Tag: Australia

Protecting the knaves among us

Australia’s legal system makes it hard for journalists to tell the truth about business dealings.

“The biggest risk for Australian business journalists is being sued into oblivion” said Paddy Manning at a Walkley Media Talks Panel in Sydney last Thursday.

Joining Paddy on the panel was The Australian’s Anthony Klan, the ABC’s Tikki Fullerton and moderator Peter Ryan who looked at the challenges facing business journalists seeking to separate truth from business PR spin.

Business superinjunctions

The problem facing Australian business journalists is a legal system that favours those who want to suppress facts – it’s a game only the wealthy can play and rich fraudsters use it well as we’ve seen over the years in corporate Australia.

Manning described one occasion where he obtained information on a prominent businessman’s affairs and, within hours of asking the gentleman for comment, found he and the Fairfax had been hit with a court injunction with such vague wording it may have any of his employer’s outlets from mentioning the man at all.

These injunctions were the rule, not the exception. Manning went on to tell how Sydney Morning Herald business writer Michael West spends one day a week on legal matters while his colleague Adele Ferguson was even preventing from writing about documents that were on the public record.

Klan trumped that with the seventy injunctions he’s received over stories on the mortgage debenture scandals, an ongoing sore on Australia’s investment industry which threatens to steal many retirees’ savings.

The problem of pre-emptive injunctions stemmed from the ethical requirement of giving a ‘fair opportunity for reply.’ In seeking comment from those engaged in shoddy – or downright – illegal practices, it gives those with something to hide the opportunity to run to the courts who are all to willing to issue wide ranging orders.

An advantage for bloggers?

Interestingly, Justice Leveson of the UK inquiry into press conduct made an observation about the disadvantage mainstream media has before the law during his visit to Australia earlier this year.

online bloggers or tweeters are not subject to the financial incentives which affect the print media, and which would persuade the press not to overstep society’s values and ethical standards.

While Leveson had it wrong about financial incentives, it’s actually the media’s ethical standards which are the restraining influence. Professional journalists quite rightly don’t like breaching their trade’s code of conduct.

As Leveson opined, bloggers don’t necessary hold themselves to the same standards so they are more likely to publish and be damned.

Where Leveson was utterly and totally wrong is bloggers’ immunity to the law.

Bloggers rejoice in placing their servers outside the jurisdiction where different laws apply. the writ of the law is said not to run. It is believed therefore that the shadow of the law is unable to play the same role it has played with the established media.

That’s nonsense and it’s a matter of time before a blogger goes to gaol for disobeying a court. When that does happen it will be interesting to see how the established media reacts to this.

From the panel discussion it was quite clear that professional business journalists have no intention of breaking the law or their code of ethics, although all are united in their determination to protect sources if they were order to divulge by a court.

The cost of suppressing news

What really stood out from the panel was how the law is being used to stifle examination of Australian business behaviour. In the audience Q&A, veteran reporter Colin Chapman pointed out Australia sits at 26th on the World Press Freedom Index.

The lack of a truly free press could just be seen as journalistic hand wringing, but there’s a real world effect of this – those retirees who will be ripped off by crooked financial advisers and mortgage funds would have a better chance of protecting themselves were they able to see Anthony Khan’s articles on the topic.

Just as crooks have been able to prosper in the absence of press scrutiny, so too have supine, incompetent and lazy regulators.

All too often agencies – such as the ACCC, ASIC, ASX or ATO – have only been woken from their slumbers when prodded by a media scandal, lack of scrutiny has allowed government regulators to get away with not doing their jobs.

This poor enforcement is reflected in international comparisons. The World Bank ranked Australia as 70th in the world for protecting investors, way below Colombia, Thailand or Kazakhstan.Australian business reporters find themselves in a difficult position being caught between the tightening economics of the media industry and a legal system that is more focused on protecting knaves rather allowing society to be informed.That problem facing journalists is a problem for every Australian who’s being kept in the dark about their investments.

Similar posts:

Snapping out of Australia’s China Dreamtime

China analyst Patrick Chavonec has a wake up call for Australia’s business and political leaders

Australia’s leaders need to snap out of their China dreamland analyst Patrick Chovanec told the Australian Davos Connection’s China Forum two weeks ago.

