{ "generated": "2026-11-09", "licence": "CC BY 4.0", "jurisdictions": { "act": { "id": "act", "name": "Australian Capital Territory", "type": "territory", "parent": "au", "population": 470000, "summary": "Driver licensing is administered by Access Canberra under the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999.", "website": "https://www.act.gov.au", "key_legislation": [ "Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT)" ], "notes": "The ACT is the only jurisdiction in this database that lets a novice driver\nbypass the government practical test entirely, by completing competency based\ntraining and assessment with an accredited instructor instead.\n\nThat is a structural alternative to a queue, and it is the direct analogue of\nwhat [[nsw-private-certifier|private certifiers]] do for building approval:\nconvert a single government bottleneck into a market of accredited assessors.\nWhether it produces equivalent safety outcomes is the question that matters, and\nit is the same question the certifier model raises in planning.\n" }, "au": { "id": "au", "name": "Commonwealth of Australia", "type": "federal", "summary": "The federal tier. Rarely the direct approver for building or small business, but sets environment, tax, migration, communications and workplace obligations that sit alongside state processes.", "website": "https://www.australia.gov.au", "key_legislation": [ "Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)", "Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)", "Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)" ], "notes": "The Commonwealth matters to this database in two ways.\n\nFirst, it can add an entire parallel approval track: an action likely to have a\nsignificant impact on a matter of national environmental significance triggers\nits own assessment under the EPBC Act, running alongside -- not instead of --\nthe state process. Where that happens it is usually the longest single step in\nthe whole chain.\n\nSecond, it sets obligations that are not approvals at all but still consume the\nsame weeks of the same person: registering an entity, tax registrations,\nemployment obligations. These are recorded here because from the applicant's\nside there is no difference between a step that can refuse you and a step that\nmerely must be completed before you can proceed.\n" }, "brisbane": { "id": "brisbane", "name": "Brisbane City Council", "type": "council", "parent": "qld", "population": 1290000, "summary": "Australia's largest local government by population, and the assessment manager for most development in Brisbane.", "website": "https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au", "notes": "Brisbane is a useful first council to map because its scale means it has\ndedicated teams for functions that a small council handles with one officer.\nThat matters for the scheduling question: a large council can hold a panel\nweekly where a small council holds one monthly, and the resulting difference in\nelapsed time has nothing to do with the merits of any application.\n\nMapping one very large and one very small council against the same process is\nthe cleanest way to isolate scheduling delay from assessment delay.\n" }, "nsw": { "id": "nsw", "name": "New South Wales", "type": "state", "parent": "au", "population": 8339000, "summary": "Development assessment is governed by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, with a fast-track complying development pathway assessed by council or a registered private certifier.", "website": "https://www.nsw.gov.au", "key_legislation": [ "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2021 (NSW)", "State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (NSW)", "Building and Development Certifiers Act 2018 (NSW)" ], "notes": "NSW is the most useful state to map first, because it runs two pathways side by\nside for the same physical outcome: a merit-assessed development application to\ncouncil, and a code-assessed complying development certificate that a private\ncertifier can issue against a fixed set of standards.\n\nThat is a natural experiment sitting in plain sight. The same house, built to\nthe same code, reaches approval through two very different amounts of process\ndepending only on whether it fits inside the code. Quantifying that difference\nhonestly -- including the cases where the fast path produces worse outcomes --\nis one of the highest-value things this database can do.\n" }, "nt": { "id": "nt", "name": "Northern Territory", "type": "territory", "parent": "au", "population": 255000, "summary": "Driver licensing is administered by the Motor Vehicle Registry under the Motor Vehicles Act 1949.", "website": "https://nt.gov.au", "key_legislation": [ "Motor Vehicles Act 1949 (NT)" ], "notes": "The Northern Territory is the outlier on driver licensing and the most valuable\nsingle entry in the comparison. It requires no mandatory minimum supervised\ndriving hours at all -- the learner logbook is a voluntary personal record, and\nthe widely cited 100-hour figure is published as a safety recommendation rather\nthan a requirement.\n\nCombined with a six-month learner period, that produces a pathway roughly half\nthe length of Victoria's for the identical licence. The NT is not a\nderegulatory success story to be copied uncritically: it has particular\ngeography, remoteness and road safety circumstances, and its road toll per\ncapita is not comparable to the southern states. It is the natural experiment\nthat makes the rest of the comparison interpretable.\n" }, "qld": { "id": "qld", "name": "Queensland", "type": "state", "parent": "au", "population": 5560000, "summary": "Development assessment runs under the Planning Act 2016 and its statutory Development Assessment Rules; building work is certified under the Building Act 1975, commonly by private building certifiers.", "website": "https://www.qld.gov.au", "key_legislation": [ "Planning Act 2016 (Qld)", "Planning Regulation 2017 (Qld)", "Building Act 1975 (Qld)" ], "notes": "Queensland is worth mapping alongside [[nsw]] because it structures the same\nproblem differently: the Development Assessment Rules set out a prescribed\nsequence with defined periods, which makes the process unusually legible\ncompared with jurisdictions where the timetable is a matter of practice rather\nthan instrument.\n\nWhere a jurisdiction writes its timetable down, we can compare the written\ntimetable with what actually happens. The gap between the two is itself a\nfinding.\n" }, "sa": { "id": "sa", "name": "South Australia", "type": "state", "parent": "au", "population": 1870000, "summary": "Driver licensing is administered by the Department for Infrastructure and Transport under the Motor Vehicles Act 1959.", "website": "https://www.sa.gov.au", "key_legislation": [ "Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA)" ] }, "sydney": { "id": "sydney", "name": "City of Sydney", "type": "council", "parent": "nsw", "population": 217000, "summary": "Local government area covering the Sydney CBD and surrounds; consent authority for most development within its boundaries.", "website": "https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au" }, "tas": { "id": "tas", "name": "Tasmania", "type": "state", "parent": "au", "population": 575000, "summary": "Driver licensing is administered by the Department of State Growth under the Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999.", "website": "https://www.tas.gov.au", "key_legislation": [ "Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999 (Tas)" ], "notes": "Tasmania runs the most finely staged learner system in the country, splitting\nthe learner period into an L1 and an L2 stage with separate minimum durations.\n\nThat makes it unusually useful for this database. Where other jurisdictions have\none learner period, Tasmania has two, and the question of whether the extra\nstage buys anything is answerable in principle by comparing novice crash\noutcomes across borders. This is the sort of question the database exists to\nmake askable, not one it can answer on its own.\n" }, "vic": { "id": "vic", "name": "Victoria", "type": "state", "parent": "au", "population": 6959000, "summary": "Planning permits are issued by councils under the Planning and Environment Act 1987; building permits are separate and generally issued by private or municipal building surveyors.", "website": "https://www.vic.gov.au", "key_legislation": [ "Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)", "Building Act 1993 (Vic)" ], "notes": "Victoria separates the planning permit from the building permit more sharply\nthan some other states, which makes it a good jurisdiction for testing one of\nthis database's core questions: when two approvals examine overlapping material\nat different times, does splitting them cost calendar time that a combined\nassessment would not?\n" }, "wa": { "id": "wa", "name": "Western Australia", "type": "state", "parent": "au", "population": 2900000, "summary": "Driver licensing is administered by the Department of Transport under the Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act 2008.", "website": "https://www.wa.gov.au", "key_legislation": [ "Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act 2008 (WA)" ] } }, "bodies": { "aboriginal-housing-nt": { "id": "aboriginal-housing-nt", "name": "Aboriginal community-controlled housing sector", "abbr": "Aboriginal Housing NT", "jurisdiction": "nt", "role": "Peak body and community-controlled providers of remote housing", "summary": "The Aboriginal community-controlled housing sector in the Northern Territory, a party to the remote housing agreement and an intended deliverer of housing, maintenance and tenancy services.", "responsibilities": [ "Represent Aboriginal community-controlled housing organisations", "Deliver housing construction, maintenance and tenancy management", "Build local employment through housing delivery" ], "notes": "A party to the [[nt-remote-housing|$4 billion agreement]] alongside both\ngovernments and all four land councils \u2014 which matters, because the sector is\nmeant to be a deliverer rather than a consultee.\n\nThe design intent is sound and is supported by long experience: housing built,\nmaintained and tenanted by community-controlled organisations produces local\nemployment, better maintenance response in places contractors will not travel to,\nand buildings suited to how people actually live. Remote housing that fails\nusually fails on maintenance rather than construction, and maintenance is where\nlocal capacity matters most.\n\nThe sector describes the agreement as a substantial opportunity, which is also an\nacknowledgement that realising it requires the sector to scale \u2014 into\nconstruction management, workforce, and the reporting and procurement\nrequirements of a decade-long intergovernmental program.\n\nThat scaling is itself a delivery risk, and it is the same one recorded across\nthis database: [[au-childcare-desert-supply|small operators in thin markets]] are\nleast able to run large government processes, and a program designed to build\ntheir capacity has to be built differently from one that assumes it.\n", "sources": [ "Northern Territory remote housing agreement signed by the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory, all four land councils and Aboriginal Housing NT" ] }, "accc": { "id": "accc", "name": "Australian Competition and Consumer Commission", "abbr": "ACCC", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Enforces water market conduct rules", "summary": "From 1 July 2026 the ACCC enforces new conduct and transparency obligations in Murray-Darling Basin water trading, including prohibitions on market manipulation and insider trading.", "responsibilities": [ "Enforce prohibitions on water market manipulation and insider trading", "Administer obligations relating to water markets decisions and trade reporting", "Monitor water market conduct" ], "legislation": [ "Water Act 2007 (Cth)", "Water Amendment (Water Markets Decisions) Regulation 2026" ], "notes": "The ACCC's 2021 Murray-Darling Basin water markets inquiry made **29\nrecommendations**, describing a market of considerable value with far less\nintegrity infrastructure than any comparable financial market.\n\nRegulations were made in March 2026 for commencement on **1 July 2026**, from\nwhich date the ACCC enforces the new law: obligations concerning water markets\ndecisions, and prohibitions on conduct including market manipulation and insider\ntrading.\n\n**This is worth recording as a reform that ran the right way.** Most entries in\nthis database ask for a step to be removed or moved. This one adds obligations \u2014\ndisclosure, conduct rules, and an enforcement agency with the capability to use\nthem \u2014 and it is the correct direction. A market where participants hold\nnon-public information about allocations, storage and government purchasing, and\nwhere trades were reported slowly and inconsistently, was a market with a\nstructural integrity problem.\n\nFive years from inquiry to commencement is slow. It is also the ordinary pace of\nbuilding a new regulatory regime properly, and this project should not treat that\nas a failing when it repeatedly criticises reforms delivered before their\ngovernance was settled \u2014 as it does of the\n[[haff-settle-the-rules-before-opening-the-round|Housing Australia Future Fund]].\n", "sources": [ "ACCC, Murray-Darling Basin water markets inquiry final report, March 2021: 29 recommendations", "Water Amendment (Water Markets Decisions) Regulation 2026, made March 2026 for commencement 1 July 2026", "ACCC: new bans on water market manipulation and insider trading in force; ACCC responsible for enforcing new water trade laws from 1 July 2026" ] }, "acecqa": { "id": "acecqa", "name": "Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority", "abbr": "ACECQA", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Administers the National Quality Framework and assesses qualifications", "summary": "The national body supporting the National Quality Framework: it approves qualifications, assesses overseas qualifications for equivalence, and since December 2024 is the sole skills assessing authority for early childhood teachers.", "responsibilities": [ "Maintain the list of approved early childhood qualifications", "Assess overseas qualifications for equivalence under the National Quality Framework", "Act as the skills assessing authority for early childhood teacher migration", "Publish national guidance and oversee consistency between state regulatory authorities" ], "legislation": [ "Education and Care Services National Law", "Education and Care Services National Regulations" ], "notes": "ACECQA is a national body created by applied state law rather than by the\nCommonwealth -- the same constitutional shape as [[ahpra]], and with the same\nconsequence: change requires education ministers acting collectively.\n\nSince December 2024 it has been the sole skills assessing authority for early\nchildhood teachers, replacing AITSL. That consolidation is a genuine\nsimplification and worth recording as such.\n\nThe equivalence assessment is where the workforce pipeline narrows. The\nrequirement is four years of higher education specifically covering children\naged birth to five. A degree covering birth to eight with a primary focus, or an\neducation degree with an early childhood minor, may not pass -- which excludes a\nlarge share of teachers qualified in comparable systems whose training simply\npartitions the age range differently.\n\nWhether that boundary is drawn in the right place is a question about what an\nearly childhood teacher needs to know, not a question about administrative\nefficiency, and this database does not have standing to answer it. What it can\nobserve is that the boundary is doing a great deal of work, that it is currently\nbinding on a workforce shortage estimated at 21,000 people, and that nobody\npublishes how many applicants it excludes or what happens to them.\n", "sources": [ "ACECQA, published qualification requirements and overseas qualification equivalence guidance", "ACECQA, submission to the Productivity Commission early childhood education and care inquiry" ] }, "acma": { "id": "acma", "name": "Australian Communications and Media Authority", "abbr": "ACMA", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Regulates telecommunications carriers and manages spectrum", "summary": "Licenses and regulates carriers, manages radiocommunications spectrum, and would administer compliance with a universal outdoor mobile coverage obligation.", "responsibilities": [ "Licence carriers and manage radiocommunications spectrum", "Enforce telecommunications consumer safeguards", "Administer universal service arrangements" ], "notes": "The regulator that would have to make a coverage obligation mean something.\n\nACMA advised on the radiocommunications spectrum questions underlying the\nUniversal Outdoor Mobile Obligation, alongside the low earth orbit satellite\nworking group whose technology makes near-universal outdoor coverage feasible at\nall.\n\n**An obligation is only as real as its measurement.** \"Reasonable and equitable\naccess to baseline outdoor mobile coverage\" has to be converted into something\ntestable \u2014 where, at what signal strength, measured how, and with what\nconsequence for failure. That definitional work is the whole of whether the\nobligation delivers, and it is why the National Farmers' Federation issued a\nstatement of expectations in August 2025 and why sector commentary described the\ndraft legislation as falling short.\n\nThis database has made the same observation about\n[[fast-track-by-objective-trigger|discretionary planning pathways]] and\n[[care-worker-screening-once|cross-sector screening]]: the instrument is settled\nlong before the definitions are, and the definitions are where the policy\nactually lives.\n", "sources": [ "ACMA advice on radiocommunications spectrum informing the Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation, alongside the LEOSat working group", "National Farmers' Federation Statement of Expectations on the Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation, August 2025" ] }, "acqsc": { "id": "acqsc", "name": "Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission", "abbr": "Commission", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Registers and regulates aged care providers", "summary": "Registers providers under the Aged Care Act 2024, monitors compliance with the Aged Care Quality Standards, and enforces conditions on registration.", "responsibilities": [ "Register providers in one or more registration categories", "Vary and renew registrations", "Audit and monitor against the Aged Care Quality Standards", "Impose conditions and take enforcement action" ], "legislation": [ "Aged Care Act 2024 (Cth)" ], "notes": "The Commission is the other side of the same coin as\n[[nsw-ecec-regulator|the childcare regulator]], and this database treats it the\nsame way: the direction of travel is deliberately toward more scrutiny, in\nresponse to a royal commission that found serious harm, and this project takes\nno position against that.\n\nThe Aged Care Act 2024 commenced on 1 November 2025 and introduced **universal\nregistration**, merging what had been two separate processes \u2014 provider approval\nand accreditation \u2014 into a single registration in one or more categories set by\nthe risk of the service type delivered. Existing government-funded providers were\ndeemed across on commencement and notified of their categories in early November\n2025.\n\nThat is a `merge` reform of exactly the kind this database argues for, enacted at\nnational scale, and it is recorded as [[aged-care-universal-registration]]. It is\nalso a useful corrective to the assumption that merging approvals means weakening\nthem: the same Act substantially increased the Commission's enforcement powers\nand its ability to impose conditions. Fewer gates and sharper teeth is a coherent\ncombination, and it is the combination this site should be arguing for more\noften than it does.\n", "sources": [ "Aged Care Act 2024 (Cth), commenced 1 November 2025", "Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, published provider registration guidance", "MinterEllison, analysis of registration and entry under the Aged Care Act 2024" ] }, "act-building": { "id": "act-building", "name": "Private building certifier (ACT)", "jurisdiction": "act", "role": "Issues building approvals", "summary": "In the ACT the assessment and approval of building work is carried out by private building certifiers.", "legislation": [ "Building Act 2004 (ACT)" ] }, "act-licensing": { "id": "act-licensing", "name": "Access Canberra", "jurisdiction": "act", "role": "Driver licensing and testing", "summary": "Administers ACT driver licensing, and accredits the instructors who deliver competency based training and assessment.", "website": "https://www.accesscanberra.act.gov.au", "legislation": [ "Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT)" ], "responsibilities": [ "Issue learner, provisional and full driver licences", "Administer knowledge, hazard perception and practical driving tests", "Maintain the driver licence register and demerit point scheme" ] }, "act-planning": { "id": "act-planning", "name": "Territory Planning Authority", "jurisdiction": "act", "role": "Determines development applications", "summary": "The consent authority for development applications in the ACT under the Planning Act 2023.", "legislation": [ "Planning Act 2023 (ACT)" ] }, "act-titles": { "id": "act-titles", "name": "Access Canberra Land Titles", "jurisdiction": "act", "role": "Land titles registry", "summary": "Registers dealings in land, including transfers of title, plans of subdivision and strata plans. A registry is a queue, not an assessor: it checks form, not merit.", "notes": "Land registries appear at the end of almost every property process in this\ndatabase, and they are consistently the least examined source of delay.\n\nRegistration is not an assessment of anything. The registry checks that a plan\nor dealing is in order and records it. Where that takes weeks, the delay is\nqueueing, and it lands at the point of maximum holding cost -- after\nconstruction is finished and before anything can be sold or settled.\n" }, "aemo": { "id": "aemo", "name": "Australian Energy Market Operator", "abbr": "AEMO", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Plans the national transmission network through the Integrated System Plan", "summary": "Operates the National Electricity Market and publishes the biennial Integrated System Plan, which identifies the transmission projects the system needs and designates some of them actionable.", "responsibilities": [ "Publish the Integrated System Plan every two years", "Designate actionable transmission projects and their optimal development paths", "Operate the power system and market" ], "legislation": [ "National Electricity Rules, Chapter 5" ], "notes": "The Integrated System Plan is the closest thing Australia has to a national\ninfrastructure plan that actually binds anything. It models the whole system,\ntests development paths against scenarios, consults extensively, and concludes\nthat particular projects are needed.\n\nWhich is what makes what happens next hard to defend. Having been identified as\nneeded by a whole-of-system cost-benefit process, an actionable project then\nundertakes its own cost-benefit process -- the regulatory investment test -- to\nestablish that it is needed.\n\nThe actionable ISP framework was designed to link the two and reduce the\nduplication, and it did reduce it. It did not remove it. See\n[[rit-t-once-for-isp-projects]].\n" }, "aer": { "id": "aer", "name": "Australian Energy Regulator", "abbr": "AER", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Oversees the regulatory investment test and determines transmission revenue", "summary": "Sets the guidelines for the regulatory investment test for transmission, resolves disputes about its application, and decides the contingent project applications through which a transmission business recovers the cost of a new project from consumers.", "responsibilities": [ "Publish the RIT-T and application guidelines", "Determine disputes about the application of the test", "Assess contingent project applications and determine allowed revenue" ], "legislation": [ "National Electricity Rules, rule 5.15A and Chapter 6A" ], "notes": "The AER is the body that decides whether consumers pay for a transmission line,\nwhich is the correct place for that decision and a genuinely important\nprotection. Transmission is a regulated monopoly: the business faces no\ncompetitive discipline on what it spends, and every dollar approved is recovered\nfrom every electricity bill for decades.\n\nThe question this database asks is not whether that scrutiny should exist. It is\nwhether it needs to be a *sequential* stage occurring after a separate\nmulti-year cost-benefit test that reached the same conclusion, when the\ninformation it turns on is largely the information the earlier test produced.\n" }, "ag-dept": { "id": "ag-dept", "name": "Attorney-General's Department", "abbr": "AGD", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Funds legal assistance and administers the national access to justice partnership", "summary": "Negotiates and administers the Commonwealth's funding agreement with the states and territories for legal aid commissions, community legal centres and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services.", "responsibilities": [ "Negotiate and administer the national legal assistance funding agreement", "Set national priorities and reporting requirements", "Administer Commonwealth legal assistance programs" ], "notes": "This body is recorded here mainly as a **counter-example**, and a useful one.\n\nThis database has criticised short funding horizons twice: adult public dental,\nfunded through an agreement running eleven and a half months at a time, and\nmental health, where the National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Agreement\nexpired on 30 June 2026 and was extended by a single year after the Productivity\nCommission found it not effective.\n\nLegal assistance did the opposite. The National Legal Assistance Partnership\n2020-25 was independently reviewed by Dr Warren Mundy, who made 39\nrecommendations and called for unmet geographic need, disaster response baseline\nfunding and an expanded list of priority client groups to be addressed. Attorneys-\nGeneral then agreed terms in **November 2024** for a successor \u2014 the **National\nAccess to Justice Partnership 2025-30** \u2014 commencing 1 July 2025 with\n**$3.9 billion over five years**.\n\nReviewed before expiry, renegotiated before expiry, and settled for five years.\nThat is the sequence [[dental-fund-on-a-real-horizon|this site argues for]], done\nin a portfolio with less political weight than health.\n\nWhether $3.9 billion is enough is a different question and the sector says\nloudly that it is not: the Law Council puts the shortfall at $500 million a year\nand [[community-legal-centre|centres]] are turning away more than a thousand\npeople a day. A long agreement at an inadequate level is still inadequate \u2014 which\nis exactly the caution this database attached to the dental proposal.\n", "sources": [ "Attorney-General's Department, National Access to Justice Partnership 2025-30: agreed November 2024, commencing 1 July 2025, $3.9 billion over five years", "Independent Review of the National Legal Assistance Partnership 2020-25 (Mundy review): 39 recommendations, including on unmet geographic need, disaster response baseline funding and priority client groups", "Law Council of Australia: national legal assistance funding shortfall of $500 million per year" ] }, "aged-care-assessment": { "id": "aged-care-assessment", "name": "Aged care assessment organisation (Single Assessment System)", "abbr": "Assessor", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Assesses an older person's aged care needs and eligibility", "summary": "A single national assessment workforce, contracted under five-year agreements, using one standardised tool to determine eligibility, approved services and priority for all aged care.", "responsibilities": [ "Conduct the aged care needs assessment using the Integrated Assessment Tool", "Determine eligibility and the services a person is approved for", "Assign a priority category for access to funding", "Conduct AN-ACC assessment for residential funding classification" ], "notes": "This is the step in aged care access that is genuinely an assessment, and the\ndata says it is not the problem.\n\n**The merge is now complete and it was substantial.** Since 9 December 2024 all\naged care assessments have been conducted by a **single workforce**, replacing\nthree separate arrangements: Regional Assessment Services, Aged Care Assessment\nTeams, and independent AN-ACC assessors. The Single Assessment System commenced\nunder the Aged Care Act 2024 in December 2025. Assessment is now performed with\none standardised national instrument, the **Integrated Assessment Tool**, which\ncovers twelve sections and incorporates eleven clinically validated tools.\n\nThree workforces into one, several instruments into one, and the contracts\nawarded in December 2024 run **five years** at $1.5 billion.\n\nThat last detail deserves attention alongside the criticism this database has\nmade twice \u2014 [[dental-fund-on-a-real-horizon|adult public dental funded eleven\nand a half months at a time]], and mental health extended by a single year after\nbeing found ineffective. Aged care assessment was contracted for five years. It\ncan be done, and it was done here. See\n[[aged-care-assessment-merged-and-contracted-properly]].\n\n**What the merge did not do, and could not, is shorten the queue that follows\nit.** The published median wait for a Support at Home assessment was 27 days.\nAgainst a journey measured in hundreds of days, the assessment is a small\nfraction of the elapsed time \u2014 which is the finding, and the reason this body is\nnot the target of any reform on this site.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Health, Disability and Ageing: since 9 December 2024 all aged care assessments conducted by a single workforce, replacing Regional Assessment Services, Aged Care Assessment Teams and independent AN-ACC assessors; $1.5 billion in five-year contracts awarded December 2024", "Single Assessment System commenced under the Aged Care Act 2024 in December 2025; assessments conducted using the Integrated Assessment Tool covering 12 sections and integrating 11 clinically validated tools", "Published median wait for assessment of 27 days in 2024-25" ] }, "agpt-college": { "id": "agpt-college", "name": "GP training college (AGPT administrator)", "abbr": "College", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Delivers the Australian General Practice Training program", "summary": "The RACGP and ACRRM administer the Commonwealth-funded Australian General Practice Training program, selecting registrars, accrediting practices and supervising training.", "responsibilities": [ "Select registrars into fully-funded training places", "Accredit training practices and supervisors", "Deliver and assess the training program" ], "notes": "The colleges took over delivery of the Australian General Practice Training\nprogram in February 2023, replacing the regional training organisations that ran\nit before.\n\nPlaces are not the constraint and the Commonwealth is expanding them anyway. Up\nto **1,500 fully-funded GP and rural generalist places** commence each year, and\nunder the Strengthening Medicare package that rises by **200 in 2026, 300 in 2027\nand 400 from 2028**. From 2026, 100 rural generalist places previously delivered\nunder a separate scheme move into AGPT \u2014 a consolidation this database supports,\nsince it removes a parallel pathway for the same outcome.\n\n**What determines whether those places fill is employment conditions, not\nsupply.** A doctor moving from a hospital into general practice training changes\nemployer, and in doing so has historically given up accrued leave, salary\ncertainty and continuity of entitlements \u2014 while their peers who stay in hospital\nspecialties do not. That is the structural fact behind sustained advocacy from\nregistrar and supervisor organisations, and behind the government's own stated\naim of making GP training conditions similar to hospital-based programs.\n\nThe terms themselves are set in an unusual place. See\n[[au-gp-training-pathway]].\n", "sources": [ "Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, Australian General Practice Training program: up to 1,500 fully-funded GP and rural generalist places per annum, increasing by 200 commencing places in 2026, 300 in 2027 and 400 from 2028", "From 2026, 100 rural generalist places previously delivered under the Rural Generalist Training Scheme delivered under AGPT" ] }, "agsva": { "id": "agsva", "name": "Australian Government Security Vetting Agency", "abbr": "AGSVA", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Grants security clearances for government and industry", "summary": "The central vetting agency inside Defence. It processes Baseline, Negative Vetting 1 and Negative Vetting 2 clearances for Commonwealth entities and for the defence industry.", "responsibilities": [ "Assess and grant security clearances at Baseline, NV1 and NV2", "Maintain clearances and conduct periodic revalidation", "Operate the myClearance vetting system" ], "notes": "AGSVA is the single most consequential queue in Australian defence industry, and\nit is a queue rather than an assessment for most of its duration.\n\nPublished and reported figures: NV1 takes approximately three months, NV2\napproximately five. In 2023-24 it processed roughly 32,300 Baseline, 28,688 NV1\nand 7,495 NV2 clearances. The myClearance system, procured from Accenture at\nabout $130 million, went live on 28 November 2022 and had processed 107,249\nclearances by 9 May 2024. It has been the subject of an ANAO performance audit,\nand reporting has described substantial implementation problems severe enough\nthat staff were redeployed to process clearances manually.\n\nThe structural problem is not the assessment. Vetting someone for access to\nnational security information is exactly the kind of step this database defends:\nit is a genuine judgement about a specific person, and nobody sensible wants it\nfaster at the cost of being worse.\n\nThe problem is that clearance is a **precondition for winning work** and, for\nmost small firms, work is a precondition for justifying the cost of clearance.\nA company cannot credibly tender for classified work without cleared people, and\ncannot fund cleared people without the contract. That circularity is not caused\nby the vetting standard. It is caused by where the vetting sits in the sequence.\nSee [[clearances-before-contract-award]].\n", "sources": [ "AGSVA, published key performance indicators and Annual Update 2023-24", "ANAO, Defence's Procurement and Implementation of the myClearance System", "ABC News, reporting on the Defence security clearance backlog, 31 March 2023" ] }, "ahpra": { "id": "ahpra", "name": "Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency", "abbr": "Ahpra", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Registers health practitioners on behalf of the National Boards", "summary": "Ahpra administers registration for the regulated health professions under the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme, supporting the National Boards that set standards and make registration decisions.", "responsibilities": [ "Receive and process applications for registration", "Verify identity, qualifications, English language skills and criminal history", "Administer the National Boards registration standards", "Operate the public register of practitioners" ], "legislation": [ "Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (as applied in each state and territory)" ], "notes": "Ahpra is a national body created by identical state legislation rather than by\nthe Commonwealth, which is why it sits under the federal tier here only as an\napproximation. That constitutional shape matters for reform: change requires\nhealth ministers acting collectively, not one minister deciding.\n\nFor this database the important fact is that Ahpra is one of at least four\nseparate bodies an overseas-trained specialist must satisfy before seeing a\npatient, and it is the only one of the four that has been comprehensively\nreformed. The Kruk review drove the Expedited Specialist pathway, open from\n21 October 2024 and extended to general medicine physicians and general\npaediatricians from 19 January 2026. A parallel streamlined pathway for\ninternationally qualified registered nurses from comparable jurisdictions\nopened in 2025.\n\nThe steps downstream of registration -- visa, Medicare provider number,\nhospital credentialing -- were not part of that reform and were not resequenced\naround it.\n\nThat is the pattern this project exists to record. One step in a chain is made\ndramatically faster, it is announced as the removal of red tape, and total\nelapsed time barely moves, because the binding constraint was never in that\nstep. Whether that is what happened here is an empirical question this database\ncannot yet answer, and [[img-fix-the-steps-after-registration]] is where the question is put.\n", "sources": [ "Ahpra, 'Fast track pathway to specialist registration opens 21 October', 14 October 2024", "Ahpra, 'Expedited Specialist pathway now open to two new specialties', 29 January 2026" ] }, "apprenticeship-support": { "id": "apprenticeship-support", "name": "Australian Apprenticeship Support Services", "abbr": "AASS", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Signs up apprentices and administers apprenticeship incentives", "summary": "Contracted providers that sign training contracts, lodge them with the state training authority, administer Commonwealth incentive payments, and provide in-training support.", "responsibilities": [ "Sign up apprentices and employers to training contracts", "Lodge contracts with the state training authority", "Assess and pay employer and apprentice incentives", "Provide in-training support and mentoring" ], "notes": "Another contracted body performing a public function, alongside\n[[workforce-australia-provider|employment services providers]],\n[[energy-retailer|energy retailers]] and\n[[nsw-private-certifier|private certifiers]]. The pattern is now common enough in\nthis database to be worth naming: much of what the Commonwealth does to\nindividuals, it does through someone it has contracted.\n\nThe incentive architecture this body administers is layered. Under the **Key\nApprenticeship Program**, an apprenticeship in a priority sector can attract up\nto $15,000 \u2014 $10,000 to the apprentice and $5,000 to the employer \u2014 for\ncommencements from 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026. Priority occupations\noutside KAP attract $5,000, split $2,500 each. Support loans of up to $25,983\nare available for 2025-26, a Living Away From Home Allowance pays up to $120 a\nweek in the first year, and Disability Wage Support pays $216.07 a week.\n\nThe 2024 Strategic Review of the Australian Apprenticeship Incentive System found\nthat barriers in the system have contributed to declining commencements and\ncompletions since 2012.\n\nThe structural observation this database can add is about **when** the money\nmoves. Incentives are weighted toward commencement and paid in instalments, and\nthe attrition is concentrated at the start: 17.2 per cent of trade apprentices in\nthe 2020 commencing cohort left within the first year. See\n[[apprenticeship-money-where-the-attrition-is]].\n", "sources": [ "DEWR, Key Apprenticeship Program factsheet: up to $15,000 per apprenticeship, $10,000 apprentice and $5,000 employer, for commencements from 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026; $5,000 split equally for priority occupations outside KAP", "Australian Apprenticeship Support Loans up to $25,983 for 2025-26; Living Away From Home Allowance up to $120 per week in the first year; Disability Wage Support $216.07 per week", "Strategic Review of the Australian Apprenticeship Incentive System, 2024" ] }, "apra": { "id": "apra", "name": "Australian Prudential Regulation Authority", "abbr": "APRA", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Prudential regulator of banks, insurers and superannuation funds; administers CPS 234", "summary": "A fourth 72-hour clock, for regulated entities, on a materiality test of its own.", "responsibilities": [ "Administer Prudential Standard CPS 234 Information Security", "Receive notification of material information security incidents within 72 hours" ], "notes": "**Prudential Standard CPS 234** requires an APRA-regulated entity to notify APRA\n**as soon as possible and no later than 72 hours** after becoming aware of an\ninformation security incident that materially affected, or had the potential to\nmaterially affect, financially or non-financially, the entity or the interests of\ndepositors, policyholders, beneficiaries or other customers.\n\nFor a regulated entity that is also a critical infrastructure responsible entity\nand also holds personal information \u2014 which describes most large Australian banks\nand insurers \u2014 a single intrusion can produce a 12-hour report to\n[[asd-acsc|ASD]], a 72-hour report to ASD, a 72-hour report to APRA, a 72-hour\nransomware payment report if a payment is made, and a Privacy Act assessment and\nnotification to [[oaic|the OAIC]] and to affected individuals.\n\n**Five reports, four bodies, four clocks, one incident.**\n", "sources": [ "APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234 Information Security: an APRA-regulated entity must notify APRA as soon as possible and no later than 72 hours after becoming aware of an information security incident that materially affected, or had the potential to materially affect, the entity or the interests of depositors, policyholders, beneficiaries or other customers" ] }, "ariso": { "id": "ariso", "name": "Australian Rail Industry Standards Organisation", "abbr": "ARISO", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Industry-led technical standards setting body for Australian rail, formerly RISSB", "summary": "Standards for a national network, set by the industry that runs it. Strengthened and renamed in the same reform program that made interoperability requirements mandatory.", "responsibilities": [ "Develop Australian rail technical standards", "Develop standards on the National Network for Interoperability supporting ETCS rollout", "Support harmonisation of interface standards across networks" ], "notes": "Transport and Infrastructure Ministers endorsed changes to Australia's rail\ngovernance framework that strengthened the Rail Industry Safety and Standards\nBoard as the industry-led technical standards setting body, and RISSB commenced\ntransition into ARISO.\n\nThe division of labour now is: [[onrsr]] regulates safety, [[ntc]] develops the\nreform program for ministers, and ARISO writes the standards. Standards are being\ndeveloped on the **National Network for Interoperability** to support the rollout\nof the European Train Control System.\n\n**Why a separate standards body matters to this database.** Every harmonisation\nproposal on this site runs into the same question \u2014 who writes the common\nstandard, and who has the technical authority to say it is right. Occupational\nlicensing does not have an answer to that and works around it with mutual\nrecognition; rail has built one. It is the more durable design and it is much\nslower to stand up.\n", "sources": [ "Transport and Infrastructure Ministers endorsed changes to Australia's rail governance framework, strengthening RISSB as the new industry-led technical standards setting body; RISSB commenced transition into the Australian Rail Industry Standards Organisation", "Standards are being developed on the National Network for Interoperability (NNI) to support the rollout of ETCS" ] }, "art": { "id": "art", "name": "Administrative Review Tribunal", "abbr": "ART", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Reviews Commonwealth administrative decisions on the merits", "summary": "Replaced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 14 October 2024. Reviews decisions on the merits across many portfolios; migration and the NDIS are the two largest caseloads.", "responsibilities": [ "Review reviewable Commonwealth decisions on the merits", "Conduct case management, conferences and hearings", "Affirm, vary, set aside or remit decisions" ], "legislation": [ "Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)" ], "notes": "The single largest queue in this database, and the clearest case anywhere in it\nof a backlog that is a symptom rather than a disease.\n\nPublished position as at 31 May 2026: an on-hand caseload of 130,983\napplications, growing at roughly 30,000 cases a year more than it can clear. More\nthan 77,000 applications received in the reporting year. Median time to finalise\nhas risen from 45 weeks five years ago, with only 43 per cent of applications\nfinalised within twelve months. NDIS applicants commonly wait about a year for a\nhearing.\n\nTwo portfolios dominate: migration and the NDIS.\n\nAnd here is the number that matters more than all the others. In 2025-26,\n**64 per cent of NDIS cases before the Tribunal resulted in a changed outcome**,\nagainst 73 per cent in 2024-25.\n\nSet aside for a moment whether those changes were right. A review body that\nchanges the outcome in roughly two of every three contested cases is not\nprimarily a backlog problem. It is a measurement of the quality of the decision\nbeing reviewed. Every one of those cases is an applicant who waited a year to be\ntold the original answer was wrong, and a Commonwealth agency that spent the year\ndefending it.\n\nThis database usually asks how to make a step faster. Here the question is\ndifferent and better: what would have to change upstream for two-thirds of these\ncases never to arrive? See [[fix-the-first-decision]].\n\nThe improvement from 73 to 64 per cent is worth noting and worth watching. It is\nalso worth noting that a 64 per cent change rate would be considered a crisis in\nalmost any other decision-making system.\n", "sources": [ "Administrative Review Tribunal, published statistics and processing times: 130,983 applications on hand at 31 May 2026; more than 77,000 received in the reporting year; 43 per cent finalised within 12 months", "ABC News, 'Fears NDIS tribunal delays will worsen as federal government tightens scheme', 2 August 2026", "Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), commenced 14 October 2024" ] }, "artc": { "id": "artc", "name": "Australian Rail Track Corporation", "abbr": "ARTC", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Commonwealth-owned manager of the interstate rail network and delivery agency for Inland Rail", "summary": "Manages the interstate track under an ACCC-accepted access undertaking, and is delivering Inland Rail \u2014 the project whose independent review found the delays were caused by the proponent's own documents.", "responsibilities": [ "Manage and maintain the interstate rail network between Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Kalgoorlie", "Offer access under an undertaking accepted by the ACCC", "Deliver Inland Rail" ], "notes": "**Access.** ARTC's interstate access undertaking sets the standard price and terms\noffered to freight and passenger operators, and was substantively changed for the\nfirst time since 2008. The current undertaking runs until the end of **June\n2029** and adds an annual stakeholder forum, an annual consultation on a Rail\nNetwork Supply Chain Optimisation Strategy, and a **commercial arbitration model\nfor access disputes** in place of the previous mechanism.\n\n**Inland Rail.** The cost estimate moved from **$16.4 billion in 2020** to at\nleast **$31.4 billion in 2022** \u2014 the figure that prompted the Schott review \u2014 and\nindependent cost assurance by ACIL Allen has since confirmed an estimate\n**exceeding $45 billion** for the full Melbourne-to-Brisbane project, more than\nthree times the budget allocation, with completion not possible **until at least\n2036**.\n\nIn May 2026 the Australian Government consolidated the project: construction from\n**Beveridge in Victoria to Parkes in New South Wales by the end of 2027**, with\nworks north of Parkes limited to preserving the rail corridor and protecting\nsites for future intermodal terminals in Queensland.\n\n**And the reason matters for this database.** Dr Kerry Schott's independent review\nfound the lengthy delays were caused in large part by **immature design and poor\nenvironmental impact statements** that needed numerous changes and resubmissions,\nparticularly in Queensland. That is not a finding about regulatory burden. See\n[[inland-rail-the-approval-was-not-the-obstacle]].\n", "sources": [ "ACCC: the ARTC interstate access undertaking provides standard price and terms for access to lines between Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Kalgoorlie; substantively changed for the first time since 2008 and running until the end of June 2029; includes an annual stakeholder forum, annual consultation on a Rail Network Supply Chain Optimisation Strategy, and a commercial arbitration model for access disputes", "Schott review (April 2023): the estimated cost of Inland Rail increased from $16.4 billion in 2020 to at least $31.4 billion in 2022, with very little certainty on actual cost, due to delays and immature preliminary designs", "Schott review: lengthy delays caused in large part by immature design and poor environmental impact statements needing numerous changes and resubmissions, particularly in Queensland", "Independent cost assurance by ACIL Allen confirmed the cost estimate now exceeds $45 billion for the full Melbourne to Brisbane project, more than three times the current budget allocation, and the project cannot be delivered until at least 2036", "Australian Government decision (May 2026) to consolidate Inland Rail by completing construction between Beveridge and Parkes by the end of 2027, with works north of Parkes focused on corridor preservation and intermodal terminal site protection" ] }, "asd-acsc": { "id": "asd-acsc", "name": "Australian Signals Directorate \u2014 Australian Cyber Security Centre", "abbr": "ASD/ACSC", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Receives mandatory cyber incident and ransomware payment reports", "summary": "Receives three separate mandatory reports on three clocks \u2014 12 hours, 72 hours, and 72 hours again for a ransomware payment \u2014 and by law none of them satisfies an entity's obligations to any other regulator.", "responsibilities": [ "Receive critical cyber security incident reports within 12 hours under the SOCI Act", "Receive other cyber security incident reports within 72 hours under the SOCI Act", "Receive ransomware and cyber extortion payment reports within 72 hours under the Cyber Security Act 2024", "Provide incident response assistance" ], "notes": "**Three clocks into one body, and a fourth regime beside it.**\n\nUnder the *Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018*, a responsible entity\nmust report a **critical** cyber security incident within **12 hours** of becoming\naware, and **other** cyber security incidents within **72 hours**. Under the\n*Cyber Security Act 2024* and the *Cyber Security (Ransomware Payment Reporting)\nRules 2025*, an entity that makes a ransomware or extortion payment must report it\nwithin **72 hours** \u2014 a regime that commenced **30 May 2025**, applies to\nbusinesses carrying on business in Australia with annual turnover above **$3\nmillion** and to critical infrastructure entities regardless of turnover, and\nmoved into **compliance and enforcement from 1 January 2026**.\n\n**And none of it discharges anything else.** Notifications to the ACSC are *in\naddition to* any other notification an entity must make at law. The\n[[oaic|Privacy Act]] scheme runs in parallel and the two do not satisfy each\nother. See [[report-the-incident-once]].\n\n**The limited use obligation is a genuine reform and it is narrower than it\nsounds.** The *Cyber Security Act 2024* restricts how the National Cyber Security\nCoordinator may use information an entity provides, to encourage organisations to\nengage during an incident rather than lawyer up. It is **not immunity**, and it\ndoes not switch off any other obligation \u2014 which is the right design and is\nroutinely over-read.\n", "sources": [ "Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (Cth): a responsible entity must report a critical cyber security incident within 12 hours of becoming aware, and other cyber security incidents within 72 hours", "Cyber Security Act 2024 (Cth) and Cyber Security (Ransomware Payment Reporting) Rules 2025: ransomware payment must be reported within 72 hours; regime commenced 30 May 2025; applies to entities with annual turnover above $3 million and to entities responsible for critical infrastructure assets regardless of turnover", "Phase 2 compliance and enforcement of ransomware payment reporting begins from 1 January 2026", "Notifications to the ACSC are in addition to any other notifications the entity may be required to make at law", "Cyber Security Act 2024 (Cth), Part 4 Division 3: the limited use obligation applies to the National Cyber Security Coordinator; limited use is not immunity and does not switch off other obligations" ] }, "asic": { "id": "asic", "name": "Australian Securities and Investments Commission", "abbr": "ASIC", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Companies and business names register", "summary": "Registers companies and business names; the first step for most new ventures that are not sole traders.", "website": "https://asic.gov.au", "legislation": [ "Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)", "Business Names Registration Act 2011 (Cth)" ] }, "asqa": { "id": "asqa", "name": "Australian Skills Quality Authority", "abbr": "ASQA", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Registers and regulates vocational education and training providers", "summary": "The national VET regulator. Registers registered training organisations, approves their scope of delivery, and regulates against the Standards for RTOs.", "responsibilities": [ "Register and re-register training organisations", "Approve and vary scope of registration", "Regulate against the Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2025", "Monitor quality risks including recognition of prior learning" ], "legislation": [ "National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth)", "Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2025" ], "notes": "The same agency appears in this database twice, and the split is functional\nrather than an error. This entry is ASQA as the VET regulator under the National\nVET Regulator Act. [[cricos-regulator]] is the ESOS function, which ASQA and\nTEQSA both perform for their own sectors. A vocational provider wanting\ninternational students deals with one agency wearing two hats under two Acts.\n\n**Recognition of prior learning is where this body's problem lives**, and it is\none of the more interesting two-sided findings in this database.\n\nRPL exists to stop people being trained in what they already know. Outcome\nStandard 1.6 of the 2025 Standards requires students with existing skills to be\nsupported to seek recognition so they can progress through the training product.\nIn principle it is the purest form of the reform this site keeps proposing:\ndo not assess the same thing twice.\n\nIn practice ASQA describes inadequate RPL as \"an enduring and growing risk in the\nVET sector\", identifies it as one of its most frequent areas of non-compliance,\nand has warned about **RPL mills** \u2014 high-volume, low-quality operations issuing\nqualifications with little real assessment, targeting mandatory qualifications\nfor government-funded job roles, skills shortage occupations and migration\npathways.\n\nSo the mechanism designed to remove duplicated assessment is also the mechanism\nmost used to sell qualifications to people who have not earned them. Both things\nare true, and any reform proposal here has to hold both. See\n[[rpl-make-it-rigorous-and-fundable]].\n", "sources": [ "ASQA, Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2025, Outcome Standard 1.6", "ASQA, published risk priority material on recognition of prior learning" ] }, "ato": { "id": "ato", "name": "Australian Taxation Office", "abbr": "ATO", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Tax registrations and student loan accounts", "summary": "Issues the ABN, TFN, GST and PAYG registrations that a business needs before it can invoice or employ, and holds and adjusts student loan debt accounts including VET Student Loans.", "website": "https://www.ato.gov.au", "notes": "The ATO earns a longer entry than its business registration role suggests,\nbecause of what it did in 2025.\n\nThe Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20 per cent) Act passed\nparliament on 31 July 2025 and received Royal Assent on 3 August 2025, reducing\nall HELP and VET Student Loan debts by 20 per cent against balances as at\n1 June 2025. **Individuals did not need to do anything.** The ATO applied the\nreduction retrospectively to every affected account.\n\nMillions of accounts adjusted, no application, no eligibility interview, no form,\nno window to miss, no take-up gap.\n\nHold that against the [[nsw-energy-rebates|state energy rebate]], where a person\nholding a Health Care Card reapplies annually, inside a window, for a few hundred\ndollars \u2014 a fact about them that [[services-australia]] already holds and\n[[energy-retailer|retailers]] already verify electronically.\n\nSame country, same year, same government family, two opposite administrative\nphilosophies. The difference is not technical capability. It is whether the\npayment was designed around the data the state already holds or around a form the\ncitizen has to find.\n\nThat comparison is the argument of [[pay-concessions-automatically]], and it is\nthe strongest one this database has, because both halves of it actually happened.\n\n**Single Touch Payroll** belongs here for the same reason. Since its rollout,\nemployers report salary and wage information to the ATO each pay cycle, and the\nATO shares it with [[services-australia]] as year-to-date figures from which pay\nperiod amounts are derived. Services Australia already uses it to pre-fill\nemployer details for income support recipients, expressly so that people stop\nunknowingly accruing debts of the kind the income compliance program produced.\n\nThe Commonwealth therefore sees most employees' wages within days of them being\npaid. It is worth holding that fact next to the\n[[au-child-care-subsidy|Child Care Subsidy]], which is paid for a year against a\nfamily's own forecast of its future income and reconciled afterwards, with a debt\nwhere the forecast was wrong.\n", "sources": [ "Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20 per cent) Act 2025, passed 31 July 2025, Royal Assent 3 August 2025", "DEWR, twenty per cent reduction to VET student debt: the ATO applies the reduction to loan accounts with no action required by the individual", "Services Australia, published Single Touch Payroll data guidance and STP data-sharing arrangement with the ATO" ] }, "bcc-development": { "id": "bcc-development", "name": "Brisbane City Council \u2014 Development Services", "abbr": "BCC", "jurisdiction": "brisbane", "role": "Assessment manager for development in Brisbane", "summary": "The team within Brisbane City Council that receives, assesses and decides development applications for the Brisbane local government area.", "website": "https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au" }, "clean-energy-regulator": { "id": "clean-energy-regulator", "name": "Clean Energy Regulator", "abbr": "CER", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Administers the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme and small-scale technology certificates", "summary": "Runs the national subsidy behind the highest per-capita rooftop solar market in the world, and since 1 July 2025 the battery discount built on the same machinery.", "responsibilities": [ "Register and validate small-scale technology certificates", "Administer the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme", "Administer the Cheaper Home Batteries Program discount through the SRES" ], "notes": "**The subsidy is national, applied at the point of sale, and invisible to the\nhouseholder** \u2014 the installer assigns the certificates and the discount appears in\nthe quoted price. Measured against most schemes in this database, that is close to\nthe ideal delivery mechanism: no application, no window, no reimbursement claim,\nno take-up gap.\n\n**The Cheaper Home Batteries Program extends it.** From 1 July 2025 the SRES was\nextended to batteries of **5 to 100 kWh** nominal capacity, delivering a discount\nof around **30 per cent**, with installation by or supervised on site by an\ninstaller accredited by [[saa|Solar Accreditation Australia]].\n\n**And the taper is a design worth recording.** From **1 May 2026** the certificate\nfactor steps down with capacity \u2014 **100 per cent** up to 14 kWh, **60 per cent**\nbetween 14 and 28 kWh, and **15 per cent** between 28 and 50 kWh \u2014 with support\nadjusted as battery costs fall, to hold the discount near 30 per cent across\nsystem sizes.\n\nA subsidy that declines as the technology gets cheaper, and pays proportionally\nless for capacity beyond what a household typically uses, is the graduated design\nthis site argued for in [[bulk-billing-taper-not-cliff|other payment settings]].\n", "sources": [ "Cheaper Home Batteries Program: expands the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme to include batteries between 5 kWh and 100 kWh nominal capacity, delivering a discount of around 30 per cent", "Installation must be undertaken by, or with supervision on site from, a battery installer accredited by Solar Accreditation Australia", "From 1 May 2026 the STC Factor tapers: 100 per cent from 0 up to 14 kWh inclusive, 60 per cent for each kWh above 14 and up to 28 kWh, and 15 per cent for each kWh above 28 and up to 50 kWh, with discount calculations adjusted to align with declining battery costs" ] }, "commonwealth-ombudsman": { "id": "commonwealth-ombudsman", "name": "Commonwealth Ombudsman", "abbr": "Ombudsman", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Investigates the administrative actions of Commonwealth agencies", "summary": "An independent office that investigates complaints and own-motion matters about Commonwealth administration, and reports publicly on whether agency action was lawful, fair and reasonable.", "responsibilities": [ "Investigate complaints about Commonwealth agencies", "Conduct own-motion investigations into systemic administrative problems", "Report findings and recommendations publicly" ], "legislation": [ "Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth)" ], "notes": "The only body in this database whose function is to say, publicly, that an\nadministrative process was wrong.\n\nIt matters here because most of the failures this project records are invisible\nby construction. A queue nobody publishes, a take-up rate nobody measures, a\nrefusal with no review right \u2014 none of these generates a finding. The Ombudsman\nproduces the rare artefact that does.\n\nIts 2024 and 2025 work on the\n[[au-jobseeker-mutual-obligations|Targeted Compliance Framework]] is the sharpest\nexample. It found that 964 people had income support **unlawfully cancelled**\nbetween April 2022 and July 2024, and that both the cancellations and the\nremediation process that followed were neither fair nor reasonable.\n\nIndependent analysis by Economic Justice Australia put the number of people\npotentially affected by unlawful payment cancellations at more than 300,000, a\nfigure the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations acknowledged at\nSenate Estimates as being \"in the vicinity of that\".\n\nNine hundred and sixty-four is what an investigation with finite resources\nconfirmed. Three hundred thousand is what the scale of the system suggests. The\ndistance between those two numbers is the reason oversight bodies matter and the\nreason they are never enough.\n", "sources": [ "Commonwealth Ombudsman findings that 964 people had income support unlawfully cancelled between April 2022 and July 2024, and that the cancellations and remediation process were neither fair nor reasonable", "Economic Justice Australia analysis of potentially unlawful payment cancellations affecting more than 300,000 people, acknowledged by DEWR at Senate Estimates" ] }, "comms-dept": { "id": "comms-dept", "name": "Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts", "abbr": "Infrastructure", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Funds regional telecommunications and administers universal service policy", "summary": "Administers the Mobile Black Spot Program and Regional Connectivity Program, and is implementing the Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation following the 2024 Regional Telecommunications Review.", "responsibilities": [ "Run competitive rounds under the Mobile Black Spot and Regional Connectivity Programs", "Administer universal telecommunications service policy", "Implement the Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation" ], "notes": "This body is running **two different answers to the same problem at the same\ntime**, and the contrast is the most useful thing in this domain.\n\n**Answer one: pay carriers to build.** The Mobile Black Spot Program has run\nseven rounds, invested more than **$1 billion**, and delivered up to **1,400 new\nbase stations**. Round 8 was awarded $21.1 million and closed for applications on\n28 August 2026, alongside a $100 million Regional Connectivity round.\n\n**Answer two: oblige carriers to cover.** Announced on 25 February 2025 and now in\ndraft legislation, the **Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation** would require\nTelstra, Optus and TPG to provide reasonable and equitable access to baseline\noutdoor mobile voice and SMS coverage across Australia from **1 December 2027** \u2014\nmade feasible by low earth orbit satellite direct-to-handset technology.\n\nA grant round buys coverage where a carrier bids for it. An obligation requires\ncoverage everywhere and lets the carrier work out how. The first is precise and\nincremental; the second is universal and blunt, and it moves the cost from the\nCommonwealth to the carriers and ultimately to their customers.\n\nThis database has now recorded **three instruments applied to the same shape of\nmarket failure** \u2014 a service the market will not supply in thin markets:\n\n1. [[au-childcare-desert-supply|Childcare]] \u2014 the Commonwealth builds, owns and\n leases the asset.\n2. **Mobile black spots** \u2014 the Commonwealth pays a private carrier to build.\n3. **UOMO** \u2014 the Commonwealth obliges private carriers to cover.\n\nSame problem, three answers, and no evidence anywhere that the instrument was\nchosen by comparing them. See\n[[coverage-obligation-not-another-round]].\n", "sources": [ "Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation announced 25 February 2025; Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025; obligation on Telstra, Optus and TPG from 1 December 2027", "2024 Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee reported to Government in December 2024; government response released with draft UOMO legislation", "Mobile Black Spot Program: seven rounds, more than $1 billion invested, up to 1,400 new base stations; Round 8 awarded $21.1 million, closing 28 August 2026; Regional Connectivity Program Round 3 of $100 million" ] }, "community-housing-provider": { "id": "community-housing-provider", "name": "Community housing provider", "abbr": "CHP", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Manages social housing tenancies and, where stock is transferred, the asset", "summary": "Not-for-profit landlords registered under the national regulatory system, whose tenants are eligible for Commonwealth Rent Assistance \u2014 unlike public housing tenants.", "responsibilities": [ "Manage social housing tenancies", "Undertake repairs and asset management on transferred stock", "Provide tenancy support services" ], "notes": "**The single most consequential fact about this body is a Commonwealth payment\nrule.**\n\nA tenant in public housing does not attract\n[[au-rent-assistance|Commonwealth Rent Assistance]], because rent paid to a state\nhousing authority is excluded. A tenant of a community housing provider does.\nOn transfer, the tenant claims Rent Assistance and it is paid in full to the new\nlandlord as rent.\n\nThat is why stock and tenancy management transfers happen. New South Wales has\nbeen explicit: a key motivation is **harnessing additional Commonwealth Rent\nAssistance funding previously unavailable to the social housing sector**, and the\ntenancy management, asset management and support services community providers\ndeliver are made possible by that income. Legislation passed in October 2016 made\ntransfers of tenancy management automatic.\n\n**Follow that through and the picture is odd.**\n\n- The same household, in the same dwelling, generates Commonwealth revenue for\n maintenance if a community provider manages it and none if the state does.\n- A household **waiting** for social housing attracts Rent Assistance in the\n private market. Housed by the state, it stops. Housed by a community provider,\n it resumes.\n- So a state facing a [[nsw-land-housing-corp|maintenance backlog]] can improve\n its funding position by transferring management, without a single additional\n dwelling being built or repaired.\n\nNone of this is anyone's error. Each rule is defensible alone: Rent Assistance\nexists to help private renters, and public housing rent is already income-related.\nTogether they make a Commonwealth payment rule the strongest financial argument\nabout who should manage Australian public housing. See\n[[cra-should-not-decide-who-manages-a-house]].\n", "sources": [ "NSW: transferred tenants apply for Commonwealth Rent Assistance, which is paid in full to the new landlord as rent; a key motivation for transfers is harnessing additional CRA funding previously unavailable to the social housing sector", "NSW legislation passed October 2016 making transfers of tenancy management automatic", "Rent paid to a state or territory housing authority is excluded from Commonwealth Rent Assistance" ] }, "community-legal-centre": { "id": "community-legal-centre", "name": "Community legal centre", "abbr": "CLC", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Provides free legal help to people who cannot get legal aid", "summary": "Independent not-for-profit services providing advice, casework and duty services to people who fall outside legal aid and cannot afford a private lawyer.", "responsibilities": [ "Provide legal information, advice and casework", "Run duty and outreach services", "Undertake law reform and community legal education" ], "notes": "The service that catches what legal aid does not, and it is turning people away\nat scale.\n\nReported by the sector: community legal centres turn away **more than 1,000\npeople a day**, including about 400 victim-survivors of family violence. In\nVictoria, **two-thirds of people seeking help are turned away**. The sector\nestimates it needs 2,000 additional workers to meet demand, and the Law Council\nhas put the national legal assistance funding shortfall at **$500 million a\nyear**.\n\nUp to 70 per cent of the people who do get through have an income under $32,000.\n\n**A turn-away is not a queue and this database should be precise about the\ndifference.** Most of what this project records is delay: a person waits and is\neventually seen. Here a person asks and is told no, and there is no list they\njoin. They do not appear in a waiting time statistic because there is no waiting\ntime \u2014 there is a door and it is closed.\n\nThat makes the harm invisible to exactly the kind of measurement this site\nusually relies on, and it is the reason the [[nsw-legal-aid-access|process map]]\nfor legal assistance shows a short critical path and a large problem. The\nelapsed time is small because the service is refused quickly.\n", "sources": [ "Community Legal Centres Australia: more than 1,000 people turned away daily, including about 400 victim-survivors; sector needs about 2,000 additional workers", "Federation of Community Legal Centres: two-thirds of Victorians seeking help are turned away", "Law Council of Australia: national legal assistance funding shortfall of $500 million per year", "Up to 70 per cent of community legal centre clients have an income of less than $32,000 per year" ] }, "community-pharmacy": { "id": "community-pharmacy", "name": "Community pharmacy", "abbr": "Pharmacy", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Dispenses medicines and, increasingly, treats common conditions", "summary": "Pharmacists are registered nationally by Ahpra and practise to a scope set by eight different state and territory regimes, which now differ substantially.", "responsibilities": [ "Dispense and counsel on medicines", "Administer vaccinations within the scope permitted in the jurisdiction", "Assess and treat common conditions where state law permits" ], "notes": "**One profession, one national registration, eight scopes of practice.**\n\nA pharmacist is registered by [[ahpra]] under the national law that applies\nidentically everywhere. What they may actually do is set by state and territory\nmedicines and poisons regulation, and the divergence is now substantial:\n\n- **Queensland** \u2014 pharmacists meeting the Extended Practice Authority\n requirements provide clinical advice and treatment, including prescribing, for\n a range of acute common conditions from **1 July 2025**, when the scope and\n hormonal contraception pilots became business as usual.\n- **New South Wales** \u2014 expanded scope for uncomplicated urinary tract\n infections, hormonal contraception continuation including certain oral\n contraceptives, the vaginal ring and DMPA, and minor skin conditions, with\n initiation of oral contraceptives now permitted.\n- **Victoria** \u2014 statewide pilot from August 2024 covering UTIs, shingles, mild\n plaque psoriasis and vaccines across more than 760 pharmacies, with initiation\n of oral contraceptives for women over 18 following.\n- Western Australia and others expanding on their own timetables.\n\nSo the same pharmacist, with the same training and the same registration, may\ntreat a urinary tract infection on one side of a border and not the other. A\npatient's access depends on their postcode rather than on anybody's competence.\n\nThis is the **eighth instance** of the partial-national pattern in this database\nand the purest: the profession is regulated nationally, and what it may do is\nnot.\n\n**The Commonwealth has now stepped over the top.** A national women's health\npharmacist prescribing trial was announced on 13 March 2026, under which from\n**1 January 2027** women will be able to access assessment and treatment for\nuncomplicated UTIs and initiation and resupply of selected hormonal\ncontraceptives at participating community pharmacies. See\n[[pharmacist-scope-recognised-nationally]].\n", "sources": [ "Queensland: Extended Practice Authority - Pharmacists from 1 July 2025; scope of practice and hormonal contraception pilots implemented as business-as-usual community pharmacy services from 1 July 2025", "New South Wales expanded scope services covering uncomplicated UTIs, hormonal contraception continuation and minor skin conditions, with initiation of oral contraceptives", "Victoria statewide pilot from August 2024 covering UTIs, shingles, mild plaque psoriasis and vaccines across more than 760 pharmacies", "National women's health pharmacist prescribing trial announced 13 March 2026, commencing 1 January 2027", "Scope of Practice Review (Cormack): inconsistent regulations, unnecessary restrictions on practice and siloed workforces having a detrimental impact on patients" ] }, "cricos-regulator": { "id": "cricos-regulator", "name": "Education regulators and the CRICOS register", "abbr": "TEQSA / ASQA", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Registers education providers and their courses for overseas students", "summary": "TEQSA regulates higher education providers and ASQA regulates vocational providers. Both also act as ESOS agencies, registering providers and courses on CRICOS, without which a provider cannot enrol international students.", "responsibilities": [ "Register and re-register education providers", "Register providers and courses on CRICOS under the ESOS Act", "Monitor compliance with the National Code and provider standards" ], "legislation": [ "Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth)", "Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (Cth)", "National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth)" ], "notes": "A provider wanting to teach international students passes through two\nregistrations administered by the same agency under two different Acts: domestic\nprovider registration, and CRICOS registration under the ESOS Act. The evidence\noverlaps substantially \u2014 governance, financial viability, academic quality \u2014 and\nthe two are assessed against different standards on different cycles.\n\nThe register also does something no other body in this database does: it sets a\nqueue position for somebody else. Under the ministerial directions governing\nstudent visa processing, a provider's share of the national planning level, and\nhow much of it they have used, determines how quickly *their students'* visas are\nassessed. A student's wait is therefore partly a function of an administrative\nallocation made to their institution before they applied, and which they cannot\nsee. See [[au-student-visa]].\n\nNew provider registrations for overseas students were frozen in 2026, which\ncloses the market to entrants entirely rather than assessing them. A freeze is a\nlegitimate response to an integrity problem and it is also the bluntest possible\ninstrument: it does not distinguish a good new provider from a bad one, because\nit does not look.\n", "sources": [ "Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth) and the CRICOS register", "The PIE News, 'Australia freezes new overseas student provider registrations', 2026" ] }, "daff": { "id": "daff", "name": "Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry", "abbr": "DAFF", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Administers drought policy, the Future Drought Fund and farm household support", "summary": "Sets drought resilience policy, administers the Future Drought Fund, and owns the Farm Household Allowance program delivered by Services Australia.", "responsibilities": [ "Administer the Future Drought Fund and its programs", "Set Farm Household Allowance policy and guidelines", "Fund Drought Resilience Adoption and Innovation Hubs" ], "legislation": [ "Future Drought Fund Act 2019 (Cth)" ], "notes": "**Australia has no national drought declaration, and that is a deliberate design\nchoice worth recording carefully.**\n\nThis database criticised [[disaster-activation-by-impact-not-boundary|disaster\nassistance]] for switching on by determination \u2014 per event, per local government\narea, per category \u2014 with households on the wrong side of a boundary receiving\nnothing until the boundary moved.\n\nDrought is the counter-example. There is no declaration to be inside or outside\nof. The **Farm Household Allowance** is available on the applicant's\ncircumstances, and the department's own material notes that a common\nmisconception is that it is a drought payment: **it is available for any type of\nfinancial hardship**.\n\nThe reasoning is sound. Drought has no clear start, no clear end, and no clean\nboundary \u2014 a declaration would be arbitrary at its edges and contested at its\ntiming, and Australia's earlier experience with drought declarations bore that\nout.\n\n**The cost of having no trigger is that nothing announces itself.** A disaster\nactivation is news: people learn they are eligible because the activation is\nreported. Drought support has no such moment, and the department's own\nobservation about the misconception suggests the consequence \u2014 farmers who would\nqualify do not apply, because they do not think the program is for them.\n\nThat is the take-up problem this database has now recorded in\n[[embedded-network-parity|energy rebates]],\n[[telehealth-relationship-should-follow-the-patient|MyMedicare]] and\n[[au-vfh-debt-remedy|VET FEE-HELP remedies]] \u2014 arriving here through the opposite\nmechanism. See [[drought-support-without-a-declaration]].\n\nThe **Future Drought Fund** transfers $100 million a year for drought resilience,\npreparedness and response. Its refreshed hubs program supports **seven Drought\nResilience Hubs** with up to **$86.7 million to June 2032** \u2014 a six-year horizon,\nwhich this site notes approvingly given what it has said about\n[[dental-fund-on-a-real-horizon|eleven-month agreements]].\n", "sources": [ "Future Drought Fund Act 2019 (Cth): $100 million transferred each financial year for drought resilience, preparedness and response", "Refreshed Drought Resilience Hubs program: seven hubs supported by up to $86.7 million to June 2032, applications closing 10 August 2026", "DAFF: Farm Household Allowance is available for any type of financial hardship, not only drought", "Farm Household Allowance: up to 4 years (1,460 days) in a 10-year period; second period 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2034; income limit $1,391.67 per fortnight as at January 2026" ] }, "dcceew": { "id": "dcceew", "name": "Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water", "abbr": "DCCEEW", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Assesses and approves actions under the EPBC Act", "summary": "The Commonwealth environment department administers the referral, assessment and approval of actions likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance. Its decisions run alongside state planning approval, not instead of it.", "responsibilities": [ "Decide whether a proposed action is a controlled action requiring approval", "Decide the assessment approach (preliminary documentation, EIS, or accredited state process)", "Assess the action and prepare a recommendation report", "Approve or refuse the action and set conditions", "Negotiate and administer assessment bilateral agreements with states and territories" ], "legislation": [ "Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)" ], "notes": "This body matters to the database out of proportion to how often it appears. It\nis rarely the first approval a project needs and almost never the last, but\nwhere it is triggered it commonly becomes the longest single step in the chain\n-- and, unusually, it is a step running on a clock the state process cannot see\nand does not coordinate with.\n\nTwo structural features are worth recording separately from any argument about\nwhether the assessment itself is worthwhile.\n\nFirst, the statutory clocks are expressed in **business days** and stop whenever\nthe department requests further information. A twenty business day decision is\nabout a calendar month at best, and considerably longer whenever the clock is\nstopped. Statutory time and elapsed time are not the same quantity here, and\nonly elapsed time is what a proponent experiences.\n\nSecond, the department has been audited on timeliness. The Auditor-General found\nin 2020 that administration of referrals, assessments and approvals was not\neffective, and that statutory timeframes were met in 19 per cent of cases in the\nfourth quarter of 2019. Reported performance after subsequent funding was\nsubstantially better, at 87 per cent. That range -- 19 per cent to 87 per cent\non the same statutory clock, with the law unchanged -- is the strongest evidence\nin this database that a large share of approval delay is a resourcing and\nqueueing question rather than a legislative one.\n\nAnyone proposing to fix environmental approval delay by amending the Act has to\nexplain that range first.\n", "sources": [ "ANAO, Auditor-General Report No. 47 of 2019-20, Referrals, Assessments and Approvals of Controlled Actions under the EPBC Act" ] }, "defence-security": { "id": "defence-security", "name": "Defence Industry Security Program and Defence Export Controls", "abbr": "DISP / DEC", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Accredits defence suppliers and controls defence exports", "summary": "Administers membership of the Defence Industry Security Program, which a supplier must hold to handle Defence information or assets, and administers export controls on defence and dual-use goods and technology.", "responsibilities": [ "Assess and grant DISP membership at Entry Level and Levels 1 to 3", "Apply foreign ownership, control or influence tests", "Accredit facilities and certify ICT systems", "Assess export permit applications for controlled goods and technology" ], "legislation": [ "Defence Trade Controls Act 2012 (Cth)", "Defence Trade Controls Amendment Act 2024 (Cth)" ], "notes": "Two functions in one entry because a supplier experiences them as one gate.\n\n**DISP.** Published expectations are two to three months for Entry Level and\nfour to six months for Levels 1 to 3, dependent on the applicant already holding\nthe required clearances, facility accreditations and ICT certifications. Those\nprerequisites are the actual cost: there is no membership fee, and there is a\nsubstantial bill for facility certification, physical security and cleared\npersonnel. Membership is open only to Australian businesses passing foreign\nownership, control or influence tests, which exclude some firms regardless of\ntechnical merit.\n\n**Export controls.** This is the rare case where a step in this database has\nalready been removed, at scale, and the removal can be described precisely.\nSince 1 September 2024, under the AUKUS national exemptions, industry and the\nresearch sector across Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States no\nlonger require a licence to export, re-export or transfer most controlled goods,\ntechnologies and services within AUKUS nations.\n\nThat is a `remove` reform of the purest kind: the step is gone, not accelerated,\nfor a defined class of transaction. It is recorded as\n[[aukus-licence-free-environment]] and it is one of only three entries on this\nsite marked enacted. What it did *not* do is remove the licence requirement for\ntransfers outside the three countries, which is the majority of the rest of the\nworld and includes several close partners.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Defence, published DISP application guidance and expected processing timeframes", "Department of Defence, 'AUKUS countries export licence-free environment takes flight', 1 May 2024, and national exemptions in force from 1 September 2024", "Defence Trade Controls Amendment Act 2024 (Cth)" ] }, "defence": { "id": "defence", "name": "Department of Defence", "abbr": "Defence", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Acquires and sustains military capability", "summary": "Runs capability acquisition through the Capability Life Cycle and the Integrated Investment Program, contracting through the ASDEFCON template suite. Its acquisition functions are being consolidated into a Defence Delivery Agency from 1 July 2027.", "responsibilities": [ "Develop capability proposals through the Capability Life Cycle", "Seek government approval at defined gates", "Tender, negotiate and administer acquisition contracts", "Sustain capability in service" ], "notes": "Defence is the only body in this database that is simultaneously the customer,\nthe regulator and the approver of its own supply chain. It sets the security\nrequirements a supplier must meet, vets the supplier's people through\n[[agsva]], writes the contract template, runs the tender, and evaluates it.\n\nThat concentration is deliberate and largely unavoidable \u2014 the alternative is an\noutside body making judgements about classified capability \u2014 but it removes\nalmost every external discipline this database usually relies on. There is no\nstatutory clock on any step. There is no appeal on the merits. There is no\npublished elapsed time per gate. A supplier who thinks a process took too long\nhas no forum in which to say so.\n\nReform is underway and is substantial. The Defence Delivery Agency will\nconsolidate CASG, the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Group and the\nNaval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group into a single delivery authority from\n1 July 2027, with the implementation plan set out in the Rebuilding Defence\nCapability report of 2 July 2026. The ANAO has separately found that Capability\nLife Cycle governance arrangements were not implemented effectively and that\nthere was a lack of clarity about the purpose of and relationship between the\nvarious decision-making forums.\n\nAn organisational merger is a real answer to that finding. It is worth recording\nthat it is also the answer least likely to be measurable: consolidating three\ngroups into one changes who decides, and this database can only see how long\ndeciding takes.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Defence, Rebuilding Defence Capability, 2 July 2026", "ANAO, Capability Development Reform, and related Defence performance audits", "Department of Defence, published ASDEFCON tendering and contracting template suite" ] }, "dewr": { "id": "dewr", "name": "Department of Employment and Workplace Relations", "abbr": "DEWR", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Funds vocational education and training and administers skills agreements", "summary": "Administers the National Skills Agreement with the states and territories, the Free TAFE program, and the vocational stream of the Commonwealth Prac Payment.", "responsibilities": [ "Negotiate and administer the National Skills Agreement", "Fund Free TAFE and VET places in partnership with states and territories", "Administer the Commonwealth Prac Payment for vocational students", "Publish VET program performance data" ], "legislation": [ "Free TAFE Act 2025 (Cth)" ], "notes": "The Commonwealth funds vocational training and does not deliver it. Money moves\nfrom DEWR through the National Skills Agreement to state and territory training\nauthorities, which contract registered training organisations, which enrol\nstudents. Four layers between the appropriation and the classroom, each with its\nown eligibility rules, reporting and contract terms.\n\nThat structure is why Commonwealth skills policy is expressed almost entirely in\nplaces and dollars rather than in outcomes: places are the unit DEWR can actually\nbuy.\n\n**Free TAFE was made permanent** by the Free TAFE Act 2025, with more than\n$1.6 billion committed to 2034-35 for at least 100,000 places a year from 2027,\nbuilding on around $30 billion over five years through the National Skills\nAgreement. More than 800,000 enrolments and about 258,000 completions had been\nrecorded since January 2023.\n\nThose two numbers are the subject of a live argument and this database should\nreport it carefully rather than pick a side. A completion ratio around a third\nlooks alarming, and the standard measurement objection is real: VET\nqualifications take years, completions are conventionally measured on four-year\ntimescales, and a large share of those enrolments are still in progress. The\nhonest position is that the program's effectiveness cannot yet be assessed from\npublished data, and that this is a measurement design problem worth fixing before\nthe next $1.6 billion is spent. See [[free-tafe-track-the-cohort]].\n", "sources": [ "Free TAFE Act 2025 (Cth); more than $1.6 billion to 2034-35 for at least 100,000 places per year from 2027", "Prime Minister of Australia, 'Over 800,000 free TAFE enrolments', reporting about 258,000 course completions", "DEWR, Fee-Free TAFE Program Snapshot, Quarter 1 2026" ] }, "dnsp": { "id": "dnsp", "name": "Distribution network service provider", "abbr": "DNSP", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Approves rooftop solar connections, sets export limits, and authorises export to the grid", "summary": "Thirteen of these, each with its own connection application and export rules \u2014 and almost all of them independently arrived at the same 5kW-per-phase cap.", "responsibilities": [ "Assess and approve applications to connect embedded generation", "Set static and flexible export limits", "Authorise a system to export once metering is in place", "Operate emergency backstop curtailment where a jurisdiction requires it" ], "notes": "The distribution counterpart to [[tnsp|the transmission network businesses]], and\nthe body that decides whether a household's solar may export.\n\n**Approval itself is fast.** For a standard residential system \u2014 up to 10 kW\nsingle-phase or 30 kW three-phase \u2014 connection approval typically takes **3 to 10\nbusiness days**. This database does not have a complaint about that step.\n\n**Export limits are where the national picture fragments.** Almost every DNSP in\nAustralia caps exports at **5 kW per phase**, which is a striking convergence:\nnetwork businesses under separate regulatory determinations independently landing\non the same number. Above that, and for anything non-standard, the process becomes\nlonger and more expensive.\n\n**And the emergency backstop arrived five separate times.** The capability to\ncurtail rooftop solar during minimum-demand events is required by AEMO, and each\njurisdiction legislated it on its own schedule with its own threshold:\n\n| Jurisdiction | Backstop |\n|---|---|\n| **South Australia** | All systems installed after **September 2020** must be capable of remote disconnection (Smarter Homes) |\n| **Queensland** | Inverters larger than **10 kW** require a signalling device, from **February 2023** |\n| **Victoria** | Systems **200 kW and under**, and legacy systems on inverter replacement, from **1 October 2024** |\n| **Western Australia** | Western Power two-pathway export model from **1 May 2026** |\n| **New South Wales** | CSIP-AUS rollout progressively by LGA and postcode from **June 2026**, complete October-December 2026 |\n\nSame physics, same market operator, same requirement, five commencement dates\nacross six years. See [[one-standard-five-backstops]].\n", "sources": [ "For standard residential systems up to 10 kW single-phase or 30 kW three-phase, DNSP connection approval typically takes 3-10 business days", "Almost every distribution network service provider in Australia caps solar exports at 5 kW per phase", "South Australia: under legislation passed in 2020, all solar systems installed after September 2020 must be capable of remote disconnection during a system security emergency, under the Smarter Homes regulations", "Queensland: since February 2023, solar inverters larger than 10 kW must include a signalling device", "Victoria: from 1 October 2024 an emergency backstop applies to new rooftop solar systems of 200 kW or less and to legacy systems that have an inverter replaced after that date", "New South Wales: the Emergency Backstop Mechanism with CSIP-AUS is being introduced progressively by LGA and postcode from June 2026, with full rollout completing October to December 2026", "Western Australia: Western Power introduced a two-pathway export model on 1 May 2026", "The emergency backstop is a protection required by the Australian Energy Market Operator to manage grid stability when rooftop solar exports are very high and electricity demand is very low" ] }, "dss": { "id": "dss", "name": "Department of Social Services", "abbr": "DSS", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Administers disability employment services and workplace support funding", "summary": "Administers Inclusive Employment Australia, which replaced Disability Employment Services on 1 November 2025, and the Employment Assistance Fund through JobAccess.", "responsibilities": [ "Contract and manage Inclusive Employment Australia providers", "Administer the Employment Assistance Fund for workplace modifications", "Operate JobAccess advisory services", "Set disability employment policy" ], "notes": "Inclusive Employment Australia replaced Disability Employment Services on\n1 November 2025, with 84 organisations receiving funding offers. The changes are\nsubstantial and, on their face, go in the direction this database usually argues\nfor: **time limits on support removed**, eligibility widened to people not\nreceiving Centrelink payments and to people who can only work part-time, and a\ntiered service model.\n\nRemoving a time limit is an unusual reform to find. Most of what this project\nrecords is a queue being shortened or a step being moved; this is a constraint on\n*how long help lasts* being deleted, which for a person whose disability is\npermanent is the difference between a program that fits their life and one that\ndoes not.\n\nWhat the reform did not do is reduce the number of doors. A person with\ndisability seeking work may deal with DSS through an IEA provider, the\n[[ndia|NDIA]] for NDIS employment supports, [[services-australia]] for the\nDisability Support Pension, and DSS again through JobAccess for the Employment\nAssistance Fund \u2014 four programs, three agencies, one person, no shared front\ndoor. See [[disability-employment-one-front-door]].\n", "sources": [ "Department of Social Services, Inclusive Employment Australia, replacing Disability Employment Services from 1 November 2025; 84 organisations offered funding", "JobAccess, published Employment Assistance Fund guidelines" ] }, "dva": { "id": "dva", "name": "Department of Veterans' Affairs", "abbr": "DVA", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Determines veterans' compensation, rehabilitation and treatment claims", "summary": "Assesses and determines claims for liability, compensation and rehabilitation arising from service, and administers treatment entitlements.", "responsibilities": [ "Receive and allocate claims", "Determine liability against the applicable Statements of Principles", "Assess permanent impairment and incapacity payments", "Conduct reconsideration of its own decisions" ], "legislation": [ "Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (Cth)", "Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth)", "Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (Cth)", "Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2025 (Cth)" ], "notes": "DVA is the most important entry in this database, because it is the one where the\nconsequence of delay is documented in a royal commission rather than inferred\nfrom holding costs.\n\nThe Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide found an unacceptable\nbacklog of almost 42,000 claims as at May 2022 and stated plainly that long waits\nfor entitlements damage veterans' mental health and in some cases contribute to\nsuicide and suicidality. Clearing it was made an urgent recommendation with a\n31 March 2024 deadline.\n\n**DVA met it.** The last of the unallocated backlog was cleared at the end of\nFebruary 2024, ahead of the deadline.\n\n**And then this.** As at 30 June 2026, DVA had 103,074 claims on hand: 70,149\nbeing processed and **32,925 unallocated**. Average time to process an MRCA\npermanent impairment claim across all claims on hand was 364 days, up from 315\nthe previous year, with a median of 317. For recently received claims the average\nwas 148 days.\n\nA backlog that was driven to zero in February 2024 and stood at nearly 33,000\nunallocated claims by June 2026 was not solved. It was *cleared*, which is a\ndifferent thing, and the distinction is the single most useful lesson in this\ndatabase. Clearing a queue by surging staff onto it, without changing what\ngenerates the queue, buys a headline and a few years. The arrival rate is\nstructural. The clearance surge was not.\n\nSee [[dva-fix-the-inflow-not-the-backlog]]. And note what the trend in the\naverage time to process says: it is going up, not down, two years after the\nbacklog was announced as beaten.\n", "sources": [ "Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, interim report 2022: backlog of 41,799 claims as at May 2022, and urgent recommendation to eliminate it by 31 March 2024", "DVA, published claim processing times: 103,074 claims on hand at 30 June 2026, of which 32,925 unallocated; MRCA permanent impairment average time to process 364 days, median 317; recently received claims average 148 days", "DVA, confirmation that the unallocated backlog was cleared at the end of February 2024" ] }, "education-au": { "id": "education-au", "name": "Department of Education (Commonwealth)", "abbr": "Education", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Approves providers for Child Care Subsidy and administers early education funding", "summary": "Approves child care providers under Family Assistance Law so that families attending their service can receive the Child Care Subsidy, and administers Commonwealth early education programs including the 3 Day Guarantee.", "responsibilities": [ "Approve providers and services for Child Care Subsidy under Family Assistance Law", "Administer the Child Care Subsidy and the 3 Day Guarantee", "Administer Commonwealth funding for new services in areas of low provision" ], "legislation": [ "A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)" ], "notes": "This is the Commonwealth's only direct approval step in childcare, and it is\ndecisive without being a safety check.\n\nA centre that has been approved by its state regulatory authority, built,\nstaffed and inspected can lawfully open without Commonwealth approval. It simply\ncannot function commercially, because families attending it receive no subsidy.\nIn practice, therefore, this is a gate, and it sits at the end of a chain of\nstate gates that have already examined the same operator.\n\nThe Commonwealth's leverage over childcare supply is almost entirely fiscal\nrather than regulatory. It sets the subsidy, and from 5 January 2026 it\nguarantees 72 hours per fortnight to all eligible families regardless of\nactivity. What it does not control is whether a centre exists to spend the\nsubsidy at -- which depends on a council development consent and a state service\napproval, neither of which the Commonwealth can grant, direct or expedite.\n\nThat mismatch between who funds the objective and who controls the process is\nthe recurring shape of this database, and childcare is its clearest example:\ndemand was expanded by Commonwealth decision on a fixed date, and supply is\nregulated by two other tiers of government on no particular timetable.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Education, published guidance on the Child Care Subsidy approval process", "Department of Education, 3 Day Guarantee fact sheet, in effect from 5 January 2026" ] }, "energy-bill-relief": { "id": "energy-bill-relief", "name": "Energy Bill Relief Fund (Commonwealth)", "abbr": "EBRF", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Funds electricity bill credits for households and small businesses", "summary": "A Commonwealth fund delivered through state and territory governments and applied by electricity retailers as automatic credits on bills \u2014 except for customers the retailer does not bill directly, who must apply.", "responsibilities": [ "Fund energy bill relief to households and eligible small businesses", "Set eligibility and the value of relief with states and territories", "Deliver relief through retailers as bill credits" ], "notes": "This body is in the database as the best-designed delivery mechanism it contains,\nand as the clearest illustration of what happens at the edge of a good design.\n\n**The good part.** Relief of up to $300 in 2024-25 and up to $150 under the 2025\nextension reached most households with **no application at all**. The retailer\napplied a credit to the bill. No form, no eligibility interview, no evidentiary\nburden, no annual reconfirmation, and therefore no take-up gap: a household could\nnot fail to receive it through not knowing about it.\n\nAlmost nothing else in this database works that way. The\n[[au-aged-care-access|aged care]], [[au-ndis-access|NDIS]],\n[[nsw-social-housing-access|social housing]] and [[au-dva-claim|veterans]]\nprocesses all require the person to find the scheme, prove their circumstances,\nand wait. Energy bill relief simply arrived.\n\n**The edge.** Customers in embedded networks \u2014 permanent residents of caravan\nparks and retirement villages, and residents of many apartment buildings, who buy\nelectricity through a landlord or body corporate rather than from a retailer \u2014\nreceive the same entitlement but **must apply for it**, through a state portal.\n\nThe entitlement is identical. The administrative burden is not, and it falls on a\ngroup that skews older, lower-income and more likely to be renting. The reason is\ntechnical rather than deliberate: there is no retailer relationship to hang the\ncredit on. But a technical reason for a burden is still a burden, and it is borne\nby the people least able to carry it. See [[embedded-network-parity]].\n\nThe broad universal program has since wound back to targeted concessions\nrequiring a qualifying card, which moves the whole scheme from the automatic side\nof this database to the application side. See\n[[pay-concessions-automatically]].\n", "sources": [ "energy.gov.au, Energy Bill Relief Fund household guidance: up to $300 in 2024-25 and up to $150 under the 2025 extension", "Published guidance that embedded network customers must apply through state portals; Victorian embedded network customers apply via Victorian Energy Compare for a one-off $150 payment" ] }, "energy-retailer": { "id": "energy-retailer", "name": "Electricity retailer", "abbr": "Retailer", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Applies rebates and credits to customer accounts", "summary": "A private business that delivers a public payment: retailers apply Commonwealth bill relief and state concessions as credits to the accounts of customers they bill directly.", "responsibilities": [ "Apply Commonwealth energy bill relief credits to eligible accounts", "Apply state concessions and rebates to eligible accounts", "Verify concession card status through Centrelink Confirmation eServices with customer consent" ], "notes": "A private company performing a public function, like the\n[[nsw-private-certifier|private certifier]] in building approval \u2014 and, unlike\nthat case, one where the arrangement works well.\n\nThe retailer is the reason energy bill relief reached households without an\napplication. It already bills the customer, already holds their identity, and\nalready has a mechanism to verify concession card status: **Centrelink\nConfirmation eServices**, through which businesses confirm a customer's payment\nand concession card details with Services Australia, with consent, receiving only\nwhat they need to establish eligibility.\n\nThis matters to the argument in [[pay-concessions-automatically]] more than\nanything else in this database. The usual objection to automatic payment is that\ngovernment cannot know who is eligible without asking. Here it demonstrably can,\nthe channel exists, it is in routine commercial use, and it is subject to consent\nand privacy controls that were designed for exactly this purpose.\n\nThe customer whose relationship is with a landlord or body corporate rather than\na retailer falls outside all of it, which is why they apply and everyone else\ndoes not.\n", "sources": [ "Services Australia, Centrelink Confirmation eServices for businesses: confirming customer details including payments and concession cards, with consent" ] }, "fwc": { "id": "fwc", "name": "Fair Work Commission", "abbr": "FWC", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Sets minimum wages and award conditions", "summary": "The national workplace relations tribunal. Through work value cases it can vary award minimum rates where the value of work has been undervalued, including on the basis of gender-based undervaluation.", "responsibilities": [ "Determine work value cases and vary modern award rates", "Set and adjust the national minimum wage", "Approve enterprise agreements and resolve disputes" ], "legislation": [ "Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)" ], "notes": "The Commission belongs in this database because it is the alternative route to\nsomething two other domains here attempt by other means: raising wages in a\ncare sector the Commonwealth funds.\n\n**In aged care**, wages were raised through the industrial system. The Health\nServices Union lodged a work value case in **November 2020** arguing gender-based\nundervaluation. The Commission awarded an interim 15 per cent, then further\nincreases of between 3 and 13 per cent paid on 1 January 2025 and 1 October 2025,\nand for nurses a three-stage increase of between 4 and 25 per cent with the final\ntranche on **1 August 2026**. The Commonwealth funded it at $17.7 billion in\ntotal, covering an estimated 400,000 workers.\n\n**In childcare**, wages were raised through a grant. The\n[[pay-the-wage-through-the-funding-rate|Worker Retention Payment]] delivers a\n15 per cent above-award increase, conditional on a service opting in and\ncapping fee increases, funded to 30 June 2028.\n\nThe comparison is the point, and neither route is obviously better.\n\nThe industrial route took **five years and nine months** from lodgement to final\npayment. It produced a permanent change to award minimum rates that binds every\nemployer, does not expire, requires no employer to opt in, and cannot be\nwithdrawn by a future government without another case.\n\nThe grant route took months. It reaches a worker only if their employer joined,\nruns to a fixed date, and has already been extended once.\n\nSpeed and durability traded directly against each other. This site spends most of\nits time arguing for speed, and this is the clearest case in it where the slow\nprocess produced the better instrument. See [[au-aged-care-wage-case]].\n", "sources": [ "Fair Work Commission Aged Care Work Value Case: HSU application lodged November 2020; interim 15 per cent increase; further increases of 3 to 13 per cent paid 1 January 2025 and 1 October 2025; nurses increases of 4 to 25 per cent in three stages with the final tranche 1 August 2026", "Department of Health, Disability and Ageing: $17.7 billion total Commonwealth commitment including $11.3 billion for the initial 15 per cent, $3.8 billion for the Stage 3 decision and $2.6 billion for the nurses decision; about 400,000 workers affected" ] }, "general-insurer": { "id": "general-insurer", "name": "General insurer", "abbr": "Insurer", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Assesses and settles home and contents claims after a disaster", "summary": "Private insurers whose claim decisions determine whether and when a damaged home can be rebuilt, and on what terms.", "responsibilities": [ "Assess damage and determine claim liability", "Scope and cost repairs or reinstatement", "Appoint builders and manage rebuilds" ], "notes": "A private body whose decision gates a public outcome, like the\n[[energy-retailer|electricity retailer]] and the\n[[nsw-private-certifier|private certifier]] \u2014 and here the dependency is\nabsolute. Government disaster payments are measured in hundreds or low thousands\nof dollars. **The rebuild is paid for by the insurer or it is not paid for.**\n\nTwo features shape the [[nsw-disaster-recovery|recovery process]].\n\n**The claim gates everything downstream.** Scope of works, builder appointment,\ndevelopment approval and construction all wait on settlement, and a disputed\nclaim stops the sequence rather than slowing it. Disputes are handled outside the\ndisaster system entirely, through the insurer's internal process and then the\nAustralian Financial Complaints Authority, on their own timeframes.\n\n**Underinsurance and non-insurance are the silent variables.** A household\nwithout cover, or with cover well below replacement cost in a market where\npremiums in high-risk areas have risen sharply, faces the rebuild with the\ndisaster payment and whatever they have. Nothing in the Commonwealth\narrangements is calibrated to that, and this database cannot see it: a household\nthat does not rebuild generates no application, no queue position and no\nstatistic.\n\nThat is the same invisibility recorded for\n[[count-the-turn-aways|legal assistance turn-aways]] \u2014 the people who fall out of\na system entirely are the ones no dataset contains.\n" }, "health-au": { "id": "health-au", "name": "Department of Health, Disability and Ageing", "abbr": "Health", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Administers Medicare access restrictions on overseas-trained doctors", "summary": "Administers section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act -- the ten year restriction on Medicare provider numbers for overseas-trained doctors -- and the Distribution Priority Area classification that determines where they may work with Medicare access.", "responsibilities": [ "Administer section 19AB restrictions and exemptions", "Classify geographic areas as Distribution Priority Areas", "Administer workforce distribution levers including the Bonded Medical Program" ], "legislation": [ "Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth), s 19AB" ], "notes": "This is a workforce distribution instrument, not a safety instrument, and the\ndistinction governs how it should be assessed.\n\nA doctor who has passed every safety check -- registered by the Medical Board,\nassessed by a college, granted a visa -- still cannot attract Medicare benefits\nfor ten years unless they practise where the department has classified them as\nneeded. Nothing about their competence is in question at this step. The step\nexists to direct labour towards places that would otherwise struggle to attract\nit, which is a real problem that no other instrument in the system addresses as\ndirectly.\n\nThat makes it unusually clean to analyse. The elapsed time it adds is not\nassessment time, and the classification it turns on is a published dataset\nrather than a judgement about an individual. Those are the conditions under\nwhich a step can be made faster without changing what it does -- and they are\nalso the conditions under which people mistake speeding up the paperwork for\nchanging the policy. Those are different arguments and this database keeps them\napart. See [[nineteen-ab-parallel-processing]].\n", "sources": [ "Services Australia, published guidance on restrictions and exemptions for international medical graduates", "Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, published guidance on section 19AB restricted doctors and access to Medicare" ] }, "home-affairs": { "id": "home-affairs", "name": "Department of Home Affairs", "abbr": "Home Affairs", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Grants skilled work visas", "summary": "Assesses employer sponsorship, nomination and skilled visa applications, and sets processing priorities by ministerial direction rather than by statutory timeframe.", "responsibilities": [ "Approve employer sponsorship and nomination", "Assess and grant skilled work visas", "Apply processing priorities set by ministerial direction" ], "legislation": [ "Migration Act 1958 (Cth)", "Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)" ], "notes": "Visa processing is the step in the specialist workforce chain where elapsed time\nis set most explicitly by administrative choice rather than by law. There is no\nstatutory clock. What exists instead is a ministerial direction ranking\napplications, and the ranking changes: Direction 105 was replaced by Direction\n119 with effect from 25 July 2026, prioritising onshore applicants over offshore\napplicants within the same occupation category.\n\nFor a health service recruiting a specialist who is currently overseas -- which\nis the entire purpose of recruiting internationally -- that direction moves the\napplication down the queue relative to someone already here.\n\nReported outcomes range from days in the Specialist Skills stream for high\nincome earners to many months in other skilled streams. That variance is the\nfinding. Same department, same law, order-of-magnitude difference in elapsed\ntime depending only on which queue an application lands in. A queue position is\nthe least visible and most easily changed thing in this entire database.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Home Affairs, published skilled visa processing priorities", "Ministerial Direction 119, replacing Direction 105 from 25 July 2026" ] }, "homes-nsw": { "id": "homes-nsw", "name": "Homes NSW", "abbr": "Homes NSW", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Manages the NSW Housing Register and allocates social housing", "summary": "Assesses eligibility for social housing, maintains the single NSW Housing Register, determines priority status, and allocates properties as they become available.", "responsibilities": [ "Assess applications for social housing eligibility", "Determine priority housing status against urgent need criteria", "Maintain the NSW Housing Register by location and category", "Allocate vacant properties in the prescribed order" ], "legislation": [ "Housing Act 2001 (NSW)" ], "notes": "This body publishes a statistic that this database has to handle carefully,\nbecause it is accurate and widely misread.\n\nAs at 31 March 2026, the median waiting time for general applicants **housed**\nfrom the NSW Housing Register was 15.1 months, and for priority applicants\n4.5 months.\n\nRead the word \"housed\". That median describes the people who reached the front\nof the queue. It does not describe the queue. As at 31 December 2025 there were\n**67,316 households** on the register \u2014 12,094 approved as priority and 55,222 as\ngeneral \u2014 and the ones who have been waiting longest are, by construction,\nabsent from a statistic computed only over those who got out.\n\nThis is survivorship in its purest form, and it is not a criticism of Homes NSW,\nwhich publishes expected waiting times by area separately and does not claim the\nmedian means anything else. It is a criticism of how the number travels. A\nhousehold reading \"15 months\" and a household on a register where their area's\nexpected wait runs to years are reading the same figure about different things.\n\nThe order of allocation is published and is not first-come: emergency temporary\naccommodation, then priority approvals and under-occupancy transfers, then\nelderly clients, then management transfers, then wait-turn. A general applicant's\nposition therefore depends on how many higher-order households arrive after them,\nwhich is unknowable in advance and unbounded.\n\nSee [[social-housing-publish-the-wait-people-are-actually-doing]].\n", "sources": [ "NSW Department of Communities and Justice, published social housing waiting list data: 67,316 households on the register at 31 December 2025 (12,094 priority, 55,222 general)", "Median waiting time for applicants housed at 31 March 2026: 15.1 months general, 4.5 months priority", "NSW Government, Managing the NSW Housing Register policy and Social Housing Eligibility and Allocations Policy Supplement" ] }, "housing-australia": { "id": "housing-australia", "name": "Housing Australia", "abbr": "Housing Australia", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Finances social and affordable housing", "summary": "The Commonwealth body that administers the Housing Australia Future Fund facility and the affordable housing bond aggregator, contracting with community housing providers and developers to deliver social and affordable homes.", "responsibilities": [ "Run funding rounds under the Housing Australia Future Fund Facility", "Assess and contract proposals from community housing providers and developers", "Administer the affordable housing bond aggregator", "Report on delivery against program targets" ], "notes": "Housing Australia does not build houses and does not approve them. It finances\nthem, which places it two removes from the thing being measured: a council grants\nconsent, a provider builds, and Housing Australia is judged on the result.\n\nThe published position is stark. The Housing Australia Future Fund targets 40,000\nnew social and affordable homes. As at May 2026, **1,432 had been delivered** \u2014\nunder 4 per cent \u2014 of which 762 were newly constructed by housing providers and\n670 were built by private developers and purchased by a provider.\n\nThe Auditor-General reported critically on the program in July 2026, and the\nfinding worth recording here is procedural rather than financial: funding\napplications opened in **January 2024**, and Treasury did not finalise most\ndelivery and oversight arrangements until **May 2026**. The ANAO found that the\ndelay limited Treasury's ability to systematically monitor and manage program\nrisks and performance. The Minister accepted all recommendations.\n\nTwenty-eight months of applications assessed and contracted before the governance\nfor assessing and contracting them was settled. See\n[[haff-settle-the-rules-before-opening-the-round]].\n\nTwo cautions this database owes the reader. Under 4 per cent against a 2029\ntarget is not the same as failure \u2014 social housing has a long lead time, and\nhomes contracted but not yet complete do not appear in a delivered count. And\nnone of the delay after contracting is Housing Australia's: it sits in planning\nconsent, construction and the same [[nsw-apartments|approval chain]] every other\napartment building passes through.\n", "sources": [ "ANAO performance audit of the Housing Australia Future Fund, July 2026", "Reported delivery of 1,432 of the 40,000 home target as at May 2026, comprising 762 newly constructed and 670 purchased", "Department of Finance, published Housing Australia Future Fund material" ] }, "hsra": { "id": "hsra", "name": "High Speed Rail Authority", "abbr": "HSRA", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Plans and develops high speed rail on the east coast", "summary": "A Commonwealth authority established in 2023 to plan, develop and oversee construction of a high speed rail network, beginning with Newcastle to Sydney.", "responsibilities": [ "Develop business cases for high speed rail corridors", "Undertake route development, geotechnical and environmental investigation", "Prepare environmental impact assessment documentation", "Advise on corridor protection and land acquisition" ], "legislation": [ "High Speed Rail Authority Act 2022 (Cth)" ], "website": "https://www.hsra.gov.au", "notes": "The Authority is a proponent, not an approver, which is exactly why it belongs\nin this database. It cannot approve its own project. To build, it must satisfy\nthe Commonwealth environment department under the EPBC Act and the New South\nWales planning system as critical state significant infrastructure -- two\nclocks, two sets of requirements, two documents, one railway.\n\nThe project entered a two year development phase on 24 February 2026 with\n$229.6 million in new funding, taking the total commitment to $659.6 million,\nand appointed its environmental planning and assessment advisor in August 2026.\nThe released business case put the first two stages to Sydney at $61.2 billion,\nwith a further $32 billion to reach Western Sydney airport. Roughly 115 km of\nthe 194 km route is tunnel.\n\nNothing in this database bears on whether the project should be built, and the\napprovals discussed here are a small fraction of its cost and risk. What the\ndatabase can say is narrower and still worth saying: a Commonwealth agency\ndelivering a Commonwealth priority is subject to the same duplicated\nenvironmental assessment as any private proponent. That duplication is a choice\nthe Commonwealth has the power to remove for everyone, and choosing not to\nremove it is a position it should have to defend on the merits rather than by\ndefault. See [[hsr-single-environmental-assessment]].\n", "sources": [ "Railway Gazette International, 'Newcastle-Sydney high speed railway moves into development phase', 3 March 2026", "Infrastructure Australia, Stage 3 Evaluation Report, High Speed Rail Sydney-Newcastle, November 2025", "AECOM, appointment as Environmental Planning and Assessment Advisor, 25 August 2026" ] }, "infrastructure-australia": { "id": "infrastructure-australia", "name": "Infrastructure Australia", "abbr": "IA", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Independent statutory adviser that evaluates major infrastructure proposals seeking Commonwealth funding", "summary": "Evaluates proposals seeking more than $250 million in Commonwealth funding. Assesses the project a state has already chosen, not what else the money could have bought.", "responsibilities": [ "Evaluate proposals that are nationally significant or seek more than $250 million in Commonwealth investment", "Maintain the Infrastructure Priority List", "Advise on national infrastructure priorities" ], "notes": "Established under the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 and refocused following an\nindependent review on nationally significant infrastructure and advice to the\nCommonwealth.\n\n**The threshold was raised, and it is an enacted reform of exactly the kind this\nsite proposes.** Infrastructure Australia now evaluates proposals seeking more\nthan **$250 million** in Commonwealth funding, up from **$100 million** \u2014 to focus\nbusiness case evaluation on the projects that matter and improve the efficiency of\ndecision-making. **All states and territories advocated for the change.** A\n`threshold` reform, agreed by every party subject to it, is rare enough in this\ndatabase to note.\n\n**The evaluation is real and it is late.** A proposal arrives with a business case\nattached, which means a state has selected the project, developed it, and usually\nannounced it. The evaluation asks whether *this* project stacks up. It is not a\ncomparison against what else the money could have bought, because that choice was\nmade before the submission.\n\n**And its remit is capital.** There is no equivalent body, list or evaluation for\nthe recurrent cost of running a service on the infrastructure once built. See\n[[the-commonwealth-buys-assets-and-not-services]].\n", "sources": [ "Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 (Cth)", "Infrastructure Australia evaluates project proposals that are nationally significant or where a government is seeking Commonwealth investment of more than $250 million, an increase from the previous threshold of $100 million; all states and territories advocated for the change", "Infrastructure Australia, 2026 Infrastructure Priority List; Annual Performance Statement 2026" ] }, "infrastructure-dept": { "id": "infrastructure-dept", "name": "Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts", "abbr": "Infrastructure", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Administers the Infrastructure Investment Program and Commonwealth land transport funding", "summary": "$13.5 billion to the states in 2026-27, $84 billion committed across 81 projects, paid against construction milestones. Not one dollar of it can run a service.", "responsibilities": [ "Administer the Infrastructure Investment Program", "Negotiate project schedules under the Federation Funding Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects", "Make milestone payments against agreed construction schedules" ], "notes": "Commonwealth land transport funding operates under the National Land Transport Act\n2014, delivered through the **Infrastructure Investment Program** and governed by\nthe **Federation Funding Agreement Schedule on Land Transport Infrastructure\nProjects 2024-2029**, in effect since **11 August 2024**.\n\nThe scale is not small. Australian Government funding across the program reached\n**$84 billion over 81 projects**, with megaprojects growing to **32** in Budget\n2025-26 from 26 the year before. In **2026-27** the Commonwealth will provide\n**$13.5 billion** to states and territories, primarily through the program.\n\n**The structural fact this database records is what the program does not\ncontain.** It funds building a railway, a busway, a station, a road. It funds none\nof the cost of operating a service on any of them. That is a coherent division of\nresponsibility with a long constitutional history, and it means the only\nCommonwealth instrument available to a government that wants better urban public\ntransport is one that can only buy structures.\n\n**And the composition follows.** Of nine new projects added in Budget 2025-26,\n**seven were road and two were rail.** One year's additions are not a trend, and\nthey are consistent with a program whose road component is described as\ndelivering most of the Australian Government's investment in road infrastructure.\nSee [[the-commonwealth-buys-assets-and-not-services]].\n", "sources": [ "National Land Transport Act 2014 (Cth)", "Federation Funding Agreement Schedule on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects 2024-2029, in effect 11 August 2024", "Infrastructure Australia Annual Performance Statement 2026: nine new projects added in Budget 2025-26 (7 road and 2 rail); megaprojects grew to 32 from 26 in Budget 2024-25; Australian Government funding of $84 billion over 81 projects", "In 2026-27 the Commonwealth will provide $13.5 billion in infrastructure funding to the states and territories, delivered primarily through the Infrastructure Investment Program" ] }, "jsa": { "id": "jsa", "name": "Jobs and Skills Australia", "abbr": "JSA", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Analyses workforce needs and advises on skills priorities", "summary": "Provides labour market analysis and workforce planning advice, including the occupation shortage list that informs training priorities and migration settings.", "responsibilities": [ "Publish labour market and skills needs analysis", "Maintain the occupation shortage list", "Advise on training and migration priorities" ], "notes": "An advisory body with no approval power, included because its outputs set the\ninputs to bodies that do have approval power.\n\nThe occupation shortage list informs which courses states put on subsidised\nlists, which occupations appear on skilled migration lists, and therefore who\ngets a fee-free place and whose visa is prioritised. A judgement made here\npropagates into [[nsw-training|state training allocations]] and into\n[[home-affairs|visa processing priorities]] without ever being a decision anyone\ncan appeal.\n\nThis database records it as a reminder that not every consequential step is an\napproval. Some of the most decisive acts in these chains are classifications: a\nDistribution Priority Area boundary in [[health-au|health]], a provider\nallocation in [[au-student-visa|international education]], an occupation on a\nshortage list here. None is a decision about an individual, all of them determine\nindividual outcomes, and none carries the review rights an approval would.\n" }, "lvp-provider": { "id": "lvp-provider", "name": "Leaving Violence Program provider", "abbr": "LVP provider", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Assesses and delivers the Leaving Violence Program payment and support", "summary": "Contracted providers that assess eligibility, conduct risk assessment and safety planning, and deliver financial support of up to $5,000 to people leaving intimate partner violence.", "responsibilities": [ "Assess eligibility and evidence of violence and financial stress", "Conduct risk assessment and safety planning", "Deliver financial support and referrals" ], "notes": "Another contracted body delivering a Commonwealth entitlement, alongside\n[[workforce-australia-provider|employment services providers]],\n[[apprenticeship-support|apprenticeship support services]] and\n[[energy-retailer|energy retailers]]. In this instance the contracted model\ncarries a clear advantage: a specialist family violence service is better placed\nto conduct risk assessment and safety planning than a general payment agency\nwould be, and the assessment is bundled with the support rather than separated\nfrom it.\n\nThe Leaving Violence Program became permanent from 1 July 2025 following the\nEscaping Violence Payment trial, funded at $925 million. It is delivered through\na national provider and four Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led services\nbased in the Broome, Cairns, Darwin and Dubbo regions \u2014 which is a deliberate and\nwell-founded design choice rather than an afterthought.\n\n**What this database records is the evidence test**, not the delivery. To access\nthe payment a person must show financial stress and evidence of violence: a\nreferral from a family violence service with a risk assessment and safety plan,\nor an apprehended violence order, a court order, or a police report.\n\nEvery one of those is reasonable on its own. The difficulty is that the same\nperson is separately proving the same violence to a court, to\n[[services-australia]] for a crisis payment, to [[homes-nsw|a housing\nauthority]] for priority status, and to an employer for family violence leave \u2014\neach with its own test. See [[evidence-of-violence-once]].\n", "sources": [ "Department of Social Services, Leaving Violence Program: permanent from 1 July 2025, $925 million, up to $5,000 in financial support with referral, risk assessment and safety planning", "Delivered through a national program and four Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led providers in the Broome, Cairns, Darwin and Dubbo regions", "Evidence requirements: financial stress, and evidence of violence such as a referral from a family violence service with risk assessment and safety plan, an apprehended violence order, a court order, or a police report" ] }, "maintenance-contractor": { "id": "maintenance-contractor", "name": "Social housing maintenance contractor", "abbr": "Contractor", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Carries out repairs on public housing under contract", "summary": "Private contractors engaged under state maintenance contracts to attend, diagnose and complete repairs within response times set by the category assigned to each request.", "responsibilities": [ "Attend within the response time for the assigned category", "Diagnose and complete repairs", "Report completion against contract performance measures" ], "notes": "Another private body delivering a public obligation, alongside the\n[[energy-retailer|electricity retailer]], the [[general-insurer|insurer]] and the\n[[mobile-carrier|mobile carrier]] \u2014 and here the measurement problem is acute.\n\nA contractor is held to a response time set by the **category** the request was\ngiven, not by what the tenant needs. A request categorised routine is not late\nuntil the routine timeframe expires, and a first visit that diagnoses a fault and\norders parts satisfies the attendance obligation without fixing anything.\n\nSo the contractor's performance record and the tenant's experience of elapsed\ntime can both be accurate and completely different. This database has found that\nshape before \u2014 in [[nsw-social-housing-access|social housing waiting times]]\ncomputed over people who were housed, and in the\n[[au-ndis-access|NDIS clock]] that starts once an application is deemed complete.\nHere it arises from measuring attendance rather than resolution.\n\nNew maintenance contracts commenced on 1 July 2024, alongside the consolidation\nof requests into a single Maintenance Hub within [[homes-nsw]].\n", "sources": [ "New NSW social housing maintenance contracts commenced 1 July 2024", "Homes NSW received 24,592 urgent maintenance requests in 2023-24" ] }, "mdba": { "id": "mdba", "name": "Murray-Darling Basin Authority", "abbr": "MDBA", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Administers the Basin Plan and reports on water recovery", "summary": "Plans and reports on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, including sustainable diversion limits and progress toward environmental water recovery targets.", "responsibilities": [ "Administer and review the Basin Plan", "Set and account for sustainable diversion limits", "Report on water recovery progress" ], "legislation": [ "Water Act 2007 (Cth)", "Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Act 2023 (Cth)" ], "notes": "The Basin Plan is a Commonwealth instrument delivered almost entirely through\nstate systems: entitlements are issued by states, held on state registers, traded\nunder state approval, and delivered through state-operated infrastructure. The\nAuthority plans and accounts; it does not issue a licence to anybody.\n\n**The number worth watching is the run rate.** The Water Amendment (Restoring Our\nRivers) Act 2023 requires 450 GL of additional environmental water by **31\nDecember 2027**, with water infrastructure projects delivered by **31 December\n2026**. Published progress has the Commonwealth at **almost half** of the 450 GL\nas at March 2026.\n\nHalf, with about twenty-one months to run. That is not a prediction of failure \u2014\nthe Act deliberately widened the available methods to include on-farm and off-farm\nefficiency projects, voluntary buybacks and land and water packages, and buyback\ncan move volume quickly when the government is willing to pay. It is an\nobservation that the remaining half has to arrive faster than the first half did.\n\nThis database records run rates because it has now found the same shape three\ntimes: [[au-haff-project|1,432 of 40,000 social homes]],\n[[nt-remote-housing|300 of 2,700 remote houses]], and here. A target, a deadline,\na published cumulative figure, and no published statement of the rate required to\nmeet it.\n", "sources": [ "DCCEEW: 450 GL of additional environmental water to be recovered by 31 December 2027, with water infrastructure projects delivered by 31 December 2026", "DCCEEW published water recovery progress as at 31 March 2026: almost half of the 450 GL recovered", "Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Act 2023 (Cth), widening delivery options to on-farm and off-farm efficiency projects, voluntary buybacks and land and water packages" ] }, "metering-coordinator": { "id": "metering-coordinator", "name": "Metering coordinator", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Installs and reconfigures electricity meters, appointed by the retailer", "summary": "The party standing between a working solar system and a system allowed to export. Regulated timeframes exist; the Energy and Water Ombudsman has recorded waits beyond 40 business days.", "responsibilities": [ "Install bidirectional and digital meters", "Reconfigure existing meters following solar installation", "Repair or replace faulty meters" ], "notes": "**The queue at the end of the rooftop solar process, and the household has no\ncontractual relationship with the party causing it.**\n\nAfter installation the retailer assigns a metering coordinator to install or\nreconfigure a bidirectional meter. Only once that is done and the\n[[dnsp|network]] authorises export can the system legally export. Until then the\npanels are on the roof, generating, and the household is paid for nothing it\nsends out.\n\n**Regulated timeframes exist and are not always met.** From 1 February 2019 digital\nmeters were required to be installed within **15 business days**, and a metering\ncoordinator must repair or replace a faulty meter within **10 days** of being\nnotified \u2014 *although this is often not occurring*.\n\n**What the ombudsman sees.** The Energy and Water Ombudsman NSW has recorded a\ncustomer waiting **more than 40 business days** after being told their meter\nneeded reconfiguration, having contacted the retailer four or five times without\nbeing given a timeline. In South Australia in 2018-19, complaints about meter\ninstallation or removal rose **29 per cent**, with delays to meter upgrades\nassociated with solar installations the largest subcategory.\n\nThree parties, none of them the one the customer bought from: the retailer\nappoints, the metering coordinator performs, the network authorises. See\n[[the-meter-is-the-queue]].\n", "sources": [ "The retailer assigns a metering coordinator to install a bidirectional meter; only once the meter is installed or reconfigured and the DNSP authorises the system can it legally begin exporting", "From 1 February 2019 regulations required digital meters to be installed within 15 business days; current rules require a metering coordinator to repair or replace a faulty meter within 10 days of being notified, although this is often not occurring", "Energy and Water Ombudsman NSW case: more than 40 business days after notification that a smart meter needed reconfiguration, with no timeline provided after four or five contacts with the retailer", "South Australia 2018-19: a 29 per cent increase in complaints related to meter installation or removal, with delays in meter upgrades associated with solar installations the biggest subcategory" ] }, "mobile-carrier": { "id": "mobile-carrier", "name": "Mobile network operator", "abbr": "Carrier", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Builds and operates mobile networks, and will carry the coverage obligation", "summary": "Telstra, Optus and TPG Telecom, which build mobile infrastructure commercially, bid for government co-investment where it is not commercial, and from December 2027 would carry a universal outdoor coverage obligation.", "responsibilities": [ "Build and operate mobile network infrastructure", "Bid for co-investment under government programs", "Provide baseline outdoor coverage under the proposed obligation" ], "notes": "Another private body delivering a public outcome, alongside the\n[[energy-retailer|electricity retailer]], the\n[[general-insurer|insurer]] and the [[nsw-private-certifier|private certifier]].\nThe relationship here is unusually explicit: the carrier decides where coverage\nis commercial, and everything outside that line is a policy problem.\n\n**The co-investment design is worth recording as good.** Under the current round,\na project involving **all three** national mobile network operators through active\nsharing or roaming may seek up to **100 per cent** funding. A project with\nco-location, or fewer than three operators, may seek **50 to 75 per cent**.\n\nThat is a subsidy rate set by how much sharing the infrastructure delivers. The\nCommonwealth is not simply paying for a tower; it is paying more for a tower that\nserves everybody's customers. In a domain where duplicated infrastructure in thin\nmarkets is the classic waste, pricing the subsidy against sharing is a precise\ninstrument, and this database has not found many like it. See\n[[co-investment-that-buys-sharing]].\n\nThe rounds also carry **$22.5 million** dedicated to telecommunications\ninfrastructure in First Nations communities, contributing toward Closing the Gap\nTarget 17.\n\n**What changes under an obligation.** If the Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation\ncommences on 1 December 2027, coverage stops being something carriers bid to\nprovide and becomes something they must provide. The industry position, and the\nNational Farmers' Federation statement of expectations issued in August 2025,\nindicate the detail is contested \u2014 which is what one would expect when the cost\nof a universal obligation lands on three companies rather than on a budget.\n", "sources": [ "Regional Connectivity Program Round 3 including Mobile Black Spot opportunities: up to 100 per cent funding for projects involving all three national mobile network operators using active sharing or roaming; 50 to 75 per cent for co-location or fewer operators", "$22.5 million identified for First Nations telecommunications solutions contributing toward Closing the Gap Target 17", "Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation on Telstra, Optus and TPG from 1 December 2027; National Farmers' Federation Statement of Expectations, August 2025" ] }, "myagedcare": { "id": "myagedcare", "name": "My Aged Care", "abbr": "My Aged Care", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "The entry point to Commonwealth-funded aged care", "summary": "The national contact centre and website through which an older person registers, is screened, is referred for assessment, and later finds a registered provider.", "responsibilities": [ "Register clients and record their circumstances", "Screen and refer for aged care assessment", "Publish the register of approved providers", "Record decisions, priority categories and referral codes" ], "notes": "My Aged Care is a front door rather than a decision-maker, and the database\nrecords it because a front door that is hard to open is a barrier whether or not\nit refuses anyone.\n\nThe client here is, by definition, an older person \u2014 frequently one in declining\nhealth, frequently without confident digital access, and frequently arriving at\nthe system in the weeks after a fall or a diagnosis or the death of the spouse\nwho had been providing the care. Every additional step in this process is levied\non that person, or on an adult child managing it from another city.\n\nThis project usually measures elapsed time because elapsed time is what costs\nmoney. Here it is worth stating plainly that the cost is different in kind. A\ndeveloper waiting 245 days for an approval carries interest. A person waiting\n245 days for home care carries the risk of the fall that puts them into\nresidential care permanently, which is both worse for them and more expensive\nfor the Commonwealth.\n" }, "national-office-child-safety": { "id": "national-office-child-safety", "name": "National Office for Child Safety", "abbr": "NOCS", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Leads national child safety policy, including working with children check reform", "summary": "The Commonwealth body coordinating a reform it cannot legislate. Working with children checks are made under eight state laws.", "responsibilities": [ "Lead national child safe policy and the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations", "Coordinate working with children check reform across jurisdictions", "Report on implementation of Royal Commission recommendations" ], "notes": "The structural position is the one this database records in domain after domain:\nthe Commonwealth holds the policy leadership and the national convening role, and\n[[state-wwcc-unit|eight state screening units]] hold the statutory power.\n\nReform therefore proceeds by agreement, through the Standing Council of\nAttorneys-General, at the pace of the slowest willing jurisdiction. The\n*Agreement to Deliver National Working with Children Check Reform* was endorsed in\nNovember 2025 \u2014 a decade after the Royal Commission recommended national\nconsistency.\n", "sources": [ "National Office for Child Safety, Working with Children Check Reform", "The Agreement to Deliver National Working with Children Check Reform was endorsed by SCAG in November 2025" ] }, "national-water-grid": { "id": "national-water-grid", "name": "National Water Grid Authority", "abbr": "NWGA", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Administers the National Water Grid Fund and the National Water Grid Investment Framework", "summary": "Runs a staged framework in which each business case gates the next stage \u2014 and a portfolio of 61 projects worth up to $10 billion of which only 23 have a publicly available business case.", "responsibilities": [ "Fund feasibility and research studies under the Science Program", "Fund preliminary and detailed business cases", "Fund up to 50 per cent of construction capital costs", "Maintain the National Water Grid Investment Framework" ], "notes": "**The framework is well sequenced on paper**, and this database should say so\nbefore it says anything else. Funding is staged: feasibility or research study,\nthen a **preliminary business case**, then a **detailed business case**, then\nconstruction \u2014 with up to 50 per cent Commonwealth contribution at each stage and\nup to 50 per cent of total capital costs for delivery. A preliminary business case\nis required to support a detailed business case proposal, and **a detailed\nbusiness case is required to support a construction proposal**.\n\nThat is the gate this site would design.\n\n**What happens around it is the finding.** The portfolio comprises **61 large water\nprojects with a total capital cost estimate of up to $10 billion**, of which only\n**23 have publicly available business cases**. Research on the sector's estimates\nhas found **total project costs underestimated by at least 116 per cent and\nbenefits inflated by 56 per cent**.\n\nAnd commitments have preceded the evidence:\n\n- **Dungowan Dam** \u2014 the Australian Government is **not proceeding with $595.0\n million over 7 years from 2026-27**, because *the business case did not provide\n sufficient support for the construction of the project*.\n- **Emu Swamp Dam and Pipeline** \u2014 a **$162.5 million** Commonwealth commitment,\n cancelled.\n\nA funding line existed in the forward estimates for a project whose business case\nsubsequently did not support it. The gate was in the framework; the commitment got\nin front of it. See [[publish-the-business-case-with-the-commitment]].\n\nThe Australian National Audit Office examined the design and governance of the\npredecessor National Water Infrastructure Development Fund and found agencies\ncould have better documented the basis on which key program design elements were\ndetermined, including program need and the size of the funding envelope.\n", "sources": [ "National Water Grid Investment Framework: funding stages for feasibility/research studies under the Science Program, preliminary business case, detailed business case and construction; up to 50 per cent Commonwealth contribution at each stage and up to 50 per cent of total capital costs for delivery", "A preliminary business case is required to support detailed business case proposals, and a detailed business case is required to support construction proposals", "The National Water Grid Fund portfolio of 61 large water projects has a total capital cost estimate of up to $10 billion, with only 23 of these projects having publicly available business cases", "Research finding total project costs underestimated by at least 116 per cent and benefits inflated by 56 per cent", "The Australian Government is not proceeding with $595.0 million over 7 years from 2026-27 for the Dungowan Dam project, as the business case did not provide sufficient support for construction", "The Australian Government's $162.5 million commitment to the Emu Swamp Dam and Pipeline has been cancelled", "ANAO performance audit, Design and Governance of the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund: agencies could have better documented the basis on which key program design elements were determined, including program need and funding envelope size" ] }, "ndia": { "id": "ndia", "name": "National Disability Insurance Agency", "abbr": "NDIA", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Decides access to the NDIS and approves participant plans", "summary": "Administers the National Disability Insurance Scheme: decides whether a person meets the access criteria, assesses reasonable and necessary supports, and approves and reassesses plans.", "responsibilities": [ "Decide access requests against the disability and early intervention criteria", "Facilitate plan preparation and approve participant plans", "Conduct plan reassessments and variations", "Conduct internal review of reviewable decisions" ], "legislation": [ "National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)", "NDIS Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)" ], "notes": "The NDIA carries a statutory clock that most bodies in this database do not: the\nParticipant Service Guarantee commits it to an access decision within 21 days of\na complete application.\n\nThe words doing the work are \"complete application\". The clock does not start\nuntil the Agency considers the request complete, and it pauses when further\ninformation is requested. Reported end-to-end experience is two to four months\nfor a straightforward case and six months or more for a complex one, against a\n21 day guarantee. That is not a contradiction; it is the ordinary behaviour of a\nclock that a decision-maker can stop.\n\nThis database's position on stoppable clocks is consistent across domains: a\nstatutory period that excludes the time the regulator itself controls is a\nmeasure of the regulator's workload, not of the applicant's wait. Both numbers\nshould be published. Only one is.\n\nThe more serious finding about this body is downstream. In 2025-26, 64 per cent\nof NDIS cases decided by the [[art|Administrative Review Tribunal]] resulted in a\nchanged outcome \u2014 down from 73 per cent the previous year. A first-instance\ndecision-maker whose decisions are altered in roughly two out of three contested\ncases has a first-instance quality problem, and no amount of tribunal capacity\nfixes it. See [[fix-the-first-decision]].\n", "sources": [ "National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) and the Participant Service Guarantee", "Administrative Review Tribunal, published statistics: 64 per cent of NDIS cases resulted in a changed outcome in 2025-26, 73 per cent in 2024-25" ] }, "ndis-commission": { "id": "ndis-commission", "name": "NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission", "abbr": "NDIS Commission", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Registers and regulates NDIS providers and workers", "summary": "Registers NDIS providers against the NDIS Practice Standards, oversees worker screening requirements, and regulates provider conduct.", "responsibilities": [ "Register providers against the applicable Practice Standards", "Require and verify independent quality audits", "Set worker screening requirements for risk-assessed roles", "Investigate complaints and take enforcement action" ], "legislation": [ "National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)" ], "notes": "Registration here is unusual in this database because it is not one decision but\na package: meeting the Practice Standards, holding worker screening clearances\nfor key personnel and risk-assessed workers, and passing an **independent quality\naudit** paid for by the applicant and conducted by a third-party body the\napplicant engages.\n\nThat audit is the substantive step. It is also the step whose duration the\nCommission does not control, which is why elapsed time here is only loosely\nrelated to anything the regulator does.\n\n**The 2026 compression.** Two things landed in the same year. From 1 July 2026\nfurther provider categories moved into mandatory registration, with affected\nproviders required to be registered or to have lodged by 1 October 2026. At the\nsame time the first wave of five-year worker screening clearances issued in 2021\nbegan expiring from February 2026.\n\nNew registrations and clearance renewals therefore hit the same queues\nsimultaneously. That is a foreseeable scheduling collision rather than a\nregulatory failure, and it is exactly the kind of thing this database exists to\nmake visible in advance rather than after: two independently sensible commencement\ndates, chosen by different people, that intersect in one workforce.\n", "sources": [ "NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, published registration and worker screening guidance", "Mandatory registration expansion from 1 July 2026, with registration or lodgement required by 1 October 2026" ] }, "nema": { "id": "nema", "name": "National Emergency Management Agency", "abbr": "NEMA", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Coordinates Commonwealth disaster relief and recovery funding", "summary": "Administers the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements with the states and territories, and coordinates the activation of Commonwealth disaster payments.", "responsibilities": [ "Administer the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements", "Coordinate activation of Commonwealth disaster assistance by disaster and area", "Administer disaster resilience and risk reduction funding" ], "notes": "The body at the centre of a system that works by **activation**, and that word\ncarries more weight than it appears to.\n\nCommonwealth disaster assistance does not exist as a standing entitlement. It is\nswitched on, per disaster, per local government area, per category. Categories A\nand B provide standard assistance; C and D provide additional relief in\nexceptional circumstances. Whether a household receives anything depends on\nwhether a determination has been made covering the place they live and the event\nthat hit it.\n\nThe consequence is visible in the announcements themselves. Through 2026,\nassistance for Northern Territory flooding, Victorian bushfires, Western\nAustralian cyclone and North Queensland flooding was activated for named local\ngovernment areas, and then in several cases **extended** to further areas\nafterwards. Extension is the right response to better information. It also means\nthat for a period, two households with identical damage were treated differently\nbecause of which side of a boundary they were on.\n\n**Reform is under way.** The Independent Review of Commonwealth Disaster Funding\nled by Andrew Colvin reported in October 2024, finding that Australia's disaster\nmanagement frameworks have not evolved at the same rate as the changing nature of\ndisasters \u2014 which have grown in size, scale, intensity, cost and complexity. A\nnew **Disaster Recovery Funding Framework** responds to it, with agency material\npublished in June 2026.\n\nThis database has not yet mapped the new framework's steps, and should. What it\nrecords here is the shape of the arrangement that framework is replacing.\n", "sources": [ "NEMA, Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements: Categories A and B standard assistance, Categories C and D additional relief in exceptional circumstances", "Independent Review of Commonwealth Disaster Funding (Colvin Review), final report released October 2024", "NEMA, Disaster Recovery Funding Framework factsheet, June 2026", "Services Australia, AGDRP activations for Victorian bushfires January 2026, Northern Territory flooding February to March 2026, and Western Australian Tropical Cyclone Narelle March 2026" ] }, "nrsch": { "id": "nrsch", "name": "National Regulatory System for Community Housing", "abbr": "NRSCH", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Registers and regulates community housing providers", "summary": "A national scheme, administered by state registrars, registering community housing providers in three tiers according to the scale and risk of their activities.", "responsibilities": [ "Register providers in Tier 1, 2 or 3 by scale and risk", "Assess performance against the National Regulatory Code", "Monitor compliance proportionate to tier" ], "notes": "A national system that two of the largest states are not in.\n\nThe NRSCH registers providers in three tiers set by scale and risk \u2014 broadly,\nTier 1 for large developing providers, Tier 2 for mid-sized, Tier 3 for small.\nThe tier determines both the performance requirements and the intensity of\nregulatory engagement, which is a sensible risk-based design and the same\nprinciple as [[acqsc|aged care registration categories]].\n\nIt was enacted first in New South Wales and adopted by other jurisdictions **with\nthe exception of Victoria and Western Australia**, which run their own community\nhousing registration systems.\n\nSo a provider operating nationally \u2014 which the larger ones do, and which\nCommonwealth programs like the [[housing-australia|Housing Australia Future\nFund]] encourage them to do \u2014 is registered nationally for most of the country\nand separately in two states, against different codes, with different reporting.\n\nThat is the same pattern this database has now recorded in\n[[nsw-worker-screening|worker screening]], in\n[[finish-automatic-mutual-recognition|occupational licensing]] and in\n[[credentialing-verify-once|clinical credentialing]]: a national scheme with\njurisdictions outside it, where the cost falls on the organisations and people\noperating across borders and the benefit of separateness accrues to nobody in\nparticular. See [[chp-registration-recognise-nationally]].\n", "sources": [ "NRSCH, published registration categories and tier criteria", "NRSCH adopted in all jurisdictions except Victoria and Western Australia" ] }, "nsw-childrens-court": { "id": "nsw-childrens-court", "name": "Children's Court of New South Wales", "abbr": "Children's Court", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Hears criminal matters involving children, determines bail, and sentences", "summary": "The court that decides whether a child refused police bail is released. In 2024-25, three in five completed remand periods nationally ended in release on bail \u2014 the same decision, reconsidered a few days later.", "responsibilities": [ "Determine bail for young people refused police bail", "Hear and determine criminal charges against children", "Refer matters to youth justice conferencing", "Sentence, including to detention orders" ], "notes": "Bail is not a finding of guilt and it is not a sentence. It is a prediction about\nwhat a person will do before their matter is heard, and for a child it turns\nsubstantially on where they will sleep.\n\n**That is the structural problem this database can see.** A court cannot make a\nchild a bed. Where accommodation is the obstacle, the court's options are to\nrelease into an arrangement it is not satisfied with, or to remand. New South\nWales legislation provides that a child in out-of-home care must not be refused\nbail on account of there being no suitable placement, and Legal Aid NSW has\nreported that the provision is not always effective in practice \u2014 young people\nhave been held **sometimes in excess of a fortnight** while accommodation is\narranged.\n\n**The numbers say the decision is usually reversed.** Nationally in 2024-25,\n**60 per cent** of completed periods of unsentenced detention ended with the\nyoung person released on bail, and the median completed period was **five days**.\nBetween jurisdictions the variation is enormous: 15 per cent of remand periods in\nthe Northern Territory ended in bail against 84 per cent in Western Australia.\n\nSee [[nsw-youth-remand]] and [[bail-should-not-turn-on-a-bed]].\n", "sources": [ "AIHW, Youth justice in Australia 2024-25: of remand periods that ended in 2024-25, 3 in 5 (60%) ended because the young person was released on bail; lowest in the NT (15%) and highest in WA (84%)", "AIHW: the median duration of completed periods of unsentenced detention was 5 days; sentenced detention 40 days", "National Legal Aid submission to the Inquiry into Australia's Youth Justice and Incarceration System: a child in out-of-home care cannot be denied bail on account of no suitable placement being available; Legal Aid NSW reports the section is not always effective, with young people held sometimes in excess of a fortnight awaiting accommodation" ] }, "nsw-corrective-services": { "id": "nsw-corrective-services", "name": "Corrective services", "abbr": "Corrections", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Holds people in custody and manages their release", "summary": "Operates custodial facilities, sets release dates, and provides or brokers the transitional support a person receives on the way out.", "responsibilities": [ "Confirm and notify release dates", "Facilitate pre-release appointments with Commonwealth agencies", "Provide transitional and post-release support programs", "Hold and return a person's property, including identity documents" ], "notes": "The body that controls the one variable everything else in\n[[nsw-prison-release|reentry]] depends on: **when the person will be at the\ngate**, and how much notice anyone has of it.\n\nThat matters because the Commonwealth arrangements built for this moment are\nkeyed to a known release date. A pre-release claim can be lodged only where the\nrelease date is known and no more than 21 days away, and where a pre-release\nappointment can be arranged.\n\nRelease dates are not always knowable that far out. Parole decisions, appeals,\ntime served on remand and administrative recalculation can all move a date at\nshort notice, and a person released earlier than expected \u2014 or released from\nremand on the day of a court appearance \u2014 is outside the window the pre-release\nsystem was designed around.\n\nSo the process works well for planned releases from sentence and works worst for\nthe people whose exit is unplanned, which is a large share of the population\nmoving through remand. The pattern is now familiar in this database: an opt-in\narrangement that requires foresight reaches the people who had it.\n" }, "nsw-council-consent": { "id": "nsw-council-consent", "name": "Consent authority (NSW council)", "abbr": "Council", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Determines development applications", "summary": "For most development in NSW the local council is the consent authority: it receives the development application, assesses it on the merits, and grants or refuses consent.", "responsibilities": [ "Receive and check development applications for lodgement", "Notify neighbours and consider submissions", "Assess the application against the relevant environmental planning instruments", "Determine the application, or refer it to a local or regional panel" ], "legislation": [ "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)" ], "notes": "The consent authority is not always the elected council. Depending on the value\nand type of development it may be a local planning panel or a regional panel,\nand that distinction matters enormously for elapsed time: a panel that meets on\na cycle introduces scheduling delay that an officer-delegated decision does not.\n\nThis is a case where the same legal question, asked of the same body, takes\nradically different amounts of calendar time depending only on who signs. It is\nexactly the kind of thing this database exists to make visible.\n" }, "nsw-ecec-regulator": { "id": "nsw-ecec-regulator", "name": "NSW Early Childhood Education regulatory authority", "abbr": "Regulator", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Approves and regulates education and care services under the National Law", "summary": "The state regulatory authority within the NSW Department of Education: it grants provider and service approvals, assesses and rates services against the National Quality Standard, and enforces the National Law.", "responsibilities": [ "Decide applications for provider approval, within 60 days", "Decide applications for service approval, within 90 days", "Assess and rate services against the National Quality Standard", "Grant staffing and other waivers", "Investigate and enforce compliance" ], "legislation": [ "Education and Care Services National Law (NSW)", "Education and Care Services National Regulations" ], "notes": "This is the body whose approvals carry statutory clocks -- 60 days for provider\napproval, 90 days for service approval -- and the clocks stop when further\ninformation is requested, which is the usual pattern in this database.\n\nA note on direction of travel, because it matters for how anything on this site\nabout childcare should be read.\n\nEvery other domain here is being deregulated at the margin. Childcare is being\nregulated harder, deliberately, in response to serious harm to children. Since\n2025 the National Law has been amended to make the safety, rights and best\ninterests of the child the paramount consideration, to create an offence of\ninappropriate conduct, to restrict personal digital devices in services from\n27 February 2026, and to require national child safety training for everyone\nworking under the framework, with advanced training from 31 July 2026. A\nnational educator register, funded at $45 million, is in place with more than\n96 per cent of approved services having entered workforce details by mid-2026.\n\nThat is the correct response to what was found, and this project takes no\nposition against any of it. It is recorded here so that nothing on this site can\nbe quoted as an argument for lighter regulation of who is permitted near\nchildren. The steps this database questions in childcare are planning and\ncommercial steps. They are not the safety steps, and the distinction is not a\ntechnicality.\n", "sources": [ "ACECQA, Guide to the National Quality Framework, applications and approvals -- 60 day and 90 day decision periods", "Department of Education (Cth), 'A year of action to strengthen child safety in early childhood education and care'", "Department of Education (Cth), 'Landmark national legislation passed to strengthen child safety in early education'" ] }, "nsw-energy-rebates": { "id": "nsw-energy-rebates", "name": "NSW energy rebate administration", "abbr": "Energy NSW", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Administers state energy rebates and concessions", "summary": "Administers the Low Income Household Rebate, gas rebate, medical and life support rebates and the seniors energy rebate, through retailers for directly billed customers and through Service NSW for others.", "responsibilities": [ "Set eligibility for state energy rebates", "Receive and assess applications, including from embedded network customers", "Fund rebates applied by retailers to customer accounts" ], "notes": "The Low Income Household Rebate is worth up to $285 a financial year for retail\ncustomers and $313.50 for embedded network customers. Eligibility turns on\nholding a valid Pensioner Concession Card, Health Care Card, Low Income Health\nCare Card or Veteran Gold Card, and on being named on the electricity account.