Last month’s Economic Reform Roundtable shone a fresh spotlight on Australia’s productivity – or lack thereof – sparking fresh discussion and ideas on areas for reform to boost output and lift Australia’s living standards.
It’s a worthy conversation, but one it feels we’ve had before.
The impacts and challenges of lower productivity growth are well documented, and alarm bells have been sounding in the form of various reports and reviews in years gone by.
Ahead of the Roundtable, the Chair of the Productivity Commission highlighted the growth of regulation burden on productivity levels – a sentiment that has long been echoed by businesses across the country.
Yet it seems that previous industry recommendations on how to reduce this burden have either not been heeded, or the changes are happening too slowly.
If we take the supply chain for example, industry, the Productivity Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have for years made recommendations to repeal Part X of the Competition and Consumer Act, yet this still hasn’t happened.
The ACCC also provides an annual Container Stevedoring Monitoring Report, with some findings and recommendations being repeated in subsequent reports over several years.
Once again, it appears that these suggestions are either not being heeded, or implementation is too slow to have a significant impact.
It’s become increasingly clear that if we are to address slowing productivity, a new approach is needed, which includes a willingness to discuss ideas and suggestions that might seem left of field or outside ‘the way it’s always been done’.
An example of this can be found within the supply chain, where landside freight movements – getting the cargo from Port to final destination – are frequently hindered by noise restrictions in residential areas, reducing available windows for pickup and delivery.
Globalisation and improved technology mean consumers can easily place an order for goods in the middle of the night, and the instant gratification nature of the digital world means there’s an expectation of near-immediate delivery. Yet depending on the area, we are unable to move freight in some areas past 7pm.
Data sharing is another area where we have seen a significant improvement in efficiencies, but the requirement for different formats in different jurisdictions slows any productivity gains.
In both instances, no one is advocating for a free-for-all, yet it’s clear that some relatively minor, easily introduced changes would make a significant difference.
I have no doubt that other sectors have similar examples.
Inefficiencies and reduced productivity in one sector inevitably bleed into another.
The supply chain is a prime example where slowing productivity flows through to other industries, with congestion and delays for goods adding cost and blowing out timeframes for the end consumer.
I take heart that last month’s Roundtable identified key areas that appear to have broad agreement to enact change, and I would suggest that there’s no better time than now to continue to listen to the various suggestions that are put forward by industry bodies and independent reviews.
But added to this is a need for a sense of urgency in the adoption of widely accepted recommendations, rather than continuing to kick the can down the road and expecting to have the same discussion in the future.