What triggered this comment was a speech by Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan to the Financial Services Council in Sydney last September where the Treasurer compared China’s economic performance to sprinter Usain Bolt;

It’s like Usain Bolt easing off a bit at the end of the 100 meters because he’s 10 meters in front and has already smashed the world record.

“My response was that if that’s the way Australia’s leaders are thinking about China’s economy, if that’s the dreamland that they are in, then they need to snap out of it really fast,” Chovanec said in his keynote.

“Because China is facing a very serious and potentially disruptive economic adjustment. A realistic idea of where this adjustment is going is essential to countries like Australia.”

Chovanec’s view is that China cannot sustain current growth rates by “providing the fodder of the consumerist economy.”

This was borne out in the Global Financial Crises where exports fell from 8% of GDP to 2%. To make up for the drop the PRC government stimulated the economy and investment went 42% of the economy to half.

It was this stimulus that drove the soaring commodity prices in recent years and underpins the Blue Sky Vision of Australia’s political and business leaders.

The establishment view is that China will move from infrastructure spending driving the economy to a consumption driven society.

Moving to a consumption driven economy though means a very different Chinese society which means a different group of winners and losers, Chovanec warns.

He also doesn’t see urbanisation as the real driver of the Chinese economy, “If you look around the world, urbanisation has not always driven economic growth.”

“It’s based on a premise that moving people from a rural environment to an urban environment generates productivity gains.”

“Now for China over the past thirty years that has proven largely true,” says Chavonec, “but going forward most of that hanging fruit has been picked.”

“In order to realise productivity gains, China is going to have to discover new areas of competitive advantage.”

The biggest risk that Chovanec sees at present though is the level of bad debts in the economy and the rate of credit expansion with a trillion dollars pumped into the Chinese economy over the last quarter.

“You’re getting less and less bang for the buck from credit expansion.”

Chovanec doesn’t see China’s future as bleak though, “the China growth story doesn’t have to be over.”

“There are a lot of sectors in China where there’s real potential for true productivity gains – agricultural, logistics, health car, services, consumer branding, retail.”

“The challenge for China is not that the growth story is over but the engine of that growth story is going to have to change.”

Dealing with those changes is also a challenge for countries like Australia who have staked all on the current growth story.

Chovanec’s wake up call to Australia’s leaders is timely – the question is how quickly they can wake up to the changes in China.

Similar posts:

Can Australia continue the mining employment boom?

Assuming the mining industry will drive Australian employment may turn out to be risky.

The Prime Minister’s comments at the ADC China Forum last week raised an important question about Australia’s mining boom – can the industry sustain employment as the construction of mines, ports and railways are completed?

After her keynote speech at the event’s gala dinner the Prime Minister was interviewed by Busines Spectator’s KGB – Alan Kohler, Robert Gottliebsen and Stephen Bartholomeusz – about the country’s relations with China.

In that interview, the Prime Minister was upbeat about the continued employment bonanza from the resources boom.

I think overwhelmingly the prospects are good for resources. There is nothing to fear here. The absolute peak of the price cycle has probably passed, but we will still be doing good business in resources. It will be supporting jobs.

A few days earlier Fortescue Mining Group’s CEO, Nev Power, spoke to Alan Kohler on Inside Business.

Nev was a little more circumspect about the prospects for continued booming employment in the mining sector.

our capital expenditure program and expansion is coming to an end around mid-year. And then we’re into a very high volume phase and it’ll be a matter of driving the maximum efficiency out of the business through that phase.

So even if the iron price and export volumes do hold up, it looks like the resources employment boom may be reaching its end as mining projects move from the labour intensive construction phase to being relatively hands off production mines.

If Nev gets his way with ‘maximum inefficiencies there may be fewer jobs to go around.

The Prime Minister – along with all of Australia’s political leaders – remains hopeful, as she said in her speech.

So we are not, indeed we have never been, simply a quarry or a beach; ours is a diverse and sophisticated economy and a valued trading partner with the biggest global economies.

As the expansion phase of the mining boom tails off, that economic diversity is going to be tested. Hopefully there is a Plan B.

