Category: economy

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?’

Is Australia missing the Indonesian opportunity?

Mary Meeker’s state of the internet report emphasises the opportunities in South East Asian markets.

Mary Meeker’s annual State of the Internet Report looks at the trends driving the online economy. One area that should be of concern is that Australian entrepreneurs are overlooking one of the world’s biggest growth markets that is sitting right on the nation’s doorstep.

Early in Mary’s overview, on slides 5 and 7, she shows the growth of various markets. Indonesia is the second biggest growth market for internet users – 58% year on year to 55 million – and eighth in the world for smartphone growth with a 36% increase last year taking total users to 27 million.

Given the penetration of both smartphones and the internet are low with only one quarter of Indonesians connected to the internet and less than one mobile phone in ten currently being a smartphone, there is massive potential for the savvy entrepreneur.

While there’s a steady stream of stream of Australian app developers and entrepreneurs heading to Silicon Valley, London and a few to Singapore there’s very few looking to their biggest neighbour.

This ignoring of Indonesia is one of the many omissions in the Australia in the Asian Century report; despite being one of Australia’s closest neighbours with the world’s fourth largest population and an economy growing at over 6% per year, both businesses and governments tend to overlook the nation.

For Australia, the tragedy is that Indonesia has a lot offer businesses that do more than just dig up coal and iron ore.

Perhaps now the mining boom is over, entrepreneurs and governments might start to take markets like Indonesia, and other South East Asian countries more seriously. It’s an omission that’s currently costing the country dearly.

Bringing manufacturing home

How GE is reviving its American manufacturing operations

In the 1980s General Electric, like most US companies, sent most of its appliance manufacturing offshore.

Now its coming home.

The Atlantic Magazine looks at how General Electric is resuscitating manufacturing at Kentucky’s Appliance Park as management finds US workers are more skilled and productive than their equivalents in Mexico or China.

An important part of the article is how critcal supply chains are; manufacturing hubs rely upon having a community of skilled service providers and suppliers around the factories while being close to customers improves and simplifies logistics.

In the latter case, it now take hours or days to deliver products to customers’ stores or warehouses rather than the five weeks it takes from China.

The cost of those goods is lower too, the Kansas made GeoSpring heater sells for $1299 while the Chinese product sells for $1599.

What is most notable though is how designers and managers now have a better understanding of the manufacturing process; where under the oustourced model the difficulties in assembly were none of their business, now they are far more deeper and directly involved.

This really goes to the core of what an organisation does – in the 1980s it was fashionable to talk of the “virtual corportation” where everything the business did was outsourced except for the managers who were employed solely to pocket their bonuses.

In the 1990s and early 2000s that “virtual corporation” became a reality as manufacturing and customer support were offshored and logistics was outsourced.

One of the best examples was customer support where looking after the needs of those who buy the company’s products were secondary to the need to cut costs.

This focus on cost cutting over customer service hurt Dell badly in the 2000s and it continues to hurt many organisations – particularly telcos and banks – today.

The weakness in the “virtual corporation” model was the company ended up adding little more value than the brand name and eventually those offshored manufacturers and call centres took control of the business’ goodwill and intellectual property.

Eventually the hidden costs of offshoring became too obvious for even the most craven, KPI driven manager to ignore and suddenly manufacturing in the Western world became competitive again.

Sadly, the fixation on dirt cheap labour has damaged many industries beyond the point where they can be salvaged with too many skilled workers lost and the ecosystem of capable suppliers destroyed. These are costs where tomorrow’s managers will rue the short sighted actions of yesterday’s corporate leaders.

Disrupting the disrupters

Silicon Valley’s investment models are changing as attention moves from the consumer to the enterprise.

Two days ago, iconic venture capital investor Fred Wilson, wrote about the changing nature of the tech industry’s VC investments.

Fred puts the changes down to three factors; maturing markets where big players increasingly dominate, the move to mobile which Cristina Cordova examines in more detail and the shift in focus from the consumer market to the enterprise sector.

The last factor bears more examination as consumer and enterprise are very different and there’s no guarantee that businesses built around thousands of people downloading apps or accessing websites can pivot into selling into corporations and government agencies.