\n\nTwo administrative features are worth recording.\n\n**It is annual, and it has a window.** Applications for 2025-26 closed on\n30 June 2026; applications for 2026-27 opened on 10 August 2026. A person whose\ncircumstances have not changed reapplies, and a person who misses the window\nmisses the money.\n\n**The eligibility fact is already held by the Commonwealth.** Whether someone\nholds a Health Care Card is known to [[services-australia]], and\n[[energy-retailer|retailers]] already verify concession card status\nelectronically through Centrelink Confirmation eServices with the customer's\nconsent. The infrastructure to establish eligibility without an annual form\nexists and is in daily use.\n\nThat is the whole of [[pay-concessions-automatically]]: not a new system, but the\nobservation that a state is asking people to prove something a Commonwealth\nsystem can already confirm, once a year, in a window, on pain of losing the\npayment.\n", "sources": [ "NSW Climate and Energy Action and Service NSW, published Low Income Household Rebate guidance: up to $285 per financial year for retail customers, $313.50 for embedded network customers", "Applications for 2025-26 closing 30 June 2026; 2026-27 applications opening 10 August 2026" ] }, "nsw-hda": { "id": "nsw-hda", "name": "Housing Delivery Authority (NSW)", "abbr": "HDA", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Declares housing proposals to be state significant development", "summary": "A panel of senior officials that assesses unsolicited housing proposals and recommends that the Minister declare them state significant development, lifting assessment out of the council pathway.", "responsibilities": [ "Receive expressions of interest from proponents of housing projects", "Assess proposals against capital investment and dwelling yield criteria", "Recommend declaration as state significant development", "Recommend concurrent rezoning where the proposal does not fit the existing controls" ], "legislation": [ "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "State Environmental Planning Policy (Planning Systems) 2021 (NSW)" ], "notes": "The HDA is the most important natural experiment in Australian planning right\nnow, and this database should treat it as evidence rather than as an\nannouncement.\n\nIt was created in December 2024, made permanent, and by mid-2026 had built a\npipeline of about 150,000 potential homes across 484 declared proposals. It sat\non 137 proposals at a single meeting on 23 June 2026. Its conversion is where\nthe interesting data is: of those 484 declarations, 74 development applications\nhad been lodged (around 26,000 homes) and 14 projects had final approval\n(around 2,500 homes).\n\nRead carefully, that is a finding rather than a criticism. Declaration is not\napproval. A declaration moves a project from one queue into another queue, and\nthe second queue then has to do the assessment work that the first queue would\nhave done. The gap between 150,000 homes declared and 2,500 homes approved is\nthe measure of how much of the delay was ever in the *choice of pathway* as\nopposed to the assessment itself.\n\nThe other structural fact worth recording: entry is by ministerial declaration\non the recommendation of a panel, not by meeting published criteria. A proponent\ncannot know in advance whether they qualify, cannot appeal exclusion, and the\ndeclaration is discretionary. A pathway that is fast because a minister selected\nyou into it is a different kind of institution from a pathway that is fast\nbecause you met a published standard, even where the elapsed time is identical.\nSee [[fast-track-by-objective-trigger]].\n", "sources": [ "NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, published Housing Delivery Authority meeting outcomes and ministerial releases, 2025-2026" ] }, "nsw-health-infrastructure": { "id": "nsw-health-infrastructure", "name": "Health Infrastructure NSW", "abbr": "HI", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Delivers public health capital projects", "summary": "The NSW agency responsible for planning, procuring and delivering major public hospital and health capital works on behalf of NSW Health and the local health districts.", "responsibilities": [ "Develop clinical services plans into capital project scope", "Prepare strategic and final business cases", "Procure design and construction", "Deliver and commission health facilities" ], "notes": "A hospital is one of the few things in this database where the approval process\nis genuinely not the main source of elapsed time. Between a decision that a\nhospital is needed and a patient being treated in it, the great majority of the\ncalendar is design, procurement, construction and commissioning -- real work,\ncorrectly sequenced, on a building that has to function on the day it opens.\n\nThat should be said plainly on a site about red tape, because the honest finding\nhere is smaller than the rhetoric usually is.\n\nWhat the database can still isolate is the front end: the sequence from service\nplan through business case, assurance gates and budget decision to the point\nwhere design can actually start. That sequence is mostly documentation and\napproval, it is measured in years rather than months, and a meaningful share of\nit is scheduling -- specifically, waiting for the annual budget cycle. See\n[[nsw-hospital-capital]].\n" }, "nsw-justice-health": { "id": "nsw-justice-health", "name": "Prison health service", "abbr": "Justice Health", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Provides health care to people in custody", "summary": "State-funded health services delivered inside custodial facilities, operating outside Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.", "responsibilities": [ "Provide primary, mental and specialist health care in custody", "Supply medicines to people in custody", "Manage health information for people entering and leaving custody" ], "legislation": [ "Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth), s 19(2)" ], "notes": "This body exists in the form it does because of one subsection of a Commonwealth\nAct.\n\n**Section 19(2) of the Health Insurance Act 1973** prevents a Medicare benefit\nbeing paid for a service rendered by, on behalf of, or under arrangement with a\nState. Its purpose was to stop double-dipping between Commonwealth and state\nfunding, and in most settings that is exactly what it does.\n\nApplied to prisons, its effect is that people in custody are outside Medicare and\noutside the PBS for the duration of their sentence. Their health care is a state\nresponsibility, funded from a corrections or health budget, delivered by a\nseparate service, on separate records.\n\nThree consequences follow, and the third is the one this database can measure.\n\n**Continuity breaks at both ends.** A person entering custody leaves the Medicare\nsystem; a person leaving re-enters it. Prescriptions, referrals, specialist\nwaiting list positions and clinical records do not travel cleanly across that\nboundary in either direction.\n\n**The population is unusually unwell.** People in custody have far higher rates of\nmental illness, blood-borne virus, chronic disease and substance dependence than\nthe general population, so the group excluded from the national health financing\nsystem is the group that uses health care most.\n\n**And the exclusion ends at the gate, abruptly.** On release, medication supply,\nprescriber relationship and funding source all change on the same day. See\n[[medicare-in-prison]] and [[nsw-prison-release]].\n\nReform has been argued for in the academic and clinical literature for years,\ngenerally as a targeted **exemption** from s 19(2) for prison health services\nrather than as repeal of the subsection.\n", "sources": [ "Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth), s 19(2)", "Published academic argument for exempting prison health services from s 19(2) to make MBS and PBS funded services available to eligible people in custody" ] }, "nsw-land-housing-corp": { "id": "nsw-land-housing-corp", "name": "Land and Housing Corporation", "abbr": "LAHC", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Owns the public housing asset and funds its maintenance", "summary": "The state entity that owns public housing dwellings, contracts maintenance, and carries the capital consequences of how much maintenance is funded.", "responsibilities": [ "Own and manage the public housing portfolio", "Contract and fund responsive and planned maintenance", "Undertake redevelopment and asset disposal" ], "notes": "The body that owns the asset, as distinct from [[homes-nsw|Homes NSW]] which\nmanages the tenancy. That split matters: the tenant reports a fault to one\norganisation and the money to fix it sits with another.\n\n**The condition data is the finding.** In 2023, **more than 30 per cent of social\nhousing stock** did not meet the acceptable dwelling condition standard \u2014 defined\nas having at least four working facilities and not more than two major structural\nproblems. That is not a repairs backlog in the ordinary sense; it is a third of a\nportfolio below a minimum standard.\n\nHomes NSW received **24,592 urgent maintenance requests** in 2023-24. A\n**$1 billion Repair and Restore** maintenance program was announced to fix\n**30,000 homes**, new maintenance contracts commenced on 1 July 2024, and the\nmaintenance call centre was brought back in-house through a single Maintenance\nHub.\n\n**Why this body is in a database about process.** Maintenance is operating\nexpenditure and competes annually against everything else a state funds.\nReplacement is capital. Underspending the first shortens asset life and creates\nthe second, at several times the cost \u2014 and the saving is booked in the year it\nis made while the cost arrives a decade later, in a different budget, under a\ndifferent minister.\n\nThat is a sequencing failure of exactly the kind this database exists to record,\nand it is invisible in any single year's accounts. See\n[[maintenance-is-capital-deferred]].\n", "sources": [ "In 2023 over 30 per cent of DCJ social housing stock did not meet the acceptable dwelling condition standard: at least four working facilities and not more than two major structural problems", "Homes NSW received 24,592 urgent maintenance requests in 2023-24", "$1 billion Repair and Restore maintenance program to fix 30,000 public homes; new maintenance contracts commenced 1 July 2024; maintenance call centre returned in-house through a single Maintenance Hub" ] }, "nsw-legal-aid": { "id": "nsw-legal-aid", "name": "Legal Aid Commission", "abbr": "Legal Aid", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Grants legal assistance and provides duty lawyer services", "summary": "State statutory bodies that assess applications for a grant of aid against means, merits and jurisdictional tests, and provide duty lawyer services at courts.", "responsibilities": [ "Assess applications against the means test", "Assess applications against the merits test", "Provide duty lawyer services", "Assign matters to in-house or private practitioners" ], "notes": "A grant of legal aid requires passing **three separate tests**: means, merits, and\nwhether the matter is one the commission funds at all. Each is applied\nseparately, and failing any one ends the application.\n\nThe means test is the one that defines who the system is for, and it is set well\nbelow the point at which a person can afford a lawyer. That produces the sector's\ndefining problem: a large population that is **too well off for legal aid and too\npoor for private representation**.\n\nThe scale of what sits underneath is visible in the community sector. Up to\n70 per cent of people who reach a [[community-legal-centre|community legal\ncentre]] have an income under $32,000 a year \u2014 and community legal centres are\nthe service people use when legal aid has already said no.\n\n**One structural protection exists and it is worth naming**, because it is the\nreason the system does not fail completely at the top of the criminal\njurisdiction. Following *Dietrich*, a court may stay a serious criminal trial\nwhere an indigent accused is unrepresented. That is a backstop for the most\nserious matters and it does nothing for family law, tenancy, debt, employment or\nprotection orders \u2014 which is where most unmet legal need actually sits.\n", "sources": [ "Legal aid grants assessed against means, merits and jurisdictional tests", "Community legal centre client income data: up to 70 per cent of clients have an income of less than $32,000 per year" ] }, "nsw-lhd": { "id": "nsw-lhd", "name": "Local health district credentialing committee", "abbr": "LHD", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Credentials clinicians and defines their scope of clinical practice at a health service", "summary": "Each health service credentials the practitioners who work in it and defines their scope of clinical practice, under the national model adopted through the NSQHS Standards.", "responsibilities": [ "Verify qualifications, registration and references", "Define the scope of clinical practice at that facility", "Review and renew credentials periodically" ], "legislation": [ "National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards (clinical governance)" ], "notes": "Credentialing is the last step before a specialist can treat a patient and the\none nobody counts. It sits downstream of national registration, and it is\nperformed separately by every health service, using a national model framework\nthat is applied locally.\n\nThe consequence is that a specialist who has satisfied the Medical Board, a\ncollege, Home Affairs and Medicare then submits substantially the same evidence\nagain to the health service that hired them -- and again to the next one, and\nagain to each additional site where they work. Locum and visiting specialists\ncarry this cost repeatedly.\n\nThe safety logic is real and should not be waved away: credentialing is not\nmerely identity verification. Defining scope of clinical practice is a judgement\nabout what *this* practitioner should do at *this* facility given its equipment,\nits staffing and its case mix, and that judgement genuinely cannot be made\ncentrally.\n\nBut those two things -- verifying the evidence, and deciding the scope -- are\nseparable, and only the second is local. See\n[[credentialing-verify-once]].\n", "sources": [ "Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, national model for credentialing and defining scope of clinical practice" ] }, "nsw-licensing": { "id": "nsw-licensing", "name": "Transport for NSW and Service NSW", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Driver licensing and testing", "summary": "Transport for NSW sets driver licensing policy; Service NSW delivers testing and issues licences at service centres.", "website": "https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au", "legislation": [ "Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW)" ], "responsibilities": [ "Issue learner, provisional and full driver licences", "Administer knowledge, hazard perception and practical driving tests", "Maintain the driver licence register and demerit point scheme" ] }, "nsw-local-court": { "id": "nsw-local-court", "name": "Local court (domestic violence orders)", "abbr": "Local Court", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Makes and varies domestic and family violence protection orders", "summary": "State courts make protection orders under state law. Since 25 November 2017 those orders are automatically recognised and enforceable in every other Australian jurisdiction.", "responsibilities": [ "Make interim and final protection orders", "Vary, revoke and enforce orders", "Hear applications by police and by private applicants" ], "notes": "This body is in the database because of a reform that already happened, and\nbecause of the part of it that did not.\n\n**What was fixed.** Under the National Domestic Violence Order Scheme, every\nprotection order made in any Australian jurisdiction **on or after 25 November\n2017 is automatically recognised and enforceable nationally**. Orders made before\nthat date can be registered and declared nationally recognised. A person who\nmoves interstate does not have to re-apply, re-prove, or re-live anything to stay\nprotected.\n\nThat is a genuine `remove` reform at national scale, in the domain where the\nconsequences of the old arrangement were most severe, and it is worth recording\nalongside the [[care-worker-screening-once|aged care screening merge]] as the\nsecond clear instance in this database of the partial-national pattern being\nfixed rather than described.\n\n**What was not.** The scheme recognises orders; it does not make the underlying\nlaws consistent. Each state and territory retains its own family violence\nlegislation, its own definitions, its own grounds and its own conditions. An\norder travels; the law behind it does not, and what conduct breaches an order can\ndiffer from the state it was made in.\n\nA national review of domestic violence order frameworks, including the scope of\nthe scheme, is due to report to the Standing Council of Attorneys-General and the\nPolice Ministers Council by **June 2026**.\n", "sources": [ "Attorney-General's Department, National Domestic Violence Order Scheme: all protection orders made in any Australian jurisdiction on or after 25 November 2017 are automatically recognised and enforceable nationally; earlier orders may be registered", "The scheme does not introduce consistent domestic and family violence laws across jurisdictions", "National review of DVO frameworks reporting to the Standing Council of Attorneys-General and Police Ministers Council by June 2026" ] }, "nsw-medicines-regulator": { "id": "nsw-medicines-regulator", "name": "State medicines and poisons regulator", "abbr": "Medicines regulator", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Authorises the prescribing of controlled medicines", "summary": "Each state and territory regulates the prescribing and supply of Schedule 8 controlled medicines, issuing authorities and permits and operating real-time prescription monitoring.", "responsibilities": [ "Issue authorities and permits for ongoing Schedule 8 prescribing", "Operate real-time prescription monitoring", "Set requirements for prescribing to new patients" ], "notes": "The point at which a nationally registered profession meets eight sets of state\nlaw, and telehealth is where it shows.\n\nA doctor registered by [[ahpra]] may practise anywhere in Australia. The\nmedicines they prescribe are regulated by the state the patient is in. For\nSchedule 8 controlled medicines, states differ on permit requirements for ongoing\nprescribing, on real-time monitoring checks, and on whether a controlled medicine\nmay be prescribed to a *new* patient by telehealth at all without a prior\nface-to-face assessment.\n\nIn a physical consultation, jurisdiction is obvious: everyone is in the same\nroom. In a telehealth consultation, the practitioner may be in one state, the\nplatform incorporated in another, the patient in a third and the pharmacy that\ndispenses in a fourth \u2014 and published guidance acknowledges this is complex and\nconfusing to navigate.\n\nThis is the sixth instance of the same pattern in this database, after\n[[nsw-worker-screening|NDIS worker screening]],\n[[finish-automatic-mutual-recognition|occupational licensing]],\n[[credentialing-verify-once|clinical credentialing]], working with children\nchecks and [[nrsch|community housing registration]]. In each, a nationally\nconstituted thing meets a jurisdictionally divided one, and the cost lands on\nwhoever crosses the border.\n\n**The difference here is that the divergence is deliberate and defensible.**\nControlled medicine regulation is genuinely a state health and policing function,\nthe harms are local, and monitoring systems are built on state dispensing data.\nThis is the instance where the case for national recognition is weakest, and it\nis recorded for that reason as much as any other. See\n[[telehealth-prescribing-recognise-the-consultation]].\n", "sources": [ "State and territory Schedule 8 prescribing requirements, including permits for ongoing prescribing, mandatory real-time prescription monitoring, and restrictions on prescribing to new patients via telehealth", "Victorian Department of Health guidance on Schedule 8 poisons and interstate prescriptions" ] }, "nsw-planning-ssd": { "id": "nsw-planning-ssd", "name": "NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure", "abbr": "DPHI", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Assesses state significant development and infrastructure", "summary": "Assesses development declared to be state significant, and critical state significant infrastructure, issuing assessment requirements, exhibiting environmental impact statements and preparing the assessment report for the consent authority.", "responsibilities": [ "Issue Secretary's environmental assessment requirements (SEARs)", "Exhibit environmental impact statements and receive submissions", "Coordinate agency advice and require a submissions report", "Prepare the assessment report and recommendation", "Determine, or refer to the Minister or the Independent Planning Commission" ], "legislation": [ "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), Divisions 4.7 and 5.2" ], "notes": "The state significant pathway is faster than the council pathway for large\nprojects for a reason worth stating precisely: it is not that the assessment is\nlighter. It is that one body coordinates every referral, and the applicant is\nnot exposed to a sequence of separate authorities each with their own queue.\n\nThat is a coordination gain, not a scrutiny reduction, and it is the single\nclearest illustration of the distinction this database is built on.\n\nThe same body assesses critical state significant infrastructure, which is the\npathway [[au-high-speed-rail-approvals|high speed rail]] must use in NSW at the\nsame time as it satisfies the Commonwealth under the EPBC Act.\n" }, "nsw-police-force": { "id": "nsw-police-force", "name": "NSW Police Force", "abbr": "NSW Police", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Decides whether a young person is cautioned, referred to conferencing or charged, and whether they are granted police bail", "summary": "The two decisions that determine most of what follows in youth justice are made by police, at the roadside or in the station, usually within hours and usually without review.", "responsibilities": [ "Apprehend and charge", "Administer warnings and cautions under youth diversion legislation", "Refer to youth justice conferencing", "Grant, refuse or impose conditions on police bail" ], "notes": "This body is in the database because of where the discretion sits.\n\nA young person who comes to police attention can be warned, cautioned, referred\nto a conference, or charged. If charged, they can be bailed by police or held for\ncourt. Neither decision involves an application, a fee, a queue or a published\ntimeframe \u2014 which is why neither appears in any process map of youth justice, and\nwhy this database nearly missed it.\n\n**They are still the highest-leverage steps in the system.** A caution ends the\nmatter. A charge starts a court process, and a refusal of police bail starts a\nperiod in [[nsw-youth-justice|detention]] that has a national median of five days\nand does not, in three cases out of five, end in a sentence.\n\n**And the exercise of the discretion is measurably uneven.** In New South Wales,\nAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people are more likely to be taken to\ncourt (**64 per cent against 48**) and less likely to be cautioned (**14 per cent\nagainst 28**). Research on New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia\nfound Indigenous young people less likely to be diverted in all three, after\ncontrolling for age, sex, offence type and prior history.\n\nThe Productivity Commission's Report on Government Services 2026 records that\ndata is not yet available for reporting against the diversionary services\nindicator. See [[publish-the-caution-rate]].\n", "sources": [ "Australian Institute of Criminology: in NSW, Indigenous young people are more likely to be taken to court (64% compared with 48%) and less likely to be cautioned (14% compared with 28%)", "Indigenous Justice Clearinghouse: Indigenous young people were less likely to be diverted in all three jurisdictions studied (NSW, SA, WA), after controlling for age, sex, offence type and prior history", "Report on Government Services 2026, chapter 17 (Youth justice services): data not available for reporting against the diversionary services indicator" ] }, "nsw-ports": { "id": "nsw-ports", "name": "NSW Ports", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Long-term lessee and operator of Port Botany and Port Kembla", "summary": "Holds a 2013 deed under which the State of NSW must compensate it if container traffic at the Port of Newcastle exceeds a cap. The Federal Court and the Full Federal Court both held the arrangement lawful.", "responsibilities": [ "Operate Port Botany and Port Kembla under long-term lease", "Party to the Port Commitment Deeds entered into in 2013 for a 50-year term" ], "notes": "**This body is in the database because of a contract, not a process.**\n\nUnder the **Port Commitment Deeds**, entered into in 2013 for a term of **50\nyears**, the State of New South Wales must compensate the operators of Port\nBotany and Port Kembla if container traffic at the\n[[port-of-newcastle|Port of Newcastle]] rises above a cap \u2014 reported by the ACCC\nas **30,000 TEU per annum**, adjusted by an annual growth rate, and elsewhere as\n50,000 containers a year.\n\nThe ACCC alleged the provisions were anti-competitive. On **29 June 2021** Justice\nJagot dismissed the allegations in full, and the **Full Federal Court dismissed\nthe ACCC's appeal**. The arrangement is lawful.\n\n**Nothing in that sentence is a regulatory failure.** A state sold long-term\nrights and gave the buyer contractual protection for the revenue it was buying.\nThe buyer paid for that protection. A court tested it twice.\n\nIt is here because it is the clearest case in this database of a **binding\nconstraint that is not a step in any process** \u2014 no permit, no assessment, no\nqueue, nothing a process map would ever show. See\n[[the-obstacle-was-a-contract-not-a-permit]].\n", "sources": [ "ACCC: the Port Commitment Deeds oblige the State of NSW to compensate the operators of Port Botany and Port Kembla if container traffic at the Port of Newcastle is above a specified cap; entered into in 2013 for a term of 50 years", "ACCC: under the 2013 Port Commitment Deeds the State would pay compensation if container traffic at the Port of Newcastle exceeded a cap of 30,000 TEU per annum, adjusted by an annual growth rate", "Federal Court, 29 June 2021: Justice Jagot dismissed in full the ACCC's allegations that the Port Commitment Deeds were anti-competitive; the Full Federal Court dismissed the ACCC's appeal" ] }, "nsw-private-certifier": { "id": "nsw-private-certifier", "name": "Registered certifier (NSW)", "abbr": "Certifier", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Issues complying development, construction and occupation certificates", "summary": "A private practitioner registered under the Building and Development Certifiers Act 2018 who can issue certain certificates in place of council.", "responsibilities": [ "Assess proposals against the codes for complying development", "Issue construction certificates and occupation certificates", "Carry out mandatory critical stage inspections" ], "legislation": [ "Building and Development Certifiers Act 2018 (NSW)" ], "notes": "The private certifier is the single most important institution for anyone\nstudying process time in NSW, because it is the mechanism by which the state\nconverted a queue into a market. Where a step can be performed by any of many\nregistered practitioners rather than by one council with a backlog, the\nscheduling component of delay largely disappears.\n\nIt is also the clearest illustration of why this database refuses to treat\n\"fewer steps\" as automatically better. The certifier model has been the subject\nof sustained criticism about conflicts of interest and building quality. Both\nthings are true at once: it removed weeks of queueing, and it created a\nsupervision problem. Any honest reform page has to hold both.\n" }, "nsw-public-dental": { "id": "nsw-public-dental", "name": "State public dental service", "abbr": "Public dental", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Provides subsidised dental care to eligible adults", "summary": "State-run and means-tested, generally restricted to pensioners and concession card holders, part-funded by a Commonwealth national partnership agreement negotiated a year at a time.", "responsibilities": [ "Assess eligibility for public dental care", "Maintain waiting lists and assign clinical priority", "Deliver general and emergency dental care" ], "notes": "Two facts about this service explain most of what is wrong with dental care in\nAustralia, and neither is a process failure by the people delivering it.\n\n**About five million adults meet the eligibility criteria for public dental care\nacross the country, and only about one in five of them receives care in any\nyear.** That is not a waiting list problem in the ordinary sense. It is a\ncapacity that serves a fifth of the people entitled to use it.\n\n**And the Commonwealth's contribution is negotiated a year at a time.** The\ncurrent national partnership agreement for public dental services for adults runs\nfrom 14 July 2025 to 30 June 2026 \u2014 under twelve months \u2014 with total funding of\n$107.76 million. It is the latest in a series stretching back to 2013, each\nshort, each separately negotiated, several with gaps between them.\n\nA service cannot recruit dentists, sign leases, commission chairs or plan a\nwaiting list strategy against an agreement that expires in under a year and may\nor may not be renewed. The rational response to short funding is short\ncommitments \u2014 locums rather than permanent staff, deferred capital, and a\npreference for treating the emergency in front of you over the preventive work\nthat would reduce next year's emergencies.\n\nWaiting lists also cannot be compared between states, because priority,\neligibility and how waiting time is even counted are defined differently in each\njurisdiction. There is no national number, which is the same measurement problem\nthis database recorded in [[homes-nsw|social housing]]. See\n[[dental-fund-on-a-real-horizon]].\n", "sources": [ "Federal Financial Relations, Public Dental Services for Adults 2025-26: 14 July 2025 to 30 June 2026, total funding $107.76 million", "Successive national partnership agreements from 2013", "About five million adults meet public dental eligibility criteria, with about one fifth receiving care each year; waiting list definitions differ by jurisdiction" ] }, "nsw-revenue": { "id": "nsw-revenue", "name": "State revenue office", "abbr": "Revenue", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Administers payroll tax, including on medical practices", "summary": "Each state and territory levies payroll tax on wages, including on payments to contractor general practitioners in medical centres, and each has built its own bulk-billing-linked concession.", "responsibilities": [ "Assess payroll tax liability including contractor payments", "Administer medical practice concessions, rebates and exemptions", "Issue rulings on when contractor GPs are within the payroll tax base" ], "notes": "This body is in the database for one reason: it is where a state tax and a\nCommonwealth health policy collide, and the collision has produced six different\nanswers to the same question.\n\nFollowing rulings that payments to contractor GPs fall within the payroll tax\nbase, every jurisdiction built a concession keyed to **bulk billing** \u2014 and no\ntwo are the same:\n\n- **South Australia** exempts 80 per cent of GP wages where a designated practice\n provides services under bulk billing, with a retrospective amnesty, from\n 1 July 2024.\n- **New South Wales** offers a rebate on contractor GP payments from 4 September\n 2024 where at least 80 per cent of GP services meet prescribed billing\n arrangements in metropolitan Sydney.\n- **Victoria** exempts employee and contractor GP wages for bulk billed services\n from 1 July 2025, calculated proportionally.\n- **The ACT** exempts wages for bulk billed services from 1 July 2025, replacing\n a temporary amnesty.\n- **The Northern Territory** raised its threshold to $2.5 million with no\n medical-specific rule.\n- **Western Australia** has a $1 million threshold under which most practices\n fall.\n\nSo a practice's tax position turns on which side of a state border it sits, and\nthe Commonwealth is simultaneously running a\n[[au-bulk-billing-practice|national bulk billing incentive]] that requires\n**100 per cent** bulk billing to qualify.\n\nA practice can therefore satisfy a state at 80 per cent and fail the Commonwealth\nat 99. Two governments have chosen the same lever, set it at different points,\nand given it opposite functions \u2014 one a tax concession, one a payment. See\n[[align-the-bulk-billing-thresholds]].\n", "sources": [ "RevenueSA Revenue Ruling PTASA004; Revenue NSW Bulk Billing Support Initiative from 4 September 2024; Victorian exemption from 1 July 2025; ACT Revenue Office designated medical practices exemption from 1 July 2025", "Published state-by-state analyses of payroll tax for medical practices, 2026" ] }, "nsw-state-nomination": { "id": "nsw-state-nomination", "name": "State and territory skilled migration nomination", "abbr": "State nomination", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Nominates skilled migrants against state-specific occupation lists and criteria", "summary": "States and territories nominate candidates for skilled visas from their own allocation, against their own occupation lists, criteria and invitation processes.", "responsibilities": [ "Publish state occupation lists and nomination criteria", "Assess and issue nominations against a state allocation", "Set residence, employment and commitment requirements" ], "notes": "The layer that turns one national points test into nine.\n\nThe 2026-27 Migration Program allocates **35,500 places** to state and territory\nnomination. Each jurisdiction runs its own list, its own criteria and its own\ninvitation process, so an occupation that qualifies in one state may not in\nanother, and a candidate's prospects depend on where they are willing to live and\nwhat that place happens to need this program year.\n\nThat is the point of the arrangement \u2014 states know their own labour markets \u2014 and\nit is defensible on those terms. What it produces for the candidate is a matrix:\na national points score, a national occupation list, nine state lists, nine sets\nof criteria, and invitation rounds on nine calendars.\n\n**And every one of them is republished each program year.** An occupation\neligible last year may have moved, and a candidate who lodged an expression of\ninterest under one list can find themselves outside it without any decision being\nmade about them. See [[occupation-lists-people-can-plan-against]].\n", "sources": [ "2026-27 Migration Program planning levels: 35,500 state and territory nominated places within a skilled program of 132,240 and a total program of 185,000", "Occupation lists republished each program year; state and territory lists and criteria set independently" ] }, "nsw-titles": { "id": "nsw-titles", "name": "NSW Land Registry Services", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Land titles registry", "summary": "Registers dealings in land, including transfers of title, plans of subdivision and strata plans. A registry is a queue, not an assessor: it checks form, not merit.", "notes": "Land registries appear at the end of almost every property process in this\ndatabase, and they are consistently the least examined source of delay.\n\nRegistration is not an assessment of anything. The registry checks that a plan\nor dealing is in order and records it. Where that takes weeks, the delay is\nqueueing, and it lands at the point of maximum holding cost -- after\nconstruction is finished and before anything can be sold or settled.\n" }, "nsw-training": { "id": "nsw-training", "name": "NSW state training authority", "abbr": "Training NSW", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Allocates funded training places and contracts training providers", "summary": "The state body that receives National Skills Agreement funding, sets subsidised course lists and eligibility, and contracts registered training organisations to deliver funded places.", "responsibilities": [ "Allocate funded and fee-free places against state priorities", "Set the subsidised course list and student eligibility rules", "Contract and monitor registered training organisations" ], "notes": "The layer where a national program becomes eight different programs.\n\nThe Commonwealth funds places; the state decides which courses are on the\nsubsidised list, who is eligible, and which providers may deliver them. NSW\nannounced a further 147,400 fee-free places over three years under the National\nSkills Agreement, which took effect from January 2024.\n\nFor a student, the practical consequence is that whether a particular course is\nfree depends on which state they live in, what that state has put on its list\nthis year, and whether they have previously held a subsidised place. For a\nprovider operating across borders it means separate contracts, separate\nreporting and separate eligibility logic for the same qualification.\n\nNone of that is unreasonable \u2014 training priorities genuinely differ between a\nmining state and a services one, and states run their own systems for good\nfederal reasons. It is recorded because the [[dewr|Commonwealth]] is judged\npublicly on national enrolment and completion numbers that are produced by eight\nsystems it does not control, which is the same mismatch this database found in\n[[education-au|childcare]] and in\n[[nsw-hda|housing]].\n", "sources": [ "NSW Government, published fee-free TAFE announcements: a further 147,400 places over three years", "National Skills Agreement, in effect from January 2024" ] }, "nsw-treasury-gateway": { "id": "nsw-treasury-gateway", "name": "NSW Treasury (Infrastructure Investor Assurance)", "abbr": "Treasury", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Assures and funds major capital projects", "summary": "Applies the state investor assurance framework to major capital projects through staged gateway reviews, and decides funding through the annual budget process.", "responsibilities": [ "Set the assurance requirements for major projects by risk tier", "Commission gateway reviews at defined project stages", "Assess business cases for funding", "Allocate capital funding through the budget" ], "notes": "Assurance gates are the clearest example in this database of a control that is\nobviously justified in the aggregate and whose cost is never counted.\n\nNobody seriously argues that a $2 billion hospital should proceed without an\nindependent review of its business case. The question the database asks is\nnarrower: how much of the elapsed time at each gate is review, and how much is\nwaiting for the review to be scheduled, waiting for a committee, and waiting for\nthe next budget?\n\nThe budget wait is the sharpest case. A project whose business case is finished\nin August waits for the next budget regardless of how good it is. That is a\n`scheduling` wait of up to a year in which nothing about the project is being\nassessed, and it is invisible in every published measure of project delivery\nbecause delivery is measured from funding approval.\n" }, "nsw-water-authority": { "id": "nsw-water-authority", "name": "State water authority and register", "abbr": "Water NSW", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Issues water entitlements, maintains the register, and approves trades", "summary": "State bodies issue water access licences, hold them on a state register, approve transfers, and account for allocations against them.", "responsibilities": [ "Issue and vary water access licences", "Maintain the water register", "Approve permanent and temporary trades", "Account for allocations and delivery" ], "notes": "A Commonwealth plan, four state systems.\n\nWater entitlements in the Murray-Darling Basin are creatures of state law. Each\nBasin state issues its own licences, maintains its own register, applies its own\ntrade approval rules, and uses its own product definitions. A trade within a\nstate is one transaction; a trade across a border is a transfer between two\nregisters with two approval processes and two sets of terminology for products\nthat are economically similar and legally distinct.\n\nPhysical constraints sit on top of the administrative ones and are not the same\nthing. Delivery limits \u2014 most famously the Barmah Choke \u2014 restrict how much water\ncan physically move past a point regardless of who owns it, so some trades cannot\nbe delivered even when they are approved. This database is careful to keep those\napart: a hydrological limit is not red tape, and a reform that ignored it would\nbe selling something.\n\nWhat is administrative is the **duplication**: separate registers that do not\ninteroperate, separate approvals for one economic transaction, and separate\nproduct taxonomies that make comparison hard for anyone who is not a specialist.\n\nThat is the seventh instance of the partial-national pattern in this database,\nand it is unusual in one respect: unlike\n[[nrsch|community housing registration]] or\n[[nsw-worker-screening|worker screening]], there is no national scheme sitting\nalongside for the states to join. The Commonwealth plans the water and does not\nregister it. See [[water-one-register-one-approval]].\n" }, "nsw-worker-screening": { "id": "nsw-worker-screening", "name": "NDIS Worker Screening Unit (NSW)", "abbr": "Screening Unit", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Issues NDIS worker screening clearances", "summary": "Each state and territory administers NDIS worker screening for workers in risk-assessed roles, issuing clearances valid for five years.", "responsibilities": [ "Assess applications for NDIS worker screening clearance", "Conduct risk assessment against criminal history and other records", "Issue, monitor and revoke clearances" ], "notes": "A nationally required clearance, administered separately by every state and\nterritory, against a national scheme funded entirely by the Commonwealth.\n\nThe pattern is the same one recorded for\n[[au-ecec-teacher-overseas|working with children checks]]: a worker moving\nbetween jurisdictions obtains another clearance, and a national provider\noperating across borders manages several regimes for one workforce.\n\nThis project does not propose relaxing worker screening for people supporting\nparticipants with disability, and would oppose a proposal to. The royal\ncommission into violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with\ndisability is recent, and the reason these checks exist is not abstract.\n\nPortability and rigour are different questions. A single clearance recognised\nnationally can be exactly as rigorous as eight \u2014 it is the same criminal history\ndatabases being searched. What differs is how many times a worker pays and waits.\nSee [[worker-screening-recognise-once]].\n" }, "nsw-youth-justice": { "id": "nsw-youth-justice", "name": "Youth Justice NSW", "abbr": "Youth Justice", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Operates youth detention centres and community supervision, and runs the Bail and Accommodation Support Service", "summary": "Runs both the detention centres and the service designed to keep young people out of them. Two-thirds of national youth justice expenditure goes to detention, and about three-quarters of the young people in it have not been sentenced.", "responsibilities": [ "Operate youth detention centres", "Supervise community-based orders and bail supervision", "Operate the Bail and Accommodation Support Service (BASS)", "Provide accommodation and support to enable conditional bail" ], "notes": "**The Bail and Accommodation Support Service** is an after-hours service for\npolice who are considering granting conditional bail to a young person in\ncustody. Its stated purpose is to assist in the granting of conditional bail and\ndivert young people from unnecessary short-term remand \u2014 an accurate description\nof the problem and a direct acknowledgement that some remand is an accommodation\nfailure rather than a risk judgement.\n\nIt is the right instrument, aimed at the right step, and it appears in\n[[nsw-youth-remand]] as an `optional` step, because whether it engages depends on\nthe hour, the location and whether a bed exists to offer.\n\n**The spending shape.** Nationally in 2024-25, detention-based supervision\naccounted for **66.2 per cent** of total youth justice expenditure \u2014 about\n**$1.1 billion**. Community-based supervision, which is where the great majority\nof young people under supervision actually are, takes the remaining third.\n\nPut beside the finding that **72 to 80 per cent** of young people in detention on\nan average night are unsentenced, that is the arithmetic of this section: about\ntwo-thirds of the money goes to detention, and most of the people in detention\nare waiting rather than serving.\n", "sources": [ "NSW Government, Bail and Accommodation Support Service: an after-hours service for police considering granting conditional bail to a young person in their custody, aiming to divert young people from unnecessary short-term remand", "Report on Government Services 2026: detention-based supervision accounted for 66.2% of total youth justice expenditure, $1.1 billion nationally in 2024-25; recurrent expenditure per young person in the population was $644", "AIHW: about 3 in 4 (72%) young people in detention on an average night in the June quarter 2025 were unsentenced; Justice Reform Initiative reports four in five on an average day" ] }, "nt-building": { "id": "nt-building", "name": "Building certifier (NT)", "jurisdiction": "nt", "role": "Issues building permits", "summary": "A registered building certifier who approves building work and issues the building permit before construction may begin.", "legislation": [ "Building Act 1993 (NT)" ] }, "nt-land-council": { "id": "nt-land-council", "name": "Land council", "abbr": "Land council", "jurisdiction": "nt", "role": "Represents traditional owners and consents to land use on Aboriginal land", "summary": "Statutory bodies representing traditional owners, through which consent to use Aboriginal land \u2014 including leases for housing \u2014 is sought and given.", "responsibilities": [ "Consult traditional owners and ascertain informed consent", "Negotiate leases and land use agreements", "Represent traditional owners' interests in land dealings" ], "legislation": [ "Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth)" ], "notes": "**This body requires a framing note, because the standard method of this database\nwould get it wrong.**\n\nBuilding a house on Aboriginal land requires a lease, and obtaining that lease\nrequires consultation with traditional owners and their informed consent through\nthe land council. That takes time, and a naive reading of this project's method\nwould record it as a delay to be reduced.\n\nIt is not a delay. It is a land right being exercised.\n\nThe consent requirement exists because the *Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern\nTerritory) Act 1976* returned inalienable freehold title to traditional owners,\nand consultation is the mechanism through which that title means something. A\nprocess map that treated it as an obstacle would be describing the recognition of\nproperty rights as friction, which is exactly the error this site would criticise\nanywhere else.\n\nSo the analysis has to invert. The right question is not \"how is this step\nshortened\" but **\"is it resourced\"** \u2014 whether land councils and traditional\nowners have the legal, technical and administrative capacity to consider proposals\npromptly, and whether the party seeking the lease arrives with the information\nrequired to make a decision possible.\n\nThe [[nt-remote-housing|remote housing agreement]] is signed by all four Northern\nTerritory land councils alongside both governments and Aboriginal Housing NT,\nwhich reflects that they are parties rather than hurdles. See\n[[resource-the-land-tenure-step]].\n", "sources": [ "Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth)", "Northern Territory remote housing agreement signed by the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory, all four Northern Territory land councils and Aboriginal Housing NT" ] }, "nt-licensing": { "id": "nt-licensing", "name": "Motor Vehicle Registry (NT)", "jurisdiction": "nt", "role": "Driver licensing and testing", "summary": "Administers Northern Territory driver licensing and practical driving tests, including through authorised examiners.", "website": "https://nt.gov.au", "legislation": [ "Motor Vehicles Act 1949 (NT)" ], "responsibilities": [ "Issue learner, provisional and full driver licences", "Administer knowledge, hazard perception and practical driving tests", "Maintain the driver licence register and demerit point scheme" ] }, "nt-planning": { "id": "nt-planning", "name": "Development Consent Authority (NT)", "jurisdiction": "nt", "role": "Determines development applications", "summary": "Determines development applications under the Planning Act 1999 and issues development permits.", "legislation": [ "Planning Act 1999 (NT)" ] }, "nt-titles": { "id": "nt-titles", "name": "Land Titles Office (NT)", "jurisdiction": "nt", "role": "Land titles registry", "summary": "Registers dealings in land, including transfers of title, plans of subdivision and strata plans. A registry is a queue, not an assessor: it checks form, not merit.", "notes": "Land registries appear at the end of almost every property process in this\ndatabase, and they are consistently the least examined source of delay.\n\nRegistration is not an assessment of anything. The registry checks that a plan\nor dealing is in order and records it. Where that takes weeks, the delay is\nqueueing, and it lands at the point of maximum holding cost -- after\nconstruction is finished and before anything can be sold or settled.\n" }, "ntc": { "id": "ntc", "name": "National Transport Commission", "abbr": "NTC", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Develops national transport reform for agreement by transport ministers, including the National Rail Action Plan", "summary": "The body doing, in rail, exactly what this database keeps proposing in other domains \u2014 and its published timetable is the honest answer to how long that takes.", "responsibilities": [ "Develop and maintain the National Rail Action Plan", "Lead reforms to streamline rolling stock approval processes", "Identify common interface standards for harmonisation", "Recommend national standards to transport ministers for agreement" ], "notes": "Rail interoperability was made one of eight national priorities by transport\nministers through National Cabinet, and the **National Rail Action Plan** is the\nwork program. It includes the first mandatory rail standards intended to drive\ninteroperability.\n\n**Three reforms are running on rolling stock approvals**: safety assurance\nguidance clarifying the roles of rail infrastructure managers and rolling stock\noperators in certification and registration (drafted November 2025 and handed to\n[[onrsr]] for consultation); identification of common interface standards to be\nharmonised; and a single application form for freight.\n\n**Stage 3, in 2029-2030, develops a mandatory national standard for rolling stock\napprovals** \u2014 deliberately a process standard rather than a prescriptive\ntechnical one. The NTC's estimate of the prize is that the industry can save\n**tens of millions of dollars a year** and that operators will be more willing to\ninvest in new and lower-emission rolling stock.\n\n**Read the dates.** A national priority set in 2020, first mandatory\ninteroperability requirements in force February 2026, mandatory approvals\nstandard in 2029-2030. That is the reform this site would have proposed, being\ndone properly, taking a decade. See\n[[a-decade-to-agree-that-a-train-is-a-train]].\n\nGovernance changed alongside it: ministers strengthened RISSB as the industry-led\ntechnical standards setting body, and it has transitioned into\n[[ariso|the Australian Rail Industry Standards Organisation]].\n", "sources": [ "NTC: transport ministers made rail interoperability one of eight national priorities through National Cabinet; the National Rail Action Plan includes the first mandatory rail standards to drive interoperability", "NTC, Streamlining rolling stock approval processes: three reforms, including draft safety assurance guidance developed November 2025 clarifying RIM and RSO roles in certification and registration, common interface standards, and a single application form for freight", "NTC: Stage 3 (2029-2030) involves developing a mandatory national standard for rolling stock approvals, intended as a process standard and not a prescriptive technical standard", "NTC: by making it simpler to get trains approved to run on networks, the rail industry can save tens of millions of dollars a year" ] }, "oaic": { "id": "oaic", "name": "Office of the Australian Information Commissioner", "abbr": "OAIC", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Administers the Notifiable Data Breaches scheme under the Privacy Act", "summary": "Thirty days to assess a suspected breach, then notify as soon as practicable. A different clock, a different threshold and a different question from every cyber incident regime running beside it.", "responsibilities": [ "Receive eligible data breach notifications", "Regulate compliance with the Australian Privacy Principles", "Require notification of affected individuals" ], "notes": "Under the *Privacy Act 1988*, an entity that becomes aware of an actual or\nsuspected eligible data breach must assess it and notify **as soon as\npracticable**, and in any case **within 30 days** of becoming aware.\n\n**The threshold is a different one.** The Privacy Act asks whether personal\ninformation was compromised in a way likely to result in serious harm to\nindividuals. The [[asd-acsc|SOCI Act]] asks whether a cyber security incident had\na relevant impact on a critical infrastructure asset. The same intrusion can\ntrigger one, both, or neither \u2014 and answering one question does not answer the\nother.\n\n**They do not substitute for each other and the guidance says so explicitly.** The\n30-day Privacy Act assessment period does not replace SOCI incident reporting; the\nregimes run in parallel and do not satisfy each other.\n\nThis is the clearest instance in the database of the same event being reported\nseparately to separate bodies because the *questions* differ \u2014 which is a real\nreason, and is also the reason this site normally proposes one lodgement and\ninternal distribution rather than one question. See\n[[report-the-incident-once]].\n", "sources": [ "Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), Notifiable Data Breaches scheme: notification must be provided as soon as practicable, and within 30 days of becoming aware of the actual or suspected data breach", "The OAIC 30-day rule does not replace SOCI incident reporting; the regimes run in parallel and do not satisfy each other" ] }, "onrsr": { "id": "onrsr", "name": "Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator", "abbr": "ONRSR", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Single national rail safety regulator under the Rail Safety National Law", "summary": "Rail safety was nationalised in 2013 and works. What a train must be built and operated to was not, and eight networks still decide that separately. One regulator, many standards.", "responsibilities": [ "Accredit rail transport operators under the Rail Safety National Law", "Vary accreditation where operations change", "Administer the National Network for Interoperability", "Publish interoperability guidance developed with the NTC and ARISO" ], "notes": "**This is a national scheme that worked.** A single regulator, one law applied\nacross every jurisdiction, one accreditation. Where this database has spent\nninety-odd processes describing the partial-national pattern \u2014 a national\nregistration with eight state-level scopes \u2014 rail is the domain that did the hard\nhalf.\n\n**And it is the clearest case of the other half being left undone.** Accreditation\nanswers whether an operator is competent to manage safety risk. It does not\nanswer whether a particular vehicle may run on a particular network. That is\nsettled between the operator and each rail infrastructure manager against that\nmanager's own interface standards, which differ. The National Transport\nCommission puts the consequence plainly: **in Australia it can take less time to\nbuild a train than to get it approved to run across the country.**\n\n**What is being done.** New requirements for the interoperability of railway\noperations took full effect on **28 February 2026**. Operators on the National\nNetwork for Interoperability must consider interoperability when changing their\noperations and prepare an Interoperability Management Plan as part of their\nsafety management system. The European Train Control System has been adopted as\nthe national standard for digital train control on major interstate freight and\npassenger corridors.\n\n**Statutory timeframe.** ONRSR must decide to grant or refuse an application for\naccreditation within **six months** of receiving it, and a variation of\naccreditation is assessed in the same way as an accreditation. The clock may be\nformally re-set where the scope and complexity of operations, or the completeness\nand quality of documentation, cause unanticipated delays.\n", "sources": [ "ONRSR: must decide to grant or refuse an application within six months of receiving it; the timeframe may be formally re-set where scope, complexity or documentation quality cause unanticipated delays", "ONRSR: an operator is required to apply for a variation to accreditation, which is assessed in the same way as an accreditation", "ONRSR: new requirements for the interoperability of railway operations took full effect on 28 February 2026; operators on the National Network for Interoperability must prepare an Interoperability Management Plan", "National Transport Commission: in Australia it can take less time to build a train than it does to get it approved to run across the country", "Transport ministers endorsed adoption of the European Train Control System (ETCS) as the national standard for digital train control along major interstate freight and passenger corridors" ] }, "pbac": { "id": "pbac", "name": "Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee", "abbr": "PBAC", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Recommends which medicines should be subsidised", "summary": "An independent expert committee that assesses the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of a medicine and recommends to the Minister whether it should be listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.", "responsibilities": [ "Assess submissions for PBS listing against comparators", "Recommend for or against listing, or defer", "Advise on the conditions and restrictions of a listing" ], "legislation": [ "National Health Act 1953 (Cth)" ], "notes": "The PBAC is a genuinely well-regarded institution and this database has no\ncriticism of the assessment it performs. Cost-effectiveness assessment by an\nindependent expert committee is the reason Australia pays what it does for\nmedicines, and weakening it would cost more than any delay it causes.\n\nWhat is worth recording is its **cycle**. The committee meets three times a year\n\u2014 March, July and November. A submission that misses a deadline waits for the\nnext round, which is roughly four months of `scheduling` in which nobody is\nassessing anything.\n\nFor a first submission that is a known cost of doing business. Its significance\ncompounds on **resubmission**: a medicine rejected or deferred at one meeting\ncannot simply be reconsidered when the additional evidence is ready. It waits for\na meeting. Two resubmissions is not unusual, and two resubmissions is most of a\nyear in cycle time alone, before any assessment or negotiation.\n\nThe [[tga|TGA]] and PBAC parallel process already allows registration and\nreimbursement assessment to run concurrently for eligible submissions, which is\nexactly the kind of design this database argues for and which was implemented\nlong before this project existed. It is worth noting where the good work has\nalready been done.\n", "sources": [ "PBS, published PBAC meeting calendar and cycle timeframes for 2026-2027", "PBS, TGA and PBAC parallel process factsheet" ] }, "phn": { "id": "phn", "name": "Primary Health Network", "abbr": "PHN", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Commissions primary and mental health services regionally", "summary": "Commonwealth-funded regional bodies that commission primary health and mental health services, including Medicare Mental Health Centres, against local need.", "responsibilities": [ "Assess regional health needs", "Commission services from local providers", "Commission and oversee Medicare Mental Health Centres" ], "notes": "A commissioning layer between the Commonwealth and the service a person actually\nwalks into, and the body responsible for the design this database most\nconsistently praises.\n\n**Medicare Mental Health Centres are free, walk-in, and require no appointment,\nno referral and no Mental Health Treatment Plan.** The government has announced\n92 by 2027; 21 locations were operating in New South Wales alone, used by more\nthan 37,000 people and families.\n\nSet that against [[au-better-access|Better Access]], where a person must first\nobtain a GP appointment, then a Mental Health Treatment Plan, then find a\npsychologist, then usually pay a gap \u2014 or wait six to sixteen weeks for a\nbulk-billed appointment.\n\nTwo Commonwealth mental health programs, running at the same time, built on\nopposite assumptions about how much a person in distress should have to do before\nthey are seen. This is the same contrast as the\n[[au-child-dental-benefit|child dental benefit]] against the\n[[nsw-public-dental-adult|adult waiting list]], and it points the same way. See\n[[walk-in-without-a-referral]].\n", "sources": [ "Department of Health, Disability and Ageing: 92 Medicare Mental Health Centres to open by 2027; free walk-in services with no appointment needed", "21 Medicare Mental Health Centre locations across New South Wales, used by more than 37,000 people and families" ] }, "placement-provider": { "id": "placement-provider", "name": "Placement host organisation", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Hosts students on mandatory placement and supplies the supervision", "summary": "A hospital ward, school, aged care home or disability service. Supplies the scarcest input in the entire workforce pipeline \u2014 a supervisor's attention \u2014 and is funded for none of it.", "responsibilities": [ "Accept student placements", "Provide clinical or professional supervision", "Set organisation-specific orientation, screening and training requirements" ], "notes": "**The binding constraint in the health and education workforce pipeline is here,\nand it is not a process.**\n\nDemand for clinical placements exceeded supply well before 2019, and the pandemic\nworsened it through burnout and attrition among the professionals who supervise.\nScaling placements is difficult where a specific supervisor-to-student ratio is\nrequired \u2014 traditionally as low as **1:1** \u2014 and where the supervisor must\n**maintain healthcare delivery alongside their supervisory commitments**. Many\nregistered nurses have no formal preparation for supporting student learning, and\nsupport from health service management may be limited or absent.\n\nSo the supervisor is doing two jobs, one of which is unfunded and untrained for,\nin an organisation already short of them.\n\n**Each host also adds its own gate.** Beyond the national and state screening\nrequirements, host organisations impose their own orientation modules, mandatory\ntraining, and in some cases their own health requirements \u2014 Queensland Health\nrequires a **tuberculosis risk assessment** before placement, and annual\n**respirator fit-testing** applies where a particulate filter respirator may be\nneeded. A student on placements at two organisations does much of it twice.\n", "sources": [ "Demand for clinical placements from education providers already far exceeded supply before 2019, and COVID-19 exacerbated this through high burnout and attrition among health professionals", "Scaling clinical placements is difficult where a specific clinical supervisor to student ratio is required, traditionally as low as 1:1, and where the supervisor must maintain healthcare delivery alongside supervisory commitments", "Many registered nurses lack formal education or preparation to promote or foster student learning, and support from health service management may be limited or missing", "Queensland Health: all students undertaking clinical placements must complete a TB risk assessment prior to commencing placement; yearly fit-testing is required where a particulate filter respirator may be used" ] }, "port-of-newcastle": { "id": "port-of-newcastle", "name": "Port of Newcastle", "abbr": "PoN", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Long-term lessee and operator of the Port of Newcastle", "summary": "Had its reimbursement liability extinguished by NSW legislation in 2022. The State's obligation to compensate the Botany and Kembla operators was not extinguished, and by 2024 was estimated at up to $4.3 billion.", "responsibilities": [ "Operate the Port of Newcastle under long-term lease", "Proponent of a container terminal at the port" ], "notes": "A separate 50-year deed, signed in **May 2014** when the port was privatised,\nrequired the Port of Newcastle to **reimburse the State** for any compensation it\npaid to the operators of Port Botany and Port Kembla under the\n[[nsw-ports|Port Commitment Deeds]]. That reimbursement would have added\nmaterially to the cost of moving every container through Newcastle.\n\n**The NSW Parliament removed it.** The *Port of Newcastle (Extinguishment of\nLiability) Bill 2022* was introduced on 13 October 2022, passed both houses on\n10 November 2022, and received assent on **25 November 2022**.\n\n**What it removed was the liability, not the cost.** The State's own obligation to\ncompensate the Botany and Kembla operators survives. In **March 2024 the Premier\nadvised Parliament that a $2.4 billion container terminal at the Port of\nNewcastle would cost NSW taxpayers up to $4.3 billion** in payments to the Port\nBotany lessee.\n\nSo the legislation moved the payment from the port to the public, and the\neconomics of the terminal now run through a state budget rather than a\ncommercial one. As at **November 2025** the proposal was reported as delayed,\nwith concerns raised about planning approvals and rail and road connections.\n\n**Fourteen years after the first of these deeds, there is no container terminal.**\nAnd no step in [[au-port-container-terminal|the approval chain]] explains why.\n", "sources": [ "Port of Newcastle (Extinguishment of Liability) Bill 2022: introduced 13 October 2022, passed both houses 10 November 2022, assent 25 November 2022", "A separate 50-year deed signed in May 2014 on privatisation of the Port of Newcastle required the port to reimburse the State of NSW for compensation paid to the operators of Port Botany and Port Kembla", "March 2024: the Premier advised Parliament that a $2.4 billion container terminal at the Port of Newcastle will cost NSW taxpayers up to $4.3 billion in payments to Port Botany lessee NSW Ports", "November 2025: the Port of Newcastle container terminal proposal reported as delayed, with concerns about planning approvals and rail and road linkages" ] }, "qld-assessment-manager": { "id": "qld-assessment-manager", "name": "Assessment manager (Qld)", "abbr": "Assessment manager", "jurisdiction": "qld", "role": "Runs the development assessment process", "summary": "The entity responsible for assessing and deciding a development application under the Planning Act 2016 -- usually the local government.", "responsibilities": [ "Confirm the application is properly made", "Run the information request and public notification stages where required", "Decide the application within the periods set by the Development Assessment Rules" ], "legislation": [ "Planning Act 2016 (Qld)", "Development Assessment Rules (Qld)" ] }, "qld-building-certifier": { "id": "qld-building-certifier", "name": "Building certifier (Qld)", "abbr": "Certifier", "jurisdiction": "qld", "role": "Issues building development approvals", "summary": "A licensed private or council certifier who approves building work against the National Construction Code and inspects it at prescribed stages.", "legislation": [ "Building Act 1975 (Qld)" ] }, "qld-licensing": { "id": "qld-licensing", "name": "Department of Transport and Main Roads", "jurisdiction": "qld", "role": "Driver licensing and testing", "summary": "Administers Queensland driver licensing, the PrepL online learner course, logbook approval and practical testing.", "website": "https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au", "legislation": [ "Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld)" ], "responsibilities": [ "Issue learner, provisional and full driver licences", "Administer knowledge, hazard perception and practical driving tests", "Maintain the driver licence register and demerit point scheme" ] }, "qld-referral-agency": { "id": "qld-referral-agency", "name": "Referral agency (Qld)", "jurisdiction": "qld", "role": "Provides a mandatory response on specified matters", "summary": "A state agency that must be given the application where a prescribed trigger applies -- for example state transport corridors, vegetation, or infrastructure.", "legislation": [ "Planning Regulation 2017 (Qld)" ], "notes": "Referral agencies are the most common source of third-party delay in the\ndatabase, and the least visible to applicants. From the outside the application\nsimply sits with the council; in fact it is with an agency the applicant has\nnever contacted, answering a question the council cannot answer for it.\n\nRecording referrals as their own steps, with their own bodies and their own\nclocks, is one of the main reasons this database is structured around steps\nrather than pages.\n" }, "qld-titles": { "id": "qld-titles", "name": "Titles Queensland", "jurisdiction": "qld", "role": "Land titles registry", "summary": "Registers dealings in land, including transfers of title, plans of subdivision and strata plans. A registry is a queue, not an assessor: it checks form, not merit.", "notes": "Land registries appear at the end of almost every property process in this\ndatabase, and they are consistently the least examined source of delay.\n\nRegistration is not an assessment of anything. The registry checks that a plan\nor dealing is in order and records it. Where that takes weeks, the delay is\nqueueing, and it lands at the point of maximum holding cost -- after\nconstruction is finished and before anything can be sold or settled.\n" }, "rma": { "id": "rma", "name": "Repatriation Medical Authority", "abbr": "RMA", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Makes Statements of Principles binding on liability decisions", "summary": "An independent statutory authority of medical and scientific experts that determines Statements of Principles setting out the factors that must exist to connect an injury or disease to service.", "responsibilities": [ "Review the sound medical-scientific evidence for each condition", "Determine and amend Statements of Principles" ], "legislation": [ "Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), Part XIA" ], "notes": "The Statements of Principles are one of the better-designed instruments in this\ndatabase and they deserve to be described accurately before anyone proposes\nchanging them.\n\nA Statement of Principles sets out, for a particular condition, the factors that\nmust exist for it to be connected to service. It is made by an independent expert\nbody on the sound medical-scientific evidence, published, and binding on the\ndecision-maker.\n\nThe effect is that the hardest question in the system \u2014 did this service cause\nthis condition \u2014 is answered once, publicly, by experts, rather than case by case\nby whoever happens to hold the file. That is exactly the design this database\nargues for elsewhere: settle the general question at the level where expertise\nexists, so the individual decision becomes an application of a known rule.\n\nTwo consequences follow that cut in opposite directions, and both are true.\n\nA condition with a Statement of Principles that the veteran's history clearly\nsatisfies should be a fast and near-mechanical decision. A condition whose\nStatement of Principles the history does not satisfy is very difficult to win, no\nmatter how strongly the veteran and their doctor believe service caused it \u2014 and\nthe veteran experiences that as the system refusing to look at their case.\n\nThe instrument is not the source of the delay recorded in [[dva]]. Whether it is\nbeing used to make decisions faster, or merely to make them defensible, is a\nquestion the published data cannot answer.\n" }, "sa-building": { "id": "sa-building", "name": "Building certifier or accredited professional (SA)", "jurisdiction": "sa", "role": "Grants building consent", "summary": "Assesses the proposal against the Building Rules and grants building consent, the second of the consents making up development approval.", "legislation": [ "Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (SA)" ] }, "sa-licensing": { "id": "sa-licensing", "name": "Department for Infrastructure and Transport (SA)", "jurisdiction": "sa", "role": "Driver licensing and testing", "summary": "Administers South Australian driver licensing, including the Vehicle On Road Test and the competency based training alternative.", "website": "https://dit.sa.gov.au", "legislation": [ "Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA)" ], "responsibilities": [ "Issue learner, provisional and full driver licences", "Administer knowledge, hazard perception and practical driving tests", "Maintain the driver licence register and demerit point scheme" ] }, "sa-planning": { "id": "sa-planning", "name": "Relevant authority (South Australia)", "jurisdiction": "sa", "role": "Grants planning consent", "summary": "Council assessment panel, assessment manager or accredited professional, depending on the assessment pathway under the PDI Act.", "legislation": [ "Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (SA)" ] }, "sa-titles": { "id": "sa-titles", "name": "Land Services SA", "jurisdiction": "sa", "role": "Land titles registry", "summary": "Registers dealings in land, including transfers of title, plans of subdivision and strata plans. A registry is a queue, not an assessor: it checks form, not merit.", "notes": "Land registries appear at the end of almost every property process in this\ndatabase, and they are consistently the least examined source of delay.\n\nRegistration is not an assessment of anything. The registry checks that a plan\nor dealing is in order and records it. Where that takes weeks, the delay is\nqueueing, and it lands at the point of maximum holding cost -- after\nconstruction is finished and before anything can be sold or settled.\n" }, "saa": { "id": "saa", "name": "Solar Accreditation Australia", "abbr": "SAA", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Accredits solar and battery installers for the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme", "summary": "One national installer accreditation, recognised everywhere \u2014 the half of the partial-national pattern that rooftop solar got right.", "responsibilities": [ "Accredit solar PV and battery installers and designers", "Maintain accreditation standards and continuing professional development" ], "notes": "Accreditation is national and is a condition of the\n[[clean-energy-regulator|SRES subsidy]], including for the Cheaper Home Batteries\nProgram, where installation must be undertaken by or supervised on site by an\nSAA-accredited battery installer.\n\n**So rooftop solar has one national installer accreditation, one national inverter\nstandard and one national subsidy.** What it does not have is a common connection\nprocess or a common export rule \u2014 those belong to\n[[dnsp|the distribution networks]] and, for emergency curtailment, to five\nseparate jurisdictional regimes commencing across six years. See\n[[one-standard-five-backstops]].\n\nElectrical licensing itself remains state-based, which is the ordinary\noccupational licensing problem recorded in\n[[finish-automatic-mutual-recognition]].\n", "sources": [ "Solar Accreditation Australia accredits solar and battery installers; Cheaper Home Batteries Program installations must be undertaken by or supervised on site by an SAA-accredited battery installer" ] }, "services-australia": { "id": "services-australia", "name": "Services Australia", "abbr": "Services Australia", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Delivers income support and family payments", "summary": "Assesses and pays income support, Commonwealth Rent Assistance and the Child Care Subsidy, and administers the income tests and reconciliation processes that govern them.", "responsibilities": [ "Assess eligibility for the Disability Support Pension and other income support", "Assess and pay Commonwealth Rent Assistance alongside a qualifying payment", "Pay the Child Care Subsidy to providers and balance it against actual income", "Apply income tests and working hours rules", "Suspend, cancel and restore payments, and recover debts" ], "legislation": [ "Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)", "A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth)" ], "notes": "The body that decides what happens to a person's income when they take a job,\nwhich makes it as much a part of the employment system as any employment program.\n\nThe settings that matter for [[au-disability-employment|disability employment]]:\n\n- A recipient may generally work **up to 29 hours a week** and keep the Disability\n Support Pension, subject to the income test. At **30 hours or more** on an\n ongoing basis, payment may be suspended.\n- The fortnightly income free area is $226 for a single recipient.\n- Suspension rather than cancellation applies for up to 12 consecutive fortnights\n of nil payment, and the concession card can continue for up to two years, both\n of which make returning to payment easier.\n- **The 30 hour rule does not apply to work in an Australian Disability\n Enterprise.**\n\nThat last exemption is the one worth sitting with. A person working 35 hours in a\nsupported employment setting keeps their pension. The same person working 35\nhours in open employment may have it suspended.\n\nWhatever the history of that rule, its present effect is a financial reason to\nprefer segregated employment over open employment \u2014 at the same time as the\nDisability Royal Commission has recommended phasing segregated employment out.\nTwo arms of Commonwealth policy pointing in opposite directions, through a rule\nabout hours. See [[dsp-hours-cliff]].\n\n**On family payments, this body holds the most interesting asymmetry in the\ndatabase.**\n\nFor [[au-rent-assistance|Commonwealth Rent Assistance]], eligibility is assessed\n**automatically** when a person claims a qualifying payment. Nobody applies for\nrent assistance separately. What they must do is verify their rent \u2014 with a lease\nor, failing that, a Rent Certificate signed by their landlord or head tenant.\n\nFor the [[au-child-care-subsidy|Child Care Subsidy]], the agency pays for a whole\nyear against **a forecast the family makes of its own future income**, then\nreconciles it against actual income once tax returns are lodged, and raises a\ndebt where the forecast was too low. A 5 per cent withholding runs all year as a\nbuffer.\n\nMeanwhile, through Single Touch Payroll, this agency already receives salary and\nwage data from the ATO close to real time, and already pre-fills employer details\nfor income support recipients \u2014 a change made expressly to stop people\nunknowingly accruing debts of the kind produced by the income compliance program.\n\nSo the same agency, in the same year, pre-fills actual income for one payment and\nasks families to predict a year ahead for another. See\n[[ccs-pay-from-income-the-government-already-sees]].\n", "sources": [ "Services Australia, published guidance on working while receiving the Disability Support Pension: 30 or more hours a week on an ongoing basis may result in suspension; ADE work exempt; income free area $226 per fortnight for singles; up to 12 consecutive fortnights of nil payment before suspension or cancellation" ] }, "skills-assessing-authority": { "id": "skills-assessing-authority", "name": "Skills assessing authority", "abbr": "Assessor", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Assesses whether an applicant's qualifications and experience match a nominated occupation", "summary": "Occupation-specific bodies \u2014 VETASSESS, Trades Recognition Australia, Engineers Australia, ACECQA and others \u2014 appointed to assess skills for migration purposes.", "responsibilities": [ "Assess qualifications and employment experience against the nominated occupation", "Issue a skills assessment outcome valid for a defined period" ], "notes": "A step performed by a body that is neither the regulator of the occupation nor\nthe decision-maker on the visa, and which the applicant pays before knowing\nwhether they will be sponsored.\n\nThe same structural observation applies here as to\n[[specialist-college|specialist medical colleges]] and to [[acecqa]]: the\nassessment is a precondition set by government and performed by a body whose\ntimeframes are not published as regulatory performance data and not audited as\nsuch.\n\nOne genuinely good design feature is worth recording, because this database is\nquick to note bad ones. A skills assessment is typically valid for three to four\nyears and can be obtained **before** an applicant has an employer. It is one of\nvery few steps in this database that can be completed speculatively and banked,\nwhich takes it off the critical path for anyone who plans ahead. That is the\nshape most of the reforms on this site are asking for, already implemented.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Home Affairs, published list of assessing authorities and skills assessment requirements" ] }, "specialist-college": { "id": "specialist-college", "name": "Specialist medical college", "abbr": "College", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Assesses whether overseas specialist training is comparable to Australian training", "summary": "The specialist medical colleges assess internationally qualified specialists for comparability with Australian-trained specialists, and set the supervision, workplace assessment and examinations that follow.", "responsibilities": [ "Assess comparability of overseas specialist qualifications and experience", "Determine whether an applicant is substantially, partially or not comparable", "Set supervision requirements, workplace-based assessment and examinations", "Recommend to the Medical Board that a practitioner be admitted to the specialist register" ], "legislation": [ "Health Practitioner Regulation National Law -- specialist registration provisions" ], "notes": "The colleges are the least examined body in this chain and the only one that is\nnot a government agency. They are private membership organisations performing a\nfunction with the force of law: without a favourable college assessment,\nspecialist registration is not available, and the Medical Board does not\nsubstitute its own view.\n\nThree structural features follow, and none of them is an accusation against any\ncollege.\n\n1. **They are not subject to the accountability that applies to a regulator.**\n Assessment timeframes are not published as regulatory performance data, are\n not audited by an auditor-general, and are not governed by a statutory clock.\n This database therefore cannot state a sourced duration for the step. That\n absence is itself the finding, and it is recorded on the companion project as\n the kind of gap that has to be closed before the step can be argued about\n honestly.\n2. **They charge a cost-recovery fee before the outcome is known.** The RACP\n assessment of comparability fee was published at $6,184 for 2026.\n3. **They have an interest in the supply of practitioners in their specialty.**\n That is the standard objection, it is structurally real, and it is not by\n itself evidence of anything -- the colleges are also the only bodies holding\n the clinical expertise to make the assessment at all.\n\nThe Expedited Specialist pathway matters mainly because it is the first route to\nspecialist registration that does not pass through this step. It is, in effect,\na controlled experiment in whether the step is load-bearing, and it will produce\nan answer within a few years. That answer should be collected.\n", "sources": [ "RACP, published international medical graduate assessment pathways and 2026 fee schedule", "Medical Republic, 'Fast track for overseas-trained specialists', reporting on the Kruk review recommendations" ] }, "state-transport-agency": { "id": "state-transport-agency", "name": "State transport agency", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Plans, procures and funds urban public transport, and pays the operating subsidy", "summary": "Owns the asset, contracts the operator, sets the timetable and carries the operating deficit. Fares recover around 20 to 25 cents in the dollar; the state funds the rest, annually, forever.", "responsibilities": [ "Develop business cases for major public transport projects", "Contract bus, rail, ferry and light rail operators", "Set service levels and fares", "Fund the gap between fare revenue and the cost of running services" ], "notes": "Recorded generically because the arrangement is the same in every state: the\nagency plans the project, builds the case that goes to\n[[infrastructure-australia|Infrastructure Australia]], receives Commonwealth\ncapital against construction milestones from\n[[infrastructure-dept|the Commonwealth department]] \u2014 and then funds the service\nfor the life of the asset out of its own budget.\n\n**Farebox recovery in Australian cities runs at roughly $0.20 to $0.25 of every\ndollar of operating expenditure.** The remaining three-quarters is a state\noperating subsidy, appropriated annually, competing against schools and hospitals\nin the same budget. It is the largest recurrent number in urban public transport\nand no Commonwealth program touches any part of it.\n\nWhich produces the incentive this database keeps finding in different clothes: the\ntier that wants the outcome funds only the capital, so the options that attract\nexternal money are the ones with the largest capital component. An improvement\ndelivered purely as more service on infrastructure that already exists has no\ncapital component to attach a Commonwealth contribution to.\n", "sources": [ "Farebox recovery in Australian cities is around $0.20 to $0.25 of every $1 of operating expenditure; Victoria's average farebox recovery ratio is in the twenties per cent", "Parliamentary Budget Office costing ECR-2025-3216, 50 cent public transport fares: fare policy that is not revenue positive increases the required government subsidy" ] }, "state-wwcc-unit": { "id": "state-wwcc-unit", "name": "State working with children check screening unit", "abbr": "WWCC unit", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "role": "Assesses and issues working with children clearances under state law", "summary": "Eight of these, each with its own law, its own standards, its own disqualifying offences and its own card. National consistency was recommended in 2015.", "responsibilities": [ "Assess applicants against criminal history and disciplinary information", "Issue, refuse, suspend and revoke clearances", "Conduct ongoing monitoring of clearance holders" ], "notes": "Recorded generically because the arrangement is the same everywhere and that is\nthe point: the working with children check system in Australia is **eight\nseparate state and territory schemes**, each with its own laws, standards and\nprocesses.\n\n**National consistency was recommended by the Royal Commission into Institutional\nResponses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2015**, which stopped short of recommending a\nsingle centralised check. Eleven years later the eight schemes remain and a\nworker still applies in their own jurisdiction.\n\n**Progress is real and it is slow.** The *Agreement to Deliver National Working\nwith Children Check Reform* was endorsed by the Standing Council of\nAttorneys-General in **November 2025**. By mid-2026 all jurisdictions had agreed\na meaningfully consistent approach to disqualifying offences, a framework and\nbenchmarks for risk assessments, and the information types that must be shared\n*within* jurisdictions \u2014 with agreement **in principle** on the information types\nto be shared *across* jurisdictions, to support mutual recognition. The national\ncriminal history checking capability is reported to be about three years away.\n\n**Set that beside what happened next door.** The\n[[au-ecec-worker-clearance|National Early Childhood Worker Register]] went from\nministerial request to mandated national use on **27 February 2026** \u2014 the same\nchildren, the same ministers, a national register delivered while the clearance\nthat actually gates the work stayed in eight pieces. See\n[[one-register-eight-clearances]].\n", "sources": [ "The working with children check system in Australia remains fractured across eight separate state and territory schemes, each with its own laws, standards and processes", "National consistency of working with children check systems was recommended by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2015; it stopped short of calling for one centralised check", "The Agreement to Deliver National Working with Children Check Reform was endorsed by the Standing Council of Attorneys-General in November 2025", "By mid-2026 all jurisdictions agreed a meaningfully consistent approach to disqualifying offences, a framework and benchmarks for risk assessments, and information types to be shared within jurisdictions, with agreement in principle on information shared across jurisdictions to support mutual recognition", "ABC News, 23 February 2026: three-year wait for a national criminal history checker" ] }, "tas-building": { "id": "tas-building", "name": "Building surveyor (Tasmania)", "jurisdiction": "tas", "role": "Issues certificates of likely compliance and building permits", "summary": "Assesses the design against the National Construction Code, issues the Certificate of Likely Compliance, and remains the compliance officer for the project.", "legislation": [ "Building Act 2016 (Tas)" ] }, "tas-licensing": { "id": "tas-licensing", "name": "Department of State Growth (Tasmania)", "jurisdiction": "tas", "role": "Driver licensing and testing", "summary": "Administers the Tasmanian novice driver licensing pathway, including the L1 and L2 learner stages.", "website": "https://www.transport.tas.gov.au", "legislation": [ "Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999 (Tas)" ], "responsibilities": [ "Issue learner, provisional and full driver licences", "Administer knowledge, hazard perception and practical driving tests", "Maintain the driver licence register and demerit point scheme" ] }, "tas-planning": { "id": "tas-planning", "name": "Planning authority (Tasmanian council)", "jurisdiction": "tas", "role": "Determines planning applications", "summary": "The local council as planning authority determines applications under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.", "legislation": [ "Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas)" ] }, "tas-titles": { "id": "tas-titles", "name": "Land Titles Office (Tasmania)", "jurisdiction": "tas", "role": "Land titles registry", "summary": "Registers dealings in land, including transfers of title, plans of subdivision and strata plans. A registry is a queue, not an assessor: it checks form, not merit.", "notes": "Land registries appear at the end of almost every property process in this\ndatabase, and they are consistently the least examined source of delay.\n\nRegistration is not an assessment of anything. The registry checks that a plan\nor dealing is in order and records it. Where that takes weeks, the delay is\nqueueing, and it lands at the point of maximum holding cost -- after\nconstruction is finished and before anything can be sold or settled.\n" }, "tga": { "id": "tga", "name": "Therapeutic Goods Administration", "abbr": "TGA", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Registers medicines for supply in Australia", "summary": "Assesses the quality, safety and efficacy of medicines and enters them on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, which a medicine must hold before it can be supplied or subsidised.", "responsibilities": [ "Evaluate applications for registration on the ARTG", "Operate provisional and priority approval pathways", "Monitor safety post-market" ], "legislation": [ "Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth)" ], "notes": "Registration and subsidy are two separate decisions by two separate bodies about\ntwo different questions. The TGA asks whether a medicine is safe and works. The\n[[pbac|PBAC]] asks whether the Commonwealth should pay for it, and at what price.\n\nThat separation is correct and this database does not question it. A medicine\nthat works may still not be worth what its sponsor is asking, and merging the\ntwo decisions would put a cost-effectiveness judgement inside a safety regulator.\n\nThe sequencing has already been reformed in the way this site usually\nrecommends. Under the **TGA and PBAC parallel process**, registration and\nreimbursement evaluation can run concurrently for eligible submissions rather\nthan end to end. A PBS listing still cannot take effect before the medicine is on\nthe ARTG \u2014 a genuine dependency, since the Commonwealth should not subsidise a\nmedicine that may not be approved \u2014 but the *assessment work* overlaps.\n\nIt is worth recording an example of a step already parallelised, because most of\nthis database consists of arguing that steps should be. Here somebody already\ndid it, and the remaining delay in [[au-pbs-listing|getting a medicine listed]]\nsits after both assessments are finished.\n", "sources": [ "PBS, TGA and PBAC parallel process factsheet: registration and reimbursement evaluation undertaken in parallel for eligible submissions" ] }, "tnsp": { "id": "tnsp", "name": "Transmission network service provider", "abbr": "TNSP", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Proposes, builds, owns and operates transmission infrastructure", "summary": "The regulated transmission businesses -- Transgrid, AusNet, Powerlink, ElectraNet and others -- which propose projects, run the regulatory investment test, obtain planning approval, acquire easements and build.", "responsibilities": [ "Apply the regulatory investment test for transmission", "Select routes and engage landholders and communities", "Obtain state planning and Commonwealth environmental approvals", "Acquire easements, by agreement or compulsorily", "Construct and operate the network" ], "notes": "A TNSP is a proponent, like [[hsra]], and like HSRA it cannot approve its own\nproject. Unlike HSRA it is a regulated commercial monopoly, which changes the\ncharacter of every step: it is spending money it will recover from consumers, on\nland it will take from landholders, under a licence it did not compete for.\n\nThat is why the process around it is heavy, and any reform proposal here has to\nstart by accepting the reason for the weight rather than treating it as\noversight.\n\nThe step that has actually delayed projects, though, is none of the regulatory\nones. VNI West slipped roughly two years -- from 2028 to late 2030 -- on\nlandholder engagement and assessment. The reforms that matter most to\ntransmission delivery are the ones that change how landholders and communities\nare dealt with, and those are the reforms that a database of procedural steps is\nworst at capturing.\n", "sources": [ "Reporting on the VNI West revised completion date, moving from 2028 to late 2030 on landholder engagement" ] }, "treasury-au": { "id": "treasury-au", "name": "The Treasury", "abbr": "Treasury", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Designs and oversees Commonwealth housing programs", "summary": "Holds policy responsibility for the Housing Australia Future Fund and the National Housing Accord, including the governance and oversight arrangements under which Housing Australia contracts projects.", "responsibilities": [ "Design Commonwealth housing programs and their delivery arrangements", "Set governance and oversight arrangements for the Housing Australia Future Fund", "Monitor program risk and performance" ], "notes": "Treasury appears in this database for a single, precisely documented reason.\n\nThe Housing Australia Future Fund opened for applications in **January 2024**.\nTreasury did not finalise most delivery and oversight arrangements until **May\n2026**. The Auditor-General found in July 2026 that the delayed finalisation\nlimited Treasury's ability to systematically monitor and manage program risks and\nperformance over time. All recommendations were accepted.\n\nThis database spends most of its time arguing that steps should happen earlier\nor concurrently. This is the counter-case, and it is worth recording as such:\nhere a step happened *too* early. Opening a competitive funding round before the\nrules for running it are settled is the sequencing error that this project's\nusual advice, applied carelessly, would produce.\n\nConcurrency is not free. Some things genuinely have to come first, and knowing\nhow you will govern a $10 billion program is one of them. See\n[[haff-settle-the-rules-before-opening-the-round]].\n", "sources": [ "ANAO performance audit of the Housing Australia Future Fund, July 2026: applications opened January 2024, most governance and oversight arrangements not finalised until May 2026" ] }, "university": { "id": "university", "name": "University or higher education provider", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Enrols students, arranges mandatory placements, and verifies pre-placement compliance", "summary": "Sits between a Commonwealth that funds the student and a state health service or school that owns the placement, and is responsible for the clearance stack that neither of them issues.", "responsibilities": [ "Arrange mandatory placements required for professional accreditation", "Verify student compliance with immunisation, police check, working with children and other screening requirements", "Maintain placement agreements with host organisations" ], "notes": "The university is the party that must assemble the\n[[au-placement-compliance|pre-placement clearance stack]], and it issues none of\nit. A working with children check comes from\n[[state-wwcc-unit|one of eight state screening units]], a police check from a\nnational scheme, an NDIS worker screening check from a state unit again,\nimmunisation evidence from a general practitioner and a pathology laboratory, and\nthe orientation modules from each individual\n[[placement-provider|host organisation]].\n\n**Its position is the structural point.** The Commonwealth funds the student's\nplace and, through the Commonwealth Prac Payment, some of the student's income\nduring placement. The state owns the hospital ward or the classroom where the\nplacement happens. The university is accountable for a placement it cannot create\nand cannot fund. See\n[[paying-a-student-does-not-create-a-placement]].\n", "sources": [ "Universities require students undertaking clinical or fieldwork placements to demonstrate compliance with immunisations, police checks and a working with children check", "Universities Australia: more clinical placements are needed to meet health workforce demands" ] }, "vic-building": { "id": "vic-building", "name": "Building surveyor (Victoria)", "jurisdiction": "vic", "role": "Issues building permits and occupancy permits", "summary": "A private or municipal building surveyor who issues the building permit, inspects at mandatory stages and issues the occupancy permit.", "legislation": [ "Building Act 1993 (Vic)" ] }, "vic-dfp": { "id": "vic-dfp", "name": "Development Facilitation Program (Victoria)", "abbr": "DFP", "jurisdiction": "vic", "role": "Assesses priority development where the Minister for Planning is the responsible authority", "summary": "A Victorian pathway under which eligible projects are assessed by the department with the Minister as responsible authority, without third party notice or review at VCAT.", "responsibilities": [ "Assess eligibility of projects against affordability and investment criteria", "Assess and determine applications as the responsible authority" ], "legislation": [ "Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)", "Victoria Planning Provisions, Clause 53.23 and related provisions" ], "notes": "Victoria's version of a fast pathway is the most instructive comparison\navailable to [[nsw-hda|the NSW Housing Delivery Authority]], because it makes\nthe trade explicit rather than implicit.\n\nReported outcomes: 10,324 homes across 64 projects since the program opened to\nhousing, with homes approved doubling year on year to 6,862 in the twelve months\nto March 2026, and an average approval time of about four months. More than\n80 per cent of those homes are in Melbourne's inner and middle suburbs, which is\nwhere the case for them is strongest and the opposition to them is loudest.\n\nFour months against the 90 to 120 days typically reported for ordinary capital\ncity assessment is not, on its face, a dramatic gain -- and that comparison is\nthe useful one, because it suggests the saving is less about the assessment and\nmore about removing third party notice and the prospect of review at VCAT.\n\nThat is a genuine transfer of rights, not a process efficiency, and it should be\ndescribed as one. This database's rule is that a reform must state what\nprotection is being traded away; a pathway that removes merits review has traded\naway merits review, and the fact that it delivers homes does not make that\nuntrue. Whether the trade is worth it is a political judgement, and the honest\nversion of the argument is made by people who admit they are making it.\n", "sources": [ "Premier of Victoria, 'Fast-Track Pathway Unlocks More Than 10,000 Homes', 2026", "Planning Victoria, published Development Facilitation Program guidance" ] }, "vic-licensing": { "id": "vic-licensing", "name": "Department of Transport and Planning (VicRoads)", "jurisdiction": "vic", "role": "Driver licensing and testing", "summary": "Administers Victorian driver licensing and probationary licence progression under the VicRoads brand.", "website": "https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au", "legislation": [ "Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic)" ], "responsibilities": [ "Issue learner, provisional and full driver licences", "Administer knowledge, hazard perception and practical driving tests", "Maintain the driver licence register and demerit point scheme" ] }, "vic-planning-ees": { "id": "vic-planning-ees", "name": "Victorian Minister for Planning (Environment Effects Statement)", "abbr": "DTP", "jurisdiction": "vic", "role": "Decides whether an environment effects statement is required and assesses it", "summary": "Administers the Victorian environment effects process: decides whether a project requires an environment effects statement, sets the scope, appoints an inquiry panel, and provides an assessment to the decision-maker.", "responsibilities": [ "Decide whether an environment effects statement is required", "Set scoping requirements and appoint a technical reference group", "Exhibit the statement and appoint an inquiry panel", "Provide the Minister's assessment to the responsible decision-maker" ], "legislation": [ "Environment Effects Act 1978 (Vic)", "Electricity Industry Act 2000 (Vic)" ], "notes": "Victoria matters to this database in 2026 for a specific reason: it enacted the\nexact class of reform this site was built to identify, and it did so explicitly\non the grounds that a sequence was causing delay.\n\nAmendments to the Electricity Industry Act in 2026 allow compulsory acquisition\nof transmission easements to proceed **concurrently with** the environment\neffects process, rather than only after it. The stated rationale was that the\nsequential requirement was contributing to delivery delays on VNI West and the\nWestern Renewables Link.\n\nThat is a `parallelise` reform, enacted, with a named cause. This project models\nit as data in [[vic-transmission-line]] against the\n[[au-transmission-line|sequential pathway]] so the saving can be estimated and,\neventually, checked against what actually happens.\n\nIt is also the sharpest available test of this project's central claim. If\nresequencing recovers the time the model says it should, that is evidence.\nIf it does not -- if the acquisition simply moves earlier and becomes contested\nearlier, with landholders now negotiating against a route that has not yet been\nassessed -- then the model is missing something important, and that finding is\nworth more than the reform was.\n", "sources": [ "Amendments to the Electricity Industry Act 2000 (Vic), 2026, permitting concurrent easement acquisition and environment effects assessment" ] }, "vic-planning": { "id": "vic-planning", "name": "Responsible authority (Victorian council)", "jurisdiction": "vic", "role": "Determines planning permit applications", "summary": "For most development the local council is the responsible authority under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.", "legislation": [ "Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)" ] }, "vic-titles": { "id": "vic-titles", "name": "Land Use Victoria", "jurisdiction": "vic", "role": "Land titles registry", "summary": "Registers dealings in land, including transfers of title, plans of subdivision and strata plans. A registry is a queue, not an assessor: it checks form, not merit.", "notes": "Land registries appear at the end of almost every property process in this\ndatabase, and they are consistently the least examined source of delay.\n\nRegistration is not an assessment of anything. The registry checks that a plan\nor dealing is in order and records it. Where that takes weeks, the delay is\nqueueing, and it lands at the point of maximum holding cost -- after\nconstruction is finished and before anything can be sold or settled.\n" }, "vrb": { "id": "vrb", "name": "Veterans' Review Board", "abbr": "VRB", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Reviews DVA decisions on the merits", "summary": "An independent tribunal conducting merits review of DVA decisions, designed to be non-adversarial and to operate without the department being represented.", "responsibilities": [ "Review reviewable DVA decisions on the merits", "Conduct outreach and alternative dispute resolution" ], "legislation": [ "Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), Part IX" ], "notes": "Worth recording alongside the [[art|Administrative Review Tribunal]] because it\nis designed on a different principle, and the difference is instructive.\n\nThe Board is non-adversarial: DVA is not represented, the proceeding is not a\ncontest between parties, and the Board can obtain evidence itself. That design\nexists because the applicants are veterans, frequently unwell, frequently\nunrepresented, and the alternative is a person with post-traumatic stress\ndisorder cross-examined about their service.\n\nThis database's general enthusiasm for removing review stages does not extend\nhere. A review body that is cheap for the applicant to use, non-adversarial, and\nspecialist is a good thing to have between a decision-maker and a court, and its\nexistence is not evidence of duplication.\n\nThe question this database can legitimately ask is the same one it asks of\n[[au-administrative-review|merits review generally]]: what proportion of\ndecisions are changed, for what reasons, and what would have to change upstream\nfor those matters not to arise. For the NDIS that number is published and it is\n64 per cent. For veterans' claims the equivalent figure is not published in\ncomparable form, which is itself the finding.\n" }, "wa-building": { "id": "wa-building", "name": "Building surveyor and permit authority (WA)", "jurisdiction": "wa", "role": "Issues building permits", "summary": "A registered building surveyor issues the certificate of design compliance; the permit authority issues the building permit.", "legislation": [ "Building Act 2011 (WA)" ] }, "wa-licensing": { "id": "wa-licensing", "name": "Department of Transport (WA)", "jurisdiction": "wa", "role": "Driver licensing and testing", "summary": "Administers WA driver licensing, the Computerised Theory Test and the Practical Driving Assessment.", "website": "https://www.transport.wa.gov.au", "legislation": [ "Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act 2008 (WA)" ], "responsibilities": [ "Issue learner, provisional and full driver licences", "Administer knowledge, hazard perception and practical driving tests", "Maintain the driver licence register and demerit point scheme" ] }, "wa-planning": { "id": "wa-planning", "name": "Local government (WA planning)", "jurisdiction": "wa", "role": "Determines development applications", "summary": "The local government determines development applications under the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the relevant local planning scheme.", "legislation": [ "Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA)" ] }, "wa-titles": { "id": "wa-titles", "name": "Landgate", "jurisdiction": "wa", "role": "Land titles registry", "summary": "Registers dealings in land, including transfers of title, plans of subdivision and strata plans. A registry is a queue, not an assessor: it checks form, not merit.", "notes": "Land registries appear at the end of almost every property process in this\ndatabase, and they are consistently the least examined source of delay.\n\nRegistration is not an assessment of anything. The registry checks that a plan\nor dealing is in order and records it. Where that takes weeks, the delay is\nqueueing, and it lands at the point of maximum holding cost -- after\nconstruction is finished and before anything can be sold or settled.\n" }, "workforce-australia-provider": { "id": "workforce-australia-provider", "name": "Employment services provider", "abbr": "Provider", "jurisdiction": "au", "role": "Manages a job seeker's mutual obligation requirements", "summary": "Contracted private and not-for-profit organisations that set job plans, approve activities, monitor points targets, and report non-compliance that triggers payment suspension.", "responsibilities": [ "Negotiate and vary the job plan", "Set and monitor the monthly points target", "Approve activities and record participation", "Report failures, which trigger demerits and payment suspension" ], "notes": "A contracted organisation that can stop a person's income.\n\nThat is the fact worth stating first, because it is unusual. A\n[[energy-retailer|retailer]] applying a rebate and a\n[[nsw-private-certifier|private certifier]] signing off a building are both\nprivate bodies performing public functions, but neither can leave someone without\nmoney for a fortnight. Here the report of a missed appointment by a contracted\nprovider triggers an automatic suspension administered by\n[[services-australia]], and the person's payment stops before anyone has\nconsidered whether the report was right.\n\nThe provider is also paid under a performance framework that depends on\nplacements and compliance recording, which means the body reporting the failure\nhas an interest in how failures and outcomes are recorded. This site names bodies\nrather than officers, and makes no allegation about any provider; the point is\nstructural. Where a payment suspension can be initiated by a contracted party and\ntakes effect before review, the design is doing the work that a decision-maker's\nindependence would otherwise do.\n\nThe 2026 reform package \u2014 $312 million, a three-tier model, announced by the\nEmployment Minister \u2014 moves away from compliance-heavy settings. Existing\ncontracts have been extended by 16 months and no firm date has been set for the\nnew national system.\n", "sources": [ "DEWR, published mutual obligation and Points Based Activation System guidance", "Reporting on the 2026 employment services reform package: $312 million, a three-tier structure, and a 16 month extension of existing Workforce Australia contracts" ] } }, "reforms": { "a-dam-does-not-create-water": { "id": "a-dam-does-not-create-water", "name": "Storage is a container, and in a capped system the water in it already belongs to somebody", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-water-infrastructure-funding:entitlement" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "idea", "summary": "Many Australian water systems were fully or over allocated by the 1980s. A new dam in a capped system buys reliability, not volume \u2014 a real benefit, and a much smaller one than a gigalitre figure implies.", "precedent": "The cap-and-trade architecture itself. The Murray-Darling Cap of June 1995 and the Sustainable Diversion Limits that replaced it exist precisely because the total was already fixed, and every water entitlement in the country is priced on that basis.", "rationale": "**A step this database would have missed, recorded because missing it is the\ncommon error.**\n\nThe instinct on being shown a water shortage is to build storage. But building\nstorage does not create water. **Many Australian surface water and groundwater\nsystems were fully or over allocated by the 1980s** \u2014 that is the condition that\nproduced the reforms, the **Murray-Darling Cap** introduced in June 1995, the\ncap-and-trade market recorded in [[nsw-water-trade|water trading]], and the\n**Sustainable Diversion Limits** that came into effect in 2019.\n\nIn a capped system a new dam can do three things:\n\n1. **Store existing entitlement more reliably** \u2014 a genuine benefit, and the\n honest one. Higher security for water that was already allocated.\n2. **Capture unregulated or supplementary flow** \u2014 which in most regulated systems\n is already counted, and is frequently the flow doing environmental work.\n3. **Support an increase in the cap** \u2014 a policy decision about the environment,\n made by a different government, on different grounds, and not something an\n engineering business case can assume.\n\n**The distinction between 1 and 3 is where benefit estimates go wrong.** A\nheadline of \"X gigalitres of new storage\" reads as X gigalitres of new water. It\nusually is not. And the sector's estimates have been found to **inflate benefits\nby 56 per cent** while understating costs by at least 116 \u2014 a gap that has many\ncauses, and this is one mechanically plausible contributor.\n\n**What should change** is modest and is about disclosure rather than process:\n\n1. **State the entitlement position in the business case, prominently.** How much\n water is available to this storage, under what entitlement, at what security,\n and whether any of it requires a change to a cap or a diversion limit.\n2. **Report the benefit as reliability where it is reliability.** \"Raises supply\n security for existing entitlement holders from X to Y per cent\" is a defensible\n claim. \"Delivers X gigalitres\" frequently is not.\n3. **Where a project does depend on a cap change, say so at feasibility stage** \u2014\n because that is a Basin Plan or state water plan question, and it will not be\n resolved by the proponent.\n\n**Filed as an idea**, because it is not a procedural reform at all. It is a\nstatement that this database's own instinct \u2014 find the blocking step, remove it \u2014\nhas nothing useful to say about a physical constraint. The gate on a dam is not a\npermit. It is the hydrology.\n", "risk": "**This entry risks reading as an argument against all water infrastructure, and it\nis not one.** Reliability is a real and valuable good. A town that runs out of\nwater in a drought is not helped by being told the system is fully allocated, and\nstorage that firms up supply for an existing entitlement can be exactly the right\ninvestment. Several National Water Grid projects are pipelines and treatment\nupgrades where this objection does not arise at all.\n\n**Not every Australian system is capped and the generalisation is too broad.** The\nMurray-Darling architecture is the most developed and the most constrained.\nNorthern Australian catchments, and some coastal and groundwater systems, are not\nfully allocated on the same basis, and a new development there faces a genuinely\ndifferent question. This entry describes the systems where the constraint binds,\nnot all of them.\n\n**The 365-day estimate on the entitlement step is the softest number in the\nprocess.** Securing water for a project can be an administrative transfer taking\nmonths, a market purchase, or a water-plan amendment taking years \u2014 and which of\nthose applies is project-specific. It is modelled as one duration because the\nschema requires one, and it should not be read as a finding.\n\n**And the 56 per cent benefit inflation figure has many possible causes.** Demand\nforecasting, discount rate selection, optimism bias and the ordinary politics of\njustifying an announcement are all candidates, and this entry proposes only that\nthe entitlement question is one contributor worth disclosing. It does not\nestablish that it is the main one.\n", "sources": [ "Many Australian surface water and groundwater systems were fully or over allocated by the 1980s, leading to significant reforms and adoption of cap and trade across the major trading regions of the Murray-Darling Basin", "The Murray-Darling Cap, introduced by the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council in June 1995, limits irrigation diversions to the volume that would have been diverted under 1993/94 levels of development", "Murray-Darling Basin Plan 2012: Sustainable Diversion Limits came into effect in 2019 and run in parallel with the Cap until fully implemented", "Entitlements are ongoing rights to a share of water from a water resource each year; allocations are the volume allocated to an entitlement in a given year", "Research finding total water project costs underestimated by at least 116 per cent and benefits inflated by 56 per cent" ] }, "a-decade-to-agree-that-a-train-is-a-train": { "id": "a-decade-to-agree-that-a-train-is-a-train", "name": "This is what harmonisation actually costs when someone genuinely does it", "type": "resequence", "targets": [ "au-rolling-stock-approval:imp", "au-rolling-stock-approval:rim_artc" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Rail interoperability was made a national priority in 2020. The first mandatory requirements took effect in February 2026. A mandatory national rolling stock approvals standard is scheduled for 2029-2030. Ten years, for a process standard.", "precedent": "The National Domestic Violence Order Scheme and universal aged care worker registration are the two clean harmonisations recorded here. Neither published a decade-long implementation timetable in advance. Rail did, which is why it can be measured.", "rationale": "Ninety-six process maps into this project, the most common recommendation on the\nsite is some form of *do this once nationally instead of eight times*. Nine\ndistinct instances of the partial-national pattern have now been recorded across\nhealth, disability, housing, licensing, water and rail.\n\n**Rail is the domain where someone is actually doing it, on a published\ntimetable, and the timetable is the finding.**\n\n- **2020** \u2014 transport ministers make rail interoperability one of eight national\n priorities through National Cabinet. The\n [[ntc|National Transport Commission]] begins the National Rail Action Plan.\n- **2025** \u2014 ministers endorse what has been described as the biggest rail\n reforms in more than a century: the European Train Control System adopted as\n the national standard for digital train control on major interstate corridors,\n and RISSB strengthened and transitioned into\n [[ariso|the Australian Rail Industry Standards Organisation]] as the\n industry-led technical standards body. Draft safety assurance guidance on\n rolling stock certification and registration goes to [[onrsr]].\n- **28 February 2026** \u2014 the first mandatory interoperability requirements take\n **full effect**. Operators on the National Network for Interoperability must\n consider interoperability when changing their operations and hold an\n Interoperability Management Plan.\n- **2029-2030** \u2014 Stage 3: a mandatory national standard for rolling stock\n approvals. A *process* standard, explicitly not a prescriptive technical one.\n\n**A decade, to agree the process by which a train is approved.** Not the technical\nspecification \u2014 the process.\n\n**Three things follow for the rest of this site.**\n\n1. **Every harmonisation proposal here should be read with a ten-year clock\n attached.** [[pharmacist-scope-recognised-nationally|Pharmacist scope]],\n [[finish-automatic-mutual-recognition|occupational licensing]],\n [[credentialing-verify-once|clinical credentialing]] and the rest are not\n quick wins, and this project has occasionally written them as though they\n were.\n2. **The sequencing is right and it is why it takes so long.** Governance first,\n then technical standards, then mandatory process. Skipping to a mandatory\n standard without a body competent to write it produces a standard nobody can\n maintain. Rail built [[ariso]] before it wrote the standard; occupational\n licensing never built the equivalent and works around it with mutual\n recognition instead \u2014 faster, and less durable.\n3. **Interim measures earn their keep.** The February 2026 requirements do not\n remove a single network-by-network approval. They oblige operators to think\n about compatibility at the point of change, which makes each later approval\n cheaper. That is a legitimate use of *added* process, and this database has\n been too quick elsewhere to treat an added obligation as a cost.\n\n**What should change.** Publish the interim measure. If the NTC estimates that\nstreamlined approvals save the industry **tens of millions of dollars a year**,\nthen each year between 2020 and 2030 has a price, and it should be stated. A\nreform programme that knows what its endpoint is worth should be able to say what\nits schedule costs \u2014 and that number is the strongest available argument for\nresourcing it faster.\n\n**Who acts:** transport ministers, who set the timetable and can compress it.\n", "risk": "**Slow is not the same as badly run, and this entry risks reading as a criticism\nof the people doing the work.** It is not. The NTC's sequencing is defensible and\nthe alternative \u2014 a mandatory standard imposed before the standards body exists \u2014\nis worse. Most harmonisation attempts in this database never produced a published\ntimetable at all; rail is being measured here precisely because it is the only\none that can be.\n\n**Compressing the schedule would move the risk, not remove it.** Bringing the\n2029-2030 approvals standard forward means writing it against interface standards\nthat have not finished harmonising, which produces a process standard pointing at\nmoving targets. Deadlines applied to standards work reliably produce standards\nthat get revised.\n\n**Ten years is measured from a convenient starting point.** Rail gauge and\noperating rule differences date to the nineteenth century, and there were\ninteroperability efforts long before 2020. Choosing the National Cabinet priority\nas the start makes the decade look like the duration of a reform, when it is the\nduration of the current attempt at one.\n\n**And the cost of delay may not be calculable in the way this entry demands.** The\nNTC's \"tens of millions a year\" is an estimate of the steady-state saving from a\ncompleted reform, not an annual loss accruing during implementation \u2014 some of the\nbenefit lands progressively, as the February 2026 requirements are already\nintended to. Asking for the number is right; treating it as a straight\nmultiplication would not be.\n", "sources": [ "NTC: transport ministers made rail interoperability one of eight national priorities through National Cabinet; the National Rail Action Plan includes the first mandatory rail standards to drive interoperability", "Transport and Infrastructure Ministers endorsed changes to rail governance strengthening RISSB as the industry-led technical standards setting body; RISSB commenced transition into ARISO; ETCS adopted as the national standard for digital train control on major interstate freight and passenger corridors", "ONRSR: new requirements for the interoperability of railway operations took full effect on 28 February 2026", "NTC: draft safety assurance guidance developed November 2025 clarifying the roles of rail infrastructure managers and rolling stock operators in certification and registration, provided to ONRSR for further consultation", "NTC: Stage 3 (2029-2030) involves developing a mandatory national standard for rolling stock approvals, intended as a process standard and not a prescriptive technical standard; the rail industry can save tens of millions of dollars a year" ] }, "accredited-driving-assessors": { "id": "accredited-driving-assessors", "name": "Relieve practical driving test queues with accredited assessors", "type": "self_certify", "targets": [ "nsw-drivers-licence:book_test", "qld-drivers-licence:book_test", "vic-drivers-licence:book_test" ], "days_saved_est": 45, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Two Australian jurisdictions already let an accredited instructor assess competence instead of a government examiner. In those systems the applicant never joins a testing queue at all.", "precedent": "The ACT assesses 23 competencies through accredited instructors under competency based training and assessment, with no government test required. South Australia offers competency based training as an alternative to the Vehicle On Road Test.", "rationale": "This is the only genuinely addressable delay in driver licensing, and the\ndatabase is unusually clear about why.\n\nAcross all eight jurisdictions, the overwhelming majority of elapsed time is\n`statutory` -- legislated minimum periods on a learner or provisional licence.\nIn [[nsw-drivers-licence|New South Wales]] the profile is 1,460 statutory days\nagainst 49 days of scheduling and 3 days of actual assessment. That is not red\ntape in any useful sense of the term. Those periods exist so that inexperienced\ndrivers accumulate experience under restriction, and no administrative reform\ncan compress time.\n\nThe test booking queue is different in kind. When a learner has held the licence\nfor twelve months, logged their hours and passed the hazard perception test,\nthey are ready. Everything that follows is waiting for an examiner appointment.\nIn August 2025 that wait was reported at six to eight weeks in NSW against a\nnormal expectation of about a week, driven substantially by a rule requiring\noverseas licence holders to be retested within three months. Service NSW\nrecruited 20 additional testing officers in response -- which is the right\ninstinct, and treats a structural constraint as a staffing incident.\n\nThe structural fix already exists domestically. The\n[[act-drivers-licence|ACT pathway]] converts a single government bottleneck into\na market of accredited assessors, and an applicant taking that route is not\nexposed to the queue at any point. South Australia offers the same alternative.\nNeither is an experiment: both have operated for years, and their novice driver\noutcomes are measurable and comparable.\n\nNote what this proposal does *not* touch. It leaves every statutory period, every\nsupervised hour and every restriction exactly where it is. It changes only who\nadministers the competence assessment, and only for jurisdictions that have\ndecided the assessment itself is worth doing.\n", "risk": "The trade-off is real and this site has recorded it before in another domain.\n\nAn accredited assessor is paid by the person being assessed. That is precisely\nthe conflict of interest that has driven sustained criticism of the\n[[nsw-private-certifier|private certifier model]] in building approval, and the\nargument for driver testing is structurally identical: the assessor has a\ncommercial relationship with the candidate, often as their instructor, and a\nfinancial interest in a steady flow of passes and referrals.\n\nThe stakes differ, though not obviously in the reassuring direction. A defective\nbuilding is discovered eventually. A driver assessed too generously is\ndiscovered on the road.\n\nThree things any serious version of this would need, and their absence should be\ntreated as fatal rather than as detail:\n\n1. **Audit with teeth.** Random re-assessment of a sample of passes, with\n accreditation actually withdrawn on findings. The certifier experience\n suggests audit regimes announced at launch and not resourced afterwards are\n worse than no reform, because they add a layer of assurance nobody is\n providing.\n2. **Published per-assessor pass rates.** An assessor whose pass rate is far\n above their peers should be visible without anyone having to make a request\n for it. That is a transparency requirement, and it is recorded on the\n companion project as the kind of gap that has to be closed *before* a reform\n rather than after it.\n3. **Evidence from the jurisdictions already doing it.** The ACT and SA have\n run this model for years. If their novice crash rates are indistinguishable\n from the testing states, the case is close to made. If they are worse, this\n proposal should be withdrawn.\n\nPoint three is the honest position: this proposal is currently an argument from\nstructure, not from outcome. The outcome data exists and we have not yet\nobtained it.\n", "sources": [ "ABC News, 'NSW L-platers face lengthy wait times to sit their driving tests amid record-high demand', 18 August 2025", "Access Canberra, published competency based training and assessment requirements", "My Licence (DIT SA), competency based training as an alternative to the Vehicle On Road Test" ] }, "aged-care-assessment-merged-and-contracted-properly": { "id": "aged-care-assessment-merged-and-contracted-properly", "name": "Three assessment workforces into one, on a five-year contract", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-residential-aged-care-entry:assessment", "au-residential-aged-care-entry:anacc", "au-aged-care-access:assessment_wait" ], "days_saved_est": 60, "status": "enacted", "summary": "Since December 2024 all aged care assessments have been done by one workforce using one tool, replacing Regional Assessment Services, Aged Care Assessment Teams and independent AN-ACC assessors. The contracts run five years.", "precedent": "Enacted. The single workforce commenced 9 December 2024, the Single Assessment System commenced under the Aged Care Act 2024 in December 2025, and $1.5 billion in five-year contracts were awarded in December 2024.", "rationale": "This database argues for merging duplicated assessment constantly. Here it was\ndone, at national scale, and it is worth setting out precisely what was merged\nbecause the pattern is the one this site keeps proposing elsewhere.\n\n**Before.** Three separate assessment arrangements. Regional Assessment Services\nassessed people for entry-level home support. Aged Care Assessment Teams assessed\npeople for higher-level home care and residential care. Independent AN-ACC\nassessors separately assessed residents to determine the funding classification\ntheir home would receive. An older person whose needs increased was reassessed by\na different organisation, against different criteria, using different\ninstruments.\n\n**After.** Since **9 December 2024**, a single workforce conducts all aged care\nassessments. The Single Assessment System commenced under the Aged Care Act 2024\nin December 2025. Assessment uses one standardised national instrument \u2014 the\n**Integrated Assessment Tool**, covering twelve sections and incorporating\neleven clinically validated tools.\n\n**And the contracting is the part this site should highlight.** The assessment\ncontracts awarded in December 2024 run **five years**, at $1.5 billion.\n\nCompare what this database has criticised twice:\n[[dental-fund-on-a-real-horizon|adult public dental]], funded through an\nagreement running eleven and a half months at a time, and mental health, extended\nby a single year after the Productivity Commission found the framework not\neffective. And compare what it praised in\n[[ag-dept|legal assistance]]: reviewed before expiry, renegotiated before expiry,\nfive years.\n\nAged care assessment did both things right \u2014 it consolidated the function and\nfunded it on a horizon an organisation can hire against.\n\n**What it did not do.** It did not shorten the queue that follows. The published\nmedian wait for a Support at Home assessment was 27 days against a journey\nmeasured in hundreds. A merge that makes the assessment coherent does not create\na funded place at the end of it, and this site should not let a good structural\nreform be quoted as a fix for a rationing problem. See\n[[median-down-queue-up]].\n", "risk": "**Consolidation concentrates risk in one workforce and one instrument.** If the\nIntegrated Assessment Tool systematically misreads a particular presentation \u2014\ncognitive impairment, cultural difference, someone who understates their needs \u2014\nthat error now applies to every assessment in the country rather than to one of\nthree systems. Diversity of instruments is inefficient and it is also a hedge.\n\n**Specialist expertise can be lost in a general workforce.** The old Aged Care\nAssessment Teams were clinically weighted for complex and residential\nassessments. A single workforce doing everything from entry-level home support to\nresidential eligibility must maintain that depth across a much broader remit, and\nwhether it has is an empirical question that will show up as assessment quality\nrather than as elapsed time.\n\n**Five-year contracts lock in providers as well as funding.** The horizon that\nlets an organisation hire also makes it hard to replace one that underperforms\nbefore 2029. Certainty cuts both ways, and this site has praised long horizons\noften enough that it should say so.\n\n**And enacted is not evaluated.** This is the seventh reform on this site marked\n`enacted`, and none of them has been graded yet. The ANAO has the aged care single\nassessment system on its potential audit topics. That audit, when it happens, is\nwhat will establish whether this worked \u2014 not the structural logic set out above.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Health, Disability and Ageing: since 9 December 2024 all aged care assessments conducted by a single workforce, replacing Regional Assessment Services, Aged Care Assessment Teams and independent AN-ACC assessors", "$1.5 billion in five-year assessment contracts awarded December 2024", "Single Assessment System commenced under the Aged Care Act 2024 in December 2025; Integrated Assessment Tool covering 12 sections and integrating 11 clinically validated tools", "ANAO potential audit topic: aged care single assessment system" ] }, "aged-care-interim-support-on-approval": { "id": "aged-care-interim-support-on-approval", "name": "Refer approved people into interim support automatically, not on request", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-aged-care-access:chsp_interim" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Interim entry-level support exists for people waiting for ongoing care. It is optional and depends on someone thinking to arrange it. Making it automatic on approval saves no time at all, and changes what the waiting is like.", "precedent": "The Commonwealth Home Support Programme already exists, is already funded, and already serves exactly this purpose. The proposal is about the default, not the program.", "rationale": "This proposal saves zero days and is on this site anyway, because a database that\nonly values speed would be measuring the wrong thing.\n\nThe [[au-aged-care-access|access process]] has a median of 347 published days\nfrom first contact to first service. About 189 of those are waiting for a funded\nbudget to be assigned. That wait is rationing, not process, and no procedural\nreform removes it.\n\nWhat a procedural reform can change is whether the person waits with help or\nwithout it. Entry-level support under the Commonwealth Home Support Programme\nexists for precisely this gap. In the process map it is modelled as `optional`\nand marked off the critical path, which is exactly right and exactly the problem:\nit does not change when ongoing support starts, and it depends on someone \u2014\nan assessor, a family member, a GP \u2014 thinking to arrange it.\n\nThe proposal is that approval for ongoing support automatically generates a\nreferral to interim support, which the person may decline. The change is to the\ndefault, and defaults are the cheapest policy instrument in existence.\n\nThe argument for it is not efficiency. It is that the risk during the wait is not\nevenly distributed across the wait. A person who falls in month four of a\ntwelve month queue does not receive their home care package late; they receive it\nin a residential facility, permanently, at several times the cost to the\nCommonwealth and at an enormous cost to them. Interim support is the intervention\nthat changes the probability of that, and it is currently opt-in.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone, by changing an administrative default.\n", "risk": "**It consumes capacity that is also rationed.** Entry-level support is not\ninfinite. Automatically referring everyone approved for ongoing care will\nincrease demand on a program that has its own limits, and the effect may simply\nbe to move the queue rather than to serve more people. If interim support becomes\ncongested, people with no prospect of ongoing care \u2014 who are its intended\nclients \u2014 wait longer. That is a real transfer and it should be costed before\nanyone claims this is free.\n\n**Opt-out defaults produce services people did not want.** Some people approved\nfor ongoing support genuinely do not need anything yet, are managing with family,\nand would find an automatic referral intrusive rather than helpful. The decline\nmust be easy and must not affect their place in the queue, and older people are\nreasonably suspicious that refusing an offer will be recorded as not needing\nhelp.\n\n**It relieves pressure on the thing that actually needs fixing.** This is the\nserious objection. A 347 day wait is politically survivable if the people waiting\nare receiving something. Making the wait more bearable reduces the urgency of\nmaking it shorter, and the department's stated aim of three months by 2027 is the\ncommitment that matters. If this proposal is adopted *instead of* that, it has\ndone harm. It is offered as something to do during the wait, not as an answer to\nit.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, published Support at Home wait time data and stated aim of a three month wait by 2027", "My Aged Care, published guidance on the Commonwealth Home Support Programme" ] }, "aged-care-onboard-during-the-queue": { "id": "aged-care-onboard-during-the-queue", "name": "Let people choose a provider and sign an agreement while they wait, not after", "type": "parallelise", "targets": [ "au-aged-care-access:find_provider", "au-aged-care-access:assignment" ], "days_saved_est": 56, "status": "proposal", "summary": "An older person waits about 189 days for a budget to be assigned, and is then given 56 days to research providers, compare them, meet them and sign an agreement. Nothing about that work requires the money to have arrived first.", "precedent": "Conditional and provisional arrangements pending a funding event are ordinary practice across government. Providers already hold service agreements that commence on a future date.", "rationale": "The [[au-aged-care-access|aged care access process]] models at 349 days against\na published median of 347, which makes it the only process in this database whose\nstructure has been checked against an outside number. The wait profile is 230\ndays `queue`, 77 `applicant`, 35 `assessment`, 7 `scheduling`.\n\nWithin that, the sequence at the end is the part a procedural reform can reach.\n\nThe person is approved. They wait roughly 189 days for a budget to be assigned.\nThe assignment arrives, and a 56 day clock starts in which they must select a\nprovider, compare offerings, arrange meetings, agree a care plan and execute a\nservice agreement.\n\nThat is the most demanding piece of consumer decision-making in the entire\nprocess, and it is placed at the very end \u2014 on a person who has by then been\nwaiting the better part of a year, who is very often less well than when they\nwere assessed, and who may now be managing it through an adult child in another\ncity.\n\nNone of it requires the budget to exist. A person could choose a provider, agree\na plan and sign an agreement that commences on assignment, at any point during\nthe 189 day wait. The provider knows the approved services and the priority\ncategory. The only thing missing is the money, and the money is not an input to\nany of those decisions.\n\nDone properly, the day the budget is assigned is the first day of service rather\nthan the first day of shopping.\n\n**A second and cheaper half.** The department publishes the 347 day total and\nthe 245 day approval-to-commencement figure, but not the assignment queue as its\nown number \u2014 the 189 days in this model is derived by subtracting the agreement\nwindow. A queue that is not published as a queue cannot be managed as one, and\npublishing it costs nothing.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone. No state, no council, no other party.\n", "risk": "**Choosing a provider a long time before service starts is choosing on stale\ninformation.** Over six months a provider's availability, staffing and quality\ncan change materially, and the person's own needs almost certainly will. An\nagreement signed in month two for services beginning in month eight may be the\nwrong agreement, and the person is now locked into it at the moment they are\nleast able to renegotiate. Any version of this needs a free right to switch on\nassignment, which providers will resist because it makes their pipeline\nunreliable.\n\n**It shifts unpaid work onto providers.** Onboarding a client who may not\nconvert for six months, at a point when more than 60 per cent of residential\nhomes are operating at a deficit and home care margins are thin, is a real cost.\nProviders would reasonably prioritise clients closer to assignment, which\nrecreates the queue inside the provider rather than removing it.\n\n**It may make the wait look shorter without making it shorter.** Fifty-six days\noff 349 is 16 per cent. The other 189 days are rationing, and this proposal does\nnot touch them and must not be presented as if it does. If it is used to report\nan improved headline while the assignment queue is unchanged, it has made the\nproblem harder to see. The published median exists precisely so that cannot\nhappen quietly, which is an argument for publishing more of these numbers, not\nfewer.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, published Support at Home wait time data: median 347 days end to end, 245 days from approval to service commencement, 27 day median assessment wait in 2024-25", "My Aged Care, published 56 day service agreement window", "Senate inquiry into Support at Home, reporting 24 November 2026" ] }, "aged-care-universal-registration": { "id": "aged-care-universal-registration", "name": "Universal registration: one aged care approval instead of two", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "nsw-aged-care-home:registration" ], "days_saved_est": 90, "status": "enacted", "summary": "The Aged Care Act 2024 merged provider approval and accreditation into a single registration in risk-based categories. It is the clearest counter-example to the assumption that merging approvals means weakening them \u2014 the same Act sharply increased the regulator's enforcement powers.", "precedent": "Enacted. The Aged Care Act 2024 commenced on 1 November 2025; existing government-funded providers were deemed across as registered providers and notified of their categories in early November 2025.", "rationale": "Before 1 November 2025 a provider passed through two processes: approval as a\nprovider, and accreditation of its services, run separately against substantially\noverlapping evidence about the same organisation.\n\nThe Aged Care Act 2024 replaced both with a single registration in one or more\ncategories, set according to the characteristics, risks and obligations of the\nservice types delivered. Existing providers were deemed across on commencement\nrather than being made to reapply \u2014 which is worth noting on its own, because the\nusual failure mode of a merge reform is that the transition costs more than the\nmerge saves.\n\n**Why this entry matters more than the days it saves.**\n\nThis project's proposals are routinely met with the objection that combining two\napprovals means less scrutiny. That objection is legitimate and this site prints\nit in the risk section of every reform. Universal registration is the available\ncounter-example: the same Act that removed a gate substantially increased the\n[[acqsc|Commission's]] powers, giving it more flexible enforcement tools and\nbroader ability to impose conditions on registration where a provider is\nnon-compliant.\n\nFewer gates and sharper teeth is a coherent design. It is arguably a *better*\ndesign than many gates weakly enforced, because a gate is a one-off test at a\nmoment when the provider is on its best behaviour, while a condition binds\ncontinuously.\n\nThis site should make that argument more often than it does. Most of the reforms\nhere ask for a step to be removed and say what protection is lost. The stronger\nversion asks what should be strengthened in exchange, and aged care is where that\nwas actually done.\n\n**What to watch.** Registration categories are set by risk. A category system is\nonly as good as its boundaries, and boundary-setting is where a risk-based regime\nquietly becomes a light-touch regime. The Commission's use of its new condition\npowers is the measurable thing, and it should be measured.\n", "risk": "**Deeming is not assessing.** Every existing provider was moved into the new\nregime without a fresh examination. That was the pragmatic choice and probably\nthe right one, but it means the merged registration has not yet been *applied* to\nthe incumbent sector \u2014 only to new entrants. The first real test of whether one\nregistration is as rigorous as two will come at renewal, and it has not happened\nyet.\n\n**Risk-based categories create an incentive to be categorised down.** Where\nobligations follow the category, the category becomes something to argue about.\nThis is not hypothetical: it is the standard trajectory of risk-tiered regulatory\nregimes, and it usually takes several years to appear.\n\n**Increased powers are not the same as increased capacity.** Enforcement tools\nthat are not resourced are worse than gates, because they create an appearance of\noversight that nobody is providing. This site has made that observation about\n[[accredited-driving-assessors|audit regimes in another domain]] and it applies\nwith more force here, where the royal commission's findings concerned harm to\npeople who could not report it themselves.\n\n**And the honest limit on the claim.** The 90 days estimated here is our number,\nnot a measured saving. Nobody has published elapsed time under the old two-step\nprocess against the new one, and until someone does, this entry is a description\nof a structural change rather than evidence about its effect.\n", "sources": [ "Aged Care Act 2024 (Cth), commenced 1 November 2025", "Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, published provider registration guidance and registration notifications issued November 2025", "MinterEllison, analysis of registration and entry under the Aged Care Act 2024", "Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, final report 2021" ] }, "align-the-bulk-billing-thresholds": { "id": "align-the-bulk-billing-thresholds", "name": "Six state payroll tax rules and one Commonwealth incentive, all keyed to bulk billing, none aligned", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-bulk-billing-practice:payroll_position" ], "days_saved_est": 120, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Every jurisdiction built a payroll tax concession keyed to bulk billing, and set it differently \u2014 80 per cent of wages, 80 per cent of services, proportionally, outright, or by threshold. The Commonwealth requires 100 per cent. Nobody chose this; it is what happens when two tiers pick the same lever.", "precedent": "The concessions themselves are the precedent: every jurisdiction has already accepted that bulk billing is the right thing to key relief to. What has not happened is any of them agreeing on how to measure it.", "rationale": "This is the seventh instance in this database of a national activity meeting\ndivided jurisdictions \u2014 and it is different from the other six in an instructive\nway.\n\nThe previous six were **absences**: a national scheme that Queensland or Victoria\nhad not joined, a clearance that did not travel, a credential re-verified at every\nhospital. This one is the opposite. Every jurisdiction *did* act, quickly and in\nthe same policy direction, and the incompatibility is a product of six\ngovernments independently doing the right thing.\n\nFollowing rulings bringing contractor GP payments into the payroll tax base,\neach built a concession keyed to bulk billing:\n\n| Jurisdiction | Test |\n|---|---|\n| South Australia | 80 per cent exemption on GP wages where the practice bulk bills |\n| New South Wales | rebate where at least 80 per cent of GP **services** are bulk billed, metropolitan Sydney qualifier |\n| Victoria | proportional exemption based on bulk billed income share |\n| ACT | exemption for bulk billed services outright |\n| Northern Territory | no medical-specific rule; general threshold raised to $2.5 million |\n| Western Australia | effectively by threshold, $1 million |\n\nAnd the Commonwealth's [[au-bulk-billing-practice|practice incentive]] requires\n**100 per cent**.\n\nThese tests do not merely differ in level. They differ in **unit**: a share of\nwages, a share of services, a proportion of income. A practice cannot compute one\nanswer and apply it in two places. A group operating across the Murray runs two\ndifferent calculations on the same billing behaviour.\n\n**What could change.** Not uniform rates \u2014 payroll tax is a state tax and states\nare entitled to set their own. A **common definition and measurement basis** for\n\"bulk billing\" across the concessions, so that a practice establishes the fact\nonce and each government applies its own rate to it. That is the same distinction\nthis site draws in [[credentialing-verify-once]]: verify once, decide separately.\n\n**Who acts:** state and territory revenue offices collectively, with the\nCommonwealth, most plausibly through the mechanism that already coordinates tax\nadministration across jurisdictions.\n", "risk": "**This is a coordination proposal in the hardest possible domain.** Payroll tax\nis one of the last substantial state tax bases and jurisdictions guard their\nautonomy over it closely. Asking six revenue offices to adopt a common\nmeasurement basis defined partly by reference to a Commonwealth health program is\nasking them to cede definitional control over their own tax to another\ngovernment. The history of tax harmonisation in Australia suggests this takes\ndecades when it happens at all.\n\n**A common definition would advantage whoever writes it.** If the measurement\nbasis follows the Commonwealth's 100 per cent formulation, states that\ndeliberately set an 80 per cent test to reach mixed-billing practices would find\ntheir policy narrowed. Alignment is not neutral; it means someone's threshold\nwins.\n\n**The concessions are recent, contested and may not last.** Several were built as\namnesties or transitional measures and their permanence is not settled.\nHarmonising a set of arrangements that individual states may withdraw or rewrite\nis building on ground that is still moving.\n\n**And this database should be honest that the underlying problem is not\ndefinitional.** The reason any of this exists is that payroll tax was applied to\ncontractor GPs in a way the sector did not expect, and the concessions are\npatches. A cleaner answer would be to resolve the contractor question itself\nrather than to harmonise the exemptions from it \u2014 which is a tax policy argument\nwell outside what a process database can adjudicate.\n", "sources": [ "RevenueSA Revenue Ruling PTASA004; Revenue NSW Bulk Billing Support Initiative from 4 September 2024; Victorian exemption from 1 July 2025; ACT Revenue Office designated medical practices exemption from 1 July 2025; NT threshold $2.5 million from 1 July 2025; WA threshold $1 million", "Services Australia, Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program: 100 per cent bulk billing requirement" ] }, "apprentice-support-parity": { "id": "apprentice-support-parity", "name": "An apprentice living away from home gets $120 a week; a student on placement gets $338.60", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-apprenticeship:first_year" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Two Commonwealth instruments support people who must be somewhere in order to train. The Living Away From Home Allowance pays up to $120 a week in an apprentice's first year. The Commonwealth Prac Payment pays $338.60 a week, benchmarked to Austudy.", "precedent": "The Commonwealth Prac Payment is itself the precedent. It was created after the Universities Accord identified placement poverty, benchmarked to the single Austudy rate, and indexed to it annually. The principle \u2014 that mandatory unpaid or low-paid training time needs income support at a defensible benchmark \u2014 is established Commonwealth policy.", "rationale": "This database has now found the same gap three times, in three sectors, and this\nis the clearest statement of it.\n\nThe **Commonwealth Prac Payment** pays $338.60 a week in 2026 to eligible\nstudents on mandatory placement, benchmarked to the single Austudy rate and\nadjusted with it each January. It covers nursing, teaching, midwifery and social\nwork in higher education, and the Diploma of Nursing in vocational education.\n\nThe **Living Away From Home Allowance** pays an apprentice up to **$120 a week**\nin their first year \u2014 the year in which 17.2 per cent of trade apprentices leave,\nfor reasons NCVER records as dissatisfaction with pay or working conditions.\n\nBoth instruments exist to solve the same problem: a person cannot train where the\ntraining is if they cannot afford to be there. One is benchmarked to a student\nincome support rate and indexed. The other is a fixed amount.\n\nSet that beside the two findings already recorded here:\n\n- A **Certificate III early childhood or aged care student** doing mandatory\n unpaid placement receives nothing from either instrument, and cannot borrow\n through [[au-vet-student-loan|VET Student Loans]] because those stop at diploma\n level.\n- An apprentice receives $120 a week where a nursing student receives $338.60.\n\nThree support instruments, three different answers, and the vocational pathways\ncome last in all of them. That is not a policy anyone designed. It is what\nhappens when each instrument is built for its own sector without anyone looking\nacross.\n\n**The proposal.** Benchmark apprentice living-away support to the same reference\nas the Prac Payment, and index it the same way. That is a modest and principled\nask: it does not invent a new instrument, it applies an existing benchmark the\nCommonwealth has already accepted.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone.\n", "risk": "**An apprentice is an employee and a student on placement is not, and the\ndifference is the whole objection.** Apprentices receive a wage, superannuation,\nleave and workers' compensation. Students on mandatory placement receive nothing\nat all, which is why the Prac Payment was created. Comparing $120 with $338.60\nwithout that context overstates the gap considerably, and the honest comparison\nis between total income, not between two allowances.\n\n**If apprentice income is too low, the wage is the instrument.** Apprentice\nminimum rates are set in awards by the [[fwc|Fair Work Commission]]. Topping up\nlow apprentice wages with a Commonwealth allowance shifts a labour cost from\nemployers to taxpayers, which is a subsidy to the employers of apprentices rather\nthan a fix to apprentice pay. This site recorded the same objection about the\nchildcare [[pay-the-wage-through-the-funding-rate|Worker Retention Payment]], and\nit applies with more force here because apprentices already have an award.\n\n**The allowance is narrowly targeted and raising it helps few people.** The\nLiving Away From Home Allowance reaches apprentices who must relocate. Most\napprentices do not, so a rate rise would leave the bulk of first-year attrition\nuntouched while costing money. If the objective is retention, a broader\nfirst-year payment would be a different and more expensive proposal.\n\n**And this database is drifting from process into rate-setting.** Three of the\nentries this reform draws on are about payment levels rather than administrative\nsteps. That is a legitimate thing to notice from a process map \u2014 the maps are how\nthe gap became visible \u2014 but the level of a payment is contested political\nterritory and this project has limited standing in it. Recorded as identifying a\npattern rather than pricing its solution.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Education, Commonwealth Prac Payment: $338.60 per week in 2026, benchmarked to the single Austudy rate and adjusted annually", "Living Away From Home Allowance: weekly payments of up to $120 in the first year of an apprenticeship", "NCVER: 17.2 per cent of trade apprenticeships in the 2020 commencing cohort ended without completion within the first year; common reasons included dissatisfaction with pay or working conditions", "VET Student Loans (Courses and Loan Caps) Determination 2016: approved courses at diploma level and above only" ] }, "apprenticeship-money-where-the-attrition-is": { "id": "apprenticeship-money-where-the-attrition-is", "name": "The incentives are spread over four years and the losses are in the first one", "type": "resequence", "targets": [ "au-apprenticeship:incentives" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Trade attrition for the 2021 cohort was 42 per cent, the highest in more than a decade, and 17 per cent of the previous cohort left within the first year. Apprentice incentives are paid in instalments across four years, weighted toward commencement.", "precedent": "The incentive system has already been restructured repeatedly, most recently through the Key Apprenticeship Program from 1 January 2026, so the payment profile is clearly adjustable. The 2024 Strategic Review examined exactly this question.", "rationale": "The published figures are the argument.\n\n**Attrition for the 2021 trade commencing cohort was 42.1 per cent** \u2014 the\nhighest in more than a decade \u2014 with 43 per cent completing within the standard\nfour-year program. Non-trade attrition reached a record 56 per cent. And the\nlosses are front-loaded: **17.2 per cent of trade apprentices in the 2020 cohort\nleft within the first year**, against 30.3 per cent for non-trade.\n\nThe reasons NCVER records are not administrative. They are **dissatisfaction with\npay or working conditions**.\n\nNow look at where the money is. Under the Key Apprenticeship Program an\napprenticeship in a priority sector can attract up to $15,000 \u2014 $10,000 to the\napprentice, $5,000 to the employer \u2014 for commencements from 1 January 2026, paid\nin **instalments across the apprenticeship**. Priority occupations outside KAP\nattract $5,000, split evenly.\n\nAn apprentice in year one is on a training wage, frequently the lowest-paid\nperson in the workplace, and receives a fraction of a support payment whose\nremainder arrives over the following three years \u2014 conditional on them still\nbeing there.\n\n**The proposal is about profile, not quantum.** Weight apprentice-side payments\nheavily toward the first twelve to eighteen months, where the attrition is,\nrather than spreading them evenly across a period most people do not complete.\nThis costs nothing extra in aggregate for those who finish, and it puts money in\nfront of the people who are about to leave rather than behind them.\n\nThe 2024 Strategic Review found that barriers in the system have contributed to\ndeclining commencements and completions since 2012. Incentives have been\nincreased repeatedly over that period and completion has not recovered, which is\nat least consistent with the money being in the wrong place in time.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone.\n", "risk": "**Front-loading rewards starting, and starting is not the objective.** A payment\nprofile weighted to year one pays more to people who then leave in year two, and\nit creates an incentive to commence apprenticeships that were never likely to\nfinish \u2014 for both the apprentice and the employer. Completion-weighted payments\nexist precisely because commencement-weighted ones were gamed in the past, and\nthis proposal moves back toward the arrangement that produced that problem.\n\n**Money may not be the operative variable.** NCVER records dissatisfaction with\npay *and working conditions*, and the second is not addressable by a Commonwealth\npayment at all. If a substantial share of first-year attrition is about\nsupervision quality, workplace culture or safety, a larger cheque in month six\nchanges nothing and the money is spent finding that out.\n\n**The real instrument is the wage, and it is not the Commonwealth's.** Apprentice\nminimum rates are set in awards by the [[fwc|Fair Work Commission]]. A\nCommonwealth incentive is a workaround for a wage that the industrial system\nsets, and this database has already recorded \u2014 in\n[[au-aged-care-wage-case|aged care]] \u2014 that the industrial route is slow and\nproduces the more durable instrument. The honest version of this argument may be\nthat apprentice wages are the problem and incentives are a substitute for\naddressing them.\n\n**And attrition is not automatically failure.** Some apprentices leave because\nthey found better work, or discovered the trade was not for them, which is a\nfunctioning labour market rather than a broken program. Nobody publishes\ndestination data for non-completers, so the 42 per cent contains outcomes that\nrange from a personal disaster to a good decision, and treating it as a single\nnumber to be minimised is exactly the error this site criticised in\n[[free-tafe-track-the-cohort|Free TAFE completion reporting]].\n", "sources": [ "NCVER: 4-year trade attrition of 42.1 per cent for the 2021 commencing cohort, the highest in more than a decade, with 43 per cent completing within four years; non-trade attrition at a record 56 per cent", "NCVER: 17.2 per cent of trade apprenticeships in the 2020 commencing cohort ended without completion within the first year, against 30.3 per cent of non-trade; common reasons included dissatisfaction with pay or working conditions", "DEWR, Key Apprenticeship Program factsheet: up to $15,000 per apprenticeship for commencements from 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026, paid in instalments", "Strategic Review of the Australian Apprenticeship Incentive System, 2024" ] }, "aukus-licence-free-environment": { "id": "aukus-licence-free-environment", "name": "AUKUS licence-free environment: a step deleted rather than accelerated", "type": "remove", "targets": [ "au-defence-industry-entry:export_permit" ], "days_saved_est": 60, "status": "enacted", "summary": "Since 1 September 2024 most controlled goods, technologies and services moving between Australia, the UK and the US need no export licence. The step is gone, not faster \u2014 the rarest and strongest reform type in this database. It still applies in full to everyone else.", "precedent": "Enacted, under the Defence Trade Controls Amendment Act 2024 and the AUKUS national exemptions in force from 1 September 2024.", "rationale": "Almost every proposal on this site asks for a step to be resequenced, merged or\nthresholded. Very few ask for one to be deleted, because deletion is usually\nindefensible: the step is doing something, and the question is only whether it\nmust be done *here*, *now*, or *by this body*.\n\nExport control between AUKUS partners is the case where deletion was defensible\nand was done.\n\nSince 1 September 2024, industry and the research sector across Australia, the\nUnited Kingdom and the United States have not required a licence to export,\nre-export or transfer most controlled goods, technologies and services within\nthose three countries. Not a faster licence. No licence.\n\nThe reasoning is clean and generalises: the purpose of the control is to prevent\nsensitive technology reaching parties who should not have it. Where the receiving\nparty is a treaty partner operating an equivalent control regime, and the transfer\nis inside a shared programme, the control is protecting nothing that the\npartner's own regime does not protect. The licence was verifying a fact already\nestablished by the partnership.\n\nThat is the general form of a genuine `remove`: not *this step is annoying*, but\n*this step's purpose is fully served by another arrangement already in place*.\nAnyone drafting a deregulation proposal should have to satisfy that test, and\nmost cannot.\n\n**The unfinished part.** The exemptions cover three countries. The licence\nrequirement applies in full to transfers to Japan, South Korea, Canada, New\nZealand and every European partner \u2014 including countries Australia is\nsimultaneously building capability with. The precedent set here is that an\nequivalent control regime in a trusted partner can substitute for an Australian\nlicence. Extending it is a question of which partners qualify, which is a\npolitical and intelligence judgement rather than a procedural one, and this\ndatabase is not the right instrument for making it.\n\n**Who acted:** the Commonwealth, in concert with the United States and the United\nKingdom. Extension would require the same.\n", "risk": "**The perimeter is now the whole point, and perimeters leak.** Removing the\nlicence removes the transaction-level check that used to catch the case nobody\nanticipated. Assurance now depends entirely on the partner's own regime and on\nthe integrity of the exemption boundary \u2014 who is inside it, which goods are\nexcluded from it, and whether an entity inside a partner country is a genuine\npartner entity. That is a different risk profile, not an absent one, and the\nUnited States Studies Centre and others have examined how well the Australian and\nUS reforms actually mesh.\n\n**Deleted steps are hard to reinstate.** If the arrangement turns out to have\nleaked, restoring the licence requirement is a diplomatic act and a public\nstatement of distrust in an ally. The asymmetry between how easy this was to\nremove and how hard it would be to restore is itself a reason for the carve-outs\nto be maintained carefully rather than eroded.\n\n**It is being cited for more than it did.