceutical benefits and medical benefits - all programs that have been boosted by new policy initiatives since 2012-13 to roll out new social benefits or enhance existing ones.
The welfare state has been on a roll, but in addition defence and funding of state infrastructure projects have increased rapidly, as has debt interest expense as a result of the budget deficits.
All these programs together accounted for 35 per cent of federal own-purpose expenditure in 2012-13 but for 63 per cent of the dollar increase in annual expenditure up to 2024-25.
Each item has its own story, and we wouldn't suggest that the growth was all avoidable. For example, some of it reflects population ageing and the increase in defence is a normalisation from a historically low level.
However, the growth in social spending also includes wasteful and ineffective spending.
That growth reflects the priorities of an earlier Labor government, and the subsequent Coalition government largely went along with it or felt they had to.
Unfortunately, this political dynamic has created a situation where the main sources of growth in terms of employment and spending in the economy have been focused in areas that are relatively low productivity (the care economy in particular).
To make matters worse, the current Labor government is doubling down on its previous spending increases in most areas.
Aged care, childcare and Medicare are all areas where the government has unveiled substantial new spending commitments.
The government has agreed to increase its share of Gonski school funding. And it has promised or hopes to go further with "free" TAFE and universal child care, while pressures for further increases in defence can be expected.
READ MORE SIMON COWAN:
Of course, this additional spending, though significant in its own right, is dwarfed by the growing costs of the NDIS.
The CIS warned long ago that the NDIS was likely to grow far faster than had been predicted at the time. Despite these prescient warnings, both sides of politics have made only modest efforts to rein in the NDIS monster.
Consequently, there are good reasons to be sceptical of rosy predictions of the NDIS cost-curve flattening (although staying at a level well above the growth of the economy) without substantial intervention.
It should be noted as well, that despite the rapidly burgeoning costs, many participants and providers in the scheme report dissatisfaction with how the scheme is being managed.
While increases in spending in individual programs and areas are the measure of the increase in the size of government, this is not the root cause.
The bigger issue is the culture of dependency and entitlement has taken root in the population and political behaviour has become only too willing to accommodate and encourage it.
We have reached a point where a sizeable proportion of the voting age population - perhaps more than half - is dependent on government directly or indirectly through social benefits and employment for most of their income.
It is difficult to see the current government reversing this trend without a major change of mindset.
While there is some hope for the broader centre left of politics in movements like the "abundance agenda", left-wing parties across the Western world have become the parties of higher taxes and bigger government.
Despite the political difficulties, the economic and social consequences of the growth in government spending and dependency on government will have to be faced one day.
The economic consequences include the unrelenting pressure for more deficits and more debt, which will make the economy more vulnerable to future crises and the government less able to respond.
Governments' insatiable appetite for revenue also creates more pressure for taxes to rise, which in turn saps incentives for work, saving and investment - and thereby potentially compounds the problem of weak productivity growth.
The simple fact is that people respond to incentives. When the incentives encourage innovation, investment and ingenuity, people respond by increasing productivity. Our living standards grow.
However, when the incentives encourage us to fight over the distribution of the pie, even as it shrinks, the rot of entitlement and waste sinks in.
Turning this around will require more than a summit.
As we get closer to the productivity roundtable that the government hopes will solve all problems, various players are tipping their hand as to what they want the focus to be.
Unfortunately, many commentators on the left have indicated the focus should be squarely on increasing taxation - both to close the existing budget deficit and to fund additional government spending.
It has been clear for some time that the Treasurer is sympathetic to calls for an expanded role for government.
His much-cited essay on the future of capitalism outlined a vision of government returning to the centre of the economy, using taxpayer funds to direct and shape economic priorities.
This is a bad idea; both on its merits, and in terms of its negative impact on productivity.
The fact is government has been steadily growing in both its expenditure and regulatory dimensions for years now and each of these are a drain on productivity.
Focusing on expenditure, a full tally for all levels of government shows expenditure at 38.3 per cent of GDP in 2023-24 and it is likely to have been higher in 2024-25, perhaps approaching 39 per cent. The same measure before the coronavirus pandemic was usually in the range 34-35 per cent of GDP.