Probably the biggest problem is the consumer or small business freemium model doesn’t cut it in the enterprises who are prepared to pay big sums for highly reliable and secure services.

Similarly the enterprise model of fat sales commissions paid for by big implementation costs and expensive support contracts doesn’t quite fly either for these start up business. There’s also a good argument that high margin enterprise model is doomed anyway as cloud services displace costly in-house installations.

In the transition from consumer to enterprise is difficult and most companies have struggled to make the jump, even Google Docs has been a hard sell into the corporate sector.

At the enterprise end, cloud services are cutting margins as IBM and Oracle are finding. Both companies are moving across to cloud products and now a lot of salespeople and consultants in those organisations are looking at a substantial drop in their standards of living.

More importantly for the startup and VC communities, the “greater fool” model doesn’t work in the enterprise space. Hyping a business which has barely made a cent in revenue but does have a million users is very different to building a stable corporate platform.

It may well be the move to the enterprise by Silicon Valley is because the consumer model has run out of “greater fools” who’ll buy overhyped photo sharing apps or social media platforms of dubious value.

This change in investment behaviour also has lessons for governments trying to copy Silicon Valley. The puck moves fast in the investment community while governments, by definition, are slow.

By the time governments have setup their programs, the markets have moved on and many of the hot technologies of two years prior are now old hat. This is exactly what we’re seeing in the apps world.

We often hear about technology causing disruption, often though we forget that those disruptive technologies can be ephemeral as they are disrupted themselves.

As these industries evolve, we’ll see how well the disrupters deal with being disrupted.

Newly normal in the English Midlands

The new normal will be different to the old normal – is the English Midlands a vision of the future?

On their metal, a story from BBC Radio’s In Business program looked at how the English Midlands is dealing with the toughest economic conditions the beleaguered region has suffered for decades.

Once the centre of the industrial revolution, The Midlands have had a tough time of the last fifty years as the region caught the brunt of Britain’s de-industrialisation and the loss of thousands of engineering jobs.

Today, the surviving engineering companies are struggling to find new markets as orders from Europe dry up and many Midlands workers find they are confronting the ‘New Normal’.

The ‘New Normal’ for British industry is described by Mark Smith, Regional Chairman, Price Waterhouse Coopers Birmingham who points out that UK industries have to sell to the fast growing economies.

Interestingly this is similar, but very different in practice, to the Australian belief – where the Asian Century report sees Australia continuing being a price-taking quarry for Asia rather than selling much of real value – the Brits see some virtue in adding value to what they sell to Asia’s growing economies.

The British experience though shows the realities of the ‘New Normal’ for Western economies – the cafe owner featured in story now offers no dish over £3 and the idea of overpriced five quid tapas are long gone. The customers can’t afford it.

Part of this is because of the casualisation of the workforce as people find salaried jobs are no longer available and become freelancers or self-employed. One could argue this is the prime reason why unemployment hasn’t soared in the UK and US since the global financial crisis.

That ‘new normal’ features the precariat – the modern army of informal white and blue collar workers who have more in common with their grandparents who worked for day wages at the docks and factories in the 1930s than their parents who had safe, stable jobs through the 1950s and 60s.

For the precariat, the idea of sick leave, paid holidays or a stable career started to vanish after the 1970s oil shock and accelerated in the 1990s. The new normal is the old normal for them, there just happens to be more of them after the 2008 crash.

With a workforce increasingly working for casual wages without security of income, the 1980s consumerist business model built around ever increasing consumption starts to look damaged.

The same too applies to the banking industry which grew fat on providing the credit that unpinned the late 20th Century consumer binge.

When the 2008 financial crisis signalled the end of the 20th Century credit binge, the banks were caught out. Which is why governments had to step in to help the financial system rebuild its reserves.

The effects of that reserve building also affected businesses as bank credit dried up. Early in the BBC program Stuart Fell, the Chairman of Birmingham’s Metal Assemblies Ltd described how his bank decided to cut his line of credit from £800,000 to £300,000 which forced the management to find half a million pounds in a hurry.

That experience has been repeated across the world as banks have used their government support and easy money policies to recapitalise their damaged accounts rather than lend money to entrepreneurial customers to build businesses.

