Latest news with #NationalAgreementonClosingtheGap
The Advertiser
16-06-2025
- Business
- The Advertiser
How different would Australians feel if the system was behind them instead of on top of them?
This government has made it clear, lifting productivity is a top priority. Assistant Minister for Productivity Andrew Leigh has been charged with the complex task, supported by the Productivity Commission, top economic thinkers promoted into cabinet and the productivity roundtable in August. Leigh's recent speech at the Chifley Institute cited housing and infrastructure as two areas we have to get moving. He outlined some hard truths about bureaucracies, referencing "slow, fragmented and overengineered" systems that were no longer fit-for-purpose. And, along with that, he outlined the public service capability we need to lift productivity and be fit for the future. One of Leigh's solutions is to remove friction in critical processes - redesigning systems where "coordination should be the rule, not the exception". This plays out across the social services system - an interconnected web of payments, supports and programs that costs more than $200 billion each year. Services and supports are fragmented - government departments don't talk to each other, providers compete for funding, levels of government don't work together. Finding the right door to the right service at the right time is more the result of luck than a feature of design. Rigid eligibility criteria keep people out, allowing issues to worsen. Over time, shame, stress, trauma and financial hardship compound with generational impacts. This system is managed with a focus on cost savings and risk management. Complex rules ask people to navigate eligibility and lots of paperwork with penalties for stuffing it up. This is meant to ensure efficiency but, because of a lack of collaboration, effort and dollars are wasted and the opportunity to lay the foundation for future productivity - by investing in human capability - is lost. The Workforce Australia inquiry found a system overwhelmed by "red tape, compliance requirements and pointless mandatory activities". A careful management of risk underpins this madness, assuming harsh penalties keep jobseekers looking for work. But several recent studies show how the punitive nature of this approach is doing more harm than good. A 2022 Applied Economics Letters paper found that jobseekers in employment services took longer to find employment, spent less time in work and earned less per hour. The evidence is that big sticks don't help people build skills and find jobs. Disrupting compliance-heavy approaches isn't easy. In its 2024 Review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, the Productivity Commission proposed accountability mechanisms with more "bite" and "timely and appropriate consequences for failure" as a way to make progress towards the vision. But jumping through more hoops and introducing more top-down accountability won't cut it. What's needed is a different approach - one built on partnerships grounded in trust. In The Careless State, Mark Considine concludes that top-down approaches in social services haven't worked over the past half-century, despite being given "ample opportunity". Mr Leigh's analysis is that "systems that push decisions upward, delay risk, and rely on external consultants to validate internal judgment" are too cumbersome to solve today's problems. He suggests that the course-correction for "institutional risk-aversion isn't institutional recklessness, but capability". This amounts to a $200-billion opportunity to shift the system from compliance to alliance - working with people when they need support rather than putting them at the back of the queue. A government that is serious about lifting productivity should be taking a hard look at this. MORE OPINION: The Centre for Policy Development's recent report, Embedding Progress, suggests orienting the public service around whole-of-government wellbeing goals for the nation and provides a roadmap for how to do this. To begin, we need a clear vision of what we're trying to achieve. Services should focus on helping people and communities thrive - giving children a strong start, supporting access to housing, securing fair work, and building skills over time. This would enable more people to contribute to the economy and lead better lives. We also need a well-coordinated approach to changing hearts and minds, but also new approaches to delivery. Reimagining employment support means first moving away from the assumption that everyone is trying to game the system. And then we need to give employment services workers - those on the frontline - the flexibility to help people into roles that are local and matched to their skillsets and aspirations. Imagine the difference if people felt the weight of the system was behind them instead of on top of them. And, these shifts will require a different type of leadership. We need more political leaders to take to openly encourage environments where failure isn't hidden and covered up. Instead of "fear - of failure, of blame, of reputational damage" being the driver of over-regulation, our ability to learn from failure should become the source of innovation and the foundation for future productivity. Aligned with Andrew Leigh's analysis - there are no transformed social services without a transformed public service. If productivity is the goal, we need to invest in a new type of public service capability and we need a new type of political leadership to stay the course and go the distance. This government has made it clear, lifting productivity is a top priority. Assistant Minister for Productivity Andrew Leigh has been charged with the complex task, supported by the Productivity Commission, top economic thinkers promoted into cabinet and the productivity roundtable in August. Leigh's recent speech at the Chifley Institute cited housing and infrastructure as two areas we have to get moving. He outlined some hard truths about bureaucracies, referencing "slow, fragmented and overengineered" systems that were no longer fit-for-purpose. And, along with that, he outlined the public service