Australia | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Australia’s software disadvantage

What does Australia’s high software prices tell us about the nation’s economy?

This morning ABC Radio 702 asked me to comment on Adobe, Apple and Microsoft being summonsed to appear before the Federal Parliament’s IT Pricing enquiry.

As has been widely reported, the committee has asked the software giants to explain why there are such price differentials between Australian and overseas prices.

By way of example, Adobe Creative Suite 6 is available on the company website for $1299 US which is AUD 1263 on today’s exchange rate. The listed Australian price is AUD 1974 – a mark up of 56%.

This is not new

Australia has long been an expensive place to buy things, I remember my parents in the 1970s asking relatives to send over Marks and Spencer underwear as prices in Melbourne were so expensive.

Books and music have long been overpriced, the publishing industry openly printed the price of books in various countries and the Australian price has always been substantially higher than UK and US charges given prevailing exchange rates.

The high exchange rate has focused attention on the high prices, while the Aussie dollar was low consumers were tolerant of the rip-off. With the Aussie dollar high, consumers are wondering why the prices of many imported goods, particularly software, has remained so high.

A lack of competition

One of the biggest reasons for Australians being overcharged for many items is the lack of competition in the domestic marketplace. Most distribution channels are dominated by one or two players which lends itself to price gouging in areas ranging from technology to food.

A good example of this is the brewing industry, a revealing Fairfax article examined the Australian beer sector and exposed the failings and lack of competition in the market which results in the multinational duopoly extracting five times the profits of local retailers.

The conservative nature of Australian consumers is their own worst enemy as locals, including corporations and governments, prefer to buy major brands rather than experiment with local or lesser known providers.

Where alternatives exist, the price differentials rapidly fall. The price differential for an iPad is far less than the software apps that run on it. The reason for this are the range of alternatives available to the Apple product.

If Australian buyers were to explore open source alternatives, smaller suppliers or locally developed products then the prices of imported goods would fall.

Structural weaknesses

The pricing inquiry illustrates the structural weakness in the Australian economy where the nation has become a price taker both in the domestic consumer sector and bulk export industries.

Where Australia finds itself is an expected consequence of a generation of economic policies which favours debt driven consumer spending underpinned by selling assets and raw commodities.

Hopefully Australians are realising the price of software is just one of the consequences of current policies and start demanding the nation’s political and business leaders have a clear vision for what the country’s role will be in the 21st Century.

If that vision for Australia is a quarry with a few retirement homes clinging to the edge, then we’re well on the way to achieving that. At least software prices will be the least of anyone’s worries.

Do kids really need laptops in school?

Computers are seen as essential to education, but are we mistaking the tools for the methods.

Are laptop computers really essential to educating our kids? Fairfax media reports this weekend that the Australian Federal government’s laptops in education scheme is near collapse.

What stands out from the story are the quotes from educators;

Chatswood High School principal Sue Low said her school was providing laptops to students in year 9 but the uncertainty over future plans was unsettling.

“Laptops are now just as much of the culture of education as are pens and paper,” she said. “To not have certainty over how we will administer laptops to our students is very disruptive, and we need that certainty as soon as possible.”

Some schools have come up with their own solution to the problem. One NSW school has made arrangements with a private provider under which parents can buy a laptop for $1341 or rent-to-buy for $90 with monthly payments of about $50.

That computers are important is not a debate, but are we putting to much emphasis on the tools and not enough on what education is trying to achieve?

One educator said a decade ago that they could teach an 80 year old to use a computer in a few hours, but an illiterate 15 year old may be lost for life. This is truer today than it was then.

Computers are flooding our lives with information and the tools to gather that information are intuitive and don’t need 12 years of school to master.

What we are all need are the critical and mathematical skills to filter out the dross and misinformation that floods onto our screens.

Old and young have the belief that if something is on the web, then it must be true. The biggest challenge for parents and teachers with the web is convincing kids that cutting and pasting huge slabs of Wikipedia into an assignment isn’t research.

