top of page
IMG_20210927_134833822.jpg
Blue Skies
Stupid?

Is Australia Stupid ?
-posted January 2024

Australia has bountiful natural resources of which the everyday Australian seemingly gets little benefit. These resources are a public good (fishing, mining), or generated using a public good (agriculture).

 

Comparative Advantages passed onto population:

Most of Australia’s mineral commodities are sold overseas which benefits shareholders (majority overseas) and the small percentage of the local workforce in mining. Only a small portion of these commodities are used in value-added industries. This contrasts starkly with those countries that use their comparative advantages to enrich their people directly:

Compar Advantage.png

A rare case of using comparative advantage to benefit the locals is the "Western Australia Domestic Gas Policy"- this policy seeks to make gas equivalent to 15% of exports available for WA consumers resulting in the lowest gas prices in the OECD. This policy should be adopted Australia wide for all commodities that gives a comparative advantage (ie. produce cheaper and in volume).

 

Mining Commodities- The Western Australia government generates a Mineral & Petroleum Royalties of 5% of its $252 billion exports which is imposed upon material extracted from the ground. While the Federal Government imposes a resource tax based on profits, companies use accounting tricks to avoid paying this tax, the worse culprits are international companies that use structures to avoid profits and so pay no/little tax. If a policy like the "WA Domestic Gas Policy" was adopted Australia wide and a cost price negotiated, then Australians would drive on cheap gas and have cheap electricity generation. If cheap energy was Australia's comparative advantage it could build energy intensive industries and have a strong manufacturing industry. The $2000-$4000 fuel savings per year for each vehicle would significantly raise people's standard of living and the additional $billions in spending would have a positive multiplier effect upon the economy. Although Australia is the 8th largest gas and 4th largest coal producer in the world does it have cheap energy? NO it does not.

 

Agricultural & Fishing Products- those countries that produce food tend to pay higher prices and have access to lower quality produce as locals compete for the same product as overseas buyers. The best cuts of meat, the larger prawns, lobsters etc go directly overseas to buyers willing to pay more. If a percentage% of these foodstuffs were secured for the local market and sold at cost then this could substantially improve people's health standards as quality food costs would compete with highly processed foods and takeaways. Hospital costs would fall, people’s quality of life would