I acknowledge the Gadigal people of the Eora nation, their elders past and present and all First Nations people here today. My thanks to Ed Cavanough and the McKell Institute team for the invitation. The McKell Institute is a power player in the world of progressive ideas, and Australia is better for your contributions - incisive, practical and unafraid of a bold argument. If progressive policy ideas were a competitive sport, McKell would already have a Brownlow - and perhaps a tribunal hearing or 2.
Introduction
In 1930, just as the global economy was plunging into depression, John Maynard Keynes published a remarkably upbeat essay: Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren (Keynes 1930). The aim, he said, was to 'disembarrass myself of short views' - to look beyond the Depression and imagine what life might be like a century hence.
Keynes and his wife Lydia Lopokova never had children, but I'm in the generation that would have been his great‑grandchildren. Which means I'm also part of the generation he was writing about - the ones who, by 2030, would inherit a world shaped by rising productivity and the promise of abundance.
Keynes made 2 bold predictions.
First, he forecast that the standard of life in 'progressive countries' would rise 4 to 8-fold. In Australia, that prediction has come true. Real GDP per capita is now more than 5 times higher than it was in 1930 (Hutchinson et al 2025). Our homes are warmer, our diets richer, our healthcare and education vastly more advanced. In almost every material sense, we now live in the world he foresaw.
His second prediction was that people would work no more than 15 hours a week. Freed from the struggle for subsistence, Keynes believed, we could turn our attention to 'the art of life itself' - to leisure, to creativity, to community.
That future hasn't arrived. But the reason isn't that productivity failed to grow. It's that we made a different choice.
Last week, the Productivity Commission reminded us of this (Productivity Commission 2025c). Since 1980, Australians have enjoyed enough productivity growth that average weekly hours could have fallen by 15 - without lowering our standard of living. Instead, we used about a quarter of the productivity dividend to work less and the rest to enjoy higher incomes and better living conditions.
In that sense, Keynes was not wrong - he was prescient. We did generate the gains he imagined. We just spent them differently.
And that choice matters. Because productivity isn't about pushing people to work harder. It's about creating options. The freedom to choose more income, more time or a better mix of both. The ability to shape not just how much we work, but how we live.
That's why productivity matters. It is the engine of living standards. In the long run, it is the most important driver of national prosperity - accounting for 70 per cent of Australia's growth in real national income over the past 3 decades (Treasury 2023b).
It's what pays for aged care and renewables, for better schools and bigger ideas. It's what makes room - fiscal and social - to build a more generous, more imaginative society.
But productivity doesn't rise by accident. And it doesn't rise through mindless cutting. It rises when we invest - in people, in systems and in the institutions that turn ambition into action.
That's the vision behind the progressive productivity agenda. An agenda that recognises we need productivity to fund our ambitions - and progressive choices to sustain productivity. That fairness and dynamism go hand in hand. And that the best kind of growth is the kind that expands what Australians can do with their lives.
In this speech, I'll outline how our government is pursuing that agenda through the 3 I's: Investing in Individuals, Investing in Infrastructure, and Investing in Institutions. These are the levers of long‑term growth - and the foundations of a more confident, more capable, more compassionate Australia. To understand why this agenda matters so much, we need to begin with the problem it seeks to address: the slowdown in productivity growth.
The productivity slowdown
The case for lifting productivity isn't hypothetical. It's urgent.
In the decades following World War II, advanced economies enjoyed sustained productivity growth. This was driven by capital deepening, technological diffusion, globalisation and institutional reform. The gains were broad‑based and long‑lasting. But since the early 2000s, that momentum has slowed.
Last year, 4 researchers from Oxford University reviewed this shift. They examined productivity trends across France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States between 2005 and 2017 - and found declines of between 0.8 and 1.8 percentage points (Goldin et al. 2024). The causes were many: weaker investment, slower growth in total factor productivity, diminished allocative efficiency and challenges in measuring productivity in modern economies. Apparently, the one thing we've all become more productive at is writing reports about why productivity is slowing down.
The effects, however, are starkly visible. When productivity growth slows, living standards rise more slowly. And that, in turn, reduces one of the most powerful engines of aspiration: the belief that children will enjoy a better life than their parents.
