It's likely the reptiles thought they'd tricked the pond by introducing Dame Groan into this day's productivity jihad a tad late, long after the pond's early morning deadline.
As if reptiles, as if ... as if the pond, being exceptionally productive, couldn't arrange a late arvo addition to the productivity jihad ...
The header: Economic roundtable: A wasted day spent listening to all the usual rent seekers, Australia's economic reform roundtable has become a closed-door affair for rent seekers while common sense prevails at a rival meeting discussing the nation's investment challenges.
The caption: Treasurer Jim Chalmers at the economic reform roundtable in Canberra on Wednesday. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman
It was only a three minute read, and catnip for the cultists who worship at the feet of the Groaner.
Besides, that reference to "rent seekers" is exceptionally rich, coming from rent seekers of the first water, with much rent seeking celebrated over the years ...
The Groaner was in top form, on the outside looking in ...
I could have been faced with a diabolical choice: watch the Treasurer’s official economic reform roundtable or switch to Matt Canavan’s competing roundtable occurring in another part of Parliament House.
As it turned out, I didn’t have to make that decision because the Jimbo shindig is “in camera” – only the anointed attendees get to hear what is being discussed. Of course, bits and pieces leak out – and on the face of it, Day 2 looks like speed dating for rent seekers.
Take the plea from the superannuation funds to be let off the hook from performance testing because there are long-term and often illiquid investments in worthy things such as energy, infrastructure and affordable housing that are going begging. The fact that some – many? – of these investments may never pay off is conveniently overlooked.
If this looks a wee bit self-serving by the people who run industry super, it’s because it is blatantly so. Having spent many years getting to the point where the performances of super funds are regularly assessed by an independent agency, these grifters in the superannuation industry want to use members’ money to fund their pet projects.
But because superannuation in this country is operated through individual members’ accounts – thank goodness – there is an obvious solution to this dilemma without seeking favourable regulatory change from Jimbo.
Ask members to tick the box for green energy, infrastructure, affordable housing or any other poor-return investment option and Bob’s your uncle. Just don’t allow these funds to hide these investments in the so-called balanced option.
As it turned out, I didn’t have to make that decision because the Jimbo shindig is “in camera” – only the anointed attendees get to hear what is being discussed. Of course, bits and pieces leak out – and on the face of it, Day 2 looks like speed dating for rent seekers.
Take the plea from the superannuation funds to be let off the hook from performance testing because there are long-term and often illiquid investments in worthy things such as energy, infrastructure and affordable housing that are going begging. The fact that some – many? – of these investments may never pay off is conveniently overlooked.
If this looks a wee bit self-serving by the people who run industry super, it’s because it is blatantly so. Having spent many years getting to the point where the performances of super funds are regularly assessed by an independent agency, these grifters in the superannuation industry want to use members’ money to fund their pet projects.
But because superannuation in this country is operated through individual members’ accounts – thank goodness – there is an obvious solution to this dilemma without seeking favourable regulatory change from Jimbo.
Ask members to tick the box for green energy, infrastructure, affordable housing or any other poor-return investment option and Bob’s your uncle. Just don’t allow these funds to hide these investments in the so-called balanced option.
The reptiles interrupted with a snap of a villain designed to inspire fear and loathing, Treasurer Jim Chalmers delivers his opening address for the second day of the Economic Reform Roundtable.
Eventually Dame Groan went AI curious ...
No doubt there was a lot of backslapping about the need to reduce red tape in all its colours. Once upon a time, we had ministers for deregulation – gosh, Penny Wong even held that portfolio – but those days are in the past.
But meaningfully reducing regulatory burden is much easier said than done. It can be gamed by the bureaucrats who have a direct interest in maintaining regulations with their high compliance costs. For instance, getting rid of a third of a statute that has been obsolete for decades is a favourite tactic, particularly if there is a rule about one in, one out (or some other ratio). The fact that many regulations affecting businesses are state-based also complicates the calls for red tape to be removed. What’s a thicket of impenetrable requirements to business is risk-averse required regulation to state politicians and public servants.
Of course, speeding up approvals looks like a no-brainer from a policy point of view. But the likely outcome from these secret proceedings is that approvals for new wind and solar installations as well as transmission lines will be made more quickly – objectors can simply forget about it – but approval for a new goldmine, say, will continue to go through the current costly, labyrinthine and lengthy process.
We only need to look at the delays, including the recent ones, to confirm the extension of the Woodside gas development in North West Shelf to realise what lies in store for any project not deemed to be in the worthy basket of green energy or affordable housing.
As for AI, it’s not clear where this will lead. But Australia will be a follower, not a leader here. There is very little likelihood of any major data centres being established because they need affordable 24/7 energy, something we simply cannot offer these days.