Pandemic-era spending led to a spike above 40 per cent for two years.
However, true to the then-government's word, most of that spending was temporary.
The huge deficits of that era did leave a legacy in the form of ongoing interest expense on the resulting public debt.
But otherwise, the pandemic can't be blamed for expenditure now being about 4 percentage points of GDP higher than before it. That is a massive $100 billion plus, every year.
These increases have happened mainly at the federal level, although a good portion of the additional expenditure amounts to the federal government effectively bankrolling state expenditures and responsibilities.
An examination of program expenditure points to the seeds of increased federal spending being sown long ago.
Looking back to 2012-13 we see the rapid growth of expenses on disability support (the NDIS), aged care, child care, schools, public hospitals, pharmaceutical benefits and medical benefits - all programs that have been boosted by new policy initiatives since 2012-13 to roll out new social benefits or enhance existing ones.
The welfare state has been on a roll, but in addition defence and funding of state infrastructure projects have increased rapidly, as has debt interest expense as a result of the budget deficits.
All these programs together accounted for 35 per cent of federal own-purpose expenditure in 2012-13 but for 63 per cent of the dollar increase in annual expenditure up to 2024-25.
Each item has its own story, and we wouldn't suggest that the growth was all avoidable. For example, some of it reflects population ageing and the increase in defence is a normalisation from a historically low level.
However, the growth in social spending also includes wasteful and ineffective spending.
That growth reflects the priorities of an earlier Labor government, and the subsequent Coalition government largely went along with it or felt they had to.
Unfortunately, this political dynamic has created a situation where the main sources of growth in terms of employment and spending in the economy have been focused in areas that are relatively low productivity (the care economy in particular).
To make matters worse, the current Labor government is doubling down on its previous spending increases in most areas.
Aged care, childcare and Medicare are all areas where the government has unveiled substantial new spending commitments.
The government has agreed to increase its share of Gonski school funding. And it has promised or hopes to go further with "free" TAFE and universal child care, while pressures for further increases in defence can be expected.
READ MORE SIMON COWAN:
Of course, this additional spending, though significant in its own right, is dwarfed by the growing costs of the NDIS.
The CIS warned long ago that the NDIS was likely to grow far faster than had been predicted at the time. Despite these prescient warnings, both sides of politics have made only modest efforts to rein in the NDIS monster.
Consequently, there are good reasons to be sceptical of rosy predictions of the NDIS cost-curve flattening (although staying at a level well above the growth of the economy) without substantial intervention.
It should be noted as well, that despite the rapidly burgeoning costs, many participants and providers in the scheme report dissatisfaction with how the scheme is being managed.
While increases in spending in individual programs and areas are the measure of the increase in the size of government, this is not the root cause.
The bigger issue is the culture of dependency and entitlement has taken root in the population and political behaviour has become only too willing to accommodate and encourage it.
We have reached a point where a sizeable proportion of the voting age population - perhaps more than half - is dependent on government directly or indirectly through social benefits and employment for most of their income.
It is difficult to see the current government reversing this trend without a major change of mindset.
While there is some hope for the broader centre left of politics in movements like the "abundance agenda", left-wing parties across the Western world have become the parties of higher taxes and bigger government.
Despite the political difficulties, the economic and social consequences of the growth in government spending and dependency on government will have to be faced one day.
The economic consequences include the unrelenting pressure for more deficits and more debt, which will make the economy more vulnerable to future crises and the government less able to respond.
Governments' insatiable appetite for revenue also creates more pressure for taxes to rise, which in turn saps incentives for work, saving and investment - and thereby potentially compounds the problem of weak productivity growth.
The simple fact is that people respond to incentives. When the incentives encourage innovation, investment and ingenuity, people respond by increasing productivity. Our living standards grow.
However, when the incentives encourage us to fight over the distribution of the pie, even as it shrinks, the rot of entitlement and waste sinks in.
Turning this around will require more than a summit.
As we get closer to the productivity roundtable that the government hopes will solve all problems, various players are tipping their hand as to what they want the focus to be.
Unfortunately, many commentators on the left have indicated the focus should be squarely on increasing taxation - both to close the existing budget deficit and to fund additional government spending.