A study by Yonatan Berman across 10 advanced economies found that this measure of absolute mobility - whether each generation earns more than the last - has been in decline for decades (Berman 2022, see also Kennedy and Siminski 2022). Inequality played a role. But the dominant cause, Berman concluded, was slowing economic growth.
Australia has not escaped these trends. In the 5 years leading up to the pandemic, Australia's productivity growth was effectively flat - making the 2010s our weakest decade in 60 years. During the lockdowns, productivity appeared to spike, largely due to compositional effects: low‑productivity sectors shut down while higher‑productivity sectors kept operating. But as those sectors reopened, the gains unwound (Productivity Commission 2025b).
The underlying trajectory has not improved.
This is not simply a short‑term wobble. It reflects deeper structural and cyclical forces. In the years since the pandemic, Australia has seen record labour market participation and historically low unemployment. That is good news for individuals, families and the broader economy. But with hours worked rising faster than capital investment, the amount of capital per worker has slowed - or in some cases, gone backwards. That's known as capital shallowing and it holds back growth (Productivity Commission 2023).
There are sectoral shifts too. The mining sector, once the largest contributor to productivity growth, has recently become a net drag (ABS 2024). And an increasing share of Australia's economy now lies in areas where productivity is harder to measure and more difficult to improve - such as education, health and the care economy.
Together, these shifts help explain why Australia's output per hour worked has stagnated. But they also underscore the stakes.
As our population ages, we cannot count on workforce growth to drive GDP. Australians will need to rely more on productivity growth to deliver higher living standards. At the same time, governments face rising fiscal pressures - from health and aged care to defence and debt servicing (Treasury 2023a). Globally, geopolitical fragmentation, climate change and rapid technological disruption are reshaping the economic landscape.
We cannot assume that growth will be carried by rising populations, booming exports or benign global conditions (Kennedy 2025). In the decade ahead, much more of our economic progress will need to come from doing things better - not just doing more.
That is why productivity is at the centre of the government's economic strategy (Treasury 2023b). Not as a slogan, but as a serious, sustained agenda. One that recognises where Australia's challenges lie - and targets investment, reform and institutional effort to where it can make the greatest difference.
It's to that agenda - the progressive productivity agenda - that we now turn. That agenda advances through 3 avenues: investing in individuals, in infrastructure and in the institutions that turn ambition into action.
Investing in individuals
A more productive Australia begins with its people.
Productivity is not an abstraction - it's the sum of what individuals can contribute, adapt to, and create. That's why investing in people is at the heart of this government's economic strategy: investing in their skills, their health and their opportunities. These are not trade‑offs. They are long‑term investments in economic growth.
Consider the labour market. Since the pandemic, Australia has recorded one of its strongest labour performances in history. Unemployment is low. Participation is at record highs. More people - including those long excluded - are finding work. That's a national success. But it also reveals a nuance in how we interpret productivity statistics.
When large numbers of people move from unemployment or inactivity into jobs - especially those with less recent experience or lower formal qualifications - measured productivity can fall in the short term. These workers may initially earn less, require more training and take time to reach their full potential. From a narrow statistical perspective, it looks like a step backward. But from a broader economic and human perspective, it's a step forward.
Treasury analysis using HILDA data shows that workers re‑entering the labour market after a period of detachment earn about 16 per cent less per hour than their peers - and take around 5 years for their wages to recover (Treasury 2025). That reflects the cost of skills atrophy. But it also reinforces the long‑term value of inclusion.
Inclusion isn't only about fairness - it's about better economic performance. When more people are enabled to reach their potential, the economy uses its talent more efficiently. In Australia, we've seen steady gains in female workforce participation and a narrowing gender pay gap. In 1966, just 12 per cent of Australian doctors were women (Treasury 2025). As of 2021, it was 46 per cent - which seems only fair, given that women make up half of the brains and most of the patients.
This broader inclusion improves allocative efficiency: the ability of the economy to put the right people in the right roles. It's a reminder that a just labour market is also a more productive one.
But the challenge goes beyond who participates - it's also about how workplaces are run. While Australia has a talented workforce, too few firms adopt high‑performance management practices. Good ideas from employees often go unrecognised. Poor communication within organisations and underinvestment in innovation can hold back productivity. Supporting firms to lift management quality - and create more empowering workplaces - can help unlock potential that already exists on the shop floor.