Similar posts:

Doing social media right

Whoever runs your social media feed is an official spokesman, it’s important to choose the right person and give them authority.

After last week’s Associated Press hack and the stock exchange fallout, regulators are struggling with implications of social media and informed markets.

In a speech delivered last week the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s Deputy Chair Belinda Gibson and Commissioner John Price gave some refreshing commonsense views on how businesses should handle public information.

The continuous disclosure advice given by Price and Gibson is aimed at meeting the requirements of Australian corporate law, but it’s actually good social media advice.

  • Having delegations in place for who has authority to speak on behalf of the company – whether in response to an ASX ‘price query’ or ‘aware’ letter, or when they become aware of information that needs to be released to the market, perhaps in response to speculation.
  • Ensuring that there is a designated contact person to liaise with the ASX, who has the requisite organisational knowledge and is contactable by ASX.
  • Have a clear rapid response plan and ensure all board members and senior executives are fully appraised of it. Give it a practice run every so often – a stress test of sorts.
  • Have a plan for when you will consider a trading halt appropriate.
  • Have a ‘Request for trading halt’ letter template ready for use.
  • Have guidelines for determining what is ‘material’ information for disclosure, tailored to your company.
  • Prepare a draft announcement where you are doing a deal that will
  • likely require an announcement at some time, and a stop-gap one in case of a leak

Having a nominated contact person with requisite organisational knowledge is possibly the most important point for any organisation.

Even if you think social media is just people posting what they had for lunch or sharing cute cat pictures, it isn’t going away and those Twitter feeds and Facebook pages are now considered official communications channels.

The intern running your social media is now your company’s official spokesperson. Are you comfortable with this?

A good example of where this can go wrong is the Australian Prime Minister’s Press Office where an immature staff member has been put in charge of posting messages. The results aren’t pretty.

prime-ministers-office-twitter-feed

The funny thing is the Prime Minister’s office would never dream of some dill getting up and saying this sort of thing on her behalf, yet allows an inexperienced, loose cannon put this sort of material in writing on the public internet.

Here’s Twenty Rules for Politicians using the Internet.

On a more mature level, the ASIC executives also have some good advice on writing for social media.

Don’t assume that the reader is sophisticated or leave readers to read between the lines. Companies need to highlight key information and tell it plainly.
While the ASIC speech is aimed at the specific problems of complying with company law and listing requirements, it’s a worthwhile guide for any organisation needing to manage its online presence.
Don’t be like the Prime Minister’s office, understand that an organisation’s social media presence is an official channel and treat it with the respect it deserves.

Similar posts:

There is no China Inc

The ADC China forum asked how foreigners view China as a nation.

“There is no China Inc” was the message from the first day of the Australian Davos Connection’s 2013 Future Summit in Melbourne last week.

For 2013, the annual two day ADC Future Summit was themed “China – where to from here?” with both international and Australian speakers discussing the Peoples’ Republic of China’s future and it’s effects on the world, particularly Australia.

Opening the speakers was Martin Jacques, Senior Visiting Research Fellow at the London School of Economics and Author of ‘When China Rules The World.’

Martin Jacques has been on the wrong side of history before, having been the last editor of Marxism Today before its closure in 1991, giving his overview of China’s development an interesting flavour.

Returning to the historical norm

History has never seen a country so big grow, so fast in Jacques view. The US and British economic revolutions featured lower growth rates and much smaller populations compared to the modern Chinese experience.

Jacques quotes leading Chinese economist Hu Angang’s belief that China is returning to its global position of two hundred years ago where the nation made up a third of the world’s global economy – double today’s share.

The resilience of China’s society in Jacques’ view is driven by four factors; its two thousand year old culture, the legitimacy of its government, the competence of the civil service and its lack of desire to build colonies.

Despite China’s historical reluctance to build overseas empires the nation’s rise is still going to dramatically change regional politics.

Australia’s Challenge

Jacques raises the question of Australia making the jump from being in the US political camp to engaging with China and America on an equal basis.

“Australia has an important role to play in the region but only if it chooses to express its own views and interests,” says Jacques. The nation’s interests are not necessarily those of the United States.

