Yes, another useless 'summit' lying to themselves and about themselves. Why would they do anything about productivity, when they have replaced it with with mass immigration and increasing taxation on people and organisations who are not going to invest in this benighted country while Net Zero, expensive energy, red and green rape prevail.

Everything comes back to trans hate for you rwnjs doesnt it.
Hate is all you lot ever have. No wonder no one votes for you.

mikk,
you'd better take a good look at yourself & analyse your mentality, you're so way off track !
What you call hate is in actual fact caring about others who don't deserve having the likes of you to put up with.

Only comment I would add, is that Danielle Wood and her Un-Productivity Commission are mere puppets of Jim Chalmers Treasury. It is the Treasury which has gone completely woke (yes, that is the correct word) with these nonsensical upside-down ideas about productivity.

In Jim Chalmers' ivory tower, "productivity" derives from resource giveaways, open borders, the net zero fallacy, "export" education, the care economy and gender equity, and high levels of real-estate speculation. Nobody, but nobody, is copying our South Seas model, it's ruinous.

This "mikk" character is so confused and full of hate himself that he has ignored the actual subject, productivity or the lack thereof as the party that Australia voted for holds another of their useless talkfests, while making growth in Australia impossible, thanks to their own interference and red tape - not to mention their hideously expense electricity.

This article makes some valid points, but includes a technical misunderstanding. Productivity is usually measured as the volume, not the value, of output per unit of input. The most commonly used measures of labour productivity in Australia are real GDP per hour worked (labour productivity) and real Gross Value Added per hour worked in the market sector (market sector labour productivity). So increasing the price of widgets faster than the cost of inputs would have no effect on productivity, assuming it takes the same number of hours to produce the same number of widgets. To extend the analogy, the ABS doesn’t count widgets, but it divides the value of widgets produced by the price of widgets to calculate the “real” level of widget production. It then divides this by hours worked (not labour costs) to calculate the level of labour productivity in widget making.

Interesting, too, to look at the Productivity Commission’s report on early childhood education and care. Its terms of reference required the PC to investigate effects on “economic growth, including through enabling workforce participation, particularly for women, and contributing to productivity”. Though the report finds, unsurprisingly, that higher childcare subsidies would increase women’s labour force participation, it does not specifically say whether they will increase the size of the economy (increased labour force participation by itself would raise output, but raising the taxes to pay for child care subsidies has the opposite effect), still less that they will boost productivity. It says “productivity impacts of increased labour force participation will depend on the specific skills and jobs of those people who start work or increase their working hours.” Jim Chalmers may think that increasing labour force participation is the same thing as boosting productivity, but the PC knows better, though it is perhaps nowadays less brave than it once was in explicitly calling out politicians’ dumb arguments. Instead, it appears to have quietly avoiding addressing its terms of reference.

http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/childhood/report