Not that this is just a problem in the classroom – plenty of politicians, business leaders and time poor journalists have been caught out plagiarising Wikipedia and other websites.

In recent times I’ve been to a lot of ‘future of media’ events where the importance of ‘data journalism’ has been raised. What really sticks out listening to these is how poorly equipped both young and old journalists are to evaluate the data they’ve gathered.

This isn’t just a problem in journalism – almost every occupation needs these skills. We could argue those skills are essential for citizens who want to participate in a modern democracy.

Computers, and coding skills, are important but we risk giving students the skills of today rather than giving them the foundations to adopt the skills of tomorrow.

We also risk making technological choices that risk education departments, schools and kids being locked into one vendor or system.

Giving every child a laptop is not a replacement for them having the critical, literacy and numeracy skills to participate in 21st Century society.

High cost politics – how the Australian election will fail business

The introduction of middle class welfare by the Howard government and Labor’s refusal to undo it is locking Australia into a high cost trap with little hope either party addressing the real issue.

“Running costs have gone crazy” complains Sydney restauranteur Jared Ingersoll at the same time the Australian events industry warns it’s being crushed by a higher dollar.

While the closure of an inner city cafe doesn’t mean that much, a bigger warning about Australian costs comes from Royal Dutch Shell who have put their gas investments on hold due to project blowouts.

Natural gas investments are the core of Australia’s economic policies with the country’s Asian Century report identifying energy exports as being the country’s main revenue earner over the next quarter century.

Costs of doing business in Australia have been steadily on the increase since the Howard government introduced the GST which triggered Australia’s transition to a high cost country.

It didn’t have to be that way but Howard’s addiction to middle class welfare meant what should have been a opportunity to reform the economy during the mid 2000s was squandered with gifts handed out by one of the highest spending governments in Australian history.

While Whitlam at least spent money on bringing sewers to the suburbs, Howard spent his on subsidies to rich schools and parking permits to self-funded retirees.

It would take a brave government to undo Howard’s work which isn’t something we can expect from the populist and cowardly Australian Labor Party that lacks any of the honesty or strength required to confront the whining middle classes about their unsustainable entitlements.

Which makes the election announced last week interesting. In her election announcement the Prime Minister made a mention of dealing with the high Australian dollar, which at least shows the Labor Party sees there’s a problem – although they certainly don’t have the stomach to make the tough decisions required.

On the other side of politics though it’s all unicorns and magic puddings. Tony Abbot and his friends are partying like it’s 1999.

The Liberal Party policy paper released last week is notable for not acknowledging the global financial crisis and maintaining that taxes can be cut while Howard’s middle class welfare state can be expanded.

The best example of the Liberal’s addiction to middle class welfare is their promise to introduce a parental leave scheme. As their Strong Australia policy document explains;

Paid parental leave ought to be paid at a person’s wage rate, like holiday pay and like sick pay, because it is a workplace entitlement, not a government benefit.

Not only does the Liberal Party believe that high paid workers should get subsidies for their nannies, but that employers should pick up the bill, just like holiday and sick pay.

Middle class welfare and a massive business cost increase to boot.

In a Smart Company poll last week, the small business readers overwhelming endorsed the Liberal Party.

They should be careful what they wish for.

For those worried about getting Australia’s high cost base down there are serious debates to be had about our tax and welfare systems along with tackling issues like high property prices, over-regulation, aging population and workforce skills.

Most importantly, we have to define what Australia wants to be in the 21st Century.

Little, if anything about these issues will be discussed before September and in the meantime the Dutch disease will slowly strangle Australian business. We need better.

Managing unemployment perceptions

Why did we accept one in twenty workers being unemployed as a good thing?

Stephen Koukoulas has a look at the changing composition of the Australian economy in Business Spectator today where he looks at how things have evolved over the last 50 years.

One of the notable things is unemployment and how our perception of what an acceptable level is;

Australia’s unemployment rate is 5.4 per cent at present, it was 0.9 per cent in August 1970 while in August 1951 it was a staggering 0.3 per cent.