That starts with skills. There have been over 500,000 enrolments in free TAFE and VET programs. Reforms from the Universities Accord are expanding access to higher education, especially for students from underrepresented backgrounds. These policies are not just about equity - they're about capability. They help grow the pool of skilled workers, accelerate technology adoption and build resilience in a changing economy
Health matters too. A modern, efficient healthcare system is not just good social policy - it's economic infrastructure. New urgent care clinics have already eased pressure on emergency departments, with over 1.5 million visits since being established. Investments into Medicare will expand bulk‑billing - improving wellbeing and reducing out‑of‑pocket costs.
And mobility plays a part. When people can move easily between jobs, sectors and regions, the economy becomes more dynamic. Our government is banning non‑compete clauses for low‑ and middle‑income workers and reforming occupational licensing to increase mobility. These reforms make the labour market more fluid, improve job matching and help employers find the skills they need.
Inclusion, too, must extend beyond participation to opportunity. A dynamic economy encourages entrepreneurship from all quarters - not just from those with access to capital or networks. When people from disadvantaged backgrounds can start businesses and pursue ideas, the economy grows more innovative and representative (Bell et al. 2019).
Taken together, these investments reinforce a central truth: people are not just inputs in an economic model. They are sources of innovation, adaptability and resilience. The progressive productivity agenda sees individuals not as costs to be minimised, but as capabilities to be developed.
When we invest in people, we invest in productivity. And when we invest in productivity, we create the conditions for Australians to thrive.
Now, let's turn to the systems that support people - the infrastructure that connects them to opportunity, underpins growth, and shapes the physical and digital foundations of a stronger economy.
Investing in infrastructure
Infrastructure is often thought of in physical terms - roads, rail, wires, pipes. But at its core, infrastructure is about capability. It's what allows people to connect to opportunity, firms to operate efficiently and systems to scale. The progressive productivity agenda doesn't just ask what we build - it asks how well we build, how quickly we deliver and whether the systems we rely on are fit for purpose.
Housing
Few areas illustrate this more clearly than housing. Australia's housing system is under pressure. Rents have risen, home ownership has fallen and too many people are being priced out of the communities they grew up in.
The consequences are not abstract. Housing scarcity limits mobility, deepens wealth inequality and undermines social cohesion. It affects where people can live, what jobs they can take and how much they can save. It shapes decisions about education, employment and care. And it is increasingly a source of anxiety for younger Australians, who see the promise of secure housing slipping further out of reach.
This is a progressive problem. But it is also a productivity problem - and the 2 are deeply linked.
Over the past 3 decades, productivity in the housing construction sector has gone backwards. According to the Productivity Commission, the number of dwellings constructed per hour worked has declined by between 12 per cent since the mid‑1990s, adjusted for housing size and quality (Productivity Commission 2025a). That's not just stagnation: it's the productivity equivalent of forgetting where you parked the ute. Over the same period, output per hour worked in the broader economy rose nearly 50 per cent.
This decline isn't due to lack of investment. The construction sector has added over 700,000 jobs in the past 3 decades (Treasury 2025). Capital investment has broadly kept pace. But the systems that govern how housing is planned, approved and delivered - not the labour or capital - are the real bottleneck (Leigh 2025). Complex and inconsistent regulation. Slow approvals. Fragmented responsibilities. A lack of coordination across jurisdictions. On its worst days, it's the sort of system that would struggle to build a sandcastle, let alone an apartment block.
Governments across Australia are making significant efforts to improve housing. Including through the National Planning Reform Blueprint agreed by National Cabinet in 2023, which focuses on planning, zoning, and land release to boost supply and affordability. While most states and territories are working hard to speed up delivery - and we have a national target of 1.2 million new homes over 5 years - more must be done to build homes faster. For the first time in a long while, the Commonwealth is leading on housing policy. The previous Commonwealth government walked away from this responsibility, treating housing as someone else's problem. We're back at the centre of driving reform, because that's where we need to be.
When infrastructure productivity fails, progressive goals become harder to achieve. But when we improve how we build - when we reduce friction, streamline approvals and coordinate delivery - we don't just get more homes. We get more affordable homes, in better locations, delivered faster and more reliably. We get a housing system that supports mobility, equity and opportunity. A system that works - not just for the economy, but for the society it serves.
