Category: Hot air

Is chalk and talk past tense – a victim of ‘dash for cash’.

Posted on Posted in Headship, Hot airTagged , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

I guess the days of chalk and talk are over, in my view, merely a taste of things to come. From conversations throughout the education sector, there is wide-scale disenchantment and frustration with the system and the apparent breach of promise our politicians speak on school funding will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, and bring many to the point of protest – students, teachers and parents.

The question that appears to be wanting in the ‘dash to slash cash’ mindset is changes are needed but what is surviving in the face of technology upgrades is education remains the means of survival and how we learn to fine-tune the way knowledge is delivered.

That said, according to Leanne Mezrani writing for the Project Manager – www.aipm.com.au – in the February/March 2013 edition (but still very relevant) “truly effective teaching relies on the give-and-take between teacher and student. Feedback can be as subtle as a facial expression or tone of voice”.

What is all this based on? Invaluable lessons learnt through industry experience, face to face feedback and deliver using a combination of face to face, online and project based assessment. According to Leanne’s article. So rather than cuts more needs to be spent on knowledge delivery. Especially when we are slipping in world ranking and failing our regional area needs on education.

Is there a revolution or evolution of education delivery though technology? Evolution we think, and if you consider this timeline, also courtesy of Leanne Mezrani:

1911 – first distance education scheme in Australia offered by the University of Queensland and extended to correspondence schools in the 1920’s in NSW and Queensland.

By 1933 – correspondence lessons replace the last itinerant teacher.

In 1935 – All Australian mainland states now have Classroom lessons broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC).

1960 – The school of the Air is established. Lessons are broadcast by radio from the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Cloncurry Queensland.

1975 – The personal computer meant users did not need to rely on mainframe computers for use of education software.

IN the 1990’s – Leaning tools went through a significant upgrade in graphics and sound. CD-ROMs become the preferred method of content delivery.

1993 – Under ownership of Monash University Open Universities Australia was formed as a nation wide means of providing distance education using printed courseware and non-commercial television.

1999 – e-Learning was the term used for internet and other interactive or electronic media sources.

2008 – Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) used as a term to describe an online course offered by a US University. The significance – online classes offered free of charge.

2011 – The Centre of Online Learning Excellence is launched by Open Universities Australia with the purpose of becoming a centre of best practice in online education.

2012 – A total of 20 universities and other education providers across Australia offer 1700 units and 180 qualifications through online courses.

2013 – it is recognized that MOOC was a revolution, but it seem only the highly self-motivated student derive any great benefit from this type of learning. What is now apparent is that is it is an evolution of delivery as the average student is more likely to require motivation and inspiration, and are likely to lose their way in an environment that doesn’t offer scheduled classes or feedback from instructors.

The CO2Land org reads, April 2014 – Australia rates 14th in the place to get a quality education. Rating first is South Korea because of the way they give quality time to students. Since writing this post it has come to our attention Australia is now 15th place according to BBC, 8 May 2014. Also worth noting is that UK is second to South Korea according to BBC.

Does it make you think – dash for cash or offer quality learning? What gives the better future payback?

 

A glimpse of our new utility model

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Change the name Hawaii for Australia in this story. Then you might get a glimpse into our new utility model. Just like in Australia – east or west coast, Hawaii Electric, the US state’s biggest utility, has failed to create a long-term, customer-focused business model. The problem, according to the Hawaii PUC as reported as said last week is “An increasing penetration of utility-scale renewables and distributed generation has ‘broken’ the traditional utility-customer regulatory compact….An overhaul of the traditional cost-of-service utility regulation model is being touted as a possible solution.”

Now we hear you say but Tony and Joe are going to put an end to the renewable industry in Australia by 1 July 2014. Well, according to the Climate Speculator and Tristan Edis the Environment Minister, Greg Hunt says his Cabinet Colleagues are dreaming. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/climate .