In the 1961 Federal election the Menzies government hung on by one seat, having been punished for allowing the unemployment rate to reach the dizzying heights of 3.5 per cent.

Through the Twentieth Century, Australia’s unemployment rate averaged around 5% as shown in this Treasury graph.

What’s notable in that graph is how high unemployment became the norm in the last quarter of the century. When it became obvious politicians and economists couldn’t move the needle below 5%, the process of convincing us that five percent was ‘good’ began.

One wonders what the acceptable level of unemployment will be for the next generation. Will they consider us the failures that our grandparents would?

Image of unemployed carpenters in 1935 courtesy of the NSW State Library via Flickr

Why you won’t retire

Can we afford to retire at 65 when life expectancy is over 80 and could be 150 in a generation?

Outliving Our Super is the headline of an Australian Financial Review story on the problems of an aging population.

Jacqui Hayes cites a billboard in San Francisco declaring that life expectancy will soon be 150 and we have to plan for longer retirements.

The flaw in this discussion is the idea of retiring in our 60s. When the age pension was introduced in 1910, a new-born boy could expect to live 55 years and a girl, 59 years. The odds were against the average person every receiving the pension which was an effective, if ruthless, way of ensuring the solvency of social security programs.

A hundred years later, a new born can expect to live well into their eighties. Meaning the average person will spend two decades in retirement.

Making matters worse is the nature of that Millennial’s work pattern – when great, great grandpa entered the workforce in the 1920s, he was almost certainly in his early teens and worked a solid fifty years paying his taxes before prospect of retirement arrived.

Today, that child won’t enter the workforce until at least their late teens and more likely until their early twenties. A modern child is also going to have a much more fragmented work career and will likely have periods of unemployment or low earnings as a casual or contract worker.

For today’s child to retire at 65 it would mean he or she will have had to saved enough over a forty year working life to sustain them for fifteen years of retirement, those numbers are tough and to achieve it most won’t be living the millionaire lifestyle during their golden years.

With a life expectancy of 150, the early twentieth century model of retiring at 60 or 65 means today’s child would spend less than 30% of their lives in the workforce. Put simply, the numbers don’t add up.

The reality is most of us won’t be retiring at 65, the baby boomers reaching retirement age now are learning this and it’s a lesson that’s going to get harder for the Gen X’s and Y’s following them.

As a society, or an electorate, we can pretend there’s no problem and policy makers and politicians will pander to our refusal to face the truth by keeping structures that reflect early Twentieth Century aspirations rather than Twenty-First Century realities.

We have to face the reality that the retiring at 65 is unaffordable dream for most of us. Once we accept this, we can get on with building longer lasting careers.

Picture of pensioners courtesy of andreyutzu on SXC.HU

Australia’s grapes of wrath

The Australian wine industry is a good example of where the country’s industrial policies and business leadership have failed.

In a great post, The Wine Rules looks at what ails the Australian wine industry after the news of Cassella Wine’s problems.

Three things jump out of Dudley Brown’s article – how industry bodies are generally ineffectual, the failure of 1980s conglomerate thinking and how fragile your position is when you sell on price.

Selling on price

It’s tough being the cheapest supplier, you constantly have to be on guard against lower cost suppliers coming onto the market and you can’t do your best work.

Customers come to you not because you’re good, but because you’re cheap and will switch the moment someone beats you on price.

Worse still, you’re exposed to external shocks like supply interruptions, technological change or currency movement.

The latter is exactly what’s smashed Australia’s commodity wine sector.

A similar thing happened to the Australian movie industry – at fifty US cents to the Aussie dollar filming The Matrix in Sydney was a bargain, at eighty producers competitiveness falls away and at parity filming down under makes no sense at all.

Yet the movie industry persists in the model and still tries to compete in the zero-sum game of producer incentives which is possibly the most egregious example of corporate welfare on the planet.

When you’re a high cost country then you have to sell high value products, something that’s lost on those who see Australia’s future as lying in digging stuff up or chopping it down to sell cheaply in bulk.