** The exemptions removed a licensing\nstep. They did not resolve the deeper constraint on Australian firms in AUKUS\nsupply chains, which is the [[clearances-before-contract-award|clearance and\naccreditation]] entry cost \u2014 five months of vetting and four to six months of\nDISP membership, incurred before any revenue. A firm that cannot afford to get\ncleared is not helped by not needing an export licence.\n\nThat is the pattern this database keeps finding: a real reform, delivered to a\nreal step, that was not the binding one.\n", "sources": [ "Defence Trade Controls Amendment Act 2024 (Cth)", "Department of Defence, 'AUKUS countries export licence-free environment takes flight', 1 May 2024; national exemptions in force 1 September 2024", "Minister for Defence, 'Generational export reforms to boost AUKUS trade and collaboration', 16 August 2024", "United States Studies Centre, 'AUKUS enablers? Assessing defence trade control reforms in Australia and the United States'" ] }, "bail-should-not-turn-on-a-bed": { "id": "bail-should-not-turn-on-a-bed", "name": "A bed shortage is being recorded as a judicial decision about risk", "type": "resequence", "targets": [ "nsw-youth-remand:accommodation", "nsw-youth-remand:bass" ], "days_saved_est": 3, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A court cannot make a child a bed. Where accommodation is the obstacle, the only available options are release into an arrangement the court is not satisfied with, or remand \u2014 so a supply failure comes out of the system as a risk judgement.", "precedent": "The Bail and Accommodation Support Service already does this at the police station, before the decision rather than after it. NSW has also already legislated the principle for children in out-of-home care: absence of a suitable placement must not be a reason to refuse bail.", "rationale": "The [[nsw-youth-remand|remand process]] models at **five days**, matching the\npublished national median for a completed period of unsentenced detention. Three\nof those five are the search for somewhere for the young person to go.\n\n**The sequencing is backwards.** The accommodation search happens *after* the bail\napplication is heard, so the court is asked to decide whether a young person can\nbe released into arrangements that do not yet exist. The predictable answer is\nremand, and the search then continues with the child in custody.\n\n**Sixty per cent of remand periods end in release on bail.** The decision made at\nthe police station is reversed a few days later on substantially the same facts,\nwith one thing changed: a bed was found. That is not a system correcting an error\nof judgement. It is a system running a procurement exercise with a child in\ndetention for its duration.\n\n**The instrument already exists and runs at the right point.**\n[[nsw-youth-justice|BASS]] is an after-hours service for police *considering*\nconditional bail, aimed at diverting young people from what the state itself\ncalls **unnecessary short-term remand**. It sits before the decision. Its reach\ndepends on the hour, the location, and whether a bed exists.\n\n**What should change.**\n\n1. **Move the search in front of the decision.** Where police are contemplating\n refusing bail on accommodation grounds, the accommodation service is engaged\n before the refusal, not after the remand. That is what BASS is, extended to\n all hours and all locations.\n2. **Make the existing statutory protection operative.** New South Wales already\n provides that a child in out-of-home care must not be refused bail because no\n placement is available. Legal Aid NSW reports it is not always effective, with\n young people held **in excess of a fortnight** while arrangements are made. A\n protection that produces a fortnight in custody is a statement of intent, not\n a rule; it needs a deadline and a named agency that owes the duty.\n3. **Report accommodation-driven remand separately.** If a jurisdiction cannot\n say how many of its remand nights were bed shortages, it cannot manage the\n shortage \u2014 and it will keep buying detention instead of accommodation.\n\n**Who acts:** the state, on every count. This is not a Commonwealth process\nanywhere in the chain.\n\n**The money is already being spent.** Detention-based supervision is **66.2 per\ncent** of national youth justice expenditure \u2014 about **$1.1 billion** a year \u2014\nand roughly three-quarters of the people in detention have not been sentenced.\nThe question is not whether to fund accommodation for this cohort. It is which\nkind.\n", "risk": "**Bail is a risk decision and this reform must not pretend otherwise.** Some young\npeople are refused bail because of what they are likely to do, and finding them a\nbed will not and should not change that. This proposal is about the subset where\naccommodation is the stated obstacle, and this database cannot say how large that\nsubset is \u2014 which is the third recommendation above and the reason the first two\nare hard to argue for with evidence.\n\n**Supported bail accommodation is expensive and the evidence is mixed.** Queensland\nwas reported in 2019 to be running youth bail houses at around five times the\nnightly cost of a luxury hotel, with an evaluation unable to establish that they\nworked. Any proposal to buy accommodation instead of detention has to survive\nthat finding rather than ignore it, and \"cheaper than a detention bed\" is a lower\nbar than \"effective\".\n\n**Placing a duty on an agency to find a bed by a deadline creates an incentive to\nfind a bad one.** A statutory clock with no supply behind it produces placements\nthat break down, which return the young person to custody with a worse record\nthan before. The duty has to attach to funded capacity, not to a search.\n\n**And the days saved figure is small and the harm is not proportional to it.**\nThree days is a rounding error next to the 665-day dental queue elsewhere in this\ndatabase. It is three days of a child in custody, most often ending in release.\nThe unit of harm here is not the day.\n", "sources": [ "AIHW, Youth justice in Australia 2024-25: median completed period of unsentenced detention 5 days; 3 in 5 (60%) remand periods ended with release on bail; NT 15%, WA 84%", "AIHW: about 3 in 4 (72%) young people in detention on an average night in the June quarter 2025 were unsentenced", "NSW Government: BASS is an after-hours service for police considering granting conditional bail, aiming to divert young people from unnecessary short-term remand", "National Legal Aid: a child in out-of-home care cannot be denied bail on account of no suitable placement being available; Legal Aid NSW reports the section is not always effective, with young people held sometimes in excess of a fortnight awaiting accommodation", "Report on Government Services 2026: detention-based supervision was 66.2% of total youth justice expenditure, $1.1 billion nationally in 2024-25", "ABC News (2019): report finding Queensland youth bail houses cost around five times more than a luxury hotel and may not work" ] }, "bank-ecological-survey-data": { "id": "bank-ecological-survey-data", "name": "Publish and reuse ecological survey data instead of resurveying", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "au-epbc-referral:ecology_survey", "au-high-speed-rail-approvals:field_investigations" ], "days_saved_est": 180, "status": "proposal", "summary": "The longest single delay in federal environmental approval happens before any application exists: waiting for the season in which a species can lawfully be surveyed. Survey data is collected at proponents' expense, submitted to government, and then not made usable by the next proponent on the next block.", "precedent": "State biodiversity data systems and the Atlas of Living Australia already hold large volumes of survey records. The gap is not the existence of a repository but the obligation to deposit usable, structured, methodology-tagged survey effort \u2014 including negative results \u2014 as a condition of assessment.", "rationale": "On the [[au-epbc-referral|residential subdivision process]] the ecological\nsurvey step is 270 days -- the largest single duration in the process, longer\nthan any assessment, and it occurs before the department has heard of the\nproject.\n\nThe cause is not bureaucracy. Many survey protocols require observation in a\nparticular season, and a project that engages an ecologist in April may not be\nable to complete a spring requirement until October. Miss it and the wait is a\nyear. This database classifies it `third_party` rather than `applicant` for that\nreason: the constraint is the biology.\n\nWhich means no procedural reform touches it. The only thing that shortens a\nseasonal survey window is **not having to do the survey**, and the only\nlegitimate way to not do a survey is for someone to have already done it and for\nthe result to be available.\n\nEvery one of these surveys is paid for by a proponent, conducted to a published\nprotocol, and submitted to government. Then it stops. The next proponent on the\nadjacent block, asking the same question about the same species in the same\nseason, starts from nothing.\n\nThree things would need to be true:\n\n1. **Deposit is a condition of assessment**, in a structured format, with\n methodology and survey effort recorded.\n2. **Negative results are published.** Surveying and finding nothing is the most\n valuable and most systematically discarded result in the entire dataset.\n3. **The data is presumptively reusable** for a defined period and radius, with\n the regulator able to require fresh survey where reuse is not appropriate.\n\nThis is the point where this project meets its\n[[aussies-wanna-know|companion transparency project]] most directly. The reform\nis not a change to environmental law. It is a decision to treat data already\ncollected at private expense under public compulsion as a public asset.\n", "risk": "The ecological objections here are serious and a proponent of this reform has to\ncarry them, not wave at them.\n\n**Ecological data ages, and it ages unevenly.** A survey finding a species\npresent remains meaningful for a long time. A survey finding nothing may be\nworthless within a season -- because the survey was done in a poor year, in\ndrought, after fire, or simply because the animal was elsewhere that week.\nPresumptive reuse of negative results is precisely the case where reuse is most\nattractive and most dangerous, and any reuse rule that does not distinguish\npresence from absence is unsafe.\n\n**Survey quality varies and the record does not show it.** Deposited data would\ncarry the same variance in rigour that the underlying consultancy market\ncarries. Making it reusable makes weak surveys reusable too, and confers on them\nan authority the original report did not claim.\n\n**It creates an incentive to survey badly.** If a negative result can be reused\nand shortens a future approval, someone benefits from a survey that finds\nnothing. That incentive does not exist today in the same form and it should be\ndesigned against explicitly -- through accreditation of surveyors, audit, and\npublication of who conducted each survey.\n\n**Commercial and cultural sensitivity.** Precise locations of threatened species\nare withheld for good reason, including poaching, and some Aboriginal cultural\nheritage information cannot be published at all and is not the government's to\npublish. A reusable dataset has to be built with those constraints designed in\nfrom the start, in consultation with Traditional Owners, rather than discovered\nafter launch.\n", "sources": [ "Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), survey guidelines for listed species", "Atlas of Living Australia, published biodiversity occurrence data infrastructure" ] }, "bulk-billing-taper-not-cliff": { "id": "bulk-billing-taper-not-cliff", "name": "A 12.5 per cent incentive that switches off at 99 per cent bulk billing", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-bulk-billing-practice:hundred_percent" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "The Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program pays an additional 12.5 per cent on every dollar of MBS benefit \u2014 but only to practices that bulk bill 100 per cent of eligible services. The marginal privately billed consultation costs the practice 12.5 per cent of everything.", "precedent": "The underlying per-service bulk billing incentive is already proportional: it is paid on each bulk billed service, so a practice bulk billing more receives more. The practice-level loading is the only part of the architecture built as a cliff.", "rationale": "From 1 November 2025 the Commonwealth expanded bulk billing incentives to all\nMedicare-eligible patients, not only children, pensioners and concession card\nholders. That is a substantial and welcome change and this proposal does not\ntouch it.\n\nAlongside it, the **Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program** pays participating\npractices an additional **12.5 per cent on every dollar of MBS benefit** earned\nfrom eligible services \u2014 conditional on the practice bulk billing **100 per cent**\nof eligible services.\n\nNot most. Not 90 per cent. All of them.\n\n**Why that shape matters.** The loading is calculated on the practice's whole MBS\nincome. So the single privately billed consultation that breaks the 100 per cent\nthreshold does not cost the practice 12.5 per cent of that consultation \u2014 it costs\n12.5 per cent of everything. The marginal decision is priced at the value of the\nentire program.\n\nEvery threshold produces a discontinuity, and this database has recorded several:\nthe [[dsp-hours-cliff|30 hour DSP rule]], the\n[[cra-sharers-rule|Rent Assistance sharers rate]], the\n[[pbs-index-the-cabinet-threshold|PBS Cabinet threshold]]. This is the steepest\nof them, because the cliff sits at the maximum rather than somewhere in the\nmiddle of the range.\n\n**Who it excludes.** Practices with any mixed billing at all, which\ndisproportionately means practices carrying a cohort whose care does not fit\ninside a bulk billed consultation \u2014 long consultations, complex chronic disease,\nsome procedural work. A practice that bulk bills 95 per cent of its services and\nprivately bills the remainder is behaving in a way the policy should want, and\nreceives nothing.\n\n**The proposal.** Taper the loading across a band \u2014 full rate at 100 per cent,\ndeclining to zero somewhere below it \u2014 so that a practice moving from 80 to 95 per\ncent is rewarded for the movement rather than only for arriving.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone.\n", "risk": "**A clean rule is worth something, and this proposal spends it.** \"We bulk bill\neveryone\" is a claim a patient can rely on and a practice can advertise. A\ntapered loading produces practices that are 92 per cent bulk billing, which means\nnothing to a patient standing at a reception desk. The 100 per cent condition\nbuys certainty for patients, and that is a real benefit this reform would trade\naway.\n\n**Tapers are gamed at the margin in a way cliffs are not.** A banded incentive\ncreates an interest in how \"eligible services\" are counted and classified, and\nthe boundary between an eligible and ineligible service becomes worth money.\nA cliff at 100 per cent is brutally simple and largely ungameable, which is\npresumably why it was chosen.\n\n**It costs more.** Extending the loading to practices below 100 per cent extends\nit to practices that would have bulk billed anyway, which is deadweight. The\nprogram is already a large commitment and a taper widens it without necessarily\nconverting anyone.\n\n**And this database cannot say whether the cliff is actually binding.** The\nprogram began on 1 November 2025 with first payments in January 2026. Whether\npractices sitting just below 100 per cent are choosing not to participate, or are\nconverting, is an empirical question that a year of data would answer and that\nnobody has published. This proposal identifies a shape, not a measured failure,\nand should be treated as weaker than the clarity of the arithmetic suggests.\n", "sources": [ "Services Australia, Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program: additional 12.5 per cent on every dollar of MBS benefit for eligible services; practices must bulk bill 100 per cent of all eligible services; payments split 50/50 between practice and provider, quarterly in arrears from the first quarter of 2026", "From 1 November 2025 all Medicare-eligible patients are eligible for bulk billing incentives" ] }, "care-worker-screening-once": { "id": "care-worker-screening-once", "name": "One screening check across the care sectors", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-aged-care-worker-entry:screening", "au-ndis-provider-registration:worker_screening" ], "days_saved_est": 45, "status": "enacted", "summary": "From mid-2026 a national aged care worker screening check aligned with the NDIS model, with ongoing monitoring and cross-sector recognition. After six instances of this database recording the opposite pattern, here is the case where it is being fixed.", "precedent": "Enacted. The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing published guidance in March 2026 for a national aged care worker screening check commencing mid-2026, aligned with the NDIS model. An NDIS worker screening check is already accepted in place of an aged care police certificate.", "rationale": "This database has recorded the same structural problem six times: a national\nscheme with jurisdictions or sectors outside it, where the coordination cost of a\nnational system is imposed and the benefit of one is not delivered.\n\n[[nsw-worker-screening|NDIS worker screening]] administered by eight separate\njurisdictions. [[finish-automatic-mutual-recognition|Occupational licensing]]\nwithout Queensland. [[credentialing-verify-once|Clinical credentialing]] repeated\nat every health service. Working with children checks that do not travel.\n[[nrsch|Community housing registration]] without Victoria and Western Australia.\n[[nsw-medicines-regulator|Controlled-medicine prescribing]] under eight regimes.\n\n**Aged care is where it is being fixed**, and this entry exists to record that\nrather than to propose anything.\n\nFrom mid-2026 a **national aged care worker screening check** commences, aligned\nwith the NDIS model, with **ongoing monitoring and cross-sector recognition**.\nThe two care sectors that draw on the same labour pool \u2014 often the same person,\nsometimes on the same day \u2014 stop treating a clearance from the other as if it did\nnot exist.\n\nThree features are worth naming because they are the right ones:\n\n1. **Cross-sector recognition**, which is the actual reform. A disability support\n worker moving into aged care is not screened from scratch.\n2. **Ongoing monitoring** rather than a point-in-time certificate. The interim\n position \u2014 a police certificate that must be less than three years old \u2014 tells\n you about someone's history on the day it was issued and nothing after.\n Continuous monitoring is *stronger* protection, not weaker, and it is\n arriving alongside the consolidation.\n3. **Alignment rather than a new scheme.** It adopts a model that already\n operates rather than inventing a parallel one, which is how the previous six\n instances got into difficulty.\n\nFewer checks and better protection at the same time. That is the same combination\nas [[aged-care-universal-registration|aged care universal registration]], which\nmerged two approvals while increasing the regulator's enforcement powers, and it\nis the strongest available answer to the standing objection that consolidating\nchecks means weakening them.\n\n**What remains unfinished.** Working with children checks are still separate and\nstill state-based, so a person working across childcare, disability and aged care\nstill holds more than one clearance. The precedent for fixing that now exists in\nthe same policy area.\n", "risk": "**Cross-sector recognition transmits the assessment standard along with the\nclearance.** The NDIS check assesses risk of harm to people with disability. Risk\nto a frail older person with dementia is related but not identical, and a\nclearance designed for one population is now doing work in the other. If the\naged care risk assessment is materially different, alignment means one of the two\nsectors is using a test that was not written for it.\n\n**The commencement is mid-2026 and the evidence is not in.** This entry is marked\n`enacted` on the basis of published guidance and a commencement date. Whether\ncross-sector recognition works in practice \u2014 whether monitoring actually flows\nacross sectors, whether an adverse finding in one is acted on in the other \u2014 will\nnot be observable for years. This site should return to it.\n\n**Consolidation concentrates failure.** One national check means one system whose\noutage, error or compromise affects every care worker in the country. Eight\nseparate systems are inefficient and they fail separately.\n\n**And a transition risk that is entirely foreseeable.** The same database\nrecorded that mandatory NDIS registration expanded on 1 July 2026 at the same\ntime as the first wave of five-year NDIS clearances began expiring from February\n2026. Adding a new national aged care check commencing mid-2026 puts a third\ndemand into the same screening units in the same year. That is a\n[[worker-screening-recognise-once|load-smoothing problem]] that consolidation\nmakes solvable and does not solve on its own.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, aged care worker screening guidance, March 2026: national aged care worker screening check from mid-2026, aligned with the NDIS model, with ongoing monitoring and cross-sector recognition", "Aged Care Act 2024: a police certificate older than three years does not satisfy the screening obligation; an NDIS worker screening check is accepted in place of a police certificate", "Providers must keep worker screening records for seven years" ] }, "ccs-pay-from-income-the-government-already-sees": { "id": "ccs-pay-from-income-the-government-already-sees", "name": "Pay the Child Care Subsidy from income the government already sees", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "au-child-care-subsidy:estimate", "au-child-care-subsidy:withhold", "au-child-care-subsidy:balancing" ], "days_saved_est": 425, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Families forecast their own income a year ahead, are paid on that forecast, and are charged a debt if it was low. Through Single Touch Payroll the Commonwealth already receives their actual wages every pay cycle, and already pre-fills that data for income support recipients.", "precedent": "Services Australia already uses Single Touch Payroll data to pre-fill employer details for income support recipients \u2014 a change made expressly so that people stop unknowingly accruing debts. The mechanism exists, in the same agency, for a neighbouring payment.", "rationale": "The [[au-child-care-subsidy|Child Care Subsidy]] is priced for a whole year from\na number the family invents: an estimate of its own combined income for a year\nthat has not happened.\n\nFor a salaried two-income household with stable jobs that is a formality. For\ncasual, seasonal, self-employed, commission or shift-based households \u2014 the ones\nmost likely to be income-tested into a high subsidy rate \u2014 it is a guess, and\nguessing low produces a debt at balancing. The rate matters: from 6 July 2026\nfamilies under $88,520 receive 90 per cent, tapering by a percentage point per\n$5,000 to zero at $538,520. A wrong estimate mis-prices twelve months, not one.\n\nThe system knows this. That is why 5 per cent of every payment is withheld all\nyear as a buffer \u2014 a standing admission, funded by the family, that the design\nexpects its own inputs to be wrong.\n\n**And the Commonwealth has the right number the whole time.** Under Single Touch\nPayroll, employers report salary and wages to the [[ato|ATO]] each pay cycle, and\nthe ATO shares it with [[services-australia]] as year-to-date figures from which\nperiod amounts are derived. Services Australia **already pre-fills employer\ndetails for income support recipients**, and the stated purpose of doing so was\nto stop people unknowingly accruing debts of the kind the income compliance\nprogram produced.\n\nSo the agency paying the subsidy can see, within days, that the family's income\nhas changed \u2014 and continues paying against a forecast made twelve months earlier\nuntil a tax return catches up.\n\n**The proposal.** Default the income estimate to a Single Touch Payroll\u2013derived\nprojection, updated through the year, with the family able to override it (for a\nbonus they know is coming, a business income component STP cannot see, a partner\nabout to stop work). Adjust the subsidy rate prospectively as actual income\ndiverges, rather than retrospectively after balancing. Reduce or remove the\nwithholding as the estimate becomes reliable.\n\nThe result: fewer debts, no year-long withholding of families' own money, and a\nsubsidy rate that tracks the year it is paid in.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone \u2014 one agency, one department, data it\nalready receives.\n", "risk": "**This is adjacent to the worst administrative failure in modern Australian\ngovernment, and that has to be confronted directly rather than noted.** Robodebt\nused averaged annual income data to infer fortnightly earnings and raised debts\non that inference. It was unlawful and it ruined people. Any proposal to drive a\npayment from ATO data must be tested against it.\n\nThe distinctions are real and they are not sufficient on their own. Single Touch\nPayroll is actual reported pay for actual periods, not an average smeared across\na year, and this proposal would use it **prospectively to set a rate**, not\nretrospectively to raise a debt. It reduces the number of debts rather than\ngenerating them. But building an automated income pipeline into a payment\ncalculation is exactly the class of thing that went wrong before, and the\nprotections \u2014 a human-reviewable estimate, an easy override, no automated debt\nraising, and a clear statement that the person is not liable for the agency's\nprojection \u2014 are load-bearing, not decorative. A version without them should not\nbe built.\n\n**Single Touch Payroll does not see everything.** It covers employees. It does\nnot see sole trader income, partnership and trust distributions, investment\nincome, or work for an employer outside the system. For families whose income is\nsubstantially non-wage \u2014 a significant share of exactly the variable-income\nhouseholds this reform is meant to help \u2014 a prefilled projection would be\nconfidently wrong, which is worse than an honest guess.\n\n**Prospective adjustment means the subsidy moves during the year.** A family\nwhose income rises in March would see its fee go up in April rather than receive\na bill in August. That is better in aggregate and it is not costless: a household\nbudgeting on a known gap fee experiences a mid-year change as a shock, and some\nwould prefer the debt they can negotiate to the increase they cannot.\n\n**And the estimate has a purpose beyond arithmetic.** Asking a family to state\nits income creates a moment of engagement and a record they attest to. Removing\nit moves the payment further toward something that happens to people rather than\nsomething they participate in \u2014 which is efficient, and is not obviously what a\nfamily payment should be.\n", "sources": [ "Services Australia, published Child Care Subsidy and balancing guidance: subsidy calculated from a family income estimate, reconciled after tax returns are lodged, with a debt where actual income was higher", "Services Australia: 5 per cent of each payment withheld through the year as a buffer", "Services Australia, Single Touch Payroll data guidance and the STP data-sharing arrangement with the ATO", "Reporting on Services Australia's use of STP data to pre-fill employer details for income support recipients to reduce unknowing debt accrual", "Department of Education: subsidy rates and thresholds from 6 July 2026" ] }, "childcare-approvals-in-parallel": { "id": "childcare-approvals-in-parallel", "name": "Run service approval and Child Care Subsidy approval against the building, not after it", "type": "parallelise", "targets": [ "nsw-childcare-centre:service_approval", "nsw-childcare-centre:ccs_approval" ], "days_saved_est": 120, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A finished, fitted-out, empty childcare centre carrying full finance waits 90 days for service approval and then 60 more for Commonwealth subsidy approval. Most of what both examine is knowable from the approved plans months earlier.", "precedent": "Provider approval already attaches to the operator rather than the premises and is recognised nationally and ongoing, so an existing provider does not repeat it. The same logic \u2014 assess what can be assessed early, confirm the rest on inspection \u2014 is ordinary practice in building certification.", "rationale": "On the [[nsw-childcare-centre|NSW childcare process]] the critical path runs\n1,000 days, and the last 150 of them happen after the building is finished.\n\nThe sequence at the end is: occupation certificate, then service approval\n(90 days, statutory), then Child Care Subsidy approval (about 60 days), then\nopen. The centre is complete throughout. It is staffed, or paying to hold staff\nit has hired. It is carrying finance and earning nothing.\n\n**Service approval.** Examines the premises \u2014 layout, indoor and outdoor space\nper place, fencing, sightlines, amenities \u2014 and the nominated supervisor. Almost\nall of that is determined by the approved plans and could be assessed on the\nplans, with a physical inspection confirming that what was built matches. That\nis exactly how building certification already works, and the National Law\nalready permits an application before the service commences operating. The\nproposal is that the assessment substantively begin at the construction\ncertificate stage rather than at completion.\n\n**Child Care Subsidy approval.** This one is harder to defend as sequential at\nall. It is a Commonwealth fitness-and-tax-record check on an operator whom the\nstate regulatory authority has just examined, and it depends on the service\napproval only by convention. It could run concurrently and issue conditionally on\nservice approval being granted.\n\nThe result is that a centre finished in March opens in March rather than August.\nGiven the Commonwealth guaranteed 72 hours a fortnight to all eligible families\nfrom 5 January 2026, the gap between funded demand and available places is the\nwhole problem, and 150 days per centre is a direct contribution to it.\n\n**Who acts:** the states for service approval, the Commonwealth alone for the\nsubsidy approval. The Commonwealth half needs nobody's agreement and is the\ncheapest thing on this page.\n", "risk": "**Assessing plans is not assessing a building, and childcare is a bad place to\nlearn that.** Space per child, sightlines from the staff position, fencing that a\ndetermined three-year-old cannot pass \u2014 these are the things that turn out\ndifferently in the built room than on the drawing, and they are the things that\nmatter. Any version of this reform has to keep a full physical inspection before\nthe service operates, and must not let early assessment become a presumption that\nthe inspection is a formality. If the reform saves time by making the inspection\nperfunctory, it should not happen.\n\n**Rework.** A centre whose fit-out changes after an early assessment consumes\nregulator time twice, and regulator time in this sector is the scarce input that\nalso has to be spent on [[nsw-childcare-centre|assessment and rating]] and on\ncompliance. Taking capacity from oversight of operating services to accelerate\nopenings would be a bad trade, and it is the trade that will be made if this is\nimplemented without extra resourcing.\n\n**Timing against a tightening regime.** This is being proposed in the same period\nthat the National Law is being deliberately strengthened after serious harm to\nchildren. The two are compatible \u2014 nothing here changes what is assessed, only\nwhen \u2014 but the sequencing of the public argument matters. A regulator asked to go\nfaster in the same year it is asked to be more careful will reasonably want to\nknow which instruction wins, and the answer has to be that care does.\n", "sources": [ "ACECQA, Guide to the National Quality Framework, applications and approvals \u2014 60 day provider approval and 90 day service approval decision periods", "Department of Education (Cth), published guidance on the Child Care Subsidy approval process, including the Statement of Tax Record requirement from 1 April 2025", "Department of Education (Cth), 3 Day Guarantee, in effect from 5 January 2026" ] }, "childcare-code-assessable-pathway": { "id": "childcare-code-assessable-pathway", "name": "A code-assessable pathway for childcare centres that meet the planning guideline", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "nsw-childcare-centre:assessment", "nsw-childcare-centre:determination", "nsw-childcare-centre:appeal" ], "days_saved_est": 120, "status": "idea", "summary": "Nearly every contested childcare application answers the same three objections \u2014 noise, traffic, parking \u2014 through the same three consultant disciplines against published guidelines. Where the answers are that standardised, the assessment is already code-shaped.", "precedent": "NSW already runs a code-assessed pathway for housing, where a proposal meeting published standards is certified against a code rather than assessed on the merits. The child care planning guideline already sets much of the substantive content a code would need.", "rationale": "Refusal grounds for childcare centres are remarkably consistent: traffic\ngeneration, parking, acoustic performance of children at play, and pedestrian\nsafety. Applicants answer them with a traffic impact assessment, an acoustic\nreport and a plan of management, prepared against published guidelines.\n\nWhere the same three questions are asked of nearly every application of a type,\nand answered by the same three disciplines against the same guidelines, the\nmerits assessment is doing less discretionary work than its elapsed time\nsuggests.\n\nThe pattern in the data is the appeal step. A Lithgow refusal in December 2025 on\ntraffic, parking, noise and pedestrian safety grounds was reversed by the Land and\nEnvironment Court. That is not an isolated case for this use.\n\nLook at what a reversed refusal produces. The community got no protection \u2014 the\ncentre was built. The applicant paid for a court case. The council paid to defend\none. The centre opened roughly a year later. Nobody in that sequence behaved\nunreasonably: the objectors had real concerns, the councillors responded to their\nelectorate, the court applied the controls. The *system* produced a worse outcome\nfor every participant than either a faster approval or a refusal that held.\n\nA code-assessable pathway converts that into a question with an answer in\nadvance. Meet the acoustic standard, meet the parking and queuing standard, meet\nthe setback and hours-of-operation standard, and the centre is certified. Fail\nany of them and it goes to merits assessment as now.\n\n**Filed as an idea, not a proposal**, because the thresholds are the whole\nargument and this project does not have them. Someone who has assessed these\napplications needs to say which of the standard objections can be reduced to a\nmeasurable standard and which genuinely require judgement about a particular\nstreet.\n\n**Who acts:** the state, through the planning instrument. Not the Commonwealth,\nwhich funds the demand and controls none of this.\n", "risk": "Two objections, and the first is the reason this is filed as an idea.\n\n**The domestic precedent for code-assessable development is also the domestic\nprecedent for what goes wrong with it.** NSW complying development is the model\nbeing borrowed from, and its history includes sustained commercial pressure to\nfit inside the code, buildings that met the code and were bad neighbours anyway,\nand communities who discovered they had no say only after work started. Every one\nof those failure modes transfers directly. A childcare centre is a use that\ngenerates concentrated traffic at fixed times in residential streets, and the\nneighbours are the people who lose standing.\n\n**Objections about traffic and noise are not always pretextual, and sometimes\nthey are.** Both facts are true and a code cannot tell them apart. A code\nprotects a good proposal from an organised campaign, and it equally protects a\nbadly sited proposal from a legitimate one. The current system resolves that\ndistinction slowly, expensively and inconsistently. It does resolve it.\n\n**And a caution specific to this domain.** Nothing in this proposal touches who\nmay operate a service or who may work in one. Those are the\n[[nsw-ecec-regulator|National Law approvals]], they are being tightened\ndeliberately and correctly after 2025, and this site takes no position against\nthat. This is a proposal about where a building may go, argued on planning\ngrounds. It must not be cited as an argument for lighter childcare regulation,\nand if it is being used that way it should be withdrawn.\n", "sources": [ "Reporting on the reversal of the Lithgow City Council childcare centre refusal by the NSW Land and Environment Court", "State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021 (NSW) and the applicable child care planning guideline" ] }, "chp-registration-recognise-nationally": { "id": "chp-registration-recognise-nationally", "name": "Finish the national community housing register", "type": "remove", "targets": [ "au-haff-project:registration" ], "days_saved_est": 120, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A national registration scheme for community housing providers that Victoria and Western Australia are not in \u2014 while the Commonwealth funds providers to operate across exactly those borders.", "precedent": "The NRSCH already operates in every other jurisdiction, with a settled three-tier structure and a national regulatory code. Nothing needs to be designed; two jurisdictions need to join.", "rationale": "The National Regulatory System for Community Housing registers providers in three\ntiers set by scale and risk, with performance requirements and regulatory\nintensity proportionate to tier. It is a sensible risk-based design and the same\nprinciple as [[acqsc|aged care registration categories]].\n\nIt was enacted first in New South Wales and adopted elsewhere **with the\nexception of Victoria and Western Australia**, which run separate systems.\n\nSo a provider operating nationally holds national registration plus two separate\nstate registrations, against different codes, with different reporting cycles \u2014\nfor the same organisation doing the same thing.\n\n**Why this matters more now than it used to.** The\n[[housing-australia|Housing Australia Future Fund]] is a Commonwealth program\ncontracting community housing providers to deliver 40,000 social and affordable\nhomes. Commonwealth policy actively encourages providers to grow and to operate\nat national scale. The registration architecture those providers sit inside was\ndesigned before that and has a hole in it covering two states.\n\nThis is the same pattern this database has now recorded in\n[[nsw-worker-screening|NDIS worker screening]],\n[[finish-automatic-mutual-recognition|occupational licensing]],\n[[credentialing-verify-once|clinical credentialing]] and\n[[worker-screening-recognise-once|working with children checks]]: a national\nscheme with jurisdictions outside it, where the cost falls on whoever operates\nacross borders.\n\nThe consistent finding across all five is worth stating once, here. **The problem\nis never the existence of the standard. It is that partial national schemes\nimpose the coordination cost of a national system and deliver the benefit of\nneither.** A fully national scheme is efficient. Eight genuinely different state\nschemes are at least honest about what they are. A national scheme minus two is\nthe worst configuration available.\n\n**Who acts:** Victoria and Western Australia, to join; the Commonwealth, only\nthrough National Cabinet or by attaching conditions to housing funding \u2014 which,\ngiven it is funding these providers directly, is a lever it actually holds.\n", "risk": "**Victoria and Western Australia did not stay out by accident.** Both run\nsubstantial state housing systems and their regulators are integrated with state\nfunding, land and tenancy arrangements in ways a national code is not. Joining\nmeans accepting a standard set elsewhere for a sector the state is the principal\nfunder of, and the objection that the national code is less demanding than a\nstate's own \u2014 or simply differently shaped \u2014 deserves an answer rather than an\nassumption that national means better.\n\n**Harmonisation can level down.** A national tier structure applied to a state\nwith a more interventionist regulator would reduce oversight of providers housing\nsome of the most vulnerable tenants in the country. This site made the same\nobservation about [[finish-automatic-mutual-recognition|electrical licensing]],\nand it applies with more force where the people affected are tenants who cannot\neasily move.\n\n**The saving is modest and falls on large providers.** 120 days, on a step that\nis a precondition rather than part of a project, and the organisations carrying\nthe duplicate cost are the national-scale providers best able to absorb it. Small\nsingle-state providers gain nothing from this reform and may find themselves\nregulated under a code written for larger organisations.\n\n**And this is not why 4 per cent of the target was delivered.** The\n[[au-haff-project|HAFF chain]] runs 1,935 days on the model, of which 6 per cent\nis addressable. The binding constraints are site acquisition, planning consent and\nconstruction. Registration duplication is real, worth removing, and nowhere near\nthe reason social housing is not being built.\n", "sources": [ "NRSCH, published registration categories, tier criteria and National Regulatory Code", "NRSCH adopted in all jurisdictions except Victoria and Western Australia", "ANAO performance audit of the Housing Australia Future Fund, July 2026" ] }, "clearances-before-contract-award": { "id": "clearances-before-contract-award", "name": "Break the clearance circularity that keeps small firms out of defence", "type": "parallelise", "targets": [ "au-defence-industry-entry:vetting", "au-defence-industry-entry:disp" ], "days_saved_est": 150, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A firm needs cleared people to win classified work and needs the work to justify clearing people. The vetting standard is not the problem. Its position in the sequence is.", "precedent": "Defence already sponsors clearances ahead of specific contracted need for its own workforce and for priority programs. The question is whether that can be extended to a defined pool of industry applicants.", "rationale": "The [[au-defence-industry-entry|SME entry process]] runs 810 days on the critical\npath before a firm can commence classified work, and the shape of it is a loop.\n\nTo hold DISP membership at a useful level a firm needs cleared personnel. To\njustify the cost of cleared personnel \u2014 five months of NV2 vetting, facility\naccreditation, ICT certification, a security officer, and the consultants to\ndocument it all \u2014 a firm needs a contract. To win the contract it needs the\nmembership.\n\nNone of the individual steps is unreasonable. [[agsva|Vetting]] is a genuine\njudgement about a specific person and nothing here asks for it to be shallower.\n[[defence-security|DISP]] requirements protect real information. The foreign\nownership test is a national security judgement this database has no business\nsecond-guessing.\n\nThe circularity is a product of ordering, and it selects on balance sheet rather\nthan on capability. A firm that can carry a year of costs against a possible\ncontract gets in. A firm that cannot, does not \u2014 regardless of whether its\ntechnology is better. Given that sovereign industrial capability and a broader\nsupplier base are stated objectives of the National Defence Strategy, that is a\nselection mechanism working directly against the policy.\n\nTwo changes, neither of which touches the standard:\n\n1. **Sponsor a clearance pool ahead of contract.** Defence funds and sponsors\n vetting for a defined number of industry personnel in priority capability\n areas, before any specific contract exists. The clearance attaches to the\n person and is portable. Firms tendering can then draw on cleared people\n instead of having to create them.\n2. **Let DISP assessment run concurrently with vetting rather than after it.**\n The published DISP timeframe assumes the applicant already holds the required\n clearances. Assessing the organisational controls while personnel vetting\n proceeds would overlap two steps that examine entirely different things \u2014 one\n a company's systems, the other an individual's history.\n\n**Who acts:** Defence alone. No legislation, no other jurisdiction, no\ninternational agreement.\n", "risk": "**Sponsoring clearances speculatively wastes them.** A cleared person whose firm\nnever wins work, or who leaves the sector, represents public money spent on an\nasset nobody used. Vetting capacity is the binding constraint \u2014 the reported\nbacklog, the $130 million myClearance system that required manual workarounds,\nstaff redeployed to process clearances by hand \u2014 and spending scarce capacity on\nspeculative clearances means spending it *instead of* on people with contracted\nwork. That is the objection that would sink this in the department, and it is a\nfair one. The proposal is only defensible if vetting throughput is increased\nfirst, which is a resourcing decision that no procedural reform substitutes for.\n\n**Selecting the pool is a new discretion, and a valuable one.** Whoever decides\nwhich firms and which individuals get sponsored clearances is allocating a scarce\nand commercially decisive benefit. That is precisely the kind of discretionary\ngateway this site objects to in [[fast-track-by-objective-trigger|housing]], and\nconsistency requires objecting to it here too. Published criteria and a published\nlist of who received sponsorship would be the minimum.\n\n**Concurrency has a real failure mode.** DISP assessment assumes cleared\npersonnel because the organisational controls are partly *about* those people \u2014\nwho the security officer is, who has access. Assessing in parallel means\nassessing a partly hypothetical organisation, and re-doing work when a nominated\nindividual fails vetting. That is wasted assessor time in a function that is\nalready behind.\n\n**And the limit of the claim.** Nothing here would make Australia's defence\nacquisition faster. The [[au-defence-major-acquisition|major acquisition\nprocess]] models at more than fifteen years, of which the approval gates are\nabout 10 per cent and this reform touches none of them. This is a proposal about\nwho gets to compete, not about how quickly anything gets bought.\n", "sources": [ "AGSVA, published performance information: NV1 approximately 3 months, NV2 approximately 5 months", "Department of Defence, published DISP timeframes: 2-3 months Entry Level, 4-6 months Levels 1 to 3, assuming clearances already held", "ANAO, Defence's Procurement and Implementation of the myClearance System", "ABC News, reporting on the Defence security clearance backlog, 31 March 2023" ] }, "co-investment-that-buys-sharing": { "id": "co-investment-that-buys-sharing", "name": "A subsidy rate set by how much sharing the infrastructure delivers", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-regional-mobile-coverage:assess" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "enacted", "summary": "Projects where all three national carriers share the infrastructure can be funded up to 100 per cent. Projects with fewer operators get 50 to 75. The Commonwealth is not paying for a tower \u2014 it is paying more for a tower that carries everybody's customers.", "precedent": "Enacted and operating in the current Regional Connectivity Program round including Mobile Black Spot opportunities.", "rationale": "This database is mostly a catalogue of instruments that are blunt where they\nshould be sharp. This is the counter-example, and it deserves to be recorded\nprecisely because it is so rare.\n\nUnder the current round, funding share is set by how much sharing a project\ndelivers:\n\n- **Up to 100 per cent** where all three national mobile network operators use\n active sharing or roaming.\n- **50 to 75 per cent** for co-location, or where fewer than three operators\n participate.\n\n**Why this is good design.** In a thin market, duplicated infrastructure is the\nclassic waste: three towers where one would do, each serving a third of the\npopulation, none of them commercial. The obvious policy responses are to exhort\ncarriers to co-operate, or to mandate it and litigate about the terms.\n\nThis does neither. It **prices the externality**. A carrier that shares gets a\nbetter subsidy; one that does not gets a worse one; and the decision is left to\nthe carrier with the incentive pointing the right way. The Commonwealth ends up\nbuying coverage for everybody's customers rather than for one company's.\n\n**Why it is in a reform database as `enacted`.** Because the pattern is\ntransferable and almost nowhere else in this database uses it. Most funding rules\nhere are binary \u2014 you qualify or you do not \u2014 and produce the cliffs this project\nkeeps recording: the [[bulk-billing-taper-not-cliff|100 per cent bulk billing\nrequirement]], the [[dsp-hours-cliff|30 hour rule]], the\n[[cra-sharers-rule|sharers rate]]. A graduated rate tied to a public benefit is\nthe alternative shape, and it exists, and it works.\n\nThe same rounds also carry **$22.5 million** dedicated to First Nations\ntelecommunications solutions, contributing toward Closing the Gap Target 17 \u2014\ntargeting by need within a competitive program rather than leaving it to the\ncompetition.\n\n**What to watch.** Whether the highest-sharing configurations are actually being\nbuilt, or whether the 100 per cent rate is theoretical because three-way active\nsharing is commercially or technically hard. That is the empirical question and\nthis project does not have the answer.\n", "risk": "**A 100 per cent subsidy is a 100 per cent subsidy.** Fully funding\ninfrastructure that three commercial carriers will then use to sell services is a\nsubstantial transfer, justified only if the site was genuinely non-commercial. If\nthe eligibility boundary drifts \u2014 and boundaries drift \u2014 the Commonwealth ends up\nbuilding network that would have been built anyway.\n\n**Sharing arrangements can be nominal.** \"Active sharing or roaming\" describes a\nrange of arrangements, some of which deliver genuine equivalent service to all\nthree carriers' customers and some of which do not. The subsidy rate is only as\ngood as the verification behind the claim, and this database has repeatedly found\nthat verification is the part that gets under-resourced.\n\n**It may suppress competition on coverage.** Where carriers historically competed\non regional footprint, a rule that pays most when they share removes the\ncommercial advantage of building alone. That is efficient in thin markets and it\nis not obviously right everywhere, and the boundary between the two is drawn by\nprogram eligibility rather than by analysis.\n\n**And an enacted status is a prediction.** This is the eighth reform on this site\nmarked `enacted`. None has been graded. Whether the graduated rate changed carrier\nbehaviour, or merely paid more for arrangements that would have happened anyway,\nis answerable from program data that has not been published in that form.\n", "sources": [ "Regional Connectivity Program Round 3 including Mobile Black Spot opportunities: up to 100 per cent funding for projects involving all three national mobile network operators using active sharing or roaming; 50 to 75 per cent for co-location or fewer operators", "$22.5 million identified for First Nations telecommunications solutions contributing toward Closing the Gap Target 17", "Mobile Black Spot Program: seven rounds, more than $1 billion, up to 1,400 new base stations, with co-contributions from state and local governments and mobile network operators" ] }, "concurrent-internal-referrals": { "id": "concurrent-internal-referrals", "name": "Run internal council referrals concurrently and publish their queue times", "type": "parallelise", "targets": [ "nsw-townhouses:referrals" ], "days_saved_est": 25, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Traffic, engineering, waste, landscape and heritage teams assess different things and rarely depend on each other's findings, yet are commonly worked through in sequence.", "precedent": "Larger councils that have moved to concurrent internal referral with a single coordinating planner.", "rationale": "Internal referrals are the least scrutinised delay in multi-dwelling assessment.\nEach individual referral is short -- days, not weeks -- so no single team appears\nto be the problem, and each can honestly report good turnaround. The delay is\ncreated by the sequence, and sequence has no owner.\n\nBecause the database records each referral as its own step with its own body and\nits own dependencies, this shows up as a large gap between the serial duration\nand the critical path. That is a structural finding rather than a complaint\nabout any team.\n\nThe second half of this proposal matters more than the first: publish the queue\ntime for each internal referral team. A delay nobody measures is a delay nobody\nis accountable for, which is also the argument made on\n[[aussies-wanna-know|the transparency side of this project]].\n", "risk": "Concurrency has a real cost: rework. If the traffic assessment changes the\nlayout, landscape and waste assessments done in parallel may need redoing, and\nstaff time is the scarcest input in most planning departments. Sequential\nassessment is not purely habit -- it avoids wasted effort on designs that are\nabout to change.\n\nThe honest version of this reform sequences only the referrals that can\ngenuinely change the layout, and parallelises the rest. That requires knowing\nwhich is which, which requires the data this database is trying to collect.\nThere is a real risk of implementing the reform before the evidence exists to\ntarget it, and getting worse outcomes for busier staff.\n" }, "count-rent-assistance-against-the-housing-queue": { "id": "count-rent-assistance-against-the-housing-queue", "name": "Publish what the Commonwealth pays to households waiting for state housing", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "au-rent-assistance:public_housing", "nsw-social-housing-access:wait" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A household on a social housing register receives Commonwealth Rent Assistance for every month it waits, and stops receiving it the day a state dwelling is allocated. Commonwealth money substitutes for state capital, indefinitely, and nobody publishes what that costs.", "precedent": "Both datasets exist. Services Australia holds Rent Assistance recipients and payment values; state housing authorities hold registers of approved applicants. Neither is secret; they have simply never been put side by side.", "rationale": "The rule is simple and deliberate: rent paid to a state or territory housing\nauthority does not attract Rent Assistance, because social housing rent is\nalready set as a proportion of income. Two subsidies for the same housing cost\nwould be double-counting.\n\nFollow it through.\n\nA household approved on the [[nsw-social-housing-access|NSW Housing Register]] \u2014\none of 67,316 at 31 December 2025 \u2014 rents privately while it waits, and receives\nRent Assistance the entire time. The published median for general applicants who\nwere eventually housed is 15.1 months, and that median excludes everyone still\nwaiting, so the true average duration is longer and unknown.\n\nOn the day a state dwelling is allocated, Rent Assistance stops.\n\nSo **the Commonwealth pays a recurring subsidy into the private rental market\nprecisely because a state dwelling does not exist**, and stops paying it when one\ndoes. The longer a state's waiting list, the more the Commonwealth pays. That is\nnot a loophole; it is how the two programs are designed to interlock, and each\nmakes sense alone.\n\nWhat is missing is the number. Nobody publishes:\n\n1. **How many Rent Assistance recipients are approved applicants on a social\n housing register**, by state.\n2. **What the Commonwealth pays them annually**, in aggregate.\n3. **How that figure has moved** as registers have grown.\n\nThat number is the fiscal shape of the housing shortfall, and its absence lets\nboth tiers of government describe the problem as the other's. A state can point\nto Commonwealth housing funding; the Commonwealth can point to state planning and\nland. Neither has to account for the fact that Commonwealth recurrent spending is\nabsorbing the consequences of a state capital shortage, month after month, for\ntens of thousands of households.\n\n**Days saved: zero.** This houses nobody and shortens no queue. It makes visible\na transfer that is currently invisible, which is the precondition for anyone\narguing about whether it is the right one \u2014 and the same argument this site makes\nabout the [[social-housing-publish-the-wait-people-are-actually-doing|waiting\nlist statistic]] itself.\n\n**Who acts:** Services Australia and the state housing authorities, jointly. The\ndata matching required is modest and both parties already hold their half.\n", "risk": "**This number will be weaponised, in both directions, and neither reading is\nsound.** \"The Commonwealth already spends $X billion subsidising people the\nstates failed to house\" is an argument for the Commonwealth doing less. \"That\nmoney could have built Y dwellings\" ignores that Rent Assistance is recurrent and\nhousing is capital, on different budget lines with different rules, and that a\nhousehold needs somewhere to live during the years construction takes. Publishing\na figure that supports two opposite bad arguments is a real cost.\n\n**Matching benefit records to housing registers is sensitive.** It means linking\na person's income support status to their presence on a state waiting list \u2014\ndata about some of the most vulnerable households in the country, held by two\ngovernments for different purposes. Aggregate statistics can be produced without\nidentifiable linkage, and any version of this that creates a persistent linked\nrecord of who is on a register and what they receive should not proceed.\n\n**It may prove less than it appears.** Not every Rent Assistance recipient on a\nregister would be housed if dwellings existed, and not every one would cease\nreceiving assistance \u2014 some would be allocated community housing, where Rent\nAssistance continues to be payable. The clean story of substitution is untidier\nthan the rule suggests, and the published figure would need those distinctions or\nit will mislead.\n\n**And this database should be honest about what it is asking for.** This is the\nfourth transparency proposal on this site that saves zero days \u2014 alongside\n[[social-housing-publish-the-wait-people-are-actually-doing|waiting list\nreporting]], [[free-tafe-track-the-cohort|cohort tracking]] and\n[[publish-and-close-the-rfi-loop|RFI rates]]. Asking government to publish\nuncomfortable numbers is easy to propose and produces nothing on its own. It is\nworth doing because every substantive argument on this site is currently limited\nby data that does not exist, and it should not be mistaken for a reform.\n", "sources": [ "Rent paid to a state or territory housing authority is excluded from Commonwealth Rent Assistance", "NSW Department of Communities and Justice: 67,316 households on the NSW Housing Register at 31 December 2025; median 15.1 months for general applicants housed at 31 March 2026", "Services Australia, published Rent Assistance eligibility and rate guidance" ] }, "count-the-turn-aways": { "id": "count-the-turn-aways", "name": "A turn-away is not a queue, and nothing counts it", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "nsw-legal-aid-access:clc", "nsw-legal-aid-access:self_represent" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Every other queue in this database produces a waiting time. Legal assistance produces a closed door. More than a thousand people a day are turned away, that figure comes from the sector rather than from government, and a person refused joins no list.", "precedent": "Waiting lists are published, imperfectly, in social housing, aged care, dental and elective surgery. The gap is not that measurement is impossible but that legal assistance measures a different thing \u2014 service delivered \u2014 and does not measure demand that was refused.", "rationale": "This database is built on elapsed time, and legal assistance is where that unit\nbreaks.\n\nEverywhere else, unmet need shows up as a wait. A person joins a\n[[nsw-social-housing-access|housing register]], an\n[[au-aged-care-access|aged care queue]], a\n[[nsw-public-dental-adult|dental waiting list]] \u2014 and however badly those numbers\nare constructed, they exist. Somebody is counted.\n\nIn legal assistance the person asks and is told no. They join nothing. There is\nno waiting time because there is no wait, and consequently the\n[[nsw-legal-aid-access|process map]] shows the **shortest critical path of any\nscheme-access process here \u2014 130 days**. That speed is not a virtue. It is what\nrefusal looks like when you measure it in days.\n\n**What is known comes from the sector, not from government.** More than 1,000\npeople turned away daily, including about 400 victim-survivors. Two-thirds of\nVictorians seeking help turned away. A shortfall of $500 million a year. These\nare advocacy figures, published by organisations with an interest in the answer,\nand they are the best numbers available because nobody else produces any.\n\nThat is not a criticism of the sector. It is a description of a hole.\n\n**The proposal.** Make refused demand a reported measure under the National\nAccess to Justice Partnership, alongside services delivered: how many people\nsought help, how many were assisted, how many were turned away, and on what basis\n\u2014 capacity, means, merits, or matter type. The partnership already carries\nreporting obligations and runs to 2030, so the vehicle exists.\n\n**Why it matters beyond legal assistance.** This project has now recorded\nnon-take-up and refusal in at least six domains \u2014\n[[embedded-network-parity|energy rebates]],\n[[au-vfh-debt-remedy|VET FEE-HELP remedies]],\n[[telehealth-relationship-should-follow-the-patient|MyMedicare]],\n[[aged-care-interim-support-on-approval|interim aged care support]],\n[[nsw-public-dental-adult|public dental]] and here. In every case the people who\ndid not get the service are the ones no dataset contains. Legal assistance is the\nclearest case and the easiest place to start counting.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth, through the partnership's reporting framework.\n", "risk": "**Counting turn-aways creates an incentive not to record them.** A service\nmeasured on refusals can reduce the number by not opening the phone line, by\nrouting people to a website, or by classifying an interaction as information\nrather than a request for help. The measure would need definitions robust enough\nto survive that, and services under this much strain will reasonably resent being\nasked to spend scarce time on data collection about work they could not do.\n\n**A turn-away is not a single thing.** A person refused for lack of capacity, a\nperson outside the service's area of law, a person referred appropriately\nelsewhere, and a person who is simply not eligible are all \"turned away\" and mean\ndifferent things. Published without that breakdown the number is a slogan; with\nit, it is a substantial reporting burden.\n\n**Publishing it may not help.** The figures already circulate \u2014 a thousand a day\nis not a secret \u2014 and funding has not followed. Making the number official gives\nit more weight, and also gives government ownership of a metric it may prefer to\ndefine narrowly. This site has argued elsewhere that\n[[social-housing-publish-the-wait-people-are-actually-doing|publishing an\nuncomfortable number]] is worth doing anyway, and should be honest that it is a\nprecondition for argument rather than a change in anyone's circumstances.\n\n**And this is now the fifth zero-day transparency proposal on this site.** They\nare easy to propose, produce nothing on their own, and are collectively the\nstrongest evidence that this project's real limitation is the absence of data\nrather than the absence of ideas.\n", "sources": [ "Community Legal Centres Australia: more than 1,000 people turned away daily, including about 400 victim-survivors", "Federation of Community Legal Centres: two-thirds of Victorians seeking help are turned away", "Law Council of Australia: national legal assistance funding shortfall of $500 million per year", "Attorney-General's Department, National Access to Justice Partnership 2025-30" ] }, "coverage-obligation-not-another-round": { "id": "coverage-obligation-not-another-round", "name": "Three instruments for one market failure, and no sign anyone compared them", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-regional-mobile-coverage:round", "au-regional-mobile-coverage:carrier_bid", "au-regional-mobile-coverage:uomo" ], "days_saved_est": 300, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Seven rounds, more than a billion dollars and up to 1,400 base stations, delivered one nominated site at a time \u2014 running alongside a proposed obligation that would require coverage everywhere from December 2027. Both are live, and nothing sequences them.", "precedent": "The obligation itself: announced 25 February 2025, in draft legislation, requiring Telstra, Optus and TPG to provide baseline outdoor coverage from 1 December 2027. The Commonwealth has already decided the obligation is feasible.", "rationale": "This database has now recorded **three different instruments applied to the same\nshape of problem** \u2014 a service the market will not supply in thin markets:\n\n| Domain | Instrument |\n|---|---|\n| [[au-childcare-desert-supply|Childcare deserts]] | The Commonwealth **builds, owns and leases** the asset |\n| **Mobile black spots** | The Commonwealth **pays a carrier** to build, in competitive rounds |\n| **Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation** | The Commonwealth **obliges carriers** to cover |\n\nThree answers, and no evidence in any of them that the instrument was chosen by\ncomparing it against the others.\n\n**The grant round is precise and slow.** A location must be nominated \u2014 by a\ncommunity or a council, which means places with an active council and someone to\nwrite a submission are better represented. It waits for a round. A carrier must\nthen bid for it, and a funded location with no bidder is not built. The\n[[au-regional-mobile-coverage|process]] models at **940 days**, of which 180 is\nwaiting for a round to open.\n\n**The obligation is universal and blunt.** From 1 December 2027 carriers would\nhave to provide reasonable and equitable access to baseline outdoor voice and SMS\ncoverage across Australia, feasible because low earth orbit satellites now reach\nan ordinary handset. Nobody nominates anything. There is no round, no bid, and no\nplace that misses out because its council did not apply.\n\n**The proposal is sequencing, not abolition.** An obligation covers baseline\noutdoor voice and SMS. It does not deliver the data capacity, indoor coverage or\nresilience that the Regional Connectivity Program funds, and those remain real\nneeds. What should stop is running a nomination-and-round process for **baseline\nvoice coverage** that an obligation will require anyway from 2027 \u2014 and\nredirecting that funding to what the obligation does not reach.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone, in a portfolio it controls end to end.\n", "risk": "**The obligation has not commenced and its definitions are contested.** \"Reasonable\nand equitable access to baseline outdoor mobile coverage\" is not yet a testable\nstandard. The National Farmers' Federation issued a statement of expectations in\nAugust 2025 and sector commentary described the draft legislation as falling\nshort. Winding back a program that works on the strength of an obligation that\nhas not started, and whose scope is being argued about, would be a serious error \u2014\nand this site has criticised exactly that pattern in\n[[fund-the-fix-not-the-places|GP training]].\n\n**Satellite coverage is not terrestrial coverage.** Direct-to-handset satellite\ndelivers voice and SMS outdoors. It does not deliver the capacity that a base\nstation does, it performs differently under tree cover and terrain, and a\ncommunity told it now has coverage may find the coverage is not the thing it\nneeded. An obligation satisfied by satellite could reduce pressure to build\nterrestrial infrastructure in places that need it.\n\n**Obligations move cost to customers.** A subsidy is paid from the budget and is\nvisible. An obligation is paid by three carriers and recovered from their\ncustomers, including customers in the cities. That may well be the right\ndistribution, and it is a distributional choice being made without appearing in\nany budget paper.\n\n**And the 300 days is soft.** It is the round-waiting and bidding time an\nobligation would remove for baseline coverage, and assumes the obligation delivers\non schedule to the standard the review intended. Neither is established.\n", "sources": [ "Mobile Black Spot Program: seven rounds, more than $1 billion invested, up to 1,400 new base stations; Round 8 awarded $21.1 million, closing 28 August 2026; Regional Connectivity Program Round 3 of $100 million", "Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation announced 25 February 2025; draft legislation requiring Telstra, Optus and TPG to provide reasonable and equitable access to baseline outdoor mobile coverage from 1 December 2027", "2024 Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee report, December 2024, and government response", "National Farmers' Federation Statement of Expectations on the Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation, August 2025" ] }, "cra-sharers-rule": { "id": "cra-sharers-rule", "name": "The sharers rule penalises the main response to unaffordable rent", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-rent-assistance:sharer_test" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "idea", "summary": "A single person sharing a kitchen receives a maximum $143.60 a fortnight. The same person not sharing receives $215.40. The rule reduces assistance to people who have adopted the main available response to rents rising faster than the payment.", "precedent": "The rule has a coherent basis \u2014 shared housing genuinely lowers per-person cost \u2014 so this entry proposes examining the threshold rather than abolishing it. Rates are already differentiated by household composition; the question is whether this particular line is in the right place.", "rationale": "From 20 March 2026 the maximum fortnightly Rent Assistance for a single person\nwith no children is $215.40. For a single **sharer** it is $143.60 \u2014 a third\nless. A person is a sharer if they share a kitchen, bathroom or living area with\nsomeone who is not their partner, parent or child.\n\n**The rule is not arbitrary.** Rent Assistance is calculated from housing cost,\nsharing genuinely reduces per-person cost, and paying the full single rate to\nsomeone splitting a house would over-compensate relative to someone renting\nalone. On its own terms it is defensible.\n\nTwo things sit awkwardly against it.\n\n**It taxes the adaptation.** Share housing is the principal way a low-income\nsingle person responds to rents they cannot meet alone. The payment is indexed to\nthe Consumer Price Index \u2014 twice yearly in March and September \u2014 while rents rose\nconsiderably faster, which is why discretionary increases of 15 per cent in\nSeptember 2023 and 10 per cent in September 2024 were needed on top of\nindexation. As affordability worsens, more people share, and more people move\nonto the lower rate. The rule's coverage expands precisely as the problem it sits\ninside gets worse.\n\n**It requires the state to adjudicate domestic arrangements.** Whether someone\nshares a bathroom, with whom, and in what relationship, is an unusually intimate\nfact for a payment calculation to turn on \u2014 and it is self-reported, changes\noften, and creates a debt if not reported. A person whose housemate moves out\nmid-quarter has a reporting obligation about their kitchen.\n\n**Filed as an idea, not a proposal**, because this database cannot say where the\nline should sit. That requires cost-of-housing evidence by household type that\nthis project does not have, and the honest version of the question is: does the\n$143.60 rate still reflect what a sharer actually pays, given that sharers now\ncompete for rooms in a market where a room can cost what a flat once did?\n\nThat is answerable, and the answer would either vindicate the rule or move it.\nNobody appears to have published it recently.\n", "risk": "**Raising the sharer rate costs money and reaches people who need it less than\nothers.** Rent Assistance is a large program and any rate change is expensive.\nA dollar spent lifting the sharer rate is a dollar not spent lifting the\nthreshold, raising the maximum for families, or building housing. Sharers are on\naverage younger and more mobile than sole tenants or families with children, and\na case can be made that they are not the highest-priority group.\n\n**Removing the distinction would overpay some people.** Two working-age singles\nsplitting a two-bedroom flat genuinely do each pay less than one person renting\nit alone. Paying both the full single rate would be a windfall, and the fiscal\ncost of ignoring household composition entirely is substantial.\n\n**Loosening the definition creates a boundary problem.** Any rule distinguishing\n\"sharing\" from \"not sharing\" produces edge cases and incentives to characterise\narrangements favourably. Tightening the rule invites intrusion; loosening it\ninvites gaming. There is no version of this that avoids the state having a view\nabout who uses which kitchen.\n\n**And this entry is not a red tape finding.** It is a rate-setting question found\ninside a process map, recorded because the map surfaced it. This database has\nlimited standing on the level of a payment \u2014 that is properly contested political\nterritory \u2014 and it should be read as identifying a question rather than answering\none.\n", "sources": [ "Maximum fortnightly Rent Assistance rates from 20 March 2026: single no children $215.40; single sharing $143.60", "Sharer definition: sharing a kitchen, bathroom or living area with someone other than a partner, parent or child", "Rates indexed twice yearly to CPI, with discretionary increases of 15 per cent in September 2023 and 10 per cent in September 2024" ] }, "cra-should-not-decide-who-manages-a-house": { "id": "cra-should-not-decide-who-manages-a-house", "name": "A Commonwealth payment rule is the strongest financial argument about who should manage Australian public housing", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "nsw-social-housing-repair:transfer", "au-rent-assistance:public_housing" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "idea", "summary": "A public housing tenant attracts no Commonwealth Rent Assistance. A community housing tenant does, paid in full to the landlord as rent. So the same dwelling with the same tenant carries a maintenance revenue stream under one landlord and not the other.", "precedent": "The rule already bends: Rent Assistance is payable to community housing tenants, who are also in subsidised social housing at income-related rents. The distinction is not between subsidised and unsubsidised housing but between two kinds of subsidised landlord.", "rationale": "Three rules, each defensible alone, which together produce a result nobody\ndesigned.\n\n1. **Rent paid to a state housing authority does not attract Rent Assistance**,\n because public housing rent is already income-related. Reasonable.\n2. **Rent paid to a community housing provider does**, and on transfer it is paid\n in full to the new landlord as rent. Also reasonable \u2014 community providers are\n not the state.\n3. **A household waiting for social housing attracts Rent Assistance** in the\n private market, and stops the day a state dwelling is allocated. Recorded\n earlier as [[count-rent-assistance-against-the-housing-queue|Commonwealth money\n substituting for state capital]].\n\nPut together: the Commonwealth pays for the household in private rental, does not\npay once the state houses them, and pays again if the state hands management to a\ncommunity provider.\n\n**New South Wales has said the quiet part out loud.** A key motivation for\ntransfers is harnessing additional Commonwealth Rent Assistance funding\npreviously unavailable to the social housing sector, and the tenancy management,\nasset management and support services community providers deliver are made\npossible by that income. Legislation from October 2016 made transfers of tenancy\nmanagement automatic.\n\nSo a state facing a [[nsw-land-housing-corp|maintenance backlog]] \u2014 with more than\n30 per cent of stock below the minimum condition standard \u2014 can materially\nimprove its funding position by changing who the landlord is, without building or\nrepairing a single dwelling.\n\n**None of this is an argument against community housing providers**, which do good\nwork and are better placed than a state agency on several dimensions this\ndatabase has recorded. It is an argument that the decision about who manages\npublic housing should be made on the merits of the management, and it currently\nis not: a Commonwealth eligibility rule is the loudest number in the room.\n\n**Filed as an idea** because the fix is contested and expensive. Extending Rent\nAssistance to public housing tenants would cost a great deal and would flow to\nstate budgets rather than to tenants, since public housing rents are\nincome-related. Removing it from community housing would defund the sector. A\nthird option \u2014 recognising the maintenance obligation directly in Commonwealth\nhousing funding, regardless of landlord \u2014 is what the National Housing and\nHomelessness arrangements would have to carry, and this project cannot cost it.\n", "risk": "**Extending Rent Assistance to public housing would mostly not reach tenants.**\nPublic housing rent is set as a proportion of income. Adding Rent Assistance to\na tenant's income raises the rent they pay, and the money lands with the state\nhousing authority. That may be exactly the point \u2014 it funds maintenance \u2014 but it\nshould be described as a Commonwealth transfer to state budgets rather than as\nassistance to renters, and it would cost billions.\n\n**The transfer trend is not only about money and this entry should not imply it\nis.** Community providers deliver tenancy support, local presence and maintenance\nresponsiveness that large state agencies frequently do not, and tenant\nsatisfaction evidence has generally favoured them. Attributing transfers wholly\nto a funding rule would be unfair to a sector that has earned its role.\n\n**Changing the rule could stall a working reform.** If Rent Assistance were\nextended to public housing, one of the main financial arguments for transfer\ndisappears \u2014 and with it a mechanism that has moved stock toward providers who\nmaintain it better. A reform aimed at making the decision cleaner could make the\nworse outcome more likely.\n\n**And this database should be careful about what it is claiming.** It has found\nthe rule, the stated motivation and the consequence. It has not established that\nany particular transfer was driven by the funding rather than the merits, and it\nis not in a position to.\n", "sources": [ "Rent paid to a state or territory housing authority is excluded from Commonwealth Rent Assistance", "NSW: transferred tenants apply for Commonwealth Rent Assistance, paid in full to the new landlord as rent; a key motivation for transfers is harnessing CRA funding previously unavailable to the social housing sector", "NSW legislation passed October 2016 making transfers of tenancy management automatic", "In 2023 over 30 per cent of DCJ social housing stock did not meet the acceptable dwelling condition standard" ] }, "cra-verify-rent-without-asking-the-landlord": { "id": "cra-verify-rent-without-asking-the-landlord", "name": "Verify rent without making the tenant ask their landlord for a favour", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "au-rent-assistance:verify_rent" ], "days_saved_est": 30, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Rent Assistance is assessed automatically \u2014 the one thing a claimant must supply is proof of rent, and where there is no written lease that means getting the person they pay rent to sign a form. The requirement bites hardest exactly where housing is least secure.", "precedent": "State bond authorities hold lodged bond records with tenancy addresses and rent amounts. Bank transaction data is already used in income support assessment with consent. Neither requires the landlord's cooperation at the moment of claim.", "rationale": "[[au-rent-assistance|Commonwealth Rent Assistance]] is the best-designed payment\nin this database. Eligibility is assessed **automatically** when someone claims a\nqualifying payment \u2014 no separate application, no window, no annual\nreconfirmation, and none of the take-up problem that afflicts the\n[[nsw-energy-rebate|state energy rebate]].\n\nThe one thing the claimant must do is prove the rent.\n\nWith a written lease, that is trivial. Without one \u2014 a lodger, a person in a\nshare house not named on the agreement, someone in an informal or marginal\narrangement \u2014 the **SU523 Rent Certificate must be signed by the person the rent\nis paid to**.\n\nConsider who that requirement lands on. Informal tenancy correlates with\ninsecurity: people sub-letting, people in rooming houses, people who moved in\nwith someone after a relationship ended, people whose name is off the lease\nbecause the agent would not add it. These are disproportionately the households\nthe payment exists for.\n\nAnd the mechanism requires them to ask a favour of the person with power over\ntheir housing, while disclosing that they receive income support. A head tenant\ncan refuse. An informally operating landlord may refuse because signing creates a\nrecord. A person who has fled violence may be unable to ask at all.\n\n**Alternatives that do not require the landlord's cooperation:**\n\n1. **Bond board data.** State and territory bond authorities hold lodged bonds\n with the address and the rent. Where a bond is lodged, the rent is already\n recorded by a government body.\n2. **Evidence of payment.** Recurring transfers to a landlord or agent, supplied\n by the claimant with consent, demonstrate rent paid without anyone else having\n to sign anything.\n3. **Statutory declaration as a fallback**, with the existing compliance and\n review machinery applying to a false declaration exactly as it would to a\n false certificate.\n\nThe Rent Certificate would remain available. It would stop being the only route.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth for the evidence rules; the states hold the bond\ndata and would need to share it.\n", "risk": "**The landlord's signature is doing verification work, and the alternatives are\nweaker.** A third party attesting to the rent is harder to fabricate than a\ntenant's own statement or a pattern of transfers, which can be arranged between\nassociates. Rent Assistance pays 75 cents per dollar of rent above a threshold,\nso overstating rent increases the payment directly \u2014 the incentive is real, and\nthe certificate exists because of it.\n\n**Bond data is incomplete precisely where this reform is aimed.** Informal\ntenancies frequently have no lodged bond, which is part of what makes them\ninformal. A bond-matching route would work well for people who already have a\nlease \u2014 who can already prove their rent \u2014 and poorly for the people who cannot.\nThat inverts the intended benefit and should be stated plainly rather than\ndiscovered later.\n\n**Bank transaction access is a serious privacy step.** Using account data to\nverify rent means an agency seeing far more than rent. Consent-based access is\nstandard in some assessments and it is not a small thing to normalise for a\npayment this widely held, particularly for a population with limited practical\nability to decline.\n\n**And the saving is modest.** Thirty days on a payment that is otherwise\nautomatic. The reason this is worth doing is not elapsed time \u2014 it is that the\ncurrent mechanism fails hardest for the least secure tenants, and failure here\nmeans not receiving the payment at all rather than receiving it late. That cost\ndoes not appear on any critical path, and no take-up figure is published for\npeople who never complete a Rent Certificate.\n", "sources": [ "Services Australia: an SU523 Rent Certificate signed by the person the rent is paid to is required where there is no written lease", "Services Australia: Rent Assistance automatically assessed when a person claims a qualifying payment; 75 cents per dollar of rent above the threshold" ] }, "credentialing-verify-once": { "id": "credentialing-verify-once", "name": "Verify credentials nationally once; keep the scope of practice decision local", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-specialist-img:credentialing" ], "days_saved_est": 40, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Credentialing bundles two different things: verifying that documents are genuine, and deciding what a clinician should do at a particular facility. Only the second is local, and only the first is repeated at every hospital a clinician ever works at.", "precedent": "The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care already publishes a national model for credentialing and defining scope of clinical practice. Ahpra already performs primary source verification of the same qualifications at registration. The components exist; they are simply not connected.", "rationale": "A specialist who has been registered by the Medical Board -- which required\nprimary source verification of their qualifications -- then supplies\nsubstantially the same evidence to the health service that hires them, and again\nto the next one, and again to every additional site they work at. Locum,\nvisiting and rural relieving specialists carry this cost several times a year.\n\nThe step also waits on a committee cycle, which is why it is classified\n`scheduling` in the database: a complete file arriving the day after a meeting\nwaits for the next one, and a query raised at a meeting waits a further full\ncycle to be answered.\n\nThe separation this proposal asks for is clean:\n\n- **Verification** -- is this person who they say they are, do they hold what\n they claim to hold, is their registration current, is there anything adverse\n in their history? These questions have one correct answer nationally. They\n have already been answered by Ahpra. Answering them again at each hospital\n produces the same result more slowly.\n- **Scope of clinical practice** -- given this facility's theatre capability,\n its intensive care, its staffing and its case mix, what should this\n practitioner do here? This genuinely cannot be decided centrally and this\n proposal does not touch it.\n\nA national credentialing record, held once, that a health service draws on and\nthen adds its own scope decision to, would leave the second judgement entirely\nintact while removing the first from every repetition after the first.\n\n**Who acts:** health ministers collectively, through the Commission and Ahpra.\nThis is not a Commonwealth decision and cannot be delivered by one government.\n", "risk": "Two objections, and the first is the one clinical governance people will raise\nimmediately.\n\n**A national record can go stale, and staleness in credentialing kills people.**\nThe value of local re-verification is not only that documents are checked; it is\nthat they are checked *now*, by someone accountable for this hospital. A\nnational record queried at a point in time is only as good as its currency and\nits integrity, and a health service that stops looking because a central system\nsaid yes has outsourced a duty it cannot outsource. Any version of this needs\nthe record to be live rather than periodic, and needs the health service to\nremain the accountable party in law.\n\n**Consolidating verification creates a single point of failure.** Today, a\nfalsified qualification has to defeat several independent checks. Afterwards it\nhas to defeat one. The history of credentialing scandals in Australian hospitals\nis largely a history of impersonation and forged qualifications getting through,\nand each such case is an argument for redundancy rather than efficiency. That\nargument deserves a direct answer, not an efficiency estimate: the answer is\nthat the checks are not currently independent in any meaningful sense -- they\nare the same check, repeated against the same documents -- but that claim should\nbe tested by someone who has run a credentialing committee before it is relied\non.\n", "sources": [ "Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, national model and updated guidance for credentialing and defining scope of clinical practice", "National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards, clinical governance standard" ] }, "decouple-design-from-budget-round": { "id": "decouple-design-from-budget-round", "name": "Let hospital design proceed while the funding decision waits for the budget", "type": "parallelise", "targets": [ "nsw-hospital-capital:gate_two", "nsw-hospital-capital:budget" ], "days_saved_est": 180, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A hospital business case finished in August is not assessed sooner for being finished early. It waits for the next budget. Averaged over arrival dates that is about half a year in which the project is complete, reviewed, and waiting for a date in the fiscal calendar.", "precedent": "Development funding allocations that let design proceed to a defined stage ahead of a full capital commitment are used in several jurisdictions and are standard practice in private capital projects, where design typically proceeds at risk to a defined gate.", "rationale": "The [[nsw-hospital-capital|hospital delivery process]] is the one place in this\ndatabase where the honest finding is *smaller* than the rhetoric, and that is\nworth stating before the proposal.\n\nCritical path 2,975 days. Of that, 1,095 days is construction and 180 is\nclinical commissioning. Addressable waits -- `scheduling` plus `queue` -- total\n315 days, about 11 per cent. Building a hospital is slow mostly because building\na hospital is slow. Anyone claiming red tape is why a community is waiting for a\nhospital should look at that ratio first.\n\nBut 315 days is still the better part of a year, and the largest component of it\nis a single step: waiting for the annual budget.\n\nThe structure of that wait is unusual and worth stating precisely. The project\nis finished. The business case is written, the gateway review is complete, the\nindependent reviewers have reported. Nobody is assessing anything. The project\nis waiting for a date. And because delivery is publicly measured from funding\nannouncement, this wait is invisible in every statistic anyone cites about how\nlong hospitals take.\n\nThe proposal is not to abolish the budget cycle -- capital rationing has to\nhappen, and an annual cycle is a reasonable way for a government to weigh\ncompeting projects against a fixed envelope. It is narrower:\n\n1. **Fund design continuation separately from capital commitment.** A modest\n allocation lets design proceed to a defined stage while the capital decision\n waits. If the project is not funded, the state has bought a better-defined\n project and a more accurate cost estimate for the next round.\n2. **Schedule gateway reviews to land ahead of the budget, not whenever panels\n are free.** Much of the gateway delay is assembling a panel and finding a\n date. Reviews timed to the budget cycle would convert some of that scheduling\n wait into ordinary lead time.\n\n**Who acts:** state treasuries. This is not a Commonwealth process, and the\nCommonwealth's leverage over hospital capital timing is limited to the National\nHealth Reform Agreement.\n", "risk": "The objection to this proposal is the strongest of any on this site, and it is\nthe reason the arrangement exists.\n\n**Design at risk creates commitment.** A project with two years of design\ninvestment behind it is politically much harder to refuse than a project with a\nbusiness case. That is exactly why treasuries resist it. This reform would\ntransfer real power from the budget process to project sponsors, and the effect\nwould be to fund projects that would otherwise have been declined -- including\nsome that should be declined. Anyone advocating it should be honest that\nimproving delivery timelines and preserving fiscal discipline are, here, in\ndirect conflict.\n\n**Sunk cost is not the only distortion.** Advanced design also locks in a\nsolution before the funding decision has tested whether it is the right one. A\nservice problem that could have been solved with an expanded community service\nbecomes a hospital, because the hospital is already drawn.\n\n**It spends money on projects that do not proceed.** By construction, some\ndesign funding is wasted. That is defensible only if the improvement in cost\ncertainty across the portfolio exceeds the waste, and that is an empirical claim\nthis database cannot currently support.\n\n**A note on the model.** Every duration in the hospital process is `estimate`\ngrade, including the 180 day budget wait, which is a modelled average of a\nuniform arrival date against an annual cycle rather than an observed figure.\nState assurance frameworks publish their requirements but not elapsed times per\ngate. Until they do, the 11 per cent figure above is a structure, not a\nmeasurement.\n", "sources": [ "NSW Treasury, published Infrastructure Investor Assurance Framework", "Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, 'A Healthy Pipeline: Delivering Australia's Hospital Infrastructure'", "Auditor-General for South Australia, 2025 findings on delays commencing construction on major hospital projects" ] }, "dental-fund-on-a-real-horizon": { "id": "dental-fund-on-a-real-horizon", "name": "A service cannot plan against an eleven-month agreement", "type": "resequence", "targets": [ "nsw-public-dental-adult:npa", "au-better-access:agreement" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "The Commonwealth contribution to adult public dental runs from 14 July 2025 to 30 June 2026 \u2014 under twelve months, for $107.76 million \u2014 and is the latest in a series of short agreements stretching back to 2013. Short funding buys short commitments, and short commitments buy extractions.", "precedent": "Other Commonwealth-state agreements run for five years and are negotiated as such. The National Skills Agreement runs five years from January 2024. Legal assistance is the sharpest precedent: the National Legal Assistance Partnership was independently reviewed before expiry, a successor was agreed in November 2024, and the National Access to Justice Partnership 2025-30 commenced on 1 July 2025 with $3.9 billion over five years. Reviewed early, renegotiated early, settled for five years, in a portfolio with less political weight than health.", "rationale": "The current national partnership agreement for adult public dental services runs\nfrom **14 July 2025 to 30 June 2026** \u2014 eleven and a half months \u2014 with total\nfunding of **$107.76 million**. It follows a series of short agreements dating\nback to 2013, several with gaps between them.\n\n**What a one-year horizon does to a service.** A dental service cannot recruit\npermanent clinicians on funding that expires within the year, so it uses locums\nand agency staff at higher cost and lower continuity. It cannot commission\nchairs, sign leases or invest in capital. It cannot plan a preventive program,\nbecause prevention pays off in years it may not be funded for.\n\nSo the rational response is short commitments \u2014 and the rational clinical\nresponse to short commitments is to treat the person in front of you in pain\nrather than the decay that will become next year's emergency. That is why the\n[[nsw-public-dental-adult|process map]] shows emergency care running fast\nalongside a general waiting list that runs slow, and why the emergency treatment\nis disproportionately extraction.\n\n**The outcome is qualitatively different, not just later.** Waiting for a house\ndelays a house. Waiting for dental care changes what treatment is possible: a\ntooth that could have been filled is extracted. This is the clearest instance in\nthis database of a queue producing a different outcome rather than a delayed one.\n\n**And the scale is not a queue problem.** About five million adults are eligible\nnationally and about **one in five** receives care in a year. That is a service\nsized for a fifth of its eligible population, and no funding horizon fixes that\non its own.\n\n**The proposal is modest and is a precondition for anything else.** Move adult\npublic dental onto a multi-year agreement on the same footing as other\nCommonwealth-state health and skills agreements. It does not resolve the capacity\ngap. It makes it possible to plan against.\n\n**The same problem, next door.** The National Mental Health and Suicide\nPrevention Agreement expired on 30 June 2026 and was extended by one year. The\nProductivity Commission reviewed it and found it **not effective**, concluding\nthat a new policy architecture is needed. So in mental health the short horizon\nis compounded: a twelve month extension of a framework the reviewing body has\nalready said does not work. This reform targets both.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth and the states, through the federal financial\nrelations framework that already handles multi-year agreements elsewhere.\n", "risk": "**Short agreements are a fiscal control, not an oversight.** Rolling one-year\nfunding keeps a program reviewable and gives a government the option not to renew.\nLocking in five years commits money a future budget must find, and Commonwealth\nhealth spending is under sustained pressure. Treasury's preference for short\nhorizons in discretionary programs is a considered position, not an accident.\n\n**Multi-year funding does not guarantee multi-year delivery.** A state that\nreceives certain funding can still under-invest, and national partnership\nagreements have a long history of Commonwealth money substituting for state\neffort rather than adding to it. Without effort-maintenance conditions and\npublished outcomes, a longer agreement may buy nothing but a longer period of the\nsame.\n\n**It fixes the least important thing.** The binding constraint is that the\nservice reaches one in five eligible adults. A five-year agreement at $107.76\nmillion a year is a five-year commitment to reaching one in five. Certainty about\nan inadequate amount is better than uncertainty about it, and it is not the\nreform that matters most.\n\n**And the waiting time in the process map is an estimate this project cannot\nverify.** There is no national figure, and state figures are not comparable\nbecause priority, eligibility and how waiting time is counted differ by\njurisdiction. Before anyone can argue properly about dental capacity, someone has\nto define the measure \u2014 the same prior condition this site identified for\n[[social-housing-publish-the-wait-people-are-actually-doing|social housing]] and\n[[free-tafe-track-the-cohort|Free TAFE]].\n", "sources": [ "Federal Financial Relations, Public Dental Services for Adults 2025-26: 14 July 2025 to 30 June 2026, total funding $107.76 million", "Successive national partnership agreements on public dental services from 2013", "About five million adults meet public dental eligibility criteria nationally, with about one fifth receiving care each year", "Waiting list priority, eligibility and counting methods differ by jurisdiction", "National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Agreement expiring 30 June 2026, extended by one year; Productivity Commission review found the Agreement not effective, final report tabled 11 November 2025" ] }, "disability-employment-one-front-door": { "id": "disability-employment-one-front-door", "name": "One front door for disability employment support", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-disability-employment:iea_referral", "au-disability-employment:ndis_employment", "au-disability-employment:eaf" ], "days_saved_est": 90, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Four programs, three agencies, one person. Inclusive Employment Australia removed time limits and widened eligibility \u2014 a genuinely good reform \u2014 and left the number of doors unchanged.", "precedent": "Inclusive Employment Australia itself demonstrates the Commonwealth's willingness to rebuild this system: it replaced Disability Employment Services on 1 November 2025, removed time limits on support and extended eligibility to people not on Centrelink payments and to people who can only work part-time.", "rationale": "A working-age person with disability seeking open employment may deal with:\n\n- **[[services-australia]]** for the Disability Support Pension, and afterwards\n for income and hours reporting;\n- **[[dss]]** through an Inclusive Employment Australia provider, for employment\n support;\n- **[[ndia]]** for employment-related supports in an NDIS plan, including school\n leaver supports;\n- **[[dss]]** again, through JobAccess, for the Employment Assistance Fund.\n\nThree agencies, four programs, four eligibility tests, four planning cycles, and\nno shared front door. The person is the integration layer.\n\n**Credit where it is due.** Inclusive Employment Australia is a real reform and\nthis site supports it. Removing time limits on support is unusual and correct: for\na person whose disability is permanent, a program that expires was never matched\nto the problem. Widening eligibility to people not receiving income support and\nto people who can only work part-time reaches people the previous program\nexcluded by design.\n\nIt did not reduce the number of doors, and on the modelled process the\n[[au-disability-employment|chain]] runs 530 days with 216 of them `queue` or\n`scheduling`.\n\n**Where the duplication actually is.** Not in the judgements \u2014 a plan for NDIS\nsupports and an employment service placement are genuinely different exercises.\nIt is in the *evidence*: functional capacity, work capacity, support needs and\ndiagnosis are established separately for the pension, for the NDIS plan and for\nthe employment provider, from substantially the same clinical material, by\nassessors who cannot see each other's work.\n\nThe proposal is a single assessment of work capacity and support need, accepted\nby all three programs, with each retaining its own decision. The same shape as\n[[credentialing-verify-once]]: verify once, decide separately.\n\n**The Employment Assistance Fund deserves separate mention.** It is a\n**reimbursement** scheme requiring quotes and, above $1,000, a Workplace\nModification Assessment \u2014 all after the job offer. The equipment a person needs to\ndo the work is bought after they start, by whoever can front the money, which is\nfrequently a small employer or the worker. Advancing funds against an approved\nassessment would cost the same and land at the right time.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone. DSS, DEWR, the NDIA and Services Australia\nare all Commonwealth. There is no federalism excuse available here.\n", "risk": "**A single work capacity assessment would become a single point of exclusion.**\nToday a person refused by one program can still access another. A shared\nassessment means one adverse finding propagates across the pension, the NDIS plan\nand the employment service simultaneously. For a population whose functional\ncapacity genuinely varies day to day, and which is routinely assessed badly, that\nis a serious concentration of risk. Any version of this needs a right to\nreassessment that is easier than the original assessment, which is the opposite of\nhow assessment regimes usually evolve.\n\n**The programs measure different things for good reasons.** Pension eligibility\nasks whether a person can work; NDIS planning asks what supports they need to\nlive; employment services ask what they need to get and keep a job. Collapsing the\nevidence risks collapsing the questions, and the direction of drift in a\nconsolidated system is toward the test with the most money attached to it.\n\n**\"One front door\" has been promised before.** It is the standard answer to\nfragmentation and it usually produces a fifth interface rather than one, layered\nover four unchanged programs. Unless the underlying eligibility tests are aligned,\na shared portal is a new thing to navigate.\n\n**And the largest constraint is not administrative.** The\n[[au-disability-employment|process]] carries 240 days of `third_party` time in job\nsearch, which is employer willingness. That is the binding constraint in\ndisability employment. No merge of Commonwealth programs touches it, and a reform\nthat improves the support system while employer demand is unchanged will move the\nemployment rate very little.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Social Services, Inclusive Employment Australia, replacing Disability Employment Services from 1 November 2025; 84 organisations offered funding; time limits removed and eligibility widened", "JobAccess, published Employment Assistance Fund guidelines, including Workplace Modification Assessment for applications over $1,000", "NDIS, published guidance on employment supports; School Leaver Employment Supports funded at about $22,000 per year before absorption into the general employment assistance item after 30 June 2024", "Services Australia, published Disability Support Pension guidance" ] }, "disaster-activation-by-impact-not-boundary": { "id": "disaster-activation-by-impact-not-boundary", "name": "Assistance switched on by local government area, then extended once the damage is known", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "nsw-disaster-recovery:activation" ], "days_saved_est": 14, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Commonwealth disaster assistance is activated per disaster, per local government area, per category. Through 2026 it was repeatedly extended to further areas afterwards \u2014 which means that for a period, identical damage was treated differently because of a boundary.", "precedent": "The extensions themselves are the precedent: the Commonwealth has repeatedly demonstrated that the initial boundary was drawn too narrowly and can be widened. The question is whether the household should carry the interval.", "rationale": "Commonwealth disaster assistance is not a standing entitlement. It is switched on\nby determination \u2014 for a named disaster, for named local government areas, under\nnamed categories. Categories A and B are standard; C and D apply in exceptional\ncircumstances.\n\nThrough 2026 that machinery ran repeatedly: Victorian bushfires in January,\nNorthern Territory flooding in February and March, a Western Australian cyclone\nin March, North Queensland flooding across a long list of areas. And in several\ncases assistance was **extended to further areas** after the initial activation.\n\nExtending on better damage information is the right thing to do. What it means in\nthe interval is that a household with a destroyed home in one local government\narea could claim, and a household with an identical destroyed home in the next\none could not \u2014 and did not know whether that would change.\n\n**Why the boundary is the wrong unit.** A local government area is an\nadministrative shape. Floods follow catchments and fires follow fuel and wind.\nThe two coincide only by accident, and the larger the LGA the worse the fit: a\nhousehold 200 kilometres from the fire front in a large shire is inside, a\nhousehold across a boundary from the same fire is outside.\n\n**The proposal.** Activate on assessed impact rather than on administrative\nboundary \u2014 by locality, catchment or fire perimeter where the data supports it \u2014\nand where an LGA-based activation is used for speed, publish at the same time the\ncriteria on which it will be extended, so a household outside the initial line\nknows what determines their position rather than waiting to find out.\n\n**Reform is already under way and this should feed into it.** The Colvin review\nfound in October 2024 that these frameworks have not evolved at the same rate as\nthe disasters they respond to, and a new Disaster Recovery Funding Framework is\nbeing implemented in response. This database has not yet mapped that framework\nand should.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth, with the states that recommend activation.\n", "risk": "**Speed is the reason the boundary is used, and this proposal risks it.** An LGA\nlist can be settled within days of an event because the boundaries already exist\nand the data is available. Impact-based activation requires damage assessment,\nand damage assessment takes time \u2014 during which nobody gets anything. A household\nwould rightly prefer a rough activation now to a precise one in three weeks, and\na reform that produces the second has made things worse.\n\n**Any line produces a boundary.** Moving from LGA to locality, catchment or fire\nperimeter does not remove the problem of the household just outside; it relocates\nit, and possibly to a line that is harder to explain and easier to contest.\n\"Your postcode was in the determination\" is at least legible.\n\n**Broader activation costs money and the money is not free.** Payments extended\nto more areas reach more people who were less affected. That is defensible, and\nit is a real fiscal choice being made by the same government under the same\nbudget constraint that limits [[dental-fund-on-a-real-horizon|dental]] and\neverything else in this database.\n\n**And the process finding here is small.** The [[nsw-disaster-recovery|recovery\nprocess]] models at 751 days with **zero per cent addressable** \u2014 the critical\npath runs through insurance assessment, development approval and the rebuild,\nall of which is genuine work. Activation sits on the payments branch and is\nresolved in weeks. This proposal is about fairness at a boundary, not about\nelapsed time, and it should not be sold as speeding anything up.\n", "sources": [ "NEMA, Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements: Categories A and B standard assistance, Categories C and D additional relief in exceptional circumstances", "Services Australia AGDRP activations by disaster and local government area through 2026; ministerial announcements extending assistance to further areas", "Independent Review of Commonwealth Disaster Funding (Colvin Review), October 2024; NEMA Disaster Recovery Funding Framework factsheet, June 2026" ] }, "disp-tier-to-actual-risk": { "id": "disp-tier-to-actual-risk", "name": "Match defence supplier accreditation to the information actually handled", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-defence-industry-entry:facility" ], "days_saved_est": 120, "status": "idea", "summary": "A supplier machining an unclassified part to a classified drawing is treated differently from one that never sees the drawing. Where the work can be structured so the supplier never holds classified information, the accreditation that protects classified information is protecting nothing.", "precedent": "DISP is already tiered \u2014 Entry Level exists for organisations handling sensitive but unclassified material and does not require facility accreditation. The proposal is that the tiering be driven by an assessment of what the work requires rather than by what the prime asks for.", "rationale": "DISP already has levels, and the Entry Level tier already does much of what this\nproposal asks for: it is designed for firms handling sensitive unclassified\nmaterial, carries no membership fee, and does not require facility accreditation\nor classified ICT.\n\nThe problem is not the absence of a tier. It is that the tier a supplier needs is\ndetermined in practice by the prime contractor's flow-down of requirements rather\nthan by an assessment of the information the subcontractor will actually hold. A\nprime with a Level 2 obligation has every incentive to require Level 2 of its\nsupply chain, because that is simpler than working out which subcontractors need\nwhat, and because the cost of over-specifying falls entirely on the\nsubcontractor.\n\nThe result is [[au-defence-industry-entry|120 days of facility accreditation and\nICT certification]] incurred by firms that could have done the same work under an\narrangement where they never receive classified information at all \u2014 build to\nprint, with the classified context held by the prime.\n\nThe proposal is that the required DISP level for a subcontract be determined by\nan information-handling assessment tied to the scope of work, with the prime\nrequired to justify a level above what that assessment supports.\n\n**Filed as an idea, not a proposal**, and deliberately so. This database has no\nvisibility of how flow-down decisions are actually made, whether over-specification\nis as common as industry commentary suggests, or what share of subcontracted work\ncould genuinely be structured to avoid classified handling. Every one of those is\na question for someone who has sat on both sides of a defence subcontract. The\nstructure looks wrong; the evidence that it is wrong does not exist here.\n", "risk": "**Aggregation is the reason over-specification is sometimes correct.** Individually\nunclassified components can reveal classified capability when combined, and a\nsupplier who knows only their own part may not see what their part implies.\nDeciding that a subcontractor \"never holds classified information\" requires\nsomeone to be confident about what can be inferred from an unclassified drawing,\nand that judgement is much harder than it sounds. Getting it wrong is not\nrecoverable.\n\n**The prime is currently accountable, and this diffuses that.** A prime that\nflows down its own accreditation level has a simple, defensible position: everyone\nin the chain meets the standard. Replacing that with per-subcontract assessments\ncreates many judgements where there was one, each of which could be wrong, and\nmuddies who is responsible when something leaks.\n\n**It optimises for the wrong constraint.** Even on this database's own numbers,\nfacility accreditation is 120 days of an 810 day entry path and is modelled as\noptional. The larger costs are the 150 day vetting queue and the 150 day DISP\ndecision, and [[clearances-before-contract-award]] is the proposal that addresses\nthose. A reform that lowers the entry tier while leaving the clearance circularity\nintact helps firms that were nearly in already.\n\n**And a caution about who is asking.** \"Reduce the accreditation burden on small\nsuppliers\" is a position with an obvious commercial constituency and a much less\nobvious public one. The people best placed to say whether a tier is\nover-specified are the people who would profit from it being lowered. That does\nnot make them wrong. It does mean this proposal needs evidence from someone\nwithout that interest before it moves past `idea`.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Defence, published DISP eligibility, levels and application guidance", "ANAO, Defence's Contract Administration -- Defence Industry Security Program" ] }, "drought-four-years-in-ten": { "id": "drought-four-years-in-ten", "name": "Four years of support in a fixed ten, in a country where droughts are not reliably shorter", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-drought-support:payment" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "idea", "summary": "Farm Household Allowance is payable for up to 1,460 days in a ten-year period, and the periods are fixed rather than rolling. A household that exhausted its entitlement early has nothing left for the next event inside the same decade.", "precedent": "The cap already has a defined structure that could be varied rather than abolished: the first period ran 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2024, the second runs to 30 June 2034. Moving from fixed to rolling periods is a parameter change, not a redesign.", "rationale": "Farm Household Allowance is payable for **up to four years \u2014 1,460 days \u2014 at any\ntime in a ten-year period**. The first period ran 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2024;\nthe second runs to 30 June 2034.\n\nTwo features of that rule are worth separating.\n\n**The cap itself is defensible.** The payment is income support for a household\nwhose business is not producing income, and an uncapped entitlement would fund\nindefinite operation of a business that cannot support the family running it.\nThat is a real question about when support becomes subsidy for an unviable\nenterprise, and it is not one this project can answer.\n\n**The fixed period is harder to defend.** Because the decade boundaries are set\nin legislation rather than running from each household's first payment, the reset\nis a calendar date rather than a recovery. A household that exhausted its\nentitlement in 2023 waited until 1 July 2024 for a new period regardless of its\ncircumstances, and a household that exhausts the current entitlement in 2027 has\nseven years with nothing.\n\n**And the exposure is real.** Australian drought cycles in the worst-affected\nregions are not reliably shorter than four years, and a household can face two\nseparate events inside one fixed decade. The rule assumes hardship is episodic\nand spaced; the climate does not.\n\n**A rolling ten-year period** \u2014 four years of support in any consecutive ten from\nthe household's own first payment \u2014 would preserve the cap and remove the\narbitrary reset. It is a parameter change to a rule that already has this shape.\n\n**Filed as an idea**, because the question underneath it is not administrative.\nHow long the Commonwealth should support a farm household through hardship, and\nat what point support becomes a transfer to a business that will not recover, is\na policy judgement that people who understand agriculture disagree about in good\nfaith.\n", "risk": "**Extending support extends the exit decision, and sometimes exit is the right\nanswer.** The hardest thing in drought policy is that some farm businesses are not\nviable at the climate they now face, and support that lets a household hold on\nthrough a fourth and fifth year can leave them with less equity and fewer options\nthan an earlier decision would have. Drought policy moved away from open-ended\nsupport for exactly this reason, and the four-year cap encodes that lesson.\n\n**A rolling period is administratively harder and less predictable.** Fixed\ndecades are simple to administer and simple for a household to understand. Rolling\nperiods calculated from each household's own first payment mean every household\nhas a different clock, which is more work for the agency and less legible for the\nrecipient.\n\n**It costs money in the worst years, which is when the budget is worst.** A\nrolling cap increases outlays precisely during widespread drought, when\nagricultural output and revenue are already down. That countercyclicality is\narguably the point of the program and it is also a real fiscal exposure.\n\n**And this is not where the biggest problem is.** The\n[[au-drought-support|process map]] shows the largest steps are recognising the\nhardship and learning the payment exists \u2014 300 days before an application is\nlodged. The cap binds a household that already found the program and used it. See\n[[drought-support-without-a-declaration]], which affects the much larger group who\nnever applied at all.\n", "sources": [ "Farm Household Allowance: up to 4 years (1,460 days) at any time in a 10-year period; first period 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2024, second period 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2034", "Farm Household Allowance income limit of $1,391.67 per fortnight as at January 2026; an assets test applies", "DAFF, Farm Household Allowance and financial assessment guidelines" ] }, "drought-support-without-a-declaration": { "id": "drought-support-without-a-declaration", "name": "No declaration is the right design, and nothing announces itself", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "au-drought-support:learn", "au-drought-support:hardship" ], "days_saved_est": 120, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Australia deliberately has no drought declaration, because drought has no clean boundary. The consequence is that nothing tells a farmer they are eligible \u2014 and the department's own material records that people wrongly believe the payment is only for drought.", "precedent": "The department already publishes the correction. What it does not do is act on it: eligibility could be surfaced through the tax and business data the Commonwealth already holds about farm businesses, as it does for other payments.", "rationale": "**Start with the part that is right.** This database criticised\n[[disaster-activation-by-impact-not-boundary|disaster assistance]] for switching\non by determination \u2014 per event, per local government area, per category \u2014 leaving\nhouseholds on the wrong side of a line with nothing until the line moved.\n\nDrought support does not work that way, and deliberately. There is **no national\ndrought declaration**. Farm Household Allowance is assessed on the applicant's\ncircumstances, and the department's own material states plainly that a common\nmisconception is that it is a drought payment when **it is available for any type\nof financial hardship**.\n\nThat is the better design. Drought has no clear start, no clear end and no clean\nboundary; a declaration would be arbitrary at its edges and contested at its\ntiming, and Australia's earlier experience with drought declarations demonstrated\nexactly that.\n\n**The cost of having no trigger is that nothing announces itself.**\n\nA disaster activation is an event. It is announced, reported, and tells people\nthey are eligible \u2014 the announcement is the outreach. Drought support has no such\nmoment, so awareness has to be manufactured continuously, and the department's\nown observation about the misconception is evidence that it is not being\nmanufactured well enough.\n\nOn the [[au-drought-support|process map]], the two longest steps before an\napplication are the hardship accumulating and the household **learning the\npayment exists and applies to them** \u2014 around 300 days between them, and the\nsecond of those is entirely a communications failure.\n\n**The proposal.** Treat awareness as the program's core delivery problem rather\nthan as marketing:\n\n1. **Correct the misconception where farmers actually are** \u2014 in the material\n accompanying farm business tax time, through rural financial counsellors, and\n through the [[daff|Drought Resilience Hubs]], rather than on a departmental\n webpage.\n2. **Prompt on the data already held.** The Commonwealth sees farm business\n income through the tax system. A household whose farm income has collapsed is\n identifiable, and could be told the payment exists \u2014 the same argument this\n site makes for [[ccs-pay-from-income-the-government-already-sees|the Child Care\n Subsidy]] and [[pay-concessions-automatically|concession payments]].\n3. **Report take-up against estimated eligibility**, so that non-take-up is\n visible at all.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone.\n", "risk": "**Prompting people from tax data is a significant step and would not be welcomed\nby everyone.** A letter from government saying \"our records suggest your farm\nincome has fallen and you may qualify for hardship support\" is intrusive, is\nbased on data collected for another purpose, and would land in some households as\nsurveillance rather than help. Farm businesses are family businesses and the\ninformation is personal. Consent-based prompting, or prompting through a\ncounsellor rather than directly, would be the minimum.\n\n**There is dignity in not being told you look poor.** Rural communities have a\nwell-documented reluctance to seek assistance, and some of that is a preference\nto be left alone rather than a failure of awareness. A campaign built on the\nassumption that non-take-up is ignorance may misread a decision as an oversight.\n\n**Better awareness increases outlays.** If take-up rises, the program costs more,\nand there is no evidence anyone has budgeted for full take-up of any means-tested\npayment in this database. That is an argument for doing it honestly rather than\nfor not doing it, and it should be said rather than discovered.\n\n**And this project cannot size the problem.** Nobody publishes Farm Household\nAllowance take-up against estimated eligibility. The department's observation\nabout the misconception is qualitative, the 120 day estimate above is ours, and\nthe third element of the proposal \u2014 publish take-up \u2014 is the one that would let\nanyone argue about the first two properly.\n", "sources": [ "DAFF: Farm Household Allowance is available for any type of financial hardship; a common misconception is that it is a drought payment", "Farm Household Allowance income limit of $1,391.67 per fortnight as at January 2026; an assets test applies; payable up to 4 years in a 10-year period", "Future Drought Fund: $100 million each financial year; seven Drought Resilience Hubs supported by up to $86.7 million to June 2032" ] }, "dsp-hours-cliff": { "id": "dsp-hours-cliff", "name": "The 30 hour rule pays more for segregated work than open employment", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-disability-employment:hours_rule" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A Disability Support Pension recipient working 35 hours in an Australian Disability Enterprise keeps their pension. The same person working 35 hours in open employment may have it suspended. The Disability Royal Commission has recommended phasing out segregated employment.", "precedent": "The exemption itself is the precedent: the Commonwealth has already decided that the 30 hour rule should not apply where it would prevent someone working. The question is why that decision stops at the door of a segregated workplace.", "rationale": "This database usually records contradictions between tiers of government. This\none is inside a single government, between a social security rule and a\ndisability policy commitment.\n\n**The rule.** A Disability Support Pension recipient may generally work up to\n29 hours a week and keep the pension, subject to the income test \u2014 the\nfortnightly income free area is $226 for a single recipient. At **30 hours or\nmore** a week on an ongoing basis, payment may be suspended. Suspension rather\nthan cancellation applies for up to 12 consecutive fortnights of nil payment, and\nthe concession card can continue for up to two years. Both of those are genuine\nsoftening features and neither removes the threshold.\n\n**The exemption.** The 30 hour rule **does not apply to work in an Australian\nDisability Enterprise**.\n\nSo the same person, working the same hours, keeps their pension in a supported\nemployment setting and may lose it in open employment.\n\n**The contradiction.** The Disability Royal Commission recommended phasing out\nsegregated employment. Commonwealth disability policy is directed at open\nemployment. And the social security rule points the other way, at the exact\nmargin where a person decides whether to take more hours in an ordinary\nworkplace.\n\nThis is not a hidden effect. It is the plain reading of two published settings.\n\n**Why this belongs on a red tape site.** It is a threshold: a bright line in a\nrule that produces a discontinuity in outcome, where a smooth taper would not.\nThat is the same structure as a\n[[fast-track-by-objective-trigger|planning threshold]] or a\n[[disp-tier-to-actual-risk|risk tier]], and it is analysed the same way. A person\nweighing a 29 hour job against a 32 hour job is not making a decision about their\ncapacity. They are making a decision about a rule.\n\n**Two directions the fix can go**, and this project is not qualified to choose\nbetween them:\n\n1. **Taper rather than cliff**, so that additional hours in open employment\n always leave the person better off, with the income test doing the work the\n hours rule currently does.\n2. **Extend the exemption to open employment**, which removes the differential\n immediately and is the cheaper legislative change.\n\n**Days saved: zero.** Nothing here is about elapsed time. It is recorded because\nthis database's unit is the step, and a rule that changes what a step costs is a\nstep by any useful definition.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone, through the Social Security Act.\n", "risk": "**This is contested income support policy and this site has limited standing in\nit.** The hours rule exists partly to maintain the boundary between a pension for\npeople whose disability prevents substantial work and the unemployment payment\nsystem. Softening it has fiscal consequences, and reasonable people including\ndisability advocates disagree about whether the pension should be the instrument\nthat carries this. Nothing in a process database resolves that.\n\n**The ADE exemption exists for a reason and removing it would be a serious\nharm.** Supported employment provides work to people who would otherwise have\nnone, and its participants are frequently among the most severely disabled. If\nthis argument were read as \"remove the ADE exemption to make things consistent\",\nit would strip the pension from people in the weakest position. **That is the\nopposite of what this proposal asks.** The differential should be closed by\nlifting open employment to the exemption, not by pulling supported employment\ndown to the rule.\n\n**A taper is not free and may not help.** Extending the range over which a person\ncan work while receiving the pension increases outlays and extends payment to\npeople with higher earnings, and the evidence that hours thresholds actually\ndrive employment decisions for this population is thinner than the logic\nsuggests. People do not always know the rule, and those who do face many other\nbarriers first \u2014 [[au-disability-employment|employer willingness]] is the binding\nconstraint in that process, at 240 days of `third_party` time, and no change to a\nsocial security threshold touches it.\n\n**And the honest scale.** This is one rule at one margin. The employment rate gap\nfor people with disability in Australia is large and long-standing, and it will\nnot be closed by a threshold change. Presenting this as a solution rather than as\nthe removal of an obvious perversity would overstate it considerably.\n", "sources": [ "Services Australia, published guidance on working while receiving the Disability Support Pension: 30 or more hours a week on an ongoing basis may result in suspension; the rule does not apply to work in an Australian Disability Enterprise; income free area $226 per fortnight for singles; up to 12 consecutive fortnights of nil payment before suspension or cancellation", "Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, final report 2023, recommendations on segregated employment", "Grattan Institute, 'Opening doors: Better jobs and fairer wages for disabled workers'" ] }, "dva-fix-the-inflow-not-the-backlog": { "id": "dva-fix-the-inflow-not-the-backlog", "name": "A backlog cleared is not a backlog solved", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "au-dva-claim:allocation" ], "days_saved_est": 120, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A royal commission found 42,000 unallocated veterans' claims and set a deadline. DVA cleared them, early. Twenty-eight months later there were 32,925 unallocated claims again. The surge worked and the system did not change.", "precedent": "The 2024 clearance is its own precedent, in both directions: it proves the department can move at volume when resourced, and it proves that moving at volume does not alter the arrival rate.", "rationale": "This is the most important cautionary finding in this database, and it applies to\nalmost every other page on this site.\n\n**The sequence.** The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide found\n41,799 unallocated claims as at May 2022, and said in terms that long waits for\nentitlements damage veterans' mental health and in some cases contribute to\nsuicide and suicidality. It made eliminating the backlog an urgent recommendation\nwith a 31 March 2024 deadline. DVA cleared the last unallocated claim at the end\nof **February 2024**, ahead of the deadline.\n\nThat was a genuine achievement by the people who did it and should be recorded as\none.\n\n**As at 30 June 2026:** 103,074 claims on hand, of which **32,925 unallocated**.\nAverage time to process an MRCA permanent impairment claim across all claims on\nhand had risen to 364 days from 315 the year before.\n\nNothing here suggests bad faith. It is arithmetic. A queue empties when clearance\nexceeds arrival, and refills when it does not. Surging staff raises clearance\ntemporarily. It does nothing to arrival, nothing to the work each claim requires,\nand nothing to the share of claims that arrive incomplete or that generate\ndisputes.\n\n**What changing the inflow would actually mean:**\n\n1. **Take the evidence from Defence rather than from the veteran.** Service and\n service-medical records are already held by the Commonwealth. See\n [[dva-get-the-records-from-defence]].\n2. **Automate determinations where a Statement of Principles is clearly\n satisfied.** The [[rma|Statements of Principles]] already reduce the central\n question to published factors. Where a service history plainly meets them, the\n determination is an application of a known rule, and rules that can be stated\n can be applied consistently at volume.\n3. **Publish the unallocated count monthly.** It is the leading indicator. The\n 2026 figure appears in annual reporting; a queue that is only visible once a\n year can regrow for eleven months before anyone outside the department knows.\n4. **Measure the department on time-to-determination for recently received\n claims *and* on the unallocated count**, not on backlog milestones. A milestone\n is met once. A rate has to be held.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone.\n", "risk": "**Automation in this domain has an unusually bad worst case.** A wrongly refused\nveteran is exactly the person the royal commission was concerned about, and an\nautomated refusal at volume would be catastrophic in a way an automated approval\nwould not. Robodebt is the obvious and correct comparison, and anyone proposing\nautomated decision-making in a Commonwealth benefits system has to answer it\nbefore saying anything else. The only defensible version is automation that can\n**grant but never refuse** \u2014 clearing the clear cases into the yes pile and\nrouting everything else to a human, so that the machine's failure mode is a\ndelayed approval rather than a wrongful denial.\n\n**Faster inflow processing may increase inflow.** A system known to pay promptly\nattracts claims that would not otherwise be made, including entirely legitimate\nones from veterans who had given up. That is a good outcome and it is also a\nbudget consequence, and pretending otherwise would make this proposal easy to\ndismiss by anyone holding the appropriation.\n\n**The published numbers do not decompose.** DVA publishes claims on hand,\nunallocated counts and processing times. It does not publish arrival rates,\nrework rates, or the share of claims requiring further evidence \u2014 which are\nexactly the numbers needed to know whether inflow can be changed at all. This\nproposal is therefore an argument from the shape of the queue, not from a\ndiagnosis of it, and it should be treated as weaker than the confidence of its\ntitle suggests.\n\n**And the general warning, which is the real point of this entry.** Several\nreforms on this site would produce a one-off improvement in a queue.\n[Hospital gateway reviews](/reforms/decouple-design-from-budget-round/), the\n[tribunal](/reforms/fix-the-first-decision/), the\n[aged care assignment queue](/reforms/aged-care-onboard-during-the-queue/) \u2014 each\ncould be surged down and each would refill on the same arithmetic. DVA is the\nworked example of what happens when a backlog is treated as an event rather than\na rate, and it should be read alongside every other proposal here.\n", "sources": [ "Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, interim report 2022: 41,799 unallocated claims as at May 2022; urgent recommendation to eliminate the backlog by 31 March 2024", "DVA, confirmation the unallocated backlog was cleared at the end of February 2024", "DVA, published claim processing times as at 30 June 2026: 103,074 claims on hand, 32,925 unallocated; MRCA permanent impairment average time to process 364 days, up from 315" ] }, "dva-get-the-records-from-defence": { "id": "dva-get-the-records-from-defence", "name": "Stop making veterans carry records between two Commonwealth agencies", "type": "remove", "targets": [ "au-dva-claim:evidence", "au-dva-claim:investigation" ], "days_saved_est": 90, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Service records and service medical records are held by Defence. The veteran obtains them and gives them to DVA. Two agencies of the same government, and the person with post-traumatic stress disorder is the courier.", "precedent": "The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide examined data sharing between Defence and DVA directly. Automatic transfer of records on separation, and on claim lodgement, requires no new information to be collected from anyone.", "rationale": "The longest applicant-side step in the [[au-dva-claim|DVA claim process]] is\nassembling evidence \u2014 modelled at 120 days, and the largest single component of\nthe pre-allocation wait.\n\nMuch of that evidence is not the veteran's to produce in any meaningful sense. It\nis their service record, their service medical record, their unit history, their\ndeployment record. All of it was created by the Commonwealth, is held by the\nCommonwealth, and is being requested by the Commonwealth.\n\nThe veteran's role in this step is largely administrative: to request records\nfrom one agency and forward them to another. They are the transport layer.\n\nThe specific costs of that arrangement:\n\n- **It is slow**, because a request-and-forward cycle between two agencies with a\n person in the middle takes longer than a transfer between two agencies.\n- **It falls on the least suitable person to bear it.** The population making\n these claims includes people with post-traumatic stress disorder, acquired\n brain injury and severe depression. Document-chasing is precisely the class of\n task that condition makes hardest, and the royal commission found the burden of\n the process itself contributes to harm.\n- **It produces incomplete claims**, which arrive at DVA missing material, which\n generates a request for further information, which lengthens the queue \u2014 the\n same request-for-information loop that dominates\n [[publish-and-close-the-rfi-loop|visa processing]], in a population far less\n able to absorb it.\n\nThe proposal is that lodging a claim authorises DVA to obtain the relevant\nservice and service-medical records from Defence directly, and that records\ntransfer automatically on separation so that DVA already holds them when a claim\narrives years later.\n\n**Who acts:** Defence and DVA. One government, two departments, no other\njurisdiction, no legislation obviously required beyond authorisation and privacy\nhandling.\n", "risk": "**Automatic transfer of medical records is a genuine privacy question and the\nveteran's consent matters.** A person who separates from the ADF has not thereby\nagreed that their full medical history should sit in another department's system\nindefinitely against a claim they may never make. Some will object strongly, and\nthey are entitled to. Any version of this needs the transfer to be authorised by\nthe veteran \u2014 at separation, or at lodgement \u2014 rather than assumed, and needs the\nscope tied to what a claim actually requires.\n\n**Bulk transfer creates a bulk breach risk.** Consolidating service medical\nrecords for the entire separated ADF population into a second department\nmultiplies the consequence of a single failure, and these are records whose\ndisclosure could affect employment, insurance and security clearances.\n\n**Defence records are incomplete, and shifting the burden does not fix that.**\nConditions that were never reported during service \u2014 which for mental health is a\nvery large share, precisely because reporting carried career consequences \u2014\nappear nowhere in the service record. A veteran will still have to establish those\nconnections themselves, and a reform that assumes the records hold the answer may\nmake the system less willing to look beyond them. That would be a serious\nregression for exactly the claims that matter most.\n\n**And the estimate is ours.** Ninety days is a modelled figure. DVA does not\npublish how long claimants spend assembling evidence, nor what share of claims\narrive requiring further information and why. Those two numbers would size this\nreform properly and neither exists.\n", "sources": [ "Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, interim report 2022 and final report September 2024, including findings on the claims process and on Defence-DVA information sharing", "DVA, published claim processing times as at 30 June 2026" ] }, "early-subdivision-check": { "id": "early-subdivision-check", "name": "Bring the subdivision certificate check forward to practical completion", "type": "resequence", "targets": [ "nsw-townhouses:subdivision" ], "days_saved_est": 30, "status": "idea", "summary": "Most of what is checked at subdivision certificate stage is knowable before the last works are finished, but the check begins only afterwards -- at the point of maximum holding cost.", "rationale": "The subdivision certificate lands last and costs most. A completed townhouse\ndevelopment is carrying full finance, cannot settle, and cannot hand over, while\na check runs that is largely documentary.\n\nThe resequencing question is specific and answerable: which components of that\ncheck actually require the works to be finished, and which are reviews of plans,\neasements, certificates and contributions that could be substantially completed\nweeks earlier? If it is mostly the latter, the elapsed time is a sequencing\nartefact rather than a necessity.\n\nThis is filed as an idea rather than a proposal because we do not yet have the\nevidence to say which components are which. It needs a practitioner.\n", "risk": "A pre-check that has to be redone because the works changed is worse than no\npre-check -- it consumes council time twice and creates an expectation that the\ncertificate is a formality. There is also a risk that developers treat an early\nconditional review as approval and hand over prematurely.\n\nAny version of this reform needs the early review to be explicitly provisional,\nand needs council to be resourced for the double handling it will sometimes\ncause.\n" }, "ect-assess-once-for-both-purposes": { "id": "ect-assess-once-for-both-purposes", "name": "One ACECQA assessment for both practice eligibility and migration", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-ecec-teacher-overseas:equivalence", "au-ecec-teacher-overseas:skills_assessment" ], "days_saved_est": 90, "status": "proposal", "summary": "ACECQA assesses an overseas early childhood teacher twice \u2014 once for equivalence under the National Quality Framework, once as the skills assessing authority for migration \u2014 against substantially the same evidence, for two different downstream users.", "precedent": "The consolidation has already happened once: ACECQA replaced AITSL as the sole skills assessing authority for early childhood teachers in December 2024, removing a body from this chain. Merging the two assessments within the one body is the same move, one step further.", "rationale": "The [[au-ecec-teacher-overseas|overseas early childhood teacher process]] shows\nthe same shape as the [[au-specialist-img|overseas specialist doctor process]],\nwhich is why they now share a comparison key.\n\nCritical path 389 days. Wait profile: 285 days `queue`, 90 days `third_party`,\n14 days `scheduling`, and **zero days `assessment`** on the critical path. The\nequivalence assessment \u2014 the step that decides whether this person is qualified\nto teach very young children \u2014 runs concurrently and finishes first.\n\nEvery day of elapsed time is document gathering, a skills assessment queue, a\nvisa queue, and a working with children check queue.\n\nSince December 2024 ACECQA has been both the qualification equivalence authority\nand the sole skills assessing authority. Two assessments, one body, one applicant,\nsubstantially one evidence base. They are performed for different purposes \u2014\npractice eligibility under the National Quality Framework, and migration\neligibility under the migration regulations \u2014 and those purposes have different\ncriteria at the margins. They do not have different transcripts.\n\nA single assessment producing two outcomes, or one assessment with a short\nsupplementary determination for the second purpose, removes 90 days from a chain\nwhere nothing else on the critical path is an assessment at all.\n\n**Who acts:** ACECQA, with education ministers and Home Affairs agreeing that a\nsingle determination satisfies both frameworks.\n\n**The larger point this proposal does not resolve.** The equivalence criterion\nrequires four years of higher education covering birth to five. Teachers trained\nin comparable systems that partition the age range differently \u2014 birth to eight\nwith a primary focus, or an education degree with an early childhood minor \u2014 may\nnot pass. That criterion is binding on a shortage estimated at 21,000 people, and\nmerging the assessments does nothing about it. Whether the line is in the right\nplace is a question about what a teacher of very young children needs to know,\nand it should be answered by people qualified to answer it, on published evidence\nabout how many applicants it excludes and what became of them. Nobody publishes\nthat. It is the more important question and this proposal is not it.\n", "risk": "**Different purposes can justify different tests.** Migration skills assessment\nand practice equivalence genuinely diverge at the margins \u2014 one is about\noccupational identity for a visa, the other about capability under a specific\nregulatory framework. Merging them means one set of criteria governs both, and\nthe risk is that the looser one wins because it is the one attached to a\nprocessing target. If the merged assessment is in substance the migration\nassessment with a National Quality Framework stamp on it, this reform has quietly\nlowered the qualification bar for people teaching under-fives, which is not what\nit claims to do and not something this project supports.\n\n**A single point of failure in a body that is now the only assessor.**\nConsolidating to ACECQA in December 2024 already removed the redundancy of a\nsecond assessing authority. Merging the remaining two assessments removes the\nlast internal cross-check. That is defensible only if ACECQA's assessment quality\nand turnaround are visible, and neither is currently published.\n\n**It is not where the time is.** Ninety days off a 389 day path, on estimated\ndurations, when 285 of those days are queues at Home Affairs and a state working\nwith children check unit. The visa queue position \u2014 set by ministerial direction,\nchangeable without legislation \u2014 is again the larger and cheaper lever, exactly\nas it is for [[img-fix-the-steps-after-registration|overseas doctors]].\n", "sources": [ "ACECQA as sole skills assessing authority for early childhood teachers from December 2024", "ACECQA, published qualification requirements and overseas qualification equivalence guidance", "Department of Home Affairs, published skilled visa processing priorities" ] }, "embedded-network-parity": { "id": "embedded-network-parity", "name": "Deliver bill relief to embedded network customers the way everyone else gets it", "type": "remove", "targets": [ "nsw-energy-rebate:embedded_discover", "nsw-energy-rebate:embedded_apply", "nsw-energy-rebate:embedded_assess" ], "days_saved_est": 135, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Households in caravan parks, retirement villages and apartments hold the same entitlement to energy bill relief and must apply for it, because there is no retailer to hang the credit on. A technical reason for a burden is still a burden, and it falls on the people least able to carry it.", "precedent": "Embedded network operators are already regulated, already meter individual customers, and already bill them. Every element needed to apply a credit at the point of billing exists \u2014 it is simply not the party the scheme was designed around.", "rationale": "Commonwealth energy bill relief \u2014 up to $300 in 2024-25 and up to $150 under the\n2025 extension \u2014 reached most households as an automatic credit applied by their\n[[energy-retailer|retailer]]. No application, no form, no chance of missing out\nthrough not knowing.\n\nCustomers in **embedded networks** hold the same entitlement and must apply for\nit through a state portal. These are permanent residents of caravan parks and\nretirement villages, and residents of many apartment buildings, who buy their\nelectricity through a landlord, park owner or body corporate on an individually\nmetered connection rather than from a retailer.\n\nThe reason is structural rather than intentional: the scheme is delivered through\nretailers, and these customers do not have one.\n\nBut look at who that lands on. Permanent caravan park residency and retirement\nvillage living both skew strongly older and lower-income. These are, on average,\nhouseholds for whom $150 or $300 matters more than it does for the households\nreceiving it automatically \u2014 and they are the ones filling in a form.\n\nThe [[nsw-energy-rebate|modelled pathway]] runs 135 days from a customer needing\nto discover the entitlement exists to the assessment completing, against zero\ndays for the household next door. And the modelled duration understates it,\nbecause the real cost is not delay: **it is the households that never apply at\nall.** No take-up figure for embedded network customers is published, which is the\nfirst thing that should change.\n\n**The fix.** Route the credit through the embedded network operator, which\nalready meters and bills each customer individually, with the operator required\nto pass it through and to show it on the bill. Where an operator cannot or will\nnot participate, the application pathway remains as a fallback rather than as the\nonly route.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth and states jointly, since the fund is\nCommonwealth-financed and delivered through state arrangements.\n", "risk": "**Embedded network operators are not retailers and some should not be trusted\nwith the money.** A landlord or park owner passing a credit through to a resident\nis an arrangement with an obvious failure mode, particularly where the operator\nalso collects rent and the resident has little power. Pass-through would need to\nbe verifiable on the resident's bill and enforceable, and the regulatory\nrelationship with embedded network operators is thinner than with licensed\nretailers precisely because they were never meant to be delivery agents for\npublic payments.\n\n**It creates a new obligation on small operators.** A retirement village or\ncaravan park is not a billing company. Requiring pass-through imposes an\nadministrative task on operators who may have few residents and no systems, and\nthe predictable response from some is to do it late, wrongly, or not at all \u2014\nleaving the resident worse off than an application would have.\n\n**Publishing take-up would be uncomfortable and should happen anyway.** If the\nembedded network take-up rate turns out to be very low, that is an admission that\na significant group has been under-served for years. That is a reason to publish\nit, not a reason not to, but it is why nobody has.\n\n**And a note on scale.** This is $150 to $300 per household. Set against the\n[[nsw-social-housing-access|612-day social housing wait]] or the\n[[au-aged-care-access|347-day aged care wait]], it is small money. It is included\nbecause it is one of the few problems in this database that is unambiguously\nsolvable, cheaply, this year \u2014 and because a scheme that reaches everyone except\nthe people in caravan parks is a scheme with a legible design flaw.\n", "sources": [ "energy.gov.au, Energy Bill Relief Fund: up to $300 in 2024-25 and up to $150 under the 2025 extension; embedded network customers eligible for the same amounts", "Published guidance that embedded network customers must apply through state portals; Victorian embedded network customers apply via Victorian Energy Compare for a one-off $150 payment", "NSW: Low Income Household Rebate of $313.50 per financial year for embedded network customers against $285 for retail customers" ] }, "eoi-tell-people-where-they-stand": { "id": "eoi-tell-people-where-they-stand", "name": "No decision, no refusal, no review \u2014 you simply are not invited", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "au-points-tested-migration:wait_invite" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A points-tested applicant pays for a skills assessment and an English test, lodges an expression of interest, and waits. If their score is below the cut-off, nothing happens \u2014 ever. There is no decision, so there is nothing to be told, appealed or reviewed.", "precedent": "The department already publishes invitation round results, including the number of invitations and the minimum score by occupation. Telling a person where their own score sits against those published cut-offs uses data the department has already released.", "rationale": "This is the purest case of invisible unmet need this database has found.\n\nThe [[au-points-tested-migration|points-tested process]] models at 629 days, of\nwhich **81 per cent is queue and zero days are assessment**. Nobody evaluates\nanything about the applicant on the critical path. They lodge, and they wait to\nbe selected.\n\n**What happens if they are not selected is nothing.** Invitations are issued in\nrounds to the highest scores until the allocation is exhausted \u2014 the round of\n4 June 2026 issued 10,000 invitations, with minimum scores from **65 points for\nsome trades occupations to 100 for some specialist occupations**. Below the\ncut-off there is no refusal, because there is no decision. Nothing is\ncommunicated. The person waits for the next round, which was expected by\n30 September 2026, and then the one after.\n\nCompare the other invisible populations recorded here.\n[[count-the-turn-aways|Legal assistance]]: the person asks and is told no.\n[[embedded-network-parity|Energy rebates]]: the person never learns they were\neligible. This is further along again \u2014 the person knows about the scheme, has\npaid for a skills assessment and an English test, has lodged, and still receives\nno answer of any kind.\n\nAnd it is a *designed* silence. There is nothing improper about selecting the\nhighest-scoring candidates for a capped program. What is missing is any\nobligation to tell the people who were not selected that they were not selected,\nor where they stand.\n\n**The proposal, using data already published:**\n\n1. **Tell each applicant, after each round, whether they were considered and how\n their score compared to the cut-off for their occupation.** The department\n publishes the cut-offs; the applicant's score is in the system.\n2. **Publish, by occupation, how many expressions of interest sit above and below\n the current cut-off.** A person with 70 points for an occupation invited at 95\n would learn something worth knowing, which is that they should make other\n plans.\n3. **Notify before an expression of interest lapses**, and when the occupation\n list changes in a way that affects it.\n\nNone of this changes who is invited. It changes whether the people who are not\ninvited can act on that.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone, in a system it operates.\n", "risk": "**Telling people they will not be invited will be read as a refusal, and it is\nnot one.** A person informed that their score is far below the cut-off may\nabandon a plan that would have succeeded \u2014 occupation demand shifts, planning\nlevels move, and Skilled Independent places rose from 16,900 to 21,090 for\n2026-27. An indication of prospects is a forecast, and forecasts communicated by\ngovernment are treated as commitments.\n\n**It would expose how long the odds are, and the department may not want that\npublished.** A queue of expressions of interest far exceeding the places\navailable is politically awkward, and there is a legitimate policy interest in\nnot advertising a pathway as closed when it is competitive. This site's standing\nanswer is that\n[[social-housing-publish-the-wait-people-are-actually-doing|publishing an\nuncomfortable number]] is worth doing anyway, and it should acknowledge that the\nanswer is contested.\n\n**Publishing distributions invites gaming.** A visible map of scores by occupation\ntells applicants exactly where the marginal point is worth buying \u2014 another\nqualification, another year of experience, a partner's skills assessment \u2014 which\nis rational for them and inflates the score distribution for everyone. Points\ntests inflate over time regardless; transparency accelerates it.\n\n**And this is the seventh zero-day transparency proposal on this site.** The\ncount is now the finding. Across thirty-seven Commonwealth objectives, the single\nmost common thing this project can identify is a number that exists inside\ngovernment and is not shared with the person it is about.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Home Affairs SkillSelect: an expression of interest is not a visa application; invitation determines whether a visa application may be made", "SkillSelect round of 4 June 2026: 10,000 invitations issued, all subclass 189; minimum invitation scores ranging from 65 to 100 points; tie-break date 24 April 2026; next round expected by 30 September 2026", "2026-27 Migration Program: Skilled Independent rising from 16,900 to 21,090 places" ] }, "epbc-single-assessment-bilateral": { "id": "epbc-single-assessment-bilateral", "name": "Assess once under an accredited state process, decide twice", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-epbc-referral:prepare_documentation", "au-epbc-referral:public_comment", "au-epbc-referral:recommendation_report", "au-transmission-line:epbc", "vic-transmission-line:epbc" ], "days_saved_est": 150, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Where a project needs both state and Commonwealth environmental approval, two documents are prepared, two consultations are run and two assessments are performed on the same impacts. Assessment bilateral agreements already allow one assessment to serve both decisions \u2014 they are simply not in place for most of the country.", "precedent": "Assessment bilateral agreements are existing law under Part 5 of the EPBC Act. South Australia signed a new agreement with the Commonwealth on 18 February 2026, and Western Australia signed a memorandum of understanding on 21 April 2026 to have one in place by December 2026. The Commonwealth committed more than $45 million over four years to progressing them.", "rationale": "This proposal is unusual on this site because it does not require inventing\nanything. The mechanism exists, it is in the Act, it has been used, and the\ncurrent Commonwealth government is funding its extension. The proposal is that\nit be finished, and that the finishing be treated as delivery of the housing\ntarget rather than as environmental housekeeping.\n\nThe distinction that makes it defensible is between **assessment** and\n**approval**:\n\n- *Assessment* is the gathering of evidence about impacts: surveys, modelling,\n documentation, public comment, and the analysis of what the project would do.\n Doing this twice produces two descriptions of the same impacts, at different\n times, in different formats.\n- *Approval* is the decision, applying the decision-maker's own law and\n conditions. Under an assessment bilateral the Commonwealth still decides,\n still applies the EPBC Act, still sets its own conditions, and can still\n refuse.\n\nNothing about federal environmental protection is surrendered by accrediting the\n*evidence-gathering*. That is the entire content of an assessment bilateral, and\nit is why they are lawful now.\n\nOn the [[au-epbc-referral|residential subdivision process]] this collapses\nthree steps -- prepare documentation, public comment, recommendation report --\ninto their state equivalents, which are being done anyway. On\n[[au-high-speed-rail-approvals|high speed rail]] the effect is larger still and\nthe case is more embarrassing: a Commonwealth agency is running a duplicate\nCommonwealth assessment of its own Commonwealth project.\n\nThe remaining EPBC reform provisions commence on or before 1 December 2026, with\nsubordinate regulations from 1 July 2026, and existing bilaterals are to be\nupdated for consistency with the new National Environmental Standards. That is\nthe window in which this either happens or is deferred again.\n", "risk": "This is where the argument gets genuinely hard, and the environmental objection\nis not a formality.\n\n**Accreditation is only as good as the standard it is measured against, and the\nstandards are not yet final.** Accrediting a state process before the National\nEnvironmental Standards are settled means accrediting it against nothing in\nparticular. The sequence matters enormously: standards first, then\naccreditation. A reform delivered in the other order is not this reform.\n\n**State assessment capability is not uniform.** The premise is that a state\nprocess gathering the same evidence produces the same quality of evidence. For\nsome agencies on some matters that is true. It is not automatically true\neverywhere, and the Commonwealth's ability to say so about a particular state is\npolitically constrained in a way its formal power is not.\n\n**Accreditation is hard to reverse.** Once a state process is accredited,\nwithdrawing accreditation is a public accusation against a government, so it\ntends not to happen. That asymmetry means the decision to accredit is more\nconsequential than it looks, and it argues for accreditation that is periodic\nand expiring rather than standing.\n\n**And the honest concession:** the ANAO record suggests a large share of\nCommonwealth delay was never duplication at all -- statutory timeframes were met\nin 19 per cent of cases in one quarter of 2019 and 87 per cent after funding\nincreased, with no change to the law. If the binding constraint is assessor\nnumbers, then bilaterals will save less than this estimate and hiring will save\nmore. Both should be done, and only one of them is a structural argument.\n", "sources": [ "Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), Part 5 (bilateral agreements)", "Minister for the Environment and Water, joint media release, 'Faster environmental approvals with states and territories'", "ANAO, Auditor-General Report No. 47 of 2019-20", "King & Wood Mallesons and Ashurst, published analyses of EPBC Act reform commencement through 2026" ] }, "evidence-of-violence-once": { "id": "evidence-of-violence-once", "name": "Prove it once", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "nsw-family-violence-support:lvp_evidence", "nsw-family-violence-support:housing_priority", "nsw-family-violence-support:crisis_payment" ], "days_saved_est": 60, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A protection order made anywhere in Australia has been automatically recognised everywhere since 2017. The evidence behind it is not. The same violence is proved separately to a court, a payment provider, Centrelink, a housing authority and an employer.", "precedent": "The National Domestic Violence Order Scheme is the precedent and it is in the same domain: since 25 November 2017 an order made in any jurisdiction is automatically recognised and enforceable in every other. Australia has already decided that a person should not have to re-prove this to be protected.", "rationale": "**What has already been fixed.** Under the National Domestic Violence Order\nScheme, a protection order made anywhere in Australia on or after 25 November\n2017 is automatically recognised and enforceable everywhere. A person who moves\ninterstate does not re-apply and does not re-tell their story to a second court.\nIt is one of only two instances in this database of the partial-national pattern\nbeing genuinely resolved.\n\n**What has not.** The order travels; the *evidence* does not, and neither does\nrecognition between the programs that sit around it.\n\nThe same person, having left the same relationship, separately establishes what\nhappened to:\n\n- a **court**, for the protection order;\n- the **[[lvp-provider|Leaving Violence Program provider]]**, which requires\n evidence of violence and of financial stress \u2014 an order, a court order, a\n police report, or a service referral with risk assessment and safety plan;\n- **[[services-australia]]**, for a crisis payment;\n- **[[homes-nsw|a housing authority]]**, for priority status, which requires\n third-party evidence of urgent need;\n- and an **employer**, if they use family violence leave.\n\nFive bodies. Each test is defensible on its own, each was written by people\ntrying to be careful with public money, and none of them was designed with the\nothers in view.\n\n**What it costs.** Not primarily time \u2014 the [[nsw-family-violence-support|process\nmap]] shows 180 days on the critical path, and the evidence steps are not the\nlongest. The cost is that each test requires the person to describe the violence\nagain, to a new stranger, in a new format, at the point of highest risk, while\nalso finding somewhere to sleep.\n\n**The proposal.** Mutual recognition between the tests, in the direction that\nalready works: a protection order, or a completed family violence service risk\nassessment, should be sufficient evidence for the Leaving Violence Program, for\npriority housing and for a crisis payment, without further substantiation. Each\nbody keeps its own decision. What it stops doing is re-establishing the same\nfact.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth for the payments, the states for housing \u2014 the same\ncombination as the order scheme, which they managed in 2017.\n", "risk": "**The breadth of the current tests is a feature, and mutual recognition could\nnarrow it.** The Leaving Violence Program deliberately accepts a service referral\n*instead of* police involvement, because requiring a police report excludes people\nwho cannot safely go to police \u2014 which is many of them. A \"prove it once\" rule\nbuilt around the protection order as the common currency would make the order the\nde facto gate, and that would be worse than what exists now. Any version of this\nmust run the other way: the *widest* accepted evidence becomes sufficient\neverywhere, never the narrowest.\n\n**Shared evidence means shared records about people at risk.** Information\nabout a person's experience of violence, held across a payment agency, a housing\nauthority and a contracted provider, is exactly the information that must not\nleak \u2014 including to a perpetrator who may have access to a shared address, a\nhousehold member's account, or in some cases to systems through their own work.\nFamily violence information sharing schemes exist and have been the subject of\nsustained concern for this reason. Consent-based, person-controlled sharing is the\nonly defensible form.\n\n**Different tests are asking different questions.