We might get cheeky here and refer to CO2Land org’s last posting, 7 May 2014 – Fantasy and Budgets, in particular on after eating a mushroom Alice in Wonderland grew a mile high – we guess it was a magic one! However, no amount of distorted truths can hide the reality and its acceptance here, as in the US state utility regulators, there is a need to take steps to incentivize changes to the utility business model, and utilities should lead on these issues, instead of being dragged along. One furphy that can be dispelled by recent reports cannot attribute renewable to price increases, again quoting, 8 May, 2:22 PM, Explaining electricity markets to dummies by TRISTAN EDIS: “While economic modeling shows that the injection of lots of solar and wind power via the RET will lower wholesale electricity prices, 95% of politicians and 98% of journalists struggle to understand and accept it” (RET refers to Renewable Energy Target). We can only say, sad but true.

Now back to the utility change model, rather than waffle on like a ‘polly’ – aussie slang for politician. You might better get a grip on the case and idea by directly reading –

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/hawaiis-overhaul-of-the-utility-business-model/259923/

We should also add that in Australia, after eight years of study there is no evidence that Wind Energy in South Australia has been causal of wholesale energy price increases in that state or the eastern seaboard to which it is connected. To refer to that story refer to the Climate Speculator again.

Have got to go now – put my waste into the gasifier, produce syngas to start the generator for our power needs, it is cold overcast and foggy outside – need a backup for the solar on the roof. It is just like having a battery without acid. Sorry Alice!

Fantasy and Budgets – a dream time.

Posted on Posted in Hot air, UncategorizedTagged , , , , Leave a comment

Don’t pick that mushroom! Why – then it came back, Alice in wonderland grew a mile high after eating one. She was then subject to rule 42 which says that anyone taller than a mile must leave the court immediately. Just thinking out loud as I remembered our treasurer is a self-professed Lewis Carroll fan. So is the budget buildup all a big joke? Before we go on, rule 42 is a joke – said to actually mean the average number of lines on a page of a paperback book. Can we speculate what is contained in the budget is written down as 42 lines on a page?

Is this an allusion, a trip into the fantastic, extraordinary and, completely obvious. An amazing revelation and remarkable. WOW, it explains so much beyond the books. It even debunks the notion that a computer could provide an answer to the meaning of life. Do we have a Brian in parliament? Its ok it won’t hurt a bit! The pain is to be brought down on budget night.

Ok, Joe does not like science. But, he might still hope that science will come up with answers to the big questions. After all when looking for meaning, science has answered the most questions so far. However, it hasn’t provided answers to the most fundamental questions like why we are here, what is the carbon tax for. But just because it hasn’t yet, doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t when we own it. Having said that, it is possible that questions of meaning is simply of a different sort to question of what matters. We know the physical world is where science is proven so powerful. That being so, it is easy to understand why we are saying something rather than nothing, because just as with mathematics it might make no more sense asking if an equation is happy or if union people in a movement are friends, it can be satisfying just asking the question.

Now we get serious – do you know the mind of god. Is it possible? Let us pre-empt a possible answer: Though we haven’t run up against a class of questions that we couldn’t answer yet, it is a fiendishly difficult area, we have yet to exhaust all possible answers. Why all these questions are this some sort of deep thought madness?

When you have no answer, no meaning, no sense being made of the political universe, and you think you would not be any worse off if you had no government – That’s it the answer, install robots and computers for the job! But who would understand the need for life? Who would accept that life is a gift

To put it another way, life is a gift. It is good. It flourishes in experiences like love. But, such philosophy can no more provide meaning than science can. Why, because life’s giftedness, its goodness and its loveliness are essentially spiritual qualities. They can be assessed by rational enquiry. But they cannot be accessed by the cool calculations of reason. They must be experienced. I know now why Joe said we must experience pain! How else could we see a world in a grain of sand, and capture something of the world needed to be transformed through the beauty and meaning of his ideals.