Industry associations

“It’s like a Labor party candidate pre-selection convention” says Brown in describing the lack of talent among the leadership of the Australian wine industry. To be fair, it’s little better in Liberal Party.

There’s no surprise there’s an overlap between politics and industry associations, with no shortage of superannuated mediocre MPs supplementing their tragically inadequate lifetime pensions with a well paid job representing some hapless group of business people.

Not that the professional business lobbyists are any better as they pop up on various industry boards and government panels doing little. The only positive thing is these roles keep such folk away from positions where they could destroy shareholder or taxpayer wealth.

Basically, few Australian industry groups are worth spending time on and the wine industry is no exception.

Australia conglomerate theory

One of the conceits of 1980s Australia was the idea that local businesses had to dominate the domestic market in order to compete internationally.

A succession of business leaders took gullible useful idiots like Paul Keating and Graheme Richardson, or the Liberal Party equivalents to lunch at Machiavelli’s or The Flower Drum, stroked their not insubstantial egos over a few bottles of top French wine and came away with a plan to merge entire industries, or unions, into one or two mega-operations.

It ended in tears.

The best example is the brewing industry, where the state based brewers were hoovered up in two massive conglomerates in 1980s. Thirty years later Australia’s brewing industry is almost foreign owned and has failed in every export venture it has attempted.

Fosters Brewing Group was, ironically, one of the companies that managed to screw the Australian wine industry through poorly planned and executed conglomeration. Again every attempt at expanding overseas failed dismally.

In many ways, the Australian wine industry represents the missed opportunities of the country’s lost generation as what should have been one of the nation’s leading sectors – that had a genuine shot at being world leader – became mired in managerialism, corporatism and cronyism.

All isn’t lost for the nation’s vintners or any other Aussie industry, Dudley Brown describes how some individuals are committed to delivering great products to the world. There’s people like them in every sector.

Hopefully we’ll be able to harness those talents and enthusiasm to build the industries, not just in wine, that will drive Australia in the Twenty-First Century.

Picture courtesy of Krappweis on SXC.HU

Australia and the Dutch Disease

Australia’s greatest management challenge is dealing with the country’s dose of the Dutch Disease

This week sees the launch of the annual G’Day USA festival where Australian exporters and various celebrities extol the virues of the country across the United States.

One of Australia’s success stories of the last decade has been Yellowtail Wines which carved a niche for Australian wines in the US in the same way Jacob’s Creek did a decade earlier in the UK.

Today the Australian Financial Review reports that Cassella Wines, the maker of Yellowtail, is in breach of its banking covenants due to the high Australian dollar.

Cassella Wines is another victim of Australia’s Dutch Disease infection.

Dutch Disease owes its name to the Netherlands’ gas boom of the 1960s. By the early 1970s the strong Guilder damaged the rest of the Dutch economy which didn’t profit from extracting natural gas.

Having sleepwalked into the Dutch Disease, it’s fascinating how Australia’s electorate, policy makers and business leaders are in denial about the effects as successful exporters like Cassella Wines struggle with a high dollar and accelerating costs.

When commodity prices and the dollar turn, and they always do, its going to be tough for the economy to adapt as much of the industry capacity that was competitive at lower rates won’t be available to take advantage of the lower costs and to pick up the slack from a declining mining sector.

For Australian businesses, the onus is on managers and proprietors to protect their organisations from the short term effects of a high currency and the medium term effect of a falling dollar pushing up the input prices of imports.

In other words, getting costs down without becoming too reliant on offshored labour or suppliers. The companies that manage this are going to be very strong after the initial adjustment, but it’s a tough management task.

While that task can, and will be, done by smart and hardworking leaders no-one should expect any recognition of the scale of this task from governments, media or business organisations who seem to be in denial of reality.

The Dutch and Australian flags image is courtesy of Emilev through SXC

How Australia’s nanny state hurts business and society

Australia has changed in the last quarter century as governments of both persuasions have found it easy to legislate rather than lead. The nanny state has had effects on business and society in general.