Businesses are now looking at other sources to find capital from organisations like the Black Country Reinvestment Society which is profiled in the story that raises money from local investors to provide small businesses with working capital.

Communities helping themselves and each other is the real ‘New Normal’ – waiting for the banks to lend money or hoping that surplus obsessed governments will save businesses or provide adequate safety will only end in disappointment as the real austerity of our era starts to be felt.

The New Normal is declining income for most people in the Western world and we need to think of how we can help our neighbours as most of us can be sure we’re going to need their help.

Just as the English Midlands lead the world into the industrial revolution, it may be that the region is giving us a view of what much of the Western world will be like for the next fifty years.

Desperate Ken and market realities

Adam Smith’s invisible hand of the market is giving some people a nasty slap over the head.

Ken Slamet has a problem, his in-laws are trying to sell the family house and no-one will give them the price they want.

The house at 228 Warrimoo Ave has been on the market through an agent for more than 100 days, pulling in ridiculously low offers, Mr Slamet said.

Depending on the deposit, Mr Slamet is seeking between $1.5 million and $1.6 million for the house his wife grew up in.

One would argue that those “ridiculously low offers” are actually Mr Market giving Ken and his in-laws a slap of reality. They are simply asking for too much money.

St Ives, a suburb on Sydney’s Upper North Shore, is going through demographic change. In 1960s and 70s St Ives was the suburb for successful stock brokers and bankers, however in the 1980s and 90s that demographic decided they wanted to live closer to the city and Harbour and suburbs like Mosman and Clontarf became their areas of choice.

For Ken’s in-laws and their neighbours, this is bad news as few other people can afford 1970s mansions on large blocks within 30km of Sydney. Those who do manage to sell often find the buyers are developers who sub-divide to build townhouses or apartment blocks, madness in a congested, car-dependent suburb with poor public transport links.

Adam Smith’s invisible hand of the market is giving those holding properties that were attractive to stockbrokers in 1972 a nasty slap over the head in 2012.

Ken though has a solution for his problem – he’s offering a rent to buy scheme at a mere snip of $2297 per week. An amount 70% higher than the average Sydneysider’s gross income and a whopping four and half times the city’s average rent of $500.

Good luck with that.

The real problem is that Ken’s in-laws are stuck with expectations higher than the market reality. Like many of us in the Western world, they believe their assets are worth more than they really are.

As the global economy deleverages there will be many more people like Ken’s family. For many the transition to a less wealthy lifestyle is going to be tough.

Australia in the Asian Century – Chapter 9: Deeper and broader relationships

Australia in the Asian Century concludes with a look at how we build relationships into Asia.

This post is one of the series of articles on the Australia in the Asian Century report.

Australia in the Asian Century’s final chapter looks at how Australia can deepen relationships with its Asian neighbours. The chapter is full of fine ideas which don’t quite match the reality of government policies and spending.

Early in the chapter the white paper proposes increasing the number of Australian diplomats in Asia along with opening a new embassy in Ulan Baator, a Jakarta based ambassador to ASEAN and consulates in Shenyang , Phuket and eastern Indonesia.

Fine words, however Australia’s diplomatic corps has been shrinking for the last twenty years so staffing these facilities will require a withdrawal from other regions. The white paper doesn’t identify which countries Australia’s representation would be cut from and the consequences of that.

More importantly, it doesn’t identify how Foreign Affairs and Trade staff will be skilled up to man these facilities, instead we get another worthy ambition.

National objective 22. Australia will have the necessary capabilities to promote Australian interests and maintain Australia’s influence.

  • Australia’s diplomatic network will have a larger footprint across Asia.

Again, one would surely expect that Australia would already have the necessary capabilities to promote its national interest and maintain influence. Is the white paper suggesting we don’t?

Which leads us to the next national objective;

National objective 23. Australia will have stronger and more comprehensive relationships with countries across the region, especially with key regional nations—China, India, Indonesia, Japan and South Korea.

If we accept the assumption which underlies the entire paper, that Asia is going to continue to grow both economically and in influence then this will happen regardless of what governments do. It’s a meaningless and silly statement which once again ignores most of Asia and simplifies the dynamics.