The US is uncomfortable with China’s rise and Jacques believes the Obama administration’s policies in the Pacific are destined to fail because the United State’s Asian Pivot is essentially a military response while the PRC’s rise is due to economic dynamism.

Jacques main point was that the west misunderstands China by viewing the country as a nation-state when in fact it is a civilisation. This was a question that troubled the following panel.

Culture or nation?

Dr John Lee of the University of Sydney thought the idea of China as a civilisation would worry its neighbours were that view taken to the logical end point, “would that mean that China views the region in fundamentally hierarchical terms?”

“Australia is in a strategic holding pattern,” says Lee. “Australia like every other country in the region is hedging closer to America and each other just in case China doesn’t turn out benign.”

For Hugh White, Australian National University Professor of Strategic Studies, this insecurity surrounding China comes down to choices.

“China wants to be healthy and strong,” says White. “To do so, China has to face choices, but so too does America.”

“For Australia the choice is are we prepared to be a spectator in the process.”

Maintaining growth

How China can continue its economic dynamism was the biggest question facing the panel.

Patrick Chovanec, Chief Global Strategist of Silvercrest Asset Management, thinks China cannot sustain its current level of economic growth and points out that prior to the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, China’s exports made up 8% of the country’s economy.

With the collapse in international trade following the 2008 crisis, that proportion dropped to 2%.

China made up that drop in demand by stimulating the economy and triggering the investment boom that sent global commodity prices – particularly iron ore and coal – soaring.

This infrastructure splurge is what Chovanec sees as unsustainable, and he challenges the view that Chinese urbanisation will drive the economy and imports.

“If you look around the world,” Chavonec says, “urbanisation has not driven economic growth.”

The problem with China’s infrastructure funded growth model is that building rates have to grow to maintain growth rates – if you build 100 high rises this year, you have to build 108 next year just to maintain the 8% growth rates.

Balancing sectional interests

Shifting from an export to a consumption based economy means a different China. “it creates a different set of winners and losers,” says Chovanec.

Balancing those interests of winners and losers is one of the key tasks for the Chinese leadership, “Various competing interests groups – the Party has to juggle the interests of those groups” says Linda Jackobson of the Lowy Institute for International Policy.

“We shouldn’t talk about China if it’s ‘China Inc.’” Jackobson says, “I don’t think China has a grand strategic plan. It has strategic goals but not a grand strategy.”

Jackobson sees there being three key objectives for the Chinese leadership; political stability, protecting territorial integrity and economic stability.

The role of the Communist Party

That political stability is an important factor when considering China’s leadership as stability is seen as maintaining the power of the Communist Party.

“We tend to assume an identity between the current communist government and the people.” Says Chovanec, “raising this issue is forbidden in many forums.”

Chovanec agrees with Jackobson that thinking about ‘China Inc’ and the assumption, or myth, of long term strategic thinking.

“When we look at Chinese companies going abroad we talk about the long term game plan.” Chovanec points out, “in fact if you look at the haphazard movements of Chinese companies moving abroad it’s been in fits and starts.”

The common factor from the first session’s speakers at the ADC’s China Forum was that the People’s Republic can’t be seen as a monolithic entity.

Should we accept Jacques’ view that China is a civilization and not a nation state, then understanding the relationships that underpin the cultural identity are key to working with the PRC.

On the other hand the panellists see China as a modern nation state with the government, like any other attempting to balance competing interests within society.

Both are more nuanced view of Chinese politics and the nation’s economy than what’s presented by the media and politicians.

Which was fitting as the Prime Minister gave the gala dinner keynote that evening which will be the subject of another post.

Similar posts:

Australia’s entrepreneurial opportunity

Can Australia make the most of it’s entrepreneurial desires?

The recent PwC report Startup Economy – How to support tech startups and support Australian innovation focused, naturally enough, on the barriers to developing a Silicon Valley like business community in Australia.

Unlike most coverage of the report, The Economist raised an interesting point from the findings, that entrepreneurial Australians are far more likely to start up businesses than many other nations.

PWC-international-entrepreneur-funnell

On one level this isn’t suprising as starting a business in Australia is easy compared to many other countries with the World Bank’s Doing Business survey rating the country second after New Zealand for the ease of setting up an enterprise.