** The court asks whether an\norder should be made against a particular person. The payment asks whether this\napplicant is in financial stress because of violence. Housing asks about urgency\nof need. Collapsing the evidence risks collapsing the questions, and a single\nfinding used for all three will be fought harder, by respondents, in the forum\nwith the lowest procedural protection.\n\n**And this database should be careful about its own framing here.** The people in\nthis process are not applicants navigating red tape; they are people at risk of\nbeing killed. Elapsed days are the wrong headline. The 60 day estimate above is\nthe smallest part of what repeated disclosure costs, and treating it as the\nmeasure would misdescribe the harm.\n", "sources": [ "Attorney-General's Department, National Domestic Violence Order Scheme: orders made on or after 25 November 2017 automatically recognised and enforceable nationally", "Department of Social Services, Leaving Violence Program evidence requirements: financial stress, plus a service referral with risk assessment and safety plan, or an apprehended violence order, court order or police report", "NSW Social Housing Eligibility and Allocations Policy Supplement: priority housing requires evidence of urgent need", "Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth): 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave" ] }, "extend-the-dental-benefit-that-works": { "id": "extend-the-dental-benefit-that-works", "name": "Australia already has a working Commonwealth dental benefit. It stops at eighteen.", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-child-dental-benefit:eighteen", "nsw-public-dental-adult:wait" ], "days_saved_est": 634, "status": "proposal", "summary": "The Child Dental Benefits Schedule pays up to $1,158 over two years, with eligibility derived automatically from payments the government already makes. On a person's eighteenth birthday it stops, and they join a state waiting list that serves one in five eligible adults.", "precedent": "The CDBS is the precedent \u2014 a functioning, automatic, means-derived Commonwealth dental benefit that has operated for years. A Senate committee recommended in November 2023 that the same mechanism be extended to seniors, and the Parliamentary Budget Office has costed it.", "rationale": "This database's most common recommendation is that an instrument which already\nworks should be extended to the people it obviously misses. Dental is the\ncleanest example it has found.\n\n**What works.** The [[au-child-dental-benefit|Child Dental Benefits Schedule]]\npays up to **$1,158 per eligible child over two consecutive calendar years** at\nthe 2026 rate. Eligibility is derived from facts the Commonwealth already holds \u2014\nMedicare enrolment, the child's age, and the family's receipt of a qualifying\npayment. **Nobody applies.** The dentist checks the balance at the chair and\nbills Medicare. It is the design argued for in\n[[pay-concessions-automatically|automatic concession payment]], already\nimplemented.\n\n**What happens next.** On the eighteenth birthday the benefit stops. The adult\nalternative is a [[nsw-public-dental-adult|state public dental service]] that is\nmeans-tested, waiting-listed, funded through an\n[[dental-fund-on-a-real-horizon|eleven-month agreement]], and which reaches about\n**one in five** of the five million adults eligible for it.\n\nThe two processes model at **31 days and 665 days**. Same person, one birthday\napart.\n\n**The proposal.** Extend the existing mechanism rather than build a new one. The\nSenate committee on dental services recommended in November 2023 that a **Seniors\nDental Benefits Schedule** be established. The Parliamentary Budget Office costed\nit at about **$1.143 billion for 2.8 million eligible people in 2025-26**, rising\nto $1.263 billion in 2026-27. The Australian Dental Association has proposed\n$1,100 every two years, which is close to the child rate.\n\nSeniors are the sensible first extension because the group is definable from\nexisting payments, the clinical need is documented in rising hospitalisations for\npreventable dental conditions, and the delivery mechanism already exists and does\nnot need to be designed.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone. It is a schedule, an appropriation and an\neligibility rule keyed to payments Services Australia already administers.\n", "risk": "**This is a large recurrent spending proposal and should be presented as one, not\nas a process reform.** $1.143 billion a year growing with the eligible\npopulation, permanently. That is the substance of it, and every process argument\nabove is a reason to prefer a particular delivery mechanism rather than a reason\nthe money is available. This database has no standing on whether the Commonwealth\nshould spend it.\n\n**The supply constraint is real and would bite immediately.** A benefit is not a\nservice. The CDBS already produces eligible children who cannot find a\nparticipating dentist, because provider participation is voluntary and schedule\nfees sit below private fees in many areas. Extending the same benefit to 2.8\nmillion seniors without addressing participation would create a much larger\ncohort holding an entitlement they cannot spend \u2014 the same pattern as an\n[[au-ndis-access|NDIS plan]] that is a budget rather than a service.\n\n**It may draw effort away from public dental rather than adding to it.** A\nCommonwealth benefit that seniors can take to a private dentist reduces pressure\non state waiting lists, which is good, and gives states a reason to reduce their\nown contribution, which is not. Every national partnership agreement in this\ndatabase has that risk, and dental has less effort-maintenance machinery than\nmost.\n\n**And a benefit cap is not dental care.** $1,158 over two years covers\nexaminations, cleans, fillings and some extractions. It does not cover dentures,\ncrowns or the restorative work that people who have spent decades outside dental\ncare actually need. A scheme sized to the child benefit would leave the worst\ncases substantially unfunded, and would be reported as having solved the problem.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Health, Guide to the Child Dental Benefits Schedule: up to $1,158 per eligible child over two consecutive calendar years at the 2026 rate; eligibility derived from Medicare enrolment, age and family payment criteria", "Senate report into the Provision of and Access to Dental Services in Australia, November 2023, recommending a Seniors Dental Benefits Schedule", "Parliamentary Budget Office costing of a Seniors Dental Benefits Schedule at about $1.143 billion for 2.8 million eligible people in 2025-26, rising to $1.263 billion in 2026-27", "About five million adults meet public dental eligibility criteria nationally, with about one fifth receiving care each year" ] }, "fast-track-by-objective-trigger": { "id": "fast-track-by-objective-trigger", "name": "Enter the fast pathway by meeting published criteria, not by being selected into it", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "nsw-apartments-hda:eoi", "nsw-apartments-hda:hda_meeting", "nsw-apartments-hda:declaration" ], "days_saved_est": 75, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Both major fast-track housing pathways in Australia are entered by ministerial declaration on a panel's recommendation. A proponent cannot know in advance whether they qualify, cannot appeal exclusion, and waits on a meeting cycle to find out.", "precedent": "New South Wales already runs an objective-trigger pathway for smaller housing: complying development is available to anyone whose proposal meets published standards, assessed against a code, with no discretion about entry. The question is why the same design principle stops at a capital investment threshold.", "rationale": "The [[nsw-hda|Housing Delivery Authority]] and the Victorian\n[[vic-dfp|Development Facilitation Program]] are the two most consequential\nplanning reforms in Australia and they share a design feature that has attracted\nalmost no scrutiny: **entry is discretionary**.\n\nA proponent lodges an expression of interest, waits for a panel that meets on a\ncycle and considers proposals in batches -- 137 at one meeting in June 2026 --\nand then waits for a ministerial declaration. In this database that is 105 days\nof `scheduling` before the substantive process starts, and it exists only\nbecause someone must decide whether you may enter.\n\nThree consequences follow, and only the first is about time.\n\n**It reintroduces the delay it was built to remove.** A gateway designed to\nescape a queue has a queue at the gate.\n\n**It cannot be planned around.** A developer choosing between pathways is\nchoosing between a known slow process and a possible fast one, without knowing\nwhich they will get. That uncertainty is priced into feasibility, and a pathway\nthat cannot be relied on at the point of land acquisition delivers less than its\napproval statistics suggest.\n\n**It makes housing approval a matter of ministerial discretion.** That is a\nsignificant change in the character of the planning system and it is being made\nwithout the debate it would attract if it were proposed directly. Discretionary\nentry to a favourable process, with no published entitlement and no review of\nrefusal, is exactly the arrangement that planning panels were introduced to move\naway from. It should not be reintroduced by accident on the way to a housing\ntarget.\n\nThe proposal: publish the criteria the panel is in fact applying -- capital\ninvestment, dwelling yield, location relative to infrastructure, affordable\nhousing contribution -- and give any proposal meeting them an entitlement to the\npathway. Keep a discretion to *include* borderline proposals. Remove the\ndiscretion to exclude qualifying ones.\n\n**Who acts:** New South Wales and Victoria, independently. The Commonwealth's\nonly lever is the National Housing Accord, which is where this belongs as a\ncondition.\n", "risk": "The objections to this are stronger than they first appear.\n\n**Discretion is doing real work.** A panel can decline a proposal that meets\nevery published criterion and is still a bad idea -- wrong site, undeliverable,\na proponent with a record of not building what they are approved for. Codifying\nentry means approving the ones you can describe and losing the ability to refuse\nthe ones you cannot. Anyone who has watched a code-based pathway meet a\ndetermined applicant knows how that ends.\n\n**Objective criteria get gamed, and NSW has the scar tissue.** Complying\ndevelopment is the domestic precedent for entitlement-based fast tracking, and\nit is also the domestic precedent for what happens when a fixed code meets\nsustained commercial pressure to fit inside it. This proposal cannot cite the\ncomplying development pathway as a success without also owning its failures.\n\n**Entitlement removes the ability to manage volume.** A discretionary gateway\nlets the state control how much work enters the pathway. An entitlement does\nnot, and a fast pathway that everyone qualifies for is a slow pathway with extra\nsteps. The department would need resourcing set by demand rather than by\nselection -- which is a budget commitment, not a planning reform.\n\n**A caution about the numbers on this site.** On our estimates the\n[[nsw-apartments-hda|HDA pathway]] runs *longer* end to end than the\n[[nsw-apartments|council pathway]] -- 1,048 days against 870 -- because it adds\nan entry queue and an environmental impact statement while removing a referral\nsequence. Those durations are `estimate` grade and that comparison should not be\nquoted. It is published because it is what the model says, and because it raises\nthe right question: the case for these pathways rests on published,\ncomparable, end-to-end timing data that does not currently exist. Until it does,\nevery claim made about them -- including this one -- is an argument from\nstructure.\n", "sources": [ "NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, published Housing Delivery Authority meeting outcomes, 2025-2026", "Premier of Victoria, 'Fast-Track Pathway Unlocks More Than 10,000 Homes', 2026", "Productivity Commission, Housing supply regulation, interim report, 27 July 2026" ] }, "finish-automatic-mutual-recognition": { "id": "finish-automatic-mutual-recognition", "name": "Finish automatic mutual recognition of occupational licences", "type": "remove", "targets": [], "days_saved_est": 30, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A national scheme letting a licensed worker work interstate without reapplying has been law since 2021. Queensland is not in it, electrical work is not scheduled to enter it in New South Wales until October 2027, and engineers are registered in only three jurisdictions. The reform was passed; it was not finished.", "precedent": "Automatic mutual recognition is existing Commonwealth law, operating in every state and territory except Queensland, across a range of occupations. Nothing new needs to be designed.", "rationale": "This is the clearest case in this database of a completed reform that does not\nyet do what it says.\n\nUnder automatic mutual recognition a worker licensed in one state may work in\nanother on that licence, without applying, waiting or paying again. It removes a\nstep rather than accelerating one, which is the strongest form of reform this\nsite records. It has been law since 2021.\n\nWhat is actually in place:\n\n- **Queensland is not a participating jurisdiction.** The state with a large\n construction pipeline and a major events programme sits outside the national\n labour mobility scheme.\n- **Electrical work is not scheduled to commence under AMR in New South Wales\n until 1 October 2027**, six years after the scheme began. In the interim an\n east coast arrangement covers electricians from Queensland, Victoria and the\n ACT working in NSW -- a bilateral patch over a national scheme.\n- **Engineers are registered in three jurisdictions**, so there is limited\n scope for mutual recognition of a registration that mostly does not exist.\n Registration schemes introduced independently and inconsistently across states\n create a mobility barrier that then requires a separate reform to remove.\n- **Occupation-by-occupation exclusions** mean a worker must check whether their\n trade is covered before relying on the scheme, which for many is equivalent to\n not having it.\n\nThis matters directly to the housing target. The construction trades deficit has\nbeen forecast at 15 to 20 per cent in critical trades. A licensing regime that\nmakes it administratively harder to move a qualified electrician from Brisbane\nto a Sydney site than to import one is working against the objective it is meant\nto be neutral about.\n\n**Who acts:** Queensland, to join. New South Wales, to bring forward electrical.\nAll states, to converge on engineer registration. The Commonwealth, only through\nnational cabinet -- it cannot compel any of this, which is why it has not\nhappened.\n", "risk": "The trade here is real, and the electrical carve-outs are not bureaucratic\ninertia.\n\n**Licensing standards are not identical, and the differences are often the\npoint.** Electrical licensing varies between states in scope of work, testing\nregime and continuing competency requirements. Automatic recognition means the\nlowest standard among participating jurisdictions becomes the effective national\nstandard for mobile workers. In a trade where the failure mode is electrocution\nand fire, that is not a theoretical concern, and the unions and regulators\nraising it are not protecting turf.\n\n**Enforcement follows the licence, not the worker.** A worker licensed\ninterstate is regulated by their home regulator, which has weaker practical\nmeans to investigate conduct occurring elsewhere and less incentive to. The\nconsumer of the work is in one state, the disciplinary power is in another.\nComplaint handling across borders is the weakest part of the existing scheme and\ncompleting coverage makes more use of it.\n\n**Convergence is the real reform and it is much harder.** The honest version of\nthis proposal is not \"finish AMR\" but \"make the underlying licences equivalent\nso that recognising them is safe\" -- which is slow, contested, and unglamorous,\nand which no government gets credit for. Recognising non-equivalent licences and\ncalling it labour mobility is the easier path and the worse one.\n\n**Note on scope.** This reform has no targets in the database, because the\noccupational licensing processes it would change are not yet mapped. That is a\ngap in this project, not an argument, and the proposal should be treated as\nweaker than the others here until the steps exist to point at.\n", "sources": [ "Mutual Recognition Amendment Act 2021 (Cth), automatic deemed registration provisions", "NSW Government, published automatic mutual recognition occupation coverage and commencement dates", "Engineers Australia, submission to the Productivity Commission on occupational licensing and international standards, September 2025", "Housing Industry Association, forecast trades deficit, 2026" ] }, "fitness-to-train-is-not-fitness-to-lend": { "id": "fitness-to-train-is-not-fitness-to-lend", "name": "The gate that failed was a gate that did not exist", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-vet-loan-provider-approval:vsl_application", "au-vet-loan-provider-approval:fit_and_proper", "au-vet-loan-provider-approval:conditions" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "enacted", "summary": "Under VET FEE-HELP, being a registered training organisation was effectively enough to originate uncapped Commonwealth student debt. Lending went from $25.6 million in 2009 to $2.9 billion in 2015, and the taxpayer lost $2.2 billion.", "precedent": "This is the precedent. The VET Student Loans Act 2016 separated the two questions, gave the second to the department carrying the fiscal risk, and attached continuous conditions rather than relying on the entry gate.", "rationale": "**Recorded as enacted, because it is one of the few clean fixes in this database\nand the site should say so as loudly as it says the rest.**\n\nTwo questions, which look similar and are not:\n\n- **Can this organisation deliver and assess training to the national standard?**\n A training-quality question, asked by [[asqa|ASQA]] against the Standards for\n Registered Training Organisations.\n- **Should this organisation be permitted to create a debt on a student's tax\n file, repayable for the rest of their working life?** A fiscal and consumer\n protection question, about who controls the organisation, how it recruits, and\n what happens to its revenue if the student never attends.\n\nUnder VET FEE-HELP the second question had no gate of its own worth the name. An\norganisation that got through the first gate could reach the loan scheme, and the\nscheme was uncapped: revenue arrived per enrolment, from the Commonwealth,\nwhether or not anybody learned anything.\n\n**The trajectory is the argument.**\n\n| Year | VET FEE-HELP lending |\n|---|---|\n| 2009 | $25.6 million |\n| 2012 | $325 million |\n| 2014 | $1.75 billion paid to providers |\n| 2015 | **$2.9 billion**, almost 200,000 full-time-equivalent students |\n\nThe number of loans **doubled between 2013 and 2014**. No assessment gate anywhere\nin the chain was capable of responding to that, because none of them was looking\nat volume \u2014 they were looking at whether individual organisations met training\nstandards, one at a time, on application.\n\n**The final cost: $2.2 billion lost to the taxpayer**, including an estimated\n**$1.2 billion of loans issued inappropriately in 2014 and 2015 alone** that will\nnot be recovered. The Australian National Audit Office examined the\nadministration of the scheme; the Senate inquiry examined the conduct.\n\n**That is not a training-quality failure and a training regulator was never going\nto catch it.** A provider signing up students through brokers paid per head, who\nwould never complete, was running a perfectly functional business. The Senate\ninquiry found marketing that misled and specifically targeted vulnerable and\ndisadvantaged consumers.\n\n**What the VET Student Loans Act 2016 did, from 1 January 2017** \u2014 with existing\nstudents grandfathered on the old scheme until 31 December 2018:\n\n1. **Made RTO registration a precondition, not a qualification.** A separate\n application, to [[dewr|the department]], for approval as a VET student loans\n provider.\n2. **Asked the fitness and financial viability question directly**, of the\n organisation and of the people controlling it \u2014 and asked about **student\n completion rates** and **links to industry and employment**, neither of which\n is a training-standards question.\n3. **Restricted loans to courses on a determined list** \u2014 diploma, advanced\n diploma, graduate certificate and graduate diploma \u2014 with a smaller set\n approved only for specified listed and not-for-profit providers, rather than\n anything at diploma level and above from anyone.\n4. **Attached continuous conditions rather than trusting the gate**: loan caps\n per course, payment in instalments against census days so a provider is not\n paid in full for a student who left in week two, and evidence the student is\n actually engaged.\n\n**Point 4 is the transferable lesson**, and it is the same one this site drew from\n[[aged-care-universal-registration|universal aged care registration]]: the\ndurable control is usually a continuous, dull, cheap check rather than a bigger\nentry assessment. Entry gates are assessed once, by people who cannot see the\nfuture, on evidence the applicant chose.\n\n**And this entry is the counterweight to most of this site.** Ninety-eight\nprocesses here argue that a step should be removed, merged, thresholded or run\nin parallel. This one records what happened when a check was missing, and it cost\nbillions of dollars and a great many people a debt they did not understand. A\nmethod that could only ever produce arguments for less process would be a bad\nmethod, and this is the clearest case in the database of the other direction\nbeing right.\n", "risk": "**The fix has a cost and this database has already recorded it from the other\nside.** The course list keeps loans away from Certificate IV and below, which is\nwhy [[vsl-reach-the-qualifications-with-the-shortages|a loan cannot reach a\nCertificate III in early childhood education]] \u2014 the qualification producing most\nof the childcare workforce, in a sector with a legislated 3 Day Guarantee. The\ncontrols that stopped the harm also stopped some of the good. Both entries are\ntrue and they point in opposite directions, which is the honest state of the\nquestion.\n\n**A two-gate structure is duplication, and this site normally objects to it.** An\norganisation makes two applications, to two Commonwealth bodies, supplying\noverlapping evidence. Everywhere else here that would be a\n[[credentialing-verify-once|verify once]] argument. The distinction \u2014 that the two\ngates ask genuinely different questions of genuinely different risk \u2014 is a real\ndistinction, and it is exactly the distinction every duplicated process claims for\nitself. This entry should be read as an argument that the claim is *sometimes*\ntrue, not as a general licence.\n\n**Enacted does not mean solved.** The scheme's controls have not been tested by a\nperiod of rapid expansion in demand, which is the condition under which the\noriginal failure occurred. And the students harmed between 2012 and 2016 are still\nbeing dealt with through [[au-vfh-debt-remedy|a 785-day opt-in remedy]] that\nbegins with the person finding out it exists.\n\n**And the fix arrived after the harm, which is the part no reform can undo.** Of\nthe estimated $1.2 billion issued inappropriately in 2014 and 2015, the redress\nscheme built to reverse it re-credited **$227.61 million** \u2014 under a fifth \u2014 and\nthen closed. That is recorded separately in\n[[the-window-closed-and-the-debt-did-not]], and it is the strongest evidence in\nthis database that fixing a gate prospectively is much easier than repairing what\ncame through it.\n", "sources": [ "VET Student Loans Act 2016 (Cth) and VET Student Loans Rules 2016, commencing 1 January 2017, replacing VET FEE-HELP; existing students retained access until 31 December 2018 under grandfathering provisions", "VET FEE-HELP lending: $25.6 million in 2009, $325 million in 2012, $1.75 billion paid to providers in 2014, and $2.9 billion across almost 200,000 full-time-equivalent students in 2015; the number of loans doubled between 2013 and 2014", "The taxpayer will lose $2.2 billion in the failed VET FEE-HELP student loan system; $1.2 billion relating to loans issued inappropriately by VET FEE-HELP providers in 2014 and 2015 was estimated not to be recovered", "ANAO performance audit, Administration of the VET FEE-HELP Scheme", "VET Student Loans (Courses and Loan Caps) Determination 2016; VET Student Loans (Charges) Act 2016 (Cth)", "VET Student Loans Act 2016 (Cth): approval as a VET student loans provider is a separate approval; loans are limited to approved courses specified in a determination; loan caps apply by course; payment is made in instalments against census days; student engagement requirements apply", "Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth), VET FEE-HELP provisions", "Senate Education and Employment References Committee inquiry into private VET providers: misleading and deceptive marketing targeting vulnerable and disadvantaged consumers", "National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth); ASQA registers RTOs against the Standards for Registered Training Organisations" ] }, "fix-the-first-decision": { "id": "fix-the-first-decision", "name": "Empty the tribunal from the top, not the bottom", "type": "remove", "targets": [ "au-administrative-review:queue", "au-ndis-access:tribunal", "au-skilled-visa-sponsored:tribunal" ], "days_saved_est": 450, "status": "proposal", "summary": "In 2025-26, 64 per cent of NDIS cases before the Administrative Review Tribunal resulted in a changed outcome. A review body that alters two thirds of the decisions it examines is not a backlog to be cleared. It is an instrument measuring the quality of the decision being reviewed.", "precedent": "Published overturn and change rates are used as a primary regulatory quality measure in other jurisdictions and in Australian courts' own appellate statistics. The data here already exists and is already published; what is missing is its use as a management signal rather than a workload one.", "rationale": "This is the most important finding in this database, and unlike most of them it\nrequired no modelling at all. It is two published numbers put next to each other.\n\n**Number one.** As at 31 May 2026 the [[art|Administrative Review Tribunal]] held\n130,983 applications, received more than 77,000 during the reporting year, and is\nrunning an annual clearance deficit of roughly 30,000 cases. Median time to\nfinalise has risen from 45 weeks five years ago; 43 per cent of applications are\nfinalised within twelve months. NDIS applicants commonly wait about a year.\n\n**Number two.** In 2025-26, **64 per cent of NDIS cases decided by the Tribunal\nresulted in a changed outcome** \u2014 down from 73 per cent in 2024-25.\n\nThe [[au-administrative-review|review process]] models at 524 days, of which\n86 per cent is `queue` and `scheduling`. It is the purest backlog in this\ndatabase.\n\nThe obvious response to a backlog is capacity: more members, more registry staff,\nmore sitting days. That would help, and it is being argued for, and it treats a\n64 per cent change rate as a fact of nature.\n\nIt is not a fact of nature. Every one of those cases is a decision the\nCommonwealth made, defended for a year, and then lost or conceded. The applicant\ncarried the wait. The agency carried the cost of defending. And at the end the\nanswer was different from the one first given.\n\n**What this proposal actually asks for.** Not that the tribunal be weakened,\nrestricted, or bypassed \u2014 the opposite. That the change rate be treated as the\nprimary performance measure of the *original* decision-maker rather than as a\nstatistic about the tribunal:\n\n1. **Publish the change rate by decision type, by decision-making team, and by\n the reason the outcome changed.** New evidence, misapplied criteria, and\n unreasonable findings are three different failures with three different fixes,\n and they are currently indistinguishable in the published data.\n2. **Feed tribunal reasoning back into first-instance guidance systematically.**\n A decision overturned for the same reason a hundred times is a training and\n guidance failure, not a hundred unlucky cases.\n3. **Publish internal review change rates too.** Nobody publishes how often\n internal review alters an outcome by portfolio, which is exactly the number\n needed to know whether that mandatory 90 day step is filtering or tolling.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone \u2014 the NDIA, Home Affairs, and the tribunal,\nnone of which need anyone else's agreement.\n\n**Why the days saved figure is what it is.** 450 days is the addressable portion\nof the review process. It is the wait avoided by an applicant whose decision was\nright the first time, not a saving the tribunal can deliver.\n", "risk": "This proposal is the one on this site most capable of being turned into something\nharmful, and the risk section matters more than usual.\n\n**\"Reduce the overturn rate\" has an ugly solution available.** The change rate\ncan be lowered by making better first decisions, or by making review harder \u2014\nnarrowing review rights, raising evidentiary thresholds, restricting what the\ntribunal may consider. The second is cheaper, faster, and would be reported as\nsuccess against exactly the measure this proposal asks government to adopt. NDIS\nadvocates have already raised the fear that tightening the scheme will worsen\ntribunal outcomes for participants. **Any version of this reform that touches\nreview rights is not this reform**, and this site would oppose it.\n\n**A high change rate is not proof that first decisions are bad.** The sample is\nselected: only contested decisions reach the tribunal, and the people who contest\nare disproportionately those with a strong case, an advocate, or the resources to\npersist. A 64 per cent change rate among contested matters is compatible with a\nvery high accuracy rate overall. That is a real statistical objection and it\nshould not be brushed aside \u2014 though it cuts both ways, since it also implies\nthat people without an advocate are wearing wrong decisions in silence.\n\n**Some change is the system working.** Circumstances alter, new evidence emerges,\nand a decision right on the material available can properly be changed on better\nmaterial. That is what merits review is for, and a change rate of zero would be\nits own kind of alarm.\n\n**Measuring individual decision-makers on overturn rates produces defensive\ndecision-making.** An officer judged on being upheld will refuse less and\napprove more, or refuse in ways that are hard to appeal. This is why the\nproposal asks for publication by decision *type* and *reason* rather than by\nofficer, and this site's standing rule applies here as everywhere: name the body,\nnever the officer.\n", "sources": [ "Administrative Review Tribunal, published statistics and processing times: 130,983 applications on hand at 31 May 2026; annual clearance deficit of about 30,000; 43 per cent finalised within 12 months; median finalisation time risen from 45 weeks five years ago", "Administrative Review Tribunal: 64 per cent of NDIS cases resulted in a changed outcome in 2025-26, 73 per cent in 2024-25", "ABC News, 'Fears NDIS tribunal delays will worsen as federal government tightens scheme', 2 August 2026" ] }, "free-tafe-track-the-cohort": { "id": "free-tafe-track-the-cohort", "name": "Report Free TAFE by starting cohort, so the argument about it can be settled", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "au-free-tafe-place:completion" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "More than 800,000 enrolments and about 258,000 completions. One side calls that a failure; the other says the data is immature. Both are reasoning from a statistic that cannot answer the question, and the program was made permanent at $1.6 billion before anyone fixed that.", "precedent": "Cohort tracking is standard in higher education reporting and in NCVER's own longitudinal work. The data is collected; it is the published presentation that aggregates it into a ratio that cannot bear the weight put on it.", "rationale": "Free TAFE was made permanent by the Free TAFE Act 2025, with more than\n$1.6 billion committed to 2034-35 for at least 100,000 places a year from 2027,\non top of around $30 billion over five years through the National Skills\nAgreement.\n\nThe published headline is more than 800,000 enrolments and about 258,000\ncompletions since January 2023.\n\nThat ratio is doing work it cannot do, and both sides of the public argument are\nmisusing it.\n\n**The critics' version** \u2014 roughly a third completing, therefore a failure \u2014 is\ncomparing a stock of enrolments accumulated over three years against a flow of\ncompletions that has not finished arriving. Vocational qualifications take years.\nA student who enrolled in 2025 has not failed to complete; they have not\ncompleted *yet*.\n\n**The defenders' version** \u2014 the data is immature, completions are conventionally\nmeasured over four years, rates are rising \u2014 is true and is also unfalsifiable in\nits current form. It will remain available as an answer indefinitely, because\nthere is always a recent cohort still in progress.\n\nNeither can be resolved with the statistic being published, and the honest\nposition is that **nobody currently knows whether Free TAFE works**, including\nthe people confidently asserting that it does and the people confidently\nasserting that it does not.\n\n**The fix is a reporting change, not a policy change.** Publish outcomes by\nstarting cohort: of the students who commenced in a given year, what share had\ncompleted, were still enrolled, or had withdrawn, at 1, 2, 3 and 4 years \u2014\nbroken down by qualification and by the priority cohorts the program targets,\nsince places are deliberately directed to people facing barriers to education and\na lower completion rate among them may be the program working rather than\nfailing.\n\nThe data exists. It is collected at enrolment and at completion, against a\nUnique Student Identifier designed for exactly this. What is missing is the\npublished presentation.\n\n**Days saved: zero.** This changes no elapsed time. It changes whether a\n$1.6 billion permanent commitment can be evaluated, which on this site's own\nstandards \u2014 every number sourced, and the working shown \u2014 is the more important\nproperty.\n\n**Who acts:** [[dewr|the Commonwealth]], in partnership with the states that hold\nthe enrolment data.\n", "risk": "**Cohort reporting will produce a number that looks bad, and it will be misused.**\nCompletion rates for students facing genuine barriers to education are lower than\nfor the general population, by design and for good reasons. Publishing that\nclearly hands a weapon to anyone who wants to argue that disadvantaged students\nare a poor investment. The mitigation \u2014 reporting alongside the cohort\ncharacteristics and against a comparable baseline \u2014 is exactly the sort of nuance\nthat does not survive a headline.\n\n**Completion is not the only outcome, and elevating it distorts.** A student who\ncompletes four units, gets the job, and never finishes the qualification is\ncounted as a non-completion and may be a policy success. Employment outcomes\nmatter more than certificates for much of this cohort, and a reporting regime\nbuilt around completion will pull provider behaviour toward completion, including\nby enrolling students likely to complete rather than students who need the place.\n\n**And this site should own its own exposure here.** This project publishes a\nfigure \u2014 800,000 against 258,000 \u2014 that it then says cannot support a conclusion.\nPublishing a number while explaining why it does not mean what people will take\nit to mean is a genuine risk of being quoted for the number and not the\nexplanation. It is done because the alternative is not mentioning the largest\npublic argument about the program, and a database that omits inconvenient\nstatistics is doing the thing it criticises.\n", "sources": [ "Free TAFE Act 2025 (Cth); more than $1.6 billion to 2034-35 for at least 100,000 places per year from 2027", "Prime Minister of Australia: more than 800,000 Free TAFE enrolments and about 258,000 completions since January 2023", "DEWR, Fee-Free TAFE Program Snapshot, Quarter 1 2026", "Deakin Centre for Research for Educational Impact / The Conversation, analysis of Free TAFE completion measurement, August 2026" ] }, "fund-the-fix-not-the-places": { "id": "fund-the-fix-not-the-places", "name": "Adding 900 training places while the known fix runs as a $6.4 million trial to 2028", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-gp-training-pathway:sem", "au-gp-training-pathway:apply_agpt" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "The Commonwealth is adding 200 GP training places in 2026, 300 in 2027 and 400 from 2028. The Single Employer Model \u2014 which addresses the reason doctors do not take them \u2014 operates in seven jurisdictions, is funded at $6.4 million to 2027-28, and is time-limited to 31 December 2028.", "precedent": "The trials themselves. Single Employer Model arrangements operate in New South Wales, Tasmania, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria, with Western Australia and the Northern Territory commencing from July 2026. Seven jurisdictions is not a pilot; it is a national program described as a trial.", "rationale": "Two facts, from the same department, in the same year.\n\n**Places are being added.** Up to 1,500 fully-funded GP and rural generalist\nplaces commence each year, rising by **200 in 2026, 300 in 2027 and 400 from\n2028** under Strengthening Medicare. A hundred rural generalist places also move\ninto the program from 2026, consolidating two pathways into one \u2014 which this\ndatabase supports.\n\n**The known fix is a trial.** The **Single Employer Model** has one central\nemployer engage a registrar across all training rotations, so entitlements accrue\ncontinuously, salary is fixed independently of Medicare billings, and placements\nare certain. It addresses the exact step where the\n[[au-gp-training-pathway|pipeline narrows]] \u2014 leaving hospital employment \u2014 and it\nis what registrar organisations have asked for.\n\nIt operates in five jurisdictions with two more from July 2026. It is funded at\n**$6.4 million to 2027-28**. It is **time-limited to 31 December 2028**.\n\n**Set those against each other.** $6.4 million is roughly the cost of a few dozen\ntraining places. The Commonwealth is adding 900 commencing places across three\nyears while the instrument that determines whether places are taken up runs as a\ntime-limited trial worth a rounding error against them.\n\nA place that nobody takes is not capacity. It is an unfilled place, and the\npolicy problem in general practice has never been that the places did not exist.\n\n**The proposal.** Make the Single Employer Model permanent and available\nnationally, funded as core program design rather than as a trial with an end\ndate, and evaluate it on whether the places fill \u2014 which is the outcome the\nplaces were bought for.\n\nAn early evaluation report was published in November 2025 and the trials run to\nthe end of 2028. The decision point is well before that: a doctor choosing a\nspecialty in 2027 needs to know whether the arrangement will exist when they\nfinish.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth, with the states that employ the registrars.\n", "risk": "**A trial that has not reported should not be made permanent on structural logic\nalone.** An early evaluation report exists; the full evaluation does not. This\nproject is arguing from the shape of the problem rather than from evidence that\nthe model solves it, and the honest position is that the case for permanence is\nstrong in theory and unproven in measurement. That is exactly the criticism this\ndatabase levels at other people's confident reforms.\n\n**Single employer arrangements move cost and risk onto state health services.**\nA health service employing a registrar through rotations into private general\npractice carries salary, leave liability and workers' compensation for someone\nworking elsewhere. That is a real transfer to state budgets for a Commonwealth\ntraining program, and it is a substantial part of why this is a trial rather than\na settled arrangement.\n\n**It may weaken the private practice training model.** Practices that currently\nemploy registrars directly, and that shape training around their own patient\npopulation, become hosts rather than employers. Supervisors have views about\nthis, and the [[agpt-college|colleges]] accredit practices on the assumption of a\nparticular relationship.\n\n**And places are not worthless.** Expanding capacity ahead of demand is defensible\nif the conditions problem is being solved in parallel \u2014 you cannot fill places\nthat do not exist. The criticism here is one of proportion, not of direction: 900\nplaces and a $6.4 million trial is a strange ratio for a problem everyone agrees\nis about conditions rather than capacity.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Health, Disability and Ageing: up to 1,500 fully-funded GP and rural generalist AGPT places per annum, increasing by 200 commencing places in 2026, 300 in 2027 and 400 from 2028; 100 rural generalist places moving into AGPT from 2026", "Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, Single Employer Model trials: operating in NSW, Tasmania, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria, with WA and NT from July 2026; time-limited to 31 December 2028; $6.4 million funding to 2027-28", "Evaluation of the Single Employer Model, early report, November 2025" ] }, "fund-the-standard-you-require": { "id": "fund-the-standard-you-require", "name": "If the rebuild must meet a higher standard, the gap is the household's", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "nsw-disaster-recovery:planning" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "idea", "summary": "A destroyed house is rebuilt against current controls \u2014 revised flood levels, bushfire attack requirements, new setbacks \u2014 often revised because of the event that destroyed it. That is correct policy. The insurance settlement was written against the old standard, and the difference is the household's.", "precedent": "Category C and D assistance already exists for exceptional circumstances, and resilience funding already exists through the Disaster Ready Fund. The instruments for funding betterment exist; what is missing is a routine link between a raised standard and the cost of meeting it.", "rationale": "When a house is destroyed and rebuilt, it is assessed against the controls in\nforce **now** \u2014 flood planning levels, bushfire attack level requirements,\nsetbacks and construction standards. Those controls have frequently been revised\nin response to the same class of event that destroyed the house.\n\nThat is correct policy and this entry does not argue against it. Rebuilding a\nhouse to a standard that has just been demonstrated inadequate is how the next\ndisaster becomes as expensive as this one.\n\n**The problem is who pays for it.** The insurance settlement is calculated to\nreinstate what was there, against the standard it was built to. The rebuild must\nmeet the standard required now. The difference \u2014 which for bushfire attack level\nupgrades or a raised floor level can be substantial \u2014 falls on the household, at\nthe moment they are least able to carry it.\n\nSo the state raises the standard, the state is right to raise the standard, and\nthe household funds the improvement.\n\nThe predictable results are the ones you would expect: rebuilds delayed while\nmoney is found, rebuilds scaled down, households who take a cash settlement and\nleave, and land that is not rebuilt on at all. None of those generate a record in\nany disaster recovery statistic, because a household that does not rebuild simply\nstops appearing.\n\n**The idea.** Where a rebuild is required to meet a standard higher than the one\nthe destroyed building met, and that standard was raised in response to disaster\nrisk, the incremental cost should be treated as a public resilience investment\nrather than a private cost \u2014 funded through the existing betterment and\nresilience arrangements rather than left in the gap between a settlement and a\nconsent.\n\n**Filed as an idea.** The fiscal scale is unknown to this project, the interaction\nwith insurance pricing is genuinely complex, and the design question \u2014 how to fund\nbetterment without subsidising rebuilding in places that should be retreated from\n\u2014 is the hard part and is not one a process database can answer.\n", "risk": "**Funding the gap can subsidise rebuilding where nobody should rebuild.** The\nhonest answer for some sites is managed retreat, and a scheme that pays the\ndifference between the old standard and the new one makes staying cheaper than\nleaving. That is the opposite of what a resilience investment should buy, and it\nis the central design difficulty rather than an edge case.\n\n**It weakens the insurance signal.** Premiums in high-risk areas are high because\nthe risk is high, and that signal \u2014 however painful \u2014 carries information about\nwhere building is wise. A public top-up muffles it, and moves risk from insurers\nwho price it to taxpayers who do not.\n\n**Betterment is easy to announce and hard to bound.** \"The incremental cost of a\nraised standard\" is a category with no natural edge: a raised floor level, a\ndifferent roof, a defendable space, a whole different siting. Without tight\ndefinition it becomes a general rebuilding subsidy, and with tight definition it\nwill exclude the cases people care most about.\n\n**And this database cannot see the population it is about.** A household that\ntakes a cash settlement and leaves, or that cannot close the gap and does not\nrebuild, generates no application and appears in no queue. The same invisibility\nrecorded for [[count-the-turn-aways|legal assistance turn-aways]] and for\n[[embedded-network-parity|households that never claim an energy rebate]] applies\nhere, and it means the size of this problem is genuinely unknown.\n", "sources": [ "NEMA, Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements: Categories C and D provide additional relief in exceptional circumstances", "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW): development assessed against controls in force at the time of application", "Independent Review of Commonwealth Disaster Funding (Colvin Review), October 2024" ] }, "gp-registrar-conditions-in-a-binding-instrument": { "id": "gp-registrar-conditions-in-a-binding-instrument", "name": "Employment terms for a Commonwealth-funded training program, set by two membership organisations", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-gp-training-pathway:employment" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "idea", "summary": "GP registrar pay and conditions are set by the NTCER \u2014 an agreement negotiated between the registrars' association and the supervisors' association. It is not an award, not an enterprise agreement, and not made by government. The hospital job the same doctor is choosing between is governed by a state award.", "precedent": "The aged care work value case shows the alternative: a contested Fair Work Commission proceeding producing an award variation that binds every employer, does not expire, and required nobody to opt in. It took five years and nine months.", "rationale": "This is the most structurally unusual arrangement in the database.\n\nThe **National Terms and Conditions for the Employment of Registrars** sets pay\nand conditions for GP registrars. It is negotiated between General Practice\nRegistrars Australia and GP Supervision Australia \u2014 the registrars' and the\nsupervisors' representative bodies. It is not an award. It is not an enterprise\nagreement. It is not made by government.\n\nSo for a training program the Commonwealth funds, in a workforce it has declared\na national priority, employment conditions are set by an agreement between two\nmembership organisations \u2014 while the hospital training the same doctor is choosing\nbetween is governed by a state award with the full apparatus of industrial law\nbehind it.\n\n**And the choice between those two is the binding constraint on the whole\npipeline.** Government's own stated aim is to make GP training conditions similar\nto hospital-based programs, which is an admission that they are not. The\n[[au-gp-training-pathway|process map]] puts the decision point before the\napplication, not after it: places do not fill because doctors choose otherwise at\nthe moment they would have to leave hospital employment.\n\nThe 2026.1 revision did real work \u2014 a base rate increase in line with MBS\nindexation, flexible administration time in the later terms, unpaid cultural\nleave \u2014 and from Semester 1 2026 registrars can access up to five days of paid\nstudy leave through a **Commonwealth payment framework**. That last one is the\ntell: the Commonwealth is patching a condition it does not set, in an instrument\nit is not party to.\n\n**The idea** is that conditions for a Commonwealth-funded training program should\nsit in an instrument that binds \u2014 an award, a multi-employer agreement, or\nconditions attached to the training funding itself \u2014 rather than in a negotiated\nagreement between two associations supplemented by incentive payments.\n\nThis database has now recorded **three different instruments** used to fix pay\nand conditions in Commonwealth-funded care work: an\n[[au-aged-care-wage-case|award variation]] in aged care, a\n[[pay-the-wage-through-the-funding-rate|conditional grant]] in childcare, and a\nprivate agreement plus payments here. Aged care's took five years and nine months\nand is permanent. The other two are faster and reversible.\n", "risk": "**The NTCER exists because the parties built it, and replacing it is not\ncostless.** It is negotiated by people who understand general practice training,\nrevised regularly, and has produced changes \u2014 including in 2026 \u2014 that an award\nprocess would have taken far longer to deliver. Its flexibility is the reason it\nadapts, and an award is the opposite of flexible by design.\n\n**GP practices are small businesses, not health services.** An award or\nmulti-employer instrument binding thousands of independent practices is a\nsubstantially harder proposition than varying a modern award covering large\nemployers, and the cost of compliance would fall on practices whose economics are\nalready being reshaped by the [[au-bulk-billing-practice|bulk billing\nincentive]]. Some would stop taking registrars, which reduces training capacity \u2014\nthe opposite of the objective.\n\n**Attaching conditions to training funding makes the Commonwealth an industrial\nactor by the back door.** That may be effective, it is a significant policy step,\nand it invites the same treatment in every other federally funded training\nprogram.\n\n**And the honest read of the aged care comparison cuts both ways.** The award\nroute delivered a durable result and took nearly six years. A doctor deciding\nbetween hospital and general practice in 2026 will have made that decision long\nbefore any award process concluded. The [[fund-the-fix-not-the-places|Single\nEmployer Model]] is the faster instrument and this proposal should not be allowed\nto crowd it out.\n", "sources": [ "National Terms and Conditions for the Employment of Registrars, version 2026.1, negotiated between General Practice Registrars Australia and GP Supervision Australia", "NTCER 2026 changes: base rate increase in line with MBS indexation, flexible administration time for GPT3 and GPT4, unpaid cultural leave", "Up to 5 days or 38 hours pro-rata paid study leave from Semester 1 2026 through the Services Australia National Consistent Payment framework", "Joint advocacy by General Practice Registrars Australia and GP Supervision Australia on pay and entitlements for GP registrars" ] }, "haff-settle-the-rules-before-opening-the-round": { "id": "haff-settle-the-rules-before-opening-the-round", "name": "Settle the governance before opening the funding round, not two years after", "type": "resequence", "targets": [ "au-haff-project:round", "au-haff-project:assessment" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Housing Australia Future Fund applications opened in January 2024. Treasury did not finalise most delivery and oversight arrangements until May 2026. This is the counter-case to almost everything else on this site: a step that happened too early.", "precedent": "Gateway assurance frameworks for major capital programs require the delivery framework to be settled before market approach. The principle is established elsewhere in Commonwealth practice; it was not applied here.", "rationale": "This database spends most of its time arguing that steps should start earlier or\nrun concurrently. It is worth publishing the case that runs the other way,\nbecause a method that only ever produces one answer is not a method.\n\nThe Auditor-General reported on the Housing Australia Future Fund in July 2026.\nApplications opened in **January 2024**. Treasury did not finalise most\ngovernance and oversight arrangements until **May 2026**. The ANAO found the\ndelay limited Treasury's ability to systematically monitor and manage program\nrisks and performance over time. The Minister accepted all recommendations.\n\nTwenty-eight months of a $10 billion program's applications assessed and\ncontracted before the framework for assessing and contracting them was settled.\n\n**Why this is the counter-case.** Concurrency is this site's most frequent\nrecommendation, and its limit is here: some steps genuinely are prerequisites,\nand knowing how you will govern a program is one of them. Opening a competitive\nround before the rules are settled is exactly the error that this project's usual\nadvice would produce if applied without judgement \u2014 parallelise the governance\nwork with the delivery work, get on with it, do not let process hold up housing.\n\nThe result was not faster housing. As at May 2026, 1,432 homes of the 40,000\ntarget had been delivered, and the program lacked the monitoring that would have\nshown that sooner.\n\n**The test worth adopting**, and it is the same test this site applies to\n`parallelise` proposals in reverse: a step can run concurrently with its\nsuccessor when its output does not determine how the successor is performed.\nGovernance arrangements determine how assessment is performed. They cannot run\nalongside it.\n\n**Days saved: zero, and deliberately so.** This proposal makes a program slower\nat the front in exchange for it being governable. That is the trade, stated\nplainly.\n\n**Who acts:** Treasury and Finance, in the design of future funds.\n", "risk": "**\"Settle the governance first\" is the oldest excuse in government for not\nstarting.** Every program has an official who would prefer another six months of\nframework design, and this proposal hands them a citation. The housing need was\nand is urgent; a version of this that delays a future fund by two years while\narrangements are perfected has done more damage than the thing it fixes.\n\n**Hindsight makes the sequencing look more obvious than it was.** The fund was\nstood up quickly under real political and housing pressure, and much of the delay\nin finalising arrangements involved negotiation with states and providers that\ncould not have been concluded in the abstract. Some governance genuinely cannot\nbe settled before contact with the market.\n\n**The 4 per cent figure is not caused by this.** Under 4 per cent of the target\ndelivered by May 2026 is mostly lead time \u2014 site acquisition, planning consent,\nconstruction \u2014 not governance. Attributing delivery failure to the ANAO's finding\nwould be misreading both. The finding is about the ability to *see* the program,\nnot about the speed of it, and this site should not inflate it into the latter.\n\n**And a note on what this entry is for.** It is here as a corrective. Readers\narriving from the [[transmission-concurrent-easement|Victorian easement reform]]\nor [[aged-care-onboard-during-the-queue|the aged care sequencing proposal]]\nshould read this one too, and ask of every `parallelise` proposal on this site\nwhether the earlier step's output determines how the later one is done. Where it\ndoes, the answer is no.\n", "sources": [ "ANAO performance audit of the Housing Australia Future Fund, July 2026", "Reported delivery of 1,432 homes against a 40,000 target as at May 2026" ] }, "hsr-single-environmental-assessment": { "id": "hsr-single-environmental-assessment", "name": "One environmental impact statement for high speed rail, not two", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-high-speed-rail-approvals:eis_cth", "au-high-speed-rail-approvals:comment_cth", "au-high-speed-rail-approvals:cth_assessment" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A Commonwealth agency building a Commonwealth priority prepares two environmental impact assessments of the same railway, runs two public comment periods with the affected communities, and waits on two decisions. On the database's own numbers this costs almost no calendar time \u2014 which is a more interesting finding than if it did.", "precedent": "New South Wales holds an existing assessment bilateral agreement with the Commonwealth. The mechanism to run one assessment serving both decisions is available now, and South Australia signed a new-generation agreement on 18 February 2026.", "rationale": "The [[au-high-speed-rail-approvals|high speed rail approvals process]] models\nboth tracks in full. The result is not what this project expected, and it is\npublished because it is not.\n\nCritical path: 2,700 days. Serial total: 3,190 days. **Addressable waits\n(`scheduling` plus `queue`): zero.** The entire Commonwealth track --\ndocumentation, public comment, recommendation report, approval -- sits *off* the\ncritical path, because the NSW track is longer and the two run concurrently.\n\nSo the honest headline is: the federal duplication on this project probably\ncosts very little elapsed time. This site publishes that even though it cuts\nagainst the reform, because a database that only produces findings its authors\nwanted is not a database.\n\nThe case for merging is therefore not a schedule case. It rests on three things\nthe critical path cannot see:\n\n1. **Cost.** Two assessments of a 194 km corridor is a substantial duplicated\n consultancy spend on a project already costed at $61.2 billion for its first\n two stages, funded by the same taxpayer twice.\n2. **Consultation burden on communities.** Two public comment periods, on two\n documents, about the same railway, addressed to the same residents along the\n same corridor. Consultation fatigue is a real cost and it falls on exactly\n the people consultation is supposed to serve. The second round is unlikely to\n surface much the first did not.\n3. **Fragility.** A parallel track only stays free if it stays parallel. The\n Commonwealth clock stops whenever further information is requested, and the\n department's timeliness has ranged from 19 to 87 per cent of statutory\n timeframes on the ANAO record. The moment the Commonwealth track slips past\n the state track it becomes the critical path, and nobody will have planned\n for it. Concurrency that depends on one queue never getting longer than\n another is not a design, it is a coincidence.\n\nThere is also a plain accountability point. The Commonwealth cannot credibly ask\nstates to accept accredited single assessment while running a duplicate\nassessment of its own agency's project.\n", "risk": "**The measured saving is zero and this proposal says so.** Anyone using it to\nclaim high speed rail is being delayed by federal green tape is misusing this\nsite. The dominant durations in that process are development phase engineering,\nseasonal field investigation and corridor acquisition -- none of which any\napproval reform touches.\n\n**Merging removes a genuine second look.** Two assessments are, at the margin,\ntwo chances to notice something. That is a real protection, and the answer that\nthe second look is largely a re-reading of the first document is an assertion\nthis site cannot yet prove.\n\n**A single assessment concentrates the consultation.** Communities along the\ncorridor currently get two opportunities to be heard, on two documents. Some\npeople will use the second because they missed the first. Consolidation is a\nconvenience for the proponent and a narrowing for the objector, and the fact\nthat the objector is fatigued by the current arrangement does not mean they\nwould prefer to lose the round.\n\n**And the risk specific to this project:** the largest single lever on the\nNewcastle-Sydney timeline is corridor protection, which sits with New South\nWales and not with the Commonwealth. Attention spent on federal assessment\nduplication is attention not spent there.\n", "sources": [ "Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), Part 5", "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), Division 5.2", "Infrastructure Australia, Stage 3 Evaluation Report, High Speed Rail Sydney-Newcastle, November 2025" ] }, "id-before-the-gate": { "id": "id-before-the-gate", "name": "Sort out identity before release, not in the seven days after it", "type": "resequence", "targets": [ "nsw-prison-release:identity", "nsw-prison-release:crisis_payment" ], "days_saved_est": 45, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A person leaving custody has seven days to claim a crisis payment and must produce photo ID in person to do it. Custody is the circumstance most likely to have destroyed their documents. The state held them for months and had every one of those months to fix it.", "precedent": "The pre-release claim mechanism already exists and already works this way \u2014 a claim lodged before release, an appointment arranged inside, identity authenticated in custody. The reform is to make what is currently conditional and optional into the default.", "rationale": "The [[nsw-prison-release|reentry process]] models at 135 days to re-establish\nincome, identity, health care and a housing application. The binding step is\nidentity, at 45 days of `third_party` time waiting on registries and banks \u2014 and\nthat figure is a placeholder for something that ranges from an afternoon to\nnever.\n\nThe structure is a catch-22 and it is well known. Proving identity requires\ndocuments; replacing any one document generally requires another; and custody is\nthe circumstance most likely to have scattered all of them. A licence expires. A\nbirth certificate stays at an address the person no longer has. A bank card is\ncancelled. A Medicare card lapses.\n\nOn top of that, an acceptable photo identity document must be produced **in\nperson** at a service centre \u2014 by someone who may have no transport, no fixed\naddress and no phone credit \u2014 against a **seven day** deadline for the crisis\npayment where no pre-release interview took place.\n\n**The mechanism to avoid all of this already exists.** A\n[[services-australia|pre-release claim]] can be lodged where the release date is\nknown and no more than 21 days away, a pre-release appointment can be arranged,\nand identity can be authenticated. Where that happens, the person walks out with\na claim already in the system.\n\nIt is conditional and it is optional, and this database's recurring finding is\nthat optional reaches the people who least needed it. The conditions fail\nprecisely for unplanned and remand releases \u2014 the population with the least\nsupport and the highest risk of immediate homelessness.\n\n**The proposal.** Treat identity restoration as a standard part of release\nplanning rather than a post-release task: document retrieval and replacement\nbegun during the sentence, a pre-release appointment as the default rather than\nan option, and a route to authenticate identity that does not require attending\na service centre in the first week.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth and the states together \u2014 Services Australia holds\nthe identity requirement, [[nsw-corrective-services|corrections]] holds the\nperson, the release date and their property.\n", "risk": "**Identity verification exists to stop fraud, and this population is not a good\nplace to relax it.** Identity fraud against the social security system is real,\nand someone leaving custody may have both motive and, through networks formed\ninside, means. The in-person photo ID requirement is not bureaucratic caution; it\nis the control. Any version of this must move *when and where* identity is\nestablished, not *whether* \u2014 and a proposal that ends up as \"accept weaker\nevidence for people leaving prison\" would be a bad reform and an easy one to\ndrift into.\n\n**It requires two governments to coordinate on a population neither owns.**\nCorrections has the person and no obligation to Services Australia's processes;\nServices Australia has the requirement and no access inside. This database has\nrecorded repeatedly that the gap between two tiers is where people fall, and this\nproposal asks the two tiers to build a bridge over a group with almost no\npolitical constituency.\n\n**It does nothing for unplanned releases, which is where the need is greatest.**\nDocument retrieval begun during a sentence helps people serving sentences. A\nperson released from remand on the day of a court appearance has had no sentence\nto do it during. The honest version of this reform helps the planned-release\npopulation substantially and the remand population barely, and the remand\npopulation is large.\n\n**And 45 days is our estimate.** Nobody publishes how long identity restoration\ntakes after release, how many people miss the seven day crisis payment window, or\nhow many leave custody without a pre-release claim. Those three numbers would\nsize this reform properly and none of them exists.\n", "sources": [ "Services Australia, Prison Pre-release Claim form SU674: release date known and no more than 21 days away, agreement to a pre-release appointment, and authentication established", "Services Australia, Crisis Payment for release from prison or psychiatric confinement: at least 14 days in custody; claim within 7 days of release where there was no pre-release interview", "Services Australia: an acceptable photo identity document must be provided in person before a claim can be submitted" ] }, "img-fix-the-steps-after-registration": { "id": "img-fix-the-steps-after-registration", "name": "Fix the steps after registration, not the registration step", "type": "parallelise", "targets": [ "au-specialist-img:visa", "au-specialist-img:provider_number", "au-specialist-img:credentialing" ], "days_saved_est": 120, "status": "proposal", "summary": "The Expedited Specialist pathway reformed the one step in this chain that is not on the critical path. On the database's own numbers, two thirds of the elapsed time for an overseas specialist is queueing at Home Affairs and Medicare, and none of it is anyone assessing their competence.", "precedent": "The pathway itself is the precedent: health ministers have already accepted that a specialist from a comparable system can be cleared on the strength of that system's assessment rather than a fresh Australian one. The argument here is only that the same logic should be applied to the steps on either side of it.", "rationale": "This is the most important finding in this database and it was produced by the\nmachine, not by an opinion.\n\nThe [[au-specialist-img|overseas specialist process]] runs 266 days on the\ncritical path. That path is: assemble documents, obtain a visa, obtain a\nMedicare provider number, start. The wait profile of the whole process is 162\ndays of `queue` and 90 days of `third_party` against **zero days of\n`assessment`**.\n\nRead that again, because it is counter-intuitive. The steps where Australia\ndecides whether this doctor is safe to treat Australians -- college assessment\nand specialist registration -- are **not on the critical path at all**. They\nrun concurrently with the visa and finish first. Every day of elapsed time in\nthis process is either waiting for documents from overseas institutions, or\nsitting in a processing queue at a Commonwealth department.\n\nThe Expedited Specialist pathway, opened 21 October 2024 and extended to two\nfurther specialties on 19 January 2026, is a genuine reform of a real problem\nand this project supports it. But it reformed the registration step. On this\nmodel, doing so moves the completion date by nothing, because registration was\nnever the binding constraint.\n\nThe three steps that are binding:\n\n1. **Visa.** No statutory clock at all. Elapsed time is set by a ministerial\n direction ranking applications, and Direction 119, in force from 25 July\n 2026, ranks onshore applicants ahead of offshore ones in the same category.\n A specialist recruited from overseas is, definitionally, offshore.\n2. **Medicare provider number.** Six weeks minimum, published. It asks whether\n the practice location is in a Distribution Priority Area -- a question\n answered from a dataset the department publishes -- and it runs *after* the\n visa and registration are granted rather than alongside them.\n3. **Credentialing.** A committee meeting on a cycle, re-verifying evidence that\n Ahpra has already verified at source.\n\nNone of these is an assessment of clinical competence. All three could begin\nbefore their current predecessors finish. That is the whole proposal.\n\n**Which bodies would have to act:** the Commonwealth alone for the first two\n([[home-affairs]] by ministerial direction, [[health-au]] by administrative\nchange), and health ministers collectively for the third. No legislation is\nrequired for the visa queue position. That makes this the cheapest reform in\nthis database relative to its effect.\n", "risk": "The honest risks are three, and the second is serious.\n\n**The estimates are ours.** Every duration on the critical path here is\n`estimate` grade. If college assessment or registration in fact takes far longer\nthan 180 and 60 days, they return to the critical path and the argument weakens.\nThe finding is robust to a lot of movement -- registration would have to more\nthan quadruple -- but it is not robust to everything, and it should be checked\nbefore it is quoted. This is exactly what the\n[verification backlog](/verification/) is for.\n\n**Processing priority is zero-sum.** Moving offshore health recruits up the\nvisa queue moves someone else down. Direction 119 was written deliberately, and\nthe case for prioritising onshore applicants -- people already contributing,\nalready in the country, often already working -- is not stupid. This proposal\nasks for health and construction recruits offshore to be treated as a priority\ncategory; it does not pretend that is free, and anyone advocating it should name\nwho waits longer.\n\n**Section 19AB is policy, not paperwork, and this must not be used to smuggle in\nits repeal.** The ten year restriction and the Distribution Priority Area\nclassification exist to get doctors into places that cannot otherwise attract\nthem. Rural and remote communities depend on that instrument, and rural doctor\norganisations defend it for good reasons. This proposal changes *when the check\nruns*, not *whether it binds*: the same rule, applied to the same doctor, with\nthe same result, determined in parallel rather than at the end. If a version of\nthis reform weakens the geographic requirement itself, it is a different\nproposal and it should be argued for on its own terms, against people who will\nhave strong and legitimate objections.\n", "sources": [ "Independent Review of Overseas Health Practitioner Regulatory Settings (Kruk review), final report December 2023", "Ahpra, 'Expedited Specialist pathway now open to two new specialties', 29 January 2026", "Department of Home Affairs, published skilled visa processing priorities; Ministerial Direction 119 in force 25 July 2026", "Services Australia, published guidance advising a minimum of six weeks for provider number applications", "Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth), s 19AB" ] }, "inland-rail-the-approval-was-not-the-obstacle": { "id": "inland-rail-the-approval-was-not-the-obstacle", "name": "The independent review blamed the proponent's own documents, not the regulator", "type": "resequence", "targets": [ "au-rolling-stock-approval:design_acceptance" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "idea", "summary": "Inland Rail went from $16.4 billion to over $45 billion and 2036. A red tape database would expect to find environmental approvals at the centre of that. The Schott review found immature design and poor environmental impact statements requiring resubmission.", "precedent": "None required \u2014 this entry argues against a reform rather than for one. It is here because the project's own method would have reached the wrong answer.", "rationale": "**This entry exists to be wrong about something on purpose.**\n\nInland Rail is the largest freight rail project in the country and the most\ndelayed. The cost estimate moved from **$16.4 billion in 2020** to at least\n**$31.4 billion in 2022**, and independent cost assurance by ACIL Allen has since\nconfirmed an estimate **exceeding $45 billion** for Melbourne to Brisbane \u2014 more\nthan three times the budget allocation \u2014 with delivery not possible **until at\nleast 2036**. In May 2026 the Australian Government consolidated the project to\n**Beveridge to Parkes by the end of 2027**, with works north of Parkes reduced to\npreserving the corridor and protecting future intermodal terminal sites.\n\nA database about procedural friction, handed those numbers, has an obvious\nhypothesis: environmental approvals. The Queensland sections have been in\nassessment for years. **Border to Gowrie** was still on a *revised* draft\nenvironmental impact statement out for public consultation in mid-2025, with the\nproponent seeking approval of the revised draft, a revised reference design and\nfurther supporting information from the Coordinator-General and the Commonwealth.\nThe Coordinator-General has retained two former review panel members and a\ngeomorphologist to provide continuing assurance. On any procedural reading, that\nis where the time went.\n\n**Dr Kerry Schott's independent review says the cause was upstream.** It found the\nlengthy delays were caused *in large part* by **immature design and poor\nenvironmental impact statements** that needed, particularly in Queensland,\nnumerous changes and resubmissions. The review also found very little certainty\non the actual cost to deliver, attributing the escalation to delays and immature\npreliminary designs.\n\n**The distinction is the whole point.** An assessment process that takes years\nbecause the proponent lodged three times is not a slow assessment process. It is\na resequencing failure \u2014 design maturity that belonged before the lodgement\narriving after it, with an assessment cycle burned on each iteration.\n\nThis site has recorded the same shape twice before and reached the same\nconclusion: [[au-high-speed-rail-approvals|the federal environmental assessment\nfor high speed rail is not on the critical path]], and the Housing Delivery\nAuthority pathway modelled *longer* than the council pathway it was meant to\nreplace. Three linear infrastructure cases, three times the approval was not the\nbinding constraint.\n\n**What follows, if anything.** Not a change to the assessment law. Something much\nduller: a **design maturity gate before an environmental impact statement may be\nlodged**, so that a resubmission is a failure to reach the gate rather than a\nconsumed assessment cycle. Filed as an idea, because gates of this kind are\neasily gamed by proponents under schedule pressure \u2014 which is exactly the\npressure Inland Rail was under.\n", "risk": "**A maturity gate is another approval.** This site should say that plainly. The\nproposal adds a step to a process this project would normally want shortened, on\nthe theory that it prevents three iterations of a longer one. If the gate becomes\na queue of its own, the reform has made things worse, and it is not obvious in\nadvance which way it goes.\n\n**Schott is one review and reviews serve a purpose.** An independent review\ncommissioned by a government that has inherited a cost blowout has an audience,\nand \"the previous delivery agency's documents were immature\" is a comfortable\nfinding for that audience. This entry takes the review at its word because it is\nthe most authoritative source available and because the Border to Gowrie\nresubmission history is consistent with it \u2014 not because independent reviews are\nneutral instruments.\n\n**Approvals were still slow, and this entry can be over-read.** Saying approvals\nwere not the *primary* cause is not saying they were fast, or that a coordinated\nproject assessment running from the late 2010s into 2026 is a good outcome. Both\nthings can be true: the proponent's documents were the larger cause, and the\nassessment was also slower than it should have been.\n\n**And the consolidation decision is not vindication of anything.** Completing\nBeveridge to Parkes by 2027 and preserving corridor north of it is a decision to\nbuild the part that can be built. Whether the Melbourne-to-Brisbane freight\nproposition survives without the Queensland sections is a question about the\nbusiness case, not about process, and outside what this database can assess.\n", "sources": [ "Schott review, The Delivery of Inland Rail: An Independent Review (released 6 April 2023): lengthy delays caused in large part by immature design and poor environmental impact statements needing numerous changes and resubmissions, particularly in Queensland", "Schott review: cost increased from $16.4 billion in 2020 to at least $31.4 billion in 2022, with very little certainty on actual cost, due to delays and immature preliminary designs", "ACIL Allen independent cost assurance: the cost estimate exceeds $45 billion for the full Melbourne to Brisbane project, more than three times the current budget allocation; the project cannot be delivered until at least 2036", "Australian Government decision (May 2026): consolidate Inland Rail by completing construction between Beveridge and Parkes by the end of 2027, with works north of Parkes focused on corridor preservation and intermodal terminal site protection", "Queensland Coordinator-General, Inland Rail Border to Gowrie: revised draft EIS and revised reference design on public consultation in mid-2025; proponent seeking approval of the revised draft EIS, revised reference design and further supporting information; two former panel members and a geomorphologist engaged for continuing assurance" ] }, "legal-aid-means-test-gap": { "id": "legal-aid-means-test-gap", "name": "Too well off for legal aid, too poor for a lawyer", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "nsw-legal-aid-access:means_test" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "idea", "summary": "The legal aid means test is set well below the point at which a person can afford representation. The population between those two lines has no service designed for it, and the community sector that catches them turns away more than a thousand people a day.", "precedent": "The Mundy review of the National Legal Assistance Partnership made 39 recommendations on unmet need and priority client groups, and the successor National Access to Justice Partnership commits $3.9 billion over five years from 1 July 2025. The architecture for addressing this exists; the means test itself was not what it moved.", "rationale": "A grant of legal aid requires passing three separate tests \u2014 means, merits, and\nwhether the matter is one the commission funds at all. The means test is the one\nthat defines the system's population, and it is set well below the point at which\na person can afford a private lawyer.\n\nBetween those two lines sits a group with an actionable legal problem, no\nentitlement to aid, and no capacity to pay. There is no service designed for\nthem.\n\n**What catches them instead**, imperfectly, is the community sector \u2014 and the\nnumbers there describe the size of the gap better than any means test threshold\ncould. [[community-legal-centre|Community legal centres]] turn away **more than\n1,000 people a day**, including about 400 victim-survivors of family violence. In\nVictoria the reported figure is **two thirds of everyone who asks**. Up to\n70 per cent of the people who do get through have an income under **$32,000 a\nyear** \u2014 and these are the people who reached a service *after* legal aid said no.\n\n**Filed as an idea, deliberately.** Where the means test should sit is a funding\nquestion wearing a threshold's clothes. Widening it without more money simply\nmoves the refusal: more people qualify, the same money is available, and the\nrationing reappears as a queue or as a narrower merits test. The Law Council puts\nthe national shortfall at **$500 million a year**, and no adjustment to a\nthreshold produces that.\n\nWhat this database can contribute is the observation that **the gap is invisible\nin the data**. A person refused on means generates a refusal. A person who never\napplies because they know they will fail generates nothing. And a person turned\naway by a community legal centre joins no list at all. See\n[[count-the-turn-aways]].\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth and the states jointly, through the funding\npartnership \u2014 the means test is set by state commissions against what they can\nafford to fund.\n", "risk": "**Widening the means test without more funding makes things worse, not better.**\nA commission with a fixed budget and a wider eligible population must ration\nsomewhere else: harder merits tests, narrower matter types, shorter grants, or\nlonger waits. The refusal moves rather than disappears, and it moves to a place\nwhere it is less visible and less appealable. Anyone advocating this without the\nfunding attached is advocating a worse system.\n\n**The merits test is arguably the bigger constraint and is harder to defend\ntouching.** Legal aid is public money and funding matters with no reasonable\nprospects would waste it. But merits assessment also systematically disfavours\nnovel claims, unrepresented applicants who present their case badly, and areas\nof law where the outcome is uncertain \u2014 which includes much of family violence\nand tenancy. That is a real problem and it is not one a means test change\nreaches.\n\n**Private practitioners are the delivery mechanism and the rates are the\nconstraint.** A large share of legal aid work is done by private lawyers on\nassigned matters, at rates well below commercial. Expanding eligibility without\naddressing rates expands entitlement to a service that fewer practitioners will\nsupply \u2014 the same \"an entitlement is not a service\" pattern this database\nrecorded for [[au-ndis-access|NDIS plans]], [[au-child-dental-benefit|dental\nbenefits]] and [[au-better-access|psychology rebates]].\n\n**And this entry saves zero days and should not be read as a process finding.**\nThe [[nsw-legal-aid-access|legal assistance process]] has the shortest critical\npath of any scheme-access process in this database, because refusal is quick. The\nproblem is not delay.\n", "sources": [ "Legal aid grants assessed against means, merits and jurisdictional tests", "Community Legal Centres Australia: more than 1,000 people turned away daily, including about 400 victim-survivors", "Federation of Community Legal Centres: two-thirds of Victorians seeking help are turned away", "Up to 70 per cent of community legal centre clients have an income of less than $32,000 per year", "Law Council of Australia: national legal assistance funding shortfall of $500 million per year", "Attorney-General's Department, National Access to Justice Partnership 2025-30: $3.9 billion over five years" ] }, "lvp-the-twelve-week-window": { "id": "lvp-the-twelve-week-window", "name": "A twelve-week window and a twelve-month exclusion, for something that is rarely a single event", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "nsw-family-violence-support:lvp_payment" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "idea", "summary": "The Leaving Violence Program requires that a person left within the previous 12 weeks, or has a plan to leave soon, and has not accessed the payment in the previous 12 months. Leaving is frequently not one event, and the period of highest danger is around separation.", "precedent": "The program already accommodates non-linearity in one direction: a person who has not yet left qualifies if they have a safe, secure plan to leave soon. The design already accepts that the moment of leaving is not always the right trigger.", "rationale": "The Leaving Violence Program became permanent from 1 July 2025, funded at\n$925 million, paying up to $5,000 with risk assessment, safety planning and\nreferrals. It is a substantial and well-intentioned program and this entry is\nabout two rules inside it, not about the program.\n\n**The twelve-week window.** A person qualifies if they left the perpetrator or\nthe shared residence within the previous 12 weeks, or have a safe and secure plan\nto leave soon.\n\n**The twelve-month exclusion.** A person cannot access the payment if they have\nreceived it in the previous 12 months.\n\nBoth are administratively necessary. A payment with no temporal connection to\nleaving would be impossible to assess, and an unlimited payment would be\nimpossible to fund.\n\nBoth also sit against what is known about the pattern of leaving. People\nfrequently leave and return, sometimes several times, and it is well established\nthat the period around separation is when risk is highest. A rule built around a\nsingle datable departure fits some people's experience and not others'.\n\nThe specific consequence: a person who leaves, returns, and leaves again more\nthan twelve months later is eligible again \u2014 but a person who leaves, returns,\nand leaves again within twelve months, which is the more dangerous pattern, is\nnot. The exclusion is tightest where the risk is greatest.\n\n**Filed as an idea rather than a proposal**, and deliberately. This project can\nsee the shape of the rule and cannot see what should replace it. Whether a longer\nwindow, a wider re-access provision, or a discretion exercised by the assessing\nservice would work better is a question for family violence practitioners and for\nthe program's own evaluation data \u2014 neither of which this database has.\n\nWhat it can do is record that the rule exists, that it is a threshold, and that\nthresholds in this database consistently bind hardest on the people furthest from\nthe assumed case.\n", "risk": "**Loosening these rules costs money and the program is finite.** $925 million is\na real commitment and a wider re-access provision spends it faster, on a smaller\nnumber of people, potentially leaving less for first-time applicants. Without the\nprogram's own data on how often re-application is sought and refused, a proposal\nto widen it is a proposal to redistribute a fixed pool with no idea in whose\nfavour.\n\n**Repeat payments can be captured.** A payment made to a person who returns to a\nrelationship can end up controlled by the perpetrator \u2014 this is a recognised\ndynamic in financial abuse, and it is part of why the payment is structured as\ncash plus goods and services rather than as a lump sum. A rule that makes repeat\naccess easier makes that capture easier too, and the people best placed to judge\nthat trade are the caseworkers doing risk assessment, not a process database.\n\n**Discretion has its own failure mode.** Replacing a bright line with a\ncaseworker judgement produces inconsistency, and inconsistency in a payment this\nconsequential is its own harm. The current rules are blunt and they are at least\npredictable.\n\n**And a caution about what this entry is.** It identifies a threshold. It does not\nestablish that the threshold is set wrongly, because the evidence that would\nestablish that \u2014 how many people are refused on these grounds, and what happens to\nthem \u2014 is not published. That should be the first ask, ahead of any change to the\nrule.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Social Services, Leaving Violence Program: permanent from 1 July 2025, $925 million; applicant must have left within 12 weeks or have a safe, secure plan to leave soon; must not have accessed the payment in the previous 12 months", "Leaving Violence Program: up to $5,000 in financial support with referral, risk assessment and safety planning" ] }, "maintenance-is-capital-deferred": { "id": "maintenance-is-capital-deferred", "name": "The saving is booked this year and the bill arrives in a decade, on someone else's budget", "type": "resequence", "targets": [ "nsw-social-housing-repair:capital", "nsw-social-housing-repair:repair" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "More than 30 per cent of NSW social housing stock did not meet the minimum condition standard in 2023 \u2014 four working facilities and no more than two major structural problems. A $1 billion program to fix 30,000 homes is that bill arriving.", "precedent": "Asset management plans with funded lifecycle maintenance are standard practice in state road, rail and health infrastructure. Social housing is the outlier, not the model, and the same government does it properly elsewhere.", "rationale": "This database mostly records time. This entry records a different kind of\nsequencing error \u2014 one where the order of *spending* determines the cost.\n\n**Maintenance is operating expenditure.** It competes annually against every other\ncall on a state budget, is easy to defer without an immediate visible\nconsequence, and produces no ribbon to cut.\n\n**Replacement is capital.** It arrives when a dwelling can no longer be\neconomically repaired.\n\nDeferring the first creates the second, at several times the cost. And the\naccounting hides it: the saving is booked in the year it is made, and the cost\nlands a decade later, on a different budget line, under a different minister.\nNobody is ever recorded as having made the trade.\n\n**What that looks like in the data.** In 2023, **more than 30 per cent** of stock\ndid not meet the acceptable dwelling condition standard \u2014 a floor of four working\nfacilities and not more than two major structural problems, not a quality\nbenchmark. Homes NSW received **24,592 urgent maintenance requests** in a single\nyear. A **$1 billion Repair and Restore** program is fixing **30,000 homes**.\n\nA billion-dollar catch-up program is not evidence of a government neglecting\nhousing; it is evidence of the accumulated arithmetic finally being paid. The\nquestion is whether the same cycle restarts.\n\n**The proposal.** Fund social housing maintenance against a published asset\nmanagement plan with a lifecycle basis \u2014 planned and cyclical maintenance\nbudgeted as a function of stock age and condition, reported against, and\nprotected from being the easiest annual saving in the portfolio. Publish the\ncondition standard result each year, as the 30 per cent figure was published, so\nthat deferral has a visible consequence in the year it happens rather than a\ndecade later.\n\n**And the operational reforms should be recorded as good.** The maintenance call\ncentre was returned in-house, requests were consolidated into a single Maintenance\nHub, and new contracts commenced on 1 July 2024. Reducing the number of\norganisations a tenant must deal with, without removing any of the work, is the\nright kind of simplification.\n\n**Who acts:** the state, as owner of the asset.\n", "risk": "**Ring-fencing maintenance means ring-fencing money from something else.** A\nprotected maintenance line in a housing budget competes with building new\ndwellings, and with 67,316 households on the register there is a real argument\nthat a dollar builds more welfare as a new home than as a repaired bathroom. That\nis a genuine trade and this proposal takes one side of it.\n\n**Lifecycle funding assumes the stock is worth keeping.** Some of the portfolio is\npoorly located, wrong-sized for current household composition, or expensive to\nrun. Committing to maintain everything on a lifecycle basis can lock in dwellings\nthat should be redeveloped, and asset renewal decisions are exactly what a\nmaintenance-first policy defers.\n\n**Published condition data will be used against the agency, not for it.** A\ngovernment that publishes a 30 per cent failure rate hands its critics a number.\nThe 30 per cent figure exists because someone published it; the incentive after\nthat is to publish less, or to redefine the standard. This site's answer is the\nsame as everywhere: publish anyway \u2014 and it should acknowledge that the answer\ngets harder each time it is given.\n\n**And the days saved figure is zero and honest.** The\n[[nsw-social-housing-repair|repair process]] models at 63 days with 92 per cent\naddressable, and that is a real finding about queue and scheduling in the repair\nchain. But this reform is not about those 63 days. It is about a decade.\n", "sources": [ "In 2023 over 30 per cent of DCJ social housing stock did not meet the acceptable dwelling condition standard: at least four working facilities and not more than two major structural problems", "Homes NSW received 24,592 urgent maintenance requests in 2023-24", "$1 billion Repair and Restore maintenance program to fix 30,000 public homes; new maintenance contracts from 1 July 2024; single Maintenance Hub with the call centre returned in-house", "NSW Department of Communities and Justice: 67,316 households on the NSW Housing Register at 31 December 2025" ] }, "median-down-queue-up": { "id": "median-down-queue-up", "name": "The median wait fell and the queue grew. Both are true.", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "au-residential-aged-care-entry:commence", "au-aged-care-access:assignment" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "The median wait for a Support at Home package fell from 344 days to 297. In the same period the number of people waiting rose from 100,191 to 106,977. A system can get faster per person and further behind in aggregate, and only one of those numbers makes headlines.", "precedent": "The department is already doing most of this. The inaugural Aged Care Act 2024 Wait Times Report, published 12 May 2026, publishes medians and averages together \u2014 which is better practice than almost any other dataset in this database. What is missing is the stock reported beside the flow, in the same place.", "rationale": "**This entry starts by giving credit, because the department has earned it.**\n\nThe Aged Care Act 2024 Wait Times Report, published for the first time on\n**12 May 2026**, publishes both the **median and the average** wait. For ongoing\nresidential aged care those are **167 days and 396 days**. For the June 2026\nquarter, 138 days and 356.\n\nThat gap is the most informative thing in the report. A median of six months and\nan average of thirteen means a long tail: half of people are through in under six\nmonths, and a substantial minority wait far longer and pull the average to more\nthan twice the median.\n\nThis database has spent a lot of pages criticising published statistics \u2014 the\n[[nsw-social-housing-access|social housing median computed only over people who\nwere housed]], the [[au-ndis-access|NDIS clock that starts once an application is\ndeemed complete]], [[au-skilled-visa-sponsored|visa medians hiding a fifty-fourfold\ntail]]. **Publishing the median and the mean together is the correct answer to all\nof them.** It makes the tail visible rather than hiding it.\n\n**What is still missing is the stock beside the flow.**\n\n- The median wait for an ongoing Support at Home package **fell** from 344 days\n to **297 days**.\n- The number of people waiting for one **rose** from 100,191 to **106,977** in\n three months.\n- Applications awaiting a triage decision **fell** from 65,576 at 31 December\n 2025 to 48,592 at 31 March 2026.\n\nTwo of those are improvement and one is not, and they are not contradictory. A\nsystem can process people faster while receiving them faster still. The median\ndescribes the experience of people who got through; the stock describes whether\nthe system is keeping up. Report either alone and you can tell any story you\nlike.\n\n**The proposal.** Publish, in the same report and on the same page: median wait,\naverage wait, number waiting at period end, and arrivals against completions for\nthe period. That last pair is the run rate \u2014 the same thing this site asks for in\n[[remote-housing-publish-the-run-rate|remote housing]] \u2014 and it is the difference\nbetween a queue that is shrinking and one that is not.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth, in a report it has just started publishing.\n", "risk": "**Adding numbers does not make a report clearer, and this one is already dense.**\nMedian, mean, stock, arrivals, completions, by service type, by quarter, is a lot\nto put in front of a family deciding whether to apply for their mother. There is a\nreal risk of a report that is complete and unread, and the audience for these\nfigures is not only analysts.\n\n**A growing stock is not automatically bad.** More people waiting can mean more\npeople applying, which can mean the system is reaching people it previously\nmissed \u2014 which is what the 3 Day Guarantee did in childcare and what better\nawareness does everywhere. Reporting the stock without the context of demand\ngrowth would invite the conclusion that a program is failing when it is being\ndiscovered.\n\n**Run-rate reporting creates pressure on the wrong variable.** A department\nmeasured on clearing a queue can clear it by assessing faster and approving\nless, or by triaging more people out at the front. The 17,000 fall in triage\nbacklog is almost certainly genuine improvement; a metric that rewards it would\nalso reward the version that is not.\n\n**And this project should be honest that the data moved under it.** The\n[[au-aged-care-access|home care process]] on this site was built against a\npublished 347 day median and models at 349. The newer figure is 297. The model\nhas not been rebuilt, and the older number is still on that page with its source\nattached. That is what a database with `estimate`-grade durations looks like when\nbetter data arrives, and the right response is to say so rather than quietly\nrestate.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, inaugural Aged Care Act 2024 Wait Times Report, published 12 May 2026, covering commencements 1 November 2025 to 31 March 2026", "Ongoing residential aged care: average 396 days against a median of 167 days; June 2026 quarter median 138 days and average 356 days", "Median wait for an ongoing Support at Home package falling from 344 days to 297 days; number waiting rising from 100,191 to 106,977 as at 30 June", "Applications awaiting a triage decision falling from 65,576 at 31 December 2025 to 48,592 at 31 March 2026" ] }, "medicare-in-prison": { "id": "medicare-in-prison", "name": "Exempt prison health services from the Medicare exclusion", "type": "remove", "targets": [ "nsw-prison-release:medicare", "au-telehealth-consult:relationship" ], "days_saved_est": 60, "status": "idea", "summary": "Section 19(2) of the Health Insurance Act keeps people in custody outside Medicare and the PBS. It was written to prevent double-dipping between governments. Its effect on prisons is that continuity of care breaks at both ends, for the population that uses health care most.", "precedent": "Targeted exemptions from s 19(2) already exist for defined services and settings, so the mechanism for carving out a class of provider is established. The reform argued for in the clinical literature is an exemption for prison health services, not repeal of the subsection.", "rationale": "**Section 19(2) of the Health Insurance Act 1973** prevents a Medicare benefit\nbeing paid for a service rendered by, on behalf of, or under arrangement with a\nState. Its purpose is to stop the Commonwealth paying twice for something a state\nalready funds, and in most settings that is exactly what it does.\n\nApplied to custody, it means people in prison are outside Medicare and outside\nthe PBS. Their care is delivered by a [[nsw-justice-health|state prison health\nservice]], from a state budget, on separate records.\n\nThree consequences, and the third is what a process database can see.\n\n**The excluded population is the one that uses health care most.** Rates of\nmental illness, blood-borne virus, chronic disease and substance dependence in\ncustody are far above the general population.\n\n**Continuity breaks at both ends.** Entering custody, a person leaves the\nMedicare system: prescriptions, referrals and specialist waiting list positions\ndo not travel. Leaving, they re-enter it with no current Medicare relationship,\nno regular prescriber, and records that do not follow.\n\n**And the exit is abrupt.** On the [[nsw-prison-release|day of release]],\nmedication supply, prescriber and funding source all change at once \u2014 for someone\nwho is simultaneously trying to prove their identity and claim a payment within\nseven days. The [[au-telehealth-consult|telehealth relationship requirement]]\ncompounds it: a rebated telehealth consultation requires a face-to-face visit\nwith a practice in the previous 12 months, which a person who has been in custody\nfor two years does not have.\n\n**Why this is filed as an idea, not a proposal.** The fiscal and federal\nquestions are the whole substance and they are outside what this database can\nadjudicate. An exemption shifts cost from state corrections budgets to the\nCommonwealth, which is precisely what s 19(2) exists to prevent, and there is no\nprincipled line that admits prison health and excludes every other\nstate-delivered service. Whether that line can be drawn is a question for people\nwho understand health financing, not process mapping.\n\nWhat this project can say is narrower: the **continuity break is real, it is\ncaused by an administrative boundary rather than a clinical one, and it lands on\nthe day a person is least able to absorb it.**\n", "risk": "**This is a cost shift dressed as a continuity reform, and that must be said\nfirst.** An exemption moves prison health spending from state budgets to the\nCommonwealth. States would welcome it for that reason, which is not evidence that\nit is good policy. The subsection exists because the alternative \u2014 Commonwealth\nbenefits flowing for services a state has already funded \u2014 is a genuine problem,\nand any exemption invites the next class of service to argue for its own.\n\n**It may not improve care at all.** Making MBS and PBS available in custody does\nnot by itself produce more clinicians willing to work in prisons, which is the\nactual constraint on prison health capacity. A funding change that does not\nchange supply changes who pays and nothing else \u2014 this database has recorded the\nsame pattern in [[nsw-aged-care-home|aged care capital]] and\n[[au-haff-project|social housing]].\n\n**Prison health services are not simply GP clinics behind a wall.** They operate\nunder custodial security constraints, with involuntary patients, in a setting\nwhere the therapeutic relationship is complicated by the fact that the same state\ndetains and treats. Fee-for-service Medicare funding is designed around a\ndifferent model, and grafting it on may not fit.\n\n**And the population has no constituency.** That is a reason this has been argued\nin the literature since at least 2018 without moving, and a reason to be honest\nthat recording it here changes nothing. This entry is filed as an idea because\nthis project can identify the boundary and cannot cost crossing it.\n", "sources": [ "Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth), s 19(2): Medicare benefit not payable for a service rendered by, on behalf of, or under arrangement with a State", "Published academic argument for exempting prison health services from s 19(2) so that MBS and PBS funded services are available to eligible people in custody", "Department of Health, AskMBS advisory on eligible telehealth practitioner requirements" ] }, "mental-health-plan-as-a-gate": { "id": "mental-health-plan-as-a-gate", "name": "A person in distress must first obtain a different appointment to be allowed to pay for the one they need", "type": "remove", "targets": [ "au-better-access:plan", "au-better-access:review" ], "days_saved_est": 42, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Better Access requires a GP Mental Health Treatment Plan before any rebated psychology session, and a return visit for review before the later sessions. Eighty-one days elapse before a first session. The same government runs walk-in centres that require none of it.", "precedent": "Medicare Mental Health Centres, funded by the same department, provide free assessment and brief intervention with no appointment, no referral and no plan. The Commonwealth already operates a no-gate model in the same portfolio.", "rationale": "On the [[au-better-access|Better Access process]], the elapsed time before a\nfirst session is about **81 days**: a GP appointment, the preparation of a Mental\nHealth Treatment Plan, and finding a psychologist with capacity. A review\nappointment with the GP is then required before the later sessions can be\nclaimed.\n\n**The plan has a genuine clinical purpose** and this proposal should not be read\nas denying it. It puts a general practitioner in the loop, creates a record, and\nconnects psychological therapy to the rest of a person's care rather than leaving\nit to run in isolation. Continuity of care is a real value and the GP is a\nreasonable place to anchor it.\n\nProcedurally, though, what it requires is that a person in distress **first\nobtain, wait for and usually pay for a different appointment with a different\nclinician** in order to be permitted to pay for the one they came for. And then\ndo it again at session six.\n\nThe comparison that makes this hard to defend is not with another country. It is\nwith the [[au-medicare-mental-health-centre|Medicare Mental Health Centre]] \u2014 same\ndepartment, same portfolio, same year \u2014 where a person walks in with no\nappointment, no referral, no plan and no fee.\n\nTwo Commonwealth programs, built on opposite assumptions about how much a person\nshould have to do before being seen.\n\n**The proposal.** Allow direct referral to a psychologist without a Mental Health\nTreatment Plan for an initial course of sessions, with the plan required only\nwhere treatment continues beyond that course \u2014 and replace the mandatory review\nappointment with a written report from the psychologist to the GP. The\ncontinuity purpose is preserved; the person stops being the courier between two\nclinicians.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone, through the Medicare Benefits Schedule.\n", "risk": "**Removing the GP from the front of the pathway removes the differential\ndiagnosis.** Low mood can be thyroid disease, anaemia, medication side effects,\nor the early presentation of something else entirely. A GP assessment before\npsychological therapy is not only administrative gatekeeping; it is the point at\nwhich a physical cause is considered. A person who receives twelve weeks of\ntherapy for a condition that was organic has been harmed by an efficiency.\n\n**The plan is also a rationing device, and removing it will increase demand\nagainst a workforce that is already the binding constraint.** The\n[[au-better-access|process map]] shows the longest step is finding a psychologist\nwith capacity, at reported waits of six to sixteen weeks for a bulk-billed\nappointment. Removing the gate does not create psychologists; it lengthens the\nqueue behind the gate that remains, and the people who lose in a longer queue are\nthose who cannot pay a gap.\n\n**GPs would lose visibility and income.** Mental health treatment planning is a\nsubstantial part of general practice work and revenue. Removing it has a real\neffect on practice viability at a moment when practice economics are already being\nreshaped by the [[au-bulk-billing-practice|bulk billing incentive]] \u2014 and a\nweaker general practice is bad for everything else in this database's health\nprocesses.\n\n**And the 42 day estimate is soft.** It assumes the GP appointment and review are\navoidable time rather than clinically useful time, which is the contested\nproposition. Better Access has been formally evaluated and this project has not\nread that evaluation into the database; anyone acting on this entry should start\nthere rather than here.\n", "sources": [ "Better Access: up to 10 individual and 10 group sessions per calendar year, requiring a referral or plan from a GP, psychiatrist or paediatrician", "2026 Medicare rebates of $141.85 per session for a clinical psychologist and $96.65 for a registered psychologist; reported bulk-billed psychology waits of 6 to 16 weeks", "Department of Health, Disability and Ageing: Medicare Mental Health Centres are free walk-in services with no appointment needed" ] }, "merge-sponsorship-and-nomination": { "id": "merge-sponsorship-and-nomination", "name": "One application about one job, not three", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-skilled-visa-sponsored:sponsorship", "au-skilled-visa-sponsored:nomination", "au-skilled-visa-sponsored:visa" ], "days_saved_est": 40, "status": "idea", "summary": "Sponsorship, nomination and visa are three separate applications, with three separate fees and three separate queues, examining one employer, one position and one worker. Two of the three are frequently decided by the same officer on the same day.", "precedent": "The visa and nomination can already be lodged concurrently, and for accredited sponsors much of the sponsorship examination is already streamlined. The structure permits partial merging today; it simply has not been done.", "rationale": "An employer sponsoring one worker makes three applications:\n\n- **Sponsorship** \u2014 is this a lawfully operating Australian business fit to\n sponsor? Attaches to the business, lasts years, reusable.\n- **Nomination** \u2014 is this a genuine position, correctly paid, properly tested\n against the local labour market?\n- **Visa** \u2014 is this person who they say they are, do they hold the skills, are\n they of good character and health?\n\nThese are genuinely three different questions and this proposal does not pretend\notherwise. Merging them wholesale would be a bad idea: the sponsorship answer is\nreusable across many nominations and re-examining it every time would add work,\nnot remove it.\n\nThe narrower case is between nomination and visa. They are lodged concurrently in\npractice, they concern the same job and the same person, and much of the evidence\noverlaps. Each carries its own queue position, so the file waits twice.\n\nThe strongest form of this proposal is therefore not a merger of all three but:\n\n1. **A single lodgement covering nomination and visa**, decided together, with\n one queue position instead of two.\n2. **Sponsorship remaining separate and reusable**, because it is the one part\n already designed to be banked \u2014 the same property that makes\n [[skills-assessing-authority|skills assessment]] such a well-designed step.\n\n**Filed as an idea, not a proposal**, and the reason is honest: this database\ncannot see how much of the elapsed time is genuinely sequential queueing and how\nmuch is already concurrent in practice. The published percentiles suggest the\nmedian case moves very fast \u2014 five days for a nomination \u2014 which implies the\nmerge would save little for the applicants who are already fine, and that the\nreal prize is the tail addressed by\n[[publish-and-close-the-rfi-loop]] rather than the structure addressed here.\n\nA reform that helps only the cases that are already fast is not worth the\ndisruption of rewriting a migration framework.\n", "risk": "**Merging decisions that protect different people.** Nomination protects the\nAustralian labour market \u2014 is this a real job at a real wage that was genuinely\noffered locally first. The visa protects the community \u2014 character, health,\nidentity. Combining them creates pressure to trade one against the other, and the\npredictable direction is that a strong applicant carries a weak nomination\nthrough. Those two questions being asked separately is not duplication; it is the\npoint.\n\n**It weakens the sponsor obligation framework.** Sponsorship approval is what\nhangs sponsor obligations on a business \u2014 record-keeping, equivalent terms,\nnon-recovery of costs. Blurring the boundary between approving a sponsor and\napproving a specific worker makes the enforcement of those obligations harder,\nand sponsor obligations are the main protection migrant workers have against\nexploitation. Migrant worker exploitation in Australia is well documented and any\nreform in this area has to answer to it directly.\n\n**The saving is small and may be near zero.** Forty days against a 171 day\nmodelled median, on a step whose median is already five days. This site's own\nanalysis suggests the structure is not where the time is. That is a reason to\nleave it filed as an idea, and a reason to be suspicious of anyone advocating it\nloudly \u2014 the constituency for simplifying employer sponsorship is employers, and\nthe constituency for keeping the questions separate is the workers the separate\nquestions exist to protect.\n", "sources": [ "Migration Act 1958 (Cth); Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)", "Department of Home Affairs, published processing times, August 2026" ] }, "ndis-evidence-reuse": { "id": "ndis-evidence-reuse", "name": "Stop making people prove a permanent disability repeatedly", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-ndis-access:evidence", "au-ndis-access:completeness" ], "days_saved_est": 90, "status": "proposal", "summary": "The longest applicant-side step in NDIS access is obtaining specialist reports, paid for privately before any funding exists, written to a functional-impact framing clinicians do not ordinarily use. For permanent and unchanging conditions, much of it is re-proving what is already established.", "precedent": "The scheme already recognises List A conditions, where disability requirements are taken to be met without further functional assessment. The proposal is that the boundary of that approach be drawn where the clinical evidence supports it rather than where it currently sits.", "rationale": "On the [[au-ndis-access|NDIS access process]], the evidence-gathering step is\n120 days \u2014 the longest applicant-side duration in the process \u2014 and it happens\nbefore any funding exists.\n\nThree things make it expensive out of proportion to what it establishes.\n\n**It is paid for privately, by the person seeking support.** Specialist\nappointments, functional assessments and reports are incurred by someone who by\ndefinition has a significant disability and, very often, a constrained income.\n\n**It is written in the wrong language and then rejected for it.** The scheme asks\nabout functional impact across specified domains. Clinicians write diagnostically,\nbecause that is what medicine is for. A report that establishes the condition\nbeyond doubt but does not address function in the scheme's terms is a reason to\ntreat the request as incomplete \u2014 which, as the process map records, stops the\nstatutory clock before it starts.\n\n**For many conditions it re-establishes something permanent.** A person with a\ncongenital, degenerative or otherwise unchanging condition supplies fresh\nevidence of it at access, and again at reassessment. The condition has not\nchanged. What may have changed is function and support need, which is a narrower\nquestion requiring narrower evidence.\n\nThe proposal has two parts:\n\n1. **Widen the class of conditions for which disability requirements are taken as\n met** on diagnostic evidence alone, on clinical advice about which conditions\n are genuinely permanent and unvarying. The mechanism already exists; this is\n an argument about where its boundary sits, and it should be settled by\n clinicians rather than by a process database.\n2. **Publish the completeness criteria as a checklist a treating clinician can\n work from**, so that the report is written correctly the first time. Most of\n the 30 day completeness step in the model is a round trip that better-specified\n requirements would remove.\n\n**Who acts:** the NDIA and the Commonwealth, alone.\n\nThe connection to [[fix-the-first-decision]] is direct. Evidence that arrives\nincomplete produces decisions made on incomplete evidence, and a decision made on\nincomplete evidence is the kind most likely to be changed on review \u2014 which is\nwhere 64 per cent of contested NDIS matters ended up in 2025-26.\n", "risk": "**Diagnosis is not need, and the scheme is right about that.** The NDIS funds\nsupports that are reasonable and necessary given functional impact, not given a\ndiagnosis. Two people with the same condition can need very different support,\nand a shift toward diagnostic sufficiency risks reintroducing exactly the\ndiagnosis-driven allocation the scheme was designed to replace. Widening List A\ntoo far would be a significant change of principle dressed as an administrative\nsimplification, and it should not be done quietly.\n\n**It is being proposed during a contraction, and that matters.** The scheme is\nunder an 8 per cent growth target and the 2024 amendments tightened access and\nsupport definitions. In that environment, any change to evidence requirements\nwill be assessed by government for its effect on scheme cost, and a reform that\nwidens access is unlikely to be adopted on efficiency grounds alone. Advocates\nshould expect this to be argued as a cost measure rather than a process one, and\nshould be ready for that argument rather than surprised by it.\n\n**Reducing evidence at entry can increase disputes later.** A thinner evidence\nbase at access means a thinner record at plan reassessment, and the participant\nmay find themselves assembling it anyway, later, with less time and under more\npressure. The saving may be a deferral.\n\n**And the caution this site owes its own numbers.** Every duration in that\nprocess except the 21 day access decision and the 28 day plan step is our\nestimate. The 120 days for evidence gathering is inferred from reported\nend-to-end experience of two to four months for straightforward cases, not\nmeasured. Nobody publishes how long applicants spend gathering evidence, or how\noften requests are treated as incomplete and why. Those two numbers would settle\nmost of this argument and neither exists.\n", "sources": [ "National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth); NDIS Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)", "NDIA published access requirements, including List A conditions and the Participant Service Guarantee", "Administrative Review Tribunal: 64 per cent of NDIS cases resulted in a changed outcome in 2025-26" ] }, "nineteen-ab-parallel-processing": { "id": "nineteen-ab-parallel-processing", "name": "Determine section 19AB and provider number eligibility before registration completes", "type": "parallelise", "targets": [ "au-specialist-img:provider_number" ], "days_saved_est": 42, "status": "proposal", "summary": "The Medicare provider number check asks where a doctor will practise, against a dataset the department already publishes. It runs last, after every other approval, on the critical path, immediately before the doctor could otherwise start seeing patients.", "precedent": "Provisional and conditional determinations made ahead of a triggering event are ordinary administrative practice \u2014 tax rulings, planning concurrences and building certification all issue determinations conditional on facts confirmed later.", "rationale": "This is a narrow, unglamorous proposal and it is the most clearly correct one on\nthis site.\n\nThe step asks two questions. Is this doctor subject to the ten year restriction\nunder section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act? And is the practice address in a\nDistribution Priority Area?\n\nThe first is answered from the date of first registration and the date of\npermanent residency -- both known years in advance. The second is answered from\na classification the [[health-au|department publishes]] as a dataset. Neither\nquestion requires the visa to have been granted, and neither requires the\nregistration decision to have been made.\n\nYet the step sits at the end of the chain, takes a published minimum of six\nweeks, and lands at the exact moment a health service has a specialist in the\ncountry who cannot yet be paid for by Medicare.\n\nThe fix is a conditional eligibility determination issued on application, valid\nsubject to the practitioner in fact obtaining registration and a visa and\npractising at the nominated address. If any of those facts changes, the\ndetermination lapses and is redone. The department is not being asked to lower\na bar. It is being asked to answer the question it is already answering, on the\nday it could first be answered, instead of on the last day it could be answered.\n\nThis is the shape of reform this database is built to find: no protection moves,\nno discretion is transferred, no standard falls. Only the position of the step\nin the sequence changes.\n", "risk": "The trade is small but not nil.\n\n**Wasted work.** A conditional determination that lapses because the recruit\nwithdrew, or moved to a different practice, is work done twice. In a system\nprocessing thousands of applications, some share of that effort is\nunrecoverable. The department would need resourcing for the double handling, and\na reform announced without it produces a slower service, not a faster one --\nthis site has recorded that pattern in\n[[early-subdivision-check|another domain]] and it recurs.\n\n**Gaming the address.** Conditional determination on a nominated address creates\nan incentive to nominate a compliant address and then move. That risk already\nexists and is managed through compliance rather than sequencing, but a\ndetermination issued earlier gives more time for circumstances to change before\nit is relied on.\n\n**It does not help the largest queue.** Forty-two days against a 266 day\ncritical path. Worth doing, cheap to do, and not on its own an answer -- the\nvisa queue is three times larger. This proposal should not be allowed to stand\nin for [[img-fix-the-steps-after-registration]].\n", "sources": [ "Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth), s 19AB", "Services Australia, published guidance on restrictions and exemptions for international medical graduates" ] }, "ninety-days-means-a-year": { "id": "ninety-days-means-a-year", "name": "The Act says 90 days. The department says over 12 months. Both are correct.", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "au-port-container-terminal:sea_dumping" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Section 19 of the Sea Dumping Act requires the Minister to grant or refuse a permit within 90 days. The administering department advises that applications may take over 12 months depending on complexity. Nobody publishes the actual distribution.", "precedent": "Home Affairs publishes visa processing times at the 50th and 90th percentile, by visa subclass, updated monthly. It is the same problem \u2014 a statutory or service standard that does not describe reality \u2014 solved by publishing the reality alongside it.", "rationale": "**The sharpest gap between a legislated clock and a published expectation in this\ndatabase.**\n\nSection 19 of the *Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981* provides that\nthe Minister **must** grant or refuse to grant a permit **within 90 days** after\nthe application is made. The [[dcceew|department]] that administers it advises\napplicants that applications **may take over 12 months** to assess depending on\ncomplexity, and to plan well in advance of when the activity is proposed.\n\n**Neither statement is wrong.** The section itself provides for a longer period\nwhere the EPBC Act assessment provisions apply, and the clock in practice runs\nfrom a complete application. This site has recorded the same mechanism in\n[[au-rolling-stock-approval|rail accreditation]], where ONRSR's six months may be\nformally re-set, and throughout the\n[[au-high-speed-rail-approvals|environmental approvals]] work.\n\n**The problem is what a proponent is left with.** A dredging campaign is\nseasonally constrained, involves chartered vessels booked far ahead, and sits on\nthe critical path of a port project. The planner has a number in an Act that is\nfour times shorter than the department's own expectation, a qualitative warning\nabout complexity, and **no published distribution of actual outcomes at all**.\n\nThat is not a fast process or a slow process. It is an **unplannable** one, and\nunplannability has its own cost \u2014 contingency, sequencing decisions made on\nguesses, and campaigns scheduled to the pessimistic case.\n\n**What should change, and none of it requires amending the Act:**\n\n1. **Publish elapsed times for sea dumping permits** \u2014 median and 90th percentile,\n by permit type, distinguishing capital dredging from maintenance dredging, and\n distinguishing time on the department from time waiting on the applicant.\n2. **Publish stop-the-clock events.** If the 90 days is routinely extended by the\n EPBC interaction or by requests for further information, say how often and for\n how long. A statutory period that is nearly always extended should be visible\n as such.\n3. **Then consider whether 90 days is the right number.** A statutory timeframe\n that is met by extension rather than by performance is not doing the work a\n statutory timeframe is for. It may be that the honest figure is longer \u2014 and a\n realistic published clock is worth more to a proponent than an aspirational\n one.\n\n**Zero days saved, and that is the point.** This is the ninth proposal on this site\nthat saves no time and makes something visible, and the pattern has held every\ntime: the domains where delivery improved are the domains where somebody first\npublished a number.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth, on its own data, without legislation.\n", "risk": "**Publishing a long median invites the conclusion that the department is failing,\nwhen the cause may be applicants.** Sea dumping assessments involve sediment\ncharacterisation, contaminant testing and disposal-site modelling, and an\nincomplete application genuinely cannot be assessed. If the published figure is\nnot split between departmental time and applicant time it will be misread \u2014 which\nis why recommendation 1 asks for the split, and why the split is the hard part to\nproduce honestly.\n\n**Small numbers make percentiles unstable.** Capital dredging permits for major\nport projects are rare events, perhaps a handful a year. A 90th percentile drawn\nfrom six applications is not a statistic, and publishing it with false precision\nwould be worse than publishing nothing. Maintenance permits are more numerous and\nmore amenable to this treatment, which argues for starting there.\n\n**A realistic statutory clock can become a target that is met by refusing.** If the\nperiod is extended to match reality and then enforced, the safe way to comply is\nto refuse incomplete applications rather than work with proponents to complete\nthem. Every statutory-clock proposal on this site carries that risk, and the\nanswer is the same each time: the clock must attach to a defined *complete*\napplication, or it produces worse decisions faster.\n\n**And this entry may be aiming at the wrong target entirely.** The\n[[au-port-container-terminal|container terminal process]] models at 540 days with\nthe sea dumping permit **not on the critical path** \u2014 state planning is longer,\nand the real constraint at Newcastle is\n[[the-obstacle-was-a-contract-not-a-permit|a contract]]. This is a genuine finding\nabout an unplannable timeframe. It is not a finding about why Australian ports do\nnot expand.\n", "sources": [ "Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (Cth), s 19: the Minister must grant or refuse to grant the permit within 90 days after the application is made; a longer period applies where Subdivision A of Division 4 of Part 11 of the EPBC Act applies", "DCCEEW: sea dumping applications may take over 12 months to be assessed depending on their complexity; applicants should plan well in advance of when the activity is proposed to be undertaken", "Port of Newcastle 10-year maintenance sea dumping permit renewed September 2022, running to 31 July 2032", "Port of Brisbane Channel Enhancement Project: dredging could start in 2028 and would require a Commonwealth sea dumping permit if material is placed outside internal state waters" ] }, "occupation-lists-people-can-plan-against": { "id": "occupation-lists-people-can-plan-against", "name": "The list is republished every year, and the person waiting finds out afterwards", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-points-tested-migration:list_change", "au-points-tested-migration:state_nomination" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "idea", "summary": "Occupation lists are republished each program year. A person who paid for a skills assessment against an occupation, lodged, and is waiting for an invitation can find their occupation has moved \u2014 with no decision made about them and no notification that anything changed.", "precedent": "Grandfathering arrangements are ordinary in migration law: applicants are routinely assessed against criteria in force at the time of lodgement rather than at the time of decision. The principle exists; it is not applied to occupation list movement between expression of interest and invitation.", "rationale": "A person entering the [[au-points-tested-migration|points-tested pathway]] makes\na sequence of irreversible investments against a single fact: that their\noccupation is on a list.\n\nThey pay for a **skills assessment** against that occupation. They sit an\n**English test**. They lodge an expression of interest. Then they wait \u2014 629 days\non this model, and for many, indefinitely.\n\n**Meanwhile the list is republished every program year**, and occupations move\nbetween lists. Planning levels move too: Skilled Independent rose from 16,900 to\n21,090 places for 2026-27, in a program of 185,000. And under\n[[nsw-state-nomination|state nomination]] there are nine further lists, each set\nindependently, each republished, allocating 35,500 places.\n\nSo the criteria a person is competing against can change while they are\ncompeting, without any decision being made about them, and without notification.\nThe investment is sunk against a fact that is no longer true.\n\n**Why the usual answer does not work here.** Grandfathering \u2014 assessing people\nagainst the rules in force when they lodged \u2014 is standard in migration law and is\nthe obvious fix. It cannot simply be applied to occupation lists, because the\nwhole purpose of an annually revised list is to stop inviting people in\noccupations that are no longer short. A list that grandfathers indefinitely stops\nbeing a shortage list.\n\n**So the idea is narrower**, and it is about notice rather than entitlement:\n\n1. **Tell people when a change affects them.** The department knows which\n expressions of interest name an occupation that has moved.\n2. **Publish list changes with lead time** before the program year, so a person\n deciding whether to pay for a skills assessment can see what is coming.\n3. **Where an occupation is removed, say what happens to existing expressions of\n interest** \u2014 lapse, remain but uninvited, or be considered under transitional\n arrangements. At present the answer is not obvious to the person affected.\n\n**Filed as an idea.** Whether occupations should be grandfathered at all is a\nmigration policy question about the purpose of a shortage list, and this project\nhas no standing on it. What it can say is that the current arrangement puts the\ncost of an unannounced change on the person least able to see it coming.\n", "risk": "**Notice periods reduce the responsiveness the lists exist for.** An occupation\nlist is meant to track labour market shortage. Committing to publish changes well\nin advance means running a list that is knowingly out of date for the notice\nperiod, and inviting people in occupations already identified as no longer short.\nThe tension is real and it is not resolvable by better administration.\n\n**Advance notice creates a rush.** Publishing that an occupation will be removed\nin six months guarantees a surge of expressions of interest before the deadline \u2014\nfrom exactly the people the removal was intended to stop inviting. The\nannouncement becomes a signal to act rather than a warning to plan.\n\n**Grandfathering, if it crept in, would be expensive and long-lived.** Points-\ntested queues are years deep. A grandfathering rule creates a cohort competing\nunder superseded criteria for as long as their expressions of interest survive,\nand every subsequent list change would have to be administered against multiple\ngenerations of rules.\n\n**And this proposal helps people plan to fail as much as to succeed.** Better\nnotice mostly tells people to stop \u2014 that their occupation has moved, that their\nscore will not reach the cut-off, that the investment they have made will not pay\noff. That is genuinely valuable information and it is not a benefit anyone\ncampaigns for, which is probably why nobody has built it.\n", "sources": [ "Occupation lists republished each program year; an occupation eligible in one year may move between lists", "2026-27 Migration Program planning levels: 185,000 total, 132,240 skilled; Skilled Independent rising from 16,900 to 21,090 places; state and territory nominated 35,500", "Department of Home Affairs SkillSelect: an expression of interest is not a visa application" ] }, "one-register-eight-clearances": { "id": "one-register-eight-clearances", "name": "The register went national in eighteen months. The clearance has taken eleven years.", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-ecec-worker-clearance:second_state", "au-ecec-worker-clearance:wwcc_assessment" ], "days_saved_est": 42, "status": "proposal", "summary": "From 27 February 2026 there is one national register of early childhood workers. There are still eight working with children checks, each under its own Act. National consistency was recommended by the Royal Commission in 2015.", "precedent": "The National Early Childhood Worker Register itself, delivered by the same ministers for the same children on the same timescale as the crisis that prompted it. Also the National Domestic Violence Order Scheme, where an order made anywhere has been automatically recognised everywhere since 25 November 2017.", "rationale": "Two reforms, same sector, same purpose, same decade.\n\n**The register.** Education Ministers asked [[acecqa|ACECQA]] to build a national\nview of who is working in early childhood and where. It went live with mandated\nuse on **27 February 2026**, inside an IT system the sector already used,\npopulated from information providers were already required to hold.\n\n**The clearance.** National consistency of working with children checks was\nrecommended by the **Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual\nAbuse in 2015**, which stopped short of recommending a single centralised check.\nEleven years later the system is still **eight separate state and territory\nschemes**, each with its own laws, standards and processes, and a worker still\napplies in their own jurisdiction.\n\n**The gap this leaves is specific.** A regulator can now see that an educator is\nworking at a service in another state. What they cannot do is rely on that\neducator's clearance, because it was issued under a different Act against a\ndifferent list of disqualifying offences. The\n[[au-ecec-worker-clearance|second application]] takes about as long as the first\nand asks the same questions of the same criminal history.\n\n**And the harm the check exists to prevent is the harm that moves.** A person\nexcluded in one jurisdiction and unknown in the next is the exact failure mode.\nThat is why this is the most uncomfortable of the **ten** partial-national\ninstances recorded here, alongside [[nsw-worker-screening|NDIS worker\nscreening]], [[pharmacist-scope-recognised-nationally|pharmacist scope]] and\n[[rolling-stock-recognised-once|rolling stock]].\n\n**Progress is real and should be stated fairly.** The *Agreement to Deliver\nNational Working with Children Check Reform* was endorsed by the Standing Council\nof Attorneys-General in **November 2025**. By mid-2026 all jurisdictions had\nagreed:\n\n- a meaningfully consistent approach to **disqualifying offences**;\n- a framework and benchmarks for **risk assessments**;\n- the information types that must be shared **within** jurisdictions.\n\n**What is agreed only in principle is the information shared *across*\njurisdictions** \u2014 which is the whole of mutual recognition. And the national\ncriminal history checking capability is reported to be about three years away.\n\n**What should change.** Mutual recognition of a clearance, on the model already\nlegislated for occupational licences: a clearance issued in one jurisdiction is\nvalid in all, with the issuing unit retaining the assessment and every unit\nobliged to act on adverse information from any other. That requires the\ncross-jurisdiction information sharing that is currently agreed in principle, and\nnothing else.\n\n**Who acts:** attorneys-general, collectively, through the council that has\nalready agreed the substance.\n", "risk": "**A national clearance is not obviously safer than eight.** Mutual recognition\nmeans a jurisdiction accepting an assessment it did not make, against criteria it\ndid not set, by a unit it does not fund. If any one scheme is weaker, mutual\nrecognition exports that weakness to the other seven immediately \u2014 and the\nharmonisation of disqualifying offences and risk assessment benchmarks agreed in\n2026 exists precisely to stop that, which is an argument for sequencing, not for\nspeed.\n\n**The Royal Commission itself stopped short of a single centralised check.** That\nwas a deliberate judgement by a body with far more evidence than this database\nhas. Anyone arguing for national consolidation here should carry that, and this\nentry's proposal is deliberately mutual recognition rather than a single national\ncheck for exactly that reason.\n\n**Continuous monitoring is jurisdictional and does not travel automatically.** The\nvalue of a modern check is not the card; it is the unit re-checking the holder\nagainst new criminal history as it arises. A clearance recognised interstate is\nonly as good as the flow of adverse information back to the issuing unit \u2014 which\nis the capability that is three years away, and until it exists mutual recognition\nwould recognise a card whose monitoring stops at the border.\n\n**And the comparison in this entry's title is unfair in one respect.** The\nregister digitised information providers already held, under a national law that\nalready existed. Working with children checks are eight separate statutes creating\neight separate powers to exclude a person from employment, and unifying them is a\nharder legal act, not merely a slower one. The comparison still stands as a\nstatement about urgency \u2014 but the difficulty was never identical.\n", "sources": [ "ACECQA: the National Early Childhood Worker Register commenced national rollout with mandated use on 27 February 2026", "The working with children check system remains eight separate state and territory schemes, each with its own laws, standards and processes; a worker still applies in their own jurisdiction", "National consistency of working with children check systems was recommended by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2015; it stopped short of calling for one centralised check", "The Agreement to Deliver National Working with Children Check Reform was endorsed by SCAG in November 2025", "By mid-2026 all jurisdictions agreed a meaningfully consistent approach to disqualifying offences, a framework and benchmarks for risk assessments, and information types shared within jurisdictions, with agreement in principle to information shared across jurisdictions to support mutual recognition", "ABC News, 23 February 2026: three-year wait for a national criminal history checker" ] }, "one-standard-five-backstops": { "id": "one-standard-five-backstops", "name": "One inverter standard, one accreditation, one subsidy \u2014 and five emergency backstops across six years", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-rooftop-solar-connection:backstop" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "AEMO requires the capability to curtail rooftop solar during minimum-demand events. South Australia legislated it in September 2020, Queensland in February 2023, Victoria in October 2024, Western Australia in May 2026, and New South Wales is rolling it out by postcode through 2026.", "precedent": "Rooftop solar itself. The same domain already has one national installer accreditation, one national inverter standard and one national subsidy applied at the point of sale \u2014 the harmonisation problem was solved three times over in the same industry.", "rationale": "**The eleventh instance of the partial-national pattern, and the one where the\ncontrast is inside a single product.**\n\nBuying rooftop solar in Australia involves:\n\n- **one national subsidy**, applied by the installer at the point of sale through\n [[clean-energy-regulator|small-scale technology certificates]];\n- **one national installer accreditation**, from [[saa|Solar Accreditation\n Australia]], recognised in every state;\n- **one national inverter standard**, AS/NZS 4777.2.\n\nAnd then:\n\n| Jurisdiction | Emergency backstop | From |\n|---|---|---|\n| South Australia | Remote disconnection capability for all systems, under Smarter Homes | **September 2020** |\n| Queensland | Signalling device for inverters above 10 kW | **February 2023** |\n| Victoria | Systems 200 kW and under, plus legacy systems on inverter replacement | **1 October 2024** |\n| Western Australia | Western Power two-pathway export model | **1 May 2026** |\n| New South Wales | CSIP-AUS, progressively by LGA and postcode | **June 2026**, complete Oct-Dec 2026 |\n\n**Five regimes, five thresholds, five commencement dates spanning six years, for a\ncapability the Australian Energy Market Operator requires everywhere for the same\nphysical reason** \u2014 a grid that can be pushed below stable minimum demand on a\nmild sunny Sunday.\n\n**The requirement is not in dispute.** This site takes no position against\nemergency curtailment; it is a genuine system-security need and the alternative is\nworse. The finding is about the *manner* of arrival.\n\n**What the fragmentation costs:**\n\n- **Installers and manufacturers carry five compliance matrices** for one product\n sold nationally, with different obligations depending on the customer's postcode\n and, in New South Wales during 2026, on their **local government area**.\n- **The dates create arbitrage and confusion.** A system installed in Victoria in\n September 2024 is treated differently from one installed a month later, and a\n Queensland system under 10 kW differently from one above it.\n- **Consumers cannot be told a single national answer** to a simple question about\n what their own equipment does.\n\n**What should change.** A common national backstop specification \u2014 the technical\nstandard already exists in CSIP-AUS \u2014 adopted through the same mechanism that\nproduced AS/NZS 4777.2 and the national accreditation, with jurisdictions retaining\nthe decision about *when to invoke* curtailment rather than about *what the\nequipment must be able to do*.\n\n**Who acts:** energy ministers, collectively. And realistically, **not\nretrospectively** \u2014 four jurisdictions have already legislated and the installed\nbase is what it is. The prize is a common specification for everything installed\nfrom here.\n", "risk": "**This is largely a horse that has bolted, and the entry should say so.** Four\njurisdictions have legislated and the fifth is mid-rollout. Harmonising now cannot\nundo five separate compliance regimes for the millions of systems already\ninstalled, and the benefit accrues only to future installations \u2014 which is a much\nsmaller prize than the table above implies.\n\n**Sequential adoption had real advantages here.** South Australia moved first\nbecause South Australia hit the problem first, with the highest rooftop\npenetration and the smallest synchronous system in the country. It learned things\nthe others did not have to learn again. A national standard settled in 2020 would\nhave been South Australia's answer imposed on jurisdictions that did not yet have\nthe problem \u2014 and would probably have been worse than what CSIP-AUS became. This\nis the same objection recorded against\n[[pharmacist-scope-recognised-nationally|harmonising pharmacist scope]], and it\nhas more force here because the technology moved.\n\n**Minimum demand is genuinely a local problem.** Curtailment need depends on\nregional demand shape, interconnection, and the synchronous generation available\nin that region. A common *specification* is defensible; a common *trigger* is not,\nwhich is why the proposal above splits them \u2014 and drawing that line wrongly would\ncentralise a decision that should stay regional.\n\n**And rooftop solar is the strongest counter-example to this site's own\nharmonisation instinct.** Australia has the highest per-capita rooftop solar\nuptake in the world, achieved under exactly this arrangement: national where it\nmattered for cost, fragmented where it mattered for the grid. Whatever the five\nbackstops cost, they did not stop the most successful energy deployment in the\ncountry's history \u2014 and an entry arguing for tidier federalism should reckon with\nhaving chosen an example that mostly worked.\n", "sources": [ "The emergency backstop is a protection required by the Australian Energy Market Operator to manage grid stability when rooftop solar exports are very high and electricity demand is very low", "South Australia: under legislation passed in 2020, all solar systems installed after September 2020 must be capable of remote disconnection during a system security emergency, under Smarter Homes regulations", "Queensland: since February 2023, solar inverters larger than 10 kW must include a signalling device", "Victoria: from 1 October 2024 an emergency backstop applies to new rooftop solar systems of 200 kW or less and to legacy systems that have an inverter replaced after that date", "New South Wales: the Emergency Backstop Mechanism with CSIP-AUS is being introduced progressively by LGA and postcode from June 2026, with full rollout completing October to December 2026", "Western Australia: Western Power introduced a two-pathway export model on 1 May 2026", "Solar Accreditation Australia provides national accreditation of solar and battery installers as a condition of the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme" ] }, "panel-agenda-slack": { "id": "panel-agenda-slack", "name": "Determine panel matters on a rolling basis rather than a monthly agenda", "type": "resequence", "targets": [ "nsw-townhouses:decision" ], "days_saved_est": 21, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Where assessment is complete and no submissions are contested, allow determination without waiting for the next scheduled panel meeting.", "precedent": "Electronic determination between meetings is already used by some panels for uncontested matters; the question is how far it can be extended.", "rationale": "This is the cleanest example of the category the database was built to find.\n\nBy the time an application reaches [[nsw-townhouses|panel determination]], the\nassessment is finished. The officer has formed a view, the submissions have been\nconsidered, and the report is written. What happens next is not deliberation --\nit is waiting for a room to be booked.\n\nThe cost of that wait falls on a project carrying finance, and it is invisible\nin every statistic that measures \"assessment time\", because the assessment is\nover. It shows up only if you record *why* a step consumes days, which is\nprecisely what the `wait_type` field on every step in this database is for.\n", "risk": "There is a real trade-off here and it should not be minimised.\n\nPanels exist partly to put decisions in public. A matter determined\nelectronically between meetings is determined without anyone watching, and the\npeople who made submissions lose the chance to hear the reasoning given aloud.\nFor contested applications that is a genuine loss of accountability, and it is\nthe reason panels were introduced in the first place after concerns about how\ncouncils were deciding significant applications.\n\nThe proposal is therefore deliberately narrow: uncontested matters only, with\nany objection returning the matter to a scheduled meeting. Whether \"uncontested\"\ncan be defined tightly enough to prevent drift is the open question, and anyone\narguing for this reform has to answer it rather than wave at it.\n", "sources": [] }, "pay-concessions-automatically": { "id": "pay-concessions-automatically", "name": "Pay concessions from the data government already holds", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "nsw-energy-rebate:rebate_window", "nsw-energy-rebate:rebate_apply", "nsw-energy-rebate:reconfirm" ], "days_saved_est": 113, "status": "proposal", "summary": "In 2025 the ATO reduced every student loan debt in Australia by 20 per cent with no action from anyone. In the same year a Health Care Card holder had to reapply, annually, inside a window, for a $285 energy rebate \u2014 for a card the Commonwealth issued and already verifies electronically.", "precedent": "Both halves already happened. The 20 per cent debt reduction was applied automatically to millions of accounts. Centrelink Confirmation eServices already lets energy retailers verify concession card status with consent, and Commonwealth energy bill relief already reached most households as an automatic credit with no application at all.", "rationale": "This is the strongest argument in this database, because it does not require\nanyone to accept a proposition. Both halves of it are already true.\n\n**Automatic delivery, 2025.** The Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by\n20 per cent) Act received Royal Assent on 3 August 2025 and reduced all HELP and\nVET Student Loan debts by 20 per cent against balances at 1 June 2025. The\n[[ato|ATO]] applied it retrospectively to every affected account. No application,\nno form, no eligibility interview, no window, no take-up gap.\n\n**Application-based delivery, the same year.** The\n[[nsw-energy-rebates|NSW Low Income Household Rebate]] is worth up to $285 a\nfinancial year. Eligibility turns on holding a Pensioner Concession Card, Health\nCare Card, Low Income Health Care Card or Veteran Gold Card. Applications for\n2025-26 closed on 30 June 2026; applications for 2026-27 opened on 10 August\n2026. A household reapplies each year, inside a window, to reconfirm a fact that\nhas not changed.\n\n**And the eligibility fact is already held and already shared.**\n[[services-australia]] issues and maintains those cards. Under Centrelink\nConfirmation eServices, businesses \u2014 including\n[[energy-retailer|energy retailers]] \u2014 already confirm a customer's concession\ncard status electronically, with the customer's consent, receiving only what they\nneed. This is not a hypothetical integration. It is in daily commercial use.\n\nSo the usual objection to automatic payment \u2014 that government cannot know who is\neligible without asking \u2014 is answered by the existing plumbing.\n\n**The proposal.** Where an entitlement turns on holding a concession card and on\nbeing the account holder, both of which are already verifiable, the payment\nshould default to automatic, with consent obtained once at card issue or account\nopening rather than re-obtained annually. Applications remain available for\nanyone the automatic path misses.\n\nThe [[nsw-energy-rebate|modelled process]] shows 113 days on the state rebate\npath, 41 of them a pure `scheduling` wait between the closing of one year's\nwindow and the opening of the next. All of it is recoverable.\n\n**Who acts:** states set their own rebates, so each acts separately. The\nCommonwealth controls the verification channel and could make it free and\nfrictionless to use.\n", "risk": "**Consent is doing real work and automating it away is not trivial.** Centrelink\nConfirmation eServices operates on consent that is voluntary and can be withdrawn.\nA default-on arrangement means data about a person's income support status flows\nto a commercial retailer without a fresh decision each time. Some people\ndeliberately do not disclose concession status to their retailer, and the reasons\nare their own. Any version of this must make declining easy, visible and\nconsequence-free \u2014 and \"consent obtained once\" is precisely the design pattern\nthat has gone wrong in other data-sharing schemes.\n\n**Automatic payment removes a moment of contact.** An annual application is also\nan annual check that the person is still at that address, still on that account,\nstill alive. Removing it means overpayments and payments to the wrong person will\nhappen, and the recovery of those overpayments from low-income households is a\nharm this country has recent and severe experience of. A scheme designed to be\nautomatic must also be designed to absorb its own errors rather than pursue them.\n\n**The state may not want the take-up.** This is the objection nobody states\naloud. A rebate with an annual application window has a predictable take-up rate\nwell below the eligible population, and that gap is priced into the budget.\nAutomatic payment would increase outlays, and a state asked to fund it may prefer\nthe current design precisely because it does not reach everyone. If that is the\nreal constraint, then this is a funding argument wearing an administration\ncostume, and it should be had honestly rather than as a debate about forms.\n\n**And the ATO comparison is not perfectly clean.** Adjusting a debt the\nCommonwealth already holds is easier than paying money to a person whose identity\nand account must be matched across two governments and a private retailer. The\ncomparison establishes capability and intent, not equivalence of difficulty.\n", "sources": [ "Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20 per cent) Act 2025, Royal Assent 3 August 2025; DEWR: the ATO applies the reduction with no action required by the individual", "NSW Climate and Energy Action and Service NSW: Low Income Household Rebate up to $285 per financial year; 2025-26 applications closed 30 June 2026, 2026-27 opened 10 August 2026", "Services Australia, Centrelink Confirmation eServices for businesses: confirming payment and concession card details with customer consent", "energy.gov.au, Energy Bill Relief Fund applied by retailers as automatic bill credits" ] }, "pay-for-the-service-not-the-prescriber": { "id": "pay-for-the-service-not-the-prescriber", "name": "Medicare funds the more expensive pathway and not the cheaper one", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-pharmacist-scope:pay", "au-pharmacist-scope:national_trial" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "idea", "summary": "Medicare pays for a consultation with a doctor. It does not pay for the same protocol-driven assessment by a pharmacist, so the patient pays or the state does \u2014 and a patient who could be treated at a pharmacy has a financial reason to see a GP instead.", "precedent": "The national women's health pharmacist prescribing trial, commencing 1 January 2027, funds pharmacist assessment for two conditions. The Commonwealth has already accepted in principle that it can pay for this service; the trial establishes the mechanism.", "rationale": "The [[au-pharmacist-scope|pharmacy pathway]] models at **one day** \u2014 the shortest\ncare pathway in this database, against 4 for a\n[[au-medicare-mental-health-centre|Medicare Mental Health Centre]], 282 for\n[[au-better-access|Better Access]] and 665 for\n[[nsw-public-dental-adult|adult public dental]]. Pharmacies are the most\ngeographically distributed health infrastructure in the country, open longer than\ngeneral practice, and present in towns with no GP.\n\nAnd the assessment they perform is not Medicare-rebated.\n\nThe medicine may be subsidised through the PBS. The **clinical work of deciding to\nsupply it** is not. So where states have created a scope, they fund the service\nthemselves or the patient pays \u2014 and the patient who could be treated in a\npharmacy in ten minutes has a financial reason to wait for a bulk-billed GP\nappointment instead.\n\n**The Commonwealth is funding the more expensive pathway and not the cheaper\none.** That is not a claim about relative clinical value; it is arithmetic about\na rebate that attaches to a profession rather than to a service.\n\nThe Cormack Scope of Practice Review found this shape of problem across primary\ncare: virtually every profession facing restrictions unrelated to their education\nand competence, with funding rules among the barriers. This site recorded that in\n[[nsw-health-infrastructure|the hospitals section]] and it has taken until now to\nfind the sharpest instance.\n\n**What would change.** Rebates that attach to a defined service delivered against\na defined protocol by a practitioner qualified and authorised to deliver it,\nrather than to the professional category of the person delivering it. The\nnational women's health trial from 1 January 2027 does exactly this for two\nconditions, which is why it is the precedent rather than the counter-example.\n\n**Filed as an idea**, and it will stay one until the trial reports. Whether\nfunding pharmacist assessment increases total system cost, substitutes for GP\nvisits, or does both in proportions nobody can predict is an empirical question,\nand it is the whole question.\n", "risk": "**Paying for a service twice over is the obvious failure mode.** If pharmacist\nassessment is funded and the patient then sees a GP anyway \u2014 because the\nprotocol excluded them, because the treatment did not work, or because they\nwanted a second opinion \u2014 the Commonwealth has paid for two consultations where\nit previously paid for one. Substitution is the assumption on which the whole\neconomic case rests, and supplementation is at least as likely in some\nconditions.\n\n**Fee-for-service funding shapes clinical behaviour, reliably.** A rebate for\nassessing and treating a UTI creates a financial interest in finding UTIs. That\nis true of every fee-for-service item in Medicare, and it is managed through\nprotocols, audit and the Professional Services Review \u2014 machinery that exists for\ndoctors and would have to be built for pharmacists. Community pharmacy also has a\ncommercial retail model attached, which general practice does not, and the\ninteraction between a dispensing margin and a prescribing decision is the\nobjection doctors' organisations make most forcefully.\n\n**It is a substantial new Commonwealth expenditure with an uncertain offset.**\nEvery entry in this database that proposes new spending should say so plainly.\nThis one does: a rebate for a common condition delivered at 5,000 pharmacies is\nnot a small program, and the saving depends on behaviour nobody has measured at\nscale.\n\n**And a pharmacist is not a substitute for a GP, only for a GP visit.** The\nconsultation that surfaces something unrelated \u2014 the blood pressure, the mole,\nthe thing the patient mentions on the way out \u2014 is a real feature of continuity\nof care, and it is the strongest clinical argument for the current arrangement.\nThis project has weighed continuity against access before, in\n[[telehealth-relationship-should-follow-the-patient|telehealth]], and reached the\nsame uncomfortable conclusion: they genuinely trade off.\n", "sources": [ "National women's health pharmacist prescribing trial announced 13 March 2026, commencing 1 January 2027, covering assessment and treatment of uncomplicated UTIs and initiation and resupply of selected hormonal contraceptives", "Scope of Practice Review (Cormack): virtually all health professions in primary care face restrictions or barriers unrelated to their education and competence", "Queensland Extended Practice Authority from 1 July 2025; NSW expanded scope services; Victorian statewide pilot across more than 760 pharmacies" ] }, "pay-the-wage-through-the-funding-rate": { "id": "pay-the-wage-through-the-funding-rate", "name": "Deliver the childcare wage increase through the funding rate, not a separate grant each provider must join", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-ecec-educator-domestic:start" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "idea", "summary": "A 15 per cent above-award pay rise, funded by the Commonwealth, reaches a worker only if their employer opted into a grant, accepted a fee cap, and keeps reporting against it. The pay rise is national policy; the administration is a per-service compliance exercise.", "precedent": "The Child Care Subsidy already flows to services on the basis of published rates and enrolment data. Aged care care-minute requirements and the AN-ACC funding model show wage-related conditions being carried inside a funding instrument rather than beside it.", "rationale": "The ECEC Worker Retention Payment is a large and genuinely valuable policy: a\nstaged 15 per cent above-award wage increase for eligible early childhood\nworkers, funded by the Commonwealth so that services do not recover it through\nfee increases. It was extended on 17 June 2026 with $3.6 billion, running to\n30 June 2028, with eligibility widened to family day care and in home care\nservices that engage their educators as employees.\n\nThe thing worth examining is not the policy. It is the delivery mechanism.\n\nIt is a **grant a service opts into**, conditional on a fee cap \u2014 no more than\n5.8 per cent between 8 August 2026 and 7 August 2027 for existing participants,\nand from 17 June 2026 for those joining. Participation requires application,\nagreement to conditions, ongoing compliance and reporting. A support service\nexists to help providers manage it.\n\nThree consequences follow:\n\n1. **The pay rise is conditional on an employer's administrative decision.** Two\n educators doing identical work in neighbouring services can be paid\n differently because one employer opted in and the other did not, or missed a\n step, or found the fee cap incompatible with its cost structure.\n2. **It is time-limited by design and therefore uncertain.** It has already been\n extended once. Each extension is a decision, and a worker choosing a career\n cannot price a wage that depends on the next one.\n3. **The conditions are attached at the wrong level.** A fee cap is a legitimate\n condition, and this proposal is not against it. But attaching it to an opt-in\n grant means enforcing it service by service, rather than building it into the\n rate structure everyone is already subject to.\n\nThe alternative is to carry the increase inside the funding rate itself \u2014 the\nsubsidy architecture through which money already reaches every service \u2014 with the\nfee condition expressed as a rate condition rather than a grant condition.\n\n**Filed as an idea, not a proposal.** Whether this is achievable depends on\nthings this database cannot see: whether the Commonwealth can lawfully condition\nsubsidy rates on wage outcomes, and how the interaction with the award and the\nFair Work system actually works. Those are the whole question, and they are legal\nquestions rather than process ones.\n\n**Days saved: zero.** This is about whether a national wage policy reaches\nworkers uniformly, not about elapsed time.\n", "risk": "**The opt-in structure is doing real work and removing it has a cost.** A grant a\nprovider must accept is a grant a provider can be held to. Conditions attached to\na voluntary agreement are enforceable in a way that conditions embedded in a\nuniversal rate may not be, and the fee cap \u2014 which is what protects families from\npaying for the pay rise \u2014 is the condition most worth keeping enforceable.\n\n**Universal delivery removes the ability to target.** Extending eligibility to\nfamily day care and in home care services *that engage educators as employees*\nis a deliberate lever: it pushes against sham contracting. A rate-based mechanism\nthat pays regardless of employment structure would abandon that leverage, and the\nworkers it is aimed at are among the most vulnerable in the sector.\n\n**Fair Work is the constitutionally cleaner instrument and nobody wants to use\nit.** A wage increase properly belongs in the award. It sits in a grant instead\nbecause a supported wage case is slow, contested and binding, while a grant is\nfast and reversible. That reversibility is the actual objection to the current\ndesign, and it is also exactly why government chose it. Anyone advocating this\nchange should be honest that they are asking government to make a temporary\ncommitment permanent, which is a much larger ask than an administrative\nsimplification.\n\n**And this database should be careful here.** The Worker Retention Payment is\ndelivering real money to low-paid workers now. A reform that delayed or\njeopardised that in pursuit of a tidier mechanism would be a bad trade, and the\nburden of proof sits with the proposal, not with the status quo.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Education, ECEC Worker Retention Payment: 15 per cent above-award increase, extended 17 June 2026 with $3.6 billion to 30 June 2028", "Fee cap conditions: no more than 5.8 per cent between 8 August 2026 and 7 August 2027 for participating services; expanded eligibility for family day care and in home care services engaging educators as employees", "Fair Work Ombudsman, published material on the ECEC Worker Retention Payment" ] }, "paying-a-student-does-not-create-a-placement": { "id": "paying-a-student-does-not-create-a-placement", "name": "The Commonwealth pays the student, the state owns the ward, and nobody funds the supervisor", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-placement-compliance:placement", "au-placement-compliance:host_requirements" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "idea", "summary": "The Commonwealth Prac Payment expands to ten allied health disciplines from 1 July 2027, reaching around 95,000 students a year. It addresses placement poverty. It does not create a single additional placement, and supervision is the binding constraint.", "precedent": "Teaching hospital funding already recognises the cost of clinical education as a distinct, funded activity rather than something a service absorbs. The principle that training capacity must be paid for separately from service delivery is established; it is not applied to student supervision.", "rationale": "**The reform under way is good and should be recorded as such first.**\n\nOn **23 July 2026** the Australian Government announced an expansion of the\nCommonwealth Prac Payment to **ten frontline allied health disciplines** in areas\nof national skills shortage \u2014 clinical psychology, physiotherapy, occupational\ntherapy, speech pathology, paramedicine, radiography, pharmacy, rehabilitation\ntherapies, audiology and podiatry \u2014 **from 1 July 2027**, on top of the existing\ncoverage of teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work. Eligible students\nreceive up to **$338.60 per week**. The program is expected to support around\n**95,000 students each year**, including about **21,000 additional** higher\neducation students.\n\nPlacement poverty is real, this site has argued for exactly this kind of extension\nin [[prac-payment-for-vet-placements|the vocational stream]], and the expansion is\na direct answer to it.\n\n**And it will not create one additional placement.**\n\nDemand for clinical placements **exceeded supply well before 2019**, and the\npandemic worsened it through burnout and attrition among the professionals who\nsupervise. The constraint is not student willingness or student solvency. It is\nsupervision:\n\n- supervisor-to-student ratios traditionally as low as **1:1**;\n- the supervisor must **maintain healthcare delivery alongside** their supervisory\n commitments;\n- many registered nurses have **no formal preparation** for supporting student\n learning, and management support may be limited or absent.\n\n**So the money and the constraint are in different places.