The Australia Network

One of the great wastes of the Howard years was the dismembering of Radio Australia which was a cheap and effective way of projecting ‘soft power’ across the region. I personally came across this as a backpacker in China where many manual workers in the hard seat carriages practiced their Australian accented English that they’d learned on Radio Australia’s programs.

This was shut down by one of the spiteful, stupid and poorly thought out decisions that were the hallmark of the Howard government.

Replacing this was a new Australia network that replaced the previous awful overseas television service which had been a niche product on Asian cable TV channels – I had it on my Thai cable subscription when I lived in Bangkok. It was rarely watched.

The Australia Network hasn’t been a great success and that is largely due to the funding – the 2011-21 contract was costed at $221 million in the budget papers.

A break out box in the white paper boasts about the Australia Channel and its “mandate to encourage awareness of Australia, promote cross-cultural communication and build regional partnerships.”

Listed is the funding for some other services – Al Jazeera, $359 million in 2009; CCTV, $280 million in 2009 and NHK World/Radio, $226 million in 2008.

With the Australia Network receiving less than a tenth of this funding, it’s no surprise the station looks amateurish and irrelevant. Once again we see the difference between government words and government deeds.

Which brings us to the final two national objectives;

National objective 24. Australia will have deeper and broader people to people links with Asian nations, across the entire community.

National objective 25. Australia will have stronger, deeper and broader cultural links with Asian nations.

Again these are more motherhood statements and barely worth considering. The section itself skates over some of Australia’s most important assets – the cultural diversity and immigrant communities.

That the final chapter spends just a few pages on this aspect probably sums up the entire project – simple, full of motherhood statements and missing the critical strengths and threats to Australia’s, and Asia’s growth.

Overall the paper is a disappointment that tells us little we didn’t already know while stating some big ambitions which successive governments have shown they aren’t capable of delivering.

The message for those building Australia’s 21st Century links with Asia is not to wait for government but to get on and do it.

Australia in the Asian Century – Building the agriculture industry

How can Australia improve agricultural exports to Asia?

Before going into Chapter 8, the Australia in the Asian Century report has a detailed look at the agriculture industry. Which kicks off with National Objective number 19;

National objective 19. Australia’s agriculture and food production system will be globally competitive, with productive and sustainable agriculture and food businesses.

While this objective seems to have already been achieved, the bulk of the chapter does a good job of identifying the opportunity and challenges for the industry.

The examination of trade treaties, biosecurity and food security is a good overview of the industry however it does suffer from a rose coloured view of prospects and government programs.

Issues such as protectionism, genetically modified foods and the running sore of live cattle exports don’t get a mention.

Another aspect of this section is how the aspirations don’t match the actions of governments, for instance the industry capture of regulators – the case of defining free range eggs being a good example – is a real barrier to Australia selling quality produce internationally.

While the section does discuss ‘value adding’, the tenor of the section seems to be focused on bulk exports and really doesn’t identify industries such organics and free range which are an opportunity for the agricultural industry.

Overall though, this section at least does give a reasonably detailed snapshot of an industry and its a shame the paper doesn’t attempt to profile other sectors in the Australian economy.

Australia in the Asian Century – Chapter Seven: Connecting to Asian Markets

How can Australia improve its business, trade and government links with Asian countries?

This post is one of the series of articles on the Australia in the Asian Century report.

The seventh chapter of Australia in the Asian Century looks at how the country’s businesses and governments can engage with markets in Asia. In some ways this is the most effective chapter of the report.

At the beginning of the chapter introduction points out that Asia offers bigger markets than Australia and says “Australian businesses need to build on their existing advantages by developing new capabilities and approaches as they become fully part of the region.”

This is true, but the Chapter never really identifies what Australia business’ existing advantages really are and again this is a weakness in the report.

National objective 17. Australia’s businesses will be recognised globally for their excellence and ability to operate successfully in Asian markets.

How this comes about is difficult to say, and what governments can actually do to help businesses be recognised globally isn’t really identified.

The CPA case study is notable for illustrating the number of Australian expats working in Asia. In many ways these people are the wasted talents that should have been cultivated by domestic businesses through the 1990s and 2000s.

Saying that businesses need to be part of the global supply chain is a statement of the obvious and Chapter 7.3 does discuss the importance of efficient ports, fast customs procedures and reduced barriers to trade. This ties into National Objective 18a.

