LANNA HILL: We heard the same old tunes at Jim Chalmers’ ‘Canberra Coachella’

It felt a little like a magician’s trick. With one hand, the Government points to the cost-of-living crisis — fuel, food, mortgages still hurting families — while with the other, it waves a new object of focus: productivity reform.

The Canberra economic roundtable became the perfect stage for this sleight of hand, complete with carefully managed line-ups of high-profile names and sound bites; the end product aptly being nicknamed “Canberra Coachella”.

Of course, the Productivity Commission’s warnings are nothing new. Australia’s productivity growth has been stalling since the mid-2000s, recording its weakest decade in 60 years — a slowdown now costing households up to $3600 a year in lost income, and a roundtable in Parliament House doesn’t suddenly make the problem real.

What’s different is the way the Government has tried to reframe the national conversation. Rather than being on the back foot with endless short-term relief measures, Treasurer Jim Chalmers wants to talk long-term reform. On the surface, it’s a pivot worth making. Beneath it, though, lies a more stubborn flaw in the way we design policy.

Australia has a chronic habit of inviting the same old voices to solve the same old problems. This roundtable, like many before it, leaned heavily on peak bodies, corporate giants, unions, and advocacy groups. By keeping the tent narrow, we ensure the debate feels safe — but we also ensure it misses the real drivers of change.

The outcome is predictable. We end up with generic reform packages designed for a relatively narrow slice of the economy. Big companies have the resources to engage with government processes and the clout to shape them. Unions defend their patch. Peak bodies put forward carefully negotiated consensus statements. But the everyday operators — the SMEs, the regions, the younger workers and entrepreneurs who will actually determine whether reforms succeed — are sidelined. Then, when implementation falters, we act surprised.

The roundtable is also a reminder that events can look like progress without necessarily being progress. The staging is deliberate: name badges, agendas, photo opportunities with everyone seemingly on the same page. That’s useful politically, because it creates the impression of momentum. But it’s also a kind of stagecraft that allows governments to avoid tackling the truly bruising questions.

Housing affordability, tax concessions on superannuation, or the messy mechanics of energy transition? Let alone the cultural and social drivers that sit underneath all of these economic issues — these are still waiting in the wings, yet to be dealt with.

None of this is to say productivity reform isn’t vital. It absolutely is. Without it, wages will stagnate, investment will stall, and the pressure on public services will only grow. But if we’re serious about lifting productivity, then we need to widen the circle of who’s involved in designing the fixes.

Productivity isn’t just an economic equation; it’s shaped by social and cultural choices too. Australia’s deeply ingrained work patterns, our adversarial industrial relations culture, and a national reluctance to take risks all slow the uptake of new ideas. Under-investment in skills, especially digital, leaves businesses struggling to adapt, while high childcare costs and undervaluing of care work keep workforce participation below its potential.

Our productivity problem is as much cultural as it is economic — and until policy design reflects that, roundtables will keep circling the same ground. We’re simply not going to get different results, when the same types of people are being asked to design the solution.

Lanna Hill is a strategist, speaker and founder of Leverage Media.