Tag: root cause thinking

Australia Funds the Warning Signs and Ignores the Problem

I came on a holiday and now I am putting together a briefing note to get an audience with Penny Wong.

Six days in Sri Lanka and it has become impossible to dodge that Australia spends billions on detention centres, offshore processing, border enforcement and surveillance, locking up children and stripping people of hope, and far less on the conditions that drive people to leave.

Billions on Warnings, Almost Nothing on Solutions

In my first piece I wrote about vaccines, public health and the visible conditions that make disease prevention a daily issue, not a travel checklist.

This second piece comes from a different place. I have taken a day out and stayed at the hotel because I needed a break from what I am seeing. The contrast is confronting. Writing this is how I turn that into action.

I am drawing on the leadership training I trust. Goal, problem, solution. In an ideal world we would sit down with the people we want to support and listen, and listen, and listen.

We pour money into deterrence after people decide to go, when the wiser investment is supporting them to stay

You do not need a policy paper to understand the pull of Australia from here. You need eyes and a nose. You need to walk past polluted water, rubbish piled where people live and work, and the kind of infrastructure gap that turns an ordinary stomach bug into something far more serious. You need to hear that Australia funds bus shelters carrying warnings about people smugglers and recognise the absurdity in full view.

We will pay for the warning sign. We drag our feet on the conditions that might remove the need for the warning.

And of course people look at Australia and want what we have. Clean water. Reliable health care. Schools that open doors. Work that pays enough to build a life. Streets that do not force public health into every hour of the day. Add a strong Sri Lankan community already living in Australia and the path becomes easier to imagine. People are not chasing fantasy. They are responding to the visible difference between one set of conditions and another.

Now place that against our politics at home. We live in a country of abundance, still right wing politics thrives by feeding grievance. Migrants are taking our jobs. Migrants are buying our houses. Migrants are the problem. It is the old script. Find a villain. Feed the resentment. Keep the public focused on who to blame rather than what to fix.

This is where the debate in Australia becomes so shabby. We hand the microphone to people who reduce human desperation to border slogans, as though cruelty counts as policy. They rage about boats, numbers and national strength. They rarely talk about sanitation, disease prevention, local health care, waste systems, corruption proof delivery, or long term partnerships with communities. They talk about the last stage of the story because outrage plays well at home.

There is another audience for this conversation. People who already know Australia has obligations beyond self protection. People who understand that generosity without discipline achieves little, and discipline without humanity turns ugly fast. This is where the hard thinking belongs. How do we help build safer, healthier lives in countries people are leaving? How do we do it from the ground up, with local knowledge, clear goals, open reporting and constant scrutiny? How do we keep money out of corrupt hands and get it to the people and projects that can change daily life?

We Warn Them Not to Come, Then Do Nothing About Why They Leave

None of this is beyond us. Trial programs. Local partnerships. Transparent metrics. Public reporting. Long term commitment. Real listening before money moves. Australia knows how to design systems, monitor spending and explain outcomes when it chooses to. This is a choice.

Sri Lanka has made one part of this brutally clear to me. People do not hand over life savings to smugglers because they are reckless. They do it because paradise looks believable from where they stand, and because home has stopped offering enough protection, dignity or hope.

That should force a different question onto the table in Australia. Not how loudly we can declare the border secure. How seriously we are prepared to invest in the basics that give people a reason to stay where they are.

I came here for a holiday. Six days in, I am thinking about budgets, public health, political courage and the poverty of a national debate that still treats deterrence as the main event.

This is the second piece. I will come back to the question in another six days, and I doubt it will have become any easier.

Identifying and action on the root cause is how change actually happens

This post is inspired by Melinda Lawton.

While reading about Jackson Katz, I recognised the same discipline she brings to every conversation, start at root cause and address it first.

Jackson Katz campaigns to prevent violence against women by challenging male culture, silence, and the systems that excuse abuse.

Like Melinda, Katz works from this key discipline. He starts at root cause. He asks why violence is learned, normalised, and excused, rather than turning the spotlight onto the behaviour of women who are harmed.

This single discipline changes the conversation. Responsibility moves to culture, peers, institutions, and the systems that allow violence to become ordinary. It forces the question away from personal vigilance and towards cause.

This way of thinking is not limited to domestic violence. You can see it playing out, or being avoided, in other issues sitting close to the surface right now.

Take the Bondi massacre.

The media response followed a familiar cycle. Click bait headlines set the frame. It shifted rapidly, from Islamophobia, to gun control, to demands for a Royal Commission. Attention moved faster than understanding.

Public grief was converted into competing explanations and visible demands for action, without staying with the harder question of what would actually reduce risk.

Into that noise stepped NSW Premier Chris Minns, treating the moment as an opportunity to move against large peaceful protests. He used claims about social division and policing pressure to restrict large pro-Palestinian protests, despite no evidence linking those protests to the attack.

This is the same short-term logic that makes Royal Commissions feel irresistible. They look decisive. They feel serious. They create motion. They rarely deal with root cause. Outrage is absorbed. Responsibility is delayed. Governments appear active while avoiding targeted action.

The pattern is consistent. After shock, we reach for spectacle. Media amplifies it. Politics exploits it. Prevention slips out of frame.

Climate Action sits in the same pattern, though it is often approached sideways. The conversation is kept at the level of personal behaviour, resilience, and adaptation. That framing feels practical, even responsible, but it avoids harder questions about policy delay, economic incentives, and systems that reward risk while spreading the cost. Starting at root cause shifts the conversation out of individual adjustment and into collective responsibility.

Across every issue there is a unifying pattern

  • Surface framing individualises blame

  • Root cause framing interrogates systems

  • Silence is rewarded where power is concentrated

  • Speaking up carries social cost unless culture shifts

  • Language determines where action is allowed to land

The same question keeps surfacing. Where do we begin.

This is where Melinda Lawton stands apart.

When she meets with people who can drive change, she starts at root cause and keeps the conversation there. The focus is on what produced the problem, what incentives are operating, and what systems allowed it to take hold. From there, the work turns to what needs to change and how to do it.

This is Melinda’s key discipline.

It is strategic. It resists distraction. It keeps responsibility where it belongs and pushes the conversation toward action rather than explanation.

Pivotally this is project management 101 which is Melinda Lawton’s professional background.

Start with diagnosis. Identify root cause. Map incentives and systems. Then decide what needs to change and who owns it. These are core principles taught in leadership courses, management training, and governance frameworks everywhere else.

What is striking is how often this discipline is missing in local government. What should be standard practice is treated as optional. Conversations drift to response, optics, and containment instead of staying anchored in cause and decision. That gap is not about capacity. It is about whether discipline is applied.

And that is why Melinda’s approach stands out. Not because it is novel, but because it should be normal.

If you open this link  you’ll find a PDF with more examples that apply this same discipline across other current issues.

A shout out to Melinda Lawton for modelling an approach that moves from diagnosis to decision. Imagine if change conversations started here every time.