National objective 18a.The Australian economy will be more open and integrated with Asia, through efforts to improve our domestic arrangements. The flow of goods, services, capital, ideas and people will be easier.

  • Australia’s trade links with Asia will be at least one-third of GDP by 2025, up from one-quarter in 2011.

It’s difficult to argue with this objective, although one wonders what Canberra has been doing for the last twenty years on smoothing the flow of goods, services, capital and ideas. Hopefully this is one of the relatively easy areas where a Gillard, or Abbott, government can deliver.

National objective 18b. The Australian economy will be more open and integrated with Asia, through comprehensive regional agreements, better aligned economic regulations, greater infrastructure connectivity and enhanced understanding of each country’s arrangements. The flow of goods, services, capital, ideas and people will be easier and Australian businesses and investors will have greater access to opportunities in Asia.

This objective focuses around formal trade links and really only describes the current policy – continued from the Howard government – of signing bilateral trade agreements rather than waiting for the cumbersome and possibly never ending global negotiations to actually deliver something.

Most of Chapter Seven is focused on describing the various trade initiatives the Australian government is engaged in through APEC, ASEAN and various other forums.

All of these are good initiatives and these are the brightest spot in the entire report, this is where the Australian political system has delivered bipartisan support for a long term plan and it’s a shame we can’t see more actions similar to this in areas like education, taxes and sustainability.

Running out of luck

Is Australia’s luck running out in the digital and Asian economy.

Last week I was lucky to get along to Digital Australia and Emergent Asia panel held at PwC’s Sydney office where the panel looked at how Australia’s industries are adapting to the digital economy and evolving Australian markets.

The outlook from the panel was generally downbeat about the ability of Australia’s business leaders and politicians to adapt to the changes in the global economy although there were some optimistic points about the resilience and flexibility of the nation.

I did a write up for it on Technology Spectator which is online at It’s Not Good Enough To Be Clever

The challenge is on for Australia’s business leaders – let’s see if they are up to it.

Australia in the Asian Century – Chapter Six: Building capabilities

How can Australia build a productive workforce to take advantage of the Asian Century

This post is one of the series of articles on the Australia in the Asian Century report.

Of all the chapters in the Australia in Asian Century discussion paper, Chapter Six has probably attracted the most opprobrium because of the fine words which haven’t been matched by government policy and action.

Parts of this chapter have a strong “school marm” tone as it tries to mandate the composition of company boards or the locations of where students will study. Overall though, most of the objectives are either motherhood statements, impractical or at odds with the actions of both state and Federal governments.

National objective 9. To build the capabilities of Australian students, Australia’s school system will be in the top five schooling systems in the world, delivering excellent outcomes for all students of all backgrounds, and systematically improving performance over time.

  • By 2025, Australia will be ranked as a top five country in the world for the performance of our students in reading, science and mathematics literacy and for providing our children with a high?quality and high?equity education system.
  • By 2015, 90 per cent of young Australians aged 20 to 24 years will have a Year 12 or equivalent qualification, up from 86 per cent in 2010.
While these objectives are worthy, there’s little discussion of exactly how this will be achieved beyond broad statements. Again it’s notable that these aspirations are being laid out at a time when funding is being cut and staff retrenched in both state and Federal government education departments.

National objective 10. Every Australian student will have significant exposure to studies of Asia across the curriculum to increase their cultural knowledge and skills and enable them to be active in the region. All schools will engage with at least one school in Asia to support the teaching of a priority Asian language, including through increased use of the National Broadband Network.

Says who? Who exactly is going to force a school to engage with at least one school in Asia? These are the sort of broad brush statements that detract from the report.

These kind of statements are the “thought bubble” approach to policy that marks much of what passes for governance in Australia today and such poorly thought out programs end up at best wasting money. At worst, the unintended consequences of a ‘policy’ thought up on the back of beer mat end up causing more damage than good.

Such a program could work well if properly thought out and integrated properly into the long term curriculum of the students but it would take proper leadership from state and Federal education ministers.

National objective 12. All students will have access to at least one priority Asian language; these will be Chinese (Mandarin), Hindi, Indonesian and Japanese.