Digital infrastructure
Productivity also depends on less visible forms of infrastructure - including broadband networks and data systems. These digital foundations are essential for adopting general‑purpose technologies like artificial intelligence.
AI has the potential to reshape how we work, deliver services and innovate. While its long‑term impact is uncertain, early evidence suggests significant benefits. Task‑based studies show AI improves performance in areas such as coding, writing, customer service and consulting (OECD 2024). Some studies report productivity gains of up to 40 per cent - and interestingly, the biggest benefits often accrue to less experienced workers, helping to narrow skill gaps (Dell'Acqua et al. 2023; Brynjolfsson, Li and Raymond 2025).
Recent firm‑level data from France suggests a further twist: companies adopting AI are not shedding workers - they're hiring more (Aghion et al. 2025). AI adoption was associated with increased employment and sales, including in roles previously thought vulnerable to automation. In fact, the biggest employment risk from AI may not be job displacement - it may be working for a business that doesn't adopt it and falls behind or fails entirely. Think of it as the equivalent of working for a boss who insists that the fax machine will make a comeback.
Yet adoption has been uneven. Larger firms are more likely to integrate AI, which risks widening existing divides (Aghion et al 2025). That's why infrastructure matters. Our continued expansion of the NBN is helping ensure that access to AI‑enabling technology isn't confined to the lucky few. New Treasury analysis using linked employer-employee data shows that firms hiring tech workers lift wages not just for those workers, but for others too - a diffusion effect that spreads benefits more broadly (Treasury 2025).
Government has a role in managing the risks AI presents - from privacy and bias to misinformation and discrimination. But regulation should follow a principles‑based approach. Start by applying existing laws. Where those fall short, make technologically neutral amendments. Only if these approaches are insufficient should AI‑specific rules be considered. The goal is to protect the public while allowing productivity‑enhancing innovation to flourish.
Because infrastructure - whether concrete or code - is more than a backdrop. It is an enabler. When it functions well, it reduces the cost of distance, improves the flow of information and increases the efficiency of markets. It is, in the most literal sense, what connects people to opportunity. Yet infrastructure is only as effective as the institutions that shape it - and too often, that's where the real bottlenecks lie.
Investing in institutions
Institutions are not abstract. They are the systems that determine whether policy gets delivered - whether ambition becomes action. In the previous section, we saw how infrastructure failures often stem not from a lack of money or motivation, but from institutional friction: fragmented responsibilities, slow approvals and unclear accountability. This section continues that logic - from the physical systems we build to the institutional systems that govern how we build, regulate and adapt.
One of the clearest institutional levers for lifting productivity is competition policy. Competitive markets are more dynamic, more innovative and more efficient. They allocate resources more effectively, reward effort and ideas, and put pressure on firms to improve. But competition doesn't arise by accident - it depends on institutions that are capable of protecting and promoting it.
That's why the government has made competition reform central to its productivity agenda. We've strengthened the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and modernised merger laws for the first time in half a century. We've also committed to a new National Competition Policy - working with states and territories to remove unnecessary barriers to entry, harmonise regulation and support best‑practice reform. Getting 9 governments to align on National Competition Policy isn't simple; but if Australia can agree on a national curriculum and standardise rail gauges, there's hope for reform yet.
Some of these competition‑boosting changes apply to product markets. Others - such as the banning of non‑compete clauses for low‑ and middle‑income workers, and the streamlining of occupational licensing - apply to labour markets. These reforms support mobility and fairness, as discussed earlier. But they also serve an institutional purpose: making labour markets more contestable, more flexible and more productive.
From competition, the logic flows naturally to regulation. Here too, the government's approach is different. We are not pursuing deregulation for its own sake. Instead, we are focused on reducing the cumulative burden of regulation - the slow accretion of rules, forms and compliance layers that over time can stifle innovation and delay delivery. The progressive productivity agenda isn't about cutting protections. It's about making sure regulation is proportionate, purposeful and outcomes‑focused.
Take the 'single front door' for major investors - a streamlined way for businesses to deal with the Commonwealth, cutting duplication and friction. On paper, it's a minor administrative change. In practice, it signals a shift in mindset: that government should enable, not just oversee.
