{"id":1506,"date":"2025-10-28T17:36:14","date_gmt":"2025-10-28T06:36:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/54.206.0.193\/wordpress\/?p=1506"},"modified":"2025-12-03T17:39:35","modified_gmt":"2025-12-03T06:39:35","slug":"australia-has-120-health-workforce-policies-but-with-no-national-plan-were-missing-the-big-picture","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hwfpolicyhub.jcu.edu.au\/index.php\/2025\/10\/28\/australia-has-120-health-workforce-policies-but-with-no-national-plan-were-missing-the-big-picture\/","title":{"rendered":"Australia has 120 health workforce policies. But with no national plan, we\u2019re missing the big picture"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/span><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Australia\u2019s health workforce is under pressure.\u00a0Wait times<\/a>\u00a0are growing.\u00a0Burnout<\/a>\u00a0is rising. Yet the country is awash in policy \u2013 just not the kind that solves these problems at the root.<\/p>\n

This can explain why you\u2019re struggling to see a GP, can\u2019t find a dentist, or struggling to coordinate care between a mental health professional and aged-care nurse.<\/p>\n

These issues aren\u2019t isolated problems. As we outline in research published in the\u00a0Medical Journal of Australia<\/a>, they reflect a deeper issue in how Australia plans and governs its health workforce.<\/p>\n

Despite long-standing concern about shortages of health workers in both rural and urban areas, there\u2019s no overarching national strategy for health workforce planning in Australia.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s the type of long-term strategy that helps a country make sure it has enough trained health workers in the right places to meet people\u2019s health needs, now and in the future. Instead, there is fragmentation.<\/p>\n

When we reviewed all 121 current federal health workforce policy documents, we found a patchwork of policies for specific professions (for example, doctors, nurses and midwives) that were often short term. These rely heavily on grants and programs rather than long-term strategies and operate in parallel rather than in concert.<\/p>\n

They also don\u2019t seem to pay attention to key professions \u2013 especially pharmacy, public health and emergency care.<\/p>\n

So with more than\u00a0850,000<\/a>\u00a0registered health professionals, there are still not enough to meet demand, particularly in regional and remote areas. This is also the case in sectors with rising demand, such as aged care, mental health and rehabilitation.<\/p>\n<\/div>

<\/div>

What should we do?<\/h3>\n<\/div>

More than<\/a>\u00a0a decade<\/a>\u00a0of reports<\/a>\u00a0have recommended improvements to national health workforce governance or strategy. Our study shows why those recommendations still matter.<\/p>\n

In 2025, the challenge isn\u2019t just to add more staff \u2013 it is to coordinate the system and the policy better, and plan for a future where health care is sustainable, equitable, and fit for purpose.<\/p>\n

Australia once had a national body to guide health workforce planning \u2013 Health Workforce Australia. It was established in\u00a02009<\/a>\u00a0but disbanded in\u00a02014<\/a>\u00a0(ironically) as part of a government efficiency drive.<\/p>\n

Since then, the responsibility for workforce planning has been split across multiple government departments, statutory authorities, and state and territories.<\/p>\n

For instance, five states have their own individual ten-year health workforce strategic plans.<\/p>\n

Some professions have their own national strategies. There\u2019s a\u00a0national medical workforce strategy<\/a>, a\u00a0nurse practitioner workforce plan<\/a>\u00a0and a\u00a0mental health workforce strategy<\/a>. Others are still being developed, such as the\u00a0allied health workforce strategy<\/a>, which would cover health workers such as physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists and podiatrists.<\/p>\n

But there\u2019s no effective mechanism to ensure these strategies work together coherently \u2013 or to ensure important professions or service areas aren\u2019t left behind.<\/p>\n<\/div>

<\/div>

More programs, fewer solutions<\/h3>\n<\/div>

Of the 121 federal policies we analysed, 81% were time-limited grants, programs or sub-programs. These types of policies are typically designed to respond quickly to a specific gap \u2013 such as with scholarships, rural relocation bonuses, or individual professional development. But they\u2019re not necessarily designed to create sustained change.<\/p>\n

We found 23 policies that could set longer-term direction. But it was not clear how these relate to each other. Few documents cross-referenced one another or reflected on the way solutions in one would impact on the solutions in another.<\/p>\n

Most federal documents focus on workforce supply \u2013 such as training or recruitment. Fewer tackle the arguably harder, but equally important, issues.<\/p>\n

These include how to improve workforce performance, such as by addressing skills mismatch or under-use (where individuals are not able to use their qualifications or skills as part of their job), or how to better distribute staff across regions.<\/p>\n<\/div>

<\/div>

So what needs to change?<\/h3>\n<\/div>

In Australia, the federal government funds most of primary care, aged care and Indigenous health. But states and territories employ most health workers. So governance is decentralised.<\/p>\n

Private providers, Primary Health Networks (federal government-funded organisations that support services to meet local health needs) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Controlled services (which provide primary health care to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people) add further complexity to the health workforce landscape.<\/p>\n

So without national coordination, workforce policy and planning risks being reactive, inconsistent, and susceptible to political cycles. This risks focusing on what\u2019s most visible, and apparently urgent, rather than what\u2019s systemic and enduring.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s what needs to change:<\/p>\n