Oh yeah, OK it was all a bad dream, I though I better write it down before I forgot it. Then someone really scared me and said the answer is rule 13! I must have dozed off again. Oh my god, he does talk like that! Bolt upright and awake now it is so real.

Bidding process – The White – ERF Paper

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

Lets talk more about the bidding process, assuming you managed to read the Energy Reduction Fund White Paper released 24 April 2014. We talked about profiling you risk in our post ‘The White – ERF Paper’ on 2 May 2014. It has been attracting worldwide interest. What we don’t know is why it is so. We can only speculate many are expecting a ‘big bang’ or ‘flip flop’ for the policy. Regardless, it is better than doing nothing, so lets assume we can get past the regulatory uncertainty and look at things assuming you business can access the funds, has eligible projects, and has in place safeguard mechanisms.

First question you need to ask is are you strategic or tactical in your approach – or a hybrid. We might suggest hybrid is a good hedge. Why because you can be reactive to changes without being too hung up on risk factors. Also, providing funding could be as easy as the 2014/2015 Federal Budget being approved, without the specialist legislation. Yep, the good ole executive bypass is possible. But that is the government’s risk.

To bid in you need to create a program with a project size that has a prospect of being awarded funding. We note that some say, and repeated by Energetics (a consulting firm that is known to influence policy on Climate), claim 2,000 t CO2 equivalent abatement will get you a jersey. However, remember this is a reverse auction – the lowest price wins! There is no guarantee the best project will win. You could be forgiven for getting a little suspicious over who and what will be rewarded.

That said, the usual suspects for the preparation to be included in the bidding, may actually preclude you too! Namely, the requirement of ‘additionality’ for the projects. Back in 2012, August 14 – CO2Land org looked a little harder at additionality and its association with the word ‘real’ (concluding real was used as a synonym) and found:

  • Specifically ISO 14064-2 (project accounting) does not include ‘Real’ because during development of ISO 14064-2 ‘Real’ was regarded as a programmatic rule/criteria, which is outside the scope of ISO 14064-2.
  • ISO 14064-2 is a standard rather than a program
  • ISO 14064-2 (Clause 5.4) specifies the following requirement in regards to additionality: “The project proponent shall select or establish, justify and apply criteria and procedures for demonstrating that the project results in GHG emissions reductions or removal enhancements that are additional to what would occur in the baseline scenario.”
  • Additionality is incorporated into ISO 14064-2 is based on the core principles of ISO standards in general, i.e. that ISO standards not be a barrier to trade (WTO-TBT – anyone following development of ISO 14067 (product) will know this is a major issue). As such, ISO standards must be policy-neutral (extended to include program-neutrality). This is of course very important for market confidence.
  • ISO 14064 deals with the concept of additionality by requiring that the GHG project has resulted in GHG emission reductions or removal enhancements in addition to what would have happened in the absence of that project. It does not use the term “additionality”…Thus the project proponent may apply additionality criteria and procedures, or define and use boundaries consistent with relevant legislation, policy, GHG programmes and good practice.”
  • Although the concept/requirement of additionality is within the requirements of ISO 14064-2, the simple reason why the ‘term’ additionality is not present within the requirements of ISO 14064-2 is because of certain sensitivities/perceptions/politics of certain parties involved in the development of the standard –

And, the following references helpful in gaining a more complete understanding:

Oh dear, I wonder if they understand the standard says the concept should be policy- neutral. Why to give confidence to the market, elementary is it not?

But, here comes the good news. If you are aware, adopt a pragmatic approach, and are proactive in that you go low first up and go early you might just get there for your funding. All you got to do is keeping improving on your targets into the future.

What projects might have the better chance of winning a place. Energy Efficiency projects are probably the best suited for the auction process and the pre-qualification needs.

The conclusion: If you have done nothing meaningful before about your energy use. You can now be rewarded? Good policy, hey!

To ponder, Mark Jackson – a professional, asked in the Australasian Renewable Energy and Carbon Professionals Group on LinkedIn: “Is anyone else getting a sense that renewables are not getting a fair airing…budget etc”.