It has been clear for some time that the Treasurer is sympathetic to calls for an expanded role for government.
His much-cited essay on the future of capitalism outlined a vision of government returning to the centre of the economy, using taxpayer funds to direct and shape economic priorities.
This is a bad idea; both on its merits, and in terms of its negative impact on productivity.
The fact is government has been steadily growing in both its expenditure and regulatory dimensions for years now and each of these are a drain on productivity.
Focusing on expenditure, a full tally for all levels of government shows expenditure at 38.3 per cent of GDP in 2023-24 and it is likely to have been higher in 2024-25, perhaps approaching 39 per cent. The same measure before the coronavirus pandemic was usually in the range 34-35 per cent of GDP.
Pandemic-era spending led to a spike above 40 per cent for two years.
However, true to the then-government's word, most of that spending was temporary.
The huge deficits of that era did leave a legacy in the form of ongoing interest expense on the resulting public debt.
But otherwise, the pandemic can't be blamed for expenditure now being about 4 percentage points of GDP higher than before it. That is a massive $100 billion plus, every year.
These increases have happened mainly at the federal level, although a good portion of the additional expenditure amounts to the federal government effectively bankrolling state expenditures and responsibilities.
An examination of program expenditure points to the seeds of increased federal spending being sown long ago.
Looking back to 2012-13 we see the rapid growth of expenses on disability support (the NDIS), aged care, child care, schools, public hospitals, pharmaceutical benefits and medical benefits - all programs that have been boosted by new policy initiatives since 2012-13 to roll out new social benefits or enhance existing ones.
The welfare state has been on a roll, but in addition defence and funding of state infrastructure projects have increased rapidly, as has debt interest expense as a result of the budget deficits.
All these programs together accounted for 35 per cent of federal own-purpose expenditure in 2012-13 but for 63 per cent of the dollar increase in annual expenditure up to 2024-25.
Each item has its own story, and we wouldn't suggest that the growth was all avoidable. For example, some of it reflects population ageing and the increase in defence is a normalisation from a historically low level.
However, the growth in social spending also includes wasteful and ineffective spending.
That growth reflects the priorities of an earlier Labor government, and the subsequent Coalition government largely went along with it or felt they had to.
Unfortunately, this political dynamic has created a situation where the main sources of growth in terms of employment and spending in the economy have been focused in areas that are relatively low productivity (the care economy in particular).
To make matters worse, the current Labor government is doubling down on its previous spending increases in most areas.
Aged care, childcare and Medicare are all areas where the government has unveiled substantial new spending commitments.
The government has agreed to increase its share of Gonski school funding. And it has promised or hopes to go further with "free" TAFE and universal child care, while pressures for further increases in defence can be expected.
READ MORE SIMON COWAN:
Of course, this additional spending, though significant in its own right, is dwarfed by the growing costs of the NDIS.
The CIS warned long ago that the NDIS was likely to grow far faster than had been predicted at the time. Despite these prescient warnings, both sides of politics have made only modest efforts to rein in the NDIS monster.
Consequently, there are good reasons to be sceptical of rosy predictions of the NDIS cost-curve flattening (although staying at a level well above the growth of the economy) without substantial intervention.
It should be noted as well, that despite the rapidly burgeoning costs, many participants and providers in the scheme report dissatisfaction with how the scheme is being managed.
While increases in spending in individual programs and areas are the measure of the increase in the size of government, this is not the root cause.
The bigger issue is the culture of dependency and entitlement has taken root in the population and political behaviour has become only too willing to accommodate and encourage it.
We have reached a point where a sizeable proportion of the voting age population - perhaps more than half - is dependent on government directly or indirectly through social benefits and employment for most of their income.
It is difficult to see the current government reversing this trend without a major change of mindset.
While there is some hope for the broader centre left of politics in movements like the "abundance agenda", left-wing parties across the Western world have become the parties of higher taxes and bigger government.
Despite the political difficulties, the economic and social consequences of the growth in government spending and dependency on government will have to be faced one day.
The economic consequences include the unrelenting pressure for more deficits and more debt, which will make the economy more vulnerable to future crises and the government less able to respond.