This is good and fair, but is something that was supposed to have been put in place thirty years ago. Instead the proportions of students studying Asian languages has steadily dropped.

As newspapers have reported there are barely a dozen Hindi language teachers in New South Wales, so the priority needs to be training teachers to deliver the courses.

Such inconvenient logistical problems are an excellent example of those well meaning but poorly thought through “thought bubbles.”

National objective 12. Australia will remain among the world’s best for research and teaching in universities, delivering excellent outcomes for a larger number of Australian students, attracting the best academics and students from around the world and strengthening links between Australia and the region.

  • By 2020, 20 per cent of undergraduate higher education enrolments will be people from low socioeconomic backgrounds, up from 17 per cent in 2011.
  • By 2025, 40 per cent of all 25 to 34?year?olds will hold a qualification at bachelor level or above, up from 35 per cent in 2011.
  • By 2025, 10 of Australia’s universities will be in the world’s top 100.
  • A larger number of Australian university students will be studying overseas and a greater proportion will be undertaking part of their degree in Asia.
This objective really smacks of poorly thought out ideas on the run and illustrates starkly the differences between the well meaning objectives and the behaviour of governments.
It’s almost impossible for ten of Australia’s universities to make it into the more reputable measure of top 100 universities when for the last three decades research and post graduate programs have been slowly strangled by falling government funding.
Even if a Gillard government were to change that trend, it’s unlikely Australian universities could make up the lost ground in 13 years.
Mandating that “a larger number of Australian university students will be studying overseas and a greater proportion will be undertaking part of their degree in Asia” is nice but who is going to force students to study overseas and specifically in Asia?
More to the point, what are notoriously conservative Australian employers going to do with all these graduates of Asian universities?

National objective 13. Australia will have vocational education and training systems that are among the world’s best, building capability in the region and supporting a highly skilled Australian workforce able to continuously develop its capabilities.

  • By 2020, more than three?quarters of working?age Australians will have an entry?level qualification (at Certificate III level or higher), up from just under half in 2009.
  • Australia’s vocational education and training institutions will have substantially expanded services in more nations in the region, building the productive capacity of the workforce of these nations and supporting Australian businesses and workers to have a greater presence in Asian markets.
Given the week before the Gillard government cut apprenticeship funding and the NSW government announced it was further emasculating its state TAFE system a few days after the report was released, this objective can be treated purely empty words.

Business capacity

One of the reasons why Australia engaged so little with Asia over the last twenty five years is because the business community became focused inwards rather looking for opportunities in foreign markets. So the idea of getting more Asian experience into boardrooms is laudable but the solutions proposed impractical.

National objective 14. Decision makers in Australian businesses, parliaments, national institutions (including the Australian Public Service and national cultural institutions) and advisory forums across the community will have deeper knowledge and expertise of countries in our region and have a greater capacity to integrate domestic and international issues.

  • One?third of board members of Australia’s top 200 publicly listed companies and Commonwealth bodies (including companies, authorities, agencies and commissions) will have deep experience in and knowledge of Asia.
  • One?third of the senior leadership of the Australian Public Service (APS 200) will have deep experience in and knowledge of Asia.
This objective has drawn a lot of scorn from the business community and for good reason – how is a Federal government going to mandate that a third of the ASX200 will have “deep experience and knowledge of Asia”?
While the aim of having a third of the senior public service possessing Asian experience is worthy, this is almost impossible given the deadline for this is thirteen years away, any bureaucrat hoping to have “deep experience and knowledge of Asia” would have had to have been working on it for the last five or ten years. If this program isn’t in place now, it isn’t going to happen.

Society

Probably the biggest strength of Australia as a nation is in its diverse and relatively tolerant society so this section of the report is notable for what it misses in opportunities.

National objective 15. Australian communities and regions will benefit from structural changes in the economy and seize the new opportunities emerging in the Asian century.

Another worthy aim and its notable that the region cited in the case study is Darwin, a city whose economy is being wildly distorted by the LNG boom which is driving up prices and labour costs. If anything Darwin is an example of Australia turning its back on opportunities and focusing on a quick, resources driven buck.

