Richard Dowling (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Tyrrell for putting this subject on the table because productivity is at the centre of everything this government is trying to achieve in driving living standards. In the first term, it was very much a fight against inflation to protect from the cost of living. Now the focus firmly has to be on resolving that long-term productivity challenge. It's an issue I know both of us care about for our home state in Tasmania particularly. I think what's been proven with this government is we have been very open to all ideas, and certainly the ideas you put forward deserve consideration.

The focus we took with the roundtable was to bring together unions, businesses, researchers and the community sector because it is a whole-of-economy effort. Senator Tyrrell, I know you touched on unions and business, and there was some swing back and forth, but actually productivity is much more than that. There is a weird debate in Australia sometimes as though it's something the government pumps out, as though the government is there to deliver productivity. If you look at some of the recent remarks from former RBA economist Luci Ellis, she said, first of all, that these challenges are a global issue across most of the OECD, regardless of which governments have been in power, which flavour, what the power of the union movement is or what the power of the business lobby is. Secondly, she said it's a very unusual debate in Australia, where there's an obsession on the government being the determinant of productivity.

Yes, government can play a role, obviously, in setting the rules and regulations, but there is so much more across the economy that government doesn't control. When we think about the factors that drive productivity, like capital deepening, innovation, entrepreneurship and managerial capacity, a lot of that is beyond the realm of government. Do we really want government in there doing some of those things? The work force and driving managerial capacity and entrepreneurship, that's something we want to be encouraging, but we don't want to say that's government's job entirely; we actually want to have that innovation culture, that entrepreneurial culture, and encourage more of the risk-taking as well. With the workforce, driving managerial capacity and entrepreneurship are things we want to encourage, but we don't want to say that's government's job entirely; we actually want to have that innovation culture—that entrepreneurial culture—and encourage more of the risk-taking as well. Yes, government has a role, but I don't think we ever want to say productivity is the domain of government alone.

Again, thanks for raising it and putting it on the agenda. I think, as I said, higher living standards, higher wages, secure jobs and an economy that works for everyone, not just the few, is the benefit of productivity. That's why this Prime Minister has made it so that high living standards are the holy grail, and the key to that is productivity. That is the centre of our economic agenda. Without ignoring inflation—the two do go hand in hand—productivity growth underpins sustainable wage rises, cost-of-living relief and national prosperity. I don't think any government—and you could do the word count—has talked more about productivity than this one. We do have to now follow through on that.

The Treasurer has made it very clear that the work of the round table will now inform the subsequent three budgets and our long-term agenda, and I think the feedback out of those round tables was pretty positive on the whole from all sides. It wasn't business complaining or unions complaining or anyone else. Everyone's ideas were heard, and we're not in this rule-in-rule-out game that the other side has tried to engage in. If we want to get somewhere and achieve lasting results that are not particularly partisan, this silly rule-in-rule-out game is not a productive way to go about it. I won't stand here and say we should rule out your ideas, because they should be considered; let's have a look at them and do the research. That's entirely appropriate. It's not: 'What a terrible idea. Will you immediately say you won't do that?' That's not the approach we're taking.

You did highlight three critical points in your motion. That the productivity growth is at its lowest rate in 60 years is undeniable. As a result, Australians born in the 1990s are the first in living memory to risk generational improvement in income and living standards, and that's something I'm equally passionate about. I spoke a lot about it in my first speech earlier this week—making sure we renew that intergenerational handshake and that we actually do create a world where conditions are better for the next generation. On all three counts, you're right to draw attention to the challenge, and we don't shy away from it. Yes, productivity is at its lowest rate. Australians risk seeing the first generation to experience a decline in living standards if we don't act. And, yes, lifting productivity to its historic average would transform household incomes.