Governments' insatiable appetite for revenue also creates more pressure for taxes to rise, which in turn saps incentives for work, saving and investment - and thereby potentially compounds the problem of weak productivity growth.
The simple fact is that people respond to incentives. When the incentives encourage innovation, investment and ingenuity, people respond by increasing productivity. Our living standards grow.
However, when the incentives encourage us to fight over the distribution of the pie, even as it shrinks, the rot of entitlement and waste sinks in.
Turning this around will require more than a summit.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Business News
10 hours ago
- Time Business News
The Advantage of Choosing a Craigieburn-Based NDIS Provider
There's something to be said for going local. Whether it's your morning coffee spot or the person who cuts your hair—when someone knows your area, your routine, your community, things just… click. The same logic applies when choosing support under the NDIS. So, let's talk about the DMA Caring NDIS provider in Craigieburn —why sticking with local might make a whole lot more sense than you first thought. When you work with NDIS providers in Craigieburn, you're not just getting a service. You're getting people who know the local transport routes. The community hubs. The shortcuts, the slowdowns, the best local cafés with disability access, the quiet parks for therapy sessions. You name it. These are people who live where you live—or close to it. They get the pulse of the place. That kind of familiarity makes a real difference in how support is delivered. Not only logistically, but also emotionally. Let's be honest—life doesn't always go to plan. Appointments change. Moods shift. Sometimes a support worker's flexibility can mean the difference between a frustrating day and a smooth one. Local NDIS providers in Craigieburn offer that kind of adaptability. They're not commuting from far-off suburbs or trying to squeeze you into a rigid schedule. When someone's nearby, they're more likely to be responsive, and better yet—understanding. Need to swap a session around at the last minute? You're more likely to hear a 'Sure, we'll work it out' than 'Sorry, we can't fit you in until next week.' Some bigger providers feel a bit… corporate. Like you're just a number in a system. That's where local NDIS providers in Craigieburn shine. Many of them are smaller teams. Or even family-run. That means more direct communication, less back-and-forth, and usually someone you can call or message directly. You're not explaining your story over and over to a new support coordinator each time. They remember you. Your goals. Your preferences. Your dog's name. That kind of consistency builds trust—and that's huge in the disability support space. Craigieburn's changed a lot in the past decade: growing suburbs, new infrastructure, new challenges. Local providers are keeping up with that in real time. They know when construction's going to disrupt your transport route to physio. They've got contacts at the nearby community centre running inclusive art classes. They've helped other participants find housing around the Highlands or job placements nearby. That local know-how is powerful. Bigger providers from other regions? They might offer the same services on paper, but the delivery is another matter. Often lacking that local context. It's easy to underestimate how important that 'social connection' piece is. But for many NDIS participants, especially those dealing with isolation or anxiety, it's everything. Some NDIS providers in Craigieburn go beyond the checklist of tasks. They introduce clients to peer groups. Organise local meetups. Even just having a support worker who chats about Craigieburn's weekend markets or local footy makes things feel a bit more human. A bit more connected. You're not just being supported—you're being included. By choosing local, you're also contributing to something bigger. Many NDIS providers in Craigieburn actively reinvest in the community. They run events. Collaborate with local councils. Hire support workers from within the area. Some even offer work placements or volunteering opportunities for participants themselves. It becomes a cycle—supporting providers who, in turn, help shape a more inclusive, disability-friendly community. That's not just good for you. That's good for everyone in Craigieburn. Sometimes it's the most minor differences that stand out. Like getting a reminder about a session that mentions the weather (because they know what it's like in Craigieburn that week). Or a support worker who brings you your favourite snacks from the local deli on your birthday. Or someone who helps you navigate the Hume council services because they've done it a hundred times before. These aren't things you can find on a provider comparison website. But they're the things that make life easier. And frankly? A little easier goes a long way. NDIS support is personal. Deeply personal. So, the people delivering it? They should feel familiar. Not distant. Not robotic. There's no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to support, but for many, choosing NDIS providers in Craigieburn, like DMA Caring Hands[insert provider name], just makes sense. You get real people. Real connection. And a service shaped by the place you live in—not forced to fit it. So, if you're torn between a big national brand and a provider just down the road, go for the one that knows where to get the best chicken and chips on Hanson Road. You might be surprised how much that matters. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Time Business News