It’s becoming popular to describe Australia as a ‘Nanny State’ as governments respond to moral panics and the need to do something about anything from bicycle helmets to unpasteurized cheese.

Unquestionably Australia has changed in the last quarter century as governments of all persuasions have found it easier to legislate rather than lead. This has had effects on business and society in general.

A good example of how the regulations have built up over the last twenty years in Australia is a sign at my local beach.

That’s a fine welcome and it compliments the $7 an hour parking fees the local council levies. In itself, those parking fees are a good example of the price pressures driving Australia’s high cost quandary.

Possibly the saddest regulation is the alcohol ban on ferries. Twenty years ago it was normal to see a group of friends unwinding on the way home from work with a cold beer or wine. Today you can’t do that because some bureaucrat decided drunks were a problem and rather than enforce existing laws it was easier to ban drinking entirely.

The press and moral panic

Much of this nannyism is being driven by the media who drum up hysterical reports demanding ministers do something. In turn the government’s panicky PR obsessed apparatchiks respond with pointless and unnecessary laws and rules. Often duplicating those that already exist.

A good example of cynical media hysteria was the story of Malea, a Sydney mum minding her own business while legally cycling with her child in a trailer.

While out riding a discredited journalist filmed Malea and passed the footage onto a current affairs TV show which portrayed her as a reckless mum and demanded such behaviour be banned.

Fortunately in that case the politicians ignored the confected outrage, but that’s the exception rather than the rule.

Doing something

The media though doesn’t have to force Australian politicians into adopting the nanny reflex. Often governments will create their own outrage in order for attention deprived politicians to get press coverage.

A good example of this was the incompetent Carr government which decided its contribution to the War On Terror after the 9/11 attacks would be to turn the Sydney Harbour Bridge into something similar to what welcomes Guantanamo Bay detainees.

It’s worthwhile comparing the same view on San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge and ask which is the greater terrorist target?

When Sydney genuinely was a larrikin city, climbing the Harbour Bridge in the dead of night was a rite of passage. Today, if you can get around the security guards, barbed wire, CCTV and motion detectors you risk a $3,300 fine and being branded a terrorist.

If you try to climb the bridge and get caught, the fine is only half that of stepping on the hallowed turf of the Sydney Cricket Ground.

At the cricket, if you’re foolish enough to bounce a beach ball, start a Mexican Wave or sing out of tune and you’ll be out before you can say “Shane Warne is a safe driving ambassador.”

The Age newspaper gave a good example of Australian sports administrators’ Stalinist mindset in this fawning article which gloats over the efforts MCG staff go to in harassing their customers.

On level three of the Members’ wing is a secure room with the best seats in the house, although the occupants only manage an occasional glance at the game on hand. It is the MCG command post, where ground security, police and Securecorp officers constantly watch a bank of computer monitors and camera screens.

…

Dohnt says the camera operators will check the froth on a punter’s cup of Coke to see if it has been topped up with smuggled grog.

Forcing cricket fans to buy overpriced drinks or visitors to spend over $200 to climb the Harbour Bridge brings us to the core motivation behind many of Australia’s nanny state regulations – protectionism.

Hidden protectionism

This sign, which is attached to the back of the one at the beginning of this story, bans vendors who sell from boats. It’s questionable whether the council actually has the power or resources to enforce this ban but if it helps the local shopkeepers then so be it.

One of the hubristic traits of Australian exceptionalism is that the nation is a ‘free trade’ economy hard put upon by sneaky Japanese, American and European protectionism. The reality is Australia is just as good as Japan or the EU in introducing sneaky regulations to protect the well-connected locals.

A very good example of this is bananas where the Australian domestically produced product is substantially dearer than imported bananas sold in the US, UK or Europe.

In early 2011, Cyclone Yasi devastated Australia’s banana crop and prices soared. Not one imported banana was allowed in to ease the shortage. Remember that the next time you hear a politician or journalist boasting about Australia’s free trade credentials.

