Nov 29, 2023 | Governance, Innovation, Leadership
Of the many objections to the inequity and shortcomings of the tax system I harbour, the most egregious is the seduction by the fossil fuel industry of governments of all persuasions over the last 30 years.
I have two profound objections.
The first: They have known of the impact of CO2 on the climate for at least that long, and have not only not addressed it, but have aggressively sought to ensure that regulators and the general public do not get the facts, just bilious dystopian stories of what they are preventing from happening to us in the absence of their visionary management. The public are therefore unwilling to demand of regulators and lawmakers that the hard choices need to be made.
Scientists have been telling us for 30 years that the longer we wait, the harder and more costly the necessary changes will become, but what would they know?
On top of that, the fuel companies pay no tax on the billions of revenue generated in this country as a result of quite legal, but in my view absolutely immoral structuring of their tax affairs.
This avoidance is well known, they hold an honoured place in the top 40 tax avoiders list, collated by Michael West media. Along with property developers and various lobby groups, the political donations add up to 6 or 7 million dollars.
The second: Clearly, the fossil fuel industry has bought their favoured place in the political arena, but I am astonished that the price has been so low. A few million dollars in donations, and I would be pretty sure an equal amount in various tactical ‘softening’ of politicians and their advisors, and the threat of adverse advertising, in return for billions in tax free revenue.
What a great wicket they are on, paying for a cheap scooter and being rewarded with a Ferrari!
Another way of looking at it is that if you are going to be a whore, you may as well be an expensive one so you can be properly comforted for the loss of dignity. Clearly, there is very profitable leverage being wasted.
Obviously, the pollies and hangers-on need a bit of marketing and image building in order to properly leverage the key position they hold in the generation of tax free cash flow of fossil fuel companies.
The 20213 Budget delivered 9/5/23 amended marginally the PRRT and promised to impose the 15% minimum tax rate on MNC revenues in line with the OECD recommendation, a good start. Sadly, it does seem that the 15% minimum will not be imposed for some time, if ever. The power of the large multinationals with tax bases scattered around idyllic islands across the globe, does not reside just in Canberra. It hides in plain sight in London, Brussels, Dover (capital of Delaware), Reno, and many others.
Meanwhile we struggle with investment in the future productivity of the economy we are leaving to our children due to lack of public funds.
Oct 24, 2023 | Governance, Management, Small business
Most SME’s I meet have at one time or another contemplated, and often invested considerable resources in the quest to obtain public grant funds.
Rarely do they approach this exercise with any understanding of the disconnect between the way the commercial world, and the bureaucratic one work. They assume that what to them is normal and obvious is reflected in the bureaucratic processes.
Wrong.
For context, 25 years ago I ran a small grant-funding outfit called Agri Chain Solutions that had been outsourced from the then Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Agriculture at the express direction of the then newly elected Prime Minister Howard. ACS was a Company, limited by guarantee with a largely commercial, board with two members from the senior ranks of AFFA and Austrade. The chairman had been a very successful MD of a very large business in the food industry. I was recruited as a senior manager with extensive experience in FMCG and agriculture.
Following are some relevant observations from that time about how the bureaucracies operate, which from what I can see, remain accurate.
- Departmental budgets are set annually in line with the governments policies and priorities. While program budgets are often spread over a number of years, they are reviewed and changed as necessary, or for a hundred other reasons, annually.
- Departments put in their ‘bids’ in the pre-budget preparation, which includes the costs of running the department, as well as the cost of the programs for which they are arguing.
-
-
- Departmental overheads have been progressively cut over years by shedding heads, which are then contracted back as an ‘off the books’ expenditure, usually netted off against program costs, or just classified as an unavoidable cost overrun.
- The status of public servants is measured by the number of reports, direct and indirect (i.e., reporting to someone who reports to them) they have, and the size of the budgets they manage. This leads to an ongoing turf war between departments, and sections within departments for status, and public service grades that determine pay and advancement.