National objective 16. By preserving and building on our social foundations, Australia will be a higher skill, higher wage economy with a fair, multicultural and cohesive society and a growing population, and all Australians will be able to benefit from, and participate in, Australia’s growing prosperity and engagement in Asia.

Cant and motherhood statements as one would hope all government seek to build a fair and cohesive society on our social foundations. It’s interesting that much of the poorly thought out, short term tactics by publicity hungry politicians probably does more to damage Australia’s institutions than other factors.

Overall this chapter deserves to have drawn the most criticism with its motherhood statements and wholly unachievable aims.

Most disappointingly, it skates over Australia’s diverse workforce and provides no ideas on how to harness the talents of the country’s ethnic groups in building ties and improving the nation’s skills.

Image of the Harbin Snow and Ice Festival from EmmaJG on Flickr

Australia in the Asian Century – Chapter Five: A productive and resilient Australian economy

Is Australia’s economy as strong as we think in the Asian Century?

This post is one of the series of articles on the Australia in the Asian Century report.

Chapter five of Australia in the Asian Century looks at the domestic settings the nation needs to achieve the “2025 apirations” described in Chapter Four.

To do this lays out a number of national objectives to achieve Australia’s 2025 Aspirations which are at least ambitious. These include education, innovation, infrastructure, communications and tax.

Education

National objective 1: All Australians will have the opportunity to acquire the skills and education they need to participate fully in a strong economy and a fairer society.

Probably the most worthy of the report’s objectives is to improve the nation’s already good level of education. Unfortunately the detail in the report is lacking beyond rehashing existing programs.

These programs do cover important initiatives such as improving literacy rates amongst the disadvantaged which is essential if Australia is going to address its poor participation rates which are going to be one of the major domestic challenges for the country in the 21st Century.

At the other end of education though there is little more than empty words as the discussion of workforce training is rendered hollow by the decision to further cut back apprenticeship training and universities find their funding continually reduced making it less likely they can get into the world’s top rankings.

Most importantly, there is little space given to addressing Australia’s poor performance in the STEM – Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics – subjects.

Innovation

National objective 2: Australia will have an innovation system, in the top 10 globally, that supports excellence and dynamism in business with a creative problem-solving culture that enhances our evolving areas of strength and attracts top researchers, companies and global partnerships.

More fine words but this commitment to ‘innovation’ is again hollow when the Federal government cuts commercialisation incentives and export program.

Any talk of encouraging innovation is pointless anyway without reforming the nation’s tax system which currently favours asset speculation over building productive businesses and products – we’ll come to the tax impasse later.

Infrastructure

National objective 3. Australia will implement a systematic national framework for developing, financing and maintaining nationally significant infrastructure that will assist governments and the private sector to plan and prioritise infrastructure needs at least 20 years ahead.

This section is a sour sick joke which illustrates all that is wrong with Australian governments at all levels. Infrastructure planning for the next 20 years should largely be in place now and the fact it seen as being a national objective by the authors of this report

At best this section of the report reads like an ode to the corporatist ideologies of the 1980s and in fact illustrates exactly where Australia lost its way in the 1990s as the country’s business leaders realised that Asia was too hard when there were easy pickings in convincing gullible Liberal and Labor governments into selling assets cheaply and exploiting the resultant monopolies.

Communications infrastructure

National objective 4. Australia’s communications infrastructure and markets will be world leading and support the rapid exchange and spread of ideas and commerce in the Asian region.

This is a fine objective and may be achievable if the National Broadband Network is rolled out on time and isn’t affected by poor management decisions or gutted in an act of political bastardry by a future Liberal government.

Hopefully this is one are where actions will meet the the report’s words.

Taxation

National objective 5. Australia’s tax and transfer system will be efficient and fair, encouraging continued investment in the capital base and greater participation in the workforce, while delivering sustainable revenues to support economic growth by meeting public and social needs.

In 2007 the then Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd appointed Ken Henry to review the Australian tax system. That report was comprehensively ignored and the effects of the political bumbling around that lead to Rudd’s axing as Prime Minister and Gillard’s incompetent half-baked Mining Tax.

To have an efficient and fair tax system which encourages investors and workers should be a given. That it has to be spelt out, and then ignored, probably illustrates the greatest failure of Australia’s political and business leaders.