The White – ERF paper

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

Have you read the Energy Reduction Fund White Paper released 24 April 2014? No, but I heard Hockey say the Clean Energy Regulator is gone – was the reply. Then another said: Isn’t Hunt the Minister. We replied yeah, but it was an interview for the news and you know what that means. But seriously, what does it mean?

The answer may have come from a company that markets itself as emphasising Climate Change Matters. No, not left wing, not opportunist. Just pragmatic of what is best for you to plan for what is ahead and how to best cope with it. So what can you do to cope? How do you position to be safe?

It is not really that simple. But at least it gives you a chance to prepare. So what is the greater risk? The hubris (excessive ambition, self-confidence) of the government, other parties not supporting the government position for the Direct Action Plan and appearing to support the repeal of the carbon pricing mechanism. Add to that those other parties that will not support either plan and you could say now and into the next senate period the legislation to support the Direct Action Plan will not pass the senate vote.

So the risk is prolonged regulatory uncertainty. But, prudent behaviour and textbook risk management says you must assess risk by anticipating that risk has associated alternatives.

What alternative? The bluster of government says the Energy Reduction Fund will be implemented and the related reverse auction process will commence 1 July 2014. Or, the Clean Energy Act – and the regulator stay put. Or, nothing happens – we blunder on and questions remain in terms of price liabilities. And, of course for business that is not good not good for spruiking ‘open for business’.

What methods would you use to profile your risk? I hear some say a scenario-based approach. But, is it really safe to say the stories lines are plausible because the causal relationships can be demonstrated? In these cases when scenario planning is integrated with a systems thinking approach to scenario development, it is sometimes referred to as dynamic. That is the point here the nature of dynamic is difficult to assess as certainty. Maybe good ‘old fashioned’ (Howard era) sensitivity analysis might be a better way to manage your risk profile. Nonetheless it would be remiss to say you can avoid the need to develop your position and become involved.

Assuming the Emissions Reduction Fund is on track as described in the White Paper: The reverse auction, with $300 million to spend, will begin on 1 July 2014. There are a set number of eligible type projects to participate. Methodologies can include a method to enable facilities reporting under NGERS to bid in the auction.

Baselines have a threshold, but what is different is the inclusion of ‘meaningful’. This differs from ‘generic’ and you need to have an understanding of the likelihood of what happens when or if you exceed the baselines. For example in July 2014 you are in one threshold and after 1 July 2015 above the line.

What is your safeguard position – it is up to you to get involved.

We will give you time to read the paper. But shortly, we might talk more on the bidding process.   If we decide to get involved!

 

Gas Prices – irrelevant statements

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

Are you having trouble making fracking sense of the gas price? Don’t understand that if we triple our gas production we pay more for energy! Simple answer is it is a case of people on the far queue. The queue being the mantle of ‘world price’, and dismantle of price protection for domestic consumption. In this instance we mean Australian industry and households described as domestic.

It was bemusing to hear the new NSW Energy Minister (in case you did not hear – new premier and new cabinet after the shock resignation of the old, but same party, Mid April 2014) say we need to find more gas to keep prices down after the regulator said we approve 17% increase for gas from 1 July 2014. Bemused because our price is now set at what the world is prepared to pay to keep their industries productive. Therefore the more we produce the more economical it is to export the gas in economies of scale – simple is it not?

Then the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) reported via Stephanie Smail : “The mooted gas price hike in New South Wales has created tensions with Queensland about the future of the coal seam gas industry. The NSW Government wants more information about overseas buyers from Queensland’s fast-growing market. The Queensland Government says that’s not an issue”.

Co2Land org is not so sure, that it is not an issue. The issue is how do we have faith that government is still relevant and capable of making decisions that are patriotic. But wait I hear you say we need to be aware of world trade and economic cooperation (AKA, Economic Participating Agreements, Free Trade etc). But something gets lost in all that: Governments tend to add fees and charges to balance their own end. So even if you agree on the level playing field for border entries (AKA Tariffs), the distribution price can be distorted by subsidies, fee and other charges.