- Public servants are typically held loosely accountable for the expenditure of money compared to the budget allocated. This has absolutely no relationship to the outcome generated by the programs they manage. To my mind, this mismatch of expenditure and accountability is at the core of much of the waste that occurs. It is also the factor that leads to the mad rush to ensure that budgets are all spent before June 30. An underspend will be seen as a sign that a cut is possible, while an overspend is seen as bad luck, with no recriminations, or understanding of the drivers of the overspend.
- Program reviews done by an ‘outside’ neutral agency are built into the program costs, but neutrality is a joke, as the current PWC fiasco demonstrates. In ACS’s case, the review was done by KPMG, who had to do three revisions to get to a program report AFFA was happy with, in order to get paid. As you might guess, draft 1 was OK by me, draft 2 was nonsense, and draft 3 was total bullshit that bore no relationship to the success, or otherwise of ACS expenditure. I was bitterly and noisily opposed to the final report submitted, but was advised that my disagreement while noted informally, was not relevant. I could not change the world, so I should just get on with life.
- Grant program budgets allow a percentage of the total program to be held back for ‘Administration’. In the case of ACS, that amount was 20%, a laughable amount, as the total expenditure on all ACS overheads and project management was around 6% of the program budget. All AFFA did was use the withheld amount as a slush fund.
- Program budgets are broken up to make keeping track easy, bearing no relationship to the way money should be spent to optimise the outcomes. In ACS’s case, we had $9 million over 3 years, minus the withheld admin cost. The department broke the total into 12 equal quarterly amounts and insisted that was the budget. Pointing out that it took 18 months to get good projects up and running, during which time little grant money would be allocated had little effect. In the last 18 months more than the quarterly ‘budget’ amount was to be allocated, which caused great angst in the department. I also pointed out that at the original sunset of 3 years, there would be projects that had not been completed, that ACS and AFFA had a moral if not contractual obligation to see through. After much discussion, we negotiated a 12-month extension for nominated projects that were then shuffled into the follow up program, the National Food Industry Strategy, with a contractor to administer them.
- Senior public servants speak about accrual accounting as being the base of their accounting processes. ‘Nonsense. It is cash accounting, there are no accruals involved, anywhere.
- There is a myriad of ‘allowances’ that foster rorting and destroy accountability. I came into contact mostly with those relating to travel. The intent is sensible: make the management simple. However, the effect is to enable officials travelling to rort the system. E.g. A level X official is allowed an amount/day for meals and accommodation, without any paperwork showing expenses incurred. Predictably, they travel as much as possible to places where they have friends and families, claim the whole amount, and pocket the lot, or stay in a cheap hotel, eat as cheaply as possible, and pocket the difference.
- Finally, for all the babbling about innovation that goes on, it represents the antithesis of the cultural abhorrence bureaucracies have with risk. Innovation is impossible without risk, and risk seen in hindsight is always weaponised as a mistake by those who oppose. As was once said to me by a senior bureaucrat in a well lubricated social setting “my job is to ensure my minister is never seen as stupid, and you know who my minister is, so you know how hard my job is’.
None of this is to denigrate public servants, quite the contrary. As individuals, they are generally a well-educated and potentially powerful force for good, frustrated by the constraints of the culture within which they work. The challenge is changing the culture that has been encouraged to grow around them, a task belonging to those with the power to do so, the politicians.
Oct 18, 2023 | Governance, Strategy
Australia is an economy that has allowed the big to get bigger to such an extent that the barriers to entry in many vital and emerging industries are simply too high for new domestically funded entrants to swallow. This has led to multinationals buying their way into our market, further reducing competition. The latest is the purchase of ASX listed Origin Energy by serial asset accumulator and tax avoider Brookfield.
We are all used to thinking about economies of scale, the bigger we get, the greater the opportunity to spread the capital cost incurred over a wider base. The obvious example is IT, the costs can be huge, but they scale rapidly downwards as the number of nodes in use increases. It costs less to run each node as you increase numbers than it cost to run the first one.
This ignores the natural increase in transaction costs that used to occur when you scaled, but the use of IT, when done well, radically reduces the friction caused by transaction costs.