capability we need to lift productivity and be fit for the future. One of Leigh's solutions is to remove friction in critical processes - redesigning systems where "coordination should be the rule, not the exception". This plays out across the social services system - an interconnected web of payments, supports and programs that costs more than $200 billion each year. Services and supports are fragmented - government departments don't talk to each other, providers compete for funding, levels of government don't work together. Finding the right door to the right service at the right time is more the result of luck than a feature of design. Rigid eligibility criteria keep people out, allowing issues to worsen. Over time, shame, stress, trauma and financial hardship compound with generational impacts. This system is managed with a focus on cost savings and risk management. Complex rules ask people to navigate eligibility and lots of paperwork with penalties for stuffing it up. This is meant to ensure efficiency but, because of a lack of collaboration, effort and dollars are wasted and the opportunity to lay the foundation for future productivity - by investing in human capability - is lost. The Workforce Australia inquiry found a system overwhelmed by "red tape, compliance requirements and pointless mandatory activities". A careful management of risk underpins this madness, assuming harsh penalties keep jobseekers looking for work. But several recent studies show how the punitive nature of this approach is doing more harm than good. A 2022 Applied Economics Letters paper found that jobseekers in employment services took longer to find employment, spent less time in work and earned less per hour. The evidence is that big sticks don't help people build skills and find jobs. Disrupting compliance-heavy approaches isn't easy. In its 2024 Review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, the Productivity Commission proposed accountability mechanisms with more "bite" and "timely and appropriate consequences for failure" as a way to make progress towards the vision. But jumping through more hoops and introducing more top-down accountability won't cut it. What's needed is a different approach - one built on partnerships grounded in trust. In The Careless State, Mark Considine concludes that top-down approaches in social services haven't worked over the past half-century, despite being given "ample opportunity". Mr Leigh's analysis is that "systems that push decisions upward, delay risk, and rely on external consultants to validate internal judgment" are too cumbersome to solve today's problems. He suggests that the course-correction for "institutional risk-aversion isn't institutional recklessness, but capability". This amounts to a $200-billion opportunity to shift the system from compliance to alliance - working with people when they need support rather than putting them at the back of the queue. A government that is serious about lifting productivity should be taking a hard look at this. MORE OPINION: The Centre for Policy Development's recent report, Embedding Progress, suggests orienting the public service around whole-of-government wellbeing goals for the nation and provides a roadmap for how to do this. To begin, we need a clear vision of what we're trying to achieve. Services should focus on helping people and communities thrive - giving children a strong start, supporting access to housing, securing fair work, and building skills over time. This would enable more people to contribute to the economy and lead better lives. We also need a well-coordinated approach to changing hearts and minds, but also new approaches to delivery. Reimagining employment support means first moving away from the assumption that everyone is trying to game the system. And then we need to give employment services workers - those on the frontline - the flexibility to help people into roles that are local and matched to their skillsets and aspirations. Imagine the difference if people felt the weight of the system was behind them instead of on top of them. And, these shifts will require a different type of leadership. We need more political leaders to take to openly encourage environments where failure isn't hidden and covered up. Instead of "fear - of failure, of blame, of reputational damage" being the driver of over-regulation, our ability to learn from failure should become the source of innovation and the foundation for future productivity. Aligned with Andrew Leigh's analysis - there are no transformed social services without a transformed public service. If productivity is the goal, we need to invest in a new type of public service capability and we need a new type of political leadership to stay the course and go the distance. This government has made it clear, lifting productivity is a top priority. Assistant Minister for Productivity Andrew Leigh has been charged with the complex task, supported by the Productivity Commission, top economic thinkers promoted into cabinet and the productivity roundtable in August. Leigh's recent speech at the Chifley Institute cited housing and infrastructure as two areas we have to get moving. He outlined some hard truths about bureaucracies, referencing "slow, fragmented and overengineered" systems that were no longer fit-for-purpose. And, along with that, he outlined the public service capability we need to lift productivity and be fit for the future. One of Leigh's solutions is to remove friction in critical processes - redesigning systems where "coordination should be the rule, not the exception". This plays out across the social services system - an interconnected web of payments, supports and programs that costs more than $200 billion each year. Services and supports are fragmented - government departments don't talk to each other, providers compete for funding, levels of government don't work together. Finding the right door to the right service at the right time is more the result of luck than a feature of design. Rigid eligibility criteria keep people out, allowing issues to worsen. Over time, shame, stress, trauma and financial hardship compound with generational impacts. This