10 hours ago
- Time Business News
The Quiet Power of Community in SIL: Building a Life in Adelaide
Ask anyone who's been through the NDIS maze, and they'll tell you—there's paperwork, plans, reviews… and then there's the part that really matters. The living part. The part where someone actually gets to wake up in their own space, with people around them who care. That's what Supported Independent Living (SIL) is meant to offer. Not just a roof and four walls. But a life. And in Adelaide? That life comes with a certain something. Maybe it's the pace. Perhaps it's the mix of city and suburb, coast and quiet. Perhaps it's just the fact that in Adelaide, things don't feel so overwhelming, which is important when you're starting fresh—especially when you're navigating SIL for the first time. Let's unpack why SIL in Adelaide feels a little different. And why, for many people with disability, it's not just about where they live, but how they live—and who they share that with. SIL is about 24/7 support. Sure. But in reality, it's about more than rosters and routines. It's about that flatmate who remembers how you take your coffee. Or the support worker who knows when to offer help—and when just to give you space. The best SIL in Adelaide gets this balance right. It's tailored. Not just to someone's needs, but to their personality. Their lifestyle. Their rhythm. We've seen homes where people cook together, plan weekend trips, decorate for birthdays. That's not in the NDIS plan. But it's the stuff that makes the plan work . There's something about Adelaide that lends itself to this kind of living. Maybe it's the neighbourhoods—close-knit, friendly, affordable. Or the way everything's… accessible. The tram to Glenelg. That corner café with the ramp and the chatty barista. The community centres that actually welcome everyone. When you're in SIL in Adelaide, you're not tucked away. You're part of things. For example, some providers are linking participants with local men's sheds, dance classes, or art groups. It's not just about keeping busy. It's about identity. Purpose. A reason to get up and get out. And honestly? Adelaide makes that easier than some of the bigger cities. Less traffic. Lower stress. More breathing room. That counts for a lot—especially when someone's just finding their feet. You can put someone in a nice house with all the right modifications. But if there's no connection—no community—it's just a shell. That's why more SIL providers in Adelaide are focusing on the in-between. The moments that aren't 'funded' but make the biggest difference. House BBQs. Group outings. Simple shared meals. Casual chats on the couch. And when those little moments are happening, you can tell—the atmosphere in the home shifts. There's laughter. Music. Maybe a little bickering over what to watch on Netflix—because hey, that's part of shared living too. The beauty of SIL in Adelaide is that the pace of life gives room for these things to unfold naturally. It doesn't feel rushed. Relationships can grow without pressure. This is a big one. So often, people get placed based on logistics. A room's available. The funding lines up. But that's not how friendships work. That's not how you build a home . More and more providers offering SIL in Adelaide are flipping the script. They're matching based on personalities, interests, even sense of humour. Imagine that. Choosing your housemates the way most people do. It's not perfect. But it's a shift. And it's making the experience of SIL less clinical—and more human. We met James, 27, who moved into SIL last year. Before that, he was living at home—safe, but restless. Since moving into a shared house in Marion, he's made friends, taken up photography, and even started volunteering once a week. 'It's not about being independent like doing everything myself,' he says. 'It's just… being me. On my terms.' Then there's Mia, who struggled in her first SIL placement. It wasn't a good fit. But she found her groove in a house near Port Adelaide, with support workers who let her take the lead. 'They don't treat me like a client,' she says. 'They treat me like a person.' And that's the goal, isn't it? SIL in Adelaide works best when the person comes first—and everything else follows. Here's the thing about SIL: it's often the first time someone gets to make decisions about their life what they want to eat. Who they live with. How do they spend their time? That's huge. So the environment they step into—the city, the suburb, the people around them—matters—a lot. And Adelaide, with its warmth, its pace, and its sense of community, provides a solid starting point. The best SIL in Adelaide doesn't try to tick boxes. It builds foundations. Slowly. Gently. With a bit of breathing room. Because independence doesn't happen all at once, it occurs in bits and pieces. Over tea. On bus rides. Through laughter and mistakes and small wins. And honestly? That's the kind of support that lasts. So, if you're exploring SIL in Adelaide—whether for yourself, a family member, or someone you support—look past the brochure. Look at the people. The home dynamics. The feeling in the space with Aeon Disability Services. Because that's what turns support into something more. Something that feels like living. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