When you consider the economics of scope, the same sort of thinking applies, but you seek to leverage the capabilities built in one domain into others. Amazon is the poster child, leveraging the automation of their book selling IT investments into operating the Amazon store, then into Web services, retailing, hardware, and many other products and services.
What has happened is that we have seen the two types of economies of scale and scope give each other a dose of steroids.
Take a step further back, and you see that the expansions of scope are generally coming from adjacent markets that are fragmented, and often regulated.
Fragmented markets naturally coalesce into markets that are increasingly dominated by a few firms. The power of scale in a market overwhelms the fragmentation, and you end up with fewer firms competing, and taken to its logical conclusion, you have an oligopoly. In some cases, oligopolies end up as a monopoly by another name, such as Google in search, Microsoft in office software in the 90’s. They have been ‘defragmented’ by the application of capital that delivers economies of scale.
Then follows the search for scope, the usage situations where capabilities from one market are extended to other markets, at a lesser cost than the adjacent markets could do on their own.
Into this mix you throw regulatory barriers.
The cost of managing compliance is going up and up.
Corporations as they scale apply capital to the management of their compliance, and the wider the scope of activities, the greater leverage they get from that investment.
Look at the fossil fuel companies in Australia. Largely they are multinationals with huge scope and scale, too big for governments to take on. As a result, the increasing returns on the capital employed historically in scale and scope, are now being applied to compliance, particularly tax compliance, as they seek lower tax regimes that insulate returns. The purchase of Origin Energy is a further example of the process.
The strategic policy dilemma for Australia is clear.
For the long-term health and innovative vigour of the economy necessary for us to climb out of the basement in the innovative economy list, there needs to be tough decisions taken that will have a short-term cost, while increasing the odds of a long term benefit. Unfortunately, there are no votes in that equation.
Oct 13, 2023 | Governance, Innovation, Strategy
Australia has a problem, a big one. Our KAP Gap is huge and becoming ‘huger’ by the month.
Knowledge-Attitudes-Practise gap is the difference between what people say they will do, and what they actually do.
At some level, we understand what needs to be done, but are so cemented into the good life that we cannot see our way to absorb the pain necessary if our grandchildren are to continue to enjoy the fruits of this country.
How do Australians respond to the reality of the latest Harvard Complexity report which records a slip from 60th in 2000, to 93rd in 2021? Being sandwiched between the manufacturing goliaths of Uganda and Pakistan is hardly a point of pride. (Perhaps we are getting used to it, given the slip of Australian rugby from the top tier to a nation ranged with the minnows of world rugby, but that is another post)
There is a notable reluctance to embrace change. Inevitably, change makes some uncomfortable, so we substitute a fuzzy slogan. There needs to be meat on the bones of an effective slogan that resonates on a deeply personal level, or it remains just fuzzy words. This applies equally to big changes as it does to the little ones we are asked to make every day, it is just that the latter are rarely seen and measured.
How is it that we are still seen as a wealthy nation?
I have an acquaintance who is wealthy, always has been, but he is a lazy sod, pretending to work, being involved in stuff that amuses him. Luckily for him, his father and grandfather were of a different sort. They accumulated wealth from hard work, taking risks, and learning from their mistakes. My acquaintance is wealthy because he is lucky in his parentage, just as Australia is lucky in its abundance of stuff we can dig up and flog that the rest of the world wants.
Little of that nasty four letter word ‘Work’ involved.
Tomorrow, as this is written, there will be a referendum. Irrespective of the view you hold, and the way you will vote, it is hard to argue that the policy choices, and their implementation has not been at an acceptable level to date. You only need to look at the ‘Gap’ between first Australian incarceration rates, suicides, domestic violence, education, and others to come to that conclusion. What this vote will have articulated is the willingness of the Australian population to accept that change is necessary. It may not always be good for everyone, and indeed, will never receive complete agreement of the detail. However, if we reject all change, we also reject all opportunity, which is rarely a good strategy.