Where I differ is on the fact you say our response has been insufficient. The job is not over, but certainly we are doing a mountain of work. I know you highlighted things like nuance tariffs. No one measure will do everything. I know people are saying we need that huge, big-picture thing, like how Keating floated the dollar—what's the next big picture? But actually, if you study the work of the Productivity Commission, they said the key is shifting the dial across thousands of little things. It's not the one, big-picture thing; it's thousands of little things, like changing the culture within the bureaucracy, our culture towards regulatory decision-making and having that abundance agenda. Dare I mention that book again! But that book talked a lot about stopping emphasising process over outcome. That's a real cultural shift we could make instead of just asking if we have ticked all the right boxes. Are we actually getting the outcome?

It's evident that we are trying to shift that culture. We've tried to really push forward on the housing agenda. We're putting a pause on the construction code and saying, 'Let's not keep adding more and more layers,' because there's an incremental effect. Similarly, it's easy to add in new regulation and go, 'Well, that regulation won't hurt productivity,' but incrementally, across thousands of them, it has a huge impact. Too often, we don't look at that total impact of all the new regulations. That is again something that we're trying to change the culture on.

If I just think about things from the round table process—and I won't list all the thousands of things that could be done—there's further abolition of nuisance tariffs. Tick. There's red tape reduction in the National Construction Code. Tick! There's accelerated environmental consideration under the EPBC laws. Tick! There's a new regulatory reform bill in 2025, including a tell-us-once service delivery. That's a really big one, and I know we had former New South Wales minister Victor Dominello, who's the digital master in this space. What he learnt in New South Wales was that no citizen should have to give their information to a government agency more than once. They should be able to share that, with the appropriate privacy safeguards, and not have to fill out a thousand forms, giving the same information for years and years. Putting in some of those 'tell us once' reforms will have a big impact. The national AI capability plan is fundamental to embracing one of the most transformative technologies in human history, and there's the invest-to-front-door pilot to fast track transformational investment.

Beyond these immediate steps, there are very clear reform directions: establishing a single national market, simplifying trade and tariff reform, making better regulation and faster approvals in priority areas, building more homes more quickly, making AI a national priority, attracting and deploying investment capital, building a skilled adaptive workforce and a better tax system and modernising government services. So I don't think anyone could accuse this government of tinkering at the edges. This is a serious reform agenda to lift productivity, prosperity and wages. I think it's something that we should all be engaged in, and again that's why I welcome your contribution, Senator Tyrrell.

Leading up to this, I was fortunate to actually host the Tasmanian economic roundtable. We partnered with the University of Tasmania to deliver that. I think it was the first of its kind, feeding in voices from all parts of the state and all sectors of the community. We had industry, union and academia there. All the Labor members of parliament were there but not all the members of parliament. We focused on three priorities for Tasmania, which were helping productivity and dynamism without sacrificing fairness, building skills and education and recognising care as economic infrastructure—noting that we have a much higher preponderance of what are sometimes pejoratively called 'non-market sectors' but they are basically the care economy.

Sectors in the care economy are statistically lower productivity sectors. You can't deny that, because they take a lot of human effort. It's very hard to make the traditional savings you would by putting in a whole bunch of new capital equipment or modernising a factory because you can't do that necessarily in an aged-care home or a nursing facility. But we can look at ways to actually help those workers by giving them state-of-the-art technology to work with and digital assistance to take a lot of the menial tasks away from them so they can actually spend more time doing what they do best—looking after people and not filling out forms and paperwork.

I think the stakes are clear. In our home state, we're only a $40 billion economy. That's about $70,000 per person compared with $96,000 per person nationally. If we could improve productivity just in Tasmania by one per cent, that's $400,000 million annually to our economy. That's the equivalent of a whole new industry, so the stakes are huge. It's really worth investing in.

I will conclude by thanking Senator Tyrrell for raising the topic, and we will absolutely continue to engage in the topic on this side of the House. Let's not rule things in or rule things out. Let's put everything on the table and take it forward and consider the approach. Productivity is not an overnight challenge; it's decades in the making. People in 20 years, 30 years or 40 years will pay attention to the decisions we make today, and they'll either benefit or not. Thanks for raising the motion.