Banana prices are another example of the costs passed onto Australian households and industry through nanny state regulations. Compliance costs are real and add to the cost of production and employment. They are another reason why Australia has become a high cost economy.

More importantly, those regulations tend to favour incumbents making it harder for entrepreneurs and new entrants into markets making the economy even less flexible.

The burden of regulation is also unfairly dropped upon the smaller business who don’t have the resources to comply with or challenge unfair rules. The Howard government was very good at this with slapping small business with the responsibilities of raising the GST and complying with draconian laws like Workchoices.

At this stage it’s worth noting that the Australian nanny state isn’t a Labor party creation, it’s come from both sides of politics and often because poorly drafted laws require mountains of regulations to overcome the legislative flaws.

Workchoices was probably the best example of badly thought out laws where the Howard government panicked into slapping a whole level of punitive rules for businesses who failed to keep log books of staff hours worked – the legislation was so bad that had it not been repealed by Rudd, the sight of bundy clocks would have become common in Australian offices.

Nanny and risk

One of the unfortunate effects of the nanny state is that it saps the entrepreneurial spirit – why take risks when nanny is there to support you?

There is an unintended effect of this though – because we think nanny will always protect us we lose the ability to evaluate risk.

Where this is most obvious is in financial matters. Too often people are fooled into investing in dodgy schemes because they think that regulators will protect them. They find out this isn’t the case when the money is long gone.

That failure to understand risk though becomes pervasive through the community as the nanny state mentality becomes established. We could argue that inability to identify risk was the core reason for the global financial crisis.

The future nanny state

While the nanny state has been rampant around the world for the last fifty years, its days are numbered as cash strapped governments find they can no longer bear the cost of maintaining armies of bureaucrats to enforce silly rules.

As society deleverages from the excesses of the credit boom, governments are going to find revenues falling short and while it won’t be the first casualty of the new austerity, the nanny state will almost certainly be a victim.

Australia’s high cost quandary

Is property the answer to keeping Australia’s high cost economy afloat?

“Around the world our towncars are usually 30% more expensive than taxis, in Sydney it’s 20% as the cabs are pretty expensive,” said Travis Kalanick on launching the Sydney version of Uber’s hire care booking service.

It’s not just hire cars which are expensive in Sydney – the soaring cost of living in Australia is bourne out by Expatistan, a web site that crowdsources the cost of living in various cities.

Expatisan’s comparisons find Sydney up with Tokyo and London as the most expensive towns on earth.

That conclusion means Australian businesses, governments and policy makers have some important decisions ahead of them.

Cholesterol in the veins

High property prices have been the norm for two decades in Australia, the middle class welfare state that both political parties support gives tax and social security concessions to property owners while the banking system requires most business lending to be secured by property.

As a consequence, generations of Australians see property as the only path to financial success. If Bill Gates, or any of today’s entrepreneurial wizz-kids, had been born in Australia, they’d be encouraged to get a safe job and buy property than to take the risk of starting a new business.

The property obsession has another perverse effect in that it creates a short term outlook for Aussie business owners who have to consider getting, and paying off, a mortgage quickly to secure their financial foundations.

A few weeks ago a business owner was profiled in the Sydney Morning Herald, which some call the Sydney Morning Property Spruiker, who paid 1.1 million Aussie dollars (a million US) for a property in Redfern – which is Sydney’s Bronx.

That poor guy not only has a fat mortgage to pay off, but he has to pass those costs onto his customers. Just to pay the bank is a fat chunk out of his business before he pays his staff, landlord and the various other expenses before he can take his profits.

Having to pay the bank for living costs is the main reason why Aussie businesses don’t invest in capital equipment, which in turn makes them less competitive than overseas competitors.

One of the myths in Australian business is that competitiveness is solely due to labor costs, what the ideologues preaching this miss is that even if Aussie workers were paid a bowl of rice a day, Chinese and Mexican factories would still be more productive due to the investment in modern equipment.

For the sake the argument, we won’t even discuss German, Japanese or Swiss manufacturers who are still competitive despite Australian level cost structures.