News.com.au
19 hours ago
- News.com.au
‘Crisis': Major problem hanging over treasurer ahead of economic roundtable
A glaring problem is hanging over Treasurer Jim Chalmers ahead of this month's economic roundtable: Australia's growing addiction to public sector jobs. More than 80 per cent of all jobs created in the last two years have been in the non-market sector, according to a new analysis from Australian Industry Group. Usually, the private sector accounts for about two-thirds of job creation in Australia, but since 2023 its job creation rates have collapsed, adding just 53,000 new jobs last year. The government picked up the slack with new jobs in the public sector, where workers are directly employed by the government, and the non-market sector, which includes jobs in the ballooning National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), projected to cost the government $52.3 billion this year. The boom in government-supported jobs led Anthony Albanese to trumpet job creation and low unemployment during the election, but experts warn it is hurting rather than helping the economy. Although unemployment has held at about 4 per cent since the pandemic, for the past two years the government has been creating most of the 400,000 new jobs needed each year to sustain the figure. While public sector jobs are essential for delivering services like health and education, they're less productive than market sector jobs. Having too many creates a drag on overall productivity and poaches labour from the private sector, which is struggling with high vacancies and skills shortages. Mr Chalmers has described productivity as the primary focus of his second term as treasurer. But it's feared the government will heed calls from unions for tax hikes at a key meeting on August 19, initially billed as a 'productivity summit' but later re-named as the 'economic reform roundtable'. 'The reason our living standards have gone up over time is because productivity has gone up over time. It's basically the key driver,' AMP chief economist Shane Oliver told 'If we don't make strides in improving productivity it will mean lower living standards over time. That's why this summit is so important. 'The risk is it just turns into a revenue-raising exercise and we don't get meaningful reforms from it.' Government-funded jobs are tied to public sector spending, which had soared 'sky-high' in recent years, from about 22 per cent of GDP historically, to about 27 per cent after the pandemic, Mr Oliver said. 'The treasurer has said it's a key role of the private sector to grow the economy, but for that to happen the public sector has to get out of the way. 'I'd like to see a cap on public spending of 25 per cent of GDP - that would free up scope for the private sector. It would mean more resources (including workers) available for the private sector and lower taxes long-term.' Deregulation, and tax reform to rebalance income tax to GDP, were two other changes Mr Oliver hoped to see come out of the roundtable. 'If all that comes out of this is a higher tax burden on one group of income earners, it won't achieve its objectives and will result in a worse situation. '...If we want to spend more on NDIS jobs, for example, then we've got to find more public sector jobs to cut back on.' Dr Jeffrey Wilson, head of research and economics at the Australian Industry Group, said the surge in government-supported jobs from 2023 had suppressed unemployment, but at the cost of rebalancing the labour market, which had become 'increasingly dysfunctional' since the pandemic. The issue was a 'notable blind spot' in the public discussion leading up to the economic reform roundtable later this month, Dr Wilson said. But there was an urgent need to turn the private sector back into the main engine of job creation. 'This trend of government-supported job creation is not ultimately sustainable,' he said. 'It places an ever-increasing pressure on state and federal budgets, whose current fiscal positions cannot maintain these record rates of job creation indefinitely. 'Cost blowouts in many areas of government service provision - including but not limited to the NDIS and public sector wage bills - are the corollary of this stimulus.' Dr Wilson argued the Australian labour market's resilience - its ability to withstand economic shocks or disruptions - had become 'wholly dependent' on government spending. Critics took to social media to express outrage at Ai Group's findings. 'These figures demonstrate what those of us in business knew was happening,' former Queensland Premier and Brisbane Mayor Campbell Newman said. 'This is a crisis and it's been caused by over-spending politicians and governments. 'It's not sustainable and yet as we head towards a 'productivity summit' all we hear about is 'tax reform', i.e. more tax needs to be paid. 'This is not the answer - it's government spending that has to be brought under control.'