This leads to the next matter. Why do we not have a social protection price for our own gas? We did, but it was not privatised then. So who wins? As we said increasingly, government is making itself irrelevant.

But let us, Co2Land org, propose a new angle for social inclusion and we could engage in for Direct Action (being the new Energy Reduction Fund white paper is released by the Federal Government) on this issue: 1. Do not engage in reverse auctions with no detail yet. 2. Crowd funding future developments. That is correct we the people fund the projects to the tune we expect prices to rise, and then from the interest we charge we pay off the increases when they come. Oh no! A terrible thought, we could tell the Treasurer the idea come from overseas and he will buy it. Imagine it now: We will save you, we are responsible managers etc. Overseas experience says etc. They are doing it as it is proven?

Unfortunately, it is all too true – we do follow others, and despite all the measures not working overseas we are being told to have faith. Again a case of people on the far queue.

The trust envelope – a view

Posted on Posted in Hot airTagged , , , , Leave a comment

Warning: There’s been changes to the wording of different parts of the contract. Sound familiar, whether is it a Chemist, a Bank, Telco, or any transaction you may have experienced it before. The reality is you not asking hard questions means you have lost something. Let us quote Dr Sandy Donald responding to concessions given by the Queensland Health Minister reported on 15 April 2014: “There were a lot of areas that gave the doctors almost no power to influence decisions and also a lot of areas we felt were open to misinterpretation.” What is the point you say?

The point is it is modus operandi for most dealings today to exploit trust. A Prime Minister might say ‘I am confident’ rather than ‘I confirm’. However, we might expect the weasel word language from that profession. But what happens when a Chemist says: Will you accept a cheaper brand? Think about that question: Did the Chemist say I would pass on a price advantage to you? Well in all likelihood no, the contract is I will give you a cheaper brand, it makes no guarantee you will pay less. You need to ask that question: Will I pay less if I take a cheaper brand? You may find the answer is no!

Without a Bank example we are low end of the Scale, A major telco has used very similar language and supplementary information in a very similar way too. Namely, you received an offer to upgrade. On the surface you are much better off for a reasonable rise in administration fees. You receive a supplementary advice, including: ‘With approval bank, will transfer any promotional rates to the new account’. Feeling good, hey! The welcome pack arrives and the Letter of Offer contains the words: Acceptance will transfer the promotional rate for x period at xx%. Then in the second sentence it says: Upon Expiry, the rate will revert xxxx balance xxxx. Look carefully at this phrasing and supplementary information, as it is as the Dr in the opening part of this post said ‘open to misinterpretation’. Learn to ask the hard question: Did you or will you transfer the promotion rate to the updated card? Most likely answer is no. You might also be taken back to hear ‘If you did not ask the question we had no obligation to tell you’. It follows that once you accepted you have no power to influence the decision to expire the offer.

CO2Land org can hear you say, but we have rights. Not anymore, unless you ask the questions. Em, trust – that may be an error.

 

 

Rock and Hardplace – RET and DAP predictions

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Headship, Hot airTagged , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Let us now predict: Soon after the RET review the fossil fuel generators will celebrate with a short-term price relief. It is a two edged sword, as they will discover the relief may be temporary. Partly because large-scale renewables facilities are likely to continue to experience cost reductions, and the Federal government’s Direct Action Plan may further dampen electricity demand – not a good outlook for coal fired generation known for its baseload dependability to be profitable.

It is scheduled for the Australian government’s Direct Action Plan (DAP) to release its white paper -Emissions Reduction Fund, this month April 2014. Also scheduled for mid-2014, the Government’s Renewable Energy Target (RET) Review expert panel will report to the Prime Minister. We might even guesstimate that the PM will find DAP will be unlikely to be a benefit or too expensive for the resources sector, and simply drop it. It could be easier than you think, why because it is not yet funded!