** The Commonwealth funds\nthe university place and now the student's income during placement. The state owns\nthe ward or the classroom. The [[university|university]] is accountable for\narranging a placement it cannot create. And the\n[[placement-provider|host organisation]] supplies the scarcest input in the entire\npipeline \u2014 a senior practitioner's attention, diverted from patients \u2014 and is\nfunded for none of it.\n\n**This is the same boundary this database has now found four times**: the\nCommonwealth buys the thing and the state runs it. See\n[[the-commonwealth-buys-assets-and-not-services|transport capital]],\n[[maintenance-is-capital-deferred|social housing maintenance]] and\n[[count-rent-assistance-against-the-housing-queue|Rent Assistance]]. Here the\nasset being bought is a graduate.\n\n**What a serious answer would include:**\n\n1. **Fund supervision explicitly**, as a per-student-week payment to the host\n organisation, conditional on the placement occurring \u2014 not a grant round, and\n not folded into general activity funding where it disappears.\n2. **Fund supervisor preparation.** A registered nurse who has never been taught\n to teach is being asked to do a second job badly, and the evidence says many\n are.\n3. **Publish placement capacity and unmet demand by discipline and region.**\n Nobody currently publishes how many students were turned away, which is the\n number that would show whether any of this is working.\n\n**Filed as an idea**, because recommendation 1 is a new recurrent Commonwealth\npayment into state-run services, with all the cost-shifting objections recorded\nelsewhere on this site, and because this project cannot cost it.\n", "risk": "**Paying for supervision does not manufacture supervisors.** The people who would\nsupervise are the same people who are burnt out and short-staffed. A payment to a\nhealth service does not add a senior nurse to the roster, and in the short run it\nmay simply pay for supervision that was already happening. The binding constraint\nmay be the workforce itself, in which case this proposal funds a shortage rather\nthan fixing one \u2014 and the honest position is that it would take years to know.\n\n**Per-student-week payments create an incentive to take students and not teach\nthem.** Any output-based payment for supervision will be gamed by the services\nunder the most pressure, which are the ones the payment is aimed at. Quality of\nplacement is hard to measure and easy to assert, and a poor placement is worse\nthan none because it teaches the wrong things and drives attrition.\n\n**The Commonwealth Prac Payment expansion is not the wrong reform and this entry\nshould not be read as saying so.** Placement poverty demonstrably pushes students\nout of these courses, and $338.60 a week addresses it. The claim here is narrower:\nthat it treats affordability, that scarcity is a different constraint, and that\nsuccess on the first will make the second more visible rather than less.\n\n**And the placement capacity evidence is qualitative.** \"Demand exceeded supply\nbefore 2019\" and \"ratios as low as 1:1\" describe a shape, not a magnitude. There\nis no published national figure for placements sought against placements\navailable, by discipline \u2014 which is recommendation 3, and which means this entry\nis arguing from testimony and structure rather than from a number. That is a real\nweakness and it is the reason recommendation 3 should come first.\n", "sources": [ "On 23 July 2026 the Australian Government announced an expansion of the Commonwealth Prac Payment to ten frontline allied health disciplines in areas of national skills shortage: clinical psychology, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech pathology, paramedicine, radiography, pharmacy, rehabilitation therapies, audiology and podiatry", "From 1 July 2027 eligible allied health students undertaking mandatory placements will be able to access the CPP, building on support already available to teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students; eligible students receive up to $338.60 per week", "The expanded program is expected to support around 95,000 students each year, including around 21,000 additional higher education students in frontline allied health courses", "Demand for clinical placements from education providers already far exceeded supply before 2019, and COVID-19 exacerbated this through high burnout and attrition among health professionals", "Scaling clinical placements is difficult where a specific clinical supervisor to student ratio is required, traditionally as low as 1:1, and where the clinical supervisor must maintain healthcare delivery alongside supervisory commitments", "Many registered nurses lack formal education or preparation to promote or foster student learning, and support from health service management may be limited or missing", "Universities Australia: more clinical placements are needed to meet health workforce demands" ] }, "pbs-consider-resubmissions-out-of-cycle": { "id": "pbs-consider-resubmissions-out-of-cycle", "name": "Let a resubmission be considered when the evidence is ready, not at the next of three meetings", "type": "resequence", "targets": [ "au-pbs-listing:pbac_cycle", "au-pbs-listing:resubmission" ], "days_saved_est": 180, "status": "proposal", "summary": "The PBAC meets three times a year. A medicine rejected in March cannot be reconsidered when the additional evidence is ready in May; it waits for July, or more realistically November. Two resubmissions is most of a year in calendar time alone.", "precedent": "Intersessional and out-of-cycle consideration already exists for particular categories of PBAC business. The committee already works between meetings; the question is which matters can be dealt with that way.", "rationale": "This is a narrow proposal about cycle time and it should not be read as anything\nelse. Nothing here criticises the [[pbac|PBAC]]'s judgement, its rigour, or its\nindependence, and a faster committee that reached worse decisions would be a\nclear loss \u2014 the assessment is why Australia gets the prices it does.\n\nThe point is the calendar.\n\nThe committee meets in March, July and November. On the\n[[au-pbs-listing|modelled process]] a first submission carries about 60 days of\naveraged waiting for a meeting, which is an ordinary cost of doing business.\n\nThe cost compounds on **resubmission**, which for new medicines is common. A\nsubmission not recommended in March is answered by additional evidence or a\nrevised price. That work does not take four months. But the answer cannot be\nconsidered until a meeting, so a sponsor ready in May waits for July \u2014 and given\nthe lead time for papers, more often for November. Two cycles of that is most of\na year in which the only thing happening is the passage of time.\n\n**What could change:**\n\n1. **Out-of-cycle consideration for defined resubmission categories** \u2014 a\n rejection turning on a discrete question the committee has already framed\n (a price, a restriction wording, one piece of evidence it asked for) does not\n need a full meeting agenda slot to resolve.\n2. **A fourth meeting**, which is the blunt version and is a resourcing question\n rather than a design one.\n\nThe distinction that makes this defensible is the same one this database applies\nto [[panel-agenda-slack|planning panels]]: where the substantive work is\nfinished and what remains is waiting for a room, the wait is `scheduling`, and\nscheduling is recoverable without lowering any standard.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth, through the department that supports the\ncommittee, and the committee itself.\n", "risk": "**Committee members are practising clinicians and academics, and the cycle\nprotects the quality of their attention.** Three meetings a year with substantial\nlead time is what makes it possible for busy people to read very large evidence\npackages properly. Out-of-cycle consideration means asking volunteers to turn\naround complex material at short notice, and the predictable result of that is\neither declining participation or less careful reading. Either would cost more\nthan the delay.\n\n**Deliberation benefits from being collective and comparative.** Considering\nmedicines in batches lets the committee weigh consistency across submissions \u2014 is\nthis the same standard we applied to the comparable drug last cycle? Out-of-cycle\ndecisions are made without that context and risk drifting from the line the\ncommittee holds in its scheduled work.\n\n**Sponsors are not passive in this.** Recent academic work on strategic delay in\nAustralian reimbursement argues that timing and pricing choices by sponsors\nextend negotiations too. Faster resubmission windows would be used by sponsors to\nrun more iterations at lower cost, which may increase the number of resubmissions\nrather than reduce total elapsed time.\n\n**And the honest scale.** 180 days on a 930-day path, and most of the addressable\ntime in that process sits in [[pbs-index-the-cabinet-threshold|the Cabinet\nstep]], not here. This is the smaller of the two PBS proposals and the one more\nlikely to be resisted by the people whose judgement the scheme depends on.\n", "sources": [ "PBS, published PBAC meeting calendar and cycle timeframes for 2026-2027: three meetings a year", "PBS, TGA and PBAC parallel process factsheet", "Li, 'Strategic Delay and Bargaining Over Public Insurance Coverage for Drugs in Australia', Health Economics, 2026" ] }, "pbs-index-the-cabinet-threshold": { "id": "pbs-index-the-cabinet-threshold", "name": "Index the PBS Cabinet threshold, which has been widening its own coverage for years", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-pbs-listing:cabinet" ], "days_saved_est": 300, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Listings with a financial impact above $20 million go to Cabinet rather than the Minister. The threshold is not indexed, so inflation moves medicines across it without anyone deciding they should cross. Cabinet approval time has reportedly grown from 6.7 months to 10.", "precedent": "A Senate committee has recommended the threshold be increased. Indexation of financial thresholds is ordinary practice across Commonwealth legislation, including in tax, corporations and social security law.", "rationale": "By the time a medicine reaches this step, every substantive question has been\nanswered. The [[tga|TGA]] has established that it is safe and works. The\n[[pbac|PBAC]] \u2014 an independent expert committee whose rigour is the reason\nAustralia pays what it does for medicines \u2014 has found it cost-effective at a\nprice. The department has negotiated and settled that price.\n\nWhat remains is a budget decision, and where the financial impact exceeds\n$20 million it is taken by Cabinet rather than by the Minister.\n\nCabinet approval of a spending decision of that size is entirely legitimate and\nthis proposal does not argue against it. What it argues against is the threshold\nsitting still while the value of money does not.\n\n**A threshold that is not indexed does not hold its position; it moves.** Twenty\nmillion dollars catches more medicines every year, not because anyone decided\nthose medicines warrant Cabinet attention, but because the number was set once\nand inflation did the rest. Every year, quietly, a slightly larger share of PBS\nlistings is routed to the slowest available decision-making forum by an\narithmetic nobody voted for.\n\nAnd the cost of being routed there has grown. Reported Cabinet approval time has\nincreased **from 6.7 months to 10 months**, with delays of 12 months or more\nreported. On the [[au-pbs-listing|modelled process]] this single step is 300 of\n930 critical-path days, and it is `scheduling` \u2014 nobody is assessing anything.\n\n**The proposal.** Index the threshold, and restore it to something like its\nintended real coverage. That is a smaller and more defensible ask than raising\nit arbitrarily: it does not change which *class* of decision Cabinet takes, only\nwhich decisions the original policy actually meant to send there.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone.\n", "risk": "**This is a proposal to reduce Cabinet oversight of public spending, and it\nshould be described that way.** Raising or indexing the threshold means more\nlisting decisions taken by a minister without collective consideration. PBS\nexpenditure is large, growing, and difficult to reverse once a listing is made \u2014\nmedicines come off the schedule very rarely. Collective agreement before\ncommitting recurrent expenditure of that scale is a real fiscal control, and\nindustry, which is the loudest voice for raising the threshold, has an obvious\ninterest in fewer people being asked.\n\n**Delay is not always the government's doing.** Recent academic work on strategic\ndelay in Australian medicine reimbursement argues that sponsors themselves make\ntiming and pricing choices that extend negotiations, because the alternative to\nagreeing a lower price now is holding out for a better one later. Attributing the\nwhole of the gap between recommendation and listing to Cabinet would overstate\nit, and this database has no way to decompose it.\n\n**Ten months is a reported figure, not a published series.** There is no official\ntime series of Cabinet approval durations for PBS listings, which means the\ncentral number in this argument comes from advocacy rather than from the\ndepartment. If the Commonwealth published listing timeframes by stage \u2014 PBAC\noutcome to price agreement, price agreement to approval, approval to listing \u2014\nthis proposal could be evaluated properly instead of argued about. That\npublication is arguably the more important ask.\n\n**And this reform does nothing for the medicines that need it most.** A\nhigh-impact medicine for a large population is exactly the case where Cabinet\nconsideration is most warranted. Indexing helps mid-sized listings cross back\nbelow the line; it leaves the largest and most contested where they are.\n", "sources": [ "The Minister approves PBS listings with a financial impact below $20 million; above that the listing requires Cabinet approval", "Reported increase in Cabinet approval time from 6.7 months to 10 months, with Cabinet approval able to delay listing by 12 months or more", "Senate committee recommendation that the Cabinet threshold be increased and indexed", "Li, 'Strategic Delay and Bargaining Over Public Insurance Coverage for Drugs in Australia', Health Economics, 2026" ] }, "pharmacist-scope-recognised-nationally": { "id": "pharmacist-scope-recognised-nationally", "name": "One profession, one national registration, eight scopes of practice", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-pharmacist-scope:jurisdiction" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A pharmacist registered under national law may treat a urinary tract infection on one side of a state border and not the other. This is the eighth instance of the partial-national pattern in this database and the purest \u2014 the profession is regulated nationally and what it may do is not.", "precedent": "The Commonwealth's own national women's health pharmacist prescribing trial, announced 13 March 2026 and commencing 1 January 2027, creates de facto national scope for two conditions. The principle that scope should not depend on postcode has already been conceded.", "rationale": "A pharmacist is registered by [[ahpra]] under the Health Practitioner Regulation\nNational Law, which applies identically in every jurisdiction. What that\npharmacist may actually do is set by eight separate medicines and poisons\nregimes, and they have diverged substantially:\n\n- **Queensland** \u2014 clinical advice and treatment including prescribing for a range\n of acute common conditions under an Extended Practice Authority, business as\n usual since **1 July 2025**.\n- **New South Wales** \u2014 uncomplicated UTIs, hormonal contraception continuation\n including certain oral contraceptives, the vaginal ring and DMPA, minor skin\n conditions, and initiation of oral contraceptives.\n- **Victoria** \u2014 statewide pilot from August 2024 covering UTIs, shingles, mild\n plaque psoriasis and vaccines across more than **760 pharmacies**, with\n initiation of oral contraceptives following.\n- Western Australia and others expanding on their own timetables.\n\nThe same pharmacist, with the same training, the same registration and the same\nprotocol, treats a condition in one state and refers the patient to a doctor in\nanother.\n\n**This is the eighth instance of a pattern this database has now recorded across\nunrelated domains** \u2014 [[nsw-worker-screening|NDIS worker screening]],\n[[finish-automatic-mutual-recognition|occupational licensing]],\n[[credentialing-verify-once|clinical credentialing]], working with children\nchecks, [[nrsch|community housing registration]],\n[[nsw-medicines-regulator|controlled-medicine prescribing]] and\n[[water-one-register-one-approval|water registers]]. It is the purest of them,\nbecause there is no argument here about different local conditions: a urinary\ntract infection is the same in Cairns and Ballarat.\n\nThe Cormack Scope of Practice Review found exactly this: **inconsistent\nregulations, unnecessary restrictions on practice and siloed workforces having a\ndetrimental impact on patients.**\n\n**What should change.** Nationally consistent scope for the conditions where\nprotocols already exist and multiple jurisdictions have independently arrived at\nthe same answer \u2014 starting with the ones every expanding state has included.\nStates retain the power to go further; what stops is a patient's access depending\non which side of a line they live.\n\n**Who acts:** health ministers collectively, through the same mechanism that\nproduced the national law in the first place.\n", "risk": "**Divergence is how this got started, and it worked.** Queensland piloted, then\nmade permanent; Victoria and New South Wales followed with their own designs;\neach learned from the others. A national scope settled in 2020 would have been\nnarrower than what several states now permit. Federalism as a laboratory is a\nreal argument and this is a real instance of it, and harmonising now freezes the\nexperiment at whatever the negotiated common position turns out to be.\n\n**Harmonisation usually lands at the lowest common denominator.** Eight health\nministers agreeing a national scope will agree the scope the most cautious of\nthem accepts. States that have gone furthest would be the ones asked to stop, and\npatients in those states would be worse off. This site made the same objection\nabout [[telehealth-prescribing-recognise-the-consultation|controlled-medicine\nprescribing]] and it applies with equal force here.\n\n**Doctors' organisations oppose expansion and the objections are not merely\nterritorial.** Fragmentation of care, missed diagnosis where a presentation\nresembling a UTI is something else, antimicrobial stewardship, and the loss of a\nconsultation that might have surfaced something unrelated \u2014 these are stated by\nclinicians who see the failures. The protocols exist to manage them, and whether\nthey manage them adequately is an empirical question this project cannot settle.\n\n**And the Commonwealth's workaround may reduce the pressure to fix it.** The\nnational women's health trial from 1 January 2027 delivers national access for\ntwo conditions by funding rather than by regulating. That is a good outcome and\nit relieves exactly the pressure that would otherwise force health ministers to\nharmonise scope properly \u2014 a patch that makes the underlying repair less likely.\n", "sources": [ "Queensland Extended Practice Authority - Pharmacists from 1 July 2025, with scope of practice and hormonal contraception pilots implemented as business as usual", "New South Wales expanded scope services covering uncomplicated UTIs, hormonal contraception continuation and minor skin conditions", "Victoria statewide pilot from August 2024 across more than 760 pharmacies", "National women's health pharmacist prescribing trial announced 13 March 2026, commencing 1 January 2027", "Scope of Practice Review (Cormack): inconsistent regulations, unnecessary restrictions on practice and siloed workforces having a detrimental impact on patients" ] }, "points-target-should-count-outcomes": { "id": "points-target-should-count-outcomes", "name": "A monthly activity target imposes its costs on employers who never agreed to carry them", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-jobseeker-mutual-obligations:points" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "idea", "summary": "The points system measures activity, monthly. The predictable result is applications made to reach a number, and the cost of reading them falls on employers who are not part of the scheme and get nothing from it.", "precedent": "The Points Based Activation System already replaced a fixed job-application count with a menu that credits study, paid work and volunteering. The principle that activity other than applying should count is established; the question is whether the target should be an activity count at all.", "rationale": "The Points Based Activation System was an improvement on what preceded it. A\nfixed monthly quota of job applications was replaced with a menu in which study,\ntraining, paid work and volunteering all earn points. That change credited things\nthat actually lead to employment and it should be recorded as progress.\n\nWhat it retained is the shape: **a monthly target measured in activity**.\n\nTwo consequences follow, and only one of them is usually discussed.\n\n**The one that is discussed.** Activity targets produce activity. Applications\nare submitted to reach a number rather than to obtain a job, and the person\nsubmitting them knows it, and it is demoralising in a way that compounds\neverything else about being unemployed.\n\n**The one that is not.** The cost of reading those applications falls on\n**employers**. A small business advertising one role receives applications from\npeople who are not seeking it and cannot tell them apart from the rest. That is a\ncompliance cost imposed on a third party who is not a participant in the scheme,\nreceives no benefit from it, and has no way to opt out.\n\nThis database has recorded compliance costs landing on councils, on providers, on\napplicants and on the state. This is the only instance of a scheme's costs\nlanding on **someone with no relationship to it at all**, and it is invisible\nbecause nobody measures the recipient side of a job application.\n\n**What might change.** Weight the target toward things with a plausible causal\nlink to employment \u2014 training completed, hours worked, a qualification obtained \u2014\nand away from raw application counts. Allow a provider to set a lower activity\nrequirement where a person is doing something demonstrably more useful.\n\n**Filed as an idea, not a proposal.** The evidence that would settle it does not\nexist here: nobody publishes how many applications employers receive from\npoints-motivated applicants, how much time that costs them, or whether a\nlower-activity regime produces worse employment outcomes. Those are answerable\nquestions and this project cannot answer them.\n\n**Days saved: zero.** This changes no elapsed time. It is on this site because\nthe database's unit is the step, and a step whose cost is borne by someone\noutside the process is the kind of thing a step-level model is uniquely able to\nnotice.\n", "risk": "**Outcome-weighted targets punish people in weak labour markets.** Someone in a\nregional town with three employers cannot generate outcomes at the rate someone\nin a capital city can, and a system weighted toward outcomes would find them\nnon-compliant for living somewhere without jobs. Activity targets, for all their\nfaults, are within the person's control. That is a real virtue and this proposal\nwould erode it.\n\n**\"Plausible causal link to employment\" is a judgement, and judgements get\ngamed.** Weighting training more heavily than applications creates an incentive\nto enrol in training, which creates a market in low-value courses \u2014 a pattern\nthis database has already documented in\n[[rpl-make-it-rigorous-and-fundable|the VET sector]]. The Commonwealth has been\nhere before and it went badly.\n\n**Reducing job search requirements is a contested political position.** A serious\nconstituency holds that looking for work should be the central obligation of\nreceiving unemployment payment, and that the number should be high. This entry\ntreats the employer cost as decisive; someone who thinks the obligation is the\npoint will not, and they are not being unreasonable.\n\n**And the employer cost may be smaller than it feels.** Application volume is\ndriven by online application systems and a weak labour market as much as by\nmutual obligations, and no published evidence isolates the points-driven share.\nThis proposal rests on a mechanism that is obviously real and a magnitude that is\nentirely unmeasured, which is why it is an idea.\n", "sources": [ "DEWR, published Points Based Activation System guidance: tasks including job applications, study, training, paid work and volunteering count toward a monthly points target", "Reporting on the 2026 employment services reform package moving away from compliance-heavy settings" ] }, "prac-payment-for-vet-placements": { "id": "prac-payment-for-vet-placements", "name": "Extend the prac payment to the pathway that actually produces educators", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-ecec-educator-domestic:placement" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A student on a Master of Teaching (Early Childhood) receives $338.60 a week during mandatory placement. A Certificate III student doing 160 unpaid hours in the same rooms, in the same sector, receives nothing. The instrument already exists \u2014 it just stops at the wrong boundary.", "precedent": "The Commonwealth Prac Payment already has a vocational stream covering the Diploma of Nursing, and its higher education stream was extended to ten further disciplines on 23 July 2026. Extending a stream that exists to another qualification is an eligibility change, not a new program \u2014 and it has just been done ten times over.", "rationale": "The Commonwealth built an instrument for exactly this problem. Following a\nrecommendation of the Universities Accord, the Commonwealth Prac Payment pays\neligible students on mandatory placement a weekly allowance benchmarked to the\nsingle Austudy rate \u2014 $338.60 in 2026 \u2014 specifically to address placement\npoverty.\n\nIts higher education stream covers nursing, teaching, midwifery and social work,\nincluding a Master of Teaching (Early Childhood). Its vocational stream, which\nbegan on 1 July 2025, covers the Diploma of Nursing.\n\nNeither reaches a Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care, which\nrequires a minimum of **160 hours of mandatory unpaid placement** in a regulated\nservice and is the entry qualification for the great majority of the early\nchildhood workforce.\n\nSo within a single workforce shortage, on one government's books, the graduate\nroute into early childhood teaching is supported during placement and the\nvocational route that feeds it is not.\n\n**And the gap is widening, not closing.** On **23 July 2026** the Commonwealth\nannounced an expansion of the higher education stream to **ten frontline allied\nhealth disciplines** \u2014 clinical psychology, physiotherapy, occupational therapy,\nspeech pathology, paramedicine, radiography, pharmacy, rehabilitation therapies,\naudiology and podiatry \u2014 from **1 July 2027**, taking the program to around\n**95,000 students a year**. The vocational stream still covers the Diploma of\nNursing.\n\nThat expansion is right, and this site supports it in\n[[paying-a-student-does-not-create-a-placement]]. It also means a scheme that now\nreaches ten additional degree-level disciplines still does not reach the\nCertificate III that produces most of the early childhood workforce.\n\n**Why this matters more than the numbers suggest.** The sector's binding\nconstraint is teachers, not educators generally: at 30 June 2025, 7.4 per cent of\napproved services held a staffing waiver and almost 90 per cent of those related\nto the early childhood teacher requirement. But most early childhood teachers do\nnot arrive as graduate entrants. They start at Certificate III, work, upgrade to\nDiploma, and upgrade again. Supporting the top of that ladder while leaving the\nbottom rung unfunded supports the people who were always going to arrive and not\nthe ones the pipeline loses.\n\n**Days saved: zero.** This changes nobody's elapsed time. It is on this site\nbecause 160 unpaid hours is a barrier to entry in a sector the Commonwealth has\ndeclared a national priority, has legislated a 3 Day Guarantee for, and is\nspending $3.6 billion on wage support in \u2014 and because the mechanism to fix it is\nalready built, already funded and already running.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone, by changing eligibility in a program it\nalready administers.\n", "risk": "**Extending eligibility costs money and the boundary has to sit somewhere.** The\nCertificate III in early childhood is one of many vocational qualifications with\nmandatory unpaid placement \u2014 aged care, disability support, community services\nand education support all have them, and all face workforce shortages. There is\nno principled line that includes early childhood and excludes disability support\nwork, so the honest version of this proposal is considerably more expensive than\nit first appears, and it should be argued for at that scale rather than as a\nsmall fix.\n\n**Paying for placement may shift cost rather than remove a barrier.** Providers\nhosting students carry a supervision cost and currently receive nothing for it. A\npayment to the student does not address that, and if host capacity is the real\nconstraint then funding students to seek placements that do not exist produces\nfrustration rather than educators. Nobody publishes how often placement\navailability delays completion, which is the number that would settle whether\nthis is the right lever.\n\n**It does not touch the reason people leave.** Placement poverty is a barrier at\nentry. Reported turnover in comparable care sectors runs at a third or more\nannually, and the Worker Retention Payment exists because pay, not entry cost, is\nthe sector's central problem. A reform that helps people into a job they leave\nwithin two years has not fixed much. This is one rung of a ladder, and it should\nnot be sold as the ladder.\n", "sources": [ "On 23 July 2026 the Australian Government announced expansion of the Commonwealth Prac Payment to ten frontline allied health disciplines from 1 July 2027, taking the program to around 95,000 students a year", "Department of Education, Commonwealth Prac Payment: $338.60 per week in 2026, benchmarked to the single Austudy rate; higher education stream covering nursing, teaching, midwifery and social work", "DEWR, Commonwealth Prac Payment (Vocational Education and Training), covering Diploma of Nursing students from 1 July 2025", "Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care: minimum 160 hours mandatory work placement in a regulated service", "ACECQA: 7.4 per cent of approved services held a staffing waiver at 30 June 2025, almost 90 per cent relating to the early childhood teacher requirement" ] }, "provider-evidence-once": { "id": "provider-evidence-once", "name": "Supply provider fitness evidence once, to whoever needs it next", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-rto-registration:funding_contract", "au-cricos-provider:cricos_assessment", "au-ndis-provider-registration:application" ], "days_saved_est": 120, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Three unrelated sectors, three regulators, and the same questions asked repeatedly of the same organisation: who runs it, is it solvent, is it competent, has it behaved. The judgements genuinely differ. The evidence underneath them does not.", "precedent": "Aged care's [[aged-care-universal-registration|universal registration]] merged two approvals of the same provider into one while increasing enforcement powers. NDIS provider approval already attaches nationally rather than per-service. The pattern is established; it stops at sector boundaries.", "rationale": "This database now holds three provider-registration processes and they compare\ndirectly:\n\n| Process | Critical path |\n|---|---|\n| [[au-cricos-provider|CRICOS registration]] | 935 days |\n| [[au-rto-registration|RTO registration and funded delivery]] | 750 days |\n| [[au-ndis-provider-registration|NDIS provider registration]] | 381 days |\n\nDifferent sectors, different Acts, different regulators \u2014 and structurally the\nsame process. Each begins with a long unfunded preparation phase, each requires\ngovernance and financial evidence, each examines the fitness of the people in\ncharge, and each is followed by a second assessment before the provider can\nactually operate at scale: a state funding contract, a CRICOS registration under\na different Act by the same agency, a worker screening and audit package.\n\nThe duplication is not usually within a sector. It is that an organisation\noperating across sectors \u2014 and many do, particularly in care and education \u2014\nsupplies substantially the same evidence about itself repeatedly, in different\nformats, on different cycles.\n\n**What is genuinely local, and must stay local.** Whether a provider is competent\nto deliver *this* service to *this* population is sector-specific expertise and\nthis proposal does not touch it. An education regulator should not be assessing\ndisability supports.\n\n**What is not.** Who the directors and key personnel are. Whether they are\ndisqualified. Financial viability and solvency. Regulatory history and\nenforcement action across every Commonwealth regulator. These have one correct\nanswer at any moment, and they are currently answered separately, repeatedly, and\nin ignorance of each other \u2014 so a provider sanctioned by one regulator may be\nregistering with another that does not know.\n\nThat last point reframes the proposal. **A shared provider-fitness record is a\nsafety measure at least as much as an efficiency measure.** The fragmentation\nthat costs providers time also costs regulators sight of each other, and the\norganisations best placed to exploit that are the ones the checks exist to catch.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth, across DEWR, the NDIS Commission, ASQA, TEQSA and\nthe Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission \u2014 with the states, because funding\ncontracts are state instruments.\n", "risk": "**A shared record is a single point of failure and a single point of unfairness.**\nAn error in a consolidated fitness record \u2014 a wrongly recorded enforcement action,\na mistaken identity match \u2014 would propagate across every sector at once, and the\nprovider would have to correct it in a system that is nobody's in particular.\nCorrection rights and a clear owner would have to exist before the record did.\n\n**Regulators define fitness differently for good reasons.** A financial viability\nstandard appropriate to a training provider is not the one appropriate to a\nresidential aged care operator holding refundable accommodation deposits.\nConsolidating the evidence risks consolidating the standard, and the direction of\ndrift is usually toward the least demanding.\n\n**It will be argued for by the wrong people.** Large multi-sector providers gain\nmost; small single-sector operators gain least and may find themselves assessed\nagainst a record designed for corporate groups. The efficiency case for this\nreform is loudest from the organisations best able to absorb the current cost,\nwhich is a reason to be careful about whose version gets built.\n\n**And this site should apply its own lesson.** These are three sectors where\nrecent inquiries \u2014 a royal commission into disability, a royal commission into\naged care, sustained integrity findings in VET and international education \u2014\nfound harm enabled by providers who should not have been operating. Every one of\nthose is an argument for regulators seeing more of each other, and also a reason\nthat any reform here must be presented as strengthening oversight rather than\nreducing it. If it cannot be built that way, it should not be built.\n", "sources": [ "National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth); Standards for RTOs 2025", "Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth)", "National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth); NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission registration requirements", "Aged Care Act 2024 (Cth), universal registration" ] }, "publish-and-close-the-rfi-loop": { "id": "publish-and-close-the-rfi-loop", "name": "Validate visa applications at lodgement instead of asking questions later", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "au-skilled-visa-sponsored:nomination", "au-skilled-visa-sponsored:visa", "au-student-visa:decision" ], "days_saved_est": 180, "status": "proposal", "summary": "The same nomination decision takes 5 days at the median and 9 months at the 90th percentile. The difference is not case difficulty \u2014 it is whether a document was missing and the department had to ask. That is a validation problem, and validation is the one thing software is genuinely good at.", "precedent": "The department already publishes percentile processing times, already defines what a decision-ready application contains, and already operates the lodgement systems in which validation would occur. Every component exists.", "rationale": "This database rarely gets to point at a single published pair of numbers and say\n*there, that is the whole finding*. Here it can.\n\nDepartment of Home Affairs published processing times, August 2026:\n\n| Step | 50th percentile | 90th percentile |\n|---|---|---|\n| Standard business sponsorship | 12 days | 4 months |\n| Subclass 482 nomination | **5 days** | **9 months** |\n| Core Skills stream visa | 69 days | 10 months |\n| Specialist Skills stream visa | 8 days | 43 days |\n\nFive days against nine months. A factor of fifty-four, for the same decision, by\nthe same department, under the same law, on the same form.\n\nCase complexity does not vary by fifty-four times. What varies is whether the\napplication arrived complete. A nomination with a defensible genuine position\nstatement, reconciled salary evidence and compliant labour market testing is\ndecided without a request for further information. One with a gap generates an\nRFI, and the file goes back into a queue.\n\nSo the 90th percentile is not measuring assessment. It is measuring **the\nround-trip cost of a missing document** \u2014 and that cost is borne by an employer\nwho has a vacancy, a worker who has resigned, and a department that now has to\nread the same file twice.\n\nTwo changes:\n\n1. **Validate at lodgement.** Structured checks on the things that generate most\n RFIs \u2014 is the labour market testing evidence within the required period, does\n the salary evidence reconcile, is the position statement present and\n addressing the required elements \u2014 refusing lodgement rather than accepting an\n application that will predictably stall. Better to fail in five minutes at the\n keyboard than in five months in a queue.\n2. **Publish the RFI rate.** By visa stream and by nomination type. A department\n that publishes its percentiles but not the mechanism producing the spread is\n publishing the symptom and withholding the diagnosis. If most of the p90 tail\n is RFI-driven, that is a measurable, fixable, and currently invisible problem.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone. No legislation is required to validate a\nform or to publish a rate.\n\n**A caution on the arithmetic.** The critical path of the\n[[au-skilled-visa-sponsored|sponsored visa process]] models at 171 days on\nmedian figures. Adding the published 90th percentiles step by step gives a much\nlarger number, but that sum is *not* the 90th percentile of the whole process \u2014\npercentiles do not add, and an applicant unlucky at one step is not necessarily\nunlucky at the next. The honest statement is narrower: the tail at each step is\nseveral times the median, the tail is what wrecks a hiring plan, and the tail is\nthe part nobody manages.\n", "risk": "**Hard validation excludes people at the door.** A system that refuses lodgement\nuntil every field satisfies a rule will reject applications that are correct but\nunusual \u2014 an atypical employment history, a salary structure that does not\nreconcile in the expected way, an occupation that fits awkwardly. Today those\napplications generate an RFI and eventually succeed. Under strict validation they\nmay simply not be lodgeable, and the applicant has no decision to appeal because\nthere is no decision. Validation must therefore be advisory-plus-warning for\nanything requiring judgement, and hard only for genuinely mechanical checks.\n\n**It moves cost onto applicants and their agents, not out of the system.** The\nwork of producing a decision-ready application does not disappear; it is done\nearlier and by someone else. For a large employer with a migration agent that is\nefficient. For a small business sponsoring its first worker it is a barrier\narriving before they have any investment in the process, and the beneficiaries of\n\"decision-ready\" requirements are consistently the applicants who can afford\nprofessional help.\n\n**Publishing RFI rates creates an incentive not to ask.** An officer measured on\nRFI rate can avoid an RFI by refusing, or by deciding on an incomplete file. Both\nare worse than asking the question, and both would show up as improvement. If\nthis is adopted, RFI rate must be published alongside refusal rate and the\n[[fix-the-first-decision|tribunal change rate]], or it will optimise the wrong\nthing \u2014 and migration is already one of the two portfolios driving a tribunal\ncaseload of 131,000.\n\n**And the streams are not equivalent.** The Specialist Skills stream is fast\npartly because of validation and partly because it selects for high income\nearners with well-resourced employers. Attributing the entire gap between streams\nto process design would overstate what any validation reform can deliver.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Home Affairs, published processing times, August 2026, for standard business sponsorship, subclass 482 nomination, and the Core Skills, Specialist Skills and Labour Agreement streams", "Ministerial Direction 119, in force from 25 July 2026" ] }, "publish-the-business-case-with-the-commitment": { "id": "publish-the-business-case-with-the-commitment", "name": "61 projects, up to $10 billion, 23 published business cases", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "au-water-infrastructure-funding:detailed_bc", "au-water-infrastructure-funding:commitment" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "The National Water Grid Investment Framework requires a detailed business case before a construction proposal. Dungowan Dam had $595 million committed over seven years and was cancelled because the business case did not support construction. The framework was never the problem.", "precedent": "Infrastructure Australia evaluates transport proposals seeking more than $250 million before the Commonwealth commits, and publishes its evaluations. The same Commonwealth, the same kind of decision, a different discipline.", "rationale": "**Start with what is right**, because this entry is otherwise unfair.\n\n[[national-water-grid|The National Water Grid Investment Framework]] is staged the\nway this database argues planning should be staged: a feasibility or research\nstudy, then a **preliminary business case**, then a **detailed business case**,\nthen construction \u2014 each one required to support the next, with up to 50 per cent\nCommonwealth funding at every stage. A detailed business case is required to\nsupport a construction proposal. That is a real gate, in a real framework, doing\nthe right thing in the right order.\n\n**Now the portfolio.** 61 large water projects. A total capital cost estimate of\n**up to $10 billion**. **23** of them with a publicly available business case.\n\nAnd the commitments that ran ahead of the evidence:\n\n| Project | Commitment | Outcome |\n|---|---|---|\n| **Dungowan Dam** | $595.0m over 7 years from 2026-27 | **Not proceeding** \u2014 the business case did not provide sufficient support for construction |\n| **Emu Swamp Dam and Pipeline** | $162.5m | **Cancelled** |\n\nA funding line sat in the forward estimates for a project whose business case\nsubsequently failed to support it. **Nothing in the framework caused that. An\nannouncement did**, and the framework then did its job, late and expensively.\n\n**The pattern in the sector's numbers is consistent with it.** Research on\nAustralian water projects has found **total project costs underestimated by at\nleast 116 per cent and benefits inflated by 56 per cent**. Estimates prepared to\njustify a decision already announced are a well-understood failure mode, and this\nis what it looks like in a portfolio.\n\n**And there is precedent for the fix inside the same Commonwealth.** Transport\nproposals seeking more than $250 million go to\n[[infrastructure-australia|Infrastructure Australia]] for evaluation **before**\ncommitment. Water projects are committed and then evaluated. Two capital\nprograms, same government, opposite sequencing \u2014 recorded in the process map at\n[[au-water-infrastructure-funding|the commitment step]].\n\n**What should change, and none of it requires legislation:**\n\n1. **Publish the detailed business case at the moment a construction commitment is\n announced**, or publish the reason it is being withheld. Not after\n construction, not on request \u2014 at the announcement.\n2. **State the funding stage every listed project has actually reached.** A\n portfolio in which feasibility studies, business cases and funded construction\n all appear as \"projects\" invites a reader to count $10 billion of dams that do\n not exist.\n3. **Publish realised cost against original estimate for completed projects.** The\n 116 per cent finding comes from academic research. The administering body holds\n the data.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth, on its own portfolio, without amending anything.\n", "risk": "**Business cases contain commercially sensitive material and publishing them has\nreal costs.** Land acquisition footprints, cost estimates and contingency\nallowances are exactly what a landholder or a contractor would want to know before\nnegotiating. That is a genuine reason to withhold parts, and it is why\nrecommendation 1 asks for publication *or a stated reason*, rather than\npublication regardless.\n\n**Publishing at commitment could produce worse business cases, not better ones.** A\ndocument written to be published is written differently \u2014 more defensively, with\nless frank treatment of downside cases. The candid internal assessment that says\n\"this only works if the yield assumption holds\" is the part most likely to\ndisappear. This site has raised the same objection about published condition data\nin social housing and reached the same uncomfortable answer: publish anyway.\n\n**The 116 per cent and 56 per cent figures are from research, not from an audit of\nthis fund.** They characterise Australian water infrastructure estimation broadly\nand should not be attributed to the National Water Grid Fund's own portfolio\nwithout a specific audit \u2014 which is what recommendation 3 would enable and which\ndoes not currently exist. The ANAO examined the design and governance of the\n**predecessor** fund and found record-keeping about program need and funding\nenvelope could have been better; that is a related finding, not the same one.\n\n**And cancelling Dungowan was the system working.** A government that withdraws\n$595 million because the business case did not support construction has made the\nright decision. Recording it as a failure of sequencing is fair; recording it as a\nfailure of judgement would not be, and the entry should not be read that way.\n", "sources": [ "National Water Grid Investment Framework: staged funding for feasibility/research studies, preliminary business case, detailed business case and construction; a detailed business case is required to support construction proposals; up to 50 per cent of total capital costs for delivery", "The National Water Grid Fund portfolio of 61 large water projects has a total capital cost estimate of up to $10 billion, with only 23 having publicly available business cases", "The Australian Government is not proceeding with $595.0 million over 7 years from 2026-27 for the Dungowan Dam project, as the business case did not provide sufficient support for construction of the project", "The Australian Government's $162.5 million commitment to the Emu Swamp Dam and Pipeline has been cancelled", "Research finding total project costs underestimated by at least 116 per cent and benefits inflated by 56 per cent", "ANAO performance audit, Design and Governance of the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund: agencies could have better documented the basis on which key program design elements were determined, including program need and funding envelope size", "Infrastructure Australia evaluates proposals seeking more than $250 million in Commonwealth investment before commitment" ] }, "publish-the-caution-rate": { "id": "publish-the-caution-rate", "name": "The highest-leverage decision in youth justice is not reported nationally", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "nsw-youth-remand:diversion" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A police officer decides to caution or to charge. The Productivity Commission's 2026 report records that data is not available for reporting against the diversionary services indicator \u2014 so the decision that determines everything downstream has no national number.", "precedent": "Every other step in this database that got faster got measured first. The Commonwealth publishes visa processing percentiles, aged care assessment timeframes and bulk billing rates by region; none of those were published until someone decided they should be.", "rationale": "The [[nsw-youth-remand|remand process]] has nine steps. The one that decides the\noutcome is the second, it takes zero days, it involves no application and no fee,\nand it is made by an individual officer.\n\nA caution ends the matter. A charge starts a court process which, three-quarters\nof the time when bail is refused, means custody before it means a finding.\n\n**There is no national rate.** The Productivity Commission's *Report on Government\nServices 2026* records that data is not yet available for reporting against the\ndiversionary services indicator. The most important discretion in the system is\nthe one nobody can chart.\n\n**What is known comes from research, and it is not reassuring.** In New South\nWales, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people are taken to court in\n**64 per cent** of cases against **48**, and cautioned in **14 per cent** against\n**28**. Studies of New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia found\nIndigenous young people less likely to be diverted in all three, **after\ncontrolling for age, sex, offence type and prior history**. That last clause is\nwhat makes the finding hard to explain away.\n\n**Meanwhile Closing the Gap Target 11 is not on track.** The target is a 30 per\ncent reduction in the detention rate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander\nyoung people by 2031. Nationally in 2024-25 the rate was **25.7 per 10,000**,\nbelow the 2018-19 baseline of 28.3 but well above the **20.5** recorded in\n2020-21. New South Wales, Queensland and the Northern Territory are each\nworsening against it.\n\n**What should be published**, per jurisdiction, per year, at a minimum:\n\n- The number of young people proceeded against, split by warning, caution,\n conference and charge.\n- The same, split by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status, offence\n category and prior contact \u2014 because a rate difference that survives those\n controls is a different finding from one that does not.\n- Remand episodes, with the proportion in which accommodation was recorded as a\n factor. See [[bail-should-not-turn-on-a-bed]].\n\n**Zero days saved, and that is the point.** This is the eighth proposal on this\nsite that saves no time and makes something visible. The pattern by now is\nestablished: the reforms that worked were preceded by a published number, and the\ndomains with no published number are the ones where nothing has moved.\n\n**Who acts:** police ministers and state police forces, with the Productivity\nCommission as the reporting vehicle that already exists.\n", "risk": "**Publishing a disparity does not remove it, and can be used to argue the\nopposite.** A published caution rate gap will be read by some as evidence of\npolice bias and by others as evidence that offending differs between cohorts.\nBoth readings will be made from the same table, and the controlled studies that\ndistinguish between them are harder to commission than the table.\n\n**Measuring a discretion changes it, sometimes toward the number rather than the\njudgement.** An officer whose caution rate is reported may caution to the target.\nThat is a real risk in both directions: cautioning someone who needed more, or\ncharging to avoid appearing lenient. Every published performance measure in this\ndatabase carries some version of this, and it is the strongest argument the\npeople who hold the discretion make.\n\n**The data collection is not free and the burden falls on the front line.**\nRecording the basis of a street-level decision is administrative work for police,\nand this site has objected elsewhere to reporting obligations that consume the\ncapacity they are meant to improve.\n\n**And a national number will flatten eight very different systems.** The age of\ncriminal responsibility is 10 in most jurisdictions and 14 in the Australian\nCapital Territory. Diversion schemes differ in name, threshold and legal effect.\nA single national caution rate would compare quantities that are not the same\nquantity, which is an argument for publishing per jurisdiction and against\npublishing a headline.\n", "sources": [ "Report on Government Services 2026, chapter 17 (Youth justice services): data not available for reporting against the diversionary services indicator", "Australian Institute of Criminology: in NSW, Indigenous young people are more likely to be taken to court (64% compared with 48%) and less likely to be cautioned (14% compared with 28%)", "Indigenous Justice Clearinghouse: Indigenous young people were less likely to be diverted in NSW, SA and WA, after controlling for age, sex, offence type and prior history", "Productivity Commission Closing the Gap dashboard, Outcome 11: target is a 30% reduction by 2031; the rate in 2024-25 was 25.7 per 10,000 against a 2018-19 baseline of 28.3 and 20.5 in 2020-21; NSW, Queensland and the NT are worsening", "Age of criminal responsibility is 10 in the NT, Queensland, WA, SA and Tasmania; the ACT has raised it to 14" ] }, "remand-decided-twice": { "id": "remand-decided-twice", "name": "The same decision, on the same facts, five days apart, reversed three times in five", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "nsw-youth-remand:police_bail", "nsw-youth-remand:bail_decision" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "idea", "summary": "Police refuse bail. A few days later a court grants it, in 60 per cent of cases. Between 15 per cent in the Northern Territory and 84 in Western Australia \u2014 a range too wide to be about different children.", "precedent": "Statutory review clocks on detention are ordinary in Australian law: immigration detention, involuntary mental health treatment and police custody all carry mandatory review within fixed short periods. Youth remand is the outlier in having no equivalent.", "rationale": "Two decisions, on the same charge, about the same young person, made days apart:\n\n- **Police bail**, at the station, within hours, by an officer, without review.\n- **Court bail**, after transport, a first appearance and a hearing, by a\n magistrate, with representation.\n\nThey disagree **60 per cent** of the time, and the disagreement always runs the\nsame way \u2014 toward release.\n\n**That is a systematic gap between two decision points, not noise.** If the second\ndecision-maker reverses the first in three cases out of five, either the first is\napplying a different standard, or the first is operating without something the\nsecond has. Both are true: the officer decides at 2am with no accommodation\noption to offer, and the magistrate decides after\n[[nsw-youth-remand|three days of somebody looking for a bed]].\n\n**The jurisdictional spread makes the point unanswerable.** Fifteen per cent of\nremand periods ended in bail in the Northern Territory; **84 per cent** in\nWestern Australia. The children are not five times more dangerous in Darwin. The\ndifference is in the law, the practice and the available alternatives \u2014 which is\nto say, in things governments choose.\n\n**Filed as an idea, because the obvious fix has a bad history.** The instinctive\nmove is a statutory limit: no young person held on remand beyond N days without a\nsubstantive review. That is coherent, it matches how Australian law treats every\nother short-term deprivation of liberty, and it would bite hardest exactly where\nthe numbers are worst.\n\nIt also runs directly into the current direction of travel. Several jurisdictions\nhave recently moved the other way: the Northern Territory lowered the age of\ncriminal responsibility back to 10 after raising it, Queensland has legislated\ntougher sentencing and is trialling electronic monitoring as a youth bail\ncondition to April 2026, and Victoria scaled back its own commitment on the age.\nA proposal to cap remand is not a technical reform in that environment, and this\nsite should not present it as one.\n\n**What is defensible now** is narrower and follows from the same data:\n\n1. **A mandatory bail review within a fixed short period**, on the papers if\n necessary, so that the five days do not depend on a listing.\n2. **Give the first decision-maker what the second one has.** Most of the\n reversal is explained by an option that appeared in the interval. That is\n [[bail-should-not-turn-on-a-bed]].\n3. **Publish the reversal rate by jurisdiction and by cohort**, alongside\n [[publish-the-caution-rate|the caution rate]]. It is the cleanest available\n measure of whether a bail system is working, and it is already collected.\n", "risk": "**A high reversal rate is not necessarily a failure.** Two-stage decision-making\nwith a quick conservative first call and a considered second one is a defensible\ndesign, used deliberately in other areas of law. Police act on incomplete\ninformation at speed; courts do not. Sixty per cent reversal might mean the\nsystem is working exactly as intended, with the second stage doing its job. This\nentry asserts that five days in custody is a high price for that design; it\ncannot prove the design is wrong.\n\n**A statutory cap on remand would release some young people who then reoffend, and\nthose cases will be individually attributable.** The benefit is diffuse and\nstatistical; the cost is specific, named and reported. That asymmetry is why the\npolicy direction has been the other way, and no amount of aggregate data changes\nthe politics of a single case.\n\n**The interstate variation may be measuring different things.** Jurisdictions\ndiffer in how a remand period is counted, in what fraction of matters reach court\nat all, and in the availability of alternatives to detention. A 15-versus-84\ncomparison is arresting and it is not necessarily like for like \u2014 the AIHW\npublishes it as a distribution, not as a league table, and this entry should be\nread the same way.\n\n**And the age of criminal responsibility sits underneath all of it.** In most\njurisdictions a 10-year-old can be charged. That is not a procedural question and\nthis database has no method for it \u2014 a point made explicitly on the\n[federal priorities page](/federal-priorities/) rather than smuggled into a\nprocess map.\n", "sources": [ "AIHW, Youth justice in Australia 2024-25: of remand periods that ended in 2024-25, 3 in 5 (60%) ended because the young person was released on bail; lowest in the NT (15%) and highest in WA (84%)", "AIHW: the median duration of completed periods of unsentenced detention was 5 days", "AIHW: about 3 in 4 (72%) young people in detention on an average night in the June quarter 2025 were unsentenced", "Queensland is trialling electronic monitoring as a bail condition for young people aged 15 or older, with the trial extended to 30 April 2026", "The Northern Territory has moved to make younger children criminally liable; Victoria has scaled back its commitment to increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility; the ACT has raised the age to 14" ] }, "remedies-should-find-the-people-they-are-for": { "id": "remedies-should-find-the-people-they-are-for", "name": "A remedy for people who were misled should not depend on them finding it", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "au-vfh-debt-remedy:awareness", "au-vfh-debt-remedy:apply" ], "days_saved_est": 395, "status": "proposal", "summary": "VET FEE-HELP debts incurred through provider misconduct can be removed. The scheme that caused the harm worked by targeting people who did not understand what they were signing. The remedy for it is a voluntary application.", "precedent": "The ATO applied a 20 per cent reduction to every HELP and VET Student Loan debt in the country automatically in 2025. Where the department has already made a finding about a provider's conduct, the students who enrolled with that provider in that period are identifiable from the department's own records.", "rationale": "Legislation commencing 1 January 2019 allows removal of a VET FEE-HELP debt\nincurred because of inappropriate conduct by a provider or its agent, including\nconduct after 1 January 2016.\n\nThe population this is for was described by a Senate inquiry: people targeted by\nmisleading and deceptive marketing, signed into courses through door-knocking and\ninducements, drawn disproportionately from those with low literacy, cognitive\ndisability or limited English.\n\nThe remedy is an application.\n\n**That is a category error, and it is a common one.** An opt-in remedy selects\nfor the capabilities whose absence caused the harm. A person who did not\nunderstand what they were signing in 2014 is not well placed to discover, a\ndecade later, that a statutory re-credit mechanism exists, obtain records from a\nprovider that has since collapsed, and make a case about conduct. Reporting in\n2019 put it plainly: thousands of unfair debts could be wiped, if students knew\nhow.\n\nThe [[au-vfh-debt-remedy|modelled process]] runs 785 days, of which 395 is\n`applicant` time \u2014 dominated by a step this database has recorded as 365 days\nthat is really a probability, because for many people it never completes at all.\n\n**What the Commonwealth already knows.** Where it has made a finding that a\nprovider engaged in unacceptable conduct, it knows which provider, in which\nperiod, and \u2014 from its own enrolment and debt records \u2014 which students enrolled.\nIt does not need those students to come forward to identify them. It needs them\nto come forward to *assess* them, which is a different and much later step.\n\n**The proposal.** Where a provider-level finding has been made, the department\nshould write to every student who incurred a debt with that provider in the\nrelevant period, tell them the remedy exists, and offer an assisted pathway. For\nfindings broad enough to cover an entire cohort, remove the debts on the\ndepartment's own motion, as the [[ato|ATO]] demonstrably can.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone. One department, its own records, its own\nfindings.\n", "risk": "**Contacting people about a decade-old debt is not costless to them.** Some\nrecipients will have moved on and will experience an unsolicited letter about a\nVET FEE-HELP debt as distressing, or as a scam \u2014 and letters purporting to be\nabout debt relief are a well-worn fraud pattern. A campaign of this kind needs\ncareful channel design and will generate confusion, and some people who owe\nnothing will believe they do.\n\n**On-motion removal risks removing the wrong debts.** Not every student of a\nprovider found to have engaged in misconduct was themselves misled. Some\ncompleted the course, valued it, and would say so. Blanket removal is\nadministratively cheap and treats a cohort as uniform, and the department has a\nduty to public money that a re-credit assessment currently discharges. The\nhonest version is proactive *notification* with an assisted pathway, and\non-motion removal only where a finding is genuinely cohort-wide.\n\n**Records degrade.** Providers have collapsed, agents have dissolved, and the\ndepartment's own records from 2012-2016 will not always support an individual\ndetermination. Proactive contact may raise an expectation the evidence cannot\nmeet, which is its own harm.\n\n**And the general lesson is bigger than this scheme.** The same shape appears\nacross this database: the [[nsw-energy-rebate|energy rebate]] that must be\nreapplied for annually, the [[aged-care-interim-support-on-approval|interim aged\ncare support]] that is opt-in, the [[nsw-social-housing-access|priority housing\nstatus]] that requires the applicant to assemble third-party evidence. In each,\nthe burden of activation falls on the person with the least capacity to carry it,\nand in each the state holds most of what it needs to act first. This entry is\nthe clearest case because the harm and the remedy have the same cause.\n", "sources": [ "Legislation commencing 1 January 2019 allowing removal of VET FEE-HELP debt incurred because of inappropriate conduct by a provider or its agent", "Senate inquiry into vocational education and training providers: misleading and deceptive marketing targeting vulnerable and disadvantaged consumers", "ABC News, 'Thousands of unfair VET FEE-HELP debts could be wiped \u2014 if students knew how', 16 December 2019", "DEWR, Notice of VET FEE-HELP Debt Removal and information for former VET FEE-HELP students" ] }, "remote-housing-publish-the-run-rate": { "id": "remote-housing-publish-the-run-rate", "name": "Publish the rate a program has to run at, next to the number it has reached", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "nt-remote-housing:program_delivery" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "2,700 houses over ten years is about 270 a year. The 300th was completed in 2026. As at August 2026 the governments were reported deadlocked, targets reduced, reporting missing and funding not flowing \u2014 and the required rate has never been published alongside the cumulative total.", "precedent": "Infrastructure and capital programs routinely publish delivery schedules against forecast. The Closing the Gap dashboard already publishes trajectory lines against targets, showing where a measure needs to be to arrive on time.", "rationale": "This database has now found the same shape three times, and this is the clearest\ninstance.\n\n| Program | Target | Reached |\n|---|---|---|\n| [[au-haff-project|Housing Australia Future Fund]] | 40,000 homes by 2029 | 1,432 as at May 2026 |\n| [[mdba|Murray-Darling water recovery]] | 450 GL by Dec 2027 | about half as at March 2026 |\n| **Remote NT housing** | **2,700 houses over ten years** | **300th completed in 2026** |\n\nIn each case a cumulative total is published and **the rate required to arrive on\ntime is not**. 2,700 houses over ten years is about 270 a year. That number does\nnot appear beside the 300.\n\n**Reporting a stock against a target invites two useless arguments.** Critics say\nthe program has failed; defenders say it is early and delivery ramps. Both are\nunfalsifiable against a cumulative number, and this project has already made that\npoint about [[free-tafe-track-the-cohort|Free TAFE completions]]. A published run\nrate ends both arguments: either the program is at the rate it needs or it is\nnot.\n\n**Here the case is sharper because the reporting itself is reported missing.** As\nat 13 August 2026 the Commonwealth and Northern Territory were reported deadlocked\non the agreement, with building behind schedule, construction targets being\nreduced, reporting missing and funding not flowing. An agreement signed by two\ngovernments, all four land councils and Aboriginal Housing NT is not delivering,\nand the parties least able to do anything about it are the ones living in the\nhousing.\n\nThat context matters: 56.6 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander\npeople in the Northern Territory live in overcrowded housing, and 74.5 per cent\nin very remote areas. Closing the Gap Target 9a seeks 88 per cent in appropriately\nsized housing by 2031, against 81.4 per cent nationally in 2021.\n\n**The proposal.** Publish, quarterly: houses completed, houses under construction,\nhouses commenced, against the rate required to reach 2,700 by the agreement's end\n\u2014 plus expenditure against profile, and where a target has been revised, the\nrevision and its reason.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory, as parties to an\nagreement that already contains reporting obligations.\n", "risk": "**A published run rate will be used to argue for abandoning the program, not for\nresourcing it.** A number showing delivery at a fraction of the required rate is a\ngift to anyone who wants to argue that remote housing investment does not work,\nand the people who would bear the consequence of that argument are the ones in\novercrowded houses. This project publishes uncomfortable numbers as a matter of\nmethod; it should be honest that here the risk of misuse is high and the\nconstituency to resist it is small.\n\n**Rate reporting can drive the wrong build.** A program measured on houses per\nyear has an incentive toward the cheapest, fastest, most accessible dwellings \u2014\nlarger communities over homelands, standard designs over\n[[nt-remote-housing|climate and culturally appropriate ones]], and fly-in\ncontractors over the [[aboriginal-housing-nt|community-controlled sector]] whose\ncapacity the agreement is meant to build. Every one of those trades quality and\nlong-term maintenance for a number.\n\n**Some of the delay is legitimate and should not be counted against the rate.**\n[[nt-land-council|Lease negotiation]] is a land right being exercised, and wet\nseason closures are weather. A run-rate metric that treats those as\nunderperformance would put pressure on exactly the steps that must not be\ncompressed.\n\n**And this is the sixth zero-day transparency proposal on this site.** The\npattern is now conspicuous, and it means something: across thirty-three\nCommonwealth objectives, the most common thing this project can identify is a\nnumber that is not published. That is a finding about the state of Australian\npublic administration data, and it is also a limit on what a database like this\none can contribute.\n", "sources": [ "Prime Minister of Australia and NIAA: $4 billion over ten years to deliver up to 2,700 houses in remote Northern Territory communities and homelands", "Ministers' media centre: 300th home completed at Peppimenarti", "ABC News, 13 August 2026: governments deadlocked, building behind schedule, construction targets being reduced, reporting missing and funding not flowing", "Closing the Gap Target 9a and Productivity Commission dashboard data: 81.4 per cent nationally in 2021 against a 2031 target of 88 per cent; 56.6 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the NT in overcrowded housing, 74.5 per cent in very remote areas" ] }, "report-the-incident-once": { "id": "report-the-incident-once", "name": "One incident, five reports, four regulators, and the law says none of them counts for the others", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-cyber-incident-reporting:soci_72", "au-cyber-incident-reporting:apra_72", "au-cyber-incident-reporting:ransom_72", "au-cyber-incident-reporting:privacy_assess" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A regulated Australian entity suffering one intrusion owes a 12-hour report to ASD, a 72-hour report to ASD, a 72-hour report to APRA, a 72-hour ransomware payment report to ASD again, and a Privacy Act assessment and notification. The guidance states explicitly that these do not satisfy each other.", "precedent": "The limited use obligation in the Cyber Security Act 2024 already establishes that information can flow into one Commonwealth channel under defined handling rules. The architecture for a single front door exists; it is being used for one regulator rather than for the reporting entity.", "rationale": "**This is the cleanest duplication finding in the database, and it is clean\nbecause the duplication is documented rather than inferred.**\n\nOne intrusion, at a bank that operates a critical infrastructure asset and holds\npersonal information:\n\n| Report | To | Clock |\n|---|---|---|\n| Critical cyber security incident (SOCI) | [[asd-acsc|ASD/ACSC]] | **12 hours** |\n| Other cyber security incident (SOCI) | ASD/ACSC | **72 hours** |\n| Material information security incident (CPS 234) | [[apra|APRA]] | **72 hours** |\n| Ransomware or extortion payment (Cyber Security Act 2024) | ASD/ACSC | **72 hours** |\n| Eligible data breach assessment and notification | [[oaic|OAIC]] and individuals | **30 days**, then as soon as practicable |\n| CIRMP annual report and board attestation | Cyber and Infrastructure Security Centre | **90 days** after year end |\n\n**And the position is stated, not accidental.** The OAIC's 30-day rule *does not\nreplace* SOCI incident reporting; the regimes run in parallel and do not satisfy\neach other. Notifications to the ACSC are *in addition to* any other notification\nrequired at law. Nobody is confused about this. It is the design.\n\n**The defence of the design is real and should be stated first.** The regulators\nare asking genuinely different questions. SOCI asks whether an asset that matters\nto the nation was affected. The Privacy Act asks whether individuals face a risk\nof serious harm. CPS 234 asks whether depositors and policyholders were exposed.\nThree questions, three mandates, three sets of expertise \u2014 and a single merged\nquestion would answer none of them properly.\n\n**But that is an argument against one question, not against one lodgement.**\n\n**What should change:**\n\n1. **One lodgement, distributed by the receiver.** A single structured report,\n submitted once to one Commonwealth endpoint, with the fields each regulator\n needs, routed automatically. The entity files once; the regulators each get\n what their mandate requires. This is a plumbing problem, and every one of these\n bodies is a Commonwealth body except the state privacy regulators.\n2. **A deeming provision.** Lodgement through the common channel satisfies the\n obligation to each regulator whose fields were completed \u2014 so an entity is not\n compliant-in-spirit and in breach in fact.\n3. **Align the 72-hour clocks.** Three separate 72-hour obligations, running from\n three different definitions of awareness, is a compliance trap and not a\n safeguard. One trigger definition for the three-day reports would cost nothing\n in regulatory reach.\n\n**The 30-day Privacy Act assessment should stay where it is**, because it is doing\nsomething different \u2014 determining whether individuals are at risk of serious harm\nis not an incident report, and rushing it produces worse notifications to the\npeople who actually need them.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth, across Home Affairs, the Treasury portfolio and\nthe Attorney-General's portfolio. No state legislation is required for the\nCommonwealth reports.\n\n**Days saved: zero, and deliberately so.** Nothing here shortens a statutory\nclock. The cost being removed is not elapsed time; it is the diversion of the\nsmall number of people who understand the incident, during the hours they are\ncontaining it, into writing four documents for four audiences.\n", "risk": "**A single front door creates a single point of failure at exactly the wrong\nmoment.** If the common channel is unavailable \u2014 including because the reporting\nentity's own connectivity is compromised, which is the whole scenario \u2014 four\nobligations fail together rather than one. Any such system needs fallbacks that\nare themselves compliant, which is most of the engineering.\n\n**Regulators will not accept fields they did not design.** The reason these regimes\ndiverge is that each was built by a body with its own statutory purpose, and each\nwill reasonably insist on asking its own question in its own words. A merged form\ntends toward the union of all requirements rather than the intersection \u2014 which\nwould make the single report longer than any current one, and this proposal worse\nthan the status quo.\n\n**Information routed automatically is information shared automatically.** An entity\ncurrently makes deliberate decisions about what goes to which regulator, partly\nbecause a report to one can become evidence for another's enforcement action. The\nlimited use obligation exists precisely because that chilling effect is real \u2014\nand a distribution hub would need equivalent walls, or it will reduce candour\nrather than burden.\n\n**And this database should be honest that the burden here is not measured.** The\nprocess models at **127 days with zero addressable time** \u2014 every day is a\nstatutory clock, and the critical path is entirely the Privacy Act assessment\nfollowed by the annual CIRMP report. The cost of multiple reporting is real, it is\nconcentrated in the first 72 hours, and it is *not* elapsed time. No number on\nthis page quantifies it, and none is published.\n", "sources": [ "Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (Cth): critical cyber security incidents reportable within 12 hours, other cyber security incidents within 72 hours", "APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234: notify APRA no later than 72 hours after becoming aware of a material information security incident", "Cyber Security Act 2024 (Cth) and Cyber Security (Ransomware Payment Reporting) Rules 2025: ransomware payment reportable within 72 hours; commenced 30 May 2025; enforcement from 1 January 2026", "Privacy Act 1988 (Cth): assess and notify as soon as practicable and within 30 days of becoming aware of an actual or suspected eligible data breach", "The OAIC 30-day rule does not replace SOCI incident reporting; the regimes run in parallel and do not satisfy each other", "Notifications to the ACSC are in addition to any other notifications the entity may be required to make at law", "Cyber Security Act 2024 (Cth), Part 4 Division 3: the limited use obligation; limited use is not immunity and does not switch off other obligations", "CIRMP annual report due within 90 days of financial year end; civil penalty of 150 penalty units for failure to lodge" ] }, "resource-the-land-tenure-step": { "id": "resource-the-land-tenure-step", "name": "The lease is a right being exercised, so the question is whether it is resourced", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "nt-remote-housing:lease" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "idea", "summary": "Building on Aboriginal land requires consultation with traditional owners and their informed consent. That takes time, and this database's usual method \u2014 find the long step, ask if it can be shorter \u2014 produces the wrong answer here.", "precedent": "The remote housing agreement is signed by all four Northern Territory land councils and Aboriginal Housing NT alongside both governments. The parties are already treated as parties. What is not established is whether they are resourced to act at the pace the agreement assumes.", "rationale": "**This entry exists to correct an error this project would otherwise make.**\n\nThe [[nt-remote-housing|remote housing process]] contains a 270 day step for\nobtaining a lease over Aboriginal land. It is the second-longest step before\nconstruction. The standard method of this database \u2014 identify the long step, ask\nwhat it is doing, ask whether it could be shorter or run in parallel \u2014 points\nstraight at it.\n\nThat method is wrong here, and it is worth saying why rather than quietly\nskipping the step.\n\nAboriginal land in the Northern Territory is held under inalienable freehold\ntitle returned by the *Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976*.\nBuilding requires a lease; a lease requires consultation with traditional owners\nand their informed consent through the [[nt-land-council|land council]]. The\nduration is the duration of consent being properly obtained.\n\nRecording that as friction would describe the recognition of property rights as\nred tape. This site would not accept that framing about anyone else's freehold\ntitle, and the fact that this title is Aboriginal land is the reason to be more\ncareful, not less.\n\n**So the question inverts.** Not \"how is this step shortened\" but **\"is it\nresourced\"**:\n\n1. **Capacity at the land council.** Anthropological, legal and administrative\n work is required to identify the right people to speak for country and to\n support an informed decision. That work is funded at a level set by\n government, and where it is under-resourced the delay is not the consent\n process \u2014 it is the Commonwealth's own funding of it.\n2. **Quality of the proposal arriving.** A proponent who arrives with a site,\n design, tenure model and timeline enables a decision. One who arrives with a\n concept generates rounds of clarification. That is within the program's\n control.\n3. **Repeat rather than one-off dealings.** Where a community expects a decade of\n construction, negotiating tenure arrangements that cover a program rather than\n a dwelling avoids re-running consent for every house \u2014 provided that is what\n traditional owners want, which is theirs to decide and not a default.\n\n**Filed as an idea**, and it will stay one. Whether land councils are adequately\nresourced, and what tenure arrangements communities want, are questions to be\nanswered by traditional owners and the organisations that represent them. A\nprocess database can identify that the question is being asked in the wrong shape.\nIt cannot answer it.\n", "risk": "**\"Streamlining consent\" is what this proposal must not become, and the risk is\nreal.** Every element above could be turned into pressure to standardise\nagreements, set target timeframes for land council decisions, or fund on\ncondition of throughput. Each of those converts a right into a service level, and\nthe history of land tenure policy in the Northern Territory gives traditional\nowners ample reason to read any efficiency proposal in that light.\n\n**Program-scale tenure arrangements concentrate a decision.** Negotiating consent\nonce for a decade of construction is administratively efficient and it asks\ntraditional owners to agree to things not yet designed, on a site plan that will\nchange. Consent given once at low information is weaker consent, and the\nconvenience accrues to the proponent.\n\n**Funding land councils to move faster is still government paying for the speed of\na decision about someone else's land.** Better resourcing is unambiguously good;\nresourcing tied to timeframes is not, and the boundary between them is exactly\nwhere this would be negotiated.\n\n**And the estimate here is ours and should not be quoted.** Nobody publishes lease\nnegotiation timeframes. The 270 days in the process map is a placeholder, the\nvariation is very large, and using it to characterise land councils as slow would\nbe both unsupported and the opposite of what this entry says.\n", "sources": [ "Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth)", "Northern Territory remote housing agreement signed by the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory, all four land councils and Aboriginal Housing NT" ] }, "rit-t-once-for-isp-projects": { "id": "rit-t-once-for-isp-projects", "name": "Test an actionable ISP project once, not twice", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-transmission-line:pscr", "au-transmission-line:padr", "au-transmission-line:pacr" ], "days_saved_est": 300, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A project identified as needed by a whole-of-system cost-benefit process then runs its own three-stage cost-benefit process to establish that it is needed. The actionable ISP framework was built to remove that duplication and removed only part of it.", "precedent": "The actionable ISP framework already links the Integrated System Plan to the regulatory investment test and applies modified requirements to actionable projects. The AEMC has recommended streamlining the test by removing duplication. The direction is settled; the distance travelled is not.", "rationale": "[[aemo|AEMO]] publishes the Integrated System Plan every two years. It models the\nwhole system against scenarios, consults extensively, identifies optimal\ndevelopment paths, and designates particular projects actionable.\n\nAn actionable project then begins the regulatory investment test: a project\nspecification consultation report and consultation, a project assessment draft\nreport and consultation, and a project assessment conclusions report. Three\nstages, each with a consultation period, running to years rather than months.\n\nThe AEMC has acknowledged that while the test delivers benefits for actionable\nISP projects it significantly adds to the time taken to approve them, and has\nrecommended streamlining it by removing duplication.\n\nThe proposal is that for a project already designated actionable in a published\nISP, the first two stages collapse into the ISP consultation that has already\noccurred, leaving a single conclusions report that documents the option selected\nand the reasons. The [[aer|AER]] retains the contingent project application, which\nis where consumer protection actually bites, and which this proposal does not\ntouch.\n\n**The measured effect is smaller than the rhetoric.** On the model this saves\nabout 300 days off a 3,495 day critical path \u2014 under 9 per cent. Transmission is\nnot slow because of the regulatory investment test. It is slow because of route\nselection, landholder engagement, environmental assessment and construction, in\nthat order of contentiousness.\n\nAnyone citing this site to argue that regulatory process is why Australia's grid\nis behind schedule is misusing it. The test is worth reforming because it is\nduplicative, not because it is the binding constraint.\n\n**Who acts:** the AEMC, by rule change, on request from energy ministers.\n", "risk": "The case against is stronger than the modest saving justifies overriding, and\nthis proposal should be treated as weak until that is answered.\n\n**The ISP and the RIT-T are not the same test and merging them loses something\nreal.** The ISP is a system-wide plan built on scenarios and assumptions about a\nfuture that keeps moving. The regulatory investment test is a project-specific\nexamination of credible options, run closer to the decision, when costs are\nbetter known. Between an ISP designation and a final investment decision, costs\nhave moved enormously on Australian transmission projects \u2014 EnergyConnect,\nMarinus Link, HumeLink and CopperString have all seen material escalation. The\nlater test is the one that catches that, and removing it removes the checkpoint\nthat exists precisely for the case where the plan's assumptions were wrong.\n\n**Consultation stages are how affected parties get standing.** The PSCR and PADR\nconsultations are among the few formal opportunities for consumer advocates,\ngenerators and communities to contest a project before it is locked in. Removing\ntwo of three consultation rounds is described here as removing duplication; from\nthe outside it is removing two of the three times anyone has to listen.\n\n**Consumers carry the risk for decades.** Transmission is a regulated monopoly\nand every approved dollar is recovered from every bill. A process that is\nduplicative and protective is not obviously worse than one that is streamlined\nand wrong, and the party who benefits from speed here is the proponent while the\nparty who carries the cost of error is the household.\n\nThe honest version of this proposal is narrow: merge the first-stage\nconsultation, keep the draft report stage, keep the AER application. That saves\nless and is much easier to defend.\n", "sources": [ "National Electricity Rules, rule 5.15A", "AEMC, Transmission Planning and Investment Review, recommendations on streamlining the regulatory investment test", "AEMO, published guidance on regulatory investment tests for transmission and the actionable ISP framework" ] }, "rolling-stock-recognised-once": { "id": "rolling-stock-recognised-once", "name": "Automatic mutual recognition exists for people and not for trains", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-rolling-stock-approval:rim_nsw", "au-rolling-stock-approval:rim_vic", "au-rolling-stock-approval:rim_qld" ], "days_saved_est": 90, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Rail safety was nationalised in 2013 and works: one law, one regulator, one accreditation. What a vehicle must meet was not, so the same test reports are assessed by four infrastructure managers against four sets of interface standards.", "precedent": "Automatic mutual recognition already does exactly this for occupational licences: a registration in one state is a registration in all, with the home regulator's assessment accepted rather than repeated. The mechanism is settled Australian law; it has simply never been applied to a vehicle.", "rationale": "This is the **ninth instance** of the partial-national pattern in this database,\nand the first one where the *regulator* was nationalised and the *standards* were\nnot \u2014 the reverse of every other case here.\n\n[[onrsr|ONRSR]] accredits the operator under the Rail Safety National Law, applying\nidentically everywhere, with a single six-month statutory clock. That half was\ndone in 2013 and it works. But accreditation answers whether an operator is\ncompetent to manage safety risk. It does not answer whether a particular vehicle\nmay run on a particular network. That is settled between the operator and each\nrail infrastructure manager, against that manager's own interface standards.\n\nMelbourne to Brisbane is not one network: the interstate main line is\n[[artc|ARTC]] and each capital's approaches are state-owned. So the same vehicle,\nthe same test reports and the same operator go through it four times.\n\nThe [[ntc|National Transport Commission]] states the consequence without\nqualification: **in Australia it can take less time to build a train than it does\nto get it approved to run across the country**, which creates significant\nbarriers to investment. The\n[[au-rolling-stock-approval|approval process alone]] models at **540 days** \u2014 and\nthat excludes building the thing.\n\n**Compare what has already been conceded for people.** Under automatic mutual\nrecognition, an electrician licensed in Victoria may work in Queensland without\nreapplying, because Queensland accepts Victoria's assessment. This site has\nargued for [[finish-automatic-mutual-recognition|finishing that scheme]]\nelsewhere. The same logic applies with more force to rolling stock, where the\nsubject of the assessment is an inanimate object with published specifications\nand no local variation at all.\n\n**What should change.** A vehicle accepted onto the National Network for\nInteroperability is accepted by every manager on that network, unless a manager\nidentifies a **specific, stated incompatibility with its own infrastructure\nwithin a fixed period**. The burden moves from the operator proving compliance\nfour times to the manager naming the difference once.\n\n**And it is already being built.** The NTC has three reforms running \u2014 safety\nassurance guidance clarifying who certifies what, identification of common\ninterface standards to harmonise, and a single application form for freight \u2014 and\nStage 3 in **2029-2030** develops a mandatory national standard for rolling stock\napprovals, deliberately a *process* standard rather than a prescriptive technical\none. The NTC estimates the industry saving at **tens of millions of dollars a\nyear**. This entry is a proposal for the endpoint of work that is genuinely under\nway; see [[a-decade-to-agree-that-a-train-is-a-train]] on what that costs in time.\n", "risk": "**The differences between networks are physical, not bureaucratic, and some of them\nmatter.** Structure gauge, axle load limits, bridge capacity, platform clearances\nand signalling systems really do differ, and a manager who accepts a vehicle that\ndoes not fit their infrastructure has a derailment, not a paperwork problem.\nMutual recognition of a *person's* competence is a different act from mutual\nrecognition of a *vehicle's* fit to a specific piece of track, and this entry\nshould not blur them.\n\n**The safe version of this reform is harmonising the standards, which is slower\nand more expensive than recognising each other's assessments.** Deemed acceptance\nacross incompatible standards would be genuinely dangerous. That is precisely why\nthe NTC has sequenced common interface standards *before* a mandatory approvals\nstandard, and why the finish date is 2030 rather than next year. A proposal to\nskip to the end is a proposal to skip the part that makes it safe.\n\n**Infrastructure managers are commercial parties as well as safety gatekeepers.** A\nnetwork manager assessing a competitor's rolling stock, or a state-owned\npassenger operator assessing freight that will compete for paths, has interests\nbeyond compatibility. That is an argument *for* this reform, but it also means a\n\"specific stated incompatibility within a fixed period\" test will be tested\nadversarially, and it needs an arbiter. ARTC's own access undertaking moved to a\n**commercial arbitration model** for access disputes; something equivalent would\nbe needed here.\n\n**And 90 days is the optimistic reading.** The saving is modelled as the removal\nof the two parallel duplicate assessments, leaving the first. If the harmonised\nstandard turns out to require physical modification of vehicles or infrastructure,\nthe elapsed time goes up before it comes down.\n", "sources": [ "National Transport Commission: in Australia it can take less time to build a train than it does to get it approved to run across the country, which creates significant barriers to investment", "NTC: variation in interface standards across jurisdictions creates cost and duplication", "NTC, Streamlining rolling stock approval processes: three reforms including draft safety assurance guidance (November 2025) clarifying RIM and RSO roles in certification and registration, common interface standards to be harmonised, and a single application form for freight", "NTC: Stage 3 (2029-2030) develops a mandatory national standard for rolling stock approvals, intended as a process standard and not a prescriptive technical standard; the industry can save tens of millions of dollars a year", "ONRSR: operators on the National Network for Interoperability must prepare an Interoperability Management Plan; new interoperability requirements took full effect on 28 February 2026", "ACCC: ARTC's interstate access undertaking moved to a commercial arbitration model to resolve access disputes; runs until the end of June 2029" ] }, "rpl-make-it-rigorous-and-fundable": { "id": "rpl-make-it-rigorous-and-fundable", "name": "Fund recognition of prior learning properly, or stop pretending it is available", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "au-free-tafe-place:rpl" ], "days_saved_est": 180, "status": "idea", "summary": "Recognition of prior learning is the purest form of the reform this site keeps proposing \u2014 do not assess the same thing twice. It is also, on the regulator's own account, an enduring and growing integrity risk. Both are true, and that is the problem.", "precedent": "Outcome Standard 1.6 already requires students with existing competence to be supported to seek recognition. The obligation exists. What does not exist is a funding model or an evidence standard that makes discharging it viable.", "rationale": "This entry exists because it is the place where this database's own instincts\nrun into a wall, and saying so is more useful than another confident proposal.\n\n**The case for RPL is the case this site makes everywhere else.** A person who\nalready holds a competence should not be trained in it again. Outcome Standard\n1.6 of the Standards for RTOs 2025 requires exactly that: students with existing\nskills, knowledge and competencies are to be supported to seek recognition so\nthey can progress. It is the same principle as\n[[credentialing-verify-once|verifying credentials once]] in health and\n[[bank-ecological-survey-data|reusing survey data]] in environmental approval.\n\n**And [[asqa|the regulator]] describes it as an enduring and growing risk.** RPL\nis among ASQA's most frequently identified areas of non-compliance. It has warned\nabout RPL mills: high-volume, low-quality operations issuing qualifications with\nminimal real assessment, targeting mandatory qualifications for\ngovernment-funded job roles, shortage occupations and migration pathways.\n\nThose are not competing claims about the same fact. They are both correct.\nRecognition of existing competence and sale of unearned credentials look\nidentical from outside \u2014 a short process producing a qualification \u2014 and the only\nthing distinguishing them is assessment rigour that is invisible in the record.\n\n**Why the current settlement is the worst of both.** Done to standard, RPL\nrequires the same rigour, principles of assessment and rules of evidence as any\nother assessment. That is expensive and slow. Funding models generally pay per\nenrolment or per unit delivered, so a provider doing RPL properly earns less and\nworks harder than one delivering the training, and a provider doing it improperly\nearns more and works less than either. The incentives point away from the honest\nversion in both directions.\n\nSo the option formally exists, is rarely used well, and is heavily used badly.\n\n**What would have to change:** an evidence standard specific enough to be audited\nagainst, and a funding rate for assessment-only delivery that makes rigorous RPL\nviable. Both are national decisions.\n\n**Filed as an idea.** This database has no visibility of what proportion of RPL\nis sound, what rigorous RPL actually costs to deliver, or whether a defensible\nevidence standard can be written for competences that are genuinely tacit. Those\nare the whole question and none of them is a process question.\n", "risk": "**Making RPL easier is exactly what the mills want.** Any proposal to streamline\nrecognition arrives on the same side of the argument as the operators ASQA is\ntrying to shut down, and it will be used by them. In a sector where\nqualifications gate entry to aged care, disability support, childcare and\nmigration, a wrongly issued credential puts an unqualified person in a room with\nsomeone vulnerable. That is a worse outcome than an unnecessary six months of\ntraining, and this site should say so plainly rather than treat duplication as\nthe only cost worth counting.\n\n**Paying more for assessment-only delivery creates its own gaming.** A funding\nrate that makes RPL commercially attractive makes RPL-heavy business models\ncommercially attractive, which is precisely the model under scrutiny. Rate\ndesign would have to be paired with audit capacity that does not currently\nexist.\n\n**The tacit-knowledge problem may not be solvable by an evidence standard.** Much\nof what an experienced worker knows is demonstrable in practice and hard to\nevidence on paper. A standard tight enough to defeat a mill may be tight enough\nto exclude the honest applicant it was written for, and the result would be RPL\nthat is formally available and practically unobtainable \u2014 which is arguably where\nit already is.\n\n**And a note on this site's method.** Almost every reform here argues that\nassessing the same thing twice is waste. RPL is the case where the second\nassessment is the only thing standing between a credential and a fraud. It is\nrecorded at length as a corrective: *do not assess twice* is a good heuristic and\nnot a principle, and the difference matters most where the credential is the\nprotection.\n", "sources": [ "ASQA, Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2025, Outcome Standard 1.6", "ASQA, published risk priority material on recognition of prior learning, describing inadequate RPL as an enduring and growing risk and warning about RPL mills", "ASQA, Practice Guide: Recognition of Prior Learning and Credit Transfer" ] }, "social-housing-publish-the-wait-people-are-actually-doing": { "id": "social-housing-publish-the-wait-people-are-actually-doing", "name": "Publish the wait of people still waiting, not just of people who got housed", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "nsw-social-housing-access:wait" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "The headline social housing wait is a median computed over households that were housed. The 55,222 general applicants still on the NSW register \u2014 including everyone who has waited longest \u2014 are not in it. A statistic computed only over people who left a queue cannot describe the queue.", "precedent": "NSW already publishes expected waiting times by area as a separate dataset, and already publishes register counts by category. The components exist; what is missing is the measure everybody actually quotes being the right one.", "rationale": "As at 31 March 2026 the published median waiting time for general applicants\n**housed** from the NSW Housing Register was 15.1 months, and 4.5 months for\npriority applicants.\n\nAs at 31 December 2025 there were **67,316 households on the register** \u2014 12,094\npriority approved and 55,222 general approved.\n\nThose two facts are usually reported together and they do not describe the same\npopulation. The median is computed over households that reached the front. It\nexcludes, by construction, every household still waiting \u2014 and the longer someone\nhas been waiting, the more certain it is that they are excluded from the number\nused to describe their wait.\n\nThis is survivorship bias, and it runs in a predictable direction: the published\nfigure is a floor, and the gap between it and reality grows with the size of the\nbacklog.\n\n**Nobody is being dishonest here.** Homes NSW publishes expected waiting times by\narea separately, does not claim the median means anything else, and publishes the\nregister counts that let a careful reader notice the problem. The issue is which\nnumber travels. \"Fifteen months\" is what gets quoted; the household in an area\nwith a multi-year expected wait is reading a statistic about somebody else.\n\n**What to publish instead**, from data already held:\n\n1. **Time-on-register for the current register**, not just for those housed \u2014\n median and distribution, by category and area. This is the number a household\n wants and the only one that describes the queue.\n2. **Exits by reason.** Housed, withdrawn, no longer eligible, lost contact,\n died. A register that shrinks because people give up is not the same as one\n that shrinks because people are housed, and the two are currently\n indistinguishable from outside.\n3. **Change rates on priority refusals.** Priority status is worth roughly ten\n months on the published medians, which makes it one of the higher-value\n administrative decisions in this database \u2014 and nobody publishes how often a\n refusal is overturned on review.\n\n**Days saved: zero.** This houses nobody. The wait is rationing \u2014 there are not\nenough dwellings, and no reporting reform builds one. What it changes is whether\nthe scale of the rationing is visible, which on this site's standing argument is\nthe precondition for anyone being accountable for it.\n\n**Who acts:** New South Wales, and every other state publishing the same shape of\nstatistic.\n", "risk": "**The honest number will be much worse and will be used badly.** Publishing\ntime-on-register for people still waiting will produce figures in years, and they\nwill be deployed by people who want to argue that social housing does not work\nrather than that there is not enough of it. A government that publishes a number\nwhich is then used against it learns not to publish numbers, and this site's\nentire method depends on governments publishing numbers.\n\n**Exit-by-reason data is sensitive and partly unknowable.** \"Lost contact\" covers\na household that found private housing and a household that became homeless and\nuncontactable. Publishing it without that ambiguity flagged would create a\nstatistic as misleading as the one being replaced.\n\n**It could distort allocation.** A published time-on-register metric creates\npressure to house the longest-waiting household rather than the household in\ngreatest need, and the current order \u2014 emergency accommodation, then priority,\nthen elderly, then wait-turn \u2014 is deliberately *not* first-come. If the measure\nbecame a target, the people it would displace are the ones in urgent need. Any\nversion of this must publish time-on-register **alongside** need category, never\nas a single headline.\n\n**And this database should note its own limit.** Almost every duration in the\n[[nsw-social-housing-access|social housing process]] except the 459-day wait is\nour estimate, and the 459 itself is the flawed published median being criticised\nhere. This project is using the number it says should not be used, because it is\nthe only one there is. That is the finding, and it is uncomfortable in the right\nway.\n", "sources": [ "NSW Department of Communities and Justice, published social housing waiting list data: 67,316 households at 31 December 2025 (12,094 priority, 55,222 general)", "Median waiting time for applicants housed at 31 March 2026: 15.1 months general, 4.5 months priority", "NSW expected waiting times for social housing, published dataset" ] }, "student-visa-publish-the-allocation": { "id": "student-visa-publish-the-allocation", "name": "Publish each provider's allocation position, since it sets their students' queue", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "au-student-visa:priority", "au-cricos-provider:allocation" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A student's visa processing speed depends on how much of their provider's share of the national planning level remains. The student cannot see it, cannot influence it, and pays a non-refundable deposit before finding out. Publishing it saves nobody a day and changes who is in the dark.", "precedent": "The national planning level itself is published, and providers know their own allocations. The only thing not public is the running position \u2014 the number that determines the queue.", "rationale": "Under the ministerial directions governing student visa processing \u2014 Direction\n111, and Direction 115 for applications lodged on or after 14 November 2025 \u2014\nevery active provider receives an indicative share of the national planning level.\nFor 2026 that level is 295,000 new overseas student commencements, with no active\nprovider allocated less than its 2025 share.\n\nApplications to a provider that has used less than 80 per cent of its allocation\nare Priority 1 and are reported to be decided in about one to four weeks.\nApplications to a provider above that threshold are slower.\n\nSo two applicants with identical finances, identical English, identical course\nrelevance and identical genuine student statements can wait very different\nperiods, because of an allocation made to their institutions before either of\nthem applied.\n\nThis is a real and defensible policy instrument. It is how the Commonwealth\nmanages the composition and volume of international student numbers without a\nlegislated cap, after the cap did not pass. This proposal does not argue against\nit.\n\nIt argues that a queue which determines an applicant's outcome should be visible\nto the applicant.\n\nThe sequence today: the student applies to a provider, accepts an offer, pays a\nnon-refundable deposit, obtains a Confirmation of Enrolment, pays a\nnon-refundable visa application charge \u2014 and only then discovers, through elapsed\ntime, which queue they are in. In a year when 32.5 per cent of offshore higher\neducation applications lodged in February 2026 were refused, that is a lot of\nmoney committed in the dark.\n\n**The proposal, which costs nothing:** publish each provider's allocation and its\nrunning position, updated regularly. The department holds the number. Providers\nknow their own. The only party without it is the person whose decision depends on\nit.\n\n**Why days saved is zero.** It is. This changes nobody's processing time. It\nchanges whether a person choosing between two institutions in another country can\nsee a fact that will determine their wait \u2014 and, on this site's own reasoning, a\nqueue nobody publishes is a queue nobody can be held accountable for.\n", "risk": "**Publishing the position would move demand, and the effect is not obviously\ngood.** Students would rationally flock to providers with unused allocation.\nThose providers would fill faster, cross the 80 per cent threshold sooner, and\nthe advantage would evaporate mid-cycle, leaving students who applied on the\npublished figure worse off than if they had never seen it. A published number\nthat changes because it was published is a genuine design problem, not a\nquibble.\n\n**It would advantage well-advised applicants.** Agents would use it immediately;\nindependent applicants would not. Transparency that reaches intermediaries first\ntends to widen the gap between applicants with professional help and applicants\nwithout, which is the same objection this site made to\n[[publish-and-close-the-rfi-loop|decision-ready requirements]].\n\n**It exposes providers to reputational effects the instrument was not designed\nfor.** A published allocation position is readable as a quality signal even\nthough it is not one \u2014 a provider near its cap may simply be popular. Institutions\nwould reasonably object to a number about migration administration being used as\na proxy for educational merit.\n\n**And a note on what this project is not saying.** The reported refusal rates by\ncountry of citizenship \u2014 about 65 per cent for Nepal, 51 per cent for Bangladesh,\n40 per cent for India, 3 per cent for China \u2014 are recorded on the\n[[au-student-visa|process page]] without an explanation attached, because this\ndatabase cannot supply one. That range is consistent with genuine differences in\napplication quality and fraud risk across cohorts, with differential treatment,\nand most likely with some of both. What would settle it is refusal rates published\nby ground of refusal and by country, together with review outcomes. Neither\nexists, and offshore student refusals generally carry no merits review right at\nall \u2014 so there is no change rate to measure them against. That is a much larger\ntransparency gap than the one this reform addresses.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Home Affairs, published student visa processing priorities under Ministerial Directions 111 and 115", "National Planning Level for 2026 of 295,000 new overseas student commencements, with no active provider allocated less than its 2025 allocation", "Reported refusal rate of 32.5 per cent for offshore higher education applications lodged in February 2026, and reported refusal rates by country of citizenship" ] }, "supply-intervention-on-a-published-trigger": { "id": "supply-intervention-on-a-published-trigger", "name": "Make the desert measure a trigger, not a research finding", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-childcare-desert-supply:desert", "au-childcare-desert-supply:fund_round" ], "days_saved_est": 180, "status": "proposal", "summary": "About 35 per cent of Australians live in a childcare desert and about 1.1 million have no service at all. The measure that establishes this is university research, and the response to it is a discretionary competitive grant round.", "precedent": "The Commonwealth already runs published, formula-driven geographic triggers elsewhere: Distribution Priority Area classification determines where an overseas-trained doctor may practise with Medicare access, and Modified Monash Model categories drive a range of rural health programs. Geography-triggered intervention is established practice.", "rationale": "Two facts sit uncomfortably together.\n\n**The problem is measured.** Mitchell Institute research finds about 9 million\nAustralians \u2014 roughly 35 per cent \u2014 live in neighbourhoods with more than three\nchildren per childcare place, and about **1.1 million live in regional and remote\nareas with no childcare at all**. Deserts exist in every state and territory and\nin every capital city.\n\n**The response is a grant round.** The Building Early Education Fund commits\n$1 billion, half to build and expand services and half for the Commonwealth to\nbuild, own and lease them, targeting about 160 centres and about 12,000 places.\nAccess is by competitive application, with the scheduling wait every round in\nthis database has.\n\nSo the shortage is identified by a university, and the remedy is allocated by a\ncompetition that a provider has to know about, prepare for, and win.\n\n**The proposal.** Publish the supply measure as an official dataset, at small\ngeography, updated regularly \u2014 and attach consequences to it. An area crossing\nthe threshold triggers supply intervention automatically: capital support offered\nrather than competed for, and Commonwealth build-own-lease considered where no\noperator comes forward.\n\nThe Commonwealth already does this in health. [[health-au|Distribution Priority\nArea]] classification is a published geographic measure that automatically\ndetermines where a doctor may practise with Medicare access \u2014 this database has\ncriticised how that operates, but the *mechanism* is exactly the one childcare\nlacks: a published measure with automatic consequences.\n\n**Why the trigger matters more than the money.** A competitive round rewards\nproviders with the capacity to apply. Thin markets are thin partly because the\noperators there are small, and small operators are the least able to run a\ncompetitive Commonwealth application. A round designed to reach underserved areas\nis allocated by a mechanism that selects against the people in them \u2014 the same\npattern this database recorded in\n[[fast-track-by-objective-trigger|discretionary planning pathways]].\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone.\n", "risk": "**The measure is contested and would become much more so once money followed\nit.** The 35 per cent figure uses a threshold of more than three children per\nplace; a different threshold from the same research group produces closer to\n24 per cent. Neither is wrong \u2014 the difference is definitional. But a definition\nthat determines funding is a definition that will be argued over, gamed at the\nboundary, and lobbied about, and the research would need to become an official\nstatistic with all the governance that implies.\n\n**Automatic triggers commit money without a decision.** A published measure with\nautomatic consequences is a standing appropriation in everything but name, and\ngovernments resist that for good reason. It also removes the ability to\nprioritise: an area just over the line gets support ahead of an area just under\nit with greater disadvantage, because the trigger cannot see anything the measure\ndoes not contain.\n\n**Supply is not only capital.** Removing the building cost does not produce\neducators, and the [[au-ecec-educator-domestic|workforce]] is scarcest exactly\nwhere supply is thinnest. A triggered capital program in a desert with no\navailable early childhood teacher produces a building, not a place. This is the\nsame \"an entitlement is not a service\" limit recorded across this database, and\nhere it is the most likely failure mode.\n\n**And the scale should be stated honestly.** About 12,000 places against about\n9 million people living in classified deserts. Those numbers are not directly\ncomparable and the fund is deliberately targeted at the worst-served areas, but\nthe order of magnitude is worth saying plainly: this is a targeted intervention,\nnot a solution to coverage, and a better allocation mechanism does not change\nthat.\n", "sources": [ "Mitchell Institute, Victoria University: about 9 million Australians, 35 per cent, live in childcare deserts defined as more than three children per place; about 1.1 million live in regional and remote areas with no childcare at all; a separate threshold produces about 24 per cent", "Department of Education, Building Early Education Fund: $1 billion, $500 million to build and expand and $500 million for the Australian Government to build, own and lease; about 160 centres and about 12,000 places", "Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, Distribution Priority Area classification as a published geographic trigger" ] }, "suspend-last-not-first": { "id": "suspend-last-not-first", "name": "Check before stopping someone's income, not after", "type": "resequence", "targets": [ "au-jobseeker-mutual-obligations:suspension", "au-jobseeker-mutual-obligations:cancellation" ], "days_saved_est": 1365, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A contracted provider reports a failure and the payment stops the same day. Whether the report was right is considered afterwards. The Ombudsman found 964 cancellations unlawful, analysis suggests over 300,000 people were potentially affected, and the penalties resume from 26 October 2026.", "precedent": "Mutual obligations are currently paused for Inclusive Employment Australia participants, and penalty provisions across the framework have been suspended pending remediation. The system has been operating without automatic suspension, which makes the counterfactual observable rather than hypothetical.", "rationale": "The [[au-jobseeker-mutual-obligations|compliance framework]] is the only process\nin this database where an instant, automated action imposes a detriment.\n\nEverywhere else, a zero-day step is good design: the\n[[au-rent-assistance|automatic Rent Assistance assessment]], the\n[[nsw-energy-rebate|energy bill credit applied without an application]], the\n[[ato|ATO]] reducing every student debt in the country overnight. Australian\nadministration is demonstrably capable of acting instantly on data it holds.\n\nHere the same capability stops someone's income on the report of a\n[[workforce-australia-provider|contracted provider]], before any officer has\nconsidered whether the report was correct or whether the person had a reasonable\nexcuse. The reasons people miss appointments \u2014 illness, transport, caring, a job\ninterview, a phone out of credit \u2014 are assessed after the money has stopped.\n\n**The scale of what went wrong is now documented.** The\n[[commonwealth-ombudsman|Commonwealth Ombudsman]] found 964 people had income\nsupport **unlawfully cancelled** between April 2022 and July 2024, and that both\nthe cancellations and the remediation were neither fair nor reasonable.\nIndependent analysis put those potentially affected at **more than 300,000**,\nwhich DEWR acknowledged at Senate Estimates as in the vicinity.\n\n**And the asymmetry between harm and remedy is the whole argument.** Cancellation\ntakes zero days. The [[au-jobseeker-payment-restored|route back]] \u2014 surviving\nwithout income, seeking review, an Ombudsman investigation, departmental\nidentification, a compensation claim \u2014 models at **1,365 days**. Three and a half\nyears to undo something that took an afternoon.\n\n**The proposal.** A reported failure triggers contact, not suspension. Payment\ncontinues while a delegate \u2014 not the provider \u2014 considers whether a failure\noccurred and whether there was a reasonable excuse. Suspension becomes available\nafter that consideration, and remains available for genuine persistent\nnon-compliance.\n\n**The timing matters.** Penalty provisions are scheduled to resume progressively\nfrom **26 October 2026**, with others in early 2027, while the work to identify\nand compensate people affected by the last round is still under way. If the\nsequence is not changed before then, it restarts unchanged.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone.\n", "risk": "**Mutual obligations without a timely consequence are weaker obligations, and\nthat is the point of them.** A requirement enforced only after a review process\nis a requirement some people will not meet, and the case for conditionality \u2014\nthat it maintains connection to the labour market and is the basis on which the\ncommunity funds the payment \u2014 is a real position held by serious people. This\nproposal reduces the immediacy of enforcement and should be honest that it does.\n\n**Delay costs money.** Continuing payment during consideration means paying\npeople who, in some proportion of cases, did breach without excuse. That is a\ndirect fiscal cost, and it is the cost the current design was built to avoid.\n\n**Provider workload shifts to the department.** A delegate considering every\nreported failure before suspension is a substantial resourcing commitment, and an\nunder-resourced version produces long queues in which the person's *compliance\nstatus* is unresolved for months \u2014 a different harm, and one this database has\nrecorded repeatedly in other queues.\n\n**And a caution about this site's framing.** The zero-day suspension is\ncriticised here for being instant. But the alternative to instant is not\nnecessarily better if it is slow: a person whose payment is suspended for eight\nweeks pending review is worse off than one suspended for one week and restored.\nThe proposal is that payment continues during consideration, and it only works if\nthat is guaranteed. A version that pauses payment while adding a review step is\nworse than what exists now.\n", "sources": [ "Commonwealth Ombudsman: 964 people had income support unlawfully cancelled between April 2022 and July 2024; cancellations and remediation neither fair nor reasonable", "Economic Justice Australia analysis of more than 300,000 people potentially affected, acknowledged by DEWR at Senate Estimates", "Services Australia, published guidance on demerits and suspensions", "DEWR Secretary's timeline of 4 August 2026: penalty provisions resuming progressively from 26 October 2026 and in early 2027" ] }, "telehealth-prescribing-recognise-the-consultation": { "id": "telehealth-prescribing-recognise-the-consultation", "name": "One consultation, four jurisdictions, and no clear answer about whose law applies", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-telehealth-consult:prescribe" ], "days_saved_est": 14, "status": "idea", "summary": "The practitioner is registered nationally. The medicine is regulated by the state. In a telehealth consultation the doctor, the platform, the patient and the dispensing pharmacy can be in four different jurisdictions, and published guidance acknowledges it is complex and confusing to know which law applies.", "precedent": "Real-time prescription monitoring now operates in most states, and the national registration of practitioners already demonstrates that a profession can be regulated once for the whole country. The components of a national view of controlled prescribing exist as state systems.", "rationale": "A practitioner registered by [[ahpra]] may lawfully practise anywhere in\nAustralia. What they may prescribe is governed by\n[[nsw-medicines-regulator|state law]], and for Schedule 8 controlled medicines\nthe states differ: on permits for ongoing prescribing, on mandatory real-time\nprescription monitoring checks, and on whether a controlled medicine may be\nprescribed to a **new** patient by telehealth at all without a prior face-to-face\nassessment.\n\nIn a physical consultation this never arises, because everyone is in one room.\nIn a telehealth consultation the practitioner may be in one state, the platform\nincorporated in another, the patient in a third and the dispensing pharmacy in a\nfourth \u2014 and published guidance acknowledges that it is complex and confusing to\nwork out which rules apply.\n\nThe cost is borne by the practitioner, who carries personal regulatory risk for\ngetting it wrong, and it lands hardest on exactly the services telehealth exists\nto enable: cross-border practice into rural and remote areas, after-hours\nservices, and specialist consultations for patients who cannot travel.\n\nThis is the sixth instance of the partial-national pattern in this database,\nafter [[nsw-worker-screening|NDIS worker screening]],\n[[finish-automatic-mutual-recognition|occupational licensing]],\n[[credentialing-verify-once|clinical credentialing]], working with children\nchecks and [[nrsch|community housing registration]].\n\n**And it is the instance where the case for harmonisation is weakest**, which is\nwhy it is filed as an idea. Controlled medicine regulation is a genuine state\nhealth and policing function. Diversion and dependence harms are local, are\npoliced locally, and are monitored through state dispensing data. A state that\nhas tightened its rules in response to local harm has a strong claim to keep\nthem.\n\nThe narrow proposal is therefore not national uniformity but **a clear conflict\nrule**: legislate which jurisdiction's law governs a telehealth prescription \u2014\nthe patient's, in all likelihood, since that is where the medicine is dispensed\nand consumed \u2014 so that a practitioner knows which of eight regimes to comply with\nbefore the consultation rather than after.\n\nUniform substantive rules would be better. A clear answer about which rules apply\nis achievable, and is the thing missing now.\n", "risk": "**A conflict rule pointing to the patient's state means practitioners must know\neight regimes rather than one.** That is arguably worse than the current\nambiguity for a doctor practising nationally, because ambiguity at least permits\na good-faith defence. Clarity that resolves against you is not obviously an\nimprovement for the person carrying the risk, and telehealth services operating\nacross every state would need compliance systems for all of them.\n\n**Harmonising downward would cost lives.** If a conflict rule became a step\ntoward uniform national rules set at the least restrictive common denominator,\nthe result would be easier telehealth access to controlled medicines in the\nstates that have most deliberately restricted it. Opioid and benzodiazepine harm\nis the reason those restrictions exist, and the states that tightened first did\nso after deaths. This entry should not be cited in support of that outcome.\n\n**Telehealth prescribing of controlled medicines is the highest-risk case for\ntelehealth generally.** The restriction on prescribing S8 to a new patient by\ntelehealth without a face-to-face assessment is not bureaucratic caution \u2014 it is\nthe specific control against the specific business model of remote prescribing\nservices. Anything that loosens it needs a much stronger evidence base than a\nprocess database can offer.\n\n**And the measured saving is trivial and probably wrong.** Fourteen days on a\nstep that is optional and off the critical path of a four-day process. The real\ncost here is regulatory uncertainty carried by practitioners and services that\nconsequently do not offer cross-border care at all \u2014 a suppression effect that\ndoes not appear in any elapsed time and that nobody has measured.\n", "sources": [ "State and territory Schedule 8 prescribing requirements, including permits for ongoing prescribing, mandatory real-time prescription monitoring, and restrictions on prescribing to new patients via telehealth", "Victorian Department of Health guidance on Schedule 8 poisons and interstate prescriptions", "Medical Board of Australia, guidelines on telehealth consultations with patients" ] }, "telehealth-relationship-should-follow-the-patient": { "id": "telehealth-relationship-should-follow-the-patient", "name": "Telehealth is least available to people without a regular doctor", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-telehealth-consult:relationship", "au-telehealth-consult:mymedicare" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Medicare-rebated telehealth requires a face-to-face visit with the practice in the last 12 months, or MyMedicare registration. About one in ten patients has registered, and about one in three has heard of it. The exemption from a relationship requirement is itself an opt-in relationship.", "precedent": "Targeted exemptions already exist and work: patients under 12 months of age, people experiencing homelessness, blood-borne virus and sexual and reproductive health services, and natural disaster provisions. The mechanism for exempting a defined group is established.", "rationale": "The requirement is a continuity of care protection and this proposal does not\nargue against its purpose. Telehealth was made permanent on the understanding\nthat it would supplement a relationship with a regular doctor rather than replace\nit with a stranger who has never examined the patient and will not follow them\nup. That is a real clinical concern and it was the right thing to protect.\n\nIts distributional effect is the problem. A patient qualifies if they have had a\nface-to-face MBS service with the same practitioner or practice in the preceding\n12 months \u2014 so **telehealth is least available to people without a regular GP**.\nThat is disproportionately people who move often, work irregular hours, are new\nto an area, are young, or live where bulk-billing practices have closed. The\nbarrier is highest where the need is greatest.\n\n**The fix chosen was MyMedicare, and the take-up figures are the finding.** From\n1 November 2025, registration satisfies the requirement. More than 2.6 million\npatients had registered as at March 2025 \u2014 **about one in ten**. About one third\nof Medicare card holders were aware the scheme existed. Of those who registered,\n**78.2 per cent found it easy**.\n\nEasy, and unknown. The barrier is not friction; it is awareness. A voluntary\nregistration that most people have never heard of reaches patients already\nengaged with a practice and misses the ones who are not \u2014 who are precisely the\npopulation the exemption exists to help.\n\nThis is now the fourth instance of the same pattern in this database, after the\n[[nsw-energy-rebate|energy rebate]], the\n[[embedded-network-parity|embedded network application]] and the\n[[au-vfh-debt-remedy|VET FEE-HELP remedy]]: an opt-in route reaches the people\nwho needed it least.\n\n**Two changes that do not touch the clinical objective:**\n\n1. **Register by default at the next face-to-face visit**, with the patient able\n to decline \u2014 turning an awareness problem into a conversation the practice is\n already having.\n2. **Extend the exemption list** to cohorts where the relationship requirement\n predictably fails rather than protects: people who have recently moved, people\n in areas without an accepting practice, and people leaving custody or\n institutional care.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone, through the Medicare Benefits Schedule and\nMyMedicare settings.\n", "risk": "**Default registration weakens what registration is supposed to mean.** MyMedicare\nis meant to signal a genuine ongoing relationship, and a patient auto-registered\nat a single visit they may never repeat is not in one. Since registration also\nunlocks funding and incentives to the practice, defaulting it creates a financial\ninterest for practices in registering patients who are not really theirs. That is\na straightforward integrity problem and it would need to be designed against.\n\n**The continuity concern is clinically real and it is not evenly distributed\neither.** The patients most likely to be harmed by a telehealth-only relationship\n\u2014 no examination, no records, no follow-up \u2014 overlap substantially with the\npatients this proposal would let in. Widening access and protecting continuity\npull in opposite directions here, and anyone claiming otherwise is not being\nstraight about it. The honest framing is that this is a trade, and that the\ncurrent setting has chosen one side of it.\n\n**Exemption lists grow and are hard to administer.** Every added cohort needs a\ndefinition, evidence, and a practitioner able to apply it at the point of\nbilling. \"Recently moved\" is not a fact a practice can verify. A rule that is\nunverifiable in practice becomes either unused or a compliance risk for the\ndoctor, and MBS compliance risk sits with the practitioner personally.\n\n**And this changes no elapsed time at all.** The\n[[au-telehealth-consult|process itself models at four days and zero per cent\naddressable]] \u2014 once a patient is eligible, telehealth is fast and works. The\nentire finding is about who gets through the gate, which is a coverage question\nwearing a process costume.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Health, AskMBS advisory on eligible telehealth practitioner requirements, updated 1 November 2025", "MyMedicare: more than 2.6 million patients registered as at 19 March 2025, about one in ten patients; about one third of Medicare card holders aware of the scheme; 78.2 per cent of users found registration easy", "Published exemptions including patients under 12 months of age, people experiencing homelessness, blood-borne virus and sexual and reproductive health services, and natural disaster provisions" ] }, "the-budget-is-the-longest-queue": { "id": "the-budget-is-the-longest-queue", "name": "The longest wait in Commonwealth infrastructure funding is waiting for a Budget", "type": "resequence", "targets": [ "au-urban-transport-capital:budget" ], "days_saved_est": 90, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A proposal that clears evaluation in June is not refused. It waits for the next Budget. Same project, same merits, up to a year of difference depending on when the paperwork landed.", "precedent": "Standing appropriations with delegated decision-making already exist across the Commonwealth \u2014 the Medical Research Future Fund, Housing Australia Future Fund disbursements, and the Infrastructure Investment Program's own contingency allocations all commit money outside the Budget announcement cycle.", "rationale": "Every step in [[au-urban-transport-capital|the funding chain]] except one is\nsomebody doing work. The [[infrastructure-australia|Infrastructure Australia]]\nevaluation is genuine merits assessment. The funding agreement is genuine\nnegotiation. The milestone payments follow construction.\n\n**The Budget wait is not work.** During it, nobody is assessing anything, nobody\nis negotiating anything, and the project does not improve. It is the cadence of\nthe decision-making forum, imposed on a queue of proposals that arrive\ncontinuously.\n\nModelled at **180 days**, the midpoint of a wait running from near zero \u2014 for a\nproposal that happens to complete in February \u2014 to nearly a full year for one\nthat completes in June. That is a `scheduling` wait in the precise sense this\ndatabase uses the term: elapsed time unrelated to the substance of what is being\ndecided, and therefore recoverable without lowering any standard.\n\n**And the cost is not only the delay.** An annual commitment cycle creates a\ndeadline, and a deadline applied to business cases produces business cases\nwritten to a deadline. It also concentrates announcements, which is politically\nuseful and analytically unhelpful \u2014 thirty projects committed on one night receive\none night of scrutiny between them.\n\n**What should change.** Not the Budget. The Budget is a constitutional and\npolitical instrument and this proposal has nothing to say about it.\n\nWhat should change is the **decision** being tied to the announcement:\n\n1. **A standing program allocation** for evaluated proposals, with commitment\n decisions made against it as evaluations complete, rather than banked until\n the next Budget night. The appropriation remains annual; the commitment does\n not have to be.\n2. **Publish the elapsed time** between an Infrastructure Australia evaluation\n and a Commonwealth funding decision, project by project. It is not published\n now, which is why the 180 days above is this project's estimate rather than a\n figure \u2014 and why nobody can currently say how large this wait actually is.\n3. **Let evaluation and commitment overlap** where a proposal is plainly within\n an existing program envelope, rather than running strictly in series.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth. The saving is modelled conservatively at 90 days,\nhalf the modelled wait, on the basis that some proposals would still be timed to\na fiscal event for good reasons.\n", "risk": "**Annual commitment is a discipline as well as a delay.** Considering thirty\nproposals together, against one envelope, forces a comparison between them.\nDeciding each as it arrives means every proposal is assessed against the money\nremaining rather than against the alternatives, and the ones that arrive early do\nbetter than the ones that are better. That is a real cost and it may exceed the\ndelay it removes.\n\n**Fiscal control is the reason the cycle exists.** Commitments made continuously\nagainst a standing allocation are harder to constrain than commitments made once\na year with the full forward estimates in view. Every finance department in the\ncountry would object, and the objection is sound.\n\n**Announcement value is not illegitimate.** Governments commit money in Budgets\npartly because Budgets are where governments explain what they are doing.\nDispersing infrastructure commitments across the year would reduce the coherence\nof that account, and this database has argued elsewhere for *more* public\nvisibility of decisions, not less.\n\n**And the 180-day figure is an estimate the reform's own recommendation is\ndesigned to fix.** The elapsed time between evaluation and commitment is not\npublished, so the size of this wait is inferred from the structure rather than\nmeasured. If it turns out to be small, this entry is a solution to a problem that\ndoes not exist \u2014 which is why recommendation 2 should happen first, and would\ncost nothing.\n", "sources": [ "Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 (Cth); proposals seeking Australian Government funding above a monetary threshold are evaluated by Infrastructure Australia", "National Land Transport Act 2014 (Cth); Infrastructure Investment Program commitments are made through the Commonwealth Budget process", "The elapsed time between an Infrastructure Australia evaluation and a Commonwealth funding commitment is not published project by project" ] }, "the-commonwealth-buys-assets-and-not-services": { "id": "the-commonwealth-buys-assets-and-not-services", "name": "The only Commonwealth instrument for urban public transport can buy concrete and nothing else", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-urban-transport-capital:services", "au-urban-transport-capital:first_payment" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "idea", "summary": "$84 billion committed across 81 projects, $13.5 billion to the states in 2026-27, all of it paid against construction milestones. Fares recover 20 to 25 cents in the dollar of operating cost and the Commonwealth funds none of the rest.", "precedent": "The Commonwealth already funds recurrent service delivery in areas it does not own: hospital activity under the National Health Reform Agreement, school recurrent funding under the Australian Education Act, aged care and childcare. Paying for a service delivered by another tier is ordinary, everywhere except transport.", "rationale": "[[au-urban-transport-capital|The funding chain]] ends at a milestone payment. Every\nstep in it moves money for building something.\n\nThe scale is substantial: **$84 billion of Australian Government funding across\n81 projects**, with **$13.5 billion** flowing to states and territories in\n2026-27, under the Federation Funding Agreement Schedule on Land Transport\nInfrastructure Projects 2024-2029.\n\nThen a state runs the service, alone, for the life of the asset, out of an\nannually appropriated operating subsidy that competes against schools and\nhospitals \u2014 because **farebox recovery in Australian cities runs at roughly $0.20\nto $0.25 in the dollar** of operating expenditure. Three-quarters of the cost of\nrunning the network is a state liability that no Commonwealth program touches.\n\n**This produces a predictable distortion, and it is not anybody's fault.** If the\nonly external money available is capital money, then the proposals that attract\nexternal money are the capital-intensive ones. A new rail line has a large\ncapital component and a Commonwealth partner. Running more buses on roads that\nalready exist has no capital component and no partner at all \u2014 it is pure\noperating cost, funded entirely by the state.\n\n**This entry deliberately does not claim that more buses would be better value\nthan more rail.** That is the claim a reader expects here and the evidence\nassembled for this page does not support it: the standard Australian reference on\nthe question, BITRE's *Benefits of Urban Public Transport Subsidies in Australia*,\nworks from 1982-83 data and in fact concluded that subsidies might be more\nefficient with *lower* frequency and lower fares. The honest claim is narrower\nand does not depend on which option wins: **one option cannot enter the\ncompetition at all**, because there is no instrument that could fund it.\n\n**So the instrument selects the answer.** Not by anyone deciding that rail beats\nbuses, but by there being a funding pathway for one and not the other. This\ndatabase has recorded the same shape twice before:\n[[maintenance-is-capital-deferred|deferred maintenance]], where operating\nexpenditure loses annually to capital and creates a bigger capital bill a decade\nlater; and\n[[count-rent-assistance-against-the-housing-queue|Rent Assistance and the housing\nqueue]], where a Commonwealth payment stops at exactly the point a state asset\nstarts. Three domains, one boundary.\n\n**Filed as an idea, deliberately.** The reason for the boundary is real: recurrent\nCommonwealth contributions to state services create permanent liabilities,\ncost-shifting arguments and a ratchet that is very hard to reverse. That is why\nthe boundary exists and why it has held.\n\n**But the shape of a narrower version is visible.** Not open-ended operating\nsubsidy \u2014 something bounded and outcome-tied:\n\n1. **Let a non-capital option win an evaluation.** Where a proposal to\n [[infrastructure-australia|Infrastructure Australia]] is compared against\n alternatives, a service-based alternative should be capable of being *the*\n answer \u2014 and currently it cannot be funded even if it is the better option,\n which means in practice it is not seriously assessed as one.\n2. **Time-limited service funding attached to a capital commitment**, so the\n Commonwealth is buying patronage rather than a structure \u2014 the same logic as\n an activity-based hospital payment rather than a hospital building grant.\n3. **Publish what is actually being bought.** The Commonwealth publishes its\n capital contribution project by project; nobody publishes the recurrent cost\n the state has taken on as a consequence.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth, and only the Commonwealth. This is a decision\nabout the shape of its own program.\n", "risk": "**This is a proposal for a large, permanent, uncapped new Commonwealth liability,\nand every entry here that proposes spending should say so first.** Urban public\ntransport operating subsidies across the states run to billions a year. A\nCommonwealth contribution to them would not be a program; it would be a new\ncomponent of the federation's financial architecture, and it would never be\nwithdrawn.\n\n**Cost-shifting is the predictable consequence and it is not hypothetical.** A\nstate that knows the Commonwealth will fund part of the operating cost has less\nreason to control it, and the negotiation over who caused a cost increase becomes\npermanent. Health funding demonstrates exactly this, and it is the strongest\nargument against the whole idea.\n\n**The capital boundary is also a discipline.** Milestone-based capital payments\nare easy to verify: the bridge exists or it does not. Service payments require\nagreement on what service was delivered, to what standard, measured how \u2014 the\nmachinery that makes activity-based hospital funding contentious in every cycle.\n\n**The composition evidence here is thin and should not be over-read.** Of nine new\nprojects added to the program in Budget 2025-26, seven were road and two were\nrail. That is one year's additions, not a trend, and the Infrastructure Investment\nProgram is a *land transport* program that has always carried most of the\nCommonwealth's road investment by design. It is consistent with the argument\nabove; it does not prove it.\n\n**And no national total for state public transport operating subsidy is cited\nhere**, because this project could not find a current consolidated one. That is\nitself part of the finding \u2014 the largest recurrent number in Australian urban\npublic transport is not published in one place \u2014 but it means the size of the gap\nthis entry describes is characterised rather than measured.\n", "sources": [ "National Land Transport Act 2014 (Cth); the Infrastructure Investment Program provides Australian Government capital funding to states and territories, paid against project milestones", "Farebox recovery in Australian cities is around $0.20 to $0.25 of every $1 of operating expenditure; Victoria's average farebox recovery ratio is in the twenties per cent", "Infrastructure Australia Annual Performance Statement 2026: Australian Government funding of $84 billion over 81 projects; nine new projects added in Budget 2025-26 (7 road and 2 rail); megaprojects grew to 32 from 26", "In 2026-27 the Commonwealth will provide $13.5 billion in infrastructure funding to the states and territories, delivered primarily through the Infrastructure Investment Program", "Federation Funding Agreement Schedule on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects 2024-2029, in effect 11 August 2024", "BITRE Occasional Paper 71, Benefits of Urban Public Transport Subsidies in Australia (1982-83 data): existing subsidies might be more effective if frequency levels were reduced and the savings used to finance lower fares", "The Commonwealth funds recurrent service delivery in other state-delivered domains, including public hospital activity under the National Health Reform Agreement and school recurrent funding under the Australian Education Act 2013 (Cth)" ] }, "the-meter-is-the-queue": { "id": "the-meter-is-the-queue", "name": "The panels are on the roof, generating, and not allowed to export", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "au-rooftop-solar-connection:meter" ], "days_saved_est": 21, "status": "proposal", "summary": "More than half the elapsed time between deciding to install rooftop solar and being permitted to export is waiting for a meter. A regulated 15-business-day limit exists; the ombudsman has recorded waits beyond 40 business days with no timeline given.", "precedent": "The regulated timeframe already exists \u2014 digital meters were required to be installed within 15 business days from 1 February 2019. This proposal does not create an obligation. It asks for the existing one to be measured and published.", "rationale": "[[au-rooftop-solar-connection|The process]] models at **58 days** from quote to\nexport, and **30 of them \u2014 52 per cent \u2014 are the meter.** It is the only\n`queue` in the chain and it is the largest single component.\n\nEverything before it works. Network connection approval takes **3 to 10 business\ndays**. Installation takes a day. The\n[[clean-energy-regulator|subsidy]] is applied at the point of sale with no\napplication, no window and no claim \u2014 the best delivery mechanism in this\ndatabase.\n\nThen the household waits, with a working generator on the roof that it is not\npermitted to export from, and is paid nothing for what it produces beyond what it\nhappens to use at the time it produces it.\n\n**The regulated position and the observed position differ.** Digital meters have\nbeen required to be installed within **15 business days** since 1 February 2019,\nand a metering coordinator must repair or replace a faulty meter within **10\ndays** of notification \u2014 *although this is often not occurring*. The Energy and\nWater Ombudsman NSW has recorded a customer **more than 40 business days** past\nnotification, who had contacted the retailer four or five times and been given no\ntimeline. In South Australia, complaints about meter installation and removal rose\n**29 per cent** in one year, with solar-related upgrade delays the largest\nsubcategory.\n\n**And the structural problem is that nobody in this step is the household's\ncounterparty.** The householder bought from an installer, who has finished and\nleft. The retailer appoints the [[metering-coordinator|metering coordinator]]. The\ncoordinator does the work. The [[dnsp|network]] authorises the result. The customer\nhas a contract with the retailer and a complaint about a party they have never\ndealt with.\n\n**What should change:**\n\n1. **Publish metering coordinator performance against the regulated timeframe** \u2014\n by coordinator, by retailer, by jurisdiction, as median and 90th percentile.\n Nothing is published now, which is why the 30-day figure on this site is built\n from ombudsman case evidence rather than data.\n2. **Give the customer a date, in writing, at the point the retailer is notified.**\n The ombudsman case that defines this entry is not really about 40 business days;\n it is about a person contacting a retailer five times and being given no\n timeline at all.\n3. **Deem export permitted at the regulated timeframe.** If the meter is not in\n place within 15 business days of a compliant installation, the system may export\n and the household is credited on a deemed basis until the meter arrives. The\n risk of the delay then sits with the party that controls it.\n\n**Recommendation 3 is the one that would work and the one that would be fought.**\nIt is the standard `deem` structure this site proposes elsewhere, applied to a\ncommercial timeframe rather than a regulatory one.\n\n**Days saved: 21**, being the difference between the modelled 30 days and the\nregulated 15 business days \u2014 which is to say, the saving is *compliance with the\nexisting rule*.\n", "risk": "**Deemed export without a bidirectional meter means estimated settlement, and\nestimates get gamed.** Somebody has to decide what the system would have exported.\nAny assumption generous enough to protect households will overpay some of them,\nand the cost lands on other customers through network and retail charges. It is a\nreal transfer, not a free correction.\n\n**Metering coordinators are constrained by things a deadline does not fix.** Meter\navailability, licensed field technicians, site access, switchboard non-compliance\ndiscovered on arrival, and the sheer volume created by a subsidy that is working \u2014\nthe **Cheaper Home Batteries Program** has added a large new stream of metering\nwork to the same crews. A penalty for missing a timeframe does not create a\ntechnician, which is the same objection this site made about\n[[paying-a-student-does-not-create-a-placement|clinical placements]].\n\n**Publishing performance by coordinator invites gaming of the measurement.** The\nclock starts when the retailer notifies the coordinator, and if that is the\nmeasured trigger then the delay migrates upstream into the notification step,\nwhere nobody is looking. Recommendation 1 needs the clock to run from the\ninstallation's compliance certificate, not from an internal handoff.\n\n**And the numbers here are the weakest in this batch.** The 30-day median and\n60-day p90 are this project's estimates, constructed from two ombudsman\nobservations and one state complaint statistic. They are labelled as estimates in\nthe process and they should not be cited as measurements. That is precisely the\ngap recommendation 1 is meant to close \u2014 and until it is closed, the honest\nstatement is that the meter is clearly the largest wait and its size is not known.\n", "sources": [ "From 1 February 2019 regulations required digital meters to be installed within 15 business days; current rules require a metering coordinator to repair or replace a faulty meter within 10 days of being notified, although this is often not occurring", "Energy and Water Ombudsman NSW case: more than 40 business days after being notified that a smart meter needed reconfiguration, with no timeline provided after four or five contacts with the retailer", "South Australia 2018-19: a 29 per cent increase in complaints related to meter installation or removal, with delays in meter upgrades associated with solar installations the biggest subcategory", "The retailer assigns a metering coordinator to install a bidirectional meter; only once the meter is in place and the DNSP authorises can the system legally begin exporting", "For standard residential systems, DNSP connection approval typically takes 3-10 business days" ] }, "the-obstacle-was-a-contract-not-a-permit": { "id": "the-obstacle-was-a-contract-not-a-permit", "name": "No permit stopped the Newcastle container terminal. A 2013 deed did, and it is lawful.", "type": "remove", "targets": [ "au-port-container-terminal:commercial" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "idea", "summary": "The State of NSW must compensate the Port Botany and Port Kembla operators if container traffic at Newcastle exceeds a cap. The ACCC sued and lost twice. NSW extinguished the port's reimbursement liability in 2022 and kept its own, now estimated at up to $4.3 billion.", "precedent": "None offered, deliberately. Legislating away a commercial term a state sold and a court upheld is not a precedent this entry wants to establish lightly, which is why it is filed as an idea and why most of it is about what the database got wrong.", "rationale": "**This entry exists because the project's method would have failed here, and the\nfailure is instructive.**\n\nAustralia's second-largest coal port has no container terminal. Handed that fact,\nthis database goes looking for the step: a planning approval, an environmental\nassessment, a Commonwealth permit, a queue. And\n[[au-port-container-terminal|the approval chain models at 540 days with zero\naddressable time]] \u2014 no queue, no scheduling wait, nothing recoverable, and\nnothing that explains anything.\n\n**The binding constraint is a contract.**\n\n- **2013** \u2014 the **Port Commitment Deeds**, 50-year term, oblige the **State of\n NSW** to compensate the operators of [[nsw-ports|Port Botany and Port Kembla]]\n if container traffic at the Port of Newcastle exceeds a cap. The ACCC reports\n the cap as **30,000 TEU per annum**, adjusted by an annual growth rate.\n- **May 2014** \u2014 on privatisation, a separate 50-year deed obliges\n [[port-of-newcastle|the Port of Newcastle]] to **reimburse the State** for any\n such compensation, which would add materially to the cost of every container.\n- **29 June 2021** \u2014 Justice Jagot **dismisses the ACCC's case in full**. The\n **Full Federal Court dismisses the appeal.** The arrangement is lawful.\n- **25 November 2022** \u2014 the *Port of Newcastle (Extinguishment of Liability) Act\n 2022* receives assent, removing the **port's** reimbursement obligation.\n- **March 2024** \u2014 the Premier advises Parliament that a **$2.4 billion terminal\n would cost NSW taxpayers up to $4.3 billion** in payments to NSW Ports.\n- **November 2025** \u2014 the proposal is reported as delayed, with concerns raised\n about planning approvals and rail and road connections.\n\n**The 2022 Act moved the payment; it did not remove it.** The port's liability went\nand the State's survived, so a project that was commercially impossible became\nfiscally very expensive. A compensation obligation of up to $4.3 billion against a\n$2.4 billion asset is not a procedural barrier that anyone can streamline.\n\n**And none of this is misconduct.** A state sold long-term rights and gave the\nbuyer contractual protection for the revenue stream it was selling. The buyer paid\nfor that protection. Two courts tested it. Whatever one thinks of the 2013\ndecision, the deeds are doing exactly what they were written to do.\n\n**What this entry actually recommends** is not tearing up the deeds:\n\n1. **Publish the competitive-restriction terms of infrastructure privatisations at\n the time of sale.** A 50-year restriction on a competing port's capacity is a\n public policy decision with a fifty-year life, and it was made in a\n transaction document.\n2. **Require an explicit, costed statement of the competition effect** before a\n government grants exclusivity in an asset sale \u2014 the same discipline applied to\n regulatory restrictions on competition, applied to contractual ones.\n3. **Where a government does choose to buy back a restriction, say what it is\n buying.** The 2022 Act shifted several billion dollars of contingent liability\n between parties, and the number reached Parliament sixteen months later in\n answer to a question.\n\n**Filed as an idea**, because the remaining option \u2014 legislating away a term a\nstate sold, a buyer paid for, and a court upheld \u2014 would make every future\nAustralian infrastructure privatisation more expensive, and this project is not in\na position to weigh that against a container terminal.\n", "risk": "**Sovereign risk is the entire objection and it is a serious one.** A state that\nlegislates away contractual protections it sold will be priced accordingly next\ntime, by every bidder, on every asset. The cost lands on future privatisations\nand therefore on future taxpayers, diffusely and permanently, while the benefit is\none terminal in one city. That asymmetry is why the 2022 Act removed the *port's*\nliability rather than the *State's* obligation \u2014 the narrower act with the smaller\nprecedent \u2014 and it is a defensible piece of drafting.\n\n**The deeds may not be the only reason there is no terminal.** As at November 2025\nthe concerns reported were planning approvals and rail and road connections, not\ncompensation. A container terminal needs landside rail capacity, road access and\na shipping line willing to call \u2014 and this entry cannot establish how much of the\ndelay is the deeds and how much is the rest. It establishes that the deeds are a\nbinding constraint that no process reform touches, which is a narrower claim.\n\n**Two courts considered the competition question and rejected it.** The ACCC ran the\nargument that these provisions were anti-competitive, lost at first instance in\nfull, and lost the appeal. This database is not better placed than the Federal\nCourt on that question, and an entry that reads as though the courts got it wrong\nwould be overreaching. The finding here is about *visibility* of the restriction,\nnot its legality.\n\n**And the cap figure should be read carefully.** The ACCC states 30,000 TEU per\nannum adjusted by an annual growth rate; other reporting describes the threshold\nas 50,000 containers a year. TEU and container counts are different units and the\ngrowth adjustment moves the number every year. The order of magnitude is what\nmatters \u2014 a cap far below a viable terminal's throughput \u2014 and this entry should\nnot be cited for a precise figure.\n", "sources": [ "ACCC: the Port Commitment Deeds oblige the State of NSW to compensate the operators of Port Botany and Port Kembla if container traffic at the Port of Newcastle is above a specified cap; entered into in 2013 for a term of 50 years; the cap is reported as 30,000 TEU per annum adjusted by an annual growth rate", "A separate 50-year deed signed May 2014 on privatisation of the Port of Newcastle requires the port to reimburse the State for compensation paid to the Botany and Kembla operators", "Federal Court, 29 June 2021: Justice Jagot dismissed in full the ACCC's allegations that the Port Commitment Deeds were anti-competitive; the Full Federal Court dismissed the ACCC's appeal", "Port of Newcastle (Extinguishment of Liability) Bill 2022: introduced 13 October 2022, passed both houses 10 November 2022, assent 25 November 2022", "March 2024: the Premier advised Parliament that a $2.4 billion container terminal at the Port of Newcastle will cost NSW taxpayers up to $4.3 billion in payments to NSW Ports", "November 2025: the Port of Newcastle container terminal proposal reported as delayed, with concerns about planning approvals and rail and road linkages" ] }, "the-register-is-the-template": { "id": "the-register-is-the-template", "name": "Built on the system that already existed, from data that was already held", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "au-ecec-worker-clearance:worker_register" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "enacted", "summary": "The National Early Childhood Worker Register went live with mandated use on 27 February 2026. No new regulator, no new data collection, no new IT platform \u2014 it digitised information approved providers were already required to maintain, inside a system they already used.", "precedent": "It is the precedent. This is what every 'build a national register' recommendation on this site should be measured against.", "rationale": "**Recorded as enacted, and recorded as a template, because this database has\nproposed some version of a national register ten times and this is the one that\ngot built.**\n\nWhat was done:\n\n- **Education Ministers asked [[acecqa|ACECQA]] to build it** \u2014 an existing\n national body under an existing national law, not a new authority.\n- **It was built inside the National Quality Agenda IT System**, already used by\n the sector and by every state and territory regulatory authority.\n- **It was populated from workforce information approved providers were already\n required to collect and maintain.** No new obligation to gather anything.\n- **National rollout with mandated use began 27 February 2026.** Providers had\n one month to enter their current workforce.\n- **The update duty is continuous**: within 14 days of a worker being employed,\n engaged or appointed, and within 14 days of becoming aware of any change to\n information.\n\n**The last point is the one that makes it a monitoring instrument rather than a\nsnapshot.** A register populated once tells a regulator who was working somewhere\nin February. A register with a 14-day update duty tells them that a person who\nleft one service has appeared at another \u2014 which is the movement the whole\napparatus exists to see.\n\n**Why this is the template.** Nearly every registry proposal in this database runs\ninto the same three objections: who builds it, who pays for the data, and who\nmakes people use it. This one answered all three by not creating anything new. The\nbody existed. The system existed. The data existed. What was added was a duty to\nput the data in the system.\n\nCompare the same sector's other half. Working with children checks were\nrecommended for national consistency in **2015** and remain **eight schemes**; see\n[[one-register-eight-clearances]]. And compare\n[[a-decade-to-agree-that-a-train-is-a-train|rail interoperability]], where the\nsame shape of reform, sequenced properly, is taking from 2020 to 2030.\n\n**Which produces the uncomfortable finding.** The variable that best explains the\ndifference in speed is not legal difficulty or technical difficulty. It is\nwhether something terrible had recently happened. That is not a criticism of\nanyone involved in delivering this register quickly \u2014 it is an observation about\nwhat it takes to get the same reform delivered elsewhere.\n", "risk": "**A register is visibility, not safety, and the distinction matters.** It tells a\nregulator who is working where. It does not assess anyone, exclude anyone, or\nprevent anything by itself. Its value is entirely in what regulators do with it,\nand that capacity is the thing this entry cannot verify \u2014 there were more than\n6,000 regulator visits recorded in one quarter of 2026, which is evidence of\nactivity rather than of sufficiency.\n\n**Data quality will be the whole story and it depends on the regulated party.** The\nregister is populated by approved providers about their own staff, on a 14-day\nduty. A provider that is careless will produce a register that is wrong, and a\nprovider that is deliberately concealing something will produce a register that\nis wrong in the specific way that matters. Enforcement of the update duty is\ntherefore not an administrative detail; it is the reform.\n\n**\"It used data already held\" understates the burden at the small end.** For a\nlarge provider with an HR system this is an integration. For a single-service\ncommunity preschool it is a person entering staff records into a portal, then\nremembering to do it again within 14 days every time anything changes. This site\nhas objected elsewhere to obligations that fall hardest on the smallest operators,\nand should note that this one does too.\n\n**And speed has costs that appear later.** A register mandated within roughly\neighteen months of a crisis has not had a long consultation, a pilot, or an\nevaluation. Some of what is now national practice was designed quickly. That was\nthe right call, and it means the honest position is that this is the best\navailable template for *delivering* a national register, not yet evidence that\nthe register works.\n", "sources": [ "ACECQA: Education Ministers asked ACECQA to build a National Early Childhood Worker Register to give regulators better visibility of who is working in the sector and where; national rollout with mandated use began 27 February 2026", "ACECQA: the Register is built within the National Quality Agenda IT System, already used by the sector and regulatory authorities; the reform digitises and centralises workforce information that approved providers are already required to maintain", "National Regulations: approved providers had one month from 27 February 2026 to update the Register with their current workforce, and must update within 14 days of a worker being employed, engaged or appointed and within 14 days of becoming aware of any change", "ACECQA, National Early Childhood Worker Register Operational Policy Guide, June 2026", "NQF Snapshot Q2 2026: more than 6,000 regulator visits" ] }, "the-window-closed-and-the-debt-did-not": { "id": "the-window-closed-and-the-debt-did-not", "name": "The remedy recovered $228 million, ran for five years, and closed", "type": "remove", "targets": [ "au-vfh-debt-remedy:awareness", "au-vfh-debt-remedy:apply", "au-vet-loan-provider-approval:lending" ], "days_saved_est": 365, "status": "proposal", "summary": "$1.2 billion of VET FEE-HELP loans issued inappropriately in 2014 and 2015 was estimated unrecoverable. The redress scheme built to reverse that conduct re-credited $227.61 million across 33,383 complaints, and then the window shut.", "precedent": "The ATO reduced every HELP and VET Student Loan debt in Australia by 20 per cent in 2025 with no application from anyone. The capability to re-credit these accounts at scale, without asking the debtor to do anything, was demonstrated on the same accounts six years after this scheme opened.", "rationale": "This site has argued from the beginning that\n[[remedies-should-find-the-people-they-are-for|an opt-in remedy selects for\nexactly the capabilities whose absence caused the harm]]. The VET FEE-HELP\nStudent Redress Measures are that argument's test case, and the numbers are now\nin.\n\n| | |\n|---|---|\n| Loans issued inappropriately in 2014-15, estimated unrecoverable | **$1.2 billion** |\n| Total taxpayer loss on the scheme | **$2.2 billion** |\n| Complaints received across the life of redress | **33,383** |\n| VET FEE-HELP debt re-credited, including loan fees | **$227.61 million** |\n| Redress opened | 1 January 2019 |\n| Redress closed | **31 December 2023**, after five years |\n\nThe Commonwealth Ombudsman's own report on the scheme is titled *Righting a\nWrong*, and 33,383 people were helped by it. This entry is not an argument that\nthe scheme was bad. It is an argument about the people it never reached.\n\n**The population was defined by not understanding what they signed.** The Senate\ninquiry found marketing that misled and specifically targeted vulnerable and\ndisadvantaged consumers \u2014 door-knocking, inducements, brokers paid per enrolment,\nsign-ups from people with low literacy, cognitive disability or limited English.