Oct 11, 2023 | Governance, Leadership, Marketing
These two words are often wrongly used as similes.
Complicated implies interdependence, you cannot pull it apart, and then put it back together in exactly the same form. Think of a knitted jumper.
Complex implies it can be simplified, much as you unfold a sheet of paper, then are able to refold it and end up in the same place.
Complex and complicated are at either end of a continuum, and rarely is something just complex, or just complicated.
Depending on where a situation or question sits in the continuum, you may be able to simplify somewhat, but not completely before you alter the form of the problem or task. It is rarely a binary choice.
Another way of describing this is the commonly used phrase ‘Think from first principles’.
Our brains have evolved a range of heuristics to deal with variables. However, depending on the people and the context of the variables, our brains can deal with only 3 to 5 at any one time before overload kicks in and confusion, procrastination, and poor choices result. By simplifying, we remove the need to consume cognitive capacity for those things we have classified as benign, to be allocated to the unexpected variables that present either danger or opportunity to us.
Simplicity enables optimisation, repeatability with little or no thought, as it is stable, and predictable. However, we are then tuned to miss the very things that can harm us, and sometimes offers opportunity.
Think about that first time you drove to a new destination. You are following a map or instructions, looking for street signs, and hazards of various types, you are concentrating on the drive. Now consider the same drive when you have been doing it every day for a while. The car seems to be on autopilot, and you are thinking of other things, only superficially aware of your surroundings. Your cognitive capacity is being used for purposes other than navigating you safely to your destination.
Therefore, the state we should be seeking is resilience. The fine line between optimised, but still vigilant to the unexpected variables and able to react to them in ways not locked into the way we did it before.
We need to be able to adjust quickly in a world of constant change, just to keep up.
Header credit: Hugh McLeod at gapingvoid.com
E&OE October 21. It has been pointed our to me that I got complex and complicated the wrong way around in the post above.
Dumb mistakes not picked up by editing do occasionally slip through. When you read the post, just reverse the meaning of the words Complex and Complicated. I considered rewriting the post, but am prepared to wear my mistakes, so left it as written. Also, I cannot help but wonder if Seth Godin saw the post, shook his head, and wrote a better one.
Aug 4, 2023 | Governance, Strategy
Every year the American History Business Centre a non-profit run by Gary Hoover, puts out a chart that updates the market capitalisation of Americas top 20 public companies.
The 2023 version has just arrived in my inbox.
I find the path of the evolution astonishing, even in the relatively short time since the turn of the century to now.
A few things that pop out, at least to me.
- The acceleration in the rate of increase since 2000
- The absolute dominance of the Tech giants Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet and Amazon, that has driven the market cap, especially since 2010. The growth rate is so fast that the numbers are already out of date. Apple broke the 3 trillion dollar mark, the first to do so, in January. It has bounced around that benchmark a bit, but is today is 3.011T.
- The emergence of Tesla from nowhere 5 years ago to 7th today, a market cap bigger than the other US carmakers combined, who outsell Tesla by a big margin. However, Tesla unit sales have taken off with the opening of Chinese manufacturing, delivering 710k units worldwide in 2022.
- The absolute contrast to Australia’s top 20, dominated by financial institutions and commodities.
Have a look at the graphs in the link, and consider the implications for the competitive position and ‘re-industrialisation’ of this country.
The most recent Harvard economic complexity report puts Australia at 93 on the list, bracketed by Uganda at 92, and Pakistan at 94. Stellar company indeed.
The government appears to be taking the problem seriously, with the $15 Billion National Reconstruction Fund announced in the October 2022 budget, but is it enough, and is the support the right kind of support required to stimulate the domestic economy to build the complexity that will act as an insulator to the types of global disruptions that seem now both inevitable and more frequent?
While we are distracted by short term political wrangling, point scoring and pushing of social agendas that are truly relevant only to minorities, the big-ticket items, those that will determine the shape of the country over the coming decades, go begging.
Our so-called leaders lack the vision, commitment, and coconuts to take a hard look at what needs to be done, and then get on and do it, short term political polling be damned.