Apart from funding, the Governments’ own wording suggests the final design of the government’s Direct Action Plan will be critical for coal generators, and their survival, with potential for emissions baselines and penalties to curb potential growth prospects. Add to this that individual states do more and encourage energy efficiency, and other large-scale efforts to improve energy efficiency via the Emissions Reduction Fund will be a terrible place for coal fired generators to be if the predicted demand for electricity continues to decline. This will put significant pressure on profit margins of these generators.

CO2Land org feels the PM is in a rock and hard place, by his own doing. Come July he will have no choice but to continue with the threat to repeal the Carbon Price Mechanism (which he refers to as the Carbon Tax) – Which results in a short term gain for coal fired generation. Even if RET is reduced or halved, the long term trend for coal output is still dependent on the price effectiveness of that form of supply – it might even need a ‘subsidy’ to continue supply.

That said, if energy security is the stated reason for a subsidy, it is likely the penetration of renewable energy will continue because it will continue to be subject to falling prices to its advantage, and those prices are dropping because of efficiencies in the way it can deliver. Let us not forget – business too will be more efficient, and in order to survive will factor in the need to reduce energy demands, or at least be more efficient in the use of energy.

Lastly, if the PM were thinking of killing off the Direct Action Plan (DAP) it would be unwise. It is the only mechanism the government has to show they care, or are earth aware. Even South Africa has come to recognize a price on carbon + Renewable Energy + Energy Efficiency + Land use change = business success. We don’t want to appear dumb do we!

 

 

Inverted J Curve – Gas, and RET recommendation predictions

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , , Leave a comment

Time to make predictions: Gas prices will rise through an ‘inverted J curve’ response and world political pressures – antidote – devalue our Dollar. The outcome of the Australian Renewable Energy Target Review will recommend ‘constraint payments’ to be paid to renewable sources such as wind farms.

Gas prices will rise very soon, but not because of domestic pressure, but more because we will ‘promise’ it to be exported. Japan says thank you, as will others. This prediction is not new and it may have been part of the detail not yet released to the public over our new trade agreement. But the actual more recent driver is energy security concerns because of the Russian threats to gas supplies.

The evidence comes from Russia itself and the letter released by the Kremlin says that ‘if Ukraine does not settle its energy bill, Gazprom will be “compelled” to switch over to advance payment, and if those payments are not made, it “will completely or partially cease gas deliveries”. Mr Putin added that Russia was “prepared to participate in the effort to stabilise and restore Ukraine’s economy” but only on “equal terms” with the EU”.

Why is that so scary? Nearly one-third of the EU’s natural gas comes from Russia.

Co2Land org previously said we tend to borrow policy from overseas and then rebadge as a new idea here. Our Eastern seaboard National Electricity Market is a prime example. It should follow then what is happening in the UK will happen here (albeit the gas supply market is their greater influence and here we have the coal supply as the influence).

You might note that also recently posted by CO2Land org was that our Conservative brigade finds it ‘unpopular’ for wind farms to be ‘forced’ onto local rural communities. They will find it reassuring that the UK are it is “Long unpopular among some Conservative MPs from rural constituencies, onshore wind turbines appear to have incurred the wrath of the Prime Minister as well”. We do not have to be a guru to work out that this tactic will be mimicked in Australia, anytime soon.

There is the pointer to this likely development? Plans to restrict wind farms to seas around Britain will need much larger subsidies from consumers, experts say.

Newspaper reports suggest that the Conservative Party will include a pledge to limit onshore turbines in next year’s election manifesto.

But a member of a working group reviewing UK wind energy said this would require increased subsidies of around £300,000 per turbine per year.

Prof Richard Green said this would have a knock-on effect on electricity bills.