Australia’s current tax system is probably the economy’s greatest weakness as much of the resilience boasted of in the report is based around stimulating the housing market, the wealth effect in turn is reflected in the country’s affluence measures.

Reforming the Australian tax system to favour workers and investors over property speculators is going to require great strength by the politicians who attempt to do it and they’ll need the reform of business leaders and the financial media. None of these three groups have the courage or integrity to be trusted to carry this out in the next 15 years.

Reforming regulation

National objective 6. Australia will be among the most efficiently regulated places in the world, in the top five globally, reducing business costs by billions of dollars a year.

Possibly the greatest hubris in today’s Australia is about the efficiency of the nation’s regulators. In reality Australia is a country that’s quick to legislate but slow to regulate.

We’re very good at passing laws and regulations, not to mention building bureaucracies of thousands of memo writers to oversee these rules, but we aren’t very good at actually enforcing them.

Real reform in regulation is essential to a resilient Australian economy, but like taxation reform this is a complex and thankless task for any politician who attempts it.

Sustainability

National objective 7. The Australian economy and our environmental assets will be managed sustainably to ensure the wellbeing of future generations of Australians.

A worthy objective – unfortunately the ideological war that saving the Murray-Darling has become, the bitter argument over the carbon tax and Australia’s rejection of clean tech entrepreneurs makes one wonder exactly where the country can have a competitive advantage in this area.

One rare note of warning with this report identifies sustainability issues as affecting Australia’s ability to supply food to the growing Asian economies. This is a fair warning but its unlikely opportunistic politicians at all levels care too much to distract them from politicising discussion on the sustainability of various Australian communities and industries.

Sound economic policies

National objective 8. Australia’s macroeconomic and financial frameworks will remain among the world’s best through this period of change.

Approaching this section fills one with dread at the prospect with being served up with more hubris wrapped around Australian exceptionalism.

While the section doesn’t disappoint in this aspect, the writers have identified serious weaknesses in the funding structures and regulation in the capital markets. This probably reflects Ken Henry’s background in the Treasury.

The not unexpected emphasis on AAA credit ratings and the size of the Australian superannuation industry make one wonder why we bother with restrictive economic policies when we clearly have the capacity to fund productive national investment.

All the criticisms of the earlier parts of this chapter flow from this bizarre form of Australian Austerity that has crippled investment in education and infrastructure over the last thirty years and ditching that mentality could be the greatest reform of all.

Every objective objective in the chapter is worthy and true, but state and Federal government actions are acting directly in the opposite direction to the stated intentions of the chapter. The introduction says;

We have made substantial reforms and investments across the five pillars of productivity—skills and education, innovation, infrastructure, tax reform and regulatory reform—and these efforts will continue.

This is not true – in almost every single one of these areas, Australia has been at best treading water. Just in the weeks before this report was released the Federal government’s mini-budget further cut innovation incentives.

The New South Wales government announced in the week the report was released that it would de-skill the state’s workforce even further by following the TAFE “reforms” introduced by Victoria and Queensland which have seen industry training reduced to churing out pointless barista and nail grooming certificates.

At the same time, the regulation “reforms” introduced by successive Liberal and Labor governments at state and Federal levels have followed the 1980s ideologies of gifting assets to ticket clipping managerial and banking classes. Nowhere is this more apparent in the debacle of Australia’s soaring power bills which are becoming a real competitive disadvantage to the nation.

Infrastructure is probably the biggest failure of successive governments, the same corporatist ideologies of the Liberal and Labor Parties of the last 30 years have prevented the construction of infrastructure beyond toll roads which favour the same ticket clipping bankers.

Much of Australia’s core transport infrastructure such as power companies, railways and ports have been sold off to the ticket clippers who have in turn “sweated” these assets by charging monopoly prices while spending the bare minimum to keep them running.

At present Australia has a resilient and productive economy, as did Ireland and Spain before the economic winds turned against them. It’s hard not to think that if a similar report had been written in Madrid or Dublin five years ago the same chapter would have read much the same as Australia’s today.

The big challenge will come for Australia when China, India, South Korea or Japan hit a tough spot.

Even with the rose glass projections of the previous three chapters of Australia in the Asian Century, it’s at least reassuring there are a few notes of warning in this section of the report.