\n\nThe remedy for that harm was a voluntary complaint, requiring the person to learn\nthe scheme existed, identify their provider, assemble records from organisations\nthat had frequently collapsed, and lodge \u2014 **within a window that has now\nclosed.** The [[au-vfh-debt-remedy|modelled path runs 785 days]], 395 of it\napplicant time, dominated by a first step that for many people never completed at\nall.\n\n**And the debts did not close with the window.** A HELP debt is indexed, sits\nagainst a tax file number, is repaid through the income tax system, and reduces\nborrowing capacity for a mortgage. A person who did not find out about redress in\ntime still has theirs.\n\n**What should change.**\n\n1. **Re-credit on the Commonwealth's own motion where a finding already exists.**\n Where the department or a court has found a provider engaged in unacceptable\n conduct over a period, the students who enrolled with that provider in that\n period are identifiable **from the department's own records**. No application\n is needed to know who they are. The finding has already been made; what\n remains is applying it.\n2. **Reopen for those cohorts.** A closed window is a policy choice, not a\n constraint. The debts persist, so the ability to remit them does too.\n3. **Stop closing remedies for conduct whose defining feature was that the victim\n did not understand it.** A deadline is a reasonable device for a scheme whose\n beneficiaries know they are beneficiaries. This was not one.\n\n**The mechanism exists and has been demonstrated on these exact accounts.** In\n2025 the [[ato|ATO]] applied a 20 per cent reduction to every HELP and VET Student\nLoan debt in the country \u2014 millions of accounts, retrospective to balances at\n1 June 2025, no application, no form, no window. Whatever the objection to\nproactive re-crediting is, it is not capability.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth, alone, on its own records.\n", "risk": "**The two headline figures are not the same measurement and this entry must not\nimply they are.** The $1.2 billion is an estimate of loans issued inappropriately\nin 2014-15 that would not be recovered \u2014 a bad-debt projection. The $227.61\nmillion is debt formally re-credited through the redress scheme. Some of the\n$1.2 billion was never going to be repaid regardless of any remedy, because the\ndebtors never earned above the repayment threshold. The gap between the two\nnumbers is real and it is not simply \"money owed to victims that was not\nreturned.\"\n\n**Proactive re-crediting means making findings about individuals without hearing\nfrom them.** A determination that a particular student was misled is a finding\nabout that student's circumstances. Doing it in bulk from enrolment records means\nsome people get a debt removed who were not in fact misled, and the department\nwould be substituting a cohort assumption for an individual assessment. That is\ndefensible where the provider's conduct was systematic; it is genuinely a\ndifferent act from what the scheme did.\n\n**Reopening a closed scheme has costs beyond the money.** It requires\nre-establishing an assessment capability that has been stood down, against records\nnow a decade old, held by liquidators. Evidence degrades, and the further from the\nconduct the assessment sits, the less reliable it becomes \u2014 which is one of the\nlegitimate reasons schemes are given end dates.\n\n**And the deadline was extended more than once already.** The measures were\nextended to 31 December 2022 and ultimately ran to 31 December 2023, five years\nin total. A government that extends a remedy twice and then closes it has not\nbeen careless; it has made a judgement that this entry disagrees with. Saying so\nplainly is fairer than implying nobody thought about it.\n", "sources": [ "Commonwealth Ombudsman, VET FEE-HELP Student Redress Measures: Righting a Wrong (December 2024): 33,383 complaints received from students over the duration of the Student Redress Measures; the value of VET FEE-HELP debts re-credited is $227.61 million including loan fees", "VET FEE-HELP Student Redress Measures commenced 1 January 2019, were extended until December 2022, and closed after five years on 31 December 2023", "As at 31 December 2020 the office had recommended the re-credit of VET FEE-HELP debts for 10,088 complaints comprising 59,000 units of study, totalling $157.93 million ($131.73 million tuition fees and $26.20 million loan fees)", "The taxpayer will lose $2.2 billion on VET FEE-HELP; $1.2 billion relating to loans issued inappropriately by providers in 2014 and 2015 was estimated not to be recovered", "Senate Education and Employment References Committee inquiry into private VET providers: misleading and deceptive marketing targeting vulnerable and disadvantaged consumers", "In 2025 all HELP and VET Student Loan debts were reduced by 20 per cent, applied to balances at 1 June 2025 with no application by debtors" ] }, "transmission-concurrent-easement": { "id": "transmission-concurrent-easement", "name": "Let easement acquisition run alongside environmental assessment, not after it", "type": "parallelise", "targets": [ "au-transmission-line:easement" ], "days_saved_est": 540, "status": "enacted", "summary": "Victoria amended its law in 2026 so compulsory easement acquisition for transmission can proceed concurrently with the environment effects process, having identified the sequential requirement as a cause of delay on VNI West and the Western Renewables Link. Modelled against the sequential pathway, one dependency edge is worth about eighteen months.", "precedent": "Enacted. Amendments to the Electricity Industry Act 2000 (Vic) in 2026 permit concurrent compulsory acquisition. This is not a proposal in Victoria \u2014 it is law, and the question is whether other jurisdictions follow and whether the saving materialises.", "rationale": "This is the only reform on this site that has already been legislated, and it is\ntherefore the most valuable one here \u2014 not because it is the largest, but because\nit can be checked.\n\nThe database models the two pathways identically except for a single dependency\nedge. [[au-transmission-line|The sequential pathway]] runs 3,495 days on the\ncritical path. [[vic-transmission-line|The Victorian pathway]] runs 2,955. The\ndifference \u2014 540 days, about eighteen months \u2014 is attributable to the\nresequencing alone, because every duration in both models is held identical by\nconstruction.\n\nThe logic is the ordinary logic of this database. Environmental assessment and\neasement acquisition examine different things and are performed by different\nparties. Assessment asks what the line would do to the environment. Acquisition\nasks what the landholder is owed and how the interest is transferred. Neither\nanswer determines the other. Requiring one to finish before the other begins is a\nsequencing choice, and Victoria has now said so in legislation.\n\n**Who could act:** New South Wales and Queensland, on their own transmission\nframeworks. This is a state power. The Commonwealth's role is confined to\nwhatever conditions attach to Rewiring the Nation financing.\n\n**What to watch instead of assuming.** The honest use of this entry is as a\nprediction that will be graded. Victoria has changed the edge; if VNI West and\nthe Western Renewables Link do not move materially, the model is wrong about\nsomething and this site should say so.\n", "risk": "The objection here is about power, not about time, and it is serious enough that\nthis entry is deliberately not celebratory.\n\n**It brings compulsory acquisition forward to a point where the route is not\nfinal.** A landholder can be served with acquisition process over an alignment\nwhose environmental assessment has not concluded and which may still move. That\nis a real transfer of burden onto the person with the least capacity to bear it,\nand describing it as a process efficiency understates what has happened.\n\n**It may not even be faster.** Negotiating an easement over a provisional route\ngives the landholder every reason to wait for certainty before settling, and\ngives the proponent less to negotiate with. The model holds acquisition at\n540 days in both pathways precisely to avoid assuming the reform makes\nacquisition itself quicker; if concurrency makes it slower, part of the modelled\nsaving is illusory and could in principle be negative.\n\n**It cuts against what the evidence says the real problem is.** VNI West slipped\nabout two years on landholder engagement \u2014 on relationships, trust and the terms\noffered, not on the statutory ordering of steps. The Dyer review reported at the\nend of December 2023 with nine recommendations on community engagement, all\naccepted in principle. A jurisdiction that adopts the acquisition resequencing\nand not the engagement reforms has taken the part that suits the proponent and\nleft the part that suits the landholder, and should expect the resulting\nlitigation and resistance to consume what the resequencing saved.\n\nThat is the specific failure mode to watch for if NSW or Queensland copies this.\n", "sources": [ "Amendments to the Electricity Industry Act 2000 (Vic), 2026, permitting compulsory easement acquisition concurrently with the environment effects process", "Reporting on VNI West completion moving from 2028 to late 2030 on landholder engagement and assessment", "Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, Community Engagement Review (Dyer review), December 2023, and government response accepting all nine recommendations in principle" ] }, "twelve-hours-is-during-the-fire": { "id": "twelve-hours-is-during-the-fire", "name": "Twelve hours, written by the people currently containing the intrusion", "type": "resequence", "targets": [ "au-cyber-incident-reporting:soci_12" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "idea", "summary": "A critical cyber security incident must be reported within 12 hours of the entity becoming aware. At twelve hours an organisation usually does not know what happened, and the people who could find out are the people writing the report.", "precedent": "The Cyber Security Act 2024's limited use obligation is the same insight applied to a different problem: it lowers the cost of talking to government during an incident. A staged report does the same thing for the clock.", "rationale": "**Filed as an idea, and written mostly against itself, because the obvious\ncriticism here is probably wrong.**\n\nThe obvious criticism: twelve hours is unreasonable. A serious intrusion at hour\ntwelve is a set of alerts, a partial picture, and a small team doing triage. The\nstaff capable of writing an accurate report are the same staff containing the\nbreach. Every hour spent on a regulatory narrative is an hour not spent on\ncontainment, and the report produced will be wrong in ways that have to be\ncorrected later anyway.\n\n**The answer to that criticism is good, and this entry accepts it.**\n[[asd-acsc|ASD]] is not reading these reports to assess the entity. It is looking\nfor the pattern across entities \u2014 the same actor, the same vulnerability, the same\ninfrastructure \u2014 so it can warn the next twenty organisations before they are hit.\nFor that purpose an early, vague, partially wrong report has substantial value,\nand a complete accurate report at day five has almost none. **The twelve hours is\nnot about this incident. It is about the next one.**\n\nThat reframing changes what the reform should be. Not a longer clock \u2014 **a\nsmaller first report.**\n\n**What should change:**\n\n1. **Make the 12-hour obligation explicitly minimal in the rules.** What was\n observed, what system, what indicators, who to contact. A structured handful of\n fields, expressly not requiring assessment, causation, scope or impact.\n Anything an entity cannot know at hour twelve should not be a field at hour\n twelve.\n2. **Put the substantive account on the 72-hour report**, which already exists as\n a separate obligation and is currently a *different* report about *different*\n incidents rather than a later stage of the same one.\n3. **Say plainly that a first report may be wrong.** The single largest deterrent\n to fast reporting is the fear that an early, incorrect statement becomes an\n enforcement exhibit. The limited use obligation addresses part of this for the\n National Cyber Security Coordinator; the 12-hour SOCI report needs the same\n comfort, and **limited use is not immunity and does not switch off other\n obligations** \u2014 which entities' lawyers know.\n\n**None of this is a deregulation argument.** It keeps the clock, keeps the\nobligation and keeps the penalty. It changes what is owed at hour twelve so that\nthe obligation matches what an organisation can truthfully produce while the\nincident is still running.\n\n**Days saved: zero.** As with everything in\n[[report-the-incident-once|the reporting stack]], the cost here is not elapsed\ntime. It is the attention of the few people who can actually fix the problem.\n", "risk": "**A minimal first report may be minimal in the wrong direction.** If the rules say\nonly a handful of fields are required at twelve hours, some entities will supply\nonly those fields at seventy-two hours too, and at day ten. The current\nopen-ended obligation at least creates pressure to say what is known. Reducing the\nask is not free.\n\n**\"It's about the next one\" is an argument for more early reporting, not less.**\nTaken seriously, the pattern-detection rationale suggests the threshold should be\nlower and the population broader \u2014 every entity, not only responsible entities for\ncritical infrastructure assets. This entry proposes making the first report easier\nto file; a consistent application of its own reasoning might well propose making\nmore people file it.\n\n**This entry has no evidence about what entities actually experience at hour\ntwelve.** It reasons from the structure of incident response and from the\ntimeframes in the instruments. No Australian data on 12-hour report quality,\nvolume, correction rates or compliance cost is published \u2014 which is a gap worth\nnaming, and it means the argument here is analytical rather than empirical.\n\n**And the regulator has just moved into enforcement.** Ransomware payment reporting\nmoved from education to compliance and enforcement on **1 January 2026**, and the\nCIRMP annual report carries a civil penalty of 150 penalty units. Proposing to\nsoften what is owed in the first twelve hours, in the year enforcement begins, is\nan argument that will be read as industry lobbying whether or not it is right \u2014\nwhich is a reason to make it carefully, not a reason not to make it.\n", "sources": [ "Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (Cth): a responsible entity must report a critical cyber security incident within 12 hours of becoming aware, and other cyber security incidents within 72 hours", "Cyber Security Act 2024 (Cth), Part 4 Division 3: the limited use obligation applies to the National Cyber Security Coordinator; limited use is not immunity and does not switch off other obligations", "Phase 2 compliance and enforcement of ransomware payment reporting begins from 1 January 2026", "CIRMP annual report: civil penalty of 150 penalty units for failure to lodge by the deadline" ] }, "two-years-from-when-you-find-out": { "id": "two-years-from-when-you-find-out", "name": "A limitation period that ran from the offence, in a sector where offences surface late", "type": "resequence", "targets": [ "au-ecec-worker-clearance:monitoring" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "enacted", "summary": "Regulatory authorities had two years from when an offence occurred to commence proceedings. From 10 December 2025 they have two years from when they become aware of it. One clause, and it is the difference between a prosecution and a dead letter.", "precedent": "Limitation periods running from discovery rather than from the act are ordinary in Australian law wherever the harm is characteristically concealed \u2014 child sexual abuse civil claims, fraud, and latent-damage building defects all use some version of it.", "rationale": "**The smallest reform in this batch and possibly the sharpest.**\n\nSection 284 of the *Education and Care Services National Law* set a two-year\nlimitation period for commencing proceedings for an offence. It ran **from the\ndate the offence occurred**. From **10 December 2025** it runs from **the date\nthe regulatory authority becomes aware of the alleged offence**.\n\n**Why the old rule failed in this specific sector.** Offences against children in\ncare are characteristically discovered late. A child too young to disclose, a\ndisclosure made years afterwards, a pattern only visible once several services\ncompare notes, a device search prompted by an unrelated investigation \u2014 every one\nof those routes takes longer than two years. A limitation period running from the\nact means the clock is often expired at the moment the conduct is discovered.\n\nSo the rule produced an outcome nobody chose: **the more successfully conduct was\nconcealed, the more certainly it could not be prosecuted.** That is not a policy\nabout timeliness; it is a reward for concealment, and it was an accident of\ndrafting rather than anyone's intention.\n\n**It sits inside a much larger package**, and the package is worth recording as a\nwhole because it is the most substantial rewrite of Australian early childhood\nregulation since the National Quality Framework began:\n\n| Date | Change |\n|---|---|\n| **10 Dec 2025** | Limitation period runs from awareness, not occurrence |\n| **2 Jan 2026** | Power to direct a provider to suspend a nominated supervisor or staff member, and to require training |\n| **27 Feb 2026** | Children's safety, rights and best interests made the paramount consideration; device management; mandatory training; [[the-register-is-the-template|national worker register]] |\n| **24 Apr 2026** | Further NSW-specific obligations under the *Children (Education and Care Services National Law Application) Amendment Act 2025* |\n| **12 Aug 2026** | Notifiable conduct extended to sexual offences and misconduct committed outside the service |\n| **27 Aug 2026** | Deadline for all existing staff to complete child protection and child safety training |\n\n**Two of these are pure resequencing** \u2014 the limitation period, and moving the\nnotifiable-conduct boundary off the service premises. Neither adds a form,\na fee, an assessment or a queue. Both change *when* a power becomes available,\nwhich is the category of reform this database was built to find and rarely finds\nalready done.\n\n**Zero days saved, deliberately.** Nothing here makes anything faster for anyone\napplying for anything. It is recorded because the site's method should be able to\nrecognise a good resequence as readily as a bad one.\n", "risk": "**A discovery-based limitation period genuinely disadvantages defendants.** Evidence\ndegrades, memories fail, witnesses move on, and a person facing proceedings for\nconduct alleged to have occurred a decade earlier is in a materially worse\nposition to defend themselves. That is the reason limitation periods exist, and\nextending one is a real transfer of risk from the regulator to the accused. This\nentry supports the change; it should not pretend the objection is frivolous.\n\n**\"Becomes aware\" is a contested trigger and will be litigated.** Aware of what,\nheld by whom, at what level of specificity \u2014 a complaint on a hotline, an\nintelligence report, a pattern across services? The date the clock starts becomes\na preliminary question in every marginal prosecution, and a regulator has an\nincentive to characterise awareness late.\n\n**The rest of the package adds real cost to small providers.** Mandatory training\nfor every staff member by a fixed national deadline, device management\nobligations, register updates within 14 days, and a widened notification duty all\nland on services that in many cases have no dedicated administrator. This site has\nargued in the [[nsw-childcare-centre|childcare supply]] work that the\nsector's binding constraint is workforce; obligations that consume educator time\ninteract with that directly.\n\n**And a package assembled fast in response to a specific case will contain some\nthings that do not survive contact with practice.** That is the price of moving\nquickly, it was almost certainly worth paying, and the honest position is that\nnobody yet knows which clauses those are.\n", "sources": [ "From 10 December 2025, changes to section 284 of the Education and Care Services National Law give regulatory authorities 2 years from the date they become aware of an alleged offence to commence legal proceedings, rather than 2 years from when the offence occurred", "From 2 January 2026, changes to the Education and Care Services National Law and Regulations strengthen enforcement, including power to direct an approved provider to temporarily suspend a nominated supervisor or staff member and to require training to be completed", "Changes commencing 27 February 2026 make children's safety, rights and best interests the paramount consideration, manage devices in centre-based and family day care services, and mandate child protection and national child safety training", "All staff must complete child protection and child safety training by 27 August 2026; new staff starting after 14 August 2026 must complete it within 14 days", "From 12 August 2026, notifiable conduct includes any sexual offence or misconduct committed by staff even if it occurs outside the service", "NSW: further child safety reforms commenced 24 April 2026 under the Children (Education and Care Services National Law Application) Amendment Act 2025", "ACECQA: changes to maximum penalties and infringement notices" ] }, "unbundle-legal-assistance": { "id": "unbundle-legal-assistance", "name": "The duty lawyer model works because it is unbundled", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "nsw-legal-aid-access:duty_lawyer", "nsw-legal-aid-access:grant" ], "days_saved_est": 30, "status": "idea", "summary": "A grant of aid is close to all-or-nothing: carriage of the matter, or nothing. The duty lawyer service is the opposite \u2014 advice and appearance on the day, no means test, no grant \u2014 and it is the most efficient part of the system.", "precedent": "Duty lawyer services already operate this way at courts across the country, without a grant and without a means test, and are widely regarded as the highest-value part of the legal assistance system per dollar.", "rationale": "The [[nsw-legal-aid-access|legal assistance process]] contains two very different\nmodels sitting side by side.\n\n**The grant model.** Apply, pass a means test, pass a merits test, and receive\ncarriage of the matter \u2014 or receive nothing. Three tests, each capable of ending\nthe application, and no intermediate outcome.\n\n**The duty lawyer model.** Turn up at court, be seen on the day, get advice and an\nappearance. No application, no means test, no grant, no ongoing carriage. It is\nmodelled here at one day, and it is generally regarded as the highest-value\nservice in the system per dollar spent.\n\nThe difference is that duty work is **unbundled**: it provides one discrete piece\nof legal help rather than the whole matter. That is why it can be given to\neveryone who turns up, and why it does not need the rationing machinery the grant\nmodel requires.\n\n**The idea** is that discrete-task assistance be funded as a service in its own\nright beyond the courtroom door: drafting one document, advising on one decision,\nappearing at one listing, negotiating one settlement \u2014 available on a lighter\ntest than a full grant, to people who currently receive nothing because they\ncannot be given everything.\n\nFor a great many problems in the [[community-legal-centre|turn-away population]]\n\u2014 a tenancy notice, a debt letter, a Centrelink review, a first family violence\nlisting \u2014 one piece of competent help at the right moment is the difference\nbetween an outcome and a default judgment.\n\n**Filed as an idea rather than a proposal**, because the professional and\npractical objections below are substantial and this project cannot resolve them.\n", "risk": "**Unbundled legal work carries real professional risk, and lawyers know it.**\nAdvising on part of a matter without knowing the whole of it is how negligence\nhappens. A practitioner who drafts one document without carriage may miss a\nlimitation period, a cross-claim, or a family violence risk that only emerges\nfrom the full file. Professional indemnity insurers and regulators have been\ncautious about limited-scope retainers for exactly this reason, and that caution\nis not restrictive practice.\n\n**It may entrench a two-tier system.** \"One piece of help for the poor, full\nrepresentation for those who can pay\" is a defensible response to scarcity and an\nuncomfortable thing to build deliberately. The risk is that discrete-task\nassistance becomes the ceiling for legal aid rather than an addition to it \u2014\ncheaper per person, worse per outcome, and politically easier to fund than the\nfull grants it would partly displace.\n\n**The people who benefit most from full representation are the least able to use\nunbundled help.** Discrete-task assistance assumes a client who can act on advice,\nmanage their own matter between interventions, and recognise when to come back.\nThat describes some of the turn-away population and not the most vulnerable part\nof it \u2014 people with cognitive disability, acquired brain injury, or in acute\nfamily violence crisis need someone to carry the matter, not to coach them\nthrough it.\n\n**And the saving is small and possibly illusory.** Thirty days on a 130 day path\nthat is short because it ends in refusal. If unbundling increased the number of\npeople helped without increasing funding, the help each receives gets thinner \u2014\nwhich is rationing by another name, and this database should say so rather than\npresent it as efficiency.\n", "sources": [ "Duty lawyer services operate without a grant of aid or a means test", "Legal aid grants assessed against means, merits and jurisdictional tests", "Community Legal Centres Australia: more than 1,000 people turned away daily" ] }, "verify-the-student-once": { "id": "verify-the-student-once", "name": "Five clearances from five issuers, and the induction done again at every host", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-placement-compliance:second_host", "au-placement-compliance:host_requirements" ], "days_saved_est": 42, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A student needs immunisation evidence, a working with children check, a police check, an NDIS worker screening check, first aid, and each host's own modules. The university issues none of it, and the parts that do not travel are the parts a state health system controls.", "precedent": "The National Early Childhood Worker Register, live from 27 February 2026, built inside an IT system the sector already used from data providers already held. Clinical placement compliance is the same problem with the same shape and a smaller population.", "rationale": "Before a student can attend a mandatory placement they must hold, at minimum:\n\n| Requirement | Issuer | Time |\n|---|---|---|\n| Immunisation course and serology | GP and pathology laboratory | **~210 days** |\n| Working with children check | One of eight [[state-wwcc-unit|state units]] | ~42 days |\n| National Police Check | National scheme | **5-10 business days** |\n| NDIS Worker Screening Check | State worker screening unit | **2-4 weeks** |\n| Provide First Aid | A training provider, at the student's cost | ~7 days |\n| Host orientation and training | **Each** [[placement-provider|host organisation]] | ~21 days, repeated |\n\nThe [[university|university]] is accountable for verifying all of it and issues\nnone of it.\n\n**Two findings come out of the model.**\n\n**First, the longest requirement is not a queue and no reform touches it.** The\n[[au-placement-compliance|process models at 210 days]], entirely driven by a\nhepatitis B dose schedule and serology. That is biology. What *is* a decision is\n**when the student is told** \u2014 a student informed in first year has a scheduling\nproblem, and a student informed the semester before placement has a crisis. This\nsite's usual instinct is to find the queue; here the whole reform is a calendar\nreminder issued eighteen months earlier.\n\n**Second, the duplication is concentrated in the part a single state controls.**\nPolice checks and immunisation evidence generally travel between hosts. **Host\norientation and mandatory training modules do not** \u2014 and a student on their third\nplacement has completed near-identical inductions three times, frequently for\norganisations inside the *same state health system*.\n\n**What should change:**\n\n1. **One statewide student compliance record per health system.** A student\n verified once for a local health district is verified for all of them, with\n host-specific content limited to what is genuinely site-specific \u2014 ward layout,\n local escalation, physical orientation. This does not need national agreement;\n a single state can do it inside its own health department.\n2. **Mutual recognition of the working with children check for students on\n placement**, following [[one-register-eight-clearances|the reform already\n agreed in principle]] by attorneys-general in November 2025.\n3. **Tell students their immunisation obligations at enrolment**, in writing, with\n the schedule. Free, immediate, and it removes the single largest source of\n students being ineligible for the placement they have been allocated.\n\n**And record what is already designed well.** Students are treated as **volunteers**\nfor NDIS worker screening, so no application fee applies. For a cohort this site\nhas repeatedly described as carrying placement poverty, removing a fee from a\nmandatory clearance is the difference between a requirement and a barrier. It cost\nnothing and somebody thought about it.\n\n**Who acts:** state health departments for recommendation 1, attorneys-general for\n2, universities for 3. The Commonwealth does not appear in this list.\n", "risk": "**Host-specific induction exists for reasons, and some of them are safety\nreasons.** Escalation pathways, equipment, medication systems and local protocols\ngenuinely differ between hospitals, and a student who has done a generic module\nmay believe they know things they do not. The proposal above tries to separate\ncommon content from site-specific content, and drawing that line badly is how this\nreform hurts somebody.\n\n**A statewide compliance record concentrates a failure.** If one verification is\nwrong, it is now wrong everywhere in the state rather than at one site, and the\nre-verification that currently happens by accident at each host disappears. That\nis the standard objection to every \"verify once\" proposal on this site, and it is\nnot weaker here for involving students.\n\n**42 days saved is a soft estimate.** It is modelled as the removal of the repeated\nhost stack for a second placement, and the real figure depends entirely on how\nmuch of a given host's induction is genuinely site-specific \u2014 which nobody\npublishes, and which this project has not measured.\n\n**And the largest number in this process is untouched by all of it.** The 210-day\nimmunisation schedule dominates the critical path and no recommendation here\nshortens it by a day. Recommendation 3 changes when the clock starts, not how long\nit runs \u2014 which is the honest limit of what a process reform can do to a\nbiological constraint.\n\n**Nor does any of this create a placement.** The whole process makes a student\n*eligible*. Whether a placement exists for them is\n[[paying-a-student-does-not-create-a-placement|a different constraint entirely]],\nand the more efficient this pathway becomes the more visible that one gets.\n", "sources": [ "Universities require students on clinical or fieldwork placement to demonstrate compliance with immunisations, police checks and a working with children check", "A number of placements require an NDIS Worker Screening Check; students are treated as volunteers and no application fee applies; the check takes 2-4 weeks", "A National Police Check takes 5-10 business days; a National Police Certificate is typically required to be not more than three years old", "Students must complete a Provide First Aid course before attending clinical placements", "Queensland Health: students must complete a TB risk assessment prior to placement; yearly fit-testing is required where a particulate filter respirator may be used", "Health services publish student compliance checklists with organisation-specific orientation and training requirements", "The Agreement to Deliver National Working with Children Check Reform was endorsed by SCAG in November 2025, with agreement in principle to cross-jurisdiction information sharing to support mutual recognition" ] }, "vets-act-single-scheme": { "id": "vets-act-single-scheme", "name": "Three veterans' compensation Acts collapsed into one", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "au-dva-claim:lodge" ], "days_saved_est": 60, "status": "enacted", "summary": "Until 1 July 2026 a veteran's entitlements depended on which of three Acts applied to when they served and when the condition arose. The VETS Act closed two of them to new claims. A royal commission's first recommendation, legislated.", "precedent": "Enacted. The Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2025 passed on 13 February 2025 and commenced on 1 July 2026.", "rationale": "For decades a veteran's claim was determined under one of three statutes: the\nVeterans' Entitlements Act 1986, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation\n(Defence-related Claims) Act 1988, or the Military Rehabilitation and\nCompensation Act 2004. Which applied depended on when the person served and when\nthe injury or disease arose. Different tests, different benefits, and a real\npossibility of holding claims under more than one at once.\n\nThe Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide found that the complexity\nof the entitlement system itself adversely affects veterans' mental health, and\nmade legislative simplification its **first recommendation**.\n\nFrom 1 July 2026 the VETS Act closes the VEA and DRCA to new claims. Every new\ncompensation and rehabilitation claim, regardless of when the person served, is\ndetermined under a single improved MRCA. Open VEA and DRCA rehabilitation plans\ntransition automatically.\n\n**Why this belongs on this site even though it is done.**\n\nIt is the strongest available answer to the objection that merging things is a\ntechnocrat's hobby. Here the complexity was not merely inefficient \u2014 a royal\ncommission found it was harming the people subject to it. The instrument was\nlegislative simplification, the recommendation was ranked first, and it was\nenacted.\n\nIt also demonstrates the honest cost of a merge, which most proposals hide.\nClaims lodged before 1 July 2026 continue under the Act they were lodged under.\nThe three-scheme complexity therefore persists inside DVA for years, and the\ndepartment must now run the old schemes *and* the new one simultaneously. A merge\ndoes not simplify anything on day one. It simplifies the future and complicates\nthe present, and it is worth doing anyway.\n\n**What this did not do.** It did not touch the\n[[dva-fix-the-inflow-not-the-backlog|queue]]. As at 30 June 2026 \u2014 the day before\ncommencement \u2014 there were 32,925 unallocated claims. Simplifying the law a claim\nis decided under does not allocate it to anyone.\n", "risk": "**Harmonisation means somebody's entitlements change.** Three schemes with\ndifferent benefits cannot be merged without winners and losers at the margins.\nThe stated intent was an improved MRCA rather than a lowest common denominator,\nand veterans' organisations engaged closely with the Bill, but the honest\nposition is that this will be judged by what happens to people whose\ncircumstances would have been better served by the closed Acts. That will take\nyears to become visible.\n\n**A long dual-running period is its own risk.** DVA must operate three schemes\nfor the existing caseload and one for new claims, with delegates needing\ncompetence in all of them. The immediate effect on a department already carrying\n33,000 unallocated claims is more complexity, not less, and if the transition\nconsumes capacity the queue gets worse before it gets better.\n\n**The saving here is a modelled estimate and a soft one.** Sixty days is our\nfigure for the complexity removed at lodgement and determination. Nobody has\npublished elapsed time under three schemes against one, and nobody will be able\nto for several years because the comparison is confounded by the transition\nitself.\n\n**And the warning that applies to this whole site.** This is the reform this\nproject would have written if it had been asked, ranked first by a royal\ncommission and passed by parliament \u2014 and on the department's own numbers the\nqueue kept growing right up to the day it commenced. Getting the structure right\nis necessary and it is not sufficient, and a database that only looks at\nstructure will keep mistaking the first for the second.\n", "sources": [ "Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2025 (Cth), No. 17 of 2025, passed 13 February 2025, commencing 1 July 2026", "Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, final report September 2024, recommendation 1 on legislative simplification and harmonisation", "DVA, Veterans' Legislation Reform published materials on the VETS Act" ] }, "vsl-reach-the-qualifications-with-the-shortages": { "id": "vsl-reach-the-qualifications-with-the-shortages", "name": "Three student support instruments, and the same rung missing from all three", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-vet-student-loan:course_on_list", "au-ecec-educator-domestic:placement", "au-aged-care-worker-entry:placement" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "proposal", "summary": "VET Student Loans stop at diploma level. The Commonwealth Prac Payment stops before Certificate III early childhood. Fee-free places depend on a state listing the course this year. The qualification producing most of the childcare workforce is missing from all three.", "precedent": "The loan caps and course determination are set by ministerial determination, not primary legislation. The boundary is adjustable by the same instrument that set it.", "rationale": "This proposal is the intersection of three findings already on this site, and it\nis sharper than any of them alone.\n\n**Instrument one: VET Student Loans.** Available only for approved courses at\ndiploma, advanced diploma, graduate certificate and graduate diploma level under\nthe VET Student Loans (Courses and Loan Caps) Determination 2016. **A loan cannot\nbe used for a Certificate IV or below.**\n\n**Instrument two: the Commonwealth Prac Payment.** Pays $338.60 a week to\neligible students on mandatory placement. Its higher education stream covers\nnursing, teaching, midwifery and social work; its vocational stream covers the\nDiploma of Nursing. It does not reach a Certificate III student.\n\n**Instrument three: fee-free places.** Reaches Certificate III \u2014 but only if the\nstudent's state has put that qualification on its subsidised list this year, and\nonly if the student has not previously held a subsidised place.\n\nNow apply all three to the\n[[au-ecec-educator-domestic|Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and\nCare]]: the entry qualification for most of the childcare workforce, requiring\n160 hours of unpaid mandatory placement, in a sector where the Commonwealth has\nlegislated a 3 Day Guarantee, committed $3.6 billion to wage support, and where\n7.4 per cent of services hold staffing waivers of which almost 90 per cent\nconcern the early childhood teacher requirement.\n\nNo loan. No placement payment. A fee-free place if the state listed it.\n\nThe same analysis holds for aged care and disability support qualifications at\nCertificate III, in sectors with a projected shortfall approaching 110,000\nworkers by 2030.\n\n**The proposal is narrow:** extend the course determination to Certificate III\nand IV qualifications in occupations Jobs and Skills Australia identifies as in\nnational shortage, at low loan caps proportionate to their fees.\n\n**Days saved: zero.** This is not an elapsed-time reform. It is on this site\nbecause the database's unit is the step, and a qualification excluded from every\nsupport instrument is a step a person cannot take.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth alone, by amending a determination.\n", "risk": "**This is the exact territory of VET FEE-HELP, and that must be answered first.**\nVET FEE-HELP ran from 2008 to 2016 and collapsed after a Senate inquiry found\nproviders and marketing agents targeting vulnerable and disadvantaged consumers,\nsigning them into courses they could not complete, leaving them with debts. The\nrestriction to diploma level and above is part of how that was contained: lower\nqualifications are cheaper, higher volume, and were the sharp end of the\npredatory marketing.\n\nExtending loans back down to Certificate III level walks toward the fire. Anyone\nproposing it \u2014 including this project \u2014 has to say what stops the same thing\nhappening, and the honest answer is that the [[asqa|current provider approval\nregime]], the loan caps, the academic suitability assessment and the census-date\nstructure are all much stronger than what existed in 2012, but none of them is\nproof. The [[au-vfh-debt-remedy|remedy process]] for the last round is still\nrunning, and people are still carrying those debts.\n\n**A loan may be the wrong instrument entirely.** For a $2,000 Certificate III in\na shortage occupation, the alternative is not a loan but a fully funded place \u2014\nwhich is what fee-free TAFE already is, where the state lists it. The stronger\nversion of this proposal may be \"make the fee-free list national and\ndemand-driven for shortage occupations\" rather than \"extend the loan scheme\", and\nthat version carries none of the VET FEE-HELP risk.\n\n**Debt on low-wage workers is a poor trade.** Certificate III early childhood and\naged care lead to some of the lowest-paid work in the country. An\nincome-contingent loan repaid above a threshold many of these workers will not\nreach for years is, in practice, a debt that sits on their record and reduces\ntheir borrowing capacity for other things. Extending credit to people whose\nearnings will not repay it is not obviously a kindness.\n\n**And this site should be honest about the direction.** Most reforms here remove\na step. This one adds a scheme, with its own applications, approvals and\ncompliance regime, to qualifications that currently have none. That is a\ndefensible thing to want and it is not deregulation, and it should not be\npresented as such.\n", "sources": [ "VET Student Loans (Courses and Loan Caps) Determination 2016: approved courses at diploma level and above only; a loan cannot be used for Certificate IV or below", "Department of Education, Commonwealth Prac Payment: $338.60 per week in 2026; DEWR vocational stream covering the Diploma of Nursing", "Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care: minimum 160 hours mandatory work placement", "ACECQA: 7.4 per cent of approved services held a staffing waiver at 30 June 2025, almost 90 per cent relating to the early childhood teacher requirement" ] }, "walk-in-without-a-referral": { "id": "walk-in-without-a-referral", "name": "The better-designed instrument already exists inside the same government", "type": "threshold", "targets": [ "au-medicare-mental-health-centre:locate", "au-better-access:gp_appointment" ], "days_saved_est": 278, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A Medicare Mental Health Centre requires no appointment, no referral, no plan and no fee, and models at 4 days. Better Access models at 282. The constraint on the first is that only 92 will exist by 2027.", "precedent": "The centres exist and are used: 21 locations in New South Wales alone, with more than 37,000 people and families served. This is not a proposal to build something new but to build more of something that works.", "rationale": "This database keeps finding the same thing in different portfolios: **the\nbetter-designed instrument already exists inside the same government, and it has\nbeen applied to a fraction of the people it could serve.**\n\n| Instrument | Gate | Models at |\n|---|---|---|\n| [[au-medicare-mental-health-centre|Medicare Mental Health Centre]] | none | 4 days |\n| [[au-better-access|Better Access]] | GP appointment, treatment plan, find a psychologist, gap fee | 282 days |\n| [[au-child-dental-benefit|Child Dental Benefits Schedule]] | none, eligibility derived automatically | 31 days |\n| [[nsw-public-dental-adult|Adult public dental]] | means test, waiting list | 665 days |\n| [[au-rent-assistance|Rent Assistance]] | none, assessed on claiming another payment | 212 days |\n| [[nsw-energy-rebate|State energy rebate]] | annual application inside a window | 113 days |\n\nThree portfolios, three pairs, the same shape each time. In every case the\nlow-gate instrument was designed by the same government that runs the high-gate\none.\n\nFor mental health specifically: **92 centres by 2027**, with 21 already operating\nin New South Wales and more than 37,000 people and families served. The only\neligibility test is whether one is within reach \u2014 which for most of the country\nit is not.\n\n**The proposal.** Expand coverage, and treat the walk-in model as the default\nfront door for mental health rather than as a supplementary program. The saving\nis not primarily elapsed time; it is that a person in distress is seen rather\nthan routed.\n\n**What this does not claim.** A walk-in centre provides assessment and brief\nintervention. It is not a substitute for a course of psychological therapy, and a\nperson who needs one is [[au-medicare-mental-health-centre|referred into Better\nAccess]] \u2014 where the gate reappears. This proposal and\n[[mental-health-plan-as-a-gate]] are complements: expanding the front door\nmatters less if the second door is unchanged.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth, through [[phn|Primary Health Networks]].\n", "risk": "**The days-saved figure is close to meaningless and is presented here as a\ncomparison rather than a saving.** Nobody moves from 282 days to 4 by walking into\na centre; they receive a *different service*. Brief intervention and a course of\ntherapy are not substitutes, and treating the two numbers as interchangeable\nwould be exactly the misuse this site warns against elsewhere. The number is in\nthe field because the schema requires one.\n\n**Expansion is a workforce problem, not a construction problem.** Ninety-two\ncentres require staff, and mental health clinicians are the same constrained pool\nthat produces six to sixteen week waits for bulk-billed psychology. Opening\ncentres by drawing clinicians out of existing services moves the shortage rather\nthan reducing it, and the places where a centre is most needed are the places\nwhere recruiting is hardest.\n\n**No-gate services attract presentations they cannot resolve.** A free walk-in\ndoor will be used by people needing acute care, housing, drug and alcohol\ntreatment, or family violence support. That is a feature if the referral pathways\nwork and a harm if they do not \u2014 a person turned away from an open door is worse\noff than one who never believed it was open.\n\n**And the missing middle is still missing.** Between brief intervention and\nacute inpatient care sits the population this system has failed for decades.\nWalk-in centres address the front of that gap and not its middle. The\n[[au-better-access|National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Agreement]] \u2014\nfound *not effective* by the Productivity Commission, expiring 30 June 2026 and\nextended by a year \u2014 is where that would have to be resolved, and it is not a\nprocess reform.\n", "sources": [ "Department of Health, Disability and Ageing: Medicare Mental Health Centres are free walk-in services with no appointment needed; 92 to open by 2027", "21 locations across New South Wales, used by more than 37,000 people and families", "Better Access requires a referral or plan from a GP, psychiatrist or paediatrician; reported bulk-billed psychology waits of 6 to 16 weeks", "Productivity Commission review of the National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Agreement, final report tabled 11 November 2025, finding the Agreement not effective" ] }, "water-market-transparency": { "id": "water-market-transparency", "name": "Water market conduct rules: a step this database wanted added", "type": "digitise", "targets": [ "nsw-water-trade:reporting" ], "days_saved_est": 0, "status": "enacted", "summary": "From 1 July 2026 water market participants carry new disclosure obligations, market manipulation and insider trading are prohibited, and the ACCC enforces it. Five years from inquiry to commencement \u2014 which is what building a regime properly looks like.", "precedent": "Enacted. The Water Amendment (Water Markets Decisions) Regulation 2026 was made in March 2026 for commencement on 1 July 2026, following the ACCC's 2021 Murray-Darling Basin water markets inquiry and its 29 recommendations.", "rationale": "Almost every entry on this site argues for a step to be removed, merged,\nresequenced or thresholded. This one is an addition, it is already law, and it is\nrecorded because a database that only ever wanted less process would be an\nadvocacy organisation.\n\nThe ACCC's 2021 inquiry into Murray-Darling Basin water markets made **29\nrecommendations**. It described a market of substantial value with far less\nintegrity infrastructure than any comparable financial market: participants\nholding non-public information about allocations, storage and government\npurchasing; trades reported slowly and inconsistently; and no effective conduct\nrules.\n\nRegulations were made in **March 2026** for commencement on **1 July 2026**. From\nthat date, participants carry obligations concerning water markets decisions,\ncertain trade conduct is prohibited \u2014 including market manipulation and insider\ntrading \u2014 and the [[accc|ACCC]] enforces it.\n\n**Why this belongs in a red tape database.** Because the honest version of this\nproject's method has to be able to conclude that a market needed more rules, not\nfewer. A water market where the Commonwealth is itself a major buyer through\n[[mdba|environmental recovery]], and where participants could trade on\ninformation others did not have, was not a free market. It was an opaque one, and\nopacity is a subsidy to whoever holds the information.\n\n**And the timeline is worth defending.** Five years from inquiry to commencement\nlooks slow, and this site has criticised delay throughout. It has also criticised\nthe [[haff-settle-the-rules-before-opening-the-round|Housing Australia Future\nFund]] for opening a $10 billion program before its governance was settled. Both\ncannot be right unless the distinction is drawn properly: **settling the rules\nbefore you switch a regime on is worth the time it takes.** Water markets did\nthat. This site should say so.\n\n**What remains.** Conduct rules govern behaviour in the market. They do not\ncreate a [[water-one-register-one-approval|national view of who holds what]],\nwhich is the other half of the ACCC's diagnosis and has not been done.\n", "risk": "**Compliance cost falls on small holders as well as large ones.** Disclosure and\nconduct obligations designed for sophisticated traders apply to irrigators\ntrading a parcel of allocation once a season, and the cost of understanding them\nis not proportional to the transaction. Regimes of this kind consistently bear\nhardest on the least sophisticated participant, and the mitigation \u2014 clear\nguidance and proportionate enforcement \u2014 depends on the regulator's judgement\nrather than the rules.\n\n**Enforcement capacity is untested.** The ACCC is a capable regulator taking on a\nmarket it does not have a long history in, with information asymmetries that are\nhydrological as well as commercial. Insider trading provisions are notoriously\nhard to prove in deep financial markets with complete audit trails; proving them\nhere will be harder.\n\n**Transparency about holdings is politically loaded.** Better trade reporting will\nmake patterns of ownership more visible, including foreign and institutional\nownership, and that will generate arguments that the rules were not designed to\nresolve.\n\n**And an enacted status is a prediction, not a verdict.** This site now carries\nsix reforms marked `enacted`. Each is recorded because reality will grade it, and\nnone has been graded yet. Whether these rules change conduct is an empirical\nquestion with an answer arriving some years from now, and this project should\nreturn to it rather than treat commencement as completion.\n", "sources": [ "ACCC, Murray-Darling Basin water markets inquiry final report, March 2021: 29 recommendations", "Water Amendment (Water Markets Decisions) Regulation 2026, made March 2026 for commencement 1 July 2026", "ACCC: new bans on water market manipulation and insider trading in force; ACCC responsible for enforcing new water trade laws in the Murray-Darling Basin from 1 July 2026" ] }, "water-one-register-one-approval": { "id": "water-one-register-one-approval", "name": "One economic transaction, two registers, two approvals", "type": "merge", "targets": [ "nsw-water-trade:interstate", "nsw-water-trade:hold" ], "days_saved_est": 45, "status": "proposal", "summary": "Water entitlements in the Murray-Darling Basin are state instruments on state registers with state product definitions. A trade across a border is a transfer between two systems for one transaction \u2014 and unlike every other instance of this pattern here, there is no national scheme for states to join.", "precedent": "The new market conduct and reporting obligations commencing 1 July 2026 already establish a Commonwealth interest in how trades are recorded and disclosed. A national view of holdings is the same idea applied to the register rather than the transaction.", "rationale": "The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is a Commonwealth instrument. The water it plans is\nnot.\n\nEntitlements are issued under state law, held on state registers, traded under\nstate approval and described with state product definitions. A trade within a\nstate is one transaction. A trade across a border is a transfer between two\nregisters, with two approval processes, for instruments that are economically\nsimilar and legally distinct.\n\n**This is the seventh instance of the partial-national pattern in this database\nand the odd one out.** Elsewhere \u2014 [[nrsch|community housing registration]],\n[[nsw-worker-screening|worker screening]],\n[[finish-automatic-mutual-recognition|occupational licensing]],\n[[credentialing-verify-once|clinical credentialing]], working with children\nchecks, [[nsw-medicines-regulator|controlled-medicine prescribing]] \u2014 there is a\nnational scheme that some jurisdictions sit outside. Here there is no national\nregister at all. The Commonwealth plans the water and does not record who holds\nit.\n\n**What that costs.** Duplicated approval for one transaction. A trade taking\nabout 96 days on this model, of which the interstate transfer is 45. And,\nmore importantly, the absence of a national view: nobody can answer\nstraightforwardly who holds Basin entitlements, in what proportions, or how\nholdings have changed \u2014 which is a considerable gap in a market the Commonwealth\nis itself a major buyer in through\n[[mdba|environmental water recovery]].\n\n**The proposal.** A national register of Basin entitlements \u2014 states continuing\nto issue and approve, but recording to a single view with harmonised product\ndefinitions \u2014 and mutual recognition of trade approval so that one transaction\nrequires one decision.\n\n**What it does not touch.** Physical delivery constraints. A trade that cannot be\ndelivered past the Barmah Choke cannot be delivered, and this database keeps\nhydrology and administration apart deliberately.\n\n**Who acts:** the Commonwealth and the Basin states, through the same\nintergovernmental machinery that produced the market reform commencing 1 July\n2026.\n", "risk": "**Water entitlements are property rights under state law and states will resist\nthis hard.** A national register implies national definitions, and national\ndefinitions imply the Commonwealth shaping what a state property right is. The\nconstitutional and political sensitivity here exceeds anything else in this\ndatabase \u2014 water has broken intergovernmental agreements before, and the Basin\nstates have very different endowments and interests.\n\n**Harmonised product definitions would create winners and losers.** Entitlement\nclasses reflect different reliability, different histories and different\nhydrology. Mapping them to a common taxonomy means someone's high-security\nentitlement is described in a way that changes how it trades, and the value\nattached to that description is real money.\n\n**A national register makes holdings visible, which some holders will resist for\nreasons that are not all bad.** Transparency of who owns water is a public good\nand a commercial exposure, and foreign and institutional ownership is a live\npolitical issue that a register would sharpen rather than resolve.\n\n**And the saving is small.** Forty-five days on a 96 day process that is not\nnotably slow. The case for this reform is the **national view**, not the elapsed\ntime, and it should be argued on that basis \u2014 a market the Commonwealth buys in\nat scale should be one it can see.\n", "sources": [ "Water Act 2007 (Cth); state water management legislation issuing and registering entitlements in each Basin state", "ACCC, Murray-Darling Basin water markets inquiry final report, March 2021: 29 recommendations", "Water Amendment (Water Markets Decisions) Regulation 2026, commencing 1 July 2026" ] }, "worker-screening-recognise-once": { "id": "worker-screening-recognise-once", "name": "Recognise one worker screening clearance nationally", "type": "remove", "targets": [ "au-ndis-provider-registration:worker_screening", "au-ecec-teacher-overseas:wwcc" ], "days_saved_est": 60, "status": "proposal", "summary": "A Commonwealth-funded national scheme requires a clearance administered separately by eight jurisdictions, searching the same national criminal history databases. A worker crossing a border applies again. Portability and rigour are different questions.", "precedent": "The national criminal history check underlying every one of these clearances is already a single national search. The NDIS national worker screening database already records clearance status across jurisdictions, and the 2026 national early childhood educator register does the same for its sector.", "rationale": "NDIS worker screening is required nationally, funded federally, and administered\nby each state and territory. So is the working with children check. A support\nworker who moves from Victoria to New South Wales, or works across a border,\napplies again, pays again and waits again \u2014 for a decision made against the same\nnational databases.\n\n**This project does not propose relaxing either check.** The royal commission\ninto violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability is\nrecent, and the childcare failures of 2025 are more recent still. The reason\nthese clearances exist is not abstract, and nothing here should be read as an\nargument for a lighter test of who works with vulnerable people.\n\nThe argument is that a single clearance recognised in all jurisdictions can be\nexactly as rigorous as eight separate ones, because the underlying search is the\nsame. What differs is how many times a worker pays and waits \u2014 and, importantly,\nwhat happens between the eight regimes when something goes wrong. A person\nrefused in one jurisdiction and applying in another is the case that most needs\na national view, and it is the case that eight separate registers handle worst.\n\n**The 2026 collision makes the case concrete.** From 1 July 2026 mandatory NDIS\nregistration expanded to further provider categories, with registration or\nlodgement required by 1 October 2026. From February 2026 the first wave of\nfive-year clearances issued in 2021 began expiring. New applications and renewals\narrived in the same queues at the same time, in eight separate systems, none of\nwhich could smooth the load by drawing on another.\n\nTwo independently sensible commencement dates, chosen by different people,\nintersecting in one workforce. Making that visible before it happens is most of\nwhat this database is for.\n\n**Who acts:** disability and children's ministers collectively. Not the\nCommonwealth alone, which is why it has not happened \u2014 the same constitutional\nshape that governs [[ahpra]] and [[acecqa]].\n", "risk": "**Mutual recognition transmits the weakest regime.** The jurisdictions do not\napply identical risk assessments \u2014 what is considered disqualifying, how spent\nconvictions and non-conviction material are weighed, and how much discretion an\nassessor holds all vary. National recognition means the most permissive\nassessment travels everywhere. In a domain where the failure mode is abuse of\nsomeone who cannot report it, that is not a theoretical concern and it is the\nreason the jurisdictions have not simply agreed.\n\n**Ongoing monitoring is jurisdictional.** These clearances are not one-off\nchecks; they are subscriptions, with the issuing unit notified of new charges and\nable to revoke. A clearance issued in one state and relied on in another needs\nthat monitoring to follow the worker, and monitoring depends on state police\ndata-sharing arrangements. Recognition without live monitoring would be worse\nthan the status quo, because it would extend the reach of a clearance without\nextending the surveillance that makes it meaningful.\n\n**Renewal crunches are not solved by portability.** The February 2026 expiry wave\nwould have arrived under a national scheme too. Consolidation makes load-smoothing\n*possible*; it does not deliver it, and a single national queue can be just as\ncongested as eight \u2014 with the additional property that when it fails, it fails\neverywhere at once.\n\n**And the honest limit.** Sixty days, on steps that are largely off the critical\npath in both processes this reform targets. It matters to the individual worker\npaying and waiting several times, which is a real cost borne by some of the\nlowest-paid workers in the country, and it is not going to be what fixes either\nsector.\n", "sources": [ "NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, published worker screening requirements for registered providers", "Mandatory NDIS registration expansion from 1 July 2026; first wave of five-year clearances issued in 2021 expiring from February 2026", "Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, final report 2023" ] } }, "processes": { "act-apartments": { "name": "Build a multi storey apartment building \u2014 Australian Capital Territory", "jurisdiction": "act", "category": "development", "scale": "Class 2 residential apartment building, multi storey, site already held", "comparison_key": "apartment-development", "summary": "The longest pathway in the database: design review, a Class 2 building under the National Construction Code, fire engineering, extended referrals, and strata registration at the end.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 18, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 810, "critical_path": [ "design", "design_review", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "referrals", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion", "subdivision", "registration" ], "serial_days": 852, "concurrency_saving": 42, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 304, "assessment": 210, "queue": 181, "scheduling": 115 }, "addressable_days": 296, "addressable_pct": 37, "slack": { "design": 510, "design_review": 465, "fire_engineering": 465, "lodge": 462, "fee": 461, "adequacy": 440, "notification": 412, "referrals": 370, "assessment": 280, "rfi": 190, "decision": 235, "appeal_window": 207, "contributions": 221, "building_approval": 160, "inspections": 135, "completion": 90, "subdivision": 30, "registration": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 6 }, "steps": [ { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural, civil, traffic, waste, landscape, stormwater and acoustic documentation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 300, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "design_review", "name": "Design review panel", "type": "assessment", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "An independent panel reviews the design against the applicable apartment design standards.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "fire_engineering", "name": "Fire engineering performance solution", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Where the design departs from the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the National Construction Code for a Class 2 building.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 2023 (ACT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design", "design_review" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Australian Capital Territory published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Public notification and submissions", "type": "notification", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "Traffic, engineering, waste, landscape, heritage and state agency referrals, each responding separately.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 70, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 2023 (ACT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy", "notification", "referrals" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of development approval", "type": "decision", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 2023 (ACT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "appeal_window", "name": "Third party appeal period", "type": "appeal", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated window in which a submitter may seek review of the decision.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contributions", "name": "Pay development contributions", "type": "fee", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building approval", "type": "certification", "body": "act-building", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Building Act 2004 (ACT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 75, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "act-building", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 25, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the certificate of occupancy and use", "type": "certification", "body": "act-building", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "subdivision", "name": "Obtain the strata certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "Authorises registration of the plan creating separate titles. Cannot begin until the works are complete and certified.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "completion" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "registration", "name": "Register the plan of strata", "type": "registration", "body": "act-titles", "summary": "The land registry records the plan and issues the new titles.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "subdivision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "act-buy-land-build-house": { "name": "Buy land and build a single storey house \u2014 Australian Capital Territory", "jurisdiction": "act", "category": "development", "scale": "Vacant residential lot, one single storey detached dwelling", "comparison_key": "buy-land-and-build-house", "summary": "From choosing a lot to occupying the finished house: purchase, settlement, title, design, development approval, building approval and certificate of occupancy and use.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 21, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 283, "critical_path": [ "find_lot", "contract", "finance", "settlement", "title_registration", "design", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion" ], "serial_days": 312, "concurrency_saving": 29, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 131, "assessment": 75, "third_party": 65, "queue": 7, "scheduling": 5 }, "addressable_days": 12, "addressable_pct": 4, "slack": { "find_lot": 223, "contract": 216, "cooling_off": 209, "finance": 195, "due_diligence": 195, "duty": 215, "settlement": 165, "title_registration": 151, "design": 91, "lodge": 88, "fee": 87, "adequacy": 80, "notification": 66, "referrals": 52, "assessment": 50, "rfi": 5, "decision": 40, "building_approval": 19, "inspections": 14, "completion": 0, "connections": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 14 }, "steps": [ { "id": "find_lot", "name": "Find and select a lot", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Search, inspect and choose a site. Entirely the buyer's own time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contract", "name": "Sign the contract of sale", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Contracts are exchanged or signed and the deposit is paid.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "find_lot" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "cooling_off", "name": "Statutory cooling-off period", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "7 calendar days (approx) in which the buyer may rescind.", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 2023 (ACT)", "statutory_clock_days": 7, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Comparative state-by-state guides to contract cooling-off periods, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "finance", "name": "Unconditional finance approval", "type": "referral", "body": "", "summary": "The lender values the property and confirms the loan.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "due_diligence", "name": "Title, planning and site searches", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Title search, planning certificate, contour and soil classification survey.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "duty", "name": "Pay transfer duty", "type": "fee", "body": "", "summary": "Stamp duty on the transfer, payable to the state revenue office.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "settlement", "name": "Settlement period", "type": "registration", "body": "act-titles", "summary": "Customarily 30 days from contract to settlement in this jurisdiction.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "cooling_off", "finance", "due_diligence", "duty" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Comparative state-by-state conveyancing settlement guides, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "title_registration", "name": "Transfer of title registered", "type": "registration", "body": "act-titles", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "settlement" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural plans, siting, and a thermal performance assessment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "title_registration" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 2023 (ACT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Australian Capital Territory published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Neighbour notification", "type": "notification", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "Not generally required for a compliant single dwelling; triggered by variations to siting or height standards.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "Triggered by site-specific matters such as heritage, bushfire, flooding or a classified road frontage.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 2023 (ACT)", "statutory_clock_days": 30, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of development approval", "type": "decision", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 2023 (ACT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 10, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building approval", "type": "certification", "body": "act-building", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Building Act 2004 (ACT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "act-building", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 5, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the certificate of occupancy and use", "type": "certification", "body": "act-building", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "connections", "name": "Utility connections", "type": "referral", "body": "", "summary": "Water, sewer, power and telecommunications connections.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "act-drivers-licence": { "name": "Get a car driver licence \u2014 Australian Capital Territory", "jurisdiction": "act", "category": "personal-licensing", "scale": "Class C (car) licence, applicant under 25, no prior licence", "comparison_key": "car-drivers-licence", "summary": "The only pathway in the country where a novice driver can avoid the government practical test entirely, by being assessed against 23 competencies by an accredited instructor.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 9, "bodies": 1, "critical_path_days": 1485, "critical_path": [ "knowledge_test", "learner_licence", "hold_period", "book_test", "driving_test", "p1", "full_licence" ], "serial_days": 1851, "concurrency_saving": 366, "wait_profile": { "statutory": 1460, "scheduling": 21, "assessment": 3, "applicant": 1 }, "addressable_days": 21, "addressable_pct": 1, "slack": { "knowledge_test": 1484, "learner_licence": 1483, "hold_period": 1118, "supervised_hours": 1118, "hpt": 1482, "book_test": 1097, "driving_test": 1096, "p1": 1, "full_licence": 0 }, "sourced": 8, "sourced_pct": 89 }, "steps": [ { "id": "knowledge_test", "name": "Road rules knowledge test", "type": "assessment", "body": "act-licensing", "summary": "Book and sit the road rules knowledge test. Usually same-day at a service centre.", "legal_basis": "Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Access Canberra, get your provisional driver licence, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "learner_licence", "name": "Learner licence issued", "type": "registration", "body": "act-licensing", "summary": "Issued on passing the knowledge and eyesight tests. Minimum age 16.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "knowledge_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Access Canberra, get your provisional driver licence, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "hold_period", "name": "Minimum learner licence period (12 months)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated period that must elapse before the practical test, regardless of how ready the applicant is.", "legal_basis": "Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT)", "statutory_clock_days": 365, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "learner_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Access Canberra, get your provisional driver licence, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "supervised_hours", "name": "Log 100 supervised driving hours, including 10 at night", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Accumulated by the applicant with a supervising driver and recorded in a logbook.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "learner_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Access Canberra, get your provisional driver licence, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "hpt", "name": "Hazard Perception Test", "type": "assessment", "body": "act-licensing", "summary": "A computer-based test of the ability to recognise developing hazards. Increasingly available online.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "learner_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Access Canberra, get your provisional driver licence, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "book_test", "name": "Book and wait for a practical test appointment", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "The applicant is ready and the file is complete. What remains is waiting for an examiner appointment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "hold_period", "supervised_hours", "hpt" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "driving_test", "name": "Competency based training and assessment, or a government driving test", "type": "assessment", "body": "act-licensing", "summary": "CBT&A assesses 23 competencies across a minimum of 7 lessons with an accredited instructor, with no separate government test. The alternative is a one-off assessment with an ACT Government licence examiner.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "book_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Access Canberra, get your provisional driver licence, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "p1", "name": "Provisional licence period (3 years)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated minimum period on a restricted licence before progression.", "legal_basis": "Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT)", "statutory_clock_days": 1095, "typical_days": 1095, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "driving_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Access Canberra, get your provisional driver licence, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "full_licence", "name": "Full (unrestricted) licence issued", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "p1" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Access Canberra, get your provisional driver licence, accessed 2026-08-30" ] } ] }, "act-townhouses": { "name": "Build a block of townhouses \u2014 Australian Capital Territory", "jurisdiction": "act", "category": "development", "scale": "Multi-dwelling housing, roughly 5 to 20 dwellings, site already held", "comparison_key": "townhouse-development", "summary": "Scale changes the process qualitatively: mandatory public notification, multiple referrals, panel determination, development contributions and a subdivision that cannot start until the works are done.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 16, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 460, "critical_path": [ "design", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "referrals", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion", "subdivision", "registration" ], "serial_days": 502, "concurrency_saving": 42, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 154, "queue": 134, "assessment": 125, "scheduling": 47 }, "addressable_days": 181, "addressable_pct": 39, "slack": { "design": 310, "lodge": 307, "fee": 306, "adequacy": 292, "notification": 264, "referrals": 247, "assessment": 187, "rfi": 97, "decision": 152, "appeal_window": 124, "contributions": 138, "building_approval": 112, "inspections": 100, "completion": 75, "subdivision": 30, "registration": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 6 }, "steps": [ { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural, civil, traffic, waste, landscape, stormwater and acoustic documentation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 150, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 2023 (ACT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Australian Capital Territory published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Public notification and submissions", "type": "notification", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "Traffic, engineering, waste, landscape, heritage and state agency referrals, each responding separately.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 2023 (ACT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy", "notification", "referrals" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of development approval", "type": "decision", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 2023 (ACT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 35, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "appeal_window", "name": "Third party appeal period", "type": "appeal", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated window in which a submitter may seek review of the decision.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contributions", "name": "Pay development contributions", "type": "fee", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building approval", "type": "certification", "body": "act-building", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Building Act 2004 (ACT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 40, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "act-building", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 12, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the certificate of occupancy and use", "type": "certification", "body": "act-building", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 25, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "subdivision", "name": "Obtain the subdivision certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "act-planning", "summary": "Authorises registration of the plan creating separate titles. Cannot begin until the works are complete and certified.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "completion" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "registration", "name": "Register the plan of subdivision", "type": "registration", "body": "act-titles", "summary": "The land registry records the plan and issues the new titles.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "subdivision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-administrative-review": { "name": "Contest a Commonwealth decision at the Administrative Review Tribunal", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "review", "scale": "A merits review application in the NDIS or migration jurisdiction", "comparison_key": "merits-review", "summary": "The largest queue in this database, feeding on the two largest caseloads in it. Recorded as its own process because both NDIS and migration end here, and because a backlog this size is a measurement of upstream decision quality rather than of tribunal capacity.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 6, "bodies": 1, "critical_path_days": 524, "critical_path": [ "internal_review", "lodge", "queue", "conference", "hearing", "decision" ], "serial_days": 524, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "queue": 330, "scheduling": 120, "assessment": 60, "applicant": 14 }, "addressable_days": 450, "addressable_pct": 86, "slack": { "internal_review": 434, "lodge": 420, "queue": 180, "conference": 120, "hearing": 60, "decision": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 17 }, "steps": [ { "id": "internal_review", "name": "Internal review by the original decision-maker", "type": "appeal", "body": "", "summary": "The agency reviews its own decision. Generally a precondition to tribunal review.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the application", "type": "application", "body": "art", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "internal_review" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "queue", "name": "Wait for allocation and case management", "type": "assessment", "body": "art", "summary": "The application waits behind the existing caseload.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 240, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "ART: 130,983 applications on hand at 31 May 2026, with an annual clearance deficit of about 30,000 cases" ] }, { "id": "conference", "name": "Case conference and attempted resolution", "type": "assessment", "body": "art", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "queue" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "hearing", "name": "Hearing", "type": "assessment", "body": "art", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "conference" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Decision", "type": "decision", "body": "art", "summary": "The tribunal affirms, varies, sets aside or remits the decision.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "hearing" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-aged-care-access": { "name": "Older person from first contact to first day of home care", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "aged-care", "scale": "An older person seeking ongoing Support at Home services, entering the system through My Aged Care", "comparison_key": "scheme-access", "summary": "The best-sourced process in this database and the worst result in it. The government publishes a 347 day median from first contact to first day of service. The assessment \u2014 the only step where anyone judges anything \u2014 accounts for 27 of those days.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 9, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 349, "critical_path": [ "referral", "screening", "assessment_wait", "assessment", "decision", "assignment", "find_provider", "start" ], "serial_days": 349, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "queue": 230, "applicant": 77, "assessment": 35, "scheduling": 7 }, "addressable_days": 237, "addressable_pct": 68, "slack": { "referral": 328, "screening": 314, "assessment_wait": 287, "assessment": 266, "decision": 252, "assignment": 63, "find_provider": 7, "start": 0, "chsp_interim": 222 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 33 }, "steps": [ { "id": "referral", "name": "Contact My Aged Care and register", "type": "application", "body": "myagedcare", "summary": "The older person, a family member or a GP makes contact and a client record is created.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "screening", "name": "Screening and referral for assessment", "type": "referral", "body": "myagedcare", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "referral" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment_wait", "name": "Wait for an assessment appointment", "type": "assessment", "body": "aged-care-assessment", "summary": "Waiting for an assessor to become available.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 27, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "screening" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Department of Health, Disability and Ageing: median wait for assessment 27 days in 2024-25" ] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Aged care needs assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "aged-care-assessment", "summary": "The assessment that determines eligibility, approved services and priority category.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "assessment_wait" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Notice of decision and priority category", "type": "decision", "body": "health-au", "summary": "The person is told what they are approved for and assigned a priority category: urgent, high, medium or standard.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assignment", "name": "Wait for a funded budget to be assigned", "type": "registration", "body": "health-au", "summary": "The person is approved, and waits for funding to be released to them.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 189, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Derived: published median of 245 days from assessment approval to service commencement, less the 56 day service agreement window" ] }, { "id": "find_provider", "name": "Find a provider and sign a service agreement", "type": "application", "body": "myagedcare", "summary": "The person selects a registered provider and finalises a service agreement within the allowed window.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 56, "typical_days": 56, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assignment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "My Aged Care: 56 days to sign a service agreement once a budget is assigned" ] }, { "id": "start", "name": "Services commence", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "find_provider" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "chsp_interim", "name": "Interim entry-level support while waiting", "type": "referral", "body": "myagedcare", "summary": "Referral to entry-level support under the Commonwealth Home Support Programme during the wait.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-aged-care-wage-case": { "name": "Aged care wages are raised through a work value case", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "workforce", "scale": "The Aged Care Work Value Case, from application to the final staged increase", "comparison_key": "wage-setting", "summary": "Five years and nine months from lodgement to the final increase. It is the slowest process in this database and it produced the most durable result in it, which is why it is here.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 6, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 2185, "critical_path": [ "application", "evidence", "interim", "stage_three", "funding", "staged_payment" ], "serial_days": 2185, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "assessment": 1335, "statutory": 580, "scheduling": 180, "applicant": 90 }, "addressable_days": 180, "addressable_pct": 8, "slack": { "application": 2095, "evidence": 1365, "interim": 1125, "stage_three": 760, "funding": 580, "staged_payment": 0 }, "sourced": 5, "sourced_pct": 83 }, "steps": [ { "id": "application", "name": "Application lodged", "type": "application", "body": "fwc", "summary": "The Health Services Union applies to vary award rates, arguing the work has been undervalued on gender grounds.", "legal_basis": "Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), work value provisions", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Application lodged November 2020 seeking a 25 per cent increase" ] }, { "id": "evidence", "name": "Evidence, submissions and hearings", "type": "assessment", "body": "fwc", "summary": "Lay and expert evidence on the nature of the work, its complexity, and historic undervaluation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 730, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "application" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "interim", "name": "Interim decision: 15 per cent", "type": "decision", "body": "fwc", "summary": "An interim increase for direct care workers, ahead of the final determination.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 240, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "evidence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Interim 15 per cent increase, funded by the Commonwealth at $11.3 billion" ] }, { "id": "stage_three", "name": "Stage 3 decision", "type": "decision", "body": "fwc", "summary": "Further increases of between 3 and 13 per cent for direct and non-direct care workers.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "interim" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Further increases of 3 to 13 per cent, funded at $3.8 billion" ] }, { "id": "funding", "name": "Commonwealth funds the increase", "type": "decision", "body": "health-au", "summary": "The Commonwealth commits funding so that providers can pay the new rates without recovering them from residents.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "stage_three" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "$17.7 billion total Commonwealth commitment across the interim, Stage 3 and nurses decisions" ] }, { "id": "staged_payment", "name": "Increases paid in stages", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "Increases paid on 1 January 2025 and 1 October 2025, with the final nurses tranche on 1 August 2026.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 580, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "funding" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Increases paid 1 January 2025 and 1 October 2025; nurses tranches 1 March 2025, 1 October 2025 and 1 August 2026" ] } ] }, "au-aged-care-worker-entry": { "name": "Become a qualified aged care worker", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "workforce", "scale": "A domestic entrant completing a Certificate III in Individual Support and starting work in residential aged care", "comparison_key": "care-workforce-entry", "summary": "The same shape as the childcare pathway, with the same gap: a Certificate III with mandatory unpaid placement, outside every Commonwealth student support instrument. What is different is screening, where a genuinely national scheme arrives in mid-2026.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 7, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 432, "critical_path": [ "eligibility", "enrol", "study", "placement", "employment" ], "serial_days": 477, "concurrency_saving": 45, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 351, "third_party": 60, "scheduling": 21 }, "addressable_days": 21, "addressable_pct": 5, "slack": { "eligibility": 402, "enrol": 381, "screening": 336, "study": 81, "placement": 21, "employment": 0, "registered_nurse": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 14 }, "steps": [ { "id": "eligibility", "name": "Establish eligibility for a subsidised or fee-free place", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-training", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "enrol", "name": "Enrol with a registered training organisation", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "eligibility" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "screening", "name": "Obtain worker screening clearance", "type": "registration", "body": "nsw-worker-screening", "summary": "A police certificate under three years old, or an NDIS worker screening check, pending the national aged care check.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "enrol" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Aged Care Act 2024 screening obligations; NDIS worker screening check accepted in place of a police certificate; national aged care worker screening check from mid-2026" ] }, { "id": "study", "name": "Complete the Certificate III in Individual Support", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 300, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "enrol" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "placement", "name": "Mandatory work placement", "type": "certification", "body": "", "summary": "Supervised placement hours in an aged care service.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "screening", "study" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "employment", "name": "Commence work", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "placement" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "registered_nurse", "name": "Upgrade toward enrolled or registered nursing", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "The progression the sector's binding constraint actually requires.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 730, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "employment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-apprenticeship": { "name": "A person completes a trade apprenticeship", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "education", "scale": "A four-year trade apprenticeship in a priority occupation, from signing a training contract to a completed qualification", "comparison_key": "vet-student-pathway", "summary": "Attrition for the 2021 trade cohort was 42 per cent, the highest in more than a decade, and 17 per cent of the previous cohort left within the first year. The money is weighted toward commencement. The losses are at the start, for reasons about pay and conditions.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 9, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 1296, "critical_path": [ "find_employer", "training_contract", "approval", "probation", "first_year", "off_job", "completion" ], "serial_days": 1661, "concurrency_saving": 365, "wait_profile": { "assessment": 820, "applicant": 296, "third_party": 90, "statutory": 90 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "find_employer": 1206, "training_contract": 1185, "approval": 1155, "probation": 1065, "first_year": 790, "off_job": 60, "on_job": 425, "completion": 0, "incentives": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 33 }, "steps": [ { "id": "find_employer", "name": "Find an employer willing to take an apprentice", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "training_contract", "name": "Sign and lodge the training contract", "type": "registration", "body": "apprenticeship-support", "summary": "The employer and apprentice sign a training contract, which is lodged with the state training authority.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "find_employer" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "approval", "name": "State training authority approves the contract", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-training", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "training_contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "probation", "name": "Probation period", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "A period during which either party may end the contract more easily. Both sides are deciding whether the placement fits.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "first_year", "name": "First year", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "The year in which most of the attrition happens.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 275, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "probation" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "NCVER: 17.2 per cent of trade apprenticeships in the 2020 commencing cohort ended without completion within the first year" ] }, { "id": "off_job", "name": "Off-the-job training with a registered training organisation", "type": "assessment", "body": "asqa", "summary": "Block or day release training toward the qualification.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 730, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "first_year" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "on_job", "name": "On-the-job competency and supervision", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Workplace competency development and sign-off against the training plan.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "first_year" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Completion and qualification issued", "type": "certification", "body": "asqa", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "off_job", "on_job" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "NCVER: 43 per cent of the 2021 trade commencing cohort completing within the standard four-year program; 4-year trade attrition 42.1 per cent" ] }, { "id": "incentives", "name": "Incentive payments received in instalments", "type": "fee", "body": "apprenticeship-support", "summary": "Up to $10,000 to the apprentice under the Key Apprenticeship Program, paid in instalments across the apprenticeship.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1460, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "approval" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "DEWR: up to $15,000 per apprenticeship under the Key Apprenticeship Program, $10,000 apprentice and $5,000 employer, for commencements from 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026" ] } ] }, "au-better-access": { "name": "Person obtains Medicare-rebated psychological therapy", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "health", "scale": "An adult seeking psychological therapy under Better Access with a GP Mental Health Treatment Plan", "comparison_key": "mental-health-access", "summary": "Three gates before a first session: a GP appointment, a treatment plan, and either a gap fee or a six to sixteen week wait for someone who bulk bills. Ten sessions a calendar year, with a review at six.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 7, "bodies": 1, "critical_path_days": 282, "critical_path": [ "gp_appointment", "plan", "find_psychologist", "gap", "sessions", "review" ], "serial_days": 282, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "statutory": 180, "third_party": 74, "scheduling": 21, "assessment": 7 }, "addressable_days": 21, "addressable_pct": 7, "slack": { "gp_appointment": 268, "plan": 261, "find_psychologist": 201, "gap": 201, "sessions": 21, "review": 0, "agreement": 0 }, "sourced": 5, "sourced_pct": 71 }, "steps": [ { "id": "gp_appointment", "name": "Obtain a GP appointment", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "A consultation long enough to prepare a Mental Health Treatment Plan.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "plan", "name": "GP prepares a Mental Health Treatment Plan", "type": "certification", "body": "", "summary": "The plan is the referral instrument. Without it there is no rebate.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "gp_appointment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Better Access requires a referral or plan from a GP, psychiatrist or paediatrician" ] }, { "id": "find_psychologist", "name": "Find a psychologist with capacity", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "plan" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Reported bulk-billed psychology waitlists of 6 to 16 weeks" ] }, { "id": "gap", "name": "Pay the gap, or wait for bulk billing", "type": "fee", "body": "", "summary": "The rebate is $141.85 for a clinical psychologist and $96.65 for a registered psychologist.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "find_psychologist" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "2026 Medicare rebates of $141.85 for a clinical psychologist and $96.65 for a registered psychologist per session; most practices charge a gap fee" ] }, { "id": "sessions", "name": "Up to ten sessions in a calendar year", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Ten individual and ten group sessions per calendar year.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "gap" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Up to 10 individual and 10 group sessions per calendar year under Better Access" ] }, { "id": "review", "name": "Return to the GP for a review", "type": "certification", "body": "", "summary": "A review is required before further sessions can be claimed.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "sessions" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "agreement", "name": "Commonwealth-state agreement renegotiated", "type": "decision", "body": "health-au", "summary": "The National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Agreement, which sets the framework the states deliver under.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "plan" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Agreement expiring 30 June 2026, extended by one year; Productivity Commission review found the Agreement is not effective, report tabled 11 November 2025" ] } ] }, "au-bulk-billing-practice": { "name": "A general practice bulk bills and claims the incentives", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "health", "scale": "A general practice deciding whether to bulk bill all services, and establishing its position under both Commonwealth incentives and state payroll tax", "comparison_key": "practice-incentive", "summary": "The Commonwealth pays 12.5 per cent extra \u2014 but only at 100 per cent bulk billing. The states give payroll tax relief at 80 per cent, or proportionally, or not at all, depending on the border. One lever, two governments, six settings.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 6, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 315, "critical_path": [ "mymedicare", "bbpip_register", "hundred_percent", "quarterly_claim", "reconcile" ], "serial_days": 435, "concurrency_saving": 120, "wait_profile": { "statutory": 180, "applicant": 135 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "mymedicare": 270, "bbpip_register": 240, "hundred_percent": 150, "quarterly_claim": 60, "payroll_position": 150, "reconcile": 0 }, "sourced": 4, "sourced_pct": 67 }, "steps": [ { "id": "mymedicare", "name": "Register the practice for MyMedicare", "type": "registration", "body": "health-au", "summary": "Practice registration, and patient registration, underpin the incentive arrangements.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "bbpip_register", "name": "Register for the Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program", "type": "registration", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "mymedicare" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Services Australia, Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program registration, from 1 November 2025" ] }, { "id": "hundred_percent", "name": "Bulk bill 100 per cent of eligible services", "type": "assessment", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "The eligibility condition for the additional incentive.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "bbpip_register" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Practices must bulk bill 100 per cent of all eligible services to receive the additional Bulk Billing Practice Incentive payment" ] }, { "id": "quarterly_claim", "name": "Incentive paid quarterly in arrears", "type": "fee", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "Payments commence in the first quarter of 2026 and are made quarterly in arrears, split 50/50 between practice and provider.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "hundred_percent" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Payments commencing in the first quarter of 2026, quarterly in arrears, split 50/50 between practice and provider" ] }, { "id": "payroll_position", "name": "Establish the practice's payroll tax position", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-revenue", "summary": "Whether payments to contractor GPs fall within the payroll tax base, and whether a bulk-billing concession applies.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "mymedicare" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "State-by-state medical practice payroll tax positions: SA 80 per cent exemption on bulk billed GP wages; NSW rebate at 80 per cent of GP services in metropolitan Sydney from 4 September 2024; Victorian proportional exemption from 1 July 2025; ACT exemption from 1 July 2025; NT threshold $2.5 million; WA threshold $1 million" ] }, { "id": "reconcile", "name": "Reconcile incentive income against forgone private fees", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Whether 12.5 per cent plus the expanded patient incentive exceeds the private billing given up.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "quarterly_claim", "payroll_position" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-ccs-debt": { "name": "Family with a Child Care Subsidy debt after balancing", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "payments", "scale": "A family whose income estimate was lower than actual income, producing a debt at balancing", "comparison_key": "remedy-access", "summary": "A debt produced not by anyone doing anything wrong, but by a forecast being inaccurate \u2014 in a system that could have used actual income all along.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 5, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 423, "critical_path": [ "debt_raised", "notice", "recovery" ], "serial_days": 423, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 365, "assessment": 30, "statutory": 28 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "debt_raised": 393, "notice": 365, "internal_review": 305, "art": 0, "recovery": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 20 }, "steps": [ { "id": "debt_raised", "name": "Debt raised at balancing", "type": "decision", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "The withheld 5 per cent is applied first, and any remaining overpayment becomes a debt.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notice", "name": "Notice of debt and recovery arrangements", "type": "notification", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "debt_raised" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "internal_review", "name": "Request a review of the decision", "type": "appeal", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "Internal review by an authorised review officer.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "notice" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "art", "name": "Review by the Administrative Review Tribunal", "type": "appeal", "body": "art", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "internal_review" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "ART: 130,983 applications on hand at 31 May 2026; 43 per cent finalised within 12 months" ] }, { "id": "recovery", "name": "Recovery", "type": "registration", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "Withholding from ongoing payments, a repayment arrangement, or recovery through the tax system.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "notice" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-child-care-subsidy": { "name": "Family receives the Child Care Subsidy and is balanced against actual income", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "payments", "scale": "A family with a child in centre-based care, claiming the Child Care Subsidy for a full financial year", "comparison_key": "household-payment", "summary": "The Commonwealth pays a year of subsidy against a forecast the family makes of its own future income, then reconciles it and raises a debt if the forecast was low \u2014 while receiving that family's actual wages through Single Touch Payroll every fortnight.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 7, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 610, "critical_path": [ "estimate", "claim", "payment", "withhold", "lodge_tax", "balancing", "outcome" ], "serial_days": 610, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "statutory": 365, "applicant": 134, "queue": 60, "assessment": 51 }, "addressable_days": 60, "addressable_pct": 10, "slack": { "estimate": 596, "claim": 575, "payment": 575, "withhold": 210, "lodge_tax": 90, "balancing": 30, "outcome": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 43 }, "steps": [ { "id": "estimate", "name": "Estimate the family's income for the year ahead", "type": "application", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "The family forecasts its combined annual income, which sets the subsidy rate for the whole year.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Services Australia: the subsidy is calculated from an estimate of family income provided at the start of the year or on application" ] }, { "id": "claim", "name": "Claim and confirm enrolment", "type": "application", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "Claim the subsidy, confirm the child's enrolment with the provider, and meet immunisation requirements.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "estimate" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "payment", "name": "Subsidy paid to the provider, fees reduced", "type": "registration", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "The subsidy is paid directly to the service, which charges the family the gap.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "claim" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "withhold", "name": "Five per cent withheld all year", "type": "fee", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "A standing 5 per cent of each payment is retained as a buffer against the estimate being wrong.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "payment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Services Australia: 5 per cent of each Child Care Subsidy payment withheld during the year" ] }, { "id": "lodge_tax", "name": "Lodge tax returns", "type": "application", "body": "ato", "summary": "The family and partner lodge, confirming actual income.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "withhold" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "balancing", "name": "Balancing against actual income", "type": "assessment", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "Services Australia compares actual income to the estimate and determines the correct entitlement.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "lodge_tax" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Services Australia: Child Care Subsidy balancing begins mid-August 2026 for the 2025-26 year, after Family Tax Benefit balancing from July" ] }, { "id": "outcome", "name": "Top-up, or debt", "type": "decision", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "balancing" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-child-dental-benefit": { "name": "Child receives dental care under the Child Dental Benefits Schedule", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "health", "scale": "An eligible child aged 0 to 17 receiving basic dental services under the Commonwealth benefit", "comparison_key": "dental-access", "summary": "A Commonwealth dental benefit that works: eligibility is derived from payments the government already makes, the benefit follows the child, and the dentist bulk bills. It stops on the child's eighteenth birthday.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 4, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 31, "critical_path": [ "check", "treatment" ], "serial_days": 31, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "third_party": 30, "applicant": 1 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "eligibility": 31, "check": 30, "treatment": 0, "eighteen": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 75 }, "steps": [ { "id": "eligibility", "name": "Eligibility determined from existing family payments", "type": "assessment", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "Derived from Medicare eligibility, the child's age, and the family's receipt of a qualifying payment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Eligibility requires Medicare eligibility, age 0 to 17 for at least one day of the calendar year, and meeting the relevant family payment criteria" ] }, { "id": "check", "name": "Confirm the balance and remaining period", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "The family or the dentist checks the remaining benefit and the two year period.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "eligibility" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "treatment", "name": "Treatment provided and billed to Medicare", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Basic dental services, capped at $1,158 over two consecutive calendar years at the 2026 rate.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "check" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Benefit cap of up to $1,158 per eligible child over two consecutive calendar years, at the 2026 rate" ] }, { "id": "eighteen", "name": "Eligibility ends at eighteen", "type": "decision", "body": "health-au", "summary": "The benefit is available for children aged 0 to 17.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "treatment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Eligibility requires being aged 0 to 17 for at least one day of the calendar year" ] } ] }, "au-childcare-desert-supply": { "name": "A childcare place is created where the market will not build one", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "childcare", "scale": "A new or expanded early childhood service in an area with insufficient supply, delivered through the Building Early Education Fund", "comparison_key": "childcare-supply", "summary": "The Commonwealth expanded demand on a fixed date and 35 per cent of Australians live where supply does not exist. Its answer is to become a builder and landlord \u2014 a real departure, at a scale of about 12,000 places.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 9, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 1575, "critical_path": [ "desert", "market_test", "fund_round", "planning", "build", "operator", "approvals", "open" ], "serial_days": 1575, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "third_party": 485, "assessment": 480, "applicant": 400, "scheduling": 210 }, "addressable_days": 210, "addressable_pct": 13, "slack": { "desert": 1485, "market_test": 1120, "fund_round": 940, "commonwealth_build": 820, "planning": 640, "build": 240, "operator": 120, "approvals": 30, "open": 0 }, "sourced": 4, "sourced_pct": 44 }, "steps": [ { "id": "desert", "name": "The area is identified as underserved", "type": "assessment", "body": "education-au", "summary": "An area where supply does not meet need, on the measure being used.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Mitchell Institute: about 35 per cent of Australians live in childcare deserts, defined as more than three children per place; about 1.1 million Australians live in regional and remote areas with no childcare at all" ] }, { "id": "market_test", "name": "No commercial proposal emerges", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Whether a private or not-for-profit provider will build there unaided.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "desert" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "fund_round", "name": "Building Early Education Fund round", "type": "registration", "body": "education-au", "summary": "Applications for capital funding to build or expand a service.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "market_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Building Early Education Fund: $1 billion, with $500 million to build and expand services" ] }, { "id": "commonwealth_build", "name": "Commonwealth builds, owns and leases the service", "type": "decision", "body": "education-au", "summary": "The Australian Government builds and owns a centre and leases it to an operator.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "fund_round" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Building Early Education Fund: $500 million for the Australian Government to build, own and lease ECEC services" ] }, { "id": "planning", "name": "Development approval", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "The ordinary consent process, unchanged by the source of the capital.", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 300, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "fund_round" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "build", "name": "Construction and fit-out", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 400, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "planning" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "operator", "name": "Secure an operator", "type": "application", "body": "education-au", "summary": "Find a provider willing to operate the service, including where the Commonwealth owns the building.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "build" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "approvals", "name": "Provider and service approval", "type": "registration", "body": "nsw-ecec-regulator", "summary": "The National Law approvals, unchanged.", "legal_basis": "Education and Care Services National Law", "statutory_clock_days": 90, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "operator" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "Education and Care Services National Law: 90 day decision period for service approval" ] }, { "id": "open", "name": "Places available", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "approvals" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-cricos-provider": { "name": "Register as a provider of courses to overseas students", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "education", "scale": "An established Australian education provider seeking to enrol international students", "comparison_key": "provider-registration", "summary": "Two registrations, one regulator, two Acts, largely overlapping evidence \u2014 and since 2026 a door that is closed to new entrants entirely rather than assessed.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 5, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 935, "critical_path": [ "domestic_registration", "esos_prepare", "cricos_application", "cricos_assessment", "allocation" ], "serial_days": 935, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "assessment": 635, "applicant": 210, "queue": 90 }, "addressable_days": 90, "addressable_pct": 10, "slack": { "domestic_registration": 570, "esos_prepare": 390, "cricos_application": 360, "cricos_assessment": 90, "allocation": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 20 }, "steps": [ { "id": "domestic_registration", "name": "Provider registration with the education regulator", "type": "registration", "body": "cricos-regulator", "summary": "Registration as a higher education or vocational provider, assessed against the applicable provider standards.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "esos_prepare", "name": "Prepare for ESOS and National Code compliance", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Written agreements, tuition protection, agent management, student support and course delivery arrangements meeting the National Code.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "domestic_registration" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "cricos_application", "name": "Apply for CRICOS registration", "type": "application", "body": "cricos-regulator", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "esos_prepare" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "cricos_assessment", "name": "CRICOS assessment and decision", "type": "decision", "body": "cricos-regulator", "summary": "Assessment against the ESOS Act and National Code by the same agency that granted domestic registration, under a different Act.", "legal_basis": "Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 270, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "cricos_application" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "allocation", "name": "Receive an allocation under the national planning level", "type": "registration", "body": "home-affairs", "summary": "The provider receives an indicative share of the national planning level, which determines how quickly its students' visas are processed.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "cricos_assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "National Planning Level for 2026 set at 295,000 new overseas student commencements; no active provider allocated less than its 2025 allocation" ] } ] }, "au-cyber-incident-reporting": { "name": "An entity reports one cyber incident", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "business", "scale": "One serious intrusion at a regulated Australian entity that holds personal information and operates a critical infrastructure asset", "comparison_key": "incident-reporting", "summary": "Five reports, four bodies, four clocks \u2014 12 hours, 72 hours, 72 hours, 72 hours and 30 days \u2014 and the guidance says explicitly that none of them satisfies any of the others. The elapsed time is short and the concurrency is the point.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 8, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 127, "critical_path": [ "privacy_assess", "notify_individuals", "cirmp" ], "serial_days": 131, "concurrency_saving": 4, "wait_profile": { "statutory": 127 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "aware": 127, "soci_12": 126, "soci_72": 124, "apra_72": 124, "ransom_72": 124, "privacy_assess": 97, "notify_individuals": 90, "cirmp": 0 }, "sourced": 8, "sourced_pct": 100 }, "steps": [ { "id": "aware", "name": "The entity becomes aware of an incident", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Every clock in this process starts here, and they run at different speeds.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "Each obligation runs from the time the entity becomes aware of the incident" ] }, { "id": "soci_12", "name": "Critical cyber security incident report", "type": "notification", "body": "asd-acsc", "summary": "Twelve hours from becoming aware, for an incident having a significant impact on a critical infrastructure asset.", "legal_basis": "Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": 1, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "aware" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (Cth): a responsible entity must report a critical cyber security incident within 12 hours of becoming aware" ] }, { "id": "soci_72", "name": "Other cyber security incident report", "type": "notification", "body": "asd-acsc", "summary": "Seventy-two hours, for incidents with a relevant impact that are not critical.", "legal_basis": "Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": 3, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "aware" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (Cth): other cyber security incidents must be reported within 72 hours of becoming aware" ] }, { "id": "apra_72", "name": "APRA material incident notification", "type": "notification", "body": "apra", "summary": "Seventy-two hours, on a materiality test defined by depositor, policyholder and beneficiary interests.", "legal_basis": "APRA Prudential Standard CPS 234", "statutory_clock_days": 3, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "aware" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "APRA CPS 234: notify APRA as soon as possible and no later than 72 hours after becoming aware of an information security incident that materially affected, or had the potential to materially affect, the entity or the interests of depositors, policyholders, beneficiaries or other customers" ] }, { "id": "ransom_72", "name": "Ransomware or extortion payment report", "type": "notification", "body": "asd-acsc", "summary": "Seventy-two hours after a payment is made, for entities above $3 million turnover and all critical infrastructure entities.", "legal_basis": "Cyber Security Act 2024 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": 3, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "aware" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "Cyber Security (Ransomware Payment Reporting) Rules 2025: report within 72 hours; the regime commenced 30 May 2025", "The obligation applies to entities carrying on business in Australia with annual turnover above $3 million, and to entities responsible for critical infrastructure assets regardless of turnover", "Phase 2 compliance and enforcement begins from 1 January 2026" ] }, { "id": "privacy_assess", "name": "Assess whether it is an eligible data breach", "type": "assessment", "body": "oaic", "summary": "Thirty days to assess a suspected breach \u2014 the longest clock, and the only one asking about harm to individuals.", "legal_basis": "Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": 30, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "aware" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "Privacy Act 1988 (Cth): notification must be provided as soon as practicable and within 30 days of becoming aware of the actual or suspected data breach" ] }, { "id": "notify_individuals", "name": "Notify the OAIC and affected individuals", "type": "notification", "body": "oaic", "summary": "As soon as practicable once the breach is assessed as eligible.", "legal_basis": "Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "privacy_assess" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), Notifiable Data Breaches scheme: notify the Commissioner and affected individuals as soon as practicable" ] }, { "id": "cirmp", "name": "Annual CIRMP report and board attestation", "type": "certification", "body": "asd-acsc", "summary": "Ninety days after financial year end \u2014 28 September for a 30 June year end.", "legal_basis": "Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": 90, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "notify_individuals" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "The CIRMP annual report is due to the Cyber and Infrastructure Security Centre within 90 days of financial year end \u2014 28 September for a 30 June year end", "A civil penalty of 150 penalty units applies to a responsible entity that fails to lodge an annual report on its critical infrastructure risk management program by the deadline" ] } ] }, "au-defence-industry-entry": { "name": "An Australian SME becomes able to work on classified defence work", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "defence", "scale": "An established Australian small or medium business with relevant technical capability seeking to supply into a classified defence program", "comparison_key": "defence-industry-entry", "summary": "A circular dependency, written down. A firm needs cleared people to win classified work, and needs the work to justify clearing people. Nothing in the process is unreasonable on its own and the combination excludes almost everyone without a balance sheet.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 10, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 810, "critical_path": [ "prepare", "sponsor_clearances", "vetting", "disp", "tender", "evaluation", "start_work" ], "serial_days": 870, "concurrency_saving": 60, "wait_profile": { "assessment": 390, "applicant": 240, "queue": 150, "scheduling": 30 }, "addressable_days": 180, "addressable_pct": 22, "slack": { "prepare": 690, "foci": 630, "sponsor_clearances": 660, "vetting": 510, "facility": 570, "disp": 360, "tender": 270, "evaluation": 30, "export_permit": 0, "start_work": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 30 }, "steps": [ { "id": "prepare", "name": "Establish security governance and documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Security officer appointed, policies written, personnel and physical security procedures documented.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "foci", "name": "Foreign ownership, control or influence assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "defence-security", "summary": "Assessment of whether foreign ownership, control or influence disqualifies the business.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "prepare" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "sponsor_clearances", "name": "Sponsor personnel security clearances", "type": "application", "body": "agsva", "summary": "Nominate staff for the clearance level the intended work requires.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "prepare" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "vetting", "name": "Security vetting", "type": "assessment", "body": "agsva", "summary": "AGSVA assesses nominated personnel at Baseline, NV1 or NV2.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 150, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "sponsor_clearances" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "AGSVA: NV1 approximately 3 months, NV2 approximately 5 months" ] }, { "id": "facility", "name": "Facility accreditation and ICT system certification", "type": "certification", "body": "defence-security", "summary": "Physical security accreditation of premises and certification of systems that will hold Defence information.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "prepare" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "disp", "name": "DISP membership decision", "type": "registration", "body": "defence-security", "summary": "Defence decides the application for membership at the level sought.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 150, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "foci", "vetting" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Department of Defence: about 2-3 months for Entry Level, 4-6 months for Levels 1 to 3" ] }, { "id": "tender", "name": "Respond to an ASDEFCON solicitation", "type": "application", "body": "defence", "summary": "Prepare a tender against the Australian Standard for Defence Contracting templates.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "disp" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "evaluation", "name": "Tender evaluation and contract negotiation", "type": "assessment", "body": "defence", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 240, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "tender" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "export_permit", "name": "Export permit for controlled goods or technology", "type": "referral", "body": "defence-security", "summary": "Permit to export, re-export or transfer controlled goods, technology or services.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "evaluation" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Department of Defence, AUKUS national exemptions in force from 1 September 2024" ] }, { "id": "start_work", "name": "Commence classified work", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "evaluation" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-defence-major-acquisition": { "name": "Acquire a major defence capability", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "defence", "scale": "A major capital acquisition in the Integrated Investment Program, passing through the Capability Life Cycle to government second pass approval and contract", "comparison_key": "major-acquisition", "summary": "Years of analysis and gates before a contract is signed, none of it on a statutory clock, none of it with published elapsed times, and none of it reviewable by anyone outside Defence.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 10, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 5540, "critical_path": [ "need", "gate_zero", "risk_mitigation", "gate_one", "tender_process", "gate_two", "contract", "delivery", "acceptance" ], "serial_days": 5540, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 2555, "assessment": 2445, "scheduling": 540 }, "addressable_days": 540, "addressable_pct": 10, "slack": { "need": 5175, "gate_zero": 4995, "risk_mitigation": 4265, "gate_one": 4085, "tender_process": 3545, "gate_two": 3365, "contract": 3095, "facilities_approval": 2965, "delivery": 540, "acceptance": 0 }, "sourced": 0, "sourced_pct": 0 }, "steps": [ { "id": "need", "name": "Capability need identified and entered in the investment program", "type": "application", "body": "defence", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "gate_zero", "name": "Gate 0: strategy and concepts", "type": "decision", "body": "defence", "summary": "Internal endorsement that the need is real and warrants development.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "need" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "risk_mitigation", "name": "Risk mitigation and requirement setting", "type": "assessment", "body": "defence", "summary": "Options analysis, industry engagement, cost and schedule estimation, and requirements definition.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 730, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "gate_zero" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "gate_one", "name": "Gate 1: government first pass approval", "type": "decision", "body": "defence", "summary": "Government approves the options to be developed and the funding to develop them.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "risk_mitigation" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "tender_process", "name": "Solicitation and tender evaluation", "type": "assessment", "body": "defence", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 540, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "gate_one" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "gate_two", "name": "Gate 2: government second pass approval", "type": "decision", "body": "defence", "summary": "Government approves the acquisition and the funding.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "tender_process" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contract", "name": "Contract negotiation and execution", "type": "decision", "body": "defence", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 270, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "gate_two" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "facilities_approval", "name": "Facilities, environmental and works approvals", "type": "referral", "body": "dcceew", "summary": "Approvals for the bases, ranges, wharves and infrastructure the capability requires.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 400, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "gate_two" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "delivery", "name": "Design, build and delivery", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 2555, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "acceptance", "name": "Test, evaluation and acceptance into service", "type": "certification", "body": "defence", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 540, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "delivery" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-disability-employment": { "name": "Person with disability from seeking work to employed with supports", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "workforce", "scale": "A working-age person with disability receiving the Disability Support Pension, entering open employment with workplace supports", "comparison_key": "disability-employment", "summary": "Four programs, three agencies, one person, no shared front door. And at the end of it, a rule that makes 30 hours a week in open employment cost more than 35 hours in a segregated one.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 9, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 530, "critical_path": [ "dsp", "iea_referral", "job_search", "eaf_assessment", "eaf", "start", "hours_rule" ], "serial_days": 530, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "third_party": 240, "queue": 150, "scheduling": 66, "assessment": 60, "applicant": 14 }, "addressable_days": 216, "addressable_pct": 41, "slack": { "dsp": 410, "iea_referral": 380, "ndis_employment": 320, "job_search": 140, "eaf_assessment": 95, "eaf": 35, "sws": 95, "start": 14, "hours_rule": 0 }, "sourced": 2, "sourced_pct": 22 }, "steps": [ { "id": "dsp", "name": "Disability Support Pension assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "Medical and functional assessment against the impairment tables and the program of support requirement.", "legal_basis": "Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "iea_referral", "name": "Referral to an Inclusive Employment Australia provider", "type": "referral", "body": "dss", "summary": "Connection to a specialist disability employment provider.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "dsp" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "ndis_employment", "name": "NDIS employment supports in the participant's plan", "type": "assessment", "body": "ndia", "summary": "Employment-related supports funded through the NDIS plan, including school leaver supports for young people.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "dsp" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "job_search", "name": "Job search, employer engagement and placement", "type": "application", "body": "dss", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 240, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "iea_referral" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "eaf_assessment", "name": "Workplace Modification Assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "dss", "summary": "An assessment of what changes or equipment the person needs, required for Employment Assistance Fund applications above $1,000.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "job_search" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "JobAccess: a Workplace Modification Assessment is usually required for Employment Assistance Fund applications over $1,000" ] }, { "id": "eaf", "name": "Employment Assistance Fund application and reimbursement", "type": "application", "body": "dss", "summary": "Funding for workplace modifications, equipment, assistive technology, specialist support and Auslan interpreting.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "eaf_assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "sws", "name": "Supported Wage System productivity assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "An independent assessment of productive capacity, setting a pro-rata wage.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "job_search" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "start", "name": "Commence work", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "eaf" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "hours_rule", "name": "Ongoing hours and income reporting", "type": "registration", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "Continuing obligation to report income and hours, against the rules that govern whether the pension continues.", "legal_basis": "Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "start" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Services Australia: work of 30 or more hours a week on an ongoing basis may result in suspension of the Disability Support Pension; the rule does not apply to work in an Australian Disability Enterprise; income free area $226 per fortnight for singles" ] } ] }, "au-drought-support": { "name": "A farm household in hardship obtains support", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "justice", "scale": "A farm household seeking income support and drought assistance", "comparison_key": "scheme-access", "summary": "There is no drought declaration to be inside or outside of, and that is deliberate \u2014 drought has no clean boundary. The cost of having no trigger is that nothing announces itself, and the department's own material notes that farmers wrongly believe the payment is only for drought.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 7, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 410, "critical_path": [ "hardship", "learn", "financial_assessment", "apply", "means_test", "payment" ], "serial_days": 410, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "third_party": 225, "applicant": 141, "assessment": 44 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "hardship": 230, "learn": 110, "financial_assessment": 65, "apply": 44, "means_test": 14, "payment": 0, "resilience": 50 }, "sourced": 4, "sourced_pct": 57 }, "steps": [ { "id": "hardship", "name": "The farm business runs out of income", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Drought, price collapse, disease or another cause reduces farm income below what the household needs.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "learn", "name": "Learn that the payment exists and applies", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Discovering that Farm Household Allowance is available, and that it is not restricted to drought.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "hardship" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "DAFF: a common misconception is that Farm Household Allowance is a drought payment; it is available for any type of financial hardship" ] }, { "id": "financial_assessment", "name": "Complete a farm financial assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "A professional assessment of the farm business's financial position.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "learn" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "apply", "name": "Claim Farm Household Allowance", "type": "application", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Farm Household Support Act 2014 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "financial_assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "means_test", "name": "Income and assets test", "type": "assessment", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "An income limit of $1,391.67 per fortnight, and a separate assets test.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "apply" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Farm Household Allowance income limit of $1,391.67 per fortnight as at January 2026; an assets test applies" ] }, { "id": "payment", "name": "Payment granted, for up to four years in ten", "type": "decision", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "Payment commences. The entitlement is capped at 1,460 days within a fixed ten-year period.", "legal_basis": "Farm Household Support Act 2014 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "means_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Farm Household Allowance payable for up to 4 years (1,460 days) at any time in a 10-year period; first period 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2024, second 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2034" ] }, { "id": "resilience", "name": "Access drought resilience programs", "type": "referral", "body": "daff", "summary": "Support through the Future Drought Fund and the Drought Resilience Adoption and Innovation Hubs.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "hardship" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Future Drought Fund: $100 million transferred each financial year; refreshed Drought Resilience Hubs program supporting seven hubs with up to $86.7 million to June 2032" ] } ] }, "au-dva-claim": { "name": "Veteran lodges a compensation claim and receives a determination", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "veterans", "scale": "A liability and permanent impairment claim under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act", "comparison_key": "scheme-access", "summary": "A backlog of 42,000 claims was declared an urgent royal commission recommendation, driven to zero by February 2024, and stood at 32,925 unallocated claims by June 2026. The queue was cleared. It was not solved.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 9, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 487, "critical_path": [ "evidence", "lodge", "allocation", "investigation", "determination", "impairment" ], "serial_days": 487, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "third_party": 210, "assessment": 150, "queue": 120, "applicant": 7 }, "addressable_days": 120, "addressable_pct": 25, "slack": { "evidence": 367, "lodge": 360, "allocation": 240, "investigation": 150, "determination": 90, "impairment": 0, "reconsideration": 0, "vrb": 0, "art": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 33 }, "steps": [ { "id": "evidence", "name": "Assemble service and medical evidence", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Service records, medical records, and evidence connecting the condition to service.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the claim", "type": "application", "body": "dva", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "evidence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "allocation", "name": "Wait for the claim to be allocated to a delegate", "type": "registration", "body": "dva", "summary": "The claim sits unallocated until a delegate is available to take it.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "DVA: 32,925 unallocated claims of 103,074 on hand at 30 June 2026" ] }, { "id": "investigation", "name": "Investigation and further evidence", "type": "assessment", "body": "dva", "summary": "The delegate obtains service records, medical opinions and any further material required.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "allocation" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "determination", "name": "Liability determination against the Statements of Principles", "type": "decision", "body": "dva", "summary": "Whether the condition is connected to service, applying the binding Statement of Principles for that condition.", "legal_basis": "Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (Cth); Statements of Principles made by the Repatriation Medical Authority", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "investigation" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "impairment", "name": "Permanent impairment assessment and payment", "type": "assessment", "body": "dva", "summary": "Assessment of the degree of impairment and the resulting entitlement.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "determination" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "DVA: MRCA permanent impairment average time to process 148 days for recently received claims" ] }, { "id": "reconsideration", "name": "Reconsideration by DVA", "type": "appeal", "body": "dva", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "determination" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "vrb", "name": "Review by the Veterans' Review Board", "type": "appeal", "body": "vrb", "summary": "Non-adversarial merits review, with DVA not represented.", "legal_basis": "Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), Part IX", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 300, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "reconsideration" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "art", "name": "Review by the Administrative Review Tribunal", "type": "appeal", "body": "art", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "vrb" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "ART: 130,983 applications on hand at 31 May 2026; 43 per cent finalised within 12 months" ] } ] }, "au-ecec-educator-domestic": { "name": "Become a qualified early childhood educator in Australia", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "workforce", "scale": "A domestic entrant completing a Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care and starting work in a long day care service", "comparison_key": "care-workforce-entry", "summary": "The pipeline the childcare workforce actually runs on, and the one the placement payment does not reach. A student teacher on an early childhood Masters gets $338.60 a week during placement. A Certificate III student doing 160 mandatory unpaid hours gets nothing.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 10, "bodies": 4, "critical_path_days": 525, "critical_path": [ "eligibility", "enrol", "study", "placement", "verify", "register", "start" ], "serial_days": 584, "concurrency_saving": 59, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 430, "third_party": 60, "scheduling": 21, "assessment": 14 }, "addressable_days": 21, "addressable_pct": 4, "slack": { "eligibility": 495, "enrol": 474, "wwcc": 429, "study": 109, "placement": 49, "child_safety": 95, "verify": 35, "register": 21, "start": 0, "diploma": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 30 }, "steps": [ { "id": "eligibility", "name": "Establish eligibility for a subsidised or fee-free place", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-training", "summary": "Whether the course is on the state subsidised list this year, and whether the student qualifies.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "enrol", "name": "Enrol with a registered training organisation", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "Obtain a Unique Student Identifier and enrol in the Certificate III.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "eligibility" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "wwcc", "name": "Working with children check", "type": "registration", "body": "nsw-worker-screening", "summary": "State-issued clearance, required before placement can begin.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "enrol" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "study", "name": "Complete the qualification", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "17 units, 15 core and 2 electives, over a minimum duration of six months.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "enrol" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care: 17 units, minimum duration 6 months, nominally 600 hours" ] }, { "id": "placement", "name": "Mandatory work placement", "type": "certification", "body": "", "summary": "At least 160 hours in a regulated education and care service.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "wwcc", "study" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Minimum 160 hours of mandatory work placement in at least one regulated education and care service" ] }, { "id": "child_safety", "name": "National child safety training", "type": "certification", "body": "", "summary": "Mandatory for everyone working in services regulated under the National Quality Framework.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "study" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Department of Education, national child safety training mandatory under the NQF, with advanced training available from 31 July 2026" ] }, { "id": "verify", "name": "Employer verifies the qualification against the ACECQA list", "type": "assessment", "body": "acecqa", "summary": "The qualification must appear on the approved list for the role.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "placement" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "register", "name": "Entry on the national educator register", "type": "registration", "body": "nsw-ecec-regulator", "summary": "The service records the worker on the national register introduced in 2026.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "verify", "child_safety" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "start", "name": "Commence work as a qualified educator", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "register" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "diploma", "name": "Upgrade to Diploma, and later to an early childhood teaching degree", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "The progression most services need, given that staffing waivers are overwhelmingly about the early childhood teacher requirement.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 540, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "start" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-ecec-teacher-overseas": { "name": "Overseas-qualified early childhood teacher begins work in Australia", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "workforce", "scale": "A qualified early childhood teacher trained in a comparable system, recruited to an Australian long day care service", "comparison_key": "overseas-workforce-entry", "summary": "The same shape as the overseas specialist doctor chain, with one difference that matters: here the equivalence assessment is the binding step, and it turns on how a foreign degree partitioned the age range.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 7, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 389, "critical_path": [ "documents", "skills_assessment", "visa", "wwcc", "start" ], "serial_days": 530, "concurrency_saving": 141, "wait_profile": { "queue": 285, "third_party": 90, "scheduling": 14 }, "addressable_days": 299, "addressable_pct": 77, "slack": { "documents": 299, "equivalence": 179, "skills_assessment": 209, "visa": 59, "wwcc": 14, "child_safety_training": 38, "start": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 14 }, "steps": [ { "id": "documents", "name": "Assemble qualifications and transcripts", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Award certificates, full transcripts and syllabus detail sufficient to establish the age range and practicum covered.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "equivalence", "name": "ACECQA assessment of qualification equivalence", "type": "assessment", "body": "acecqa", "summary": "Assessment against the requirement for four years of higher education covering children aged birth to five.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "documents" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "skills_assessment", "name": "Skills assessment for migration", "type": "assessment", "body": "acecqa", "summary": "ACECQA has been the sole skills assessing authority for early childhood teachers since December 2024.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "documents" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "visa", "name": "Sponsorship, nomination and skilled visa", "type": "application", "body": "home-affairs", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Migration Act 1958 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 150, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "skills_assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "wwcc", "name": "Working with children check", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "State-issued clearance to work with children, required before commencing.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "visa" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "child_safety_training", "name": "Mandatory child safety training", "type": "certification", "body": "", "summary": "National child safety training, mandatory for everyone working in services regulated under the National Quality Framework.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "visa" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Department of Education (Cth), national child safety training mandatory under the NQF, foundation training available with advanced training from 31 July 2026" ] }, { "id": "start", "name": "Commence work", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "equivalence", "wwcc", "child_safety_training" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-ecec-worker-clearance": { "name": "A person is cleared, registered and monitored to work with children in early childhood", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "personal-licensing", "scale": "One educator entering the early childhood workforce, and then working in a second state", "comparison_key": "care-workforce-entry", "summary": "From 27 February 2026 there is one national register of early childhood workers. There are still eight working with children checks. The register is the thing that was built; the clearance is the thing that gates the work.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 8, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 93, "critical_path": [ "wwcc_apply", "wwcc_assessment", "wwcc_issued", "employed", "training" ], "serial_days": 107, "concurrency_saving": 14, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 44, "assessment": 28, "third_party": 21 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "wwcc_apply": 79, "wwcc_assessment": 51, "wwcc_issued": 51, "employed": 30, "worker_register": 16, "training": 0, "second_state": 0, "monitoring": 0 }, "sourced": 4, "sourced_pct": 50 }, "steps": [ { "id": "wwcc_apply", "name": "Apply for a working with children clearance", "type": "application", "body": "state-wwcc-unit", "summary": "In the applicant's own state, under that state's law, against that state's list of disqualifying offences.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "wwcc_assessment", "name": "Screening assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "state-wwcc-unit", "summary": "Criminal history and disciplinary information assessed against the state's criteria.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "wwcc_apply" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "wwcc_issued", "name": "Clearance issued", "type": "certification", "body": "state-wwcc-unit", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "wwcc_assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "employed", "name": "Employed by an approved provider", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "wwcc_issued" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "worker_register", "name": "Entered on the National Early Childhood Worker Register", "type": "registration", "body": "acecqa", "summary": "One national register, mandated from 27 February 2026, giving every state regulator a single view of who is working where.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 14, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "employed" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "ACECQA: national rollout with mandated use of the National Early Childhood Worker Register began 27 February 2026; it is built within the National Quality Agenda IT System already used by the sector and regulatory authorities", "National Regulations: approved providers must update the Worker Register within 14 days of a worker being employed, engaged or appointed and within 14 days of becoming aware of any change to information" ] }, { "id": "training", "name": "Child protection and national child safety training completed", "type": "certification", "body": "", "summary": "Mandatory from the 2026 reforms, with a fixed national deadline.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "employed" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "All staff must complete child protection and child safety training by 27 August 2026; new staff starting after 14 August 2026 must complete it within 14 days" ] }, { "id": "second_state", "name": "Work in a second state: apply again", "type": "application", "body": "state-wwcc-unit", "summary": "The register is national. The clearance is not.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 42, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "worker_register" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "The working with children check system remains eight separate state and territory schemes; a worker still applies in their own jurisdiction", "Agreement in principle only on the information types to be shared across jurisdictions to support mutual recognition, as at mid-2026" ] }, { "id": "monitoring", "name": "Ongoing notification of any change in clearance status", "type": "notification", "body": "nsw-ecec-regulator", "summary": "Staff notify the provider, the provider notifies the regulatory authority.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "worker_register", "training" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Approved providers must notify their regulatory authority of a change to a staff member's WWCC or WWVP status; staff must notify their approved provider of a change in status", "From 12 August 2026, notifiable conduct includes any sexual offence or misconduct committed by staff even if it occurs outside the service" ] } ] }, "au-epbc-referral": { "name": "Commonwealth environmental approval for a residential subdivision", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "development", "scale": "Greenfield residential subdivision on land supporting a listed threatened species or ecological community", "comparison_key": "environmental-approval", "summary": "The federal approval track that runs alongside -- not instead of -- state planning approval. Where triggered on a housing project it is commonly the longest single step in the chain, and almost none of its elapsed time is visible in state planning statistics.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 10, "bodies": 1, "critical_path_days": 755, "critical_path": [ "ecology_survey", "refer", "controlled_action", "assessment_approach", "prepare_documentation", "public_comment", "response_to_submissions", "recommendation_report", "approval_decision" ], "serial_days": 755, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "third_party": 270, "applicant": 245, "assessment": 130, "queue": 90, "statutory": 20 }, "addressable_days": 90, "addressable_pct": 12, "slack": { "ecology_survey": 485, "refer": 480, "controlled_action": 440, "assessment_approach": 410, "prepare_documentation": 230, "public_comment": 210, "response_to_submissions": 150, "recommendation_report": 60, "approval_decision": 0, "offsets": 0 }, "sourced": 5, "sourced_pct": 50 }, "steps": [ { "id": "ecology_survey", "name": "Ecological survey and impact assessment", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Field survey to establish presence of listed species and communities, prepared to a standard the department will accept.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 270, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "refer", "name": "Refer the action to the department", "type": "application", "body": "dcceew", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), s 68", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 5, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "ecology_survey" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), s 68" ] }, { "id": "controlled_action", "name": "Controlled action decision", "type": "decision", "body": "dcceew", "summary": "The department decides whether the action needs approval at all.", "legal_basis": "EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), s 75", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 40, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "refer" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), s 75 -- 20 business days" ] }, { "id": "assessment_approach", "name": "Decision on assessment approach", "type": "decision", "body": "dcceew", "summary": "Whether the action is assessed on preliminary documentation, by public environment report, by environmental impact statement, or under an accredited state process.", "legal_basis": "EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), s 87", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "controlled_action" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), s 87 -- 20 business days" ] }, { "id": "prepare_documentation", "name": "Prepare assessment documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Preliminary documentation or an environmental impact statement, addressing the guidelines the department sets.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment_approach" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "public_comment", "name": "Public comment on the documentation", "type": "notification", "body": "dcceew", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), ss 93-95", "statutory_clock_days": 20, "typical_days": 20, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "prepare_documentation" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), minimum public comment period" ] }, { "id": "response_to_submissions", "name": "Respond to submissions and finalise documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "public_comment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "recommendation_report", "name": "Departmental assessment and recommendation report", "type": "assessment", "body": "dcceew", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), s 100", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "response_to_submissions" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "approval_decision", "name": "Approval decision and conditions", "type": "decision", "body": "dcceew", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), s 133", "statutory_clock_days": 56, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "recommendation_report" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), s 130 -- 40 business days for an EIS assessment" ] }, { "id": "offsets", "name": "Secure and register environmental offsets", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "Acquire, protect and legally secure offset land to satisfy the approval conditions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "approval_decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-free-tafe-place": { "name": "Commonwealth funding reaches a student in a fee-free TAFE place", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "education", "scale": "One funded place, traced from the National Skills Agreement to an enrolled student and a completed qualification", "comparison_key": "vet-student-pathway", "summary": "Four layers between the appropriation and the classroom, each with its own eligibility rules. And a program made permanent at $1.6 billion before anyone can say from published data whether it works.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 8, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 1270, "critical_path": [ "nsa", "state_allocation", "provider_contract", "student_eligibility", "enrol", "study", "completion" ], "serial_days": 1270, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 554, "assessment": 536, "scheduling": 180 }, "addressable_days": 180, "addressable_pct": 14, "slack": { "nsa": 905, "state_allocation": 725, "provider_contract": 605, "student_eligibility": 584, "enrol": 570, "rpl": 510, "study": 30, "completion": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 12 }, "steps": [ { "id": "nsa", "name": "Commonwealth allocates funding under the National Skills Agreement", "type": "decision", "body": "dewr", "summary": "Commonwealth funding is committed to states and territories under a multi-year agreement.", "legal_basis": "Free TAFE Act 2025 (Cth); National Skills Agreement", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "state_allocation", "name": "State sets the subsidised course list and allocates places", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-training", "summary": "The state decides which qualifications are funded, for whom, and in what volume.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "nsa" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "provider_contract", "name": "State contracts registered training organisations", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-training", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "state_allocation" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "student_eligibility", "name": "Student eligibility assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Whether this student qualifies for a fee-free place under this year's state rules.