But meaningfully reducing regulatory burden is much easier said than done. It can be gamed by the bureaucrats who have a direct interest in maintaining regulations with their high compliance costs. For instance, getting rid of a third of a statute that has been obsolete for decades is a favourite tactic, particularly if there is a rule about one in, one out (or some other ratio). The fact that many regulations affecting businesses are state-based also complicates the calls for red tape to be removed. What’s a thicket of impenetrable requirements to business is risk-averse required regulation to state politicians and public servants.
Of course, speeding up approvals looks like a no-brainer from a policy point of view. But the likely outcome from these secret proceedings is that approvals for new wind and solar installations as well as transmission lines will be made more quickly – objectors can simply forget about it – but approval for a new goldmine, say, will continue to go through the current costly, labyrinthine and lengthy process.
We only need to look at the delays, including the recent ones, to confirm the extension of the Woodside gas development in North West Shelf to realise what lies in store for any project not deemed to be in the worthy basket of green energy or affordable housing.
As for AI, it’s not clear where this will lead. But Australia will be a follower, not a leader here. There is very little likelihood of any major data centres being established because they need affordable 24/7 energy, something we simply cannot offer these days.
At this point, the pond felt the need to interrupt.
It's perfectly clear where AI will lead.
It will lead to useless, feeble parody, with the pond commissioning Chatgpt to do a parody of a Dame Groan outing ...
The Productivity Trap: Or How I Increased My Output by Never Sleeping Again
By Judith Sloan (not really)
By Judith Sloan (not really)
Let’s talk productivity. Not the quaint, old-school type where people went to work, did their jobs, then came home to enjoy a sandwich and some form of human affection. No, I mean the new kind—grindcore capitalism with a side of cold brew. The sort of productivity that has CEOs timing their bathroom breaks with AI-powered watches and interns optimizing their morning showers by shampooing while doing squats.
You see, economists like to bang on about productivity growth as if it's a holy grail. “Productivity is down!” they wail. “Australia’s GDP per hour worked has stagnated!” Cue the Reserve Bank governor nervously adjusting his tie while muttering about lagging multi-factor inputs. Meanwhile, Cheryl from accounts has been answering emails at 3am using a wrist-mounted Slack device to "stay competitive".
Productivity, in theory, means doing more with less. In practice, it means working yourself to the bone while pretending you love it. At some point, someone decided that the best way to improve national output was to outsource lunch, abolish breaks, and make 'burnout' a KPI.
I recently read a report from a consultancy firm—let’s call them Ego & Partners—that found the average worker is 17% more productive when monitored by software that pings them every time they hesitate over a spreadsheet cell. The same report recommended replacing middle management with “motivational holograms.” A bold vision. Personally, I prefer a real manager who can at least pretend to care when I cry into my fourth coffee of the day.
Of course, none of this affects the C-suite, who remain immune to the laws of time and basic biology. When questioned about his company’s 72-hour workweek policy, one tech founder responded:
"I don’t believe in hours. I believe in outcomes. My team delivers 150% every day."
Sir, respectfully, your team is dead.
It’s not that we don’t want to be productive. We do. We love graphs, metrics, dashboards. We live to be pinged. But somewhere along the way, productivity became less about “doing work well” and more about “optimizing yourself into a husk.” You're not tired, you're under-leveraging your circadian rhythms. You're not burnt out, you're in deep flow.
And let’s not forget the role of government. Every budget season they solemnly intone, “We must lift productivity to ensure long-term economic growth.” Translation: we’ve run out of ideas, so please work harder.
Look, maybe the real productivity gains aren’t in pushing humans to the brink. Maybe it's in investing in decent infrastructure, better public services, and the radical idea that people perform better when they’re not one Slack message away from a breakdown.
But what do I know? I'm just a columnist pretending not to write this during my scheduled rejuvenation nap window. According to my smartwatch, I'm now 43% behind on my sarcasm output.
You see, economists like to bang on about productivity growth as if it's a holy grail. “Productivity is down!” they wail. “Australia’s GDP per hour worked has stagnated!” Cue the Reserve Bank governor nervously adjusting his tie while muttering about lagging multi-factor inputs. Meanwhile, Cheryl from accounts has been answering emails at 3am using a wrist-mounted Slack device to "stay competitive".
Productivity, in theory, means doing more with less. In practice, it means working yourself to the bone while pretending you love it. At some point, someone decided that the best way to improve national output was to outsource lunch, abolish breaks, and make 'burnout' a KPI.
I recently read a report from a consultancy firm—let’s call them Ego & Partners—that found the average worker is 17% more productive when monitored by software that pings them every time they hesitate over a spreadsheet cell. The same report recommended replacing middle management with “motivational holograms.” A bold vision. Personally, I prefer a real manager who can at least pretend to care when I cry into my fourth coffee of the day.