system is managed with a focus on cost savings and risk management. Complex rules ask people to navigate eligibility and lots of paperwork with penalties for stuffing it up. This is meant to ensure efficiency but, because of a lack of collaboration, effort and dollars are wasted and the opportunity to lay the foundation for future productivity - by investing in human capability - is lost. The Workforce Australia inquiry found a system overwhelmed by "red tape, compliance requirements and pointless mandatory activities". A careful management of risk underpins this madness, assuming harsh penalties keep jobseekers looking for work. But several recent studies show how the punitive nature of this approach is doing more harm than good. A 2022 Applied Economics Letters paper found that jobseekers in employment services took longer to find employment, spent less time in work and earned less per hour. The evidence is that big sticks don't help people build skills and find jobs. Disrupting compliance-heavy approaches isn't easy. In its 2024 Review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, the Productivity Commission proposed accountability mechanisms with more "bite" and "timely and appropriate consequences for failure" as a way to make progress towards the vision. But jumping through more hoops and introducing more top-down accountability won't cut it. What's needed is a different approach - one built on partnerships grounded in trust. In The Careless State, Mark Considine concludes that top-down approaches in social services haven't worked over the past half-century, despite being given "ample opportunity". Mr Leigh's analysis is that "systems that push decisions upward, delay risk, and rely on external consultants to validate internal judgment" are too cumbersome to solve today's problems. He suggests that the course-correction for "institutional risk-aversion isn't institutional recklessness, but capability". This amounts to a $200-billion opportunity to shift the system from compliance to alliance - working with people when they need support rather than putting them at the back of the queue. A government that is serious about lifting productivity should be taking a hard look at this. MORE OPINION: The Centre for Policy Development's recent report, Embedding Progress, suggests orienting the public service around whole-of-government wellbeing goals for the nation and provides a roadmap for how to do this. To begin, we need a clear vision of what we're trying to achieve. Services should focus on helping people and communities thrive - giving children a strong start, supporting access to housing, securing fair work, and building skills over time. This would enable more people to contribute to the economy and lead better lives. We also need a well-coordinated approach to changing hearts and minds, but also new approaches to delivery. Reimagining employment support means first moving away from the assumption that everyone is trying to game the system. And then we need to give employment services workers - those on the frontline - the flexibility to help people into roles that are local and matched to their skillsets and aspirations. Imagine the difference if people felt the weight of the system was behind them instead of on top of them. And, these shifts will require a different type of leadership. We need more political leaders to take to openly encourage environments where failure isn't hidden and covered up. Instead of "fear - of failure, of blame, of reputational damage" being the driver of over-regulation, our ability to learn from failure should become the source of innovation and the foundation for future productivity. Aligned with Andrew Leigh's analysis - there are no transformed social services without a transformed public service. If productivity is the goal, we need to invest in a new type of public service capability and we need a new type of political leadership to stay the course and go the distance. This government has made it clear, lifting productivity is a top priority. Assistant Minister for Productivity Andrew Leigh has been charged with the complex task, supported by the Productivity Commission, top economic thinkers promoted into cabinet and the productivity roundtable in August. Leigh's recent speech at the Chifley Institute cited housing and infrastructure as two areas we have to get moving. He outlined some hard truths about bureaucracies, referencing "slow, fragmented and overengineered" systems that were no longer fit-for-purpose. And, along with that, he outlined the public service capability we need to lift productivity and be fit for the future. One of Leigh's solutions is to remove friction in critical processes - redesigning systems where "coordination should be the rule, not the exception". This plays out across the social services system - an interconnected web of payments, supports and programs that costs more than $200 billion each year. Services and supports are fragmented - government departments don't talk to each other, providers compete for funding, levels of government don't work together. Finding the right door to the right service at the right time is more the result of luck than a feature of design. Rigid eligibility criteria keep people out, allowing issues to worsen. Over time, shame, stress, trauma and financial hardship compound with generational impacts. This system is managed with a focus on cost savings and risk management. Complex rules ask people to navigate eligibility and lots of paperwork with penalties for stuffing it up. This is meant to ensure efficiency but, because of a lack of collaboration, effort and dollars are wasted and the opportunity to lay the foundation for future productivity - by investing in human capability - is lost. The Workforce Australia inquiry found a system overwhelmed by "red tape, compliance requirements and pointless mandatory activities". A careful management of risk underpins this madness, assuming harsh penalties keep jobseekers looking for work. But several recent studies show how the punitive nature of this approach is doing more harm than good. A 2022 Applied Economics Letters paper found that jobseekers in