This principle - delivery over delay - is central to the abundance agenda. Across housing, energy and infrastructure, the issue is not simply what gets funded. It's what gets done. Too often, the systems we rely on are built for review, not results. Designed for scrutiny, not speed. The outcome is drift: good projects that gather dust; bold ideas that falter on the launchpad. In some cases, systems are built to avoid mistakes rather than achieve outcomes. They're not broken - they're just stuck in a very long meeting.
The abundance agenda argues for a different approach. It calls for governments to focus on throughput - how fast, how affordably and how reliably projects move from concept to completion. It calls for better sequencing - aligning planning with delivery, consultation with construction, ambition with execution. It calls for removing friction from high‑value chokepoints - in development approvals, grid connections and procurement pipelines. And it calls for institutions that are confident not because they're above scrutiny, but because they are equipped to act.
This is not about cutting corners. It is about building capability. Ambition without execution breeds cynicism. Vision without delivery erodes trust.
And that same logic applies to government itself. Just as we want firms to be more productive, we want public institutions to be more productive too. That means investing in their ability not just to write policy, but to implement it, evaluate it and improve it over time.
The Australian Centre for Evaluation is a key part of that vision. The Australian Centre for Evaluation is designed to help departments embed evaluation at the outset - collecting data, testing assumptions and guiding decisions with evidence. The goal is not to second‑guess every program. It's to build a culture of continuous learning. A system where we do more of what works and less of what doesn't.
The medical analogy is apt. Evidence‑based medicine has transformed healthcare by rigorously testing treatments and scaling up what saves lives. Policy, like medicine, works best when it's evidence‑based - although our evaluation programs involve fewer stethoscopes and latex gloves. In the public sector, evidence‑based policy delivers better outcomes at lower cost. This isn't austerity. It's capability. We don't need to evaluate everything. Just the programs where we'd prefer results over vibes.
Beyond evaluation, our government is modernising economic institutions to ensure they are fit for the future. The Reserve Bank of Australia has undergone its most significant reform in a generation, with changes to governance, transparency and decision‑making. The Productivity Commission is being refreshed to remain relevant and responsive to the challenges ahead. For the first time, Treasury, the Reserve Bank and the Productivity Commission are headed by women - befitting a modern, forward‑looking nation.
Taken together, these reforms - to competition, regulation, evaluation and institutional renewal - reflect a shift in how we think about productivity. It is not just about inputs and outputs. It is about systems. And systems are shaped by institutions.
The progressive productivity agenda invests in institutions because they are the infrastructure of delivery. They are what turn policy into outcomes - and what ensure those outcomes are efficient, fair and lasting. Institutions are where productivity and progressivism meet - not just in theory, but in practice.
Conclusion
We began with Keynes - writing in 1930, amid economic despair, yet choosing to look a hundred years ahead. He imagined a future in which there will be 'ever larger… groups of people from whom problems of economic necessity have been practically removed'. A future where humanity, having solved its economic problem, might return to 'the art of life.' A world in which people could live 'wisely and agreeably and well.' His vision was not just of abundance, but of a civilisation freed from anxiety and toil.
Australians have come far toward that vision. Since Keynes wrote, our living standards have multiplied. Our homes are larger, our health is better, our children are better educated. But in many ways, we've used the fruits of productivity not to work less, but to consume more. The economic problem has not vanished - it has changed form. And for some Australians, the future still feels precarious rather than plentiful.
That's why productivity matters. It is not just a number - it is the means by which we expand the realm of possibility. It is how we grow wages, reduce pressure and create space in our lives for what Aristotle called 'the good life' - for leisure, curiosity, companionship and care.
The progressive productivity agenda reflects this ambition. It places people at the centre - investing in their health, skills and potential. It connects them through infrastructure - homes, broadband, energy systems and AI capability. And it empowers them through institutions - competitive markets, smarter regulation, strong public service delivery and evidence‑based policy.
The 5 ongoing Productivity Commission inquiries provide a roadmap:
- Creating a more dynamic and resilient economy
- Building a skilled and adaptable workforce
- Harnessing data and digital technology
- Delivering quality care more efficiently
- Investing in cheaper, cleaner energy and the net‑zero transition.