The dilemma for our politics is, just as they in UK promised the next few years will be difficult for the better good – they limit subsidies and toughen planning laws to make wind farms unviable in the countryside. The issue will be that to do so will make alternative energy more expensive to build and run. Why? As the UK report points out that “onshore wind energy is more expensive than electricity from coal or gas, but wind is one of the cheapest sources of low carbon power”. It is going to be very difficult to eliminate a energy source with a low carbon benefit! Forget arguments about Carbon Price (Carbon Tax sometimes called for emotive responses), this is about the need to respond to business pressures for them to be competitive, and like it or not gas prices are going up and wind is looking good in terms of low carbon benefit. Add to that the energy storage capability being developed and game set and match.

In the mean time (interim) constraints being put on renewable generation may well include payments to not participate in the market. This would allow traditional coal fired generators to at least run until the end of their economic life.

Is this fair? Glass half full or half empty – depends on your view.

 

 

Fair Go – going going, if I were a charity

Posted on Posted in Hot airTagged , , Leave a comment

If I were able to classify myself as a charity. Think of the ‘free trade’ deals I could do? I might even avoid being sued for helping Australians! Actually it is not funny, many of the employer groups are considering or are reported as lobbying to be considered as a charity. Where is this talk heading? The conversation is getting down to the watering down of the disclosure laws and how are killing off manufacturing in Australia and creating a service industry based on bankable power that favours overseas interests.

The United States of America has learn’t a lesson from this sort of folly. Today they are putting considerable effort in rebuilding their manufacturing sector, and small business has a big part to play in this role because they are the innovators, the engine that is faster to adapt and foster the happiness factor just by doing.

Tristan – you are spot on where you say “The biggest killer of manufacturing jobs is the free trade agreement”. He was actually talking about the current government when they signed a free trade agreement (FTA) with Thailand in 2005 and South Korea in Dec 2013. Then he goes on to say “The government’s own fact sheet acknowledged that domestic manufacturing would be detrimentally affected by the FTAs? Australia finalises free trade agreement with South Korea?” Then quoting the Guardian, 5 Dec 2013: “A fact sheet provided by the government acknowledges some sectors could face increased competition from imports of South Korean products and services, such as motor vehicles and parts, steel products and textiles, clothing and footwear.”

Tristan then raises the issue we should all worry about: “All the FTAs the Liberals have signed also include the contentious clause allowing foreign corporations to sue Australia over legislation that is good for Australians but which detrimentally affects foreign corporations’ profitability.”

Yesterday, 7 April 2014, it was announced that Australia has now signed a FTA with Japan, and claimed is the benefits that come with it including jobs, businesses benefiting and banks smirking with glee. However, if you consider foreign corporations can now sue Australia if we affect they profitability, and that many of the companies that exist in Australia are overseas owned, our Government has made itself irrelevant!

Our Government cannot deliver on any promise to help mainstream Australians and small business innovation is being strangled – the fair go has gone. But what about the promise to create jobs – we currently have 840,000 jobless Australians on Newstart since September 2013 and it is the highest level for 15 years. Promised is to create 1 million jobs in 5 years.
The catch in this statement: The jobs were never promised to go to Australians, nor was it said the people would be well paid, nor ‘real jobs’ because many of the programs would count welfare recipients as employed.

As some further evidence also consider the Federal Government Agency, Austrade has argued for the lowering of tourism wages and a relaxation of 457 visa restrictions to allow guest workers to fill the tourism jobs. Reports on the Mining industry suggests the same there too. Manufacturing, well that is being killed off, and skill sets wasted. The answer get jobs in house renovations that will save you! The question is now will the service industry be enough to bring our great nation forward? Well look back to the USA, they are now desperate to rebuild their manufacturing industry, it is the powerhouse of being a world leader, and the heroes for the USA are the small business innovators and determination to succeed at the satisfaction of something tangible.

That is it – the problem is we think virtual, we need tangible. Oh no, some politician is going to borrow that phrase for their purpose. Quick build an Abbott proof fence.