employment services took longer to find employment, spent less time in work and earned less per hour. The evidence is that big sticks don't help people build skills and find jobs. Disrupting compliance-heavy approaches isn't easy. In its 2024 Review of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, the Productivity Commission proposed accountability mechanisms with more "bite" and "timely and appropriate consequences for failure" as a way to make progress towards the vision. But jumping through more hoops and introducing more top-down accountability won't cut it. What's needed is a different approach - one built on partnerships grounded in trust. In The Careless State, Mark Considine concludes that top-down approaches in social services haven't worked over the past half-century, despite being given "ample opportunity". Mr Leigh's analysis is that "systems that push decisions upward, delay risk, and rely on external consultants to validate internal judgment" are too cumbersome to solve today's problems. He suggests that the course-correction for "institutional risk-aversion isn't institutional recklessness, but capability". This amounts to a $200-billion opportunity to shift the system from compliance to alliance - working with people when they need support rather than putting them at the back of the queue. A government that is serious about lifting productivity should be taking a hard look at this. MORE OPINION: The Centre for Policy Development's recent report, Embedding Progress, suggests orienting the public service around whole-of-government wellbeing goals for the nation and provides a roadmap for how to do this. To begin, we need a clear vision of what we're trying to achieve. Services should focus on helping people and communities thrive - giving children a strong start, supporting access to housing, securing fair work, and building skills over time. This would enable more people to contribute to the economy and lead better lives. We also need a well-coordinated approach to changing hearts and minds, but also new approaches to delivery. Reimagining employment support means first moving away from the assumption that everyone is trying to game the system. And then we need to give employment services workers - those on the frontline - the flexibility to help people into roles that are local and matched to their skillsets and aspirations. Imagine the difference if people felt the weight of the system was behind them instead of on top of them. And, these shifts will require a different type of leadership. We need more political leaders to take to openly encourage environments where failure isn't hidden and covered up. Instead of "fear - of failure, of blame, of reputational damage" being the driver of over-regulation, our ability to learn from failure should become the source of innovation and the foundation for future productivity. Aligned with Andrew Leigh's analysis - there are no transformed social services without a transformed public service. If productivity is the goal, we need to invest in a new type of public service capability and we need a new type of political leadership to stay the course and go the distance.
West Australian
30-05-2025
- Business
- West Australian
State Govt to undertake review of native title, cultural heritage processes in mining, exploration sector
The organisation representing mining and exploration companies is hopeful a State Government review into native title and Aboriginal cultural heritage processes will allow for the smoother progress of projects going forward. The State Government on Friday announced a 'targeted' review into native title and Aboriginal cultural heritage processes in WA's mining and exploration sector. The Government said it wanted the review to improve outcomes for both traditional owners and industry. It said the review would be conducted in partnership with the National Native Title Tribunal and identify options to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and equity of WA's native title and Aboriginal cultural heritage processes. Issues it will examine include the interaction of consultation processes under current legislation and the capacity of relevant stakeholders to participate in these processes, and how these processes deliver social, economic and community benefits and contribute to WA's commitments under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. The Government said the review would not consider any legislative amendments. The four-month review would start next month and involve a series of on-country meetings, targeted roundtables, and workshops. A final report is expected to be provided to the State Government by the end of the year. The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies on Friday welcomed the review. It said it had been strongly advocating for a review of the processes involved in protecting cultural heritage and sought assurances from Premier Roger Cook in the lead-up to the recent State election. 'We're pleased that this review process will take place, and the association and our members will work constructively with the review to try and achieve change that can benefit all parties,' chief executive Warren Pearce said. 'Our members value the protection of cultural heritage, and the rights of traditional owners. 'However, there has got to be a better way to protect cultural heritage that doesn't stall exploration and deter investment. 'The process has become extremely costly and lengthy, for the undertaking of heritage surveys and for agreement making processes.' Mr Pearce said the issue was already stopping many projects from moving forward. 'Make no mistake, this is the biggest issue facing the mineral exploration and mining sector, and unless change is made, investment in exploration and mining projects in Western Australia will stall,' he said. 'That will have real economic consequences for the State and nation, but as importantly it will deny traditional owners the opportunity to benefit from these projects, and realise a lasting legacy from the developments that take place on country. 'We need to find a better way forward, and are committed to working towards that outcome.'