This last point is what’s missed in much of the discussion about Australia’s economic future – apologists for Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens and the self congratulatory Canberra monoculture say that the high Aussie dollar is here to stay and mining will be driving the economy.

Should the mining sector stall, which currently seems to be the case, then housing development will pick up the slack according to the policy-makers’ groupthink.

That housing development is going to come at a high price, with Australian land and homes already among the world’s highest. Given Australia’s private sector debt is among the highest in the world already, it’s hard to see where the money will come from to fuel further property speculation.

Right now Australia has a serious problem in determining what the future will be for the country.

If the future is a high cost economy underpinned by massive property property prices, then the future has to lie in high value added sectors.

The question is ‘what sectors’? Australian business, governments and society in general seem to think that property speculation is the future.

Property speculation turned out not to be the future for Spain and it looks like China’s speculative boom is meeting its obvious end.

Australians are going to have to hope that it really is different down under and that young people and immigrants are prepared to spend huge amounts of money to keep the economy afloat.

If the policy makers are wrong, then the worry is that there is no Plan B.

Stumbing into recession

An obsession with surpluses and satisfying the ratings agencies is going to have harsh consequences for Australians

The Committee for Economic Development Australia (CEDA) today released its 2012 Big Issues survey looking at the responses of 7000 business people on the issues confronting Australian industry in 2012.

One of the notable results is that business people don’t care about government surpluses. A third are neutral on the question “do you believe maintaining a government surplus is important” while 35% disagree that it is a high priority.

Yet despite the electorate and business saying the deficit is not a priority, the politicians still obsess about maintaining their surplus.

Now Australia’s mining boom has come to an end – along with the blue sky economic assumptions that underlie both sides of politics’ spending plans – governments are desperately trying to fudge the books and continue the pretense that their budgets are in the black.

Driving this obsession with avoiding deficits is the religious belief among Australia’s political classes that Triple – A credit ratings from the discredited Wall Street ratings agencies is more important than educating the nation’s children, caring for the country’s sick or building the infrastructure to compete in the 21st Century.

The real danger with this deficit obsession is that there is a very high possibility that state and Federal governments are going to tip Australia into a recession driven by European style austerity. Already we see this developing as various states start slipping backwards according to the ABS’ latest accounts.

Another interesting result from the CEDA report is how business’ view the Australia in the Asian Century report with nearly 80% of respondents saying the issue is important or critical.

It is questionable whether Australian business is prepared to face the realities of an Asian Century as David Llewellyn-Smith writes at the Macro Business Blog, Australia’s businesses are looking more at getting help from the government to cut domestic costs rather than sell into Asia. That inward focus of Australian business since the mid-1990s is the topic for another blog post.

The sad thing is that the government aspects of Asian Century report is stillborn as surplus obsessed politicians carve into skills training and innovation programs in a vain attempt to balance the books while failing to reform the tax system or address the middle class welfare that’s squandered most of the returns from the last decade of prosperity.

Australia’s politicians are very soon going to have to decide who they govern on behalf of, the corrupt and incomptent ratings agencies or the people who vote for them and pay the taxes which support them and their political parties. For some, this might be a tough choice.

How the film industry cons governments

Do government incentives really build a sustainable movie industry?

“I would never make a movie where I didn’t get an incentive and I don’t ever intend to” states Michael Benaroya, producer of the movie Margin Call, in a New York Times story on movie studio subsidies.

While we focus on the cost of subsidies to motor manufacturing, one sector that beats all others for playing governments for suckers is the global film industry.

“Incentives” are a huge factor in determining where studios will film their latest blockbuster, Australia’s learning this the hard way as rent seekers looking for fat subsidies parade Hollywood stars in an effort to convince publicity hungry ministers that giving fat payments to the major production houses is good for jobs.

The problem with this is that these susbidies aren’t that great for employment – Accompanying the New York Times’ video is a story on how Michigan’s dream of building a film industry has foundered.