Of course, none of this affects the C-suite, who remain immune to the laws of time and basic biology. When questioned about his company’s 72-hour workweek policy, one tech founder responded:
"I don’t believe in hours. I believe in outcomes. My team delivers 150% every day."
Sir, respectfully, your team is dead.
It’s not that we don’t want to be productive. We do. We love graphs, metrics, dashboards. We live to be pinged. But somewhere along the way, productivity became less about “doing work well” and more about “optimizing yourself into a husk.” You're not tired, you're under-leveraging your circadian rhythms. You're not burnt out, you're in deep flow.
And let’s not forget the role of government. Every budget season they solemnly intone, “We must lift productivity to ensure long-term economic growth.” Translation: we’ve run out of ideas, so please work harder.
Look, maybe the real productivity gains aren’t in pushing humans to the brink. Maybe it's in investing in decent infrastructure, better public services, and the radical idea that people perform better when they’re not one Slack message away from a breakdown.
But what do I know? I'm just a columnist pretending not to write this during my scheduled rejuvenation nap window. According to my smartwatch, I'm now 43% behind on my sarcasm output.
Some might be alarmed.
After all there was this howl in the wilderness by Charlie Warzel in The Atlantic (that's an archive link)...
And so on, and the pond began wondering whether it was hallucinating the entire Groaning, a delusional inability to cope with her presence ...
Over at the alternative roundtable, there was so much common sense being uttered that it felt like my birthday. We heard it is not just investment but the quality of investment that counts. Where government is directing investment dollars, the scope for misallocation is great and denies the opportunity of achieving the lowest-cost options to satisfy consumer preferences though market signals.
Alarmingly, we learnt from several business executives that Australia is becoming an increasingly unattractive destination for overseas investors, including from Japan and Korea in the energy space. The dreaded label of “sovereign risk” is being increasingly attached to our name. Several big energy-using plants are likely to close in the next few years, never to return.
In combination with rigid industrial relations laws, the scene is essentially set for low productivity growth. Pushing on with even more investment in renewable energy, which is now 100 per cent government subsidised, is essentially a highway to higher energy costs.
My advice is to forget about mottos surrounding green energy being good for households, good for the economy and good for the planet. It entails a higher cost that has damaging effects on real incomes. US manufacturers now face costs between three and four times lower than here. It’s not hard to see where the next project will be located.
So, it was another waste of a day in the cabinet room. We read the rubbish coming out of the recent PC reports, but it’s OK because the chair thinks we need a “growth mindset” – whatever that means. Red tape must be reduced because we’ve never heard that before. And there’s the unproven allure of AI as the road to higher productivity. All in day’s work, I guess.
Alarmingly, we learnt from several business executives that Australia is becoming an increasingly unattractive destination for overseas investors, including from Japan and Korea in the energy space. The dreaded label of “sovereign risk” is being increasingly attached to our name. Several big energy-using plants are likely to close in the next few years, never to return.
In combination with rigid industrial relations laws, the scene is essentially set for low productivity growth. Pushing on with even more investment in renewable energy, which is now 100 per cent government subsidised, is essentially a highway to higher energy costs.
My advice is to forget about mottos surrounding green energy being good for households, good for the economy and good for the planet. It entails a higher cost that has damaging effects on real incomes. US manufacturers now face costs between three and four times lower than here. It’s not hard to see where the next project will be located.
So, it was another waste of a day in the cabinet room. We read the rubbish coming out of the recent PC reports, but it’s OK because the chair thinks we need a “growth mindset” – whatever that means. Red tape must be reduced because we’ve never heard that before. And there’s the unproven allure of AI as the road to higher productivity. All in day’s work, I guess.
Splendid stuff, and so the pond took the liberty of asking the AI bot to conjure up Dame Groan having a groan about cardigan wearers ...
Bureaucracy as Performance Art: The Government Productivity Illusion
By Judith Sloan (if she had finally snapped and gone full satire)
By Judith Sloan (if she had finally snapped and gone full satire)
Productivity in the public sector is like Schrödinger’s cat: it exists, and it doesn’t, and if you try to observe it too closely, someone will send you a 93-page PDF titled “Productivity Framework—Phase 1 (Discussion Draft, not for circulation)”.
We’ve now entered the golden age of government productivity initiatives—also known as “doing more with less while measuring everything with metrics no one understands.” Ministers line up to solemnly announce “efficiency drives” like monks announcing a fast. Secretaries nod gravely. Everyone agrees to “streamline service delivery,” which in practice means replacing humans with online forms that crash after Question 3.