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "provider_contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "enrol", "name": "Obtain a Unique Student Identifier and enrol", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "student_eligibility" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rpl", "name": "Seek recognition of prior learning", "type": "assessment", "body": "asqa", "summary": "Assessment of existing skills and knowledge against the units of the qualification.", "legal_basis": "Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2025, Outcome Standard 1.6", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "enrol" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "study", "name": "Complete the training", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 540, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "enrol" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Qualification issued", "type": "certification", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Compliance Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations 2025, Part 2, Division 2 (issuance of AQF certification documentation)", "statutory_clock_days": 30, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "study" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "Practice Guide: Integrity of Nationally Recognised Training Products (Compliance Standards for NVR RTOs, Part 2, Division 2), Australian Skills Quality Authority, https://www.asqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-10/Practice%20Guide%20-%20Integrity%20of%20Nationally%20Recognised%20Training%20Products.pdf, accessed 2026-11-09" ] } ] }, "au-gp-training-pathway": { "name": "A doctor enters and completes general practice training", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "workforce", "scale": "An Australian medical graduate moving from hospital training into the Australian General Practice Training program", "comparison_key": "medical-workforce-entry", "summary": "The Commonwealth is adding 200 places in 2026, 300 in 2027 and 400 from 2028. Places are not the constraint. The constraint is one step: leaving hospital employment, where a doctor's pay, leave and entitlements are set by an award, for a training program where they are set by an agreement between two membership organisations.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 9, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 3747, "critical_path": [ "medical_school", "internship", "choose", "apply_agpt", "employment", "training", "fellowship", "provider_number" ], "serial_days": 3747, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "assessment": 1915, "applicant": 1670, "scheduling": 120, "queue": 42 }, "addressable_days": 162, "addressable_pct": 4, "slack": { "medical_school": 2287, "internship": 1557, "choose": 1377, "apply_agpt": 1257, "employment": 1227, "sem": 1227, "training": 132, "fellowship": 42, "provider_number": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 33 }, "steps": [ { "id": "medical_school", "name": "Medical degree", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1460, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "internship", "name": "Internship and prevocational years", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Employed by a hospital, under a state award, accruing leave and entitlements.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 730, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "medical_school" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "choose", "name": "Choose general practice over a hospital specialty", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "The decision the entire policy problem turns on.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "internship" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "apply_agpt", "name": "Apply for an AGPT place", "type": "application", "body": "agpt-college", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "choose" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Up to 1,500 fully-funded GP and rural generalist places per annum, increasing by 200 in 2026, 300 in 2027 and 400 from 2028" ] }, { "id": "employment", "name": "Employment terms set under the NTCER", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "Pay and conditions set by an agreement between General Practice Registrars Australia and GP Supervision Australia.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "apply_agpt" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "National Terms and Conditions for the Employment of Registrars, version 2026.1, negotiated between GPRA and GPSA" ] }, { "id": "sem", "name": "Single Employer Model, where a trial operates", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "One employer across all training rotations, preserving entitlements and providing a fixed salary.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "apply_agpt" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Single Employer Model trials operating in NSW, Tasmania, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria, with Western Australia and the Northern Territory from July 2026; time-limited to 31 December 2028; $6.4 million funding to 2027-28" ] }, { "id": "training", "name": "Complete the training program", "type": "assessment", "body": "agpt-college", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1095, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "employment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "fellowship", "name": "Fellowship and specialist registration", "type": "registration", "body": "ahpra", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "training" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "provider_number", "name": "Medicare provider number and location restrictions", "type": "registration", "body": "health-au", "summary": "Where the new fellow may practise with Medicare access.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 42, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fellowship" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-haff-project": { "name": "A social housing project funded under the Housing Australia Future Fund", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "housing", "scale": "A community housing provider delivering a social and affordable housing development with Commonwealth support", "comparison_key": "social-housing-delivery", "summary": "The Commonwealth funding layer sits on top of the entire ordinary development chain, and adds a competitive round to the front of it. Under 4 per cent of the 40,000 home target had been delivered by May 2026.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 9, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 2090, "critical_path": [ "registration", "site", "round", "application", "assessment", "financial_close", "construction", "completion" ], "serial_days": 2390, "concurrency_saving": 300, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 1072, "assessment": 761, "scheduling": 137, "third_party": 120 }, "addressable_days": 137, "addressable_pct": 7, "slack": { "registration": 1820, "site": 1455, "round": 1318, "application": 1251, "assessment": 880, "planning": 1155, "financial_close": 760, "construction": 120, "completion": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 33 }, "steps": [ { "id": "registration", "name": "Hold community housing provider registration at the required tier", "type": "registration", "body": "nrsch", "summary": "Registration under the national system, or under the separate Victorian or Western Australian systems.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 270, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "site", "name": "Secure a site and develop a scheme", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Land acquisition or a state land transfer, feasibility, and design to a level that can be costed and bid.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "registration" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "round", "name": "Wait for a funding round to open", "type": "registration", "body": "housing-australia", "summary": "Applications are accepted in competitive rounds rather than continuously.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 137, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "site" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Auditor-General Report No.3 2026-27, Australian National Audit Office, Table 1.2 (funding rounds as at 30 April 2026), https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-07/Auditor-General_Report_2026-27_3.pdf, accessed 2026-11-09" ] }, { "id": "application", "name": "Prepare and lodge the funding application", "type": "application", "body": "housing-australia", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 67, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "round" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Auditor-General Report No.3 2026-27, Australian National Audit Office, Table 1.2, https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-07/Auditor-General_Report_2026-27_3.pdf, accessed 2026-11-09" ] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment and contracting", "type": "assessment", "body": "housing-australia", "summary": "Assessment of the proposal and negotiation of the funding agreement.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 371, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "application" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Housing Australia announces initial pipeline of housing under the Housing Australia Future Fund and National Housing Accord Facility, Housing Australia, 16 September 2024, https://www.housingaustralia.gov.au/media/housing-australia-announces-initial-pipeline-housing-housing-australia-future-fund-and, accessed 2026-11-09", "Update: Funding Round One contracting under the Housing Australia Future Fund Facility and National Housing Accord Facility, Housing Australia, 31 March 2025, https://www.housingaustralia.gov.au/media/update-funding-round-one-contracting-under-housing-australia-future-fund-facility-and, accessed 2026-11-09", "Auditor-General Report No.3 2026-27, Australian National Audit Office, Table 1.2, https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-07/Auditor-General_Report_2026-27_3.pdf, accessed 2026-11-09" ] }, { "id": "planning", "name": "Development approval", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "The ordinary planning consent process, unchanged by the presence of Commonwealth funding.", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 300, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "site" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "financial_close", "name": "Financial close", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "Debt, equity and Commonwealth support brought together against a costed, consented scheme.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "assessment", "planning" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "construction", "name": "Construction", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 640, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "financial_close" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Completion, certification and tenanting", "type": "certification", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "construction" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-high-speed-rail-approvals": { "name": "Environmental and planning approval for high speed rail \u2014 Newcastle to Sydney", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "infrastructure", "scale": "194 km of new dedicated high speed rail, roughly 115 km in tunnel, four stations, crossing many local government areas", "comparison_key": "linear-infrastructure-approval", "summary": "One railway, two complete environmental assessments, on two clocks, to two decision-makers, under two sets of requirements \u2014 with the Commonwealth as proponent on one side and approver on the other.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 15, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 2700, "critical_path": [ "development_phase", "field_investigations", "sears", "eis_nsw", "exhibition_nsw", "submissions_report", "nsw_assessment", "nsw_approval", "acquisition" ], "serial_days": 3190, "concurrency_saving": 490, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 1275, "third_party": 1080, "assessment": 300, "statutory": 45 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "development_phase": 1970, "field_investigations": 1430, "epbc_refer": 1420, "epbc_controlled": 1380, "sears": 1340, "eis_nsw": 975, "eis_cth": 1140, "exhibition_nsw": 930, "comment_cth": 1120, "submissions_report": 750, "nsw_assessment": 600, "cth_assessment": 630, "nsw_approval": 540, "cth_approval": 570, "acquisition": 0 }, "sourced": 4, "sourced_pct": 27 }, "steps": [ { "id": "development_phase", "name": "Development phase: route definition and reference design", "type": "application", "body": "hsra", "summary": "Two year phase funded in February 2026 to take the route to a design that can be assessed and costed.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 730, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Australian Government development phase announcement, 24 February 2026 \u2014 a two year phase" ] }, { "id": "field_investigations", "name": "Geotechnical, biodiversity and heritage field investigation", "type": "assessment", "body": "hsra", "summary": "Survey along a 194 km corridor, including seasonal ecological survey windows and Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 540, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "development_phase" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "epbc_refer", "name": "Refer the action under the EPBC Act", "type": "application", "body": "dcceew", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), s 68", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 10, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "field_investigations" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "epbc_controlled", "name": "Controlled action decision", "type": "decision", "body": "dcceew", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), s 75", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 40, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "epbc_refer" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), s 75 \u2014 20 business days" ] }, { "id": "sears", "name": "Secretary's environmental assessment requirements (NSW)", "type": "referral", "body": "nsw-planning-ssd", "summary": "NSW sets what the environmental impact statement must address, after consulting agencies and councils.", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), Division 5.2", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "field_investigations" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "eis_nsw", "name": "Prepare the NSW environmental impact statement", "type": "application", "body": "hsra", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "sears" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "eis_cth", "name": "Prepare Commonwealth assessment documentation", "type": "application", "body": "hsra", "summary": "Documentation addressing the Commonwealth guidelines for the matters protected under the EPBC Act.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 240, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "epbc_controlled" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "exhibition_nsw", "name": "Public exhibition of the environmental impact statement (NSW)", "type": "notification", "body": "nsw-planning-ssd", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "eis_nsw" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "comment_cth", "name": "Commonwealth public comment period", "type": "notification", "body": "dcceew", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), ss 93-95", "statutory_clock_days": 20, "typical_days": 20, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "eis_cth" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), minimum public comment period" ] }, { "id": "submissions_report", "name": "Submissions report and amendment report", "type": "application", "body": "hsra", "summary": "Respond to every submission received on a corridor crossing many communities.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "exhibition_nsw", "comment_cth" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "nsw_assessment", "name": "NSW assessment report", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-planning-ssd", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 150, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "submissions_report" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "cth_assessment", "name": "Commonwealth recommendation report", "type": "assessment", "body": "dcceew", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), s 100", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "submissions_report" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "nsw_approval", "name": "NSW infrastructure approval", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-planning-ssd", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), s 5.19", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "nsw_assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "cth_approval", "name": "Commonwealth approval and conditions", "type": "decision", "body": "dcceew", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), s 133", "statutory_clock_days": 56, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "cth_assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "EPBC Act 1999 (Cth), s 130 \u2014 40 business days for an EIS assessment" ] }, { "id": "acquisition", "name": "Corridor acquisition", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "Acquire the land and interests the corridor requires, by agreement or compulsorily.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 540, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "nsw_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-jobseeker-mutual-obligations": { "name": "JobSeeker recipient meets mutual obligations under the compliance framework", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "payments", "scale": "A person receiving JobSeeker Payment managed by an employment services provider under the Points Based Activation System", "comparison_key": "income-support-compliance", "summary": "A monthly points target, a contracted provider who can report a failure, and an automatic payment suspension that takes effect before anyone checks. The Ombudsman found the resulting cancellations unlawful, and the department is resuming the penalties from 26 October 2026.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 8, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 51, "critical_path": [ "job_plan", "points" ], "serial_days": 81, "concurrency_saving": 30, "wait_profile": { "statutory": 30, "scheduling": 21 }, "addressable_days": 21, "addressable_pct": 41, "slack": { "job_plan": 30, "points": 0, "appointments": 0, "failure_report": 0, "suspension": 0, "reengagement": 0, "restore": 0, "cancellation": 0 }, "sourced": 2, "sourced_pct": 25 }, "steps": [ { "id": "job_plan", "name": "Negotiate a job plan", "type": "application", "body": "workforce-australia-provider", "summary": "The provider and the person agree the requirements that will apply.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "points", "name": "Meet the monthly points target", "type": "application", "body": "workforce-australia-provider", "summary": "Job applications, training, paid work, volunteering and other tasks earn points toward a monthly target.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "job_plan" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "appointments", "name": "Attend provider appointments", "type": "application", "body": "workforce-australia-provider", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "job_plan" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "failure_report", "name": "Provider reports a failure", "type": "notification", "body": "workforce-australia-provider", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "appointments" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "suspension", "name": "Payment suspended", "type": "decision", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "The payment stops. A demerit is recorded. The person must complete a re-engagement requirement to restart it.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "failure_report" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Services Australia: payment suspended for one week after a third failure, with a re-engagement requirement to restart payments" ] }, { "id": "reengagement", "name": "Complete a re-engagement requirement", "type": "application", "body": "workforce-australia-provider", "summary": "The person contacts the provider and completes a task before payment restarts.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "suspension" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "restore", "name": "Payment restored", "type": "registration", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "reengagement" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "cancellation", "name": "Cancellation after persistent non-compliance", "type": "decision", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "Continued failures escalate through the framework to cancellation of the payment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "suspension" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Commonwealth Ombudsman findings on unlawful cancellations under the Targeted Compliance Framework between April 2022 and July 2024" ] } ] }, "au-jobseeker-payment-restored": { "name": "Person seeks restoration and compensation after a wrongly cancelled payment", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "payments", "scale": "A person whose income support was cancelled under the compliance framework in circumstances later found to be unlawful", "comparison_key": "remedy-access", "summary": "The third remedy process in this database, and the same shape as the other two. The harm was automated and instant; the remedy is manual, applied for, and years later.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 8, "bodies": 4, "critical_path_days": 1365, "critical_path": [ "systemic_finding", "identify", "claim", "compensation" ], "serial_days": 1425, "concurrency_saving": 60, "wait_profile": { "third_party": 730, "queue": 545, "applicant": 90 }, "addressable_days": 545, "addressable_pct": 40, "slack": { "cancelled": 1365, "survive": 1305, "seek_review": 1245, "art": 880, "systemic_finding": 635, "identify": 270, "claim": 180, "compensation": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 38 }, "steps": [ { "id": "cancelled", "name": "Payment cancelled", "type": "decision", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "survive", "name": "Manage without income", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "The period between cancellation and any restoration, during which the person has no income support.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "cancelled" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "seek_review", "name": "Seek review of the decision", "type": "appeal", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "Internal review by an authorised review officer.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "survive" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "art", "name": "Review by the Administrative Review Tribunal", "type": "appeal", "body": "art", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "seek_review" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "ART: 130,983 applications on hand at 31 May 2026; 43 per cent finalised within 12 months" ] }, { "id": "systemic_finding", "name": "Ombudsman investigation and systemic finding", "type": "assessment", "body": "commonwealth-ombudsman", "summary": "An oversight body establishes that cancellations were unlawful and that remediation was inadequate.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 730, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "cancelled" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Commonwealth Ombudsman findings covering cancellations between April 2022 and July 2024" ] }, { "id": "identify", "name": "Department identifies affected people", "type": "assessment", "body": "dewr", "summary": "DEWR works with Services Australia to identify people adversely affected by an incorrect cancellation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "systemic_finding" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "DEWR: identifying affected people, after which they will be invited to submit a claim for compensation" ] }, { "id": "claim", "name": "Submit a compensation claim", "type": "application", "body": "dewr", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "identify" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "compensation", "name": "Assessment and payment of compensation", "type": "decision", "body": "dewr", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "claim" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-medicare-mental-health-centre": { "name": "Person walks into a Medicare Mental Health Centre", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "health", "scale": "An adult seeking mental health support at a free walk-in centre", "comparison_key": "mental-health-access", "summary": "No appointment, no referral, no treatment plan, no fee. The same government, in the same portfolio, in the same year, built the opposite of Better Access \u2014 and the only constraint is whether one exists near you.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 4, "bodies": 0, "critical_path_days": 4, "critical_path": [ "locate", "walk_in", "seen" ], "serial_days": 4, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "third_party": 3, "assessment": 1, "applicant": 0 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "locate": 1, "walk_in": 1, "seen": 0, "referral_on": 0 }, "sourced": 2, "sourced_pct": 50 }, "steps": [ { "id": "locate", "name": "Find a centre within reach", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Whether one exists nearby is the whole of the eligibility test.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "92 Medicare Mental Health Centres to open by 2027; 21 locations across New South Wales" ] }, { "id": "walk_in", "name": "Walk in", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "No appointment, no referral, no treatment plan.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "locate" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Free walk-in services with no appointment needed" ] }, { "id": "seen", "name": "Assessment and support", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Assessment, brief intervention, and referral onward where needed.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "walk_in" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referral_on", "name": "Referral to ongoing therapy where needed", "type": "referral", "body": "", "summary": "Where a person needs a course of psychological therapy, they enter the Better Access pathway.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "seen" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-ndis-access": { "name": "Person with disability from access request to first funded support", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "disability", "scale": "An adult with a permanent and significant disability applying to become an NDIS participant", "comparison_key": "scheme-access", "summary": "A 21 day statutory guarantee that reported experience puts at two to four months, and a review pipeline in which two thirds of contested decisions are changed. The clock is not the problem. The first decision is.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 9, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 311, "critical_path": [ "evidence", "lodge", "completeness", "access_decision", "planning", "plan_approval", "implementation" ], "serial_days": 311, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "third_party": 180, "assessment": 49, "scheduling": 45, "queue": 30, "applicant": 7 }, "addressable_days": 75, "addressable_pct": 24, "slack": { "evidence": 191, "lodge": 184, "completeness": 154, "access_decision": 133, "planning": 88, "plan_approval": 60, "implementation": 0, "internal_review": 43, "tribunal": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 33 }, "steps": [ { "id": "evidence", "name": "Obtain evidence of disability from treating professionals", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Reports from treating health professionals establishing the disability, its permanence and its functional impact.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the access request", "type": "application", "body": "ndia", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "evidence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completeness", "name": "Request treated as complete", "type": "assessment", "body": "ndia", "summary": "The Agency determines that it holds everything it needs. The statutory clock starts here, not at lodgement.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "access_decision", "name": "Access decision", "type": "decision", "body": "ndia", "summary": "Whether the person meets the disability or early intervention criteria.", "legal_basis": "National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": 21, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "completeness" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "Participant Service Guarantee: access decision within 21 days of a complete application" ] }, { "id": "planning", "name": "Planning conversation and needs assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "ndia", "summary": "Identify goals and assess the supports that are reasonable and necessary.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "access_decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "plan_approval", "name": "Plan approval", "type": "decision", "body": "ndia", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "planning" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "NDIA: plan variations and reassessments completed within 28 days once the Agency holds all required information" ] }, { "id": "implementation", "name": "Find providers and commence supports", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Locate providers with capacity, agree service agreements, and begin receiving support.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "plan_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "internal_review", "name": "Internal review of a reviewable decision", "type": "appeal", "body": "ndia", "summary": "The Agency reviews its own decision on request.", "legal_basis": "National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth), s 100", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "access_decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "tribunal", "name": "Application to the Administrative Review Tribunal", "type": "appeal", "body": "art", "summary": "Merits review of the reviewed decision.", "legal_basis": "Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "internal_review" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Reported typical wait of about a year for an NDIS hearing; ART on-hand caseload of 130,983 at 31 May 2026" ] } ] }, "au-ndis-provider-registration": { "name": "Become a registered NDIS provider", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "disability", "scale": "A small provider entering mandatory registration for supported independent living", "comparison_key": "provider-registration", "summary": "Registration is not one decision but a package: practice standards, worker screening administered by eight separate jurisdictions, and an independent audit the applicant pays a third party to conduct. Two foreseeable deadlines landed on the same workforce in 2026.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 6, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 367, "critical_path": [ "practice_standards", "application", "audit_engage", "audit", "decision" ], "serial_days": 457, "concurrency_saving": 90, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 171, "assessment": 136, "third_party": 60 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "practice_standards": 217, "worker_screening": 277, "application": 196, "audit_engage": 136, "audit": 46, "decision": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 17 }, "steps": [ { "id": "practice_standards", "name": "Implement the NDIS Practice Standards", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Policies, procedures, governance and incident management systems meeting the standards for the registration groups sought.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 150, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "worker_screening", "name": "Worker screening clearances for key personnel and risk-assessed workers", "type": "registration", "body": "nsw-worker-screening", "summary": "State-administered clearances, valid five years, required before the application can be finalised.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "application", "name": "Lodge the registration application", "type": "application", "body": "ndis-commission", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "practice_standards", "worker_screening" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "audit_engage", "name": "Engage an approved quality auditor", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "The applicant selects and contracts an approved third-party auditor at its own cost.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "application" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "audit", "name": "Independent quality audit", "type": "certification", "body": "", "summary": "Verification or certification audit against the applicable Practice Standards.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "audit_engage" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Registration decision", "type": "decision", "body": "ndis-commission", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 46, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "audit" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Quarterly Performance Report Q4 2025-26, Figure 17: Registration decision timeframe, NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, https://www.ndiscommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-09/Quarterly%20Performance%20Report%20-%20Q4%202025-26.pdf, accessed 2026-11-09" ] } ] }, "au-pbs-listing": { "name": "A new medicine is listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "health", "scale": "A new medicine with a financial impact above the Cabinet threshold, from submission to a patient filling a subsidised script", "comparison_key": "medicine-access", "summary": "The assessment is already parallelised and the committee is well regarded. The delay sits after both assessments are finished, in a three-meetings-a-year cycle and a Cabinet approval reported to have grown from 6.7 months to 10.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 8, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 930, "critical_path": [ "dossier", "pbac_cycle", "pbac_evaluation", "pricing", "cabinet", "listing" ], "serial_days": 1260, "concurrency_saving": 330, "wait_profile": { "scheduling": 360, "applicant": 270, "assessment": 240, "statutory": 60 }, "addressable_days": 360, "addressable_pct": 39, "slack": { "dossier": 660, "tga_evaluation": 330, "pbac_cycle": 600, "pbac_evaluation": 480, "resubmission": 240, "pricing": 360, "cabinet": 60, "listing": 0 }, "sourced": 2, "sourced_pct": 25 }, "steps": [ { "id": "dossier", "name": "Prepare the submission", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Clinical and economic evidence establishing comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness against the relevant comparator.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 270, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "tga_evaluation", "name": "TGA evaluation for registration", "type": "assessment", "body": "tga", "summary": "Evaluation of quality, safety and efficacy for entry on the ARTG.", "legal_basis": "Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 330, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "dossier" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "pbac_cycle", "name": "Wait for a PBAC meeting", "type": "registration", "body": "pbac", "summary": "Submissions are considered at three meetings a year, in March, July and November.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "dossier" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "PBS, published PBAC meeting calendar: three meetings a year" ] }, { "id": "pbac_evaluation", "name": "PBAC evaluation and recommendation", "type": "assessment", "body": "pbac", "summary": "Assessment of comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and a recommendation to the Minister.", "legal_basis": "National Health Act 1953 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "pbac_cycle" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "resubmission", "name": "Resubmission after a rejection or deferral", "type": "application", "body": "pbac", "summary": "Additional evidence or a revised price, considered at a later meeting.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 240, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "pbac_evaluation" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "pricing", "name": "Price negotiation with the department", "type": "assessment", "body": "health-au", "summary": "Agreement on price and any special arrangements following a positive recommendation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "pbac_evaluation" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "cabinet", "name": "Cabinet approval", "type": "decision", "body": "health-au", "summary": "Listings with a financial impact above the threshold require Cabinet agreement rather than ministerial approval.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 300, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "pricing" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Reported increase in Cabinet approval time from 6.7 months to 10 months; the Minister approves listings below $20 million financial impact" ] }, { "id": "listing", "name": "Listing takes effect", "type": "registration", "body": "health-au", "summary": "The medicine appears on the Schedule and can be dispensed with a subsidy.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "cabinet", "tga_evaluation" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-pharmacist-scope": { "name": "A person is treated for a common condition at a pharmacy", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "health", "scale": "A person seeking assessment and treatment for an uncomplicated urinary tract infection or hormonal contraception at a community pharmacy", "comparison_key": "common-condition-care", "summary": "The shortest care pathway in this database \u2014 and whether it exists at all depends on which side of a state border the person is standing on, for a profession registered nationally.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 6, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 1, "critical_path": [ "assess" ], "serial_days": 1, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "assessment": 1 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "jurisdiction": 1, "walk_in": 1, "assess": 0, "treat": 0, "pay": 0, "national_trial": 1 }, "sourced": 2, "sourced_pct": 33 }, "steps": [ { "id": "jurisdiction", "name": "Check whether the state permits it", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-medicines-regulator", "summary": "Whether a pharmacist in this jurisdiction may assess and treat this condition.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Queensland Extended Practice Authority from 1 July 2025; NSW expanded scope services; Victorian statewide pilot from August 2024 across more than 760 pharmacies" ] }, { "id": "walk_in", "name": "Walk into a pharmacy", "type": "application", "body": "community-pharmacy", "summary": "No appointment, no referral, no prior relationship.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "jurisdiction" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assess", "name": "Pharmacist assesses against the protocol", "type": "assessment", "body": "community-pharmacy", "summary": "Structured assessment against the conditions and exclusions set by the state authority. Same visit.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "walk_in" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "treat", "name": "Treatment supplied, or referred on", "type": "decision", "body": "community-pharmacy", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "assess" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "pay", "name": "Pay for the consultation", "type": "fee", "body": "", "summary": "The pharmacist's assessment is not a Medicare-rebated service.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "treat" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "national_trial", "name": "National women's health prescribing trial", "type": "decision", "body": "health-au", "summary": "From 1 January 2027, UTI assessment and treatment and hormonal contraception at participating pharmacies, nationally.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "jurisdiction" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "National women's health pharmacist prescribing trial announced 13 March 2026, commencing 1 January 2027" ] } ] }, "au-placement-compliance": { "name": "A student completes the clearances required before a mandatory placement", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "education", "scale": "One nursing, allied health, teaching or social work student before their first placement, and then before a placement at a second organisation", "comparison_key": "care-workforce-entry", "summary": "Five separate clearances from five separate issuers, none of which the university issues and none of which travels cleanly to the next host. The longest single requirement is a vaccination schedule that takes six months and is nobody's queue.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 8, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 210, "critical_path": [ "immunisation" ], "serial_days": 311, "concurrency_saving": 101, "wait_profile": { "third_party": 210 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "immunisation": 0, "wwcc": 168, "police_check": 200, "ndis_check": 189, "first_aid": 203, "host_requirements": 147, "placement": 0, "second_host": 0 }, "sourced": 4, "sourced_pct": 50 }, "steps": [ { "id": "immunisation", "name": "Immunisation course and serology evidence", "type": "certification", "body": "", "summary": "Hepatitis B is a multi-dose schedule followed by a serology test. It is the longest requirement and it cannot be expedited.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 210, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "wwcc", "name": "Working with children clearance", "type": "certification", "body": "state-wwcc-unit", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 42, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "police_check", "name": "National Police Check", "type": "certification", "body": "", "summary": "Typically required to be not more than three years old.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 10, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "A National Police Check takes 5-10 business days; a National Police Certificate is typically required to be not more than three years old" ] }, { "id": "ndis_check", "name": "NDIS Worker Screening Check", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-worker-screening", "summary": "Required for a growing number of placements. Students are treated as volunteers, so no fee applies.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "A number of placements now require an NDIS Worker Screening Check; students are treated as volunteers and a fee for the application does not apply; the check takes 2-4 weeks" ] }, { "id": "first_aid", "name": "Provide First Aid certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Students must complete a Provide First Aid course before attending clinical placements" ] }, { "id": "host_requirements", "name": "Host organisation requirements", "type": "certification", "body": "placement-provider", "summary": "Orientation modules, mandatory training, and organisation-specific health requirements such as TB risk assessment and respirator fit-testing.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "wwcc", "police_check", "ndis_check", "first_aid" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Queensland Health: all students undertaking clinical placements must complete a TB risk assessment prior to commencing placement, including screening and any required follow-up; yearly fit-testing is required where a particulate filter respirator may be used", "Health services publish student compliance checklists with organisation-specific orientation and training requirements" ] }, { "id": "placement", "name": "Placement commences", "type": "registration", "body": "placement-provider", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "immunisation", "host_requirements" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "second_host", "name": "Placement at a second organisation, or in a second state", "type": "application", "body": "placement-provider", "summary": "Much of the stack again: a second host's modules, and in another state a second working with children check.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 42, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "placement" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-points-tested-migration": { "name": "Skilled worker seeks permanent residence through the points test", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "migration", "scale": "An applicant lodging an expression of interest for a points-tested skilled visa without an employer sponsor", "comparison_key": "home-affairs-visa", "summary": "You lodge an expression of interest and wait to be invited. If your score is below the cut-off you are not refused \u2014 you simply never hear. There is no decision, no queue position, no review, and the occupation list is republished every year.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 9, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 629, "critical_path": [ "skills_assessment", "english", "eoi", "wait_invite", "invited", "apply_visa", "decision" ], "serial_days": 629, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "queue": 510, "applicant": 74, "third_party": 45, "assessment": 0 }, "addressable_days": 510, "addressable_pct": 81, "slack": { "skills_assessment": 539, "english": 494, "eoi": 480, "wait_invite": 240, "state_nomination": 360, "invited": 240, "apply_visa": 180, "decision": 0, "list_change": 115 }, "sourced": 4, "sourced_pct": 44 }, "steps": [ { "id": "skills_assessment", "name": "Obtain a skills assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "skills-assessing-authority", "summary": "Assessment of qualifications and experience against the nominated occupation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "english", "name": "Sit an English language test", "type": "certification", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "skills_assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "eoi", "name": "Lodge an expression of interest in SkillSelect", "type": "application", "body": "home-affairs", "summary": "Not a visa application. A statement of claims against the points test, which may or may not attract an invitation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "english" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Department of Home Affairs: an expression of interest is not a visa application; it is the step that determines whether an invitation to apply is issued" ] }, { "id": "wait_invite", "name": "Wait to be invited", "type": "registration", "body": "home-affairs", "summary": "Invitations are issued in rounds, to the highest scores first, until the allocation is used.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 240, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "eoi" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "SkillSelect round of 4 June 2026: 10,000 invitations, all subclass 189; minimum invitation scores 65 to 100 points; tie-break date 24 April 2026; next round expected by 30 September 2026" ] }, { "id": "state_nomination", "name": "Seek state or territory nomination", "type": "referral", "body": "nsw-state-nomination", "summary": "An alternative route: nomination by a state or territory against its own list and criteria.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "eoi" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "2026-27 Migration Program: 35,500 state and territory nominated places" ] }, { "id": "invited", "name": "Invitation issued", "type": "decision", "body": "home-affairs", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "wait_invite" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "apply_visa", "name": "Lodge the visa application", "type": "application", "body": "home-affairs", "summary": "Sixty days from invitation to lodge, with health, character and evidence of all claimed points.", "legal_basis": "Migration Act 1958 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "invited" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Visa decision", "type": "decision", "body": "home-affairs", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Migration Act 1958 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "apply_visa" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "list_change", "name": "The occupation list is republished", "type": "decision", "body": "home-affairs", "summary": "Occupation lists are republished each program year, and occupations move between them.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "eoi" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Occupation lists republished each program year; an occupation eligible in one year may move between lists" ] } ] }, "au-port-container-terminal": { "name": "A container terminal is approved at an Australian port", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "infrastructure", "scale": "One new container terminal and its associated capital dredging at an existing port", "comparison_key": "linear-infrastructure-approval", "summary": "State planning, EPBC assessment and a sea dumping permit, running largely in parallel, with no queue or scheduling time anywhere in the model. This process is here because it is not the reason there is no container terminal at Newcastle.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 6, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 540, "critical_path": [ "state_planning" ], "serial_days": 1298, "concurrency_saving": 758, "wait_profile": { "assessment": 540 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "state_planning": 0, "epbc_referral": 512, "epbc_assessment": 147, "sea_dumping": 147, "commercial": 540, "terminal": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 50 }, "steps": [ { "id": "state_planning", "name": "State planning approval", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-planning-ssd", "summary": "State significant development or infrastructure assessment, including environmental impact statement and public exhibition.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 540, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "epbc_referral", "name": "EPBC referral and controlled action decision", "type": "referral", "body": "dcceew", "summary": "Whether the proposal is a controlled action requiring Commonwealth assessment.", "legal_basis": "Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth): a referral decision is made within 20 business days" ] }, { "id": "epbc_assessment", "name": "EPBC assessment and approval", "type": "assessment", "body": "dcceew", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "epbc_referral" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "sea_dumping", "name": "Sea dumping permit for dredge spoil", "type": "application", "body": "dcceew", "summary": "A separate Commonwealth permit, under a separate Act, for placing dredged material at sea.", "legal_basis": "Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (Cth), s 19", "statutory_clock_days": 90, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": 540, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "epbc_referral" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (Cth), s 19: the Minister must grant or refuse to grant the permit within 90 days after the application is made", "DCCEEW: sea dumping applications may take over 12 months to be assessed depending on their complexity" ] }, { "id": "commercial", "name": "Commercial preconditions satisfied", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "Whether the project can proceed on terms anybody will fund. Not a permit, not an assessment, and not visible to a process map.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "ACCC: the Port Commitment Deeds, entered into in 2013 for a term of 50 years, oblige the State of NSW to compensate the operators of Port Botany and Port Kembla if container traffic at the Port of Newcastle exceeds a specified cap", "March 2024: the Premier advised Parliament that a $2.4 billion container terminal at the Port of Newcastle will cost NSW taxpayers up to $4.3 billion in payments to NSW Ports" ] }, { "id": "terminal", "name": "Terminal approved and able to proceed", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "state_planning", "epbc_assessment", "sea_dumping", "commercial" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-regional-mobile-coverage": { "name": "Mobile coverage reaches a place the market will not serve", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "telecommunications", "scale": "A single new base station in a regional or remote location, delivered through the co-investment programs", "comparison_key": "coverage-obligation", "summary": "Seven rounds, more than a billion dollars, up to 1,400 base stations \u2014 and from December 2027 an obligation that would require coverage everywhere regardless. Two instruments for one problem, running at the same time.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 7, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 940, "critical_path": [ "nominate", "round", "carrier_bid", "assess", "build" ], "serial_days": 940, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 490, "scheduling": 180, "assessment": 150, "third_party": 120 }, "addressable_days": 180, "addressable_pct": 19, "slack": { "gap": 940, "nominate": 850, "round": 670, "carrier_bid": 550, "assess": 400, "build": 0, "uomo": 575 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 43 }, "steps": [ { "id": "gap", "name": "The location has no coverage", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "A place where coverage is absent and no carrier will build commercially.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "nominate", "name": "Community or council nominates the location", "type": "application", "body": "comms-dept", "summary": "Locations are nominated for consideration in a funding round.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "gap" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "round", "name": "Wait for a funding round", "type": "registration", "body": "comms-dept", "summary": "Applications are accepted in competitive rounds.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "nominate" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Mobile Black Spot Round 8 closing for applications 28 August 2026; seven rounds run to date" ] }, { "id": "carrier_bid", "name": "A carrier bids for the location", "type": "application", "body": "mobile-carrier", "summary": "A mobile network operator decides whether to include the site in a bid.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "round" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assess", "name": "Assessment and co-investment rate set", "type": "assessment", "body": "comms-dept", "summary": "Funding share determined by how many operators will share the infrastructure.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 150, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "carrier_bid" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Up to 100 per cent funding for projects involving all three national mobile network operators using active sharing or roaming; 50 to 75 per cent for co-location or fewer operators" ] }, { "id": "build", "name": "Build and commission the site", "type": "application", "body": "mobile-carrier", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 400, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assess" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "uomo", "name": "Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation commences", "type": "decision", "body": "acma", "summary": "From 1 December 2027, carriers required to provide baseline outdoor voice and SMS coverage across Australia.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "gap" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation announced 25 February 2025; draft legislation requiring Telstra, Optus and TPG to provide reasonable and equitable access to baseline outdoor mobile coverage from 1 December 2027" ] } ] }, "au-register-company": { "name": "Register a company and its tax registrations \u2014 federal", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "business", "scale": "New proprietary company, one or two directors", "comparison_key": "start-a-company", "summary": "Included as a deliberate contrast: a federal process that is almost entirely automated, mostly same-day, and has no scheduling component at all. It shows what the ceiling looks like.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 4, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 3, "critical_path": [ "director_id", "register", "abn" ], "serial_days": 4, "concurrency_saving": 1, "wait_profile": { "assessment": 2, "applicant": 1 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "director_id": 2, "name": 2, "register": 1, "abn": 0 }, "sourced": 0, "sourced_pct": 0 }, "steps": [ { "id": "director_id", "name": "Obtain a director identification number", "type": "registration", "body": "asic", "summary": "Each director must verify identity before the company can be registered.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "name", "name": "Check and reserve the company name", "type": "registration", "body": "asic", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "register", "name": "Register the company", "type": "registration", "body": "asic", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "director_id", "name" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "abn", "name": "Apply for an ABN and tax registrations", "type": "registration", "body": "ato", "summary": "ABN, TFN, and GST or PAYG where thresholds are met.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "register" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-rent-assistance": { "name": "Renter receives Commonwealth Rent Assistance", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "payments", "scale": "A person receiving a qualifying income support payment and renting privately", "comparison_key": "household-payment", "summary": "The best-designed payment in this database: eligibility is assessed automatically when someone claims a qualifying payment, with no separate application. The friction is elsewhere \u2014 proving the rent, and two rules that turn a payment into a judgement about how you live.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 8, "bodies": 1, "critical_path_days": 212, "critical_path": [ "verify_rent", "sharer_test", "calculate", "indexation" ], "serial_days": 226, "concurrency_saving": 14, "wait_profile": { "statutory": 182, "third_party": 30, "assessment": 0 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "qualifying_payment": 212, "auto_assess": 212, "verify_rent": 182, "sharer_test": 182, "calculate": 182, "notify_changes": 168, "indexation": 0, "public_housing": 212 }, "sourced": 6, "sourced_pct": 75 }, "steps": [ { "id": "qualifying_payment", "name": "Receive a qualifying payment", "type": "registration", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "Age Pension, Disability Support Pension, Carer Payment, JobSeeker, Youth Allowance, Parenting Payment or Family Tax Benefit.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "auto_assess", "name": "Rent Assistance automatically assessed", "type": "assessment", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "Eligibility is considered as part of the qualifying payment claim. There is no separate application.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "qualifying_payment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Services Australia automatically assesses Rent Assistance eligibility when a person claims an eligible payment" ] }, { "id": "verify_rent", "name": "Verify the rent", "type": "certification", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "Provide a lease, or a Rent Certificate signed by the landlord or head tenant where there is no written agreement.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "auto_assess" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Services Australia: an SU523 Rent Certificate signed by the person the rent is paid to is required where there is no written lease" ] }, { "id": "sharer_test", "name": "Sharer status determined", "type": "assessment", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "Whether the person shares a kitchen, bathroom or living area with someone who is not a partner, parent or child.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "verify_rent" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Maximum fortnightly rate from 20 March 2026 of $143.60 for a single sharer against $215.40 for a single person not sharing" ] }, { "id": "calculate", "name": "Calculate and pay with the qualifying payment", "type": "registration", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "75 cents per dollar of rent above the threshold, to the maximum rate.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "sharer_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "75 cents paid per dollar of rent above the minimum threshold, up to the applicable maximum rate" ] }, { "id": "notify_changes", "name": "Notify changes of rent or circumstances", "type": "application", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "A continuing obligation to report rent increases, moves and changes in who lives in the household.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "calculate" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "indexation", "name": "Indexation twice yearly", "type": "registration", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "Rates adjusted in March and September to the Consumer Price Index.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 182, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "calculate" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Rates indexed in March and September to CPI; increased 15 per cent in September 2023 and 10 per cent in September 2024 on top of regular indexation" ] }, { "id": "public_housing", "name": "Ineligible if renting from a state housing authority", "type": "decision", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "Rent paid to a state or territory housing authority does not attract Rent Assistance.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "auto_assess" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Rent paid to a state or territory housing authority is excluded from Rent Assistance" ] } ] }, "au-residential-aged-care-entry": { "name": "Older person enters residential aged care", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "aged-care", "scale": "An older person moving into ongoing residential aged care, from application to commencement", "comparison_key": "scheme-access", "summary": "The department now publishes both the median and the average, and the gap between them is the finding: 167 days against 396. Half of people wait under six months and the average is thirteen \u2014 which means a large group waits far longer than any headline says.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 8, "bodies": 4, "critical_path_days": 258, "critical_path": [ "apply", "triage", "assessment", "approval", "find_place", "anacc", "commence" ], "serial_days": 303, "concurrency_saving": 45, "wait_profile": { "third_party": 90, "queue": 75, "assessment": 51, "applicant": 21, "scheduling": 21 }, "addressable_days": 96, "addressable_pct": 37, "slack": { "apply": 237, "triage": 207, "assessment": 162, "approval": 141, "find_place": 51, "anacc": 21, "financial": 96, "commence": 0 }, "sourced": 2, "sourced_pct": 25 }, "steps": [ { "id": "apply", "name": "Apply through My Aged Care", "type": "application", "body": "myagedcare", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "triage", "name": "Wait for a triage decision", "type": "assessment", "body": "myagedcare", "summary": "The decision about how urgently the person should be assessed.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "apply" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "65,576 applications waiting for a triage decision at 31 December 2025, falling to 48,592 at 31 March 2026" ] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Comprehensive assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "aged-care-assessment", "summary": "Assessment using the Integrated Assessment Tool, establishing eligibility for residential care.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "triage" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "approval", "name": "Approval for residential care", "type": "decision", "body": "health-au", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "find_place", "name": "Find a home with a place", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Locating a residential service with a vacancy, in the right area, that will accept the person.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "anacc", "name": "AN-ACC assessment for funding classification", "type": "assessment", "body": "aged-care-assessment", "summary": "Assessment determining the funding classification the home will receive for this resident.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "find_place" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "financial", "name": "Income and assets assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "Determines the accommodation payment and means-tested care fee.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "commence", "name": "Enter care", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "anacc", "financial" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "June 2026 quarter: median wait between application and commencement of ongoing residential aged care of 138 days, average 356 days; for ongoing residential services an average of 396 days against a median of 167 days" ] } ] }, "au-rolling-stock-approval": { "name": "A freight train already built is approved to run from Melbourne to Brisbane", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "infrastructure", "scale": "One class of freight rolling stock, already designed and manufactured, entering service on the interstate corridor and its metropolitan approaches", "comparison_key": "rolling-stock-approval", "summary": "Rail safety was nationalised in 2013 and one regulator accredits the operator. What the vehicle must meet is still settled network by network, so the same evidence is assessed four times. The build is not modelled here \u2014 the approval alone is eighteen months.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 9, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 540, "critical_path": [ "design_acceptance", "accreditation", "imp", "rim_artc", "rim_nsw", "route_competency" ], "serial_days": 720, "concurrency_saving": 180, "wait_profile": { "statutory": 180, "assessment": 120, "queue": 90, "third_party": 60, "scheduling": 60, "applicant": 30 }, "addressable_days": 150, "addressable_pct": 28, "slack": { "design_acceptance": 420, "accreditation": 240, "imp": 210, "rim_artc": 150, "rim_nsw": 60, "rim_vic": 60, "rim_qld": 60, "route_competency": 0, "operate": 0 }, "sourced": 2, "sourced_pct": 22 }, "steps": [ { "id": "design_acceptance", "name": "Engineering design assurance against the first network's interface standards", "type": "certification", "body": "artc", "summary": "Gauge, axle load, clearance envelope, braking, coupling and signalling interface, assessed against one manager's standards.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "accreditation", "name": "Accreditation, or variation of accreditation, granted", "type": "application", "body": "onrsr", "summary": "The national decision that the operator is competent and capable of managing the safety risks of the operation.", "legal_basis": "Rail Safety National Law", "statutory_clock_days": 180, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "design_acceptance" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "ONRSR must decide to grant or refuse an application within six months of receiving it; an operator changing its operations must apply for a variation, assessed in the same way as an accreditation" ] }, { "id": "imp", "name": "Interoperability Management Plan prepared and incorporated", "type": "certification", "body": "onrsr", "summary": "A new requirement in full effect from 28 February 2026 for operators on the National Network for Interoperability.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "accreditation" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "ONRSR: new interoperability requirements took full effect on 28 February 2026; operators on the NNI must consider interoperability when making changes to their operations and prepare an Interoperability Management Plan as part of their safety management system" ] }, { "id": "rim_artc", "name": "Certification and registration with the interstate network manager", "type": "registration", "body": "artc", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "imp" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rim_nsw", "name": "Acceptance by the New South Wales metropolitan network manager", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "rim_artc" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rim_vic", "name": "Acceptance by the Victorian metropolitan network manager", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "rim_artc" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rim_qld", "name": "Acceptance by the Queensland network manager", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "rim_artc" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "route_competency", "name": "Crew route knowledge and network rules competency", "type": "certification", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "rim_nsw", "rim_vic", "rim_qld" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "operate", "name": "Vehicle in interstate service", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "route_competency" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-rooftop-solar-connection": { "name": "A household installs rooftop solar and is permitted to export", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "energy", "scale": "One standard residential system, up to 10 kW single-phase, on an existing home", "comparison_key": "household-energy", "summary": "Network approval takes three to ten business days and the installation takes one. Then the system sits on the roof, generating, not permitted to export, waiting for a meter that a party the household never chose has fifteen business days to deliver and often does not.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 9, "bodies": 4, "critical_path_days": 58, "critical_path": [ "quote", "connection_approval", "install", "certificate", "meter", "authorise" ], "serial_days": 79, "concurrency_saving": 21, "wait_profile": { "queue": 30, "applicant": 17, "assessment": 10, "third_party": 1 }, "addressable_days": 30, "addressable_pct": 52, "slack": { "quote": 44, "connection_approval": 37, "install": 36, "certificate": 33, "stc": 12, "meter": 3, "authorise": 0, "backstop": 0, "exporting": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 33 }, "steps": [ { "id": "quote", "name": "Quote from an accredited installer", "type": "application", "body": "saa", "summary": "The subsidy is applied here, at the point of sale, by the installer.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "connection_approval", "name": "Network connection approval", "type": "application", "body": "dnsp", "summary": "Pre-approval to connect embedded generation, with an export limit attached.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "quote" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "For standard residential systems up to 10 kW single-phase or 30 kW three-phase, connection approval typically takes 3-10 business days" ] }, { "id": "install", "name": "Installation", "type": "inspection", "body": "", "summary": "The physical work. One day.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "connection_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "certificate", "name": "Certificate of electrical safety and compliance", "type": "certification", "body": "", "summary": "Lodged by the licensed electrician under state law.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "install" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "stc", "name": "Certificates created and validated", "type": "registration", "body": "clean-energy-regulator", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "certificate" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "meter", "name": "Meter installed or reconfigured", "type": "inspection", "body": "metering-coordinator", "summary": "A bidirectional meter, arranged by the retailer, performed by a metering coordinator the household did not choose.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 21, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": 60, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "certificate" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "From 1 February 2019 regulations required digital meters to be installed within 15 business days", "Energy and Water Ombudsman NSW case: more than 40 business days after being notified the meter needed reconfiguration, with no timeline provided after four or five contacts with the retailer", "South Australia 2018-19: complaints about meter installation or removal rose 29 per cent, with delays to meter upgrades associated with solar the biggest subcategory" ] }, { "id": "authorise", "name": "Network authorises export", "type": "decision", "body": "dnsp", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "meter" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "backstop", "name": "Emergency backstop capability enabled", "type": "certification", "body": "dnsp", "summary": "Remote curtailment capability, required by AEMO, legislated five separate times on five separate dates.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "authorise" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "South Australia: all systems installed after September 2020 must be capable of remote disconnection during a system security emergency", "Queensland: since February 2023, inverters larger than 10 kW must include a signalling device", "Victoria: emergency backstop from 1 October 2024 for systems of 200 kW or less and legacy systems on inverter replacement", "New South Wales: CSIP-AUS rollout progressively by LGA and postcode from June 2026, complete October-December 2026", "Western Australia: Western Power two-pathway export model from 1 May 2026" ] }, { "id": "exporting", "name": "System exporting and credited", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "backstop", "stc" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-rto-registration": { "name": "Register as a training organisation and get onto a funded course list", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "education", "scale": "A new provider seeking initial registration and access to government-funded delivery", "comparison_key": "provider-registration", "summary": "Registration is national, funding is state, and the two are assessed separately against overlapping evidence. Third of three provider-registration processes in this database, and the same shape as the other two.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 6, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 510, "critical_path": [ "prepare", "application", "assessment", "decision", "funding_contract" ], "serial_days": 510, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "assessment": 270, "applicant": 240 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "prepare": 300, "application": 270, "assessment": 180, "decision": 180, "funding_contract": 0, "scope_addition": 60 }, "sourced": 2, "sourced_pct": 33 }, "steps": [ { "id": "prepare", "name": "Build the training and assessment system", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Training and assessment strategies, assessment tools, trainer credentials, governance and student support arrangements for each qualification sought.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 210, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "application", "name": "Lodge the application for initial registration", "type": "application", "body": "asqa", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "prepare" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Regulator assessment and audit", "type": "assessment", "body": "asqa", "summary": "Assessment against the Standards for RTOs, including scope of registration and fit and proper person requirements.", "legal_basis": "Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2025", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "application" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "ASQA Regulation Report Q1-2 2025-26 (1 July to 31 December 2025), Australian Skills Quality Authority, https://www.asqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-03/ASQA%20Regulation%20Report%20Q1-2%202025-26.pdf, accessed 2026-11-09" ] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Registration decision", "type": "decision", "body": "asqa", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "ASQA Regulation Report Q1-2 2025-26 (1 July to 31 December 2025), Australian Skills Quality Authority, https://www.asqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-03/ASQA%20Regulation%20Report%20Q1-2%202025-26.pdf, accessed 2026-11-09" ] }, { "id": "funding_contract", "name": "Apply to the state for funded delivery", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-training", "summary": "A separate assessment by the state training authority before the provider may deliver subsidised or fee-free places.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "scope_addition", "name": "Add qualifications to scope", "type": "application", "body": "asqa", "summary": "Each new qualification requires an application to vary scope of registration.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-skilled-visa-sponsored": { "name": "Employer sponsors a skilled worker \u2014 Skills in Demand visa", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "migration", "scale": "An Australian employer sponsoring an offshore worker in the Core Skills stream of the subclass 482 Skills in Demand visa", "comparison_key": "home-affairs-visa", "summary": "Three separate applications about one job. The published percentiles are the finding: the same nomination decision takes 5 days at the median and 9 months at the 90th percentile, and the difference is whether anyone asks a question.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 8, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 171, "critical_path": [ "sponsorship", "health_police", "visa", "arrival" ], "serial_days": 204, "concurrency_saving": 33, "wait_profile": { "queue": 69, "third_party": 45, "applicant": 45, "assessment": 12 }, "addressable_days": 69, "addressable_pct": 40, "slack": { "skills_assessment": 81, "sponsorship": 159, "lmt": 131, "nomination": 126, "health_police": 114, "visa": 45, "arrival": 0, "tribunal": 0 }, "sourced": 4, "sourced_pct": 50 }, "steps": [ { "id": "skills_assessment", "name": "Skills assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "skills-assessing-authority", "summary": "Assessment of qualifications and experience against the nominated occupation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "sponsorship", "name": "Standard business sponsorship approval", "type": "registration", "body": "home-affairs", "summary": "Approval of the employer as a sponsor. Attaches to the business, not the worker.", "legal_basis": "Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 12, "p90_days": 120, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Department of Home Affairs published processing times, August 2026: 50 per cent in 12 days, 90 per cent in 4 months" ] }, { "id": "lmt", "name": "Labour market testing", "type": "notification", "body": "", "summary": "Advertise the position for the required period and retain evidence.", "legal_basis": "Migration Act 1958 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "sponsorship" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "nomination", "name": "Nomination of the position", "type": "application", "body": "home-affairs", "summary": "The employer nominates the specific position, with a genuine position statement, salary evidence and labour market testing evidence.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 5, "p90_days": 270, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "lmt" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Department of Home Affairs published processing times, August 2026: 50 per cent in 5 days, 90 per cent in 9 months" ] }, { "id": "health_police", "name": "Health examinations and police certificates", "type": "certification", "body": "", "summary": "Medical examination with a panel physician and police clearances from each country of residence.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "sponsorship" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "visa", "name": "Visa application and decision", "type": "decision", "body": "home-affairs", "summary": "The worker applies; the department decides.", "legal_basis": "Migration Act 1958 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 69, "p90_days": 300, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "nomination", "health_police" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Department of Home Affairs published processing times, August 2026: Core Skills stream 50 per cent in 69 days, 90 per cent in 10 months" ] }, { "id": "arrival", "name": "Travel, arrival and commencement", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "visa" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "tribunal", "name": "Application to the Administrative Review Tribunal", "type": "appeal", "body": "art", "summary": "Merits review of a refusal.", "legal_basis": "Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "visa" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "ART on-hand caseload of 130,983 applications at 31 May 2026, with more than 77,000 received in the reporting year; 43 per cent finalised within 12 months" ] } ] }, "au-specialist-img": { "name": "Overseas-trained medical specialist begins practising in Australia", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "workforce", "scale": "A specialist trained and practising in a comparable health system, recruited to an Australian public hospital", "comparison_key": "overseas-workforce-entry", "summary": "Four bodies across three tiers of government, plus a private college, each asking overlapping questions about the same practitioner. The registration step has been comprehensively reformed; the four steps around it have not.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 7, "bodies": 5, "critical_path_days": 266, "critical_path": [ "documents", "visa", "provider_number", "start" ], "serial_days": 386, "concurrency_saving": 120, "wait_profile": { "queue": 162, "third_party": 90, "scheduling": 14 }, "addressable_days": 176, "addressable_pct": 66, "slack": { "documents": 176, "college_assessment": 0, "registration": 116, "visa": 56, "provider_number": 14, "credentialing": 56, "start": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 14 }, "steps": [ { "id": "documents", "name": "Assemble credentials and primary source verification", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Identity, qualifications, registration history and English language evidence, verified at source.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "college_assessment", "name": "Specialist college assessment of comparability", "type": "assessment", "body": "specialist-college", "summary": "The relevant college assesses whether overseas training and experience are substantially comparable to Australian specialist training.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "documents" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "registration", "name": "Specialist registration", "type": "registration", "body": "ahpra", "summary": "The Medical Board, through Ahpra, grants registration in the recognised specialty.", "legal_basis": "Health Practitioner Regulation National Law", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "documents" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "visa", "name": "Employer sponsorship, nomination and skilled visa", "type": "application", "body": "home-affairs", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Migration Act 1958 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "documents" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "provider_number", "name": "Medicare provider number and section 19AB assessment", "type": "registration", "body": "health-au", "summary": "Assessment of the ten year restriction on Medicare access for overseas-trained doctors, and of whether the intended location is a Distribution Priority Area.", "legal_basis": "Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth), s 19AB", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 42, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "registration", "visa" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Services Australia, published guidance advising a minimum of six weeks for provider number applications" ] }, { "id": "credentialing", "name": "Health service credentialing and scope of clinical practice", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-lhd", "summary": "The employing health service verifies credentials again and defines what the practitioner may do at that facility.", "legal_basis": "National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "registration" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "start", "name": "Commence clinical practice", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "Orientation, systems access, and first patient.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "credentialing", "provider_number" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-student-visa": { "name": "International student obtains a visa and commences study", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "migration", "scale": "An offshore applicant for a subclass 500 student visa to study higher education", "comparison_key": "home-affairs-visa", "summary": "The only process in this database where an applicant's place in the queue is set by an administrative allocation made to their institution, before they applied, which they cannot see.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 9, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 196, "critical_path": [ "offer", "prerequisites", "lodge", "priority", "decision", "travel" ], "serial_days": 247, "concurrency_saving": 51, "wait_profile": { "third_party": 90, "applicant": 48, "queue": 30, "assessment": 28 }, "addressable_days": 30, "addressable_pct": 15, "slack": { "offer": 151, "coe": 130, "prerequisites": 106, "genuine_student": 121, "lodge": 103, "priority": 73, "decision": 45, "travel": 0, "review": 0 }, "sourced": 2, "sourced_pct": 22 }, "steps": [ { "id": "offer", "name": "Apply to a provider and receive an offer", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Application to a CRICOS-registered provider for a registered course.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "coe", "name": "Accept the offer and obtain a Confirmation of Enrolment", "type": "registration", "body": "cricos-regulator", "summary": "Pay the deposit and receive the CoE, without which no visa application can be made.", "legal_basis": "Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "offer" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "prerequisites", "name": "English test, health cover, health examination and police checks", "type": "certification", "body": "", "summary": "English proficiency evidence, overseas student health cover, medical examination and character evidence.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "offer" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "genuine_student", "name": "Prepare the Genuine Student statement and financial evidence", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Written responses addressing the Genuine Student criteria, plus evidence of financial capacity.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "offer" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the visa application and pay the charge", "type": "fee", "body": "home-affairs", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Migration Act 1958 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "coe", "prerequisites", "genuine_student" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "priority", "name": "Assignment of processing priority by provider allocation", "type": "registration", "body": "home-affairs", "summary": "The application's queue position is determined by the applicant's provider and how much of that provider's allocation has been used.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Ministerial Direction 115, applying to applications lodged on or after 14 November 2025; students of providers under 80 per cent of allocation are Priority 1" ] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Visa decision", "type": "decision", "body": "home-affairs", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Migration Act 1958 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": 150, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "priority" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Department of Home Affairs published processing times for higher education student visas: 50 per cent within 28 days, 90 per cent within 5 months" ] }, { "id": "travel", "name": "Travel and enrolment", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "review", "name": "Review of a refusal", "type": "appeal", "body": "art", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-telehealth-consult": { "name": "Patient receives a Medicare-rebated telehealth consultation", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "health", "scale": "A patient seeking a GP telehealth consultation with a Medicare rebate, including where a prescription follows", "comparison_key": "telehealth-access", "summary": "Telehealth removed distance from the consultation and left two things in place: a rule that the patient must already have a relationship with the practice, and eight sets of state law governing what can be prescribed at the end of it.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 6, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 4, "critical_path": [ "book", "consult", "billing" ], "serial_days": 4, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "third_party": 3, "assessment": 1 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "relationship": 4, "mymedicare": 0, "book": 1, "consult": 1, "billing": 0, "prescribe": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 50 }, "steps": [ { "id": "relationship", "name": "Establish an eligible telehealth practitioner relationship", "type": "registration", "body": "health-au", "summary": "A face-to-face MBS service with the same practitioner or practice in the preceding 12 months, or registration with the practice under MyMedicare.", "legal_basis": "Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) and the Medicare Benefits Schedule", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Department of Health AskMBS advisory, updated 1 November 2025: face-to-face service with the same practitioner or practice within 12 months, or MyMedicare registration" ] }, { "id": "mymedicare", "name": "Register with the practice under MyMedicare", "type": "registration", "body": "health-au", "summary": "Voluntary patient registration with a general practice, which satisfies the relationship requirement and unlocks additional incentives.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "relationship" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "More than 2.6 million patients registered as at 19 March 2025, about one in ten patients; about one third of Medicare card holders aware of MyMedicare; 78.2 per cent of users found registration easy" ] }, { "id": "book", "name": "Book and attend the consultation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "relationship" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "consult", "name": "The consultation", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "A real-time video or telephone consultation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "book" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "billing", "name": "Medicare benefit claimed", "type": "fee", "body": "health-au", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "consult" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "From 1 November 2025 the triple bulk billing incentive for longer telehealth consultations extended to all Medicare-eligible patients registered through MyMedicare" ] }, { "id": "prescribe", "name": "Prescribe, where the medicine is controlled", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-medicines-regulator", "summary": "Schedule 8 prescribing is governed by the law of the patient's state, including permits, real-time monitoring checks and restrictions on new patients.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "consult" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-transmission-line": { "name": "Build a major transmission line \u2014 sequential easement pathway", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "energy", "scale": "A multi-hundred-kilometre high voltage transmission line designated actionable in the Integrated System Plan, crossing private agricultural land", "comparison_key": "transmission-line", "summary": "Two cost-benefit tests, two environmental assessments, and an easement acquisition that cannot start until the assessment finishes. The delays that have actually bitten are in the last of those, not the first.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 10, "bodies": 5, "critical_path_days": 4110, "critical_path": [ "isp", "pscr", "padr", "pacr", "route", "state_planning", "easement", "construction" ], "serial_days": 5314, "concurrency_saving": 1204, "wait_profile": { "assessment": 1886, "third_party": 1080, "applicant": 900, "statutory": 244 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "isp": 3745, "pscr": 3546, "padr": 3501, "pacr": 2980, "cpa": 2756, "route": 2440, "epbc": 1460, "state_planning": 1440, "easement": 900, "construction": 0 }, "sourced": 6, "sourced_pct": 60 }, "steps": [ { "id": "isp", "name": "Identified as an actionable project in the Integrated System Plan", "type": "assessment", "body": "aemo", "summary": "A whole-of-system cost-benefit process concludes the project is needed and designates it actionable.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "pscr", "name": "Project specification consultation report and consultation", "type": "notification", "body": "tnsp", "summary": "First stage of the regulatory investment test: the identified need and credible options are published for consultation.", "legal_basis": "National Electricity Rules, clause 5.16.4 (not part of the clause 5.16A procedure for actionable ISP projects)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 199, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "isp" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Transgrid, Project Specification Consultation Report: Reinforcing the NSW Southern Shared Network (HumeLink), 25 June 2019, https://www.transgrid.com.au/media/chvf0ahp/transgrid-pscr_reinforcing-nsw-southern-shared-network.pdf, accessed 2026-11-09", "Transgrid, HumeLink Project Assessment Draft Report, 10 January 2020, https://www.transgrid.com.au/media/1mvbrfxk/transgrid_hume-link-padr.pdf, accessed 2026-11-09", "Cost benefit analysis guidelines (Version 3, November 2024), Australian Energy Regulator, section 4.5, https://www.aer.gov.au/system/files/2025-05/AER%20-%20Cost%20Benefit%20Analysis%20guidelines%20-%202024%20-%20Version%203.pdf, accessed 2026-11-09" ] }, { "id": "padr", "name": "Project assessment draft report and consultation", "type": "notification", "body": "tnsp", "summary": "The draft report is published and submissions are sought on the proposed preferred option.", "legal_basis": "National Electricity Rules, clause 5.16A.4", "statutory_clock_days": 42, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "pscr" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "Cost benefit analysis guidelines (Version 3, November 2024), Australian Energy Regulator, section 4.5.2, https://www.aer.gov.au/system/files/2025-05/AER%20-%20Cost%20Benefit%20Analysis%20guidelines%20-%202024%20-%20Version%203.pdf, accessed 2026-11-09", "Transgrid, HumeLink Project Assessment Draft Report, 10 January 2020 (submissions due 24 February 2020), https://www.transgrid.com.au/media/1mvbrfxk/transgrid_hume-link-padr.pdf, accessed 2026-11-09" ] }, { "id": "pacr", "name": "Project assessment conclusions report", "type": "decision", "body": "tnsp", "summary": "Final stage of the regulatory investment test, concluding which option maximises net market benefit.", "legal_basis": "National Electricity Rules, clause 5.16A.4", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 521, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "padr" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Transgrid, HumeLink Project Assessment Conclusions Report, 29 July 2021, https://www.transgrid.com.au/media/rxancvmx/transgrid-humelink-pacr.pdf, accessed 2026-11-09", "Cost benefit analysis guidelines (Version 3, November 2024), Australian Energy Regulator, section 4.5.3, https://www.aer.gov.au/system/files/2025-05/AER%20-%20Cost%20Benefit%20Analysis%20guidelines%20-%202024%20-%20Version%203.pdf, accessed 2026-11-09" ] }, { "id": "cpa", "name": "Contingent project application and revenue determination", "type": "decision", "body": "aer", "summary": "The transmission business applies to recover the project's capital expenditure from consumers.", "legal_basis": "National Electricity Rules, clause 6A.8.2", "statutory_clock_days": 56, "typical_days": 224, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "pacr" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Transgrid - HumeLink contingent project - stage 2, Australian Energy Regulator, https://www.aer.gov.au/industry/networks/contingent-projects/transgrid-humelink-contingent-project-stage-2, accessed 2026-11-09" ] }, { "id": "route", "name": "Route selection and landholder engagement", "type": "application", "body": "tnsp", "summary": "Refine the corridor, negotiate access for survey, and begin easement negotiations with affected landholders.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 540, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "pacr" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "epbc", "name": "Commonwealth environmental approval", "type": "decision", "body": "dcceew", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 980, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "route" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "HumeLink (SSI 36656827) Assessment Report, NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, October 2024, section 4.10, https://transgrid.com.au/media/wf4pmmx3/assessment-report.pdf, accessed 2026-11-09", "EPBC Act notices of decisions, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Commonwealth Gazette C2025G00007, https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2025G00007/asmade/2025-01-08/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_1/document_1.html, accessed 2026-11-09" ] }, { "id": "state_planning", "name": "State planning approval and environmental assessment", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-planning-ssd", "summary": "Assessment as state significant infrastructure, including environmental impact statement, exhibition and submissions.", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), Division 5.2", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1000, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "route" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "HumeLink (SSI 36656827) Notice of decision, NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, 13 November 2024, https://transgrid.com.au/media/sznhr0ar/notice-of-determination.pdf, accessed 2026-11-09", "HumeLink (SSI 36656827) Assessment Report, NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, October 2024, https://transgrid.com.au/media/wf4pmmx3/assessment-report.pdf, accessed 2026-11-09", "Transgrid, HumeLink Guide to the Environmental Impact Statement, August 2023, https://www.transgrid.com.au/media/irkhizrt/guide-to-the-environmental-impact-statement-eis-august-2023.pdf, accessed 2026-11-09" ] }, { "id": "easement", "name": "Easement acquisition", "type": "registration", "body": "tnsp", "summary": "Acquire the easements the corridor requires, by agreement or compulsorily.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 540, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "state_planning" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "construction", "name": "Construction and commissioning", "type": "application", "body": "tnsp", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 900, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "easement", "epbc", "cpa" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-urban-transport-capital": { "name": "A state obtains Commonwealth capital for an urban public transport project", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "infrastructure", "scale": "One major urban public transport project above the Infrastructure Australia evaluation threshold", "comparison_key": "capital-funding", "summary": "The business case and the construction are both excluded here. What is left is the Commonwealth decision chain \u2014 and its longest single wait is waiting for a Budget. At the end of it, the Commonwealth has paid for a structure and nobody has paid for a service.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 6, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 480, "critical_path": [ "ia_submission", "ia_evaluation", "budget", "funding_agreement", "first_payment" ], "serial_days": 480, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "scheduling": 180, "assessment": 150, "third_party": 120, "applicant": 30 }, "addressable_days": 180, "addressable_pct": 38, "slack": { "ia_submission": 450, "ia_evaluation": 330, "budget": 150, "funding_agreement": 30, "first_payment": 0, "services": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 17 }, "steps": [ { "id": "ia_submission", "name": "Submit the business case to Infrastructure Australia", "type": "application", "body": "infrastructure-australia", "summary": "Proposals seeking more than $250 million in Commonwealth funding are submitted for evaluation.", "legal_basis": "Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "Infrastructure Australia evaluates proposals that are nationally significant or where a government is seeking Commonwealth investment of more than $250 million, raised from a previous threshold of $100 million; all states and territories advocated for the change" ] }, { "id": "ia_evaluation", "name": "Infrastructure Australia evaluation", "type": "assessment", "body": "infrastructure-australia", "summary": "Independent assessment of the proposal's strategic fit, deliverability and economic case.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "ia_submission" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "budget", "name": "Commonwealth Budget decision", "type": "decision", "body": "infrastructure-dept", "summary": "A funding commitment is made in a Budget. Budgets happen once a year.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "ia_evaluation" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "funding_agreement", "name": "Project funding agreement executed", "type": "registration", "body": "infrastructure-dept", "summary": "A project schedule under the Federation Funding Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "budget" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [ "Federation Funding Agreement Schedule on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects 2024-2029, in effect 11 August 2024" ] }, { "id": "first_payment", "name": "First milestone payment", "type": "registration", "body": "infrastructure-dept", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "funding_agreement" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "services", "name": "Services run on the completed asset", "type": "registration", "body": "state-transport-agency", "summary": "The Commonwealth's involvement ends at construction. The recurrent cost of running the service begins here and does not end.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "first_payment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-vet-loan-provider-approval": { "name": "A training provider is approved to originate Commonwealth student debt", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "education", "scale": "One private registered training organisation seeking approval to offer income-contingent loans to its students", "comparison_key": "provider-registration", "summary": "Two gates, asking two different questions: is the training any good, and is this organisation fit to put a debt on a student's tax file. Between 2012 and 2016 the second question was, in practice, not asked.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 7, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 780, "critical_path": [ "rto_registered", "vsl_application", "fit_and_proper", "approval" ], "serial_days": 780, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "assessment": 690, "queue": 60, "applicant": 30 }, "addressable_days": 60, "addressable_pct": 8, "slack": { "rto_registered": 210, "vsl_application": 180, "fit_and_proper": 60, "course_list": 180, "approval": 0, "conditions": 0, "lending": 0 }, "sourced": 4, "sourced_pct": 57 }, "steps": [ { "id": "rto_registered", "name": "Registered as a training organisation", "type": "registration", "body": "asqa", "summary": "Gate one, asked by the training regulator: can this organisation deliver and assess training to the national standard?", "legal_basis": "National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 570, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "vsl_application", "name": "Apply to become an approved VET Student Loans provider", "type": "application", "body": "dewr", "summary": "A separate application, to a separate body, asking a separate question. Accepted at any time \u2014 no window.", "legal_basis": "VET Student Loans Act 2016 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "rto_registered" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "VET Student Loans Act 2016 (Cth) and VET Student Loans Rules 2016: an organisation must be approved as a VET student loans provider; RTO registration is a precondition and not a qualification", "DEWR: the department accepts applications from providers to become an approved VSL provider at any time" ] }, { "id": "fit_and_proper", "name": "Fitness and financial viability assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "dewr", "summary": "Financial viability, fit and proper person tests, student completion rates, and links to industry and employment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "vsl_application" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "DEWR: the criteria providers must meet include financial viability, fit and proper person tests, student completion rates, and links to industry and employment" ] }, { "id": "course_list", "name": "Courses confirmed on the approved course list", "type": "assessment", "body": "dewr", "summary": "Loans are available only for courses on a determined list, at diploma level and above.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "vsl_application" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "VET Student Loans (Courses and Loan Caps) Determination 2016: loans are available only for approved courses at diploma, advanced diploma, graduate certificate and graduate diploma level, with a smaller number of courses approved only for specified listed and not-for-profit providers" ] }, { "id": "approval", "name": "Approved as a VET Student Loans provider", "type": "decision", "body": "dewr", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fit_and_proper", "course_list" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "conditions", "name": "Ongoing conditions attach", "type": "certification", "body": "dewr", "summary": "Loan caps, census dates, progressive payment, and evidence that the student is actually engaged in the course.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "VET Student Loans (Courses and Loan Caps) Determination 2016: loan caps apply by course", "VET Student Loans Act 2016 (Cth): payment in instalments against census days and student engagement requirements", "VET Student Loans (Charges) Act 2016 (Cth): an annual approved course provider charge may be imposed on providers" ] }, { "id": "lending", "name": "Provider may originate Commonwealth student debt", "type": "registration", "body": "ato", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "conditions" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-vet-student-loan": { "name": "Student obtains a VET Student Loan and incurs a debt", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "education", "scale": "A student seeking income-contingent loan support for a vocational qualification", "comparison_key": "student-finance", "summary": "A scheme built out of the wreckage of VET FEE-HELP, and built well. Its gates are deliberate and mostly defensible. Its boundary is the finding: nothing below diploma level is covered, which is where most of the workforce shortages are.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 8, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 444, "critical_path": [ "course_on_list", "provider_approved", "suitability", "enrol", "census", "loan_cap", "debt" ], "serial_days": 444, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "statutory": 365, "assessment": 51, "applicant": 28 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "course_on_list": 437, "provider_approved": 430, "suitability": 409, "enrol": 395, "census": 30, "loan_cap": 30, "debt": 0, "reduction": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 38 }, "steps": [ { "id": "course_on_list", "name": "Check the course is on the approved list", "type": "assessment", "body": "dewr", "summary": "VET Student Loans are available only for courses specified in the determination, at diploma level and above.", "legal_basis": "VET Student Loans (Courses and Loan Caps) Determination 2016", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "VET Student Loans (Courses and Loan Caps) Determination 2016: diploma, advanced diploma, graduate certificate and graduate diploma only" ] }, { "id": "provider_approved", "name": "Check the provider is approved to offer loans", "type": "assessment", "body": "dewr", "summary": "Loans are available only through providers that have met approval criteria and meet ongoing reporting requirements.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "course_on_list" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "suitability", "name": "Academic suitability assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "The provider formally assesses the student's capacity to undertake and complete the course.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "provider_approved" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "enrol", "name": "Enrol and apply for the loan", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "suitability" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "census", "name": "Census dates and progressive debt", "type": "registration", "body": "dewr", "summary": "The loan is incurred in instalments at census dates through the course, not in a lump sum at enrolment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "enrol" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "loan_cap", "name": "Loan cap applied", "type": "decision", "body": "dewr", "summary": "The loan is limited to the lesser of the course cap and the student's remaining HELP balance.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "census" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "DEWR: maximum loan amounts of $6,278, $12,557 and $18,838 by course band" ] }, { "id": "debt", "name": "Debt recorded and repaid through the tax system", "type": "registration", "body": "ato", "summary": "The debt is held by the ATO and repaid income-contingently.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "loan_cap" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "reduction", "name": "Twenty per cent reduction applied", "type": "decision", "body": "ato", "summary": "The 2025 reduction applied to balances as at 1 June 2025, automatically.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "debt" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Universities Accord (Cutting Student Debt by 20 per cent) Act 2025; DEWR: the ATO applies the reduction with no action required by the individual" ] } ] }, "au-vfh-debt-remedy": { "name": "Former VET FEE-HELP student seeks removal of an unfair debt", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "education", "scale": "A person carrying a VET FEE-HELP debt incurred through a provider's inappropriate conduct", "comparison_key": "remedy-access", "summary": "A remedy that ran from 1 January 2019 and closed on 31 December 2023. Individuals had to know it existed and apply, through the VET Student Loans Ombudsman; the law also let the department remove debts on its own initiative, and it did so for whole cohorts of students at more than 30 providers. The scheme it remedied was built on targeting people who did not know what they were signing.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 6, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 785, "critical_path": [ "awareness", "records", "apply", "assess", "decision", "ato_adjust" ], "serial_days": 785, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 395, "queue": 180, "third_party": 120, "assessment": 90 }, "addressable_days": 180, "addressable_pct": 23, "slack": { "awareness": 420, "records": 300, "apply": 270, "assess": 90, "decision": 30, "ato_adjust": 0 }, "sourced": 0, "sourced_pct": 0 }, "steps": [ { "id": "awareness", "name": "Learn that the remedy exists", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "The person discovers that debts incurred through provider misconduct can be removed.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "records", "name": "Assemble evidence of enrolment and conduct", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Enrolment records, communications with the provider or its agent, and evidence of what was represented.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "awareness" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "apply", "name": "Apply for re-credit", "type": "application", "body": "commonwealth-ombudsman", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) Sch 1A cl 46AA(3), (10)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "records" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assess", "name": "Departmental assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "commonwealth-ombudsman", "summary": "The VET Student Loans Ombudsman assesses whether the provider or its agent engaged in inappropriate conduct towards the student and recommends re-credit to the department.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "apply" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Decision and debt removal", "type": "decision", "body": "dewr", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) Sch 1A cl 46AA(1), (4)-(8)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "assess" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "ato_adjust", "name": "ATO adjusts the debt", "type": "registration", "body": "ato", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "au-water-infrastructure-funding": { "name": "A water infrastructure project reaches construction funding", "jurisdiction": "au", "category": "infrastructure", "scale": "One regional dam, weir or pipeline seeking Commonwealth capital under the National Water Grid Fund", "comparison_key": "capital-funding", "summary": "Three business cases in series, each gating the next, then a construction commitment. The framework is sequenced the way this site would design it. What goes wrong happens outside the framework, before it starts.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 8, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 1990, "critical_path": [ "feasibility", "prelim_bc", "detailed_bc", "commitment", "state_approvals" ], "serial_days": 2720, "concurrency_saving": 730, "wait_profile": { "assessment": 1810, "scheduling": 180 }, "addressable_days": 180, "addressable_pct": 9, "slack": { "feasibility": 1625, "prelim_bc": 1260, "detailed_bc": 720, "commitment": 540, "state_approvals": 0, "epbc": 175, "entitlement": 175, "construction_start": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 38 }, "steps": [ { "id": "feasibility", "name": "Feasibility or research study", "type": "assessment", "body": "national-water-grid", "summary": "Funded under the Science Program at up to 50 per cent or more where there is demonstrated need.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [ "National Water Grid Investment Framework: potential funding of up to 50 per cent or more for feasibility and research studies where there is a demonstrated need" ] }, { "id": "prelim_bc", "name": "Preliminary business case", "type": "assessment", "body": "national-water-grid", "summary": "Required before a detailed business case proposal can be made.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "feasibility" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "National Water Grid Investment Framework: up to 50 per cent funding for developing a preliminary business case; a preliminary business case is required to support detailed business case proposals" ] }, { "id": "detailed_bc", "name": "Detailed business case", "type": "assessment", "body": "national-water-grid", "summary": "Required before a construction proposal can be made. This is the gate.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 540, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "prelim_bc" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "National Water Grid Investment Framework: up to 50 per cent funding for developing a detailed business case; a detailed business case is required to support construction proposals" ] }, { "id": "commitment", "name": "Commonwealth construction funding commitment", "type": "decision", "body": "national-water-grid", "summary": "Up to 50 per cent of total capital costs. Committed through the Budget, on an annual cycle.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "detailed_bc" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "state_approvals", "name": "State planning and environmental approval", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "State assessment of the dam, weir or pipeline and its inundation footprint.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 540, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "commitment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "epbc", "name": "EPBC assessment and approval", "type": "assessment", "body": "dcceew", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "commitment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "entitlement", "name": "Water entitlement secured for the project", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-water-authority", "summary": "A dam is a container. The water that goes in it has to come from somewhere, and in most Australian systems it is already spoken for.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "commitment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Many Australian surface water and groundwater systems were fully or over allocated by the 1980s", "The Murray-Darling Cap, introduced by the Ministerial Council in June 1995, limits irrigation diversions to the volume that would have been diverted under 1993/94 levels of development; Sustainable Diversion Limits under the Basin Plan 2012 came into effect in 2019" ] }, { "id": "construction_start", "name": "Construction may commence", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "state_approvals", "epbc", "entitlement" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "nsw-aged-care-home": { "name": "Build and open a residential aged care home \u2014 New South Wales", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "category": "aged-care", "scale": "A new residential aged care home of about 120 places, developed by an existing registered provider", "comparison_key": "aged-care-home", "summary": "The same three-tier shape as childcare, with one difference that dominates everything else: the process is not what is stopping these being built. The economics are.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 12, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 1581, "critical_path": [ "feasibility", "design", "lodge", "notification", "assessment", "determination", "construction_certificate", "build", "occupation", "registration", "open" ], "serial_days": 1821, "concurrency_saving": 240, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 1155, "assessment": 330, "scheduling": 75, "statutory": 21 }, "addressable_days": 75, "addressable_pct": 5, "slack": { "feasibility": 1311, "design": 1071, "lodge": 1066, "notification": 1045, "assessment": 895, "determination": 850, "construction_certificate": 790, "build": 150, "occupation": 120, "registration": 30, "staffing": 610, "open": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 8 }, "steps": [ { "id": "feasibility", "name": "Site selection and financial feasibility", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Identify a site, model the accommodation payment and subsidy revenue against construction and operating cost.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 270, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "design", "name": "Design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural documentation meeting the aged care design and accommodation requirements, plus traffic, acoustic and access reports.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 240, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "feasibility" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 5, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Neighbour notification and submissions", "type": "notification", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 14, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Council assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 150, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "notification" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "determination", "name": "Determination", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "construction_certificate", "name": "Construction certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "determination" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "build", "name": "Construction and fit-out", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 640, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "construction_certificate" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "occupation", "name": "Occupation certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "build" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "registration", "name": "Provider registration, or variation to add the service", "type": "registration", "body": "acqsc", "summary": "Registration in the applicable category under the Aged Care Act 2024, or a variation for an existing registered provider.", "legal_basis": "Aged Care Act 2024 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "occupation" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "staffing", "name": "Recruit to the care minute and registered nurse requirements", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Staff to the sector-wide target of 215 care minutes per resident per day including 44 registered nurse minutes, and the 24/7 registered nurse requirement.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 240, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "determination" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Sector-wide target of 215 care minutes per resident per day including 44 registered nurse minutes from 1 October 2024; 24/7 registered nurse requirement" ] }, { "id": "open", "name": "Open and admit residents", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "registration", "staffing" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "nsw-apartments-hda": { "name": "Build a multi storey apartment building via the Housing Delivery Authority \u2014 New South Wales", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "category": "development", "scale": "Class 2 residential apartment building meeting the capital investment threshold for declaration as state significant development", "comparison_key": "apartment-development", "summary": "The same building as the council pathway, assessed by a different body under a different procedure. This is the closest thing Australian planning has to a controlled experiment, and it is running right now at scale.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 17, "bodies": 5, "critical_path_days": 1048, "critical_path": [ "eoi", "hda_meeting", "declaration", "design", "eis", "lodge", "exhibition", "submissions", "assessment", "determination", "building_approval", "dbp_declarations", "inspections", "completion", "subdivision", "registration" ], "serial_days": 1093, "concurrency_saving": 45, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 560, "assessment": 270, "scheduling": 100, "queue": 90, "statutory": 28 }, "addressable_days": 190, "addressable_pct": 18, "slack": { "eoi": 1018, "hda_meeting": 973, "declaration": 943, "design": 643, "sears": 898, "eis": 493, "lodge": 488, "exhibition": 460, "submissions": 415, "assessment": 295, "determination": 265, "building_approval": 190, "dbp_declarations": 160, "inspections": 135, "completion": 90, "subdivision": 30, "registration": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 6 }, "steps": [ { "id": "eoi", "name": "Expression of interest to the Housing Delivery Authority", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-hda", "summary": "The proponent asks to be moved out of the council pathway.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "hda_meeting", "name": "Housing Delivery Authority considers the proposal", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-hda", "summary": "A panel of senior officials considers proposals in batches and recommends declaration.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "eoi" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "declaration", "name": "Ministerial declaration as state significant development", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-hda", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "State Environmental Planning Policy (Planning Systems) 2021 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "hda_meeting" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural, civil, traffic, waste, landscape, stormwater and acoustic documentation, plus a design statement.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 300, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "declaration" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "sears", "name": "Secretary's environmental assessment requirements", "type": "referral", "body": "nsw-planning-ssd", "summary": "The department sets what must be addressed, after consulting the council and the relevant agencies.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "declaration" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "eis", "name": "Prepare the environmental impact statement", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 150, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "sears", "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the application", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-planning-ssd", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 5, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "eis" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "exhibition", "name": "Public exhibition", "type": "notification", "body": "nsw-planning-ssd", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "submissions", "name": "Response to submissions", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "exhibition" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Departmental assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-planning-ssd", "summary": "One body assesses against the planning rules, having already gathered agency advice through the assessment requirements.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "submissions" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "determination", "name": "Determination", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-planning-ssd", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), s 4.38", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the construction certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 75, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "determination" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "dbp_declarations", "name": "Lodge regulated designs and compliance declarations", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "NSW Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 and Regulation 2021, regulated design and compliance declaration requirements" ] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 25, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "dbp_declarations" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the occupation certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "subdivision", "name": "Obtain the strata certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "Strata certification returns to the council regardless of who granted consent.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "completion" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "registration", "name": "Register the plan of strata", "type": "registration", "body": "nsw-titles", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "subdivision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "nsw-apartments": { "name": "Build a multi storey apartment building \u2014 New South Wales", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "category": "development", "scale": "Class 2 residential apartment building, multi storey, site already held", "comparison_key": "apartment-development", "summary": "The longest pathway in the database: design review, a Class 2 building under the National Construction Code, fire engineering, extended referrals, and strata registration at the end.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 19, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 870, "critical_path": [ "design", "design_review", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "referrals", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "dbp_declarations", "inspections", "completion", "subdivision", "registration" ], "serial_days": 912, "concurrency_saving": 42, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 334, "assessment": 240, "queue": 181, "scheduling": 115 }, "addressable_days": 296, "addressable_pct": 34, "slack": { "design": 570, "design_review": 525, "fire_engineering": 525, "lodge": 522, "fee": 521, "adequacy": 500, "notification": 472, "referrals": 430, "assessment": 310, "rfi": 220, "decision": 265, "appeal_window": 237, "contributions": 251, "building_approval": 190, "dbp_declarations": 160, "inspections": 135, "completion": 90, "subdivision": 30, "registration": 0 }, "sourced": 2, "sourced_pct": 11 }, "steps": [ { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural, civil, traffic, waste, landscape, stormwater and acoustic documentation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 300, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "design_review", "name": "Design review panel", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "An independent panel reviews the design against the applicable apartment design standards.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "fire_engineering", "name": "Fire engineering performance solution", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Where the design departs from the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the National Construction Code for a Class 2 building.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design", "design_review" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "New South Wales published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Public notification and submissions", "type": "notification", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "Traffic, engineering, waste, landscape, heritage and state agency referrals, each responding separately.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 70, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy", "notification", "referrals" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of development consent", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "appeal_window", "name": "Third party appeal period", "type": "appeal", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated window in which a submitter may seek review of the decision.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contributions", "name": "Pay development contributions", "type": "fee", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the construction certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 75, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "dbp_declarations", "name": "Lodge regulated designs and compliance declarations", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "Registered design practitioners must prepare and declare every regulated design, lodged on the NSW Planning Portal before the work it covers is built.", "legal_basis": "Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "NSW Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 and Regulation 2021, regulated design and compliance declaration requirements" ] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 25, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "dbp_declarations" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the occupation certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "subdivision", "name": "Obtain the strata certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "Authorises registration of the plan creating separate titles. Cannot begin until the works are complete and certified.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "completion" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "registration", "name": "Register the plan of strata", "type": "registration", "body": "nsw-titles", "summary": "The land registry records the plan and issues the new titles.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "subdivision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "nsw-buy-land-build-house": { "name": "Buy land and build a single storey house \u2014 New South Wales", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "category": "development", "scale": "Vacant residential lot, one single storey detached dwelling", "comparison_key": "buy-land-and-build-house", "summary": "From choosing a lot to occupying the finished house: purchase, settlement, title, design, development consent, construction certificate and occupation certificate.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 21, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 305, "critical_path": [ "find_lot", "contract", "finance", "settlement", "title_registration", "design", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion" ], "serial_days": 334, "concurrency_saving": 29, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 131, "assessment": 85, "third_party": 77, "queue": 7, "scheduling": 5 }, "addressable_days": 12, "addressable_pct": 4, "slack": { "find_lot": 245, "contract": 238, "cooling_off": 231, "finance": 217, "due_diligence": 217, "duty": 237, "settlement": 175, "title_registration": 161, "design": 101, "lodge": 98, "fee": 97, "adequacy": 90, "notification": 76, "referrals": 62, "assessment": 50, "rfi": 5, "decision": 40, "building_approval": 19, "inspections": 14, "completion": 0, "connections": 0 }, "sourced": 4, "sourced_pct": 19 }, "steps": [ { "id": "find_lot", "name": "Find and select a lot", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Search, inspect and choose a site. Entirely the buyer's own time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contract", "name": "Sign the contract of sale", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Contracts are exchanged or signed and the deposit is paid.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "find_lot" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "cooling_off", "name": "Statutory cooling-off period", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "7 calendar days (approx) in which the buyer may rescind.", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": 7, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Comparative state-by-state guides to contract cooling-off periods, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "finance", "name": "Unconditional finance approval", "type": "referral", "body": "", "summary": "The lender values the property and confirms the loan.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "due_diligence", "name": "Title, planning and site searches", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Title search, planning certificate, contour and soil classification survey.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "duty", "name": "Pay transfer duty", "type": "fee", "body": "", "summary": "Stamp duty on the transfer, payable to the state revenue office.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "settlement", "name": "Settlement period", "type": "registration", "body": "nsw-titles", "summary": "Customarily 42 days from contract to settlement in this jurisdiction.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 42, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "cooling_off", "finance", "due_diligence", "duty" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Comparative state-by-state conveyancing settlement guides, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "title_registration", "name": "Transfer of title registered", "type": "registration", "body": "nsw-titles", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "settlement" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural plans, siting, and a thermal performance assessment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "title_registration" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "New South Wales published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Neighbour notification", "type": "notification", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "Not generally required for a compliant single dwelling; triggered by variations to siting or height standards.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "Triggered by site-specific matters such as heritage, bushfire, flooding or a classified road frontage.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": 40, "typical_days": 40, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "NSW published development assessment guidance: most determinations within about 40 days, statutory range 21-90 days" ] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of development consent", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 10, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the construction certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 5, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the occupation certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "connections", "name": "Utility connections", "type": "referral", "body": "", "summary": "Water, sewer, power and telecommunications connections.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "nsw-childcare-centre": { "name": "Open a long day care centre \u2014 New South Wales", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "category": "childcare", "scale": "A purpose-built long day care centre of about 100 places on a site in a residential or mixed-use zone", "comparison_key": "childcare-supply", "summary": "Three tiers of government, each with a gate. The Commonwealth expanded demand on a fixed date; supply passes through a council development consent and two state approvals, on no particular timetable.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 16, "bodies": 4, "critical_path_days": 1000, "critical_path": [ "site", "specialist_reports", "lodge", "notification", "assessment", "determination", "construction_certificate", "build", "occupation", "service_approval", "ccs_approval", "open" ], "serial_days": 1180, "concurrency_saving": 180, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 589, "assessment": 285, "queue": 60, "scheduling": 45, "statutory": 21 }, "addressable_days": 105, "addressable_pct": 10, "slack": { "site": 820, "specialist_reports": 730, "lodge": 725, "notification": 704, "assessment": 584, "determination": 539, "appeal": 239, "construction_certificate": 494, "build": 194, "occupation": 164, "provider_approval": 479, "service_approval": 74, "ccs_approval": 14, "staffing": 419, "open": 0, "assessment_rating": 0 }, "sourced": 2, "sourced_pct": 12 }, "steps": [ { "id": "site", "name": "Site selection, feasibility and design", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Find a site that is zoned for the use, will fit the required indoor and outdoor space per place, and can be serviced by parking and access.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "specialist_reports", "name": "Acoustic, traffic and plan of management reports", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Noise assessment of children at play, traffic and parking assessment, and an operational plan of management.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "site" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 5, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "specialist_reports" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Neighbour notification and submissions", "type": "notification", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 14, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Council assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "Assessment against the planning controls and the applicable child care planning guideline.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "notification" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "determination", "name": "Determination", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "appeal", "name": "Merits appeal to the Land and Environment Court", "type": "appeal", "body": "", "summary": "Where consent is refused, the applicant may seek review on the merits.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 300, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "determination" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "construction_certificate", "name": "Construction certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "determination" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "build", "name": "Construction and fit-out", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 300, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "construction_certificate" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "occupation", "name": "Occupation certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "build" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "provider_approval", "name": "Provider approval", "type": "registration", "body": "nsw-ecec-regulator", "summary": "Assessment of whether the provider is fit and proper to operate an education and care service.", "legal_basis": "Education and Care Services National Law", "statutory_clock_days": 60, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "determination" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "Education and Care Services National Law -- 60 day decision period for provider approval" ] }, { "id": "service_approval", "name": "Service approval", "type": "registration", "body": "nsw-ecec-regulator", "summary": "Assessment of the specific premises, including layout, space, fencing, and the nominated supervisor.", "legal_basis": "Education and Care Services National Law", "statutory_clock_days": 90, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "occupation", "provider_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "Education and Care Services National Law -- 90 day decision period for service approval" ] }, { "id": "ccs_approval", "name": "Child Care Subsidy provider approval", "type": "registration", "body": "education-au", "summary": "Commonwealth approval under Family Assistance Law so that families attending the service can receive the subsidy.", "legal_basis": "A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "service_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "staffing", "name": "Recruit qualified educators and an early childhood teacher", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Meet the qualification and ratio requirements, including the early childhood teacher requirement.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "determination" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "open", "name": "Open", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "ccs_approval", "staffing" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment_rating", "name": "Assessment and rating against the National Quality Standard", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-ecec-regulator", "summary": "The regulatory authority assesses and rates the operating service.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "open" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "nsw-disaster-recovery": { "name": "Household affected by a declared disaster obtains assistance and rebuilds", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "category": "justice", "scale": "A household whose home is damaged or destroyed in a flood or bushfire, in an area activated under the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements", "comparison_key": "scheme-access", "summary": "Nothing is a standing entitlement. Assistance is switched on per disaster, per local government area, per category \u2014 and in 2026 it was repeatedly extended to further areas after the fact, which means people with identical damage were treated differently for a period because of a boundary.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 9, "bodies": 5, "critical_path_days": 751, "critical_path": [ "insurance_claim", "assessment", "planning", "rebuild" ], "serial_days": 786, "concurrency_saving": 35, "wait_profile": { "third_party": 400, "assessment": 330, "applicant": 21 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "event": 751, "activation": 737, "agdrp": 716, "dra": 716, "insurance_claim": 730, "assessment": 580, "planning": 400, "rebuild": 0, "interim_housing": 691 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 11 }, "steps": [ { "id": "event", "name": "The disaster", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "activation", "name": "Commonwealth assistance activated for the area", "type": "decision", "body": "nema", "summary": "A determination switching on assistance for a named disaster, named local government areas, and named categories.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "event" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Services Australia AGDRP activations by disaster and local government area through 2026; ministerial announcements extending assistance to further areas" ] }, { "id": "agdrp", "name": "Claim the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment", "type": "application", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "A one-off payment for people adversely affected, claimed within the allowed period after activation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "activation" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "dra", "name": "Claim the Disaster Recovery Allowance", "type": "application", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "Short-term income support for people who lose income as a direct result of the disaster.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "activation" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "insurance_claim", "name": "Lodge the insurance claim", "type": "application", "body": "general-insurer", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "event" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Insurer assessment and settlement", "type": "assessment", "body": "general-insurer", "summary": "Damage assessed, liability determined, and scope of works agreed.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 150, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "insurance_claim" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "planning", "name": "Development approval to rebuild", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "Consent to rebuild, assessed against controls that may have changed since the house was built.", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rebuild", "name": "Rebuild", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 400, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "planning" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "interim_housing", "name": "Find somewhere to live in the meantime", "type": "application", "body": "homes-nsw", "summary": "Temporary accommodation, private rental, or an application to the housing register.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "event" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "nsw-drivers-licence": { "name": "Get a car driver licence \u2014 New South Wales", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "category": "personal-licensing", "scale": "Class C (car) licence, applicant under 25, no prior licence", "comparison_key": "car-drivers-licence", "summary": "Four years and one month from first knowledge test to full licence, of which almost all is legislated waiting rather than administration.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 10, "bodies": 1, "critical_path_days": 1513, "critical_path": [ "knowledge_test", "learner_licence", "hold_period", "book_test", "driving_test", "p1", "p2", "full_licence" ], "serial_days": 1879, "concurrency_saving": 366, "wait_profile": { "statutory": 1460, "scheduling": 49, "assessment": 3, "applicant": 1 }, "addressable_days": 49, "addressable_pct": 3, "slack": { "knowledge_test": 1512, "learner_licence": 1511, "hold_period": 1146, "supervised_hours": 1146, "hpt": 1510, "book_test": 1097, "driving_test": 1096, "p1": 731, "p2": 1, "full_licence": 0 }, "sourced": 10, "sourced_pct": 100 }, "steps": [ { "id": "knowledge_test", "name": "Driver Knowledge Test (DKT)", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-licensing", "summary": "Book and sit the road rules knowledge test. Usually same-day at a service centre.", "legal_basis": "Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Transport for NSW / NSW Government, published driver licence requirements, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "learner_licence", "name": "Learner licence issued", "type": "registration", "body": "nsw-licensing", "summary": "Issued on passing the knowledge and eyesight tests. Minimum age 16.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "knowledge_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Transport for NSW / NSW Government, published driver licence requirements, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "hold_period", "name": "Minimum learner licence period (12 months)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated period that must elapse before the practical test, regardless of how ready the applicant is.", "legal_basis": "Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": 365, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "learner_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Transport for NSW / NSW Government, published driver licence requirements, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "supervised_hours", "name": "Log 120 supervised driving hours, including 20 at night", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Accumulated by the applicant with a supervising driver and recorded in a logbook.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "learner_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Transport for NSW / NSW Government, published driver licence requirements, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "hpt", "name": "Hazard Perception Test", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-licensing", "summary": "A computer-based test of the ability to recognise developing hazards. Increasingly available online.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "learner_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Transport for NSW / NSW Government, published driver licence requirements, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "book_test", "name": "Book and wait for a practical test appointment", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "The applicant is ready and the file is complete. What remains is waiting for an examiner appointment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 49, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "hold_period", "supervised_hours", "hpt" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "ABC News, 'NSW L-platers face lengthy wait times to sit their driving tests amid record-high demand', 18 August 2025" ] }, { "id": "driving_test", "name": "Practical driving test", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-licensing", "summary": "An on-road assessment of driving competence by an examiner.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "book_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Transport for NSW / NSW Government, published driver licence requirements, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "p1", "name": "P1 provisional period (12 months)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated minimum period on a restricted licence before progression.", "legal_basis": "Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": 365, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "driving_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Transport for NSW / NSW Government, published driver licence requirements, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "p2", "name": "P2 provisional period (24 months)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated minimum period on a restricted licence before progression.", "legal_basis": "Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": 730, "typical_days": 730, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "p1" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Transport for NSW / NSW Government, published driver licence requirements, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "full_licence", "name": "Full (unrestricted) licence issued", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "p2" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Transport for NSW / NSW Government, published driver licence requirements, accessed 2026-08-30" ] } ] }, "nsw-dwelling-cdc": { "name": "Build a single house \u2014 NSW, complying development certificate", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "category": "development", "scale": "Single detached dwelling on an existing lot", "comparison_key": "single-dwelling", "summary": "The fast path for the same physical house: a registered certifier checks the design against fixed codes and issues a certificate. No merit assessment, no neighbour submissions, no determination meeting.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 7, "bodies": 1, "critical_path_days": 79, "critical_path": [ "prepare", "engage", "cdc", "notice", "inspections", "oc" ], "serial_days": 81, "concurrency_saving": 2, "wait_profile": { "assessment": 34, "applicant": 33, "statutory": 7, "scheduling": 5 }, "addressable_days": 5, "addressable_pct": 6, "slack": { "prepare": 49, "engage": 46, "notice": 15, "cdc": 22, "appoint_pc": 20, "inspections": 10, "oc": 0 }, "sourced": 2, "sourced_pct": 29 }, "steps": [ { "id": "prepare", "name": "Prepare plans to the code", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Design must comply with every applicable development standard; a single non-compliance sends the project back to the merit pathway.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "engage", "name": "Engage a registered certifier", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "Any registered certifier may be engaged. This is the structural difference from the DA pathway: a market rather than a single queue.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "prepare" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notice", "name": "Notice to neighbours before work starts", "type": "notification", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "After the certificate is issued, neighbours within 20 metres of the lot boundary are given written notice before any work commences. There is no submission period that can alter the outcome.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 7, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "cdc" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "What to tell your neighbours (updated 23 March 2026), NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/the-planning-system/development-assessment/planning-approval-pathways/complying-development/what-to-tell-your-neighbours, accessed 2026-11-09" ] }, { "id": "cdc", "name": "Assessment against the codes and issue of the certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "A compliance check against fixed standards rather than a judgement on the merits.", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": 20, "typical_days": 24, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "engage" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Planning performance (complying development certificates, Dwelling House (CDC) average assessment days), NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/data-and-resources/planning-performance, accessed 2026-11-09", "Complying development (updated 26 June 2026), NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/the-planning-system/development-assessment/planning-approval-pathways/complying-development, accessed 2026-11-09" ] }, { "id": "appoint_pc", "name": "Appoint principal certifier", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 2, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "cdc" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory critical stage inspections", "type": "inspection", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 5, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "appoint_pc", "notice" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "oc", "name": "Occupation certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 10, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "nsw-dwelling-da": { "name": "Build a single house \u2014 NSW, merit-assessed development application", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "category": "development", "scale": "Single detached dwelling on an existing lot", "comparison_key": "single-dwelling", "summary": "The standard path: a development application is lodged with the consent authority, an officer assesses it on the merits, and consent is granted before separate certificates authorise construction and occupation. Since 1 September 2026 a house of up to two storeys that needs no height or floor space variation is generally not publicly exhibited.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 14, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 140, "critical_path": [ "prepare", "lodge", "adequacy", "fee", "assess", "determine", "cc", "appoint_pc", "inspections", "oc" ], "serial_days": 140, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "assessment": 65, "applicant": 50, "scheduling": 19, "queue": 6 }, "addressable_days": 25, "addressable_pct": 18, "slack": { "pre_lodgement": 119, "prepare": 95, "lodge": 94, "fee": 87, "adequacy": 88, "notify": 73, "referral": 59, "assess": 43, "rfi": 13, "determine": 29, "cc": 8, "appoint_pc": 5, "inspections": 0, "oc": 0 }, "sourced": 2, "sourced_pct": 14 }, "steps": [ { "id": "pre_lodgement", "name": "Pre-lodgement advice", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "Optional meeting with council to identify issues before formal lodgement.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "prepare", "name": "Prepare plans and supporting reports", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural plans, site analysis, statement of environmental effects, and whatever specialist reports the site triggers.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "Lodgement is made through the NSW Planning Portal.", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "prepare" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "Council issues an invoice after the adequacy review; the application is formally lodged once the fee is paid.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and adequacy check", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "Council reviews the submitted application for adequacy before invoicing; the application is not formally lodged until this review and payment are complete.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 6, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Council league table (September 2026 snapshot as of 9 October 2026), NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/the-planning-system/housing/faster-assessments-program/council-league-table, accessed 2026-11-09", "Statement of Expectations Order, NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, https://planning.nsw.gov.au/the-planning-system/housing/faster-assessments-program/statement-of-expectations-order, accessed 2026-11-09" ] }, { "id": "notify", "name": "Neighbour notification period", "type": "notification", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "Where exhibition is required, the application is exhibited and neighbours may make submissions during a minimum period.", "legal_basis": "Statewide Community Participation Plan, made under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": 14, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "New statewide public exhibition requirements for development applications (8 September 2026), Mills Oakley, https://www.millsoakley.com.au/insights/new-statewide-public-exhibition-requirements-for-development-applications/, accessed 2026-11-09", "Changes to Development Application Notification, The Hills Shire Council, https://www.thehills.nsw.gov.au/Business-Building/Changes-to-Development-Application-Notification, accessed 2026-11-09", "Statewide Community Participation Plan, NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, https://planning.nsw.gov.au/statewide-community-participation-plan, accessed 2026-11-09" ] }, { "id": "referral", "name": "Referral to external agencies", "type": "referral", "body": "", "summary": "Triggered by site-specific matters such as heritage, bushfire, flooding, or a classified road frontage.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assess", "name": "Merit assessment by planning officer", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "The officer weighs the proposal against the relevant environmental planning instruments and any submissions received.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "fee", "notify" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Request for further information", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assess" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "determine", "name": "Determination", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "Consent granted or refused, by delegated officer or by a panel depending on the category of development.", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "assess" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "cc", "name": "Construction certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "Certifies that the construction drawings are consistent with the consent and comply with the Building Code.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "determine" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "appoint_pc", "name": "Appoint principal certifier", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "cc" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory critical stage inspections", "type": "inspection", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages during construction.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 5, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "appoint_pc" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "oc", "name": "Occupation certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "nsw-energy-rebate": { "name": "Household receives energy bill relief and concession rebates \u2014 New South Wales", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "category": "payments", "scale": "A concession card holding household, compared across direct retail billing and embedded network billing", "comparison_key": "household-payment", "summary": "The same entitlement, delivered two ways. Directly billed customers receive it automatically and cannot miss it. Customers in caravan parks, retirement villages and apartments apply, annually, inside a window.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 9, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 113, "critical_path": [ "rebate_window", "rebate_apply", "rebate_assess", "reconfirm" ], "serial_days": 113, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 42, "scheduling": 41, "assessment": 30 }, "addressable_days": 41, "addressable_pct": 36, "slack": { "commonwealth_credit": 113, "embedded_discover": 53, "embedded_apply": 23, "embedded_assess": 0, "card": 113, "rebate_window": 72, "rebate_apply": 51, "rebate_assess": 21, "reconfirm": 0 }, "sourced": 2, "sourced_pct": 22 }, "steps": [ { "id": "commonwealth_credit", "name": "Commonwealth bill relief applied as a credit", "type": "registration", "body": "energy-retailer", "summary": "The retailer applies the credit to the account. The household does nothing.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "energy.gov.au: Energy Bill Relief Fund applied by retailers as automatic credits for directly billed customers" ] }, { "id": "embedded_discover", "name": "Embedded network customer learns the relief exists", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "A customer billed by a landlord, park owner or body corporate must find out that they are eligible and that they must apply.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "embedded_apply", "name": "Embedded network application through the state portal", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-energy-rebates", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "embedded_discover" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "embedded_assess", "name": "Assessment of the embedded network application", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-energy-rebates", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "embedded_apply" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "card", "name": "Hold a qualifying concession card", "type": "registration", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "A Pensioner Concession Card, Health Care Card, Low Income Health Care Card or Veteran Gold Card.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rebate_window", "name": "Wait for the application window to open", "type": "registration", "body": "nsw-energy-rebates", "summary": "State rebate applications are accepted for a defined period each year.