“Film is one of the few industries that’s really well subsidised and that’s a really attractive thing” Michael Benaroya says in the video.

Before Michael even made the movie, he sold the rights to the New York production subsidies to investors. Who says financial engineering is the purview of Wall Street?

The question for governments, taxpayers and those who want to build a sustainable movie industry in their city, state or country is do you want to attract “entrepreneurs” like Michael Benaroya who are shopping around the world for the best deal.

New York might be the flavour today, but tomorrow it might be Sydney, Toronto or Prague. If the incentives aren’t fat enough then the movie productions may not come back for decades.

In the meantime the crews, production assistants and catering companies who make up most of the employment on a major production move onto other jobs so the skills and industry infrastructure is lost.

The biggest challenge is for governments, it’s estimated that New York state gives away over $400 million in subsidies and it’s difficult to see how that sort of expenditure can be justified as politicians face cuts to basic spending in today’s austere times.

For the taxpayers, we need to be demanding fair value and real long term plans behind the subsidies doled out to the film, motor manufacturing and other industries.

During the good times it was easy for opportunist politicians to dole out money to rent seekers for a media opportunity or to boost votes in a key electorate, but today that spending has to be strategic with real value and outcomes.

As Michael Benroya shows, when an entire industry is based around government subsidies and incentives the leaders are those who know how to manage the bureaucracy and fill in the forms properly. Is that what we want our industries to become?

If the answer is ‘yes’, then the next question is ‘can we afford it?’

Disruption and leadership

Smartphones and the internet are shifting power between suppliers, companies and customers. The new breed of leaders has a tough task.

As new communications tools appear, the challenge for managers is to deal with the disruptions these technologies bring to their businesses.

Launching Deloitte Digital’s release of Taking Leadership in the Digital Economy last week the Executive Director of Telstra Digital Consumers, Gerd Schenkel, described how business is changing as consumers are being empowered by smartphones.

A good example of this is the taxi industry where applications like GoCatch, InGoGo and Uber give passengers the opportunity to fight back against poor service from protected operators.

Sydney is an attractive market for taxi industry disruptors as the current protected market fails both passengers and drivers. Travis Kalanick, the CEO of Uber, said at the Sydney launch of his service earlier last week that the city is one of the more ‘problematic” markets they’ve entered alongside San Francisco and Paris.

That letting down drivers along with passengers is an also an important point – drivers get 80% of Uber’s charges while InGoGo and GoCatch free operators from poor booking systems that frustrate everybody involved in the industry while making the system as unaccountable as possible.

Similar changes are happening in other industries as technology changes the way suppliers, customers and staff work.

A good example of changing work practices is the adoption of Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policies in the workplace. A few years ago in most businesses it was unthought of that staff could be allowed to bring their own computers to work. Today it’s common and soon the companies that don’t have a BYOD policy will be exception.

BYOD has happened because of the arrival of cheap consumer devices like smartphones and tablets along with IT departments rolling out web based services.

We’ve seen this before – probably the greatest influences on the shape of modern society had been electricity and the motor car. These, and many other technological changes have shaped today’s workplace.

Many businesses though suffer for those changes as we’re seeing with the drying up of the newspapers’ “rivers of gold”.

For Telstra this is seen in the demise of their phone directory business; Sensis was a true river of gold in the days of printed phone directories, but a number of management mis-steps over the last 15 years meant they totally missed the transition to digital.

The tragedy for Telstra that Sensis’ strength in the local advertising market should have been a positive given Google’s failure to execute on their local search strategy.

On reflecting about the struggle to deal with transitions to new technology, just how many business are like Sensis and Fairfax in having leaders that aren’t equipped to deal with these changes.

The leaders of the 1980s whose business models were based on the assumption of economic growth underpinned by easy credit, cheap energy and demographic growth and now finding those factors are moving against them at the same time technology change is disrupting their industries.

For the upcoming generation of leaders, both in business and government, having the ability to adapt to the changed power relationships between customers, suppliers and workers is going to be essential. For those steeped in last century’s certainties, it’s going to be a tough time.