Let’s be clear: nobody enters the APS to get rich. But they do expect at least a working printer and perhaps a chair that doesn’t date from the Howard era. Unfortunately, those were cut in the last round of “digital transformation.”
The government, you see, loves to talk about productivity. They form taskforces. They hold roundtables. They commission KPMG to review the roundtables. Then they publish glossy reports with cover photos of diverse Australians pointing thoughtfully at whiteboards. Inside, the conclusions are clear:
Productivity is low. It should be higher. More working groups are needed.
To boost public sector output, departments are now adopting “agile” methods—a term borrowed from Silicon Valley, where it usually means holding 37 meetings a week while achieving nothing until someone quits. In Canberra, it means putting your policy paper in a Trello board and watching it age like a bottle of South Australian shiraz.
I once sat through a presentation titled “Driving Outcomes Through Outcome-Driven Output Drivers.” At one point, a slide read: “Our deliverable is a framework for the roadmap to deliver the framework.” I asked what that meant. The presenter blinked, adjusted their lanyard, and replied: “It’s about impact.” Fair enough.
Meanwhile, frontline staff are expected to improve their “efficiency metrics” by 12% annually, despite receiving zero funding increases, one photocopier between 46 people, and a mental health seminar that was just a YouTube video of a cat meditating.
Of course, the real masterstroke is when governments announce they’re investing in productivity. That’s the win. No need to actually do it. Just hold a press conference, mention “digital capability uplift,” and maybe pilot a chatbot that redirects queries into a black hole.
And let’s not forget the annual Public Service Commission survey—the sacred ritual in which staff rank their “engagement” on a scale from “mildly disillusioned” to “actively Googling exit strategies.” The results are published, skimmed, and immediately forgotten.
Here's the truth: government productivity isn’t measured in widgets or KPIs. It’s measured in patience. In tolerance. In the quiet heroism of a policy adviser trying to explain superannuation reform to a new minister who thinks compound interest is a media scandal.
So next time a politician says, “We’re making government more productive,” ask for specifics. If they use the phrase “low-hanging fruit,” tell them the orchard was bulldozed for a procurement portal. And if they mention “efficiency dividends,” run.
We’ve now entered the golden age of government productivity initiatives—also known as “doing more with less while measuring everything with metrics no one understands.” Ministers line up to solemnly announce “efficiency drives” like monks announcing a fast. Secretaries nod gravely. Everyone agrees to “streamline service delivery,” which in practice means replacing humans with online forms that crash after Question 3.
Let’s be clear: nobody enters the APS to get rich. But they do expect at least a working printer and perhaps a chair that doesn’t date from the Howard era. Unfortunately, those were cut in the last round of “digital transformation.”
The government, you see, loves to talk about productivity. They form taskforces. They hold roundtables. They commission KPMG to review the roundtables. Then they publish glossy reports with cover photos of diverse Australians pointing thoughtfully at whiteboards. Inside, the conclusions are clear:
Productivity is low. It should be higher. More working groups are needed.
To boost public sector output, departments are now adopting “agile” methods—a term borrowed from Silicon Valley, where it usually means holding 37 meetings a week while achieving nothing until someone quits. In Canberra, it means putting your policy paper in a Trello board and watching it age like a bottle of South Australian shiraz.
I once sat through a presentation titled “Driving Outcomes Through Outcome-Driven Output Drivers.” At one point, a slide read: “Our deliverable is a framework for the roadmap to deliver the framework.” I asked what that meant. The presenter blinked, adjusted their lanyard, and replied: “It’s about impact.” Fair enough.
Meanwhile, frontline staff are expected to improve their “efficiency metrics” by 12% annually, despite receiving zero funding increases, one photocopier between 46 people, and a mental health seminar that was just a YouTube video of a cat meditating.
Of course, the real masterstroke is when governments announce they’re investing in productivity. That’s the win. No need to actually do it. Just hold a press conference, mention “digital capability uplift,” and maybe pilot a chatbot that redirects queries into a black hole.
And let’s not forget the annual Public Service Commission survey—the sacred ritual in which staff rank their “engagement” on a scale from “mildly disillusioned” to “actively Googling exit strategies.” The results are published, skimmed, and immediately forgotten.
Here's the truth: government productivity isn’t measured in widgets or KPIs. It’s measured in patience. In tolerance. In the quiet heroism of a policy adviser trying to explain superannuation reform to a new minister who thinks compound interest is a media scandal.
So next time a politician says, “We’re making government more productive,” ask for specifics. If they use the phrase “low-hanging fruit,” tell them the orchard was bulldozed for a procurement portal. And if they mention “efficiency dividends,” run.
And if they use "rent seekers" just give them a job at News Corp ...
