Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Focus on economic growth has delivered huge increases in material living standards since the postwar period. Gross domestic product, GDP, is almost universally used as the primary measure of the success of an economy. But GDP and this singular focus on economic growth has its limitations. In a world of finite resources, we're increasingly becoming aware that endless material growth is a myth. We need to work out how to keep progressing but in a way that doesn't put impossible demands on our planet. In the 1960s Robert Kennedy said, 'Our gross national product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play.'

We now have widening economic inequality, despair and loneliness, climate breakdown and political disengagement—none of which are measured by GDP. Our supports are focused on cure, not prevention. We are paying to fix what we continue to break. Our economy should be the means, not the end. COVID provided a real reminder about which parts of our economy were essential: the parts that involved providing for each other—the nurses, teachers, carers and supply-chain workers.

So how do we get the economy to serve the people, not the people to serve the economy? We need to start by rethinking the purpose of our economy. Personally, I think the purpose of our economy should be to create the opportunity to lead good lives. This requires some changes, but they don't need to be radical. There's an emerging approach to public policy globally known as the wellbeing economy. Countries like Scotland and New Zealand are already rethinking how they measure success, to put wellbeing at the centre of budget decisions. In fact, half the OECD countries have wellbeing frameworks, both developed and developing countries, with conservative and progressive leaders.

So what will it take to change our system from serving our economy to serving our people? Australia was an early leader in measuring wellbeing, but progress has stalled in the last decade. To make this happen, the government would need to lay out a roadmap for how we get to a wellbeing economy. This could include two things that the government could do in the next 12 months. Firstly, let's start a national conversation about what we actually value. What makes a good life? Different countries have developed different answers to this question. In New Zealand, the swimmability of the water is important. In my electorate, UWA has been working with Aboriginal elders to build an understanding of what people value through its Good Spirit Good Life project. That research has shown that for Aboriginal elders it's about connection with family and friends, with country, with community and culture. It's about health and happiness, respect from others and fulfilling your community role as an elder. It's also about meeting basic needs, safety, security and support, spirituality and future planning. By having conversations about what we value, we can identify the tensions and appreciate the unintended consequences and the trade-offs.

Secondly, let's work out how to measure the things we value. Other countries have started this work, with suites of measures identified in Scotland, Wales and New Zealand. No doubt these will be imperfect, but they will focus the conversation on what we should be trying to preserve and trying to change. Here in Australia, there are a number of projects working on this approach, including the Australian National Development Index and the Western Australia Development Index. This is a full-scale state version of the Australian development index, championed by Fiona Stanley in my home state of Western Australia. These provide great head starts for a national approach.

Once we know what to measure, we can start breaking down silos and focusing on outcomes rather than outputs. This would enable our Public Service to focus on prevention rather than cure. Even if it took a decade or two, this would point us in the right direction to proactively build a path to a happier, healthier, more resilient future. To rethink what we value and how we measure it will require community engagement and political courage. I urge my parliamentary colleagues to be part of this emerging conversation in their communities and in this parliament. (Time expired)