Andrew Leigh

Using Data to Improve Productivity

The Hon Andrew Leigh MP 
Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury 

Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia Policy Roundtable on ‘Unlocking Value: Better Use of Integrated Government Data for Evidence-Based Policy’

Online Address

WEDNESDAY, 30 JULY 2025

I acknowledge the Ngunnawal people, the traditional owners of the lands we are meeting on today.

Apologies in advance that parliament is sitting today. I’m afraid that parliamentary pairs are as scarce as a dataset with no missing values and perfect documentation.

And yes, it’s ironic that we are discussing how to connect datasets across governments when I cannot even pop down the hill to connect physically.

My thanks to Philip Clarke and the Academy of Social Sciences for organising this roundtable, and to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and David Gruen for their leadership in integrated government data. I’m sure this roundtable will help by bringing together researchers and policymakers to accelerate our ability to share and use data responsibly.

ABS Integrated Data Assets – BLADE and PLIDA

Let’s start with the heavyweights. As you probably just heard from Dr Gruen, the Australian Bureau of Statistics hosts two of the country’s largest integrated data assets: the Business Longitudinal Analysis Data Environment (BLADE) and the Person‑Level Integrated Data Asset (PLIDA).

BLADE combines around 29 datasets - including surveys of business characteristics, business income and tax records, trade and intellectual property data, insolvency information and employment conditions - and spans the period from 2001 to the present.

PLIDA integrates about 30 datasets from 2006 onwards, linking Census data to tax returns, social security payments, migration records and information on health, education and disability.

Both assets are longitudinal and expand as new datasets are added for emerging policy questions. By providing a single source of de‑identified unit‑record data on businesses and people, these assets enable analysts to study how firms perform over time and how individuals’ characteristics, service use and outcomes interrelate (Gruen 2024).

Now, let’s me turn to discuss how integrated data is boosting productivity, drawing on examples from the federal government, state government and private sector.

The Hon Andrew Leigh MP 
Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury 

Fair Governance in Fast Times

AUSTRALIAN CHARITIES AND NOT-FOR-PROFITS COMMISSION GOVERNING FOR GOOD FORUM 2025

ONLINE ADDRESS

WEDNESDAY, 30 JULY 2025

I acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of Country across the many lands from which this forum is being recorded and attended. I pay my respects to their Elders past and present, and extend that respect to all First Nations people joining us today.

It’s a pleasure to join you virtually for this important gathering. I’m grateful to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission for convening the Governing for Good Forum, and to everyone here – charity leaders, board members, advisers, regulators, and advocates – for the work you do to ensure our not-for-profit sector remains strong, trusted, and future-ready. I also want to acknowledge the leadership of the ACNC: Commissioner Sue Woodward AM and her assistant commissioners, Natasha Sekulic and Cate Bennett. Supporting them is the Advisory Board, chaired by Sarah Davies AM with Sara Harrup as Deputy Chair. The Board also includes General Members Myles McGregor‑Lowndes OAM, Ian Hamm, Anna Bacik, David Crosbie, Rosa Loria, Nick Maisey, and ex officio members from the states and territories. With this depth of expertise, the ACNC is exceptionally well placed to guide Australia’s charity sector through these complex times.

In a country where one in ten workers is employed in a charity, and millions volunteer, the governance of not-for-profits is not a side conversation. It’s a national concern. Governance is what connects trust to impact. It’s how the sector earns its legitimacy, defends its independence, and drives change.

This forum comes at a critical moment – not just for charities, but for the nation. Australia is in a period of social and economic transformation. From artificial intelligence to fiscal constraint, from shifting demographics to climate shocks, the operating environment is changing fast. The pressures are real, but so too is the opportunity to shape a more inclusive, resilient and connected economy.

Charities will feel these changes. But they will also help lead the response.

That’s why this forum matters. It brings together the people who govern our sector with those who regulate and support it. And it does so with a shared purpose: to ensure that governance is not just about avoiding failure, but enabling success.