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 41, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "card" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "NSW: 2025-26 Low Income Household Rebate applications closed 30 June 2026; 2026-27 applications opened 10 August 2026" ] }, { "id": "rebate_apply", "name": "Apply for the Low Income Household Rebate", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-energy-rebates", "summary": "Named account holder, valid card, electricity account details.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "rebate_window" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rebate_assess", "name": "Assessment and application of the rebate", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-energy-rebates", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "rebate_apply" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "reconfirm", "name": "Reapply the following year", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-energy-rebates", "summary": "The rebate is annual. A household whose circumstances have not changed applies again.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "rebate_assess" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "nsw-family-violence-support": { "name": "Person leaving family violence obtains protection, income and housing", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "category": "justice", "scale": "A person leaving an intimate partner relationship because of violence, seeking a protection order and the financial and housing support attached to it", "comparison_key": "scheme-access", "summary": "The protection order is nationally recognised \u2014 a genuine reform, done in 2017. What is not shared is the evidence. The same violence is proved separately to a court, a payment provider, Centrelink, a housing authority and an employer.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 8, "bodies": 4, "critical_path_days": 180, "critical_path": [ "safety", "order", "settled" ], "serial_days": 276, "concurrency_saving": 96, "wait_profile": { "assessment": 120, "applicant": 30, "queue": 30 }, "addressable_days": 30, "addressable_pct": 17, "slack": { "safety": 150, "order": 30, "lvp_evidence": 129, "lvp_payment": 99, "crisis_payment": 136, "fv_leave": 143, "housing_priority": 105, "settled": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 38 }, "steps": [ { "id": "safety", "name": "Leave, or plan to leave, safely", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "The decision and the act, which is the period of highest risk.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "order", "name": "Apply for and obtain a protection order", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-local-court", "summary": "An interim and then a final order under state family violence law.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "safety" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lvp_evidence", "name": "Assemble evidence for the Leaving Violence Program", "type": "application", "body": "lvp-provider", "summary": "Evidence of violence and of financial stress.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "safety" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Leaving Violence Program evidence requirements: financial stress, and a referral from a family violence service with risk assessment and safety plan, or an apprehended violence order, court order or police report" ] }, { "id": "lvp_payment", "name": "Leaving Violence Program assessment and payment", "type": "decision", "body": "lvp-provider", "summary": "Up to $5,000 in financial support, with risk assessment, safety planning and referrals.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "lvp_evidence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Leaving Violence Program: up to $5,000, permanent from 1 July 2025, $925 million" ] }, { "id": "crisis_payment", "name": "Crisis payment from Centrelink", "type": "application", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "One week's payment for extreme circumstances including family and domestic violence.", "legal_basis": "Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "safety" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "fv_leave", "name": "Access paid family and domestic violence leave", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Ten days paid leave in a 12 month period, available to all employees.", "legal_basis": "Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "safety" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth): 10 days paid family and domestic violence leave" ] }, { "id": "housing_priority", "name": "Apply for priority housing", "type": "application", "body": "homes-nsw", "summary": "Priority status on the housing register requires evidence of urgent need.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "safety" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "settled", "name": "Protection, income and housing in place", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "The point at which the person has an order, financial support and somewhere to live.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "order", "lvp_payment", "housing_priority" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "nsw-hospital-capital": { "name": "Deliver a new public hospital \u2014 New South Wales", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "category": "health-infrastructure", "scale": "Major hospital redevelopment, capital value above the state's high-risk assurance threshold", "comparison_key": "hospital-capital", "summary": "Most of the calendar here is construction, and that is not red tape. The finding is at the front end: the years between identifying that a hospital is needed and being permitted to start designing it, a large part of which is waiting for a budget round rather than waiting for an answer.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 11, "bodies": 4, "critical_path_days": 2975, "critical_path": [ "service_plan", "strategic_case", "gate_one", "final_case", "gate_two", "budget", "planning_approval", "procurement", "construction", "commissioning" ], "serial_days": 2975, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 1640, "assessment": 1020, "scheduling": 315 }, "addressable_days": 315, "addressable_pct": 11, "slack": { "service_plan": 2705, "strategic_case": 2525, "gate_one": 2465, "final_case": 2100, "gate_two": 2025, "budget": 1845, "planning_approval": 1545, "epbc_check": 1817, "procurement": 1275, "construction": 180, "commissioning": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 9 }, "steps": [ { "id": "service_plan", "name": "Clinical services plan", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-health-infrastructure", "summary": "Establish projected demand, service model and the case that capital is the answer.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 270, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "strategic_case", "name": "Strategic business case", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-health-infrastructure", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "service_plan" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "gate_one", "name": "Gateway review: strategic assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-treasury-gateway", "summary": "Independent review of the strategic business case under the state assurance framework.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "strategic_case" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "final_case", "name": "Final business case", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-health-infrastructure", "summary": "Detailed costing, options analysis, site selection and delivery strategy.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "gate_one" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "gate_two", "name": "Gateway review: business case", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-treasury-gateway", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 75, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "final_case" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "budget", "name": "Capital funding decision in the budget", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-treasury-gateway", "summary": "The project competes for capital allocation in the annual budget.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "gate_two" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "planning_approval", "name": "Planning approval as state significant development", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-planning-ssd", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), Division 4.7", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 300, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "budget" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "epbc_check", "name": "EPBC Act referral, where triggered", "type": "referral", "body": "dcceew", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), s 75", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "budget" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "Decisions on referred actions under the EPBC Act, National EPA, https://www.nationalepa.gov.au/node/196, accessed 2026-11-09" ] }, { "id": "procurement", "name": "Procure the delivery contractor", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-health-infrastructure", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 270, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "planning_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "construction", "name": "Construction", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-health-infrastructure", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1095, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "procurement" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "commissioning", "name": "Commissioning, accreditation and licensing", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-health-infrastructure", "summary": "Health service accreditation, licensing of regulated facilities, and clinical commissioning before patients arrive.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "construction" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "nsw-legal-aid-access": { "name": "Person with a legal problem seeks assistance", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "category": "justice", "scale": "A person on a low income with a civil or family law problem, seeking legal help", "comparison_key": "scheme-access", "summary": "The shortest critical path of any scheme-access process here, and that is the finding. The elapsed time is small because the answer arrives quickly and it is usually no.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 8, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 130, "critical_path": [ "problem", "legal_aid_apply", "means_test", "merits_test", "grant" ], "serial_days": 130, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 74, "assessment": 56 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "problem": 70, "legal_aid_apply": 56, "means_test": 35, "merits_test": 14, "grant": 0, "clc": 0, "duty_lawyer": 69, "self_represent": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 12 }, "steps": [ { "id": "problem", "name": "Recognise the problem as a legal one", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Identifying that a housing, debt, employment, family or fines problem has a legal remedy.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "legal_aid_apply", "name": "Apply to Legal Aid", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-legal-aid", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "problem" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "means_test", "name": "Means test", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-legal-aid", "summary": "Income and assets assessed against a threshold set well below the cost of a private lawyer.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "legal_aid_apply" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "merits_test", "name": "Merits test", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-legal-aid", "summary": "Whether the matter has reasonable prospects and whether a grant is a reasonable use of funds.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "means_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "grant", "name": "Grant of aid, or refusal", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-legal-aid", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "merits_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "clc", "name": "Approach a community legal centre", "type": "application", "body": "community-legal-centre", "summary": "The service for people who fall outside legal aid.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "grant" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Community Legal Centres Australia: more than 1,000 people turned away daily; Federation of Community Legal Centres: two-thirds of Victorians seeking help are turned away" ] }, { "id": "duty_lawyer", "name": "Duty lawyer at court", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-legal-aid", "summary": "Assistance on the day, at the courthouse, for people appearing unrepresented.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "problem" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "self_represent", "name": "Proceed unrepresented", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "The default outcome for a person who passes no test and reaches no service.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "clc" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "nsw-prison-release": { "name": "Person released from prison re-establishes income, identity, health care and housing", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "category": "justice", "scale": "A person leaving custody after a sentence of more than fourteen days, without stable housing to return to", "comparison_key": "scheme-access", "summary": "Every system this person needs runs on documents, appointments and deadlines. The one thing custody reliably destroys is documents, appointments and deadlines. Seven days to claim a crisis payment, and photo ID must be produced in person.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 10, "bodies": 5, "critical_path_days": 135, "critical_path": [ "identity", "medicare", "stable" ], "serial_days": 246, "concurrency_saving": 111, "wait_profile": { "third_party": 105, "queue": 30 }, "addressable_days": 30, "addressable_pct": 22, "slack": { "release_date": 135, "prerelease_claim": 114, "gate": 135, "identity": 90, "crisis_payment": 128, "income_support": 60, "mutual_obligations": 39, "medicare": 30, "housing": 30, "stable": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 30 }, "steps": [ { "id": "release_date", "name": "Release date confirmed", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-corrective-services", "summary": "The date the person will be at the gate, and how much notice anyone has of it.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "prerelease_claim", "name": "Lodge a pre-release claim", "type": "application", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "A social security claim may be lodged before release where the date is known and within 21 days.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "release_date" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Services Australia, SU674: release date known and no more than 21 days in the future, agreement to a pre-release appointment, and authentication established" ] }, { "id": "gate", "name": "Release", "type": "registration", "body": "nsw-corrective-services", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "release_date" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "identity", "name": "Establish identity", "type": "certification", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "An acceptable photo identity document, produced in person at a service centre.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "gate" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Services Australia: an acceptable photo identity document must be provided in person before a claim can be submitted" ] }, { "id": "crisis_payment", "name": "Claim the crisis payment", "type": "application", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "One week's payment for a person released after at least 14 days in custody.", "legal_basis": "Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": 7, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "gate" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Services Australia: where there was no pre-release interview, the crisis payment claim must be made within 7 days of release; at least 14 days in custody required" ] }, { "id": "income_support", "name": "Income support claim granted", "type": "decision", "body": "services-australia", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "identity" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "mutual_obligations", "name": "Mutual obligation requirements commence", "type": "registration", "body": "workforce-australia-provider", "summary": "Job plan, points target and appointments begin.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "income_support" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "medicare", "name": "Re-establish Medicare and medication supply", "type": "registration", "body": "health-au", "summary": "Medicare card reactivated, a prescriber found, and PBS scripts obtained.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "identity" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "housing", "name": "Apply for housing assistance", "type": "application", "body": "homes-nsw", "summary": "Application to the housing register, and priority assessment where there is urgent need.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "identity" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "stable", "name": "Stable income, identity, health care and housing", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "The point at which the person is in the systems they need.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "income_support", "medicare", "housing" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "nsw-public-dental-adult": { "name": "Adult concession card holder seeks public dental care", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "category": "health", "scale": "A concession card holding adult seeking general public dental treatment", "comparison_key": "dental-access", "summary": "The same person, one birthday later. About five million adults are eligible nationally and about one in five receives care in a year \u2014 funded through a Commonwealth agreement that runs for under twelve months at a time.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 6, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 665, "critical_path": [ "eligibility", "waitlist", "wait", "treatment" ], "serial_days": 1015, "concurrency_saving": 350, "wait_profile": { "queue": 554, "assessment": 111 }, "addressable_days": 554, "addressable_pct": 83, "slack": { "eligibility": 644, "waitlist": 630, "wait": 90, "emergency": 623, "treatment": 0, "npa": 294 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 17 }, "steps": [ { "id": "eligibility", "name": "Establish eligibility", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-public-dental", "summary": "Means-tested, generally restricted to pensioners and concession card holders.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "waitlist", "name": "Placed on the waiting list", "type": "registration", "body": "nsw-public-dental", "summary": "Assigned a clinical priority category.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "eligibility" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "wait", "name": "Wait for general care", "type": "registration", "body": "nsw-public-dental", "summary": "Waiting for a general course of care to be offered.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 540, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "waitlist" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "emergency", "name": "Emergency care for pain or infection", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-public-dental", "summary": "Urgent treatment, generally an extraction or drainage rather than restorative care.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "waitlist" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "treatment", "name": "General course of care", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-public-dental", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "wait" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "npa", "name": "Commonwealth funding renegotiated", "type": "decision", "body": "health-au", "summary": "The national partnership agreement supporting the service is negotiated for a further short period.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 350, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "eligibility" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Public Dental Services for Adults 2025-26: 14 July 2025 to 30 June 2026, total funding $107.76 million; successive short agreements from 2013" ] } ] }, "nsw-social-housing-access": { "name": "Household applies for social housing and is allocated a home", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "category": "housing", "scale": "A household applying for social housing through the NSW Housing Register as a general applicant", "comparison_key": "scheme-access", "summary": "The published median wait is 15.1 months. It is computed only over households that were housed. There are 67,316 on the register, and the ones waiting longest are by construction absent from the number everybody quotes.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 9, "bodies": 1, "critical_path_days": 612, "critical_path": [ "gather", "lodge", "eligibility", "register", "wait", "offer", "tenancy" ], "serial_days": 612, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "queue": 459, "assessment": 81, "applicant": 58, "scheduling": 14 }, "addressable_days": 473, "addressable_pct": 77, "slack": { "gather": 582, "lodge": 575, "eligibility": 515, "priority": 470, "register": 494, "wait": 35, "offer": 14, "tenancy": 0, "review": 425 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 11 }, "steps": [ { "id": "gather", "name": "Assemble identity, income, assets and residency evidence", "type": "application", "body": "homes-nsw", "summary": "Documentary evidence for every household member.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the application", "type": "application", "body": "homes-nsw", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Housing Act 2001 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "gather" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "eligibility", "name": "Eligibility assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "homes-nsw", "summary": "Assessment against income, assets, residency and capacity-to-resolve criteria.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "priority", "name": "Priority status assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "homes-nsw", "summary": "Whether the household has an urgent need it cannot resolve itself \u2014 homelessness, domestic violence, medical need, unstable housing.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "eligibility" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "register", "name": "Placement on the NSW Housing Register", "type": "registration", "body": "homes-nsw", "summary": "Approval and listing by preferred location, category and approval date.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "eligibility" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "wait", "name": "Wait for an allocation", "type": "registration", "body": "homes-nsw", "summary": "The household waits for a suitable property in a preferred area to become available and to reach them in the allocation order.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 459, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "register" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Median 15.1 months for general applicants housed from the NSW Housing Register at 31 March 2026" ] }, { "id": "offer", "name": "Offer, viewing and acceptance", "type": "decision", "body": "homes-nsw", "summary": "A property is offered; the household inspects and accepts or declines.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "wait" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "tenancy", "name": "Sign the tenancy agreement and move in", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "offer" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "review", "name": "Request a review of a decision", "type": "appeal", "body": "homes-nsw", "summary": "Internal review of an eligibility or priority decision, and then external review.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "eligibility" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "nsw-social-housing-repair": { "name": "A social housing tenant reports a repair", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "category": "housing", "scale": "A tenant in public housing reporting a maintenance fault, from the call to the repair", "comparison_key": "housing-maintenance", "summary": "The third leg of social housing, after access and delivery. More than 30 per cent of stock did not meet the minimum condition standard in 2023 \u2014 which is not a repairs backlog, it is a third of a portfolio below a floor.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 9, "bodies": 4, "critical_path_days": 63, "critical_path": [ "report", "categorise", "dispatch", "attend", "repair" ], "serial_days": 63, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "queue": 44, "scheduling": 14, "applicant": 3, "assessment": 2 }, "addressable_days": 58, "addressable_pct": 92, "slack": { "fault": 63, "report": 60, "categorise": 58, "dispatch": 44, "attend": 30, "repair": 0, "escalate": 0, "capital": 0, "transfer": 0 }, "sourced": 4, "sourced_pct": 44 }, "steps": [ { "id": "fault", "name": "Something breaks", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "A hot water system, a door lock, a leak, an electrical fault, mould.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "report", "name": "Report it to the Maintenance Hub", "type": "application", "body": "homes-nsw", "summary": "A single point of contact within Homes NSW, with the call centre operated in-house.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "fault" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Single Maintenance Hub established within Homes NSW; maintenance call centre returned in-house" ] }, { "id": "categorise", "name": "Categorise the request", "type": "assessment", "body": "homes-nsw", "summary": "Emergency, urgent or routine \u2014 which determines the response time the contractor is held to.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 2, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "report" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Homes NSW received 24,592 urgent maintenance requests in 2023-24" ] }, { "id": "dispatch", "name": "Contractor dispatched", "type": "referral", "body": "maintenance-contractor", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "categorise" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "attend", "name": "Attend and diagnose", "type": "inspection", "body": "maintenance-contractor", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "dispatch" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "repair", "name": "Repair completed", "type": "assessment", "body": "maintenance-contractor", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "attend" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "escalate", "name": "Escalate to the tribunal", "type": "appeal", "body": "", "summary": "A tenant may seek orders about repairs through the civil and administrative tribunal.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "repair" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "capital", "name": "Dwelling reaches the end of its serviceable life", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-land-housing-corp", "summary": "Repair is no longer viable and the dwelling requires major renewal or replacement.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3650, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "fault" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "In 2023 over 30 per cent of DCJ social housing stock did not meet the acceptable dwelling condition standard; $1 billion Repair and Restore program to fix 30,000 homes" ] }, { "id": "transfer", "name": "Management transferred to a community housing provider", "type": "decision", "body": "community-housing-provider", "summary": "Tenancy management, and sometimes the asset, transferred \u2014 after which the tenant attracts Commonwealth Rent Assistance.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "capital" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "NSW: transferred tenants apply for Commonwealth Rent Assistance, paid in full to the new landlord; a key motivation is harnessing CRA funding previously unavailable to the social housing sector; legislation from October 2016 making transfers of tenancy management automatic" ] } ] }, "nsw-townhouses": { "name": "Build a block of townhouses \u2014 New South Wales", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "category": "development", "scale": "Multi-dwelling housing, roughly 5 to 20 dwellings, site already held", "comparison_key": "townhouse-development", "summary": "Scale changes the process qualitatively: mandatory public notification, multiple referrals, panel determination, development contributions and a subdivision that cannot start until the works are done.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 16, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 480, "critical_path": [ "design", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "referrals", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion", "subdivision", "registration" ], "serial_days": 522, "concurrency_saving": 42, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 154, "assessment": 145, "queue": 134, "scheduling": 47 }, "addressable_days": 181, "addressable_pct": 38, "slack": { "design": 330, "lodge": 327, "fee": 326, "adequacy": 312, "notification": 284, "referrals": 267, "assessment": 187, "rfi": 97, "decision": 152, "appeal_window": 124, "contributions": 138, "building_approval": 112, "inspections": 100, "completion": 75, "subdivision": 30, "registration": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 6 }, "steps": [ { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural, civil, traffic, waste, landscape, stormwater and acoustic documentation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 150, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "New South Wales published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Public notification and submissions", "type": "notification", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "Traffic, engineering, waste, landscape, heritage and state agency referrals, each responding separately.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 80, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy", "notification", "referrals" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of development consent", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 35, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "appeal_window", "name": "Third party appeal period", "type": "appeal", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated window in which a submitter may seek review of the decision.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contributions", "name": "Pay development contributions", "type": "fee", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the construction certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 40, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 12, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the occupation certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-private-certifier", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 25, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "subdivision", "name": "Obtain the subdivision certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nsw-council-consent", "summary": "Authorises registration of the plan creating separate titles. Cannot begin until the works are complete and certified.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "completion" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "registration", "name": "Register the plan of subdivision", "type": "registration", "body": "nsw-titles", "summary": "The land registry records the plan and issues the new titles.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "subdivision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "nsw-water-trade": { "name": "A water entitlement is traded", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "category": "water", "scale": "A permanent transfer of a water access entitlement, including across a state border", "comparison_key": "water-market", "summary": "A Commonwealth plan, four state registers, and no national view of who holds what. New conduct and transparency rules commenced on 1 July 2026 \u2014 a reform that added obligations rather than removing them, and was right to.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 6, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 96, "critical_path": [ "find_counterparty", "trade_approval", "delivery_check" ], "serial_days": 103, "concurrency_saving": 7, "wait_profile": { "assessment": 51, "third_party": 45 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "hold": 96, "find_counterparty": 51, "trade_approval": 21, "interstate": 0, "delivery_check": 0, "reporting": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 17 }, "steps": [ { "id": "hold", "name": "Hold an entitlement on a state register", "type": "registration", "body": "nsw-water-authority", "summary": "The entitlement exists as a state instrument, on a state register, with a state product definition.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "find_counterparty", "name": "Find a counterparty and agree a price", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "hold" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "trade_approval", "name": "Trade approval by the state authority", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-water-authority", "summary": "Approval of the transfer, against state rules on who may hold what and where.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "find_counterparty" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "interstate", "name": "Interstate transfer between registers", "type": "registration", "body": "nsw-water-authority", "summary": "Where the trade crosses a border, a transfer between two state registers with two approval processes.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "trade_approval" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "delivery_check", "name": "Delivery constraint assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-water-authority", "summary": "Whether the water can physically be delivered to the buyer's location.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "trade_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "reporting", "name": "Trade reported under the new market rules", "type": "notification", "body": "accc", "summary": "Obligations concerning water markets decisions and trade conduct, enforced by the ACCC from 1 July 2026.", "legal_basis": "Water Amendment (Water Markets Decisions) Regulation 2026", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "interstate" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Water Amendment (Water Markets Decisions) Regulation 2026, made March 2026 for commencement 1 July 2026; ACCC enforcement from that date, including prohibitions on market manipulation and insider trading" ] } ] }, "nsw-youth-remand": { "name": "Child refused police bail is held, brought to court, and released on bail", "jurisdiction": "nsw", "category": "justice", "scale": "A young person aged 10 to 17 charged with an offence and refused bail by police", "comparison_key": "custody-decision", "summary": "The median completed period of unsentenced youth detention in Australia is five days, and three in five end in release on bail. This maps those five days. None of them is a day of assessment.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 9, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 5, "critical_path": [ "first_appearance", "bail_application", "accommodation" ], "serial_days": 5, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "queue": 3, "scheduling": 2 }, "addressable_days": 5, "addressable_pct": 100, "slack": { "contact": 5, "diversion": 5, "police_bail": 5, "bass": 5, "first_appearance": 4, "bail_application": 3, "accommodation": 0, "bail_decision": 0, "release": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 33 }, "steps": [ { "id": "contact", "name": "Young person comes to police attention", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-police-force", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "diversion", "name": "Warning, caution, conference or charge", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-police-force", "summary": "The single highest-leverage decision in youth justice, made at the station, usually within hours, and not reviewed.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "contact" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Australian Institute of Criminology: in NSW, Indigenous young people are more likely to be taken to court (64% compared with 48%) and less likely to be cautioned (14% compared with 28%)", "Indigenous Justice Clearinghouse: Indigenous young people were less likely to be diverted in all three jurisdictions studied (NSW, SA, WA), after controlling for age, sex, offence type and prior history" ] }, { "id": "police_bail", "name": "Police bail granted or refused", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-police-force", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "diversion" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "bass", "name": "Bail and Accommodation Support Service engaged", "type": "referral", "body": "nsw-youth-justice", "summary": "An after-hours service for police considering conditional bail, intended to prevent unnecessary short-term remand.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "police_bail" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "NSW Government: BASS provides an after-hours service for police considering granting conditional bail to a young person in their custody, aiming to divert young people from unnecessary short-term remand" ] }, { "id": "first_appearance", "name": "First appearance before the Children's Court", "type": "assessment", "body": "nsw-childrens-court", "summary": "A young person refused police bail must be brought before a court as soon as practicable.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "police_bail" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "bail_application", "name": "Bail application heard", "type": "application", "body": "nsw-childrens-court", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "first_appearance" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "accommodation", "name": "Suitable accommodation located", "type": "referral", "body": "nsw-youth-justice", "summary": "The step on which the bail decision actually turns, and the only one in this process with a queue in it.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": 14, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "bail_application" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [ "National Legal Aid: a child in out-of-home care cannot be denied bail on account of there being no suitable placement available; Legal Aid NSW reports the section is not always effective, with young people held sometimes in excess of a fortnight whilst awaiting appropriate accommodation" ] }, { "id": "bail_decision", "name": "Bail determined", "type": "decision", "body": "nsw-childrens-court", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "accommodation" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "AIHW: 3 in 5 (60%) remand periods that ended in 2024-25 ended because the young person was released on bail" ] }, { "id": "release", "name": "Released on conditional bail", "type": "registration", "body": "nsw-youth-justice", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "bail_decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "nt-apartments": { "name": "Build a multi storey apartment building \u2014 Northern Territory", "jurisdiction": "nt", "category": "development", "scale": "Class 2 residential apartment building, multi storey, site already held", "comparison_key": "apartment-development", "summary": "The longest pathway in the database: design review, a Class 2 building under the National Construction Code, fire engineering, extended referrals, and strata registration at the end.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 18, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 846, "critical_path": [ "design", "design_review", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "referrals", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion", "subdivision", "registration" ], "serial_days": 888, "concurrency_saving": 42, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 304, "assessment": 246, "queue": 181, "scheduling": 115 }, "addressable_days": 296, "addressable_pct": 35, "slack": { "design": 546, "design_review": 501, "fire_engineering": 501, "lodge": 498, "fee": 497, "adequacy": 476, "notification": 448, "referrals": 406, "assessment": 280, "rfi": 190, "decision": 235, "appeal_window": 207, "contributions": 221, "building_approval": 160, "inspections": 135, "completion": 90, "subdivision": 30, "registration": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 6 }, "steps": [ { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural, civil, traffic, waste, landscape, stormwater and acoustic documentation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 300, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "design_review", "name": "Design review panel", "type": "assessment", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "An independent panel reviews the design against the applicable apartment design standards.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "fire_engineering", "name": "Fire engineering performance solution", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Where the design departs from the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the National Construction Code for a Class 2 building.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 1999 (NT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design", "design_review" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Northern Territory published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Public notification and submissions", "type": "notification", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "Traffic, engineering, waste, landscape, heritage and state agency referrals, each responding separately.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 70, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 1999 (NT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 126, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy", "notification", "referrals" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of development permit", "type": "decision", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 1999 (NT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "appeal_window", "name": "Third party appeal period", "type": "appeal", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated window in which a submitter may seek review of the decision.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contributions", "name": "Pay development contributions", "type": "fee", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building permit", "type": "certification", "body": "nt-building", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Building Act 1993 (NT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 75, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "nt-building", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 25, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the occupancy permit", "type": "certification", "body": "nt-building", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "subdivision", "name": "Obtain the strata certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "Authorises registration of the plan creating separate titles. Cannot begin until the works are complete and certified.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "completion" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "registration", "name": "Register the plan of strata", "type": "registration", "body": "nt-titles", "summary": "The land registry records the plan and issues the new titles.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "subdivision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "nt-buy-land-build-house": { "name": "Buy land and build a single storey house \u2014 Northern Territory", "jurisdiction": "nt", "category": "development", "scale": "Vacant residential lot, one single storey detached dwelling", "comparison_key": "buy-land-and-build-house", "summary": "From choosing a lot to occupying the finished house: purchase, settlement, title, design, development permit, building permit and occupancy permit.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 21, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 295, "critical_path": [ "find_lot", "contract", "finance", "settlement", "title_registration", "design", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion" ], "serial_days": 323, "concurrency_saving": 28, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 131, "assessment": 87, "third_party": 65, "queue": 7, "scheduling": 5 }, "addressable_days": 12, "addressable_pct": 4, "slack": { "find_lot": 235, "contract": 228, "cooling_off": 222, "finance": 207, "due_diligence": 207, "duty": 227, "settlement": 177, "title_registration": 163, "design": 103, "lodge": 100, "fee": 99, "adequacy": 92, "notification": 78, "referrals": 64, "assessment": 50, "rfi": 5, "decision": 40, "building_approval": 19, "inspections": 14, "completion": 0, "connections": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 14 }, "steps": [ { "id": "find_lot", "name": "Find and select a lot", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Search, inspect and choose a site. Entirely the buyer's own time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contract", "name": "Sign the contract of sale", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Contracts are exchanged or signed and the deposit is paid.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "find_lot" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "cooling_off", "name": "Statutory cooling-off period", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "6 calendar days (approx) in which the buyer may rescind.", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 1999 (NT)", "statutory_clock_days": 6, "typical_days": 6, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Comparative state-by-state guides to contract cooling-off periods, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "finance", "name": "Unconditional finance approval", "type": "referral", "body": "", "summary": "The lender values the property and confirms the loan.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "due_diligence", "name": "Title, planning and site searches", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Title search, planning certificate, contour and soil classification survey.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "duty", "name": "Pay transfer duty", "type": "fee", "body": "", "summary": "Stamp duty on the transfer, payable to the state revenue office.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "settlement", "name": "Settlement period", "type": "registration", "body": "nt-titles", "summary": "Customarily 30 days from contract to settlement in this jurisdiction.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "cooling_off", "finance", "due_diligence", "duty" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Comparative state-by-state conveyancing settlement guides, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "title_registration", "name": "Transfer of title registered", "type": "registration", "body": "nt-titles", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "settlement" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural plans, siting, and a thermal performance assessment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "title_registration" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 1999 (NT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Northern Territory published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Neighbour notification", "type": "notification", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "Not generally required for a compliant single dwelling; triggered by variations to siting or height standards.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "Triggered by site-specific matters such as heritage, bushfire, flooding or a classified road frontage.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 1999 (NT)", "statutory_clock_days": 42, "typical_days": 42, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of development permit", "type": "decision", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 1999 (NT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 10, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building permit", "type": "certification", "body": "nt-building", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Building Act 1993 (NT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "nt-building", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 5, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the occupancy permit", "type": "certification", "body": "nt-building", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "connections", "name": "Utility connections", "type": "referral", "body": "", "summary": "Water, sewer, power and telecommunications connections.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "nt-drivers-licence": { "name": "Get a car driver licence \u2014 Northern Territory", "jurisdiction": "nt", "category": "personal-licensing", "scale": "Class C (car) licence, applicant under 25, no prior licence", "comparison_key": "car-drivers-licence", "summary": "The shortest pathway in Australia, and the only one with no mandatory minimum supervised driving hours at all.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 8, "bodies": 1, "critical_path_days": 937, "critical_path": [ "knowledge_test", "learner_licence", "hold_period", "book_test", "driving_test", "p1", "full_licence" ], "serial_days": 937, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "statutory": 912, "scheduling": 21, "assessment": 3, "applicant": 1 }, "addressable_days": 21, "addressable_pct": 2, "slack": { "knowledge_test": 936, "learner_licence": 935, "hold_period": 753, "supervised_hours": 753, "book_test": 732, "driving_test": 731, "p1": 1, "full_licence": 0 }, "sourced": 7, "sourced_pct": 88 }, "steps": [ { "id": "knowledge_test", "name": "Road rules theory test", "type": "assessment", "body": "nt-licensing", "summary": "Book and sit the road rules knowledge test. Usually same-day at a service centre.", "legal_basis": "Motor Vehicles Act 1949 (NT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "NT Government, get your driver licence and Learner Drivers Guide, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "learner_licence", "name": "Learner licence issued", "type": "registration", "body": "nt-licensing", "summary": "Issued on passing the knowledge and eyesight tests. Minimum age 16.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "knowledge_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "NT Government, get your driver licence and Learner Drivers Guide, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "hold_period", "name": "Minimum learner licence period (6 months)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated period that must elapse before the practical test, regardless of how ready the applicant is.", "legal_basis": "Motor Vehicles Act 1949 (NT)", "statutory_clock_days": 182, "typical_days": 182, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "learner_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "NT Government, get your driver licence and Learner Drivers Guide, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "supervised_hours", "name": "Supervised driving practice (no mandatory minimum)", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "The NT logbook is a voluntary personal record. No minimum number of supervised hours is required before the practical test.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 182, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "learner_licence" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "NT Government, get your driver licence and Learner Drivers Guide, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "book_test", "name": "Book and wait for a practical test appointment", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "The applicant is ready and the file is complete. What remains is waiting for an examiner appointment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "hold_period" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "driving_test", "name": "Practical driving test", "type": "assessment", "body": "nt-licensing", "summary": "An on-road assessment of driving competence by an examiner.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "book_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "NT Government, get your driver licence and Learner Drivers Guide, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "p1", "name": "Provisional licence period (2 years)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated minimum period on a restricted licence before progression.", "legal_basis": "Motor Vehicles Act 1949 (NT)", "statutory_clock_days": 730, "typical_days": 730, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "driving_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "NT Government, get your driver licence and Learner Drivers Guide, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "full_licence", "name": "Full (unrestricted) licence issued", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "p1" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "NT Government, get your driver licence and Learner Drivers Guide, accessed 2026-08-30" ] } ] }, "nt-remote-housing": { "name": "A house is built in a remote Northern Territory community", "jurisdiction": "nt", "category": "housing", "scale": "One dwelling under the $4 billion Commonwealth-Northern Territory remote housing agreement", "comparison_key": "social-housing-delivery", "summary": "2,700 houses over ten years requires about 270 a year. The 300th was completed in 2026, and as at August the two governments were reported deadlocked, targets reduced, reporting missing and funding not flowing.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 9, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 1245, "critical_path": [ "need", "lease", "design", "procure", "mobilise", "build", "tenancy" ], "serial_days": 1245, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 450, "assessment": 405, "third_party": 390 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "need": 1065, "lease": 795, "design": 645, "procure": 465, "mobilise": 345, "build": 45, "tenancy": 0, "maintenance": 0, "program_delivery": 0 }, "sourced": 2, "sourced_pct": 22 }, "steps": [ { "id": "need", "name": "Community need identified and prioritised", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Which communities and homelands receive dwellings, and in what order.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "56.6 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Northern Territory live in overcrowded housing, rising to 74.5 per cent in very remote areas" ] }, { "id": "lease", "name": "Obtain a lease over the land", "type": "decision", "body": "nt-land-council", "summary": "Consultation with traditional owners and their informed consent, through the land council, to a lease for housing.", "legal_basis": "Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 270, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "need" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "design", "name": "Design for climate and for how people live", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Culturally appropriate design suited to the Northern Territory climate.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 150, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lease" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "procure", "name": "Procure a builder, with local employment obligations", "type": "application", "body": "aboriginal-housing-nt", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "mobilise", "name": "Mobilise to site", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Materials, crew and plant to a remote community, around the wet season.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "procure" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "build", "name": "Construction", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 300, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "mobilise" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "tenancy", "name": "Tenancy allocation and handover", "type": "registration", "body": "aboriginal-housing-nt", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "build" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "maintenance", "name": "Ongoing maintenance and repairs", "type": "assessment", "body": "aboriginal-housing-nt", "summary": "The service that determines how long the house lasts.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3650, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "tenancy" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "program_delivery", "name": "Program delivered at the required rate", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "2,700 houses over ten years requires about 270 a year.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3650, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "need" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "$4 billion over ten years to deliver up to 2,700 houses, about 270 a year; 300th home completed in 2026; ABC News 13 August 2026 reporting the governments deadlocked, construction targets being reduced, reporting missing and funding not flowing" ] } ] }, "nt-townhouses": { "name": "Build a block of townhouses \u2014 Northern Territory", "jurisdiction": "nt", "category": "development", "scale": "Multi-dwelling housing, roughly 5 to 20 dwellings, site already held", "comparison_key": "townhouse-development", "summary": "Scale changes the process qualitatively: mandatory public notification, multiple referrals, panel determination, development contributions and a subdivision that cannot start until the works are done.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 16, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 484, "critical_path": [ "design", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "referrals", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion", "subdivision", "registration" ], "serial_days": 526, "concurrency_saving": 42, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 154, "assessment": 149, "queue": 134, "scheduling": 47 }, "addressable_days": 181, "addressable_pct": 37, "slack": { "design": 334, "lodge": 331, "fee": 330, "adequacy": 316, "notification": 288, "referrals": 271, "assessment": 187, "rfi": 97, "decision": 152, "appeal_window": 124, "contributions": 138, "building_approval": 112, "inspections": 100, "completion": 75, "subdivision": 30, "registration": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 6 }, "steps": [ { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural, civil, traffic, waste, landscape, stormwater and acoustic documentation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 150, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 1999 (NT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Northern Territory published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Public notification and submissions", "type": "notification", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "Traffic, engineering, waste, landscape, heritage and state agency referrals, each responding separately.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 1999 (NT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 84, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy", "notification", "referrals" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of development permit", "type": "decision", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 1999 (NT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 35, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "appeal_window", "name": "Third party appeal period", "type": "appeal", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated window in which a submitter may seek review of the decision.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contributions", "name": "Pay development contributions", "type": "fee", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building permit", "type": "certification", "body": "nt-building", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Building Act 1993 (NT)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 40, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "nt-building", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 12, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the occupancy permit", "type": "certification", "body": "nt-building", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 25, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "subdivision", "name": "Obtain the subdivision certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "nt-planning", "summary": "Authorises registration of the plan creating separate titles. Cannot begin until the works are complete and certified.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "completion" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "registration", "name": "Register the plan of subdivision", "type": "registration", "body": "nt-titles", "summary": "The land registry records the plan and issues the new titles.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "subdivision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "qld-apartments": { "name": "Build a multi storey apartment building \u2014 Queensland", "jurisdiction": "qld", "category": "development", "scale": "Class 2 residential apartment building, multi storey, site already held", "comparison_key": "apartment-development", "summary": "The longest pathway in the database: design review, a Class 2 building under the National Construction Code, fire engineering, extended referrals, and strata registration at the end.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 18, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 867, "critical_path": [ "design", "design_review", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "referrals", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion", "subdivision", "registration" ], "serial_days": 909, "concurrency_saving": 42, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 304, "assessment": 267, "queue": 181, "scheduling": 115 }, "addressable_days": 296, "addressable_pct": 34, "slack": { "design": 567, "design_review": 522, "fire_engineering": 522, "lodge": 519, "fee": 518, "adequacy": 497, "notification": 469, "referrals": 427, "assessment": 280, "rfi": 190, "decision": 235, "appeal_window": 207, "contributions": 221, "building_approval": 160, "inspections": 135, "completion": 90, "subdivision": 30, "registration": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 6 }, "steps": [ { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural, civil, traffic, waste, landscape, stormwater and acoustic documentation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 300, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "design_review", "name": "Design review panel", "type": "assessment", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "An independent panel reviews the design against the applicable apartment design standards.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "fire_engineering", "name": "Fire engineering performance solution", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Where the design departs from the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the National Construction Code for a Class 2 building.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 2016 (Qld)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design", "design_review" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Queensland published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Public notification and submissions", "type": "notification", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "Traffic, engineering, waste, landscape, heritage and state agency referrals, each responding separately.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 70, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 2016 (Qld)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 147, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy", "notification", "referrals" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of development approval", "type": "decision", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 2016 (Qld)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "appeal_window", "name": "Third party appeal period", "type": "appeal", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated window in which a submitter may seek review of the decision.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contributions", "name": "Pay development contributions", "type": "fee", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building development approval", "type": "certification", "body": "qld-building-certifier", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Building Act 1975 (Qld)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 75, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "qld-building-certifier", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 25, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the final certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "qld-building-certifier", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "subdivision", "name": "Obtain the strata certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "Authorises registration of the plan creating separate titles. Cannot begin until the works are complete and certified.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "completion" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "registration", "name": "Register the plan of strata", "type": "registration", "body": "qld-titles", "summary": "The land registry records the plan and issues the new titles.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "subdivision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "qld-buy-land-build-house": { "name": "Buy land and build a single storey house \u2014 Queensland", "jurisdiction": "qld", "category": "development", "scale": "Vacant residential lot, one single storey detached dwelling", "comparison_key": "buy-land-and-build-house", "summary": "From choosing a lot to occupying the finished house: purchase, settlement, title, design, development approval, building development approval and final certificate.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 21, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 302, "critical_path": [ "find_lot", "contract", "finance", "settlement", "title_registration", "design", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion" ], "serial_days": 331, "concurrency_saving": 29, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 131, "assessment": 94, "third_party": 65, "queue": 7, "scheduling": 5 }, "addressable_days": 12, "addressable_pct": 4, "slack": { "find_lot": 242, "contract": 235, "cooling_off": 228, "finance": 214, "due_diligence": 214, "duty": 234, "settlement": 184, "title_registration": 170, "design": 110, "lodge": 107, "fee": 106, "adequacy": 99, "notification": 85, "referrals": 71, "assessment": 50, "rfi": 5, "decision": 40, "building_approval": 19, "inspections": 14, "completion": 0, "connections": 0 }, "sourced": 4, "sourced_pct": 19 }, "steps": [ { "id": "find_lot", "name": "Find and select a lot", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Search, inspect and choose a site. Entirely the buyer's own time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contract", "name": "Sign the contract of sale", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Contracts are exchanged or signed and the deposit is paid.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "find_lot" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "cooling_off", "name": "Statutory cooling-off period", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "7 calendar days (approx) in which the buyer may rescind.", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 2016 (Qld)", "statutory_clock_days": 7, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Comparative state-by-state guides to contract cooling-off periods, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "finance", "name": "Unconditional finance approval", "type": "referral", "body": "", "summary": "The lender values the property and confirms the loan.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "due_diligence", "name": "Title, planning and site searches", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Title search, planning certificate, contour and soil classification survey.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "duty", "name": "Pay transfer duty", "type": "fee", "body": "", "summary": "Stamp duty on the transfer, payable to the state revenue office.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "settlement", "name": "Settlement period", "type": "registration", "body": "qld-titles", "summary": "Customarily 30 days from contract to settlement in this jurisdiction.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "cooling_off", "finance", "due_diligence", "duty" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Comparative state-by-state conveyancing settlement guides, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "title_registration", "name": "Transfer of title registered", "type": "registration", "body": "qld-titles", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "settlement" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural plans, siting, and a thermal performance assessment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "title_registration" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 2016 (Qld)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Queensland published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Neighbour notification", "type": "notification", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "Not generally required for a compliant single dwelling; triggered by variations to siting or height standards.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "Triggered by site-specific matters such as heritage, bushfire, flooding or a classified road frontage.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 2016 (Qld)", "statutory_clock_days": 49, "typical_days": 49, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Queensland Development Assessment Rules: code assessment decisions generally within 35 business days" ] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of development approval", "type": "decision", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 2016 (Qld)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 10, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building development approval", "type": "certification", "body": "qld-building-certifier", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Building Act 1975 (Qld)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "qld-building-certifier", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 5, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the final certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "qld-building-certifier", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "connections", "name": "Utility connections", "type": "referral", "body": "", "summary": "Water, sewer, power and telecommunications connections.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "qld-drivers-licence": { "name": "Get a car driver licence \u2014 Queensland", "jurisdiction": "qld", "category": "personal-licensing", "scale": "Class C (car) licence, applicant under 25, no prior licence", "comparison_key": "car-drivers-licence", "summary": "Structurally similar to NSW, with fewer required supervised hours and an explicit logbook approval step before the practical test can be booked.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 11, "bodies": 1, "critical_path_days": 1502, "critical_path": [ "knowledge_test", "learner_licence", "supervised_hours", "logbook_approval", "book_test", "driving_test", "p1", "p2", "full_licence" ], "serial_days": 1868, "concurrency_saving": 366, "wait_profile": { "statutory": 1095, "applicant": 366, "scheduling": 28, "queue": 10, "assessment": 3 }, "addressable_days": 38, "addressable_pct": 3, "slack": { "knowledge_test": 1501, "learner_licence": 1500, "hold_period": 1135, "supervised_hours": 1135, "logbook_approval": 1125, "hpt": 1499, "book_test": 1097, "driving_test": 1096, "p1": 731, "p2": 1, "full_licence": 0 }, "sourced": 10, "sourced_pct": 91 }, "steps": [ { "id": "knowledge_test", "name": "PrepL online course or written road rules test", "type": "assessment", "body": "qld-licensing", "summary": "Book and sit the road rules knowledge test. Usually same-day at a service centre.", "legal_basis": "Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Queensland Government (TMR), driver licence progression, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "learner_licence", "name": "Learner licence issued", "type": "registration", "body": "qld-licensing", "summary": "Issued on passing the knowledge and eyesight tests. Minimum age 16.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "knowledge_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Queensland Government (TMR), driver licence progression, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "hold_period", "name": "Minimum learner licence period (12 months)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated period that must elapse before the practical test, regardless of how ready the applicant is.", "legal_basis": "Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld)", "statutory_clock_days": 365, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "learner_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Queensland Government (TMR), driver licence progression, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "supervised_hours", "name": "Log 100 supervised driving hours, including 10 at night", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Accumulated by the applicant with a supervising driver and recorded in a logbook.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "learner_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Queensland Government (TMR), driver licence progression, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "logbook_approval", "name": "Submit logbook for departmental approval", "type": "assessment", "body": "qld-licensing", "summary": "The logbook must be submitted and approved before a practical test may be taken.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 10, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "supervised_hours" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Queensland Government (TMR), driver licence progression, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "hpt", "name": "Hazard Perception Test", "type": "assessment", "body": "qld-licensing", "summary": "A computer-based test of the ability to recognise developing hazards. Increasingly available online.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "learner_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Queensland Government (TMR), driver licence progression, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "book_test", "name": "Book and wait for a practical test appointment", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "The applicant is ready and the file is complete. What remains is waiting for an examiner appointment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "hold_period", "logbook_approval", "hpt" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "driving_test", "name": "Practical driving test", "type": "assessment", "body": "qld-licensing", "summary": "An on-road assessment of driving competence by an examiner.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "book_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Queensland Government (TMR), driver licence progression, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "p1", "name": "P1 provisional period (12 months)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated minimum period on a restricted licence before progression.", "legal_basis": "Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld)", "statutory_clock_days": 365, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "driving_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Queensland Government (TMR), driver licence progression, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "p2", "name": "P2 provisional period (2 years)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated minimum period on a restricted licence before progression.", "legal_basis": "Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld)", "statutory_clock_days": 730, "typical_days": 730, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "p1" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Queensland Government (TMR), driver licence progression, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "full_licence", "name": "Full (unrestricted) licence issued", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "p2" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Queensland Government (TMR), driver licence progression, accessed 2026-08-30" ] } ] }, "qld-dwelling-brisbane": { "name": "Build a single house \u2014 Brisbane, accepted development plus building approval", "jurisdiction": "brisbane", "category": "development", "scale": "Single detached dwelling on an existing lot", "comparison_key": "single-dwelling", "summary": "Where a house complies with the planning scheme it may need no development application at all \u2014 only a building development approval from a certifier. The comparison with the NSW pathways is the point.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 6, "bodies": 2, "critical_path_days": 68, "critical_path": [ "prepare", "engage", "approval", "inspections", "final" ], "serial_days": 68, "concurrency_saving": 0, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 38, "assessment": 25, "scheduling": 5 }, "addressable_days": 5, "addressable_pct": 7, "slack": { "prepare": 33, "engage": 30, "siting": 8, "approval": 15, "inspections": 10, "final": 0 }, "sourced": 0, "sourced_pct": 0 }, "steps": [ { "id": "prepare", "name": "Prepare plans and engineering", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 35, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "engage", "name": "Engage a building certifier", "type": "application", "body": "qld-building-certifier", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "prepare" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "siting", "name": "Siting variation or referral", "type": "referral", "body": "bcc-development", "summary": "Required where the design departs from the acceptable siting provisions, for example boundary setbacks.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 25, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "prepare" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "approval", "name": "Building development approval", "type": "certification", "body": "qld-building-certifier", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Building Act 1975 (Qld)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 15, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "engage" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections", "type": "inspection", "body": "qld-building-certifier", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 5, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "final", "name": "Final certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "qld-building-certifier", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 10, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "qld-townhouses": { "name": "Build a block of townhouses \u2014 Queensland", "jurisdiction": "qld", "category": "development", "scale": "Multi-dwelling housing, roughly 5 to 20 dwellings, site already held", "comparison_key": "townhouse-development", "summary": "Scale changes the process qualitatively: mandatory public notification, multiple referrals, panel determination, development contributions and a subdivision that cannot start until the works are done.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 16, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 498, "critical_path": [ "design", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "referrals", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion", "subdivision", "registration" ], "serial_days": 540, "concurrency_saving": 42, "wait_profile": { "assessment": 163, "applicant": 154, "queue": 134, "scheduling": 47 }, "addressable_days": 181, "addressable_pct": 36, "slack": { "design": 348, "lodge": 345, "fee": 344, "adequacy": 330, "notification": 302, "referrals": 285, "assessment": 187, "rfi": 97, "decision": 152, "appeal_window": 124, "contributions": 138, "building_approval": 112, "inspections": 100, "completion": 75, "subdivision": 30, "registration": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 6 }, "steps": [ { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural, civil, traffic, waste, landscape, stormwater and acoustic documentation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 150, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 2016 (Qld)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Queensland published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Public notification and submissions", "type": "notification", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "Traffic, engineering, waste, landscape, heritage and state agency referrals, each responding separately.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 2016 (Qld)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 98, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy", "notification", "referrals" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of development approval", "type": "decision", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning Act 2016 (Qld)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 35, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "appeal_window", "name": "Third party appeal period", "type": "appeal", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated window in which a submitter may seek review of the decision.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contributions", "name": "Pay development contributions", "type": "fee", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building development approval", "type": "certification", "body": "qld-building-certifier", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Building Act 1975 (Qld)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 40, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "qld-building-certifier", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 12, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the final certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "qld-building-certifier", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 25, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "subdivision", "name": "Obtain the subdivision certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "qld-assessment-manager", "summary": "Authorises registration of the plan creating separate titles. Cannot begin until the works are complete and certified.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "completion" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "registration", "name": "Register the plan of subdivision", "type": "registration", "body": "qld-titles", "summary": "The land registry records the plan and issues the new titles.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "subdivision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "sa-apartments": { "name": "Build a multi storey apartment building \u2014 South Australia", "jurisdiction": "sa", "category": "development", "scale": "Class 2 residential apartment building, multi storey, site already held", "comparison_key": "apartment-development", "summary": "The longest pathway in the database: design review, a Class 2 building under the National Construction Code, fire engineering, extended referrals, and strata registration at the end.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 18, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 811, "critical_path": [ "design", "design_review", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "referrals", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion", "subdivision", "registration" ], "serial_days": 853, "concurrency_saving": 42, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 304, "assessment": 225, "queue": 167, "scheduling": 115 }, "addressable_days": 282, "addressable_pct": 35, "slack": { "design": 511, "design_review": 466, "fire_engineering": 466, "lodge": 463, "fee": 462, "adequacy": 455, "notification": 427, "referrals": 385, "assessment": 280, "rfi": 190, "decision": 235, "appeal_window": 207, "contributions": 221, "building_approval": 160, "inspections": 135, "completion": 90, "subdivision": 30, "registration": 0 }, "sourced": 2, "sourced_pct": 11 }, "steps": [ { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural, civil, traffic, waste, landscape, stormwater and acoustic documentation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 300, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "design_review", "name": "Design review panel", "type": "assessment", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "An independent panel reviews the design against the applicable apartment design standards.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "fire_engineering", "name": "Fire engineering performance solution", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Where the design departs from the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the National Construction Code for a Class 2 building.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (SA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design", "design_review" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "South Australia published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "PlanSA: 5 business day verification, 25 business day decision for performance assessed development, 2 business days to issue" ] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Public notification and submissions", "type": "notification", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "Traffic, engineering, waste, landscape, heritage and state agency referrals, each responding separately.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 70, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (SA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 105, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy", "notification", "referrals" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of planning consent", "type": "decision", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (SA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "appeal_window", "name": "Third party appeal period", "type": "appeal", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated window in which a submitter may seek review of the decision.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contributions", "name": "Pay development contributions", "type": "fee", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building consent", "type": "certification", "body": "sa-building", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (SA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 75, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "sa-building", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 25, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the certificate of occupancy", "type": "certification", "body": "sa-building", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "subdivision", "name": "Obtain the strata certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "Authorises registration of the plan creating separate titles. Cannot begin until the works are complete and certified.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "completion" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "registration", "name": "Register the plan of strata", "type": "registration", "body": "sa-titles", "summary": "The land registry records the plan and issues the new titles.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "subdivision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "sa-buy-land-build-house": { "name": "Buy land and build a single storey house \u2014 South Australia", "jurisdiction": "sa", "category": "development", "scale": "Vacant residential lot, one single storey detached dwelling", "comparison_key": "buy-land-and-build-house", "summary": "From choosing a lot to occupying the finished house: purchase, settlement, title, design, planning consent, building consent and certificate of occupancy.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 21, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 288, "critical_path": [ "find_lot", "contract", "finance", "settlement", "title_registration", "design", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion" ], "serial_days": 314, "concurrency_saving": 26, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 131, "assessment": 80, "third_party": 65, "queue": 7, "scheduling": 5 }, "addressable_days": 12, "addressable_pct": 4, "slack": { "find_lot": 228, "contract": 221, "cooling_off": 217, "finance": 200, "due_diligence": 200, "duty": 220, "settlement": 170, "title_registration": 156, "design": 96, "lodge": 93, "fee": 92, "adequacy": 85, "notification": 71, "referrals": 57, "assessment": 50, "rfi": 5, "decision": 40, "building_approval": 19, "inspections": 14, "completion": 0, "connections": 0 }, "sourced": 5, "sourced_pct": 24 }, "steps": [ { "id": "find_lot", "name": "Find and select a lot", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Search, inspect and choose a site. Entirely the buyer's own time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contract", "name": "Sign the contract of sale", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Contracts are exchanged or signed and the deposit is paid.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "find_lot" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "cooling_off", "name": "Statutory cooling-off period", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "4 calendar days (approx) in which the buyer may rescind.", "legal_basis": "Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (SA)", "statutory_clock_days": 4, "typical_days": 4, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Comparative state-by-state guides to contract cooling-off periods, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "finance", "name": "Unconditional finance approval", "type": "referral", "body": "", "summary": "The lender values the property and confirms the loan.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "due_diligence", "name": "Title, planning and site searches", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Title search, planning certificate, contour and soil classification survey.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "duty", "name": "Pay transfer duty", "type": "fee", "body": "", "summary": "Stamp duty on the transfer, payable to the state revenue office.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "settlement", "name": "Settlement period", "type": "registration", "body": "sa-titles", "summary": "Customarily 30 days from contract to settlement in this jurisdiction.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "cooling_off", "finance", "due_diligence", "duty" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Comparative state-by-state conveyancing settlement guides, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "title_registration", "name": "Transfer of title registered", "type": "registration", "body": "sa-titles", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "settlement" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural plans, siting, and a thermal performance assessment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "title_registration" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (SA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "South Australia published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "PlanSA: 5 business day verification, 25 business day decision for performance assessed development, 2 business days to issue" ] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Neighbour notification", "type": "notification", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "Not generally required for a compliant single dwelling; triggered by variations to siting or height standards.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "Triggered by site-specific matters such as heritage, bushfire, flooding or a classified road frontage.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (SA)", "statutory_clock_days": 35, "typical_days": 35, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "PlanSA: 5 business day verification, 25 business day decision for performance assessed development, 2 business days to issue" ] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of planning consent", "type": "decision", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (SA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 10, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building consent", "type": "certification", "body": "sa-building", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (SA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "sa-building", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 5, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the certificate of occupancy", "type": "certification", "body": "sa-building", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "connections", "name": "Utility connections", "type": "referral", "body": "", "summary": "Water, sewer, power and telecommunications connections.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "sa-drivers-licence": { "name": "Get a car driver licence \u2014 South Australia", "jurisdiction": "sa", "category": "personal-licensing", "scale": "Class C (car) licence, applicant under 25, no prior licence", "comparison_key": "car-drivers-licence", "summary": "A twelve-month learner period with 75 logged hours, and a choice between a government on-road test and competency based training with an instructor.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 9, "bodies": 1, "critical_path_days": 1492, "critical_path": [ "knowledge_test", "learner_licence", "hold_period", "book_test", "driving_test", "p1", "p2", "full_licence" ], "serial_days": 1857, "concurrency_saving": 365, "wait_profile": { "statutory": 1460, "scheduling": 28, "assessment": 3, "applicant": 1 }, "addressable_days": 28, "addressable_pct": 2, "slack": { "knowledge_test": 1491, "learner_licence": 1490, "hold_period": 1125, "supervised_hours": 1125, "book_test": 1097, "driving_test": 1096, "p1": 731, "p2": 1, "full_licence": 0 }, "sourced": 8, "sourced_pct": 89 }, "steps": [ { "id": "knowledge_test", "name": "Learner's theory test", "type": "assessment", "body": "sa-licensing", "summary": "Book and sit the road rules knowledge test. Usually same-day at a service centre.", "legal_basis": "Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "My Licence (DIT SA), car licence stages, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "learner_licence", "name": "Learner licence issued", "type": "registration", "body": "sa-licensing", "summary": "Issued on passing the knowledge and eyesight tests. Minimum age 16.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "knowledge_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "My Licence (DIT SA), car licence stages, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "hold_period", "name": "Minimum learner's permit period (12 months)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated period that must elapse before the practical test, regardless of how ready the applicant is.", "legal_basis": "Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA)", "statutory_clock_days": 365, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "learner_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "My Licence (DIT SA), car licence stages, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "supervised_hours", "name": "Log 75 supervised driving hours, including 15 at night", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Accumulated by the applicant with a supervising driver and recorded in a logbook.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "learner_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "My Licence (DIT SA), car licence stages, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "book_test", "name": "Book and wait for a practical test appointment", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "The applicant is ready and the file is complete. What remains is waiting for an examiner appointment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "hold_period", "supervised_hours" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "driving_test", "name": "Vehicle On Road Test, or competency based training", "type": "assessment", "body": "sa-licensing", "summary": "The applicant may sit a government on-road test, or complete competency based training and assessment with an accredited instructor instead.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "book_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "My Licence (DIT SA), car licence stages, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "p1", "name": "P1 provisional period (12 months)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated minimum period on a restricted licence before progression.", "legal_basis": "Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA)", "statutory_clock_days": 365, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "driving_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "My Licence (DIT SA), car licence stages, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "p2", "name": "P2 provisional period (2 years)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated minimum period on a restricted licence before progression.", "legal_basis": "Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA)", "statutory_clock_days": 730, "typical_days": 730, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "p1" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "My Licence (DIT SA), car licence stages, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "full_licence", "name": "Full (unrestricted) licence issued", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "p2" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "My Licence (DIT SA), car licence stages, accessed 2026-08-30" ] } ] }, "sa-townhouses": { "name": "Build a block of townhouses \u2014 South Australia", "jurisdiction": "sa", "category": "development", "scale": "Multi-dwelling housing, roughly 5 to 20 dwellings, site already held", "comparison_key": "townhouse-development", "summary": "Scale changes the process qualitatively: mandatory public notification, multiple referrals, panel determination, development contributions and a subdivision that cannot start until the works are done.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 16, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 463, "critical_path": [ "design", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "referrals", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion", "subdivision", "registration" ], "serial_days": 505, "concurrency_saving": 42, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 154, "assessment": 135, "queue": 127, "scheduling": 47 }, "addressable_days": 174, "addressable_pct": 38, "slack": { "design": 313, "lodge": 310, "fee": 309, "adequacy": 302, "notification": 274, "referrals": 257, "assessment": 187, "rfi": 97, "decision": 152, "appeal_window": 124, "contributions": 138, "building_approval": 112, "inspections": 100, "completion": 75, "subdivision": 30, "registration": 0 }, "sourced": 2, "sourced_pct": 12 }, "steps": [ { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural, civil, traffic, waste, landscape, stormwater and acoustic documentation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 150, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (SA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "South Australia published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "PlanSA: 5 business day verification, 25 business day decision for performance assessed development, 2 business days to issue" ] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Public notification and submissions", "type": "notification", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "Traffic, engineering, waste, landscape, heritage and state agency referrals, each responding separately.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (SA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 70, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy", "notification", "referrals" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of planning consent", "type": "decision", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (SA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 35, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "appeal_window", "name": "Third party appeal period", "type": "appeal", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated window in which a submitter may seek review of the decision.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contributions", "name": "Pay development contributions", "type": "fee", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building consent", "type": "certification", "body": "sa-building", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (SA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 40, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "sa-building", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 12, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the certificate of occupancy", "type": "certification", "body": "sa-building", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 25, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "subdivision", "name": "Obtain the subdivision certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "sa-planning", "summary": "Authorises registration of the plan creating separate titles. Cannot begin until the works are complete and certified.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "completion" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "registration", "name": "Register the plan of subdivision", "type": "registration", "body": "sa-titles", "summary": "The land registry records the plan and issues the new titles.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "subdivision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "tas-apartments": { "name": "Build a multi storey apartment building \u2014 Tasmania", "jurisdiction": "tas", "category": "development", "scale": "Class 2 residential apartment building, multi storey, site already held", "comparison_key": "apartment-development", "summary": "The longest pathway in the database: design review, a Class 2 building under the National Construction Code, fire engineering, extended referrals, and strata registration at the end.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 18, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 846, "critical_path": [ "design", "design_review", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "referrals", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion", "subdivision", "registration" ], "serial_days": 888, "concurrency_saving": 42, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 304, "assessment": 246, "queue": 181, "scheduling": 115 }, "addressable_days": 296, "addressable_pct": 35, "slack": { "design": 546, "design_review": 501, "fire_engineering": 501, "lodge": 498, "fee": 497, "adequacy": 476, "notification": 448, "referrals": 406, "assessment": 280, "rfi": 190, "decision": 235, "appeal_window": 207, "contributions": 221, "building_approval": 160, "inspections": 135, "completion": 90, "subdivision": 30, "registration": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 6 }, "steps": [ { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural, civil, traffic, waste, landscape, stormwater and acoustic documentation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 300, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "design_review", "name": "Design review panel", "type": "assessment", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "An independent panel reviews the design against the applicable apartment design standards.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "fire_engineering", "name": "Fire engineering performance solution", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Where the design departs from the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the National Construction Code for a Class 2 building.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the planning application", "type": "application", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design", "design_review" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Tasmania published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Public notification and submissions", "type": "notification", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "Traffic, engineering, waste, landscape, heritage and state agency referrals, each responding separately.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 70, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 126, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy", "notification", "referrals" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of planning permit", "type": "decision", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "appeal_window", "name": "Third party appeal period", "type": "appeal", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated window in which a submitter may seek review of the decision.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contributions", "name": "Pay development contributions", "type": "fee", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building permit", "type": "certification", "body": "tas-building", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Building Act 2016 (Tas)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 75, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "tas-building", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 25, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the certificate of completion", "type": "certification", "body": "tas-building", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "subdivision", "name": "Obtain the strata certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "Authorises registration of the plan creating separate titles. Cannot begin until the works are complete and certified.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "completion" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "registration", "name": "Register the plan of strata", "type": "registration", "body": "tas-titles", "summary": "The land registry records the plan and issues the new titles.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "subdivision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "tas-buy-land-build-house": { "name": "Buy land and build a single storey house \u2014 Tasmania", "jurisdiction": "tas", "category": "development", "scale": "Vacant residential lot, one single storey detached dwelling", "comparison_key": "buy-land-and-build-house", "summary": "From choosing a lot to occupying the finished house: purchase, settlement, title, design, planning permit, building permit and certificate of completion.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 21, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 295, "critical_path": [ "find_lot", "contract", "finance", "settlement", "title_registration", "design", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion" ], "serial_days": 317, "concurrency_saving": 22, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 131, "assessment": 87, "third_party": 65, "queue": 7, "scheduling": 5 }, "addressable_days": 12, "addressable_pct": 4, "slack": { "find_lot": 235, "contract": 228, "cooling_off": 228, "finance": 207, "due_diligence": 207, "duty": 227, "settlement": 177, "title_registration": 163, "design": 103, "lodge": 100, "fee": 99, "adequacy": 92, "notification": 78, "referrals": 64, "assessment": 50, "rfi": 5, "decision": 40, "building_approval": 19, "inspections": 14, "completion": 0, "connections": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 14 }, "steps": [ { "id": "find_lot", "name": "Find and select a lot", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Search, inspect and choose a site. Entirely the buyer's own time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contract", "name": "Sign the contract of sale", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Contracts are exchanged or signed and the deposit is paid.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "find_lot" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "cooling_off", "name": "Statutory cooling-off period", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "0 calendar days (approx) in which the buyer may rescind.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 0, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Comparative state-by-state guides to contract cooling-off periods, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "finance", "name": "Unconditional finance approval", "type": "referral", "body": "", "summary": "The lender values the property and confirms the loan.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "due_diligence", "name": "Title, planning and site searches", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Title search, planning certificate, contour and soil classification survey.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "duty", "name": "Pay transfer duty", "type": "fee", "body": "", "summary": "Stamp duty on the transfer, payable to the state revenue office.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "settlement", "name": "Settlement period", "type": "registration", "body": "tas-titles", "summary": "Customarily 30 days from contract to settlement in this jurisdiction.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "cooling_off", "finance", "due_diligence", "duty" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Comparative state-by-state conveyancing settlement guides, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "title_registration", "name": "Transfer of title registered", "type": "registration", "body": "tas-titles", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "settlement" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural plans, siting, and a thermal performance assessment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "title_registration" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the planning application", "type": "application", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Tasmania published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Neighbour notification", "type": "notification", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "Not generally required for a compliant single dwelling; triggered by variations to siting or height standards.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "Triggered by site-specific matters such as heritage, bushfire, flooding or a classified road frontage.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas)", "statutory_clock_days": 42, "typical_days": 42, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of planning permit", "type": "decision", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 10, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building permit", "type": "certification", "body": "tas-building", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Building Act 2016 (Tas)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "tas-building", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 5, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the certificate of completion", "type": "certification", "body": "tas-building", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "connections", "name": "Utility connections", "type": "referral", "body": "", "summary": "Water, sewer, power and telecommunications connections.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "tas-drivers-licence": { "name": "Get a car driver licence \u2014 Tasmania", "jurisdiction": "tas", "category": "personal-licensing", "scale": "Class C (car) licence, applicant under 25, no prior licence", "comparison_key": "car-drivers-licence", "summary": "The most finely staged learner system in the country: the learner period is split into separate L1 and L2 stages with their own minimum durations.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 12, "bodies": 1, "critical_path_days": 1128, "critical_path": [ "knowledge_test", "learner_licence", "l1_period", "l2_licence", "hold_period", "book_test", "driving_test", "p1", "p2", "full_licence" ], "serial_days": 1403, "concurrency_saving": 275, "wait_profile": { "statutory": 1095, "scheduling": 28, "assessment": 4, "applicant": 1 }, "addressable_days": 28, "addressable_pct": 2, "slack": { "knowledge_test": 1127, "learner_licence": 1126, "l1_period": 1035, "l2_licence": 1034, "hold_period": 760, "supervised_hours": 760, "hpt": 1033, "book_test": 732, "driving_test": 731, "p1": 366, "p2": 1, "full_licence": 0 }, "sourced": 11, "sourced_pct": 92 }, "steps": [ { "id": "knowledge_test", "name": "Learner knowledge test", "type": "assessment", "body": "tas-licensing", "summary": "Book and sit the road rules knowledge test. Usually same-day at a service centre.", "legal_basis": "Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999 (Tas)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Plates Plus Tasmania / Department of State Growth, novice licensing pathway, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "learner_licence", "name": "L1 learner licence issued", "type": "registration", "body": "tas-licensing", "summary": "The first learner stage. Minimum age 16. No logbook required at L1.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "knowledge_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Plates Plus Tasmania / Department of State Growth, novice licensing pathway, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "l1_period", "name": "Minimum L1 period (3 months)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated period on the first learner stage before the applicant may apply for L2.", "legal_basis": "Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999 (Tas)", "statutory_clock_days": 91, "typical_days": 91, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "learner_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Plates Plus Tasmania / Department of State Growth, novice licensing pathway, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "l2_licence", "name": "L2 learner licence issued", "type": "registration", "body": "tas-licensing", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "l1_period" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Plates Plus Tasmania / Department of State Growth, novice licensing pathway, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "hold_period", "name": "Minimum L2 period (9 months)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "Brings the total minimum learner period to 12 months.", "legal_basis": "Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999 (Tas)", "statutory_clock_days": 274, "typical_days": 274, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "l2_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Plates Plus Tasmania / Department of State Growth, novice licensing pathway, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "supervised_hours", "name": "Log 80 supervised driving hours, including 15 at night", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Accumulated during the learner stages and recorded in the learner logbook.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 274, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "l2_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Plates Plus Tasmania / Department of State Growth, novice licensing pathway, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "hpt", "name": "Hazard Perception Test", "type": "assessment", "body": "tas-licensing", "summary": "A computer-based test of the ability to recognise developing hazards. Increasingly available online.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "l2_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Plates Plus Tasmania / Department of State Growth, novice licensing pathway, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "book_test", "name": "Book and wait for a practical test appointment", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "The applicant is ready and the file is complete. What remains is waiting for an examiner appointment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "hold_period", "supervised_hours", "hpt" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "driving_test", "name": "P1 driving assessment", "type": "assessment", "body": "tas-licensing", "summary": "An on-road assessment of driving competence by an examiner.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "book_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Plates Plus Tasmania / Department of State Growth, novice licensing pathway, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "p1", "name": "P1 provisional period (12 months)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated minimum period on a restricted licence before progression.", "legal_basis": "Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999 (Tas)", "statutory_clock_days": 365, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "driving_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Plates Plus Tasmania / Department of State Growth, novice licensing pathway, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "p2", "name": "P2 provisional period (12 months minimum)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated minimum period on a restricted licence before progression.", "legal_basis": "Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999 (Tas)", "statutory_clock_days": 365, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "p1" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Plates Plus Tasmania / Department of State Growth, novice licensing pathway, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "full_licence", "name": "Full (unrestricted) licence issued", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "p2" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Plates Plus Tasmania / Department of State Growth, novice licensing pathway, accessed 2026-08-30" ] } ] }, "tas-townhouses": { "name": "Build a block of townhouses \u2014 Tasmania", "jurisdiction": "tas", "category": "development", "scale": "Multi-dwelling housing, roughly 5 to 20 dwellings, site already held", "comparison_key": "townhouse-development", "summary": "Scale changes the process qualitatively: mandatory public notification, multiple referrals, panel determination, development contributions and a subdivision that cannot start until the works are done.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 16, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 484, "critical_path": [ "design", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "referrals", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion", "subdivision", "registration" ], "serial_days": 526, "concurrency_saving": 42, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 154, "assessment": 149, "queue": 134, "scheduling": 47 }, "addressable_days": 181, "addressable_pct": 37, "slack": { "design": 334, "lodge": 331, "fee": 330, "adequacy": 316, "notification": 288, "referrals": 271, "assessment": 187, "rfi": 97, "decision": 152, "appeal_window": 124, "contributions": 138, "building_approval": 112, "inspections": 100, "completion": 75, "subdivision": 30, "registration": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 6 }, "steps": [ { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural, civil, traffic, waste, landscape, stormwater and acoustic documentation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 150, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the planning application", "type": "application", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Tasmania published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Public notification and submissions", "type": "notification", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "Traffic, engineering, waste, landscape, heritage and state agency referrals, each responding separately.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 84, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy", "notification", "referrals" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of planning permit", "type": "decision", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 35, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "appeal_window", "name": "Third party appeal period", "type": "appeal", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated window in which a submitter may seek review of the decision.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contributions", "name": "Pay development contributions", "type": "fee", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building permit", "type": "certification", "body": "tas-building", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Building Act 2016 (Tas)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 40, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "tas-building", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 12, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the certificate of completion", "type": "certification", "body": "tas-building", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 25, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "subdivision", "name": "Obtain the subdivision certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "tas-planning", "summary": "Authorises registration of the plan creating separate titles. Cannot begin until the works are complete and certified.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "completion" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "registration", "name": "Register the plan of subdivision", "type": "registration", "body": "tas-titles", "summary": "The land registry records the plan and issues the new titles.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "subdivision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "vic-apartments": { "name": "Build a multi storey apartment building \u2014 Victoria", "jurisdiction": "vic", "category": "development", "scale": "Class 2 residential apartment building, multi storey, site already held", "comparison_key": "apartment-development", "summary": "The longest pathway in the database: design review, a Class 2 building under the National Construction Code, fire engineering, extended referrals, and strata registration at the end.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 18, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 900, "critical_path": [ "design", "design_review", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "referrals", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion", "subdivision", "registration" ], "serial_days": 942, "concurrency_saving": 42, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 304, "assessment": 300, "queue": 181, "scheduling": 115 }, "addressable_days": 296, "addressable_pct": 33, "slack": { "design": 600, "design_review": 555, "fire_engineering": 555, "lodge": 552, "fee": 551, "adequacy": 530, "notification": 502, "referrals": 460, "assessment": 280, "rfi": 190, "decision": 235, "appeal_window": 207, "contributions": 221, "building_approval": 160, "inspections": 135, "completion": 90, "subdivision": 30, "registration": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 6 }, "steps": [ { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural, civil, traffic, waste, landscape, stormwater and acoustic documentation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 300, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "design_review", "name": "Design review panel", "type": "assessment", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "An independent panel reviews the design against the applicable apartment design standards.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "fire_engineering", "name": "Fire engineering performance solution", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Where the design departs from the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the National Construction Code for a Class 2 building.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the planning permit application", "type": "application", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design", "design_review" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Victoria published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Public notification and submissions", "type": "notification", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "Traffic, engineering, waste, landscape, heritage and state agency referrals, each responding separately.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 70, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy", "notification", "referrals" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of planning permit", "type": "decision", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "appeal_window", "name": "Third party appeal period", "type": "appeal", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated window in which a submitter may seek review of the decision.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contributions", "name": "Pay development contributions", "type": "fee", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building permit", "type": "certification", "body": "vic-building", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Building Act 1993 (Vic)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 75, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "vic-building", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 25, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the occupancy permit", "type": "certification", "body": "vic-building", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "subdivision", "name": "Obtain the strata certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "Authorises registration of the plan creating separate titles. Cannot begin until the works are complete and certified.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "completion" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "registration", "name": "Register the plan of strata", "type": "registration", "body": "vic-titles", "summary": "The land registry records the plan and issues the new titles.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "subdivision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "vic-buy-land-build-house": { "name": "Buy land and build a single storey house \u2014 Victoria", "jurisdiction": "vic", "category": "development", "scale": "Vacant residential lot, one single storey detached dwelling", "comparison_key": "buy-land-and-build-house", "summary": "From choosing a lot to occupying the finished house: purchase, settlement, title, design, planning permit, building permit and occupancy permit.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 21, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 328, "critical_path": [ "find_lot", "contract", "finance", "settlement", "title_registration", "design", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion" ], "serial_days": 355, "concurrency_saving": 27, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 131, "assessment": 105, "third_party": 80, "queue": 7, "scheduling": 5 }, "addressable_days": 12, "addressable_pct": 4, "slack": { "find_lot": 268, "contract": 261, "cooling_off": 256, "finance": 240, "due_diligence": 240, "duty": 260, "settlement": 195, "title_registration": 181, "design": 121, "lodge": 118, "fee": 117, "adequacy": 110, "notification": 96, "referrals": 82, "assessment": 50, "rfi": 5, "decision": 40, "building_approval": 19, "inspections": 14, "completion": 0, "connections": 0 }, "sourced": 4, "sourced_pct": 19 }, "steps": [ { "id": "find_lot", "name": "Find and select a lot", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Search, inspect and choose a site. Entirely the buyer's own time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contract", "name": "Sign the contract of sale", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Contracts are exchanged or signed and the deposit is paid.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "find_lot" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "cooling_off", "name": "Statutory cooling-off period", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "5 calendar days (approx) in which the buyer may rescind.", "legal_basis": "Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)", "statutory_clock_days": 5, "typical_days": 5, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Comparative state-by-state guides to contract cooling-off periods, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "finance", "name": "Unconditional finance approval", "type": "referral", "body": "", "summary": "The lender values the property and confirms the loan.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "due_diligence", "name": "Title, planning and site searches", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Title search, planning certificate, contour and soil classification survey.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "duty", "name": "Pay transfer duty", "type": "fee", "body": "", "summary": "Stamp duty on the transfer, payable to the state revenue office.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "settlement", "name": "Settlement period", "type": "registration", "body": "vic-titles", "summary": "Customarily 45 days from contract to settlement in this jurisdiction.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "cooling_off", "finance", "due_diligence", "duty" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Comparative state-by-state conveyancing settlement guides, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "title_registration", "name": "Transfer of title registered", "type": "registration", "body": "vic-titles", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "settlement" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural plans, siting, and a thermal performance assessment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "title_registration" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the planning permit application", "type": "application", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Victoria published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Neighbour notification", "type": "notification", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "Not generally required for a compliant single dwelling; triggered by variations to siting or height standards.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "Triggered by site-specific matters such as heritage, bushfire, flooding or a classified road frontage.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)", "statutory_clock_days": 60, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Victorian statutory planning permit decision period of 60 days" ] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of planning permit", "type": "decision", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 10, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building permit", "type": "certification", "body": "vic-building", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Building Act 1993 (Vic)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "vic-building", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 5, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the occupancy permit", "type": "certification", "body": "vic-building", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "connections", "name": "Utility connections", "type": "referral", "body": "", "summary": "Water, sewer, power and telecommunications connections.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "vic-drivers-licence": { "name": "Get a car driver licence \u2014 Victoria", "jurisdiction": "vic", "category": "personal-licensing", "scale": "Class C (car) licence, applicant under 25, no prior licence", "comparison_key": "car-drivers-licence", "summary": "The longest pathway in the country: a three-year P2 period pushes the total beyond five years for a driver who starts at 16.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 10, "bodies": 1, "critical_path_days": 1857, "critical_path": [ "knowledge_test", "learner_licence", "hold_period", "book_test", "driving_test", "p1", "p2", "full_licence" ], "serial_days": 2223, "concurrency_saving": 366, "wait_profile": { "statutory": 1825, "scheduling": 28, "assessment": 3, "applicant": 1 }, "addressable_days": 28, "addressable_pct": 2, "slack": { "knowledge_test": 1856, "learner_licence": 1855, "hold_period": 1490, "supervised_hours": 1490, "hpt": 1854, "book_test": 1462, "driving_test": 1461, "p1": 1096, "p2": 1, "full_licence": 0 }, "sourced": 9, "sourced_pct": 90 }, "steps": [ { "id": "knowledge_test", "name": "Learner Permit Knowledge Test", "type": "assessment", "body": "vic-licensing", "summary": "Book and sit the road rules knowledge test. Usually same-day at a service centre.", "legal_basis": "Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "VicRoads / Transport Victoria, published licensing requirements, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "learner_licence", "name": "Learner licence issued", "type": "registration", "body": "vic-licensing", "summary": "Issued on passing the knowledge and eyesight tests. Minimum age 16.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "knowledge_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "VicRoads / Transport Victoria, published licensing requirements, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "hold_period", "name": "Minimum learner permit period (12 months)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated period that must elapse before the practical test, regardless of how ready the applicant is.", "legal_basis": "Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic)", "statutory_clock_days": 365, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "learner_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "VicRoads / Transport Victoria, published licensing requirements, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "supervised_hours", "name": "Log 120 supervised driving hours, including 20 at night", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Accumulated by the applicant with a supervising driver and recorded in a logbook.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "learner_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "VicRoads / Transport Victoria, published licensing requirements, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "hpt", "name": "Hazard Perception Test", "type": "assessment", "body": "vic-licensing", "summary": "A computer-based test of the ability to recognise developing hazards. Increasingly available online.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "learner_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "VicRoads / Transport Victoria, published licensing requirements, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "book_test", "name": "Book and wait for a practical test appointment", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "The applicant is ready and the file is complete. What remains is waiting for an examiner appointment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "hold_period", "supervised_hours", "hpt" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "driving_test", "name": "Drive test", "type": "assessment", "body": "vic-licensing", "summary": "An on-road assessment of driving competence by an examiner.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "book_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "VicRoads / Transport Victoria, published licensing requirements, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "p1", "name": "P1 probationary period (12 months)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated minimum period on a restricted licence before progression.", "legal_basis": "Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic)", "statutory_clock_days": 365, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "driving_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "VicRoads / Transport Victoria, published licensing requirements, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "p2", "name": "P2 probationary period (3 years)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated minimum period on a restricted licence before progression.", "legal_basis": "Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic)", "statutory_clock_days": 1095, "typical_days": 1095, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "p1" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "VicRoads / Transport Victoria, published licensing requirements, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "full_licence", "name": "Full (unrestricted) licence issued", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "p2" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "VicRoads / Transport Victoria, published licensing requirements, accessed 2026-08-30" ] } ] }, "vic-townhouses": { "name": "Build a block of townhouses \u2014 Victoria", "jurisdiction": "vic", "category": "development", "scale": "Multi-dwelling housing, roughly 5 to 20 dwellings, site already held", "comparison_key": "townhouse-development", "summary": "Scale changes the process qualitatively: mandatory public notification, multiple referrals, panel determination, development contributions and a subdivision that cannot start until the works are done.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 16, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 520, "critical_path": [ "design", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "referrals", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion", "subdivision", "registration" ], "serial_days": 562, "concurrency_saving": 42, "wait_profile": { "assessment": 185, "applicant": 154, "queue": 134, "scheduling": 47 }, "addressable_days": 181, "addressable_pct": 35, "slack": { "design": 370, "lodge": 367, "fee": 366, "adequacy": 352, "notification": 324, "referrals": 307, "assessment": 187, "rfi": 97, "decision": 152, "appeal_window": 124, "contributions": 138, "building_approval": 112, "inspections": 100, "completion": 75, "subdivision": 30, "registration": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 6 }, "steps": [ { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural, civil, traffic, waste, landscape, stormwater and acoustic documentation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 150, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the planning permit application", "type": "application", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Victoria published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Public notification and submissions", "type": "notification", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "Traffic, engineering, waste, landscape, heritage and state agency referrals, each responding separately.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy", "notification", "referrals" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of planning permit", "type": "decision", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 35, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "appeal_window", "name": "Third party appeal period", "type": "appeal", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated window in which a submitter may seek review of the decision.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contributions", "name": "Pay development contributions", "type": "fee", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building permit", "type": "certification", "body": "vic-building", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Building Act 1993 (Vic)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 40, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "vic-building", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 12, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the occupancy permit", "type": "certification", "body": "vic-building", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 25, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "subdivision", "name": "Obtain the subdivision certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "vic-planning", "summary": "Authorises registration of the plan creating separate titles. Cannot begin until the works are complete and certified.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "completion" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "registration", "name": "Register the plan of subdivision", "type": "registration", "body": "vic-titles", "summary": "The land registry records the plan and issues the new titles.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "subdivision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "vic-transmission-line": { "name": "Build a major transmission line \u2014 concurrent easement pathway (Victoria)", "jurisdiction": "vic", "category": "energy", "scale": "A multi-hundred-kilometre high voltage transmission line designated actionable in the Integrated System Plan, crossing private agricultural land", "comparison_key": "transmission-line", "summary": "Identical to the sequential pathway except for one dependency edge. Victoria removed it in 2026, explicitly because the sequence was delaying VNI West and the Western Renewables Link. This is the rare case where the reform this database would propose has already been enacted and can be measured.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 10, "bodies": 5, "critical_path_days": 2955, "critical_path": [ "isp", "pscr", "padr", "pacr", "route", "ees", "construction" ], "serial_days": 4215, "concurrency_saving": 1260, "wait_profile": { "assessment": 1215, "applicant": 900, "third_party": 540, "statutory": 300 }, "addressable_days": 0, "addressable_pct": 0, "slack": { "isp": 2590, "pscr": 2470, "padr": 2290, "pacr": 2170, "cpa": 1990, "route": 1630, "epbc": 1090, "ees": 900, "easement": 1090, "construction": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 10 }, "steps": [ { "id": "isp", "name": "Identified as an actionable project in the Integrated System Plan", "type": "assessment", "body": "aemo", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 365, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "pscr", "name": "Project specification consultation report and consultation", "type": "notification", "body": "tnsp", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "National Electricity Rules, rule 5.15A", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "isp" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "padr", "name": "Project assessment draft report and consultation", "type": "notification", "body": "tnsp", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "National Electricity Rules, rule 5.15A", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "pscr" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "pacr", "name": "Project assessment conclusions report", "type": "decision", "body": "tnsp", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "National Electricity Rules, rule 5.15A", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "padr" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "cpa", "name": "Contingent project application and revenue determination", "type": "decision", "body": "aer", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "National Electricity Rules, Chapter 6A", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "pacr" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "route", "name": "Route selection and landholder engagement", "type": "application", "body": "tnsp", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 540, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "pacr" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "epbc", "name": "Commonwealth environmental approval", "type": "decision", "body": "dcceew", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 540, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "route" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "ees", "name": "Environment effects statement and assessment", "type": "decision", "body": "vic-planning-ees", "summary": "Scoping, technical reference group, exhibition, inquiry panel and the Minister's assessment.", "legal_basis": "Environment Effects Act 1978 (Vic)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 730, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "route" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "easement", "name": "Easement acquisition, concurrent with assessment", "type": "registration", "body": "tnsp", "summary": "Acquisition proceeds alongside the environment effects process rather than after it.", "legal_basis": "Electricity Industry Act 2000 (Vic), as amended 2026", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 540, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "route" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "legislated", "sources": [ "Amendments to the Electricity Industry Act 2000 (Vic), 2026, permitting concurrent compulsory easement acquisition" ] }, { "id": "construction", "name": "Construction and commissioning", "type": "application", "body": "tnsp", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 900, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "easement", "epbc", "ees", "cpa" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "wa-apartments": { "name": "Build a multi storey apartment building \u2014 Western Australia", "jurisdiction": "wa", "category": "development", "scale": "Class 2 residential apartment building, multi storey, site already held", "comparison_key": "apartment-development", "summary": "The longest pathway in the database: design review, a Class 2 building under the National Construction Code, fire engineering, extended referrals, and strata registration at the end.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 18, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 900, "critical_path": [ "design", "design_review", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "referrals", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion", "subdivision", "registration" ], "serial_days": 942, "concurrency_saving": 42, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 304, "assessment": 300, "queue": 181, "scheduling": 115 }, "addressable_days": 296, "addressable_pct": 33, "slack": { "design": 600, "design_review": 555, "fire_engineering": 555, "lodge": 552, "fee": 551, "adequacy": 530, "notification": 502, "referrals": 460, "assessment": 280, "rfi": 190, "decision": 235, "appeal_window": 207, "contributions": 221, "building_approval": 160, "inspections": 135, "completion": 90, "subdivision": 30, "registration": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 6 }, "steps": [ { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural, civil, traffic, waste, landscape, stormwater and acoustic documentation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 300, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "design_review", "name": "Design review panel", "type": "assessment", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "An independent panel reviews the design against the applicable apartment design standards.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "fire_engineering", "name": "Fire engineering performance solution", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Where the design departs from the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the National Construction Code for a Class 2 building.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design", "design_review" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Western Australia published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Public notification and submissions", "type": "notification", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "Traffic, engineering, waste, landscape, heritage and state agency referrals, each responding separately.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 70, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 180, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy", "notification", "referrals" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of development approval", "type": "decision", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "appeal_window", "name": "Third party appeal period", "type": "appeal", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated window in which a submitter may seek review of the decision.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contributions", "name": "Pay development contributions", "type": "fee", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building permit", "type": "certification", "body": "wa-building", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Building Act 2011 (WA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 75, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "wa-building", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 25, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the notice of completion", "type": "certification", "body": "wa-building", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "subdivision", "name": "Obtain the strata certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "Authorises registration of the plan creating separate titles. Cannot begin until the works are complete and certified.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "completion" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "registration", "name": "Register the plan of strata", "type": "registration", "body": "wa-titles", "summary": "The land registry records the plan and issues the new titles.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "subdivision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "wa-buy-land-build-house": { "name": "Buy land and build a single storey house \u2014 Western Australia", "jurisdiction": "wa", "category": "development", "scale": "Vacant residential lot, one single storey detached dwelling", "comparison_key": "buy-land-and-build-house", "summary": "From choosing a lot to occupying the finished house: purchase, settlement, title, design, development approval, building permit and notice of completion.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 21, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 313, "critical_path": [ "find_lot", "contract", "finance", "settlement", "title_registration", "design", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion" ], "serial_days": 335, "concurrency_saving": 22, "wait_profile": { "applicant": 131, "assessment": 105, "third_party": 65, "queue": 7, "scheduling": 5 }, "addressable_days": 12, "addressable_pct": 4, "slack": { "find_lot": 253, "contract": 246, "cooling_off": 246, "finance": 225, "due_diligence": 225, "duty": 245, "settlement": 195, "title_registration": 181, "design": 121, "lodge": 118, "fee": 117, "adequacy": 110, "notification": 96, "referrals": 82, "assessment": 50, "rfi": 5, "decision": 40, "building_approval": 19, "inspections": 14, "completion": 0, "connections": 0 }, "sourced": 3, "sourced_pct": 14 }, "steps": [ { "id": "find_lot", "name": "Find and select a lot", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Search, inspect and choose a site. Entirely the buyer's own time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contract", "name": "Sign the contract of sale", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Contracts are exchanged or signed and the deposit is paid.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "find_lot" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "cooling_off", "name": "Statutory cooling-off period", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "0 calendar days (approx) in which the buyer may rescind.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 0, "typical_days": 0, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Comparative state-by-state guides to contract cooling-off periods, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "finance", "name": "Unconditional finance approval", "type": "referral", "body": "", "summary": "The lender values the property and confirms the loan.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "due_diligence", "name": "Title, planning and site searches", "type": "assessment", "body": "", "summary": "Title search, planning certificate, contour and soil classification survey.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "duty", "name": "Pay transfer duty", "type": "fee", "body": "", "summary": "Stamp duty on the transfer, payable to the state revenue office.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "contract" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "settlement", "name": "Settlement period", "type": "registration", "body": "wa-titles", "summary": "Customarily 30 days from contract to settlement in this jurisdiction.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "cooling_off", "finance", "due_diligence", "duty" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "reported", "sources": [ "Comparative state-by-state conveyancing settlement guides, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "title_registration", "name": "Transfer of title registered", "type": "registration", "body": "wa-titles", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "settlement" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural plans, siting, and a thermal performance assessment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "title_registration" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Western Australia published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 7, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Neighbour notification", "type": "notification", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "Not generally required for a compliant single dwelling; triggered by variations to siting or height standards.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "Triggered by site-specific matters such as heritage, bushfire, flooding or a classified road frontage.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA)", "statutory_clock_days": 60, "typical_days": 60, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of development approval", "type": "decision", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 10, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building permit", "type": "certification", "body": "wa-building", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Building Act 2011 (WA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 21, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "wa-building", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 5, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the notice of completion", "type": "certification", "body": "wa-building", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "connections", "name": "Utility connections", "type": "referral", "body": "", "summary": "Water, sewer, power and telecommunications connections.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "third_party", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] }, "wa-drivers-licence": { "name": "Get a car driver licence \u2014 Western Australia", "jurisdiction": "wa", "category": "personal-licensing", "scale": "Class C (car) licence, applicant under 25, no prior licence", "comparison_key": "car-drivers-licence", "summary": "Among the shortest mainland pathways: a six-month learner period, 50 supervised hours, and a two-year provisional licence split into red and green P stages.", "status": "draft", "analysis": { "steps": 10, "bodies": 1, "critical_path_days": 944, "critical_path": [ "knowledge_test", "learner_licence", "hold_period", "book_test", "driving_test", "p_red", "p_green", "full_licence" ], "serial_days": 1127, "concurrency_saving": 183, "wait_profile": { "statutory": 912, "scheduling": 28, "assessment": 3, "applicant": 1 }, "addressable_days": 28, "addressable_pct": 3, "slack": { "knowledge_test": 943, "learner_licence": 942, "hold_period": 760, "supervised_hours": 760, "hpt": 941, "book_test": 732, "driving_test": 731, "p_red": 549, "p_green": 1, "full_licence": 0 }, "sourced": 9, "sourced_pct": 90 }, "steps": [ { "id": "knowledge_test", "name": "Computerised Theory Test (CTT)", "type": "assessment", "body": "wa-licensing", "summary": "Book and sit the road rules knowledge test. Usually same-day at a service centre.", "legal_basis": "Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act 2008 (WA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Department of Transport WA, get a licence / learn to drive and log hours, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "learner_licence", "name": "Learner licence issued", "type": "registration", "body": "wa-licensing", "summary": "Issued on passing the knowledge and eyesight tests. Minimum age 16.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "knowledge_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Department of Transport WA, get a licence / learn to drive and log hours, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "hold_period", "name": "Minimum learner permit period (6 months)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated period that must elapse before the practical test, regardless of how ready the applicant is.", "legal_basis": "Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act 2008 (WA)", "statutory_clock_days": 182, "typical_days": 182, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "learner_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Department of Transport WA, get a licence / learn to drive and log hours, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "supervised_hours", "name": "Log 50 supervised driving hours, including 5 at night", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Accumulated by the applicant with a supervising driver and recorded in a logbook.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 182, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "learner_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Department of Transport WA, get a licence / learn to drive and log hours, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "hpt", "name": "Hazard Perception Test", "type": "assessment", "body": "wa-licensing", "summary": "A computer-based test of the ability to recognise developing hazards. Increasingly available online.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "learner_licence" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Department of Transport WA, get a licence / learn to drive and log hours, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "book_test", "name": "Book and wait for a practical test appointment", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "The applicant is ready and the file is complete. What remains is waiting for an examiner appointment.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "hold_period", "supervised_hours", "hpt" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "driving_test", "name": "Practical Driving Assessment (PDA)", "type": "assessment", "body": "wa-licensing", "summary": "An on-road assessment of driving competence by an examiner.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "book_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Department of Transport WA, get a licence / learn to drive and log hours, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "p_red", "name": "Red P plate period (6 months)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated minimum period on a restricted licence before progression.", "legal_basis": "Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act 2008 (WA)", "statutory_clock_days": 182, "typical_days": 182, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "driving_test" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Department of Transport WA, get a licence / learn to drive and log hours, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "p_green", "name": "Green P plate period (18 months)", "type": "decision", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated minimum period on a restricted licence before progression.", "legal_basis": "Road Traffic (Authorisation to Drive) Act 2008 (WA)", "statutory_clock_days": 548, "typical_days": 548, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "p_red" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Department of Transport WA, get a licence / learn to drive and log hours, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "full_licence", "name": "Full (unrestricted) licence issued", "type": "registration", "body": "", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "p_green" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Department of Transport WA, get a licence / learn to drive and log hours, accessed 2026-08-30" ] } ] }, "wa-townhouses": { "name": "Build a block of townhouses \u2014 Western Australia", "jurisdiction": "wa", "category": "development", "scale": "Multi-dwelling housing, roughly 5 to 20 dwellings, site already held", "comparison_key": "townhouse-development", "summary": "Scale changes the process qualitatively: mandatory public notification, multiple referrals, panel determination, development contributions and a subdivision that cannot start until the works are done.", "status": "skeleton", "analysis": { "steps": 16, "bodies": 3, "critical_path_days": 520, "critical_path": [ "design", "lodge", "fee", "adequacy", "referrals", "assessment", "decision", "building_approval", "inspections", "completion", "subdivision", "registration" ], "serial_days": 562, "concurrency_saving": 42, "wait_profile": { "assessment": 185, "applicant": 154, "queue": 134, "scheduling": 47 }, "addressable_days": 181, "addressable_pct": 35, "slack": { "design": 370, "lodge": 367, "fee": 366, "adequacy": 352, "notification": 324, "referrals": 307, "assessment": 187, "rfi": 97, "decision": 152, "appeal_window": 124, "contributions": 138, "building_approval": 112, "inspections": 100, "completion": 75, "subdivision": 30, "registration": 0 }, "sourced": 1, "sourced_pct": 6 }, "steps": [ { "id": "design", "name": "Prepare design and consultant documentation", "type": "application", "body": "", "summary": "Architectural, civil, traffic, waste, landscape, stormwater and acoustic documentation.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 150, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "lodge", "name": "Lodge the development application", "type": "application", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 3, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "design" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "published", "sources": [ "Western Australia published development assessment guidance, accessed 2026-08-30" ] }, { "id": "fee", "name": "Pay the assessment fee", "type": "fee", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 1, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "lodge" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "adequacy", "name": "Lodgement and properly-made check", "type": "assessment", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "The authority checks the application is complete before assessment begins.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "fee" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "notification", "name": "Public notification and submissions", "type": "notification", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "referrals", "name": "Internal and external referrals", "type": "referral", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "Traffic, engineering, waste, landscape, heritage and state agency referrals, each responding separately.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "adequacy" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "assessment", "name": "Assessment against the planning rules", "type": "assessment", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 120, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "adequacy", "notification", "referrals" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "rfi", "name": "Information request and amended plans", "type": "assessment", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "The clock commonly stops while the applicant answers questions.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 90, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Determination and issue of development approval", "type": "decision", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 35, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "assessment" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "appeal_window", "name": "Third party appeal period", "type": "appeal", "body": "", "summary": "A legislated window in which a submitter may seek review of the decision.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": 28, "typical_days": 28, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "statutory", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": true, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "contributions", "name": "Pay development contributions", "type": "fee", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 14, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "applicant", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "building_approval", "name": "Obtain the building permit", "type": "certification", "body": "wa-building", "summary": "Certifies that construction documentation complies with the National Construction Code and the planning approval.", "legal_basis": "Building Act 2011 (WA)", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 40, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "decision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "inspections", "name": "Mandatory inspections during construction", "type": "inspection", "body": "wa-building", "summary": "Inspections at prescribed stages. Counted as booking delay only, not as construction time.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 12, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "scheduling", "depends_on": [ "building_approval" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "completion", "name": "Obtain the notice of completion", "type": "certification", "body": "wa-building", "summary": "Authorises the building to be occupied.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 25, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "assessment", "depends_on": [ "inspections" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "subdivision", "name": "Obtain the subdivision certificate", "type": "certification", "body": "wa-planning", "summary": "Authorises registration of the plan creating separate titles. Cannot begin until the works are complete and certified.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 45, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "completion" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] }, { "id": "registration", "name": "Register the plan of subdivision", "type": "registration", "body": "wa-titles", "summary": "The land registry records the plan and issues the new titles.", "legal_basis": "", "statutory_clock_days": null, "typical_days": 30, "p90_days": null, "wait_type": "queue", "depends_on": [ "subdivision" ], "optional": false, "confidence": "estimate", "sources": [] } ] } } }