Each reflects a belief that productivity should serve people, not the other way around. They seek not only to raise output, but to improve the rhythm and texture of daily life.
That work will continue in August, when the Treasurer hosts a Reform Roundtable in the Cabinet Room at Parliament House. From 19 to 21 August, leaders from across business, unions, civil society and academia will help sharpen our national reform agenda. Three days in the Cabinet Room - or as policy wonks call it, Christmas come early.
Proposals at the Reform Roundtable will be judged against 3 clear tests:
- Do they serve the national interest, not sectional interests?
- Are they budget‑neutral or better, with trade‑offs clearly considered?
- Are they specific and practical, not abstract or aspirational alone?
These are not easy standards - but they reflect the seriousness of our ambition. Productivity reform is about expanding what's possible - for households, for communities, for future generations. We are inviting all Australians to share their views: making submissions through the Treasury website.
We don't yet have all the answers. But the Australian Government is building on the reforms of our last term, engaging with experts and stakeholders and welcoming everyone into the national productivity conversation. We are aligning our institutions, our values and our evidence to prepare for what Keynes hoped would be a time when we could 'pluck the hour and the day virtuously and well'. That vision still stirs. And with the right reforms, it remains within reach.
As Treasurer Chalmers has said, reform must be 'progressive and patriotic, practical and pragmatic' (Chalmers 2025). This is that moment. Let's lift productivity, broaden opportunity, and shape a future where Australians don't just earn more - but live more.
Note: My thanks to the sharp minds at the Australian Treasury who helped shape these remarks.
References
Aghion P, Bunel S, Jaravel X, Mikaelsen T, Roulet A and Søgaard J (2025) 'How different uses of AI shape labour demand: evidence from France', AEA Papers and Proceedings, 115:62-67.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2024. Estimates of Industry Multifactor Productivity, 2023-24 financial year. Canberra: ABS.
Bell AM, Chetty R, Jaravel X, Petkova N and Van Reenen J (2019) 'Who becomes an inventor in America? The importance of exposure to innovation', Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(2):647-713.
Berman Y (2022) 'The long‑run evolution of absolute intergenerational mobility', American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 14(3):61-83.
Brynjolfsson E, Li D and Raymond L (2025) 'Generative AI at work', Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(2): 889-942.
Chalmers J (18 June 2025) Address to the National Press Club, Canberra.
Dell'Acqua F, McFowland III E, Mollick E, Lifshitz‑Assaf H, Kellogg KC, Rajendran S, Krayer L, Candelon F and Lakhani KR (2023) Navigating the jagged technological frontier: Field experimental evidence of the effects of AI on knowledge worker productivity and quality. HBS Working Paper 24‑013.
Goldin I, Koutroumpis P, Lafond, F and Winkler J (2024) 'Why is productivity slowing down?', Journal of Economic Literature, 62(1): 196-268.
Hutchinson D, Ploeckl F, Hogewood B and Williamson S (2025) What was the Australian GDP or CPI then? MeasuringWorth, accessed 21 June 2025.
Kennedy S (15 May 2025) Economic Policy Amid Global Uncertainty. Address to the Australian Business Economists.
Kennedy T and Siminski P (2022) 'Are we richer than our parents were? Absolute income mobility in Australia', Economic Record, 98(320):22-41.
Keynes JM (1930) Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren. In: Essays in Persuasion. London: Macmillan.
Leigh A (3 June 2025) The Abundance Agenda for Australia, Address to the Chifley Research Centre, Melbourne.
Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development (OECD; 2024) The impact of Artificial Intelligence on productivity, distribution and growth. OECD Economics Working Paper No. X. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Productivity Commission (2023) PC Productivity Insights: Quarterly Bulletin, December 2023. Canberra: Productivity Commission.
Productivity Commission (2025a) Housing construction productivity: Can we fix it? Research Paper. Canberra: Productivity Commission.
Productivity Commission (2025b) Productivity Before and After COVID‑19. Research Paper. Canberra: Productivity Commission
Productivity Commission (2025c) Quarterly Productivity Bulletin - June 2025: PC Productivity Insights. Canberra: Productivity Commission.
Treasury (2023a) Intergenerational Report 2023. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Treasury (2023b) Working Future. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Treasury (2025) Internal research on productivity and labour markets (unpublished).