Working in the charity sector means you need to be fluent in acronyms, fundraising platforms, and the mystical art of writing a mission statement that fits on a mug.

Wombot and the Frontline of Innovation

At the Infoxchange Technology for Social Justice Conference earlier this year, one of the most talked-about presentations came from Wombat Housing. They had a problem familiar to many community organisations: after-hours demand, stretched resources, and an urgent need to make support more accessible.

Their solution? A conversational AI tool called WomBot. Designed with care and purpose, WomBot now handles thousands of after-hours queries, directing clients to appropriate services and freeing up frontline workers to focus on complex needs. Eighty-four percent of users prefer starting with it. That’s not just clever tech. That’s governance and innovation working hand in hand.

The lesson? Good governance doesn’t resist innovation. It channels it. It ensures that new tools serve the mission, not the other way around. And it does so in a way that builds, rather than erodes, public trust.

What the ACNC Stands For

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission is grounded in three statutory objects: to enhance public trust and confidence in the sector, to reduce red tape, and to support a robust, vibrant, and innovative sector.

That middle goal – reducing red tape – matters. The best governance systems are those that enable, not entangle. But today I want to focus more on the first and third goals: trust and innovation. Because in times of change, those two must work in concert.

When communities are dealing with economic strain, when information ecosystems are polarised, and when technological change is accelerating, trust doesn’t maintain itself. It must be earned and re-earned. Governance is how we do that.

And innovation? That’s how we stay relevant. But only if we embed it in clear purpose, strong oversight, and a willingness to learn.

That’s why the work of the ACNC, and forums like this one, are so essential. They help build clarity around what good governance looks like in the real world – not in abstract models, but in the messy, mission-driven, under-resourced world that many of you operate in every day.

They also create space for something too often overlooked: peer learning. From boardrooms in Broome to budget meetings in Bairnsdale, Australia’s 60,000 charities are wrestling with similar issues. This forum helps turn those experiences into collective insight.

The Hon Andrew Leigh MP 
Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury 

Government as a Learning Machine: Using Randomised Trials to Improve Productivity

AFR GOVERNMENT SERVICES SUMMIT

CANBERRA

TUESDAY, 29 JULY 2025

I acknowledge the Ngunnawal people, the traditional owners of the lands we are meeting on today. In so doing, I recognise that the issues we are discussing today have special resonance for First Nations communities. Governments that continually learn and improve will make faster progress at Closing the Gap.

A Learning Machine, Not a Guessing Game

When a German bakery chain wanted to improve sales, it didn’t bring in consultants or introduce a sweeping new business model. Instead, it tried something much simpler: it ran a randomised trial (Friebel et al., 2017).

Some of its 193 stores were offered a modest group bonus for staff. Others weren’t. After a few months, the results were in. The bonus group had increased sales by 3 per cent. For every dollar spent on bonuses, the company gained $3.80 in revenue and $2.10 in operational profit. Encouraged by these findings, the company rolled the program out more broadly. Profit margins rose by more than 60 per cent, which might be the best thing to come out of a bakery since pretzels.

It’s a reminder that in both business and policy, good ideas are important – but better still is knowing whether they work. And that’s what randomised trials offer: the ability to learn what works, what doesn’t, and where public resources will do the most good.

We’ve seen this thinking increasingly embraced in government, too. Across Australia’s public service, we’re embedding a culture of testing and learning – through small-scale trials, behavioural insights, and rigorous evaluation. From tax compliance nudges to SMS reminders that improve service delivery, we’re building an evidence base for better decisions.

Because being willing to learn isn’t a sign of weakness; it’s a sign of seriousness.

Almost a century ago, the philosopher John Dewey wrote that ‘a problem well put is half-solved’. Randomised trials help us frame problems clearly. They allow us to compare options fairly. And they help ensure that taxpayer dollars are used not just efficiently, but wisely.

In a world of tight budgets and rising expectations, that kind of disciplined curiosity matters more than ever. As a government, our job isn’t just to deliver services – it’s to keep making them better. And that begins with learning.

Over the next few minutes, I want to share how randomised trials are helping us do exactly that – from small changes that improve service delivery, to better policy design, to the infrastructure we’re building to make learning part of how government does business.

What Is Government Productivity – and How Do We Learn to Improve It?

In the private sector, productivity is relatively straightforward: output per unit of input. A delivery company that reduces the cost per parcel is improving its productivity. A call centre that shortens the average handling time without compromising service is doing the same.

In government, the outputs are more complex, and arguably more important. They’re things like higher school completion rates, shorter surgery wait times, fewer people stuck in long-term unemployment. What we care about is not profit margins, but public value.

So when we talk about government productivity, we’re talking about better outcomes for citizens – achieved with the same, or fewer, public resources.

And just like in the private sector, we improve productivity in government by understanding what works. Not just what sounds plausible, or what’s been done before, but what actually improves results.

That’s where randomised trials come in.

By comparing two versions of a program – one that includes a new intervention, and one that doesn’t – we can isolate the effect of that change. It might be an SMS reminder. A redesigned letter. A new digital prompt. Or a pilot coaching service for jobseekers. Some of these interventions work remarkably well. Others don’t. But each trial helps us learn, and over time, build a more effective, more responsive, and more productive public sector.

Crucially, these aren’t abstract exercises. They’re grounded in real-world decisions. Should we send this letter or that one? Should we roll out this new program nationally, or trial it first in two regions? Should we allocate resources toward one approach, or a better-tested alternative?

Every trial is a chance to find out.

And as we accumulate this evidence, we’re not just improving individual programs. We’re improving the system’s ability to learn. The learning machine gets stronger with each iteration. That’s the difference between policy and guesswork. It saves us from reinventing the wheel, only to discover it’s square.

The Hon Andrew Leigh MP 
Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury 

Speech to ACT Labor Conference

CANBERRA
 

SATURDAY, 26 JULY 2025

I begin by acknowledging the Ngunnawal people, traditional Custodians of the land we gather on.

To Chief Minister Andrew Barr and our mighty ACT MLAs, the trade union movement, and our Labor sub-branch members - thank you.

To the hardworking team of outgoing secretary Ash Van Dijk, new secretary Caitlin Cook, and party president Sue Ducker.

To the magnificent Alicia Payne and Dave Smith.

And to Katy Gallagher, who sends her apologies, missing her first ACT Labor Conference in 27 years. She’s not here in person, but she is here in spirit. And in at least three dozen Senate Estimates transcripts.

Delegates, 84 days ago, Labor won big.

We won 94 out of 150 seats in the House. More seats than any political party in Australian history.

As a share of the seats in the house, you have to go back to Curtin’s 1943 win to find a party with as big a majority.

How big was it?

So big, there isn’t enough space on the government benches to fit us all in.

Which is why five assistant ministers—including me—now sit on the opposition side.

We’re not rebels. We’re not the Cross Bench. We’re the Happy Bench. Think of us as Labor’s friendly occupying force.

Labor didn’t just hold every one of our seats. We picked up Menzies and Moore, Banks and Brisbane.

We unseated Peter Dutton and Adam Bandt. A two-for-one leadership special.

We didn’t manage to remove David Littleproud… but Barnaby Joyce is back in Canberra, and he’s working on that for us.

Now, Barnaby reminds me of the film Jaws, which turns 50 this year.

He’s like a giant animatronic shark—except it’s malfunctioning and eating its own crew.

So a message to the Nationals: keep Barnaby going. He has important work to do.

The Hon Andrew Leigh MP
Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TV INTERVIEW
SKY NEWS AFTERNOON AGENDA WITH TOM CONNELL
FRIDAY, 25 JULY 2025

SUBJECTS: Labor’s non-compete reforms, Economic Reform Roundtable, productivity, budget sustainability

TOM CONNELL: Well, the government is making it harder for employers to have so called non-compete clauses. It says they were out of control, but it is willing to listen on changes that might need to be made on its legislation. Joining me is the Assistant Productivity Minister, Andrew Leigh. Thank you for your time. So, you're consulting on these changes…

ANDREW LEIGH: Pleasure Tom.

TOM CONNELL: Have you been told by business, for example, look - here's why we might need to use these more, here's the value of them. Are you open minded? I guess because you've been pretty critical of these agreements?

ANDREW LEIGH: Well Tom, a lot of fast-growing businesses are really enthusiastic about this change because they know that in a full employment economy, the only way of getting more workers is by hiring them from other firms. Fundamentally this is both about equality and freedom. Equality in the sense that a worker starting off isn't going to negotiate over a standard form agreement with a big firm. Freedom in the sense that people should be able to work for whoever they like without being shackled and left on the sidelines in an economy that has skills shortages and is crying out for talented workers.

TOM CONNELL: You are still shackled or you can be with wage - I think it's above $180,000 or so. Those people can often be, you know the real movers and shakers I guess of an economy. Is there a fundamental issue that they can still be offered, I guess, a non-compete? It's pretty hard to turn one down if your work offers you one. I guess if you're saying no, you're hinting you might be leaving soon and then often you're not paid in that period. Is there a provision to say if you're going to offer these to an employee, you've got to pay them while they're sitting idly on the sidelines?

ANDREW LEIGH: Tom, you ask a great question. We're getting rid of non-compete clauses for workers earning under $180,000 and then we're consulting about what to do above that level. In other countries such as Finland, you can't have a non-compete unless you compensate the worker. That's one option that's been put to us, but we'll engage constructively with business as to how to deal with that. The proposal though does cover the vast majority of workers - the cleaners, the hairdressers, the security guards, who we know are being shackled right now by non-compete clauses. You know, these are clauses that were originally meant to apply to high paid executives and now are applying to yoga instructors and fitness instructors.

TOM CONNELL: Alright. So you are genuinely considering where you are allowed to have one, you have to pay someone a replacement wage. During that period they can't leave instantly and work for a competitor?

ANDREW LEIGH: Look, there's a range of different options for what we do for over $180,000. That's about one in ten workers. For the nine in ten workers who are under that level, then we're looking to ban non-compete clauses. There's a long lead time on this. Treasurer Chalmers announced it in the Budget. It won't take effect until the beginning of 2027. So, we're moving constructively with business on a really important productivity boosting reform. This is going to mean lower inflation, it's going to mean higher wages and it's going to increase the number of businesses that we see started up in the economy. Good for wages, good for prices, good for productivity.

The Hon Andrew Leigh MP 
Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury 

OPINION PIECE

A Productivity Agenda That Puts People First

Published in The Canberra Times

25 July 2025

In 1930, John Maynard Keynes looked a century ahead and predicted that productivity growth would transform the lives of future generations. Nearly a hundred years on, Australia’s standard of living has soared. Real income per person is more than five times higher than it was when Keynes wrote. Our homes are larger, our education better, our healthcare more advanced.

But Australia faces a new challenge. For much of the past two decades, productivity growth has slowed. Output per hour worked barely moved in the five years leading up to the pandemic. Since then, capital deepening has lagged. Sectoral shifts have made productivity harder to measure – and harder to lift.

This isn’t just an economic concern – it’s a social one. Productivity is the primary driver of real income growth. It’s what pays for aged care and childcare, for better schools and bolder ambitions. Without it, the nation struggles to lift living standards, reduce inequality, or build the society we aspire to.

Recognising this, the Albanese Government has placed productivity at the heart of our economic strategy – not in the abstract, but in a way that is practical, inclusive and forward-looking. What we call the “progressive productivity agenda” focuses on three key areas: investing in individuals, in infrastructure, and in institutions.

Take individuals. Productivity is ultimately about what people can do – the ideas they generate, the technologies they adopt, the challenges they solve. To build those capabilities, we’ve funded free TAFE and expanded university access – especially for students from underrepresented backgrounds. A more skilled workforce is a more productive one.

We’re strengthening healthcare, too, because a modern, efficient health system is economic infrastructure. New urgent care clinics are relieving pressure on hospitals. Expanded bulk billing is cutting out-of-pocket costs and lifting wellbeing. Better health enables fuller participation, fewer absences, and a stronger capacity to contribute.

The Hon Jim Chalmers MP
Treasurer

The Hon Amanda Rishworth MP
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations

The Hon Dr Andrew Leigh MP
Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury

Consultation on reforms to non-compete clauses to boost wages and productivity

Friday, 25 July 2025

The Government is taking the next step in reforming non-compete clauses that are holding back Australian workers from switching to better, higher‑paying jobs.

Today we are releasing a consultation paper to gather insights and feedback from workers, business and the broader community about how we ban non-compete clauses to boost productivity and wages across the Australian economy.

Reforming non‑compete clauses is about encouraging aspiration, unlocking opportunity, lifting wages for working people, and making Australia’s economy more dynamic and competitive.

Right now, more than three million Australian workers are covered by these clauses, including childcare workers, construction workers, disability support workers and hairdressers.

Workers should not be handcuffed to their current job when there are better opportunities available for them and that’s what these reforms address.

Research suggests a ban on non-competes could lift the wages of affected workers by up to four per cent, or about $2,500 per year for a worker on median wages.

Productivity Commission modelling suggests the changes could improve productivity and add $5 billion or 0.2 per cent to GDP annually, as well as reduce inflation.

The Hon Andrew Leigh MP
Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury 

Welcome Remarks to Fundraising Institute of Australia, CEO Forum

ONLINE ADDRESS

WEDNESDAY, 23 JULY 2025

I begin by acknowledging the Ngunnawal people, the Traditional Custodians of the land on which I’m recording this message. I pay my respects to their Elders, past and present, and extend that respect to all First Nations people joining today’s forum.

Fundraising is a bit like electricity – most people don’t think about it when it’s working, but everything grinds to a halt when it’s not. It keeps the lights on – literally and figuratively – for civil society. And yet too often, it’s treated as incidental rather than essential.

Fundraising doesn’t just keep organisations afloat – it animates civil society. It links private generosity with public purpose. It ensures that local energy and national ambition aren’t just expressed, but resourced. It’s the engine room of good intentions – but one that still requires careful tuning.

That work is both human and strategic. A small shift in timing, message or medium can translate into deeper engagement. It’s rarely linear – often more trial and error than formula. Sometimes more error than trial. But over time, thoughtful fundraising builds trust, amplifies voice, and enables sustained impact.

This is especially important now, as artificial intelligence begins to reshape how organisations work. AI can personalise donor engagement, identify patterns in real time, and sharpen campaign targeting. Used well, it can extend your reach and help you spend less time crunching data and more time building relationships.

Used carelessly, it risks generating the kind of insights that are technically accurate – and completely useless. Technology can assist – but it can’t replace insight, tone, or tact.

The most successful fundraising efforts of recent years didn’t begin with a data model. The Ice Bucket Challenge worked not because it was optimised, but because it was unexpected, participatory, and fun. The Five Bucks platform resonated because it made giving simple, social and visible. These were human ideas – amplified by technology, but not produced by it.

That’s worth remembering as new tools proliferate. AI can help refine messages, but it cannot create meaning. It can analyse behaviour, but it cannot build trust. When used carelessly, it risks turning supporters into data points – and eroding the very foundations of civil society.

The Hon Andrew Leigh MP
Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
RADIO INTERVIEW
2CC RADIO CANBERRA, BREAKFAST WITH STEPHEN CENATIEMPO
TUESDAY, 22 JULY 2025

SUBJECTS: Antisemitism, Israel-Gaza conflict, Economic Reform Roundtable

STEPHEN CENATIEMPO: Joining us now to talk federal politics is the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury and the Member for Fenner, Andrew Leigh. Andrew, good morning.

ANDREW LEIGH: Good morning Stephen, great to be with you.

STEPHEN CENATIEMPO: Now, there’s a lot of things we need to get through because it is the first sitting week of parliament for the term. But this delay in implementing Jillian Segal’s recommendations has no – there is no rationale for that whatsoever. And the comments by Jason Clare, “Well, we need to wait for this other report on Islamophobia,” that’s not actually happening, from an Envoy that’s not actually doing anything because they haven’t hired any staff. There is no reason why these recommendations can’t be implemented, because they’re not going to affect Islamophobia?

ANDREW LEIGH: Well, Stephen, we take antisemitism very seriously…

STEPHEN CENATIEMPO: Well, no you don’t. No, you don’t. You say that. Everybody says that, but you don’t. Let’s be honest.

ANDREW LEIGH: We banned the Nazi salute and hate symbols. There’s penalties of up to a year imprisonment. We’ve invested $4 million in the National Holocaust Remembrance Centre…

STEPHEN CENATIEMPO: Because that’s what the problem is, because that’s going to stop firebombing of synagogues, yeah.

ANDREW LEIGH: We’ve announced $100 million for countering violent extremism. We’ve passed legislation to criminalise hate speech…

STEPHEN CENATIEMPO: Yeah, how’s that going?

ANDREW LEIGH: We’ve appointed the first Antisemitism Commissioner, and so that’s an important measure. And we’re working with the states and territories on a national hate crimes and incident database. And our first…

STEPHEN CENATIEMPO: And yet after all that there’s been an increase in antisemitism?

ANDREW LEIGH: Well, it’s certainly true that passing laws doesn’t eliminate bad behaviour. That’s true of every law we pass, including the murder law.

The Hon Andrew Leigh MP
Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
TV INTERVIEW
ABC AFTERNOON BRIEFING WITH PATRICIA KARVELAS
MONDAY, 21 JULY 2025

SUBJECTS: Labor’s productivity agenda, Economic Reform Roundtable, Prime Minister’s visit to China

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Here to discuss this. Senator Bragg joins us, and so does the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities, and Treasury Andrew Leigh. They're both in the studio with me because the Parliament's about to sit. Welcome to both of you.

ANDREW BRAGG: G’day.

ANDREW LEIGH: Thanks, Patricia.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: I will start with you because you're proposing this Joint Select Committee. Why? The government's about to have a roundtable, which is very much on this topic.

ANDREW BRAGG: Well it's a wicked problem, and we think that you can do more in a couple of years on a serious issue like this than can be done in just three days in Canberra. And so, we want to work with the government to find the real root of the problem here, of why we have negative productivity growth in Australia, but also to try and help fashion together the community support needed for the inevitable changes that are required.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: So will you support it?

ANDREW LEIGH: It’ll be up to the Senate Patricia, but we've got a strong productivity agenda building on the work of the last term. We'll be bringing forward legislation to get rid of non-compete clauses for low and middle income workers. We’ve got National Competition Policy roaring ahead, collaborating with the states and territories. We've got a strong progressive deregulation agenda now. We need to be building more. We need to be investing in individuals, institutions and infrastructure in order to get that productivity challenge under control. Because we know that decade, that 2020 was the worst productivity decade in the post-war era.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: So just to be clear, you're not opposed to the idea of having a longer committee that looks into these issues?

ANDREW LEIGH: Well, I'm in the House. Andrew is in the Senate, and the Senate will figure out which committees it sets up.