Interestingly though, the number of Australians setting up their own businesses is falling reports Smart Company, citing the Productivity Commission’s Forms of Work in Australia report.

The Productivity Commission speculates this might be because the mining boom is encouraging workers to take resource contracts rather than set up their own businesses.

No doubt there’s some truth there, as much of the nation’s investment has been directed into the mines and associated infrastructure in recent years however there’s probably some more mundane reasons.

Top of the list would be the nation’s property obsession; it’s difficult to service a massive mortgage while running your own business.

Fifty years of mainly increasing property prices has groomed Australians into believing that having a steady job and a brace of investment properties is a much easier path to success than taking a risk with your own business.

Added to that is the increasing hostility towards businesses. As the nanny state grows, regulations that make it harder for business multiply, the latest example being a Sydney council that wants to charge professional dog walkers for using parks.

Overwhelmingly these petty regulations hurt those starting new businesses rather than bigger corporations.

The good news though is that people still want to start their own businesses. In an economy that’s increasingly concentrated in fewer hands, diversification is critical.

In a world that’s becoming increasing automated, we need smart startups finding ways to use the new tools and create the jobs to run them. If Australia can get its policy mix right, kick the property and nanny state addictions then it might open some great opportunities.

Similar posts:

Crying over spilt Chinese milk

Australia’s missteps in the Chinese milk market are part of a far deeper malaise in the Australian business community.

East Asian based expats have many conceits – the greatest being that they understand Asia.

For a high paid executive based in Hong Kong or Singapore sitting in a comfortable air conditioned CausewayBay or Beach Road highrise it’s easy to not to know what you don’t know.

In Bangkok though the drinkers at Bangkok’s Cheap Charlies Bar are under no illusions about the complexity of Asia as every night brings another surprise.

During the 1990s it was a regular drinking haunt of those working on the ground in South East Asia – aid workers from Cambodia, oil explorers from Vietnam. gem traders from Laos or builders in Myanmar all swapped stories about their trials and tribulations.

One of the toughest jobs was setting up a diary industry in tropical Thailand, no trivial task in an environment that isn’t kind to soft, milk producing cattle.

Through the late twentieth century the Australian government spent millions helping build the Thai industry with the intention of it helping the Aussie industry build markets and expertise.

Sometime in the late 1990s, the Australian industry decided programs like these were all too hard and not only withdrew from the Thai and Malaysian markets but also let the Chinese opportunity slip through their fingers.

Today, as Business Spectator reported last week, New Zealand’s Fonterra is not only beating the Aussies in China but also has substantial holdings in Australia as the company’s website describes;

The company has NZ$11.8 billion in total assets and revenues of NZ$13 billion and employs more than 18,000 people worldwide. In Australia, Fonterra has revenues of $1.9 billion, processes 21 per cent of all Australian milk and employs over 2,000 people. This makes Fonterra very much an Australasian company.

Fonterra’s story, both in China and Australia, illustrates how something went amiss in Australia’s business sector in the late 1990s.

The point of Australia’s deregulations and industry consolidations through the 1980s and 90s was to make local businesses and industries more competitive. Instead those Australian conglomerates have been sold to overseas interests as domestic investors find they aren’t interested in investing.

Instead Australian businesses decided that having being allowed to consolidate they could use their market power to clip the tickets of the industries they controlled rather than innovating or expanding internationally.

At the same time, Australia’s compulsory savings scheme poured billions into the local share market leaving boards under no pressure to perform better than the index.

The lazy investing philosophy forced internationally focused businesses to look for overseas investors and has created the steady flow of Australian business, farming and mining assets being sold onto overseas buyers.

In the meantime, the shock jocks and populists whip up xenophobia rather than holding Australian business community to account for its failure to seek and build new markets.

This doesn’t mean bad news for young Australians, there are opportunities for smart, innovative and hard working entrepreneurs to challenge the country’s staid duopolies.

If we choose not to challenge the comfortable duopolies, it may be the next generation of Aussie expats find more opportunities at Cheap Charlies in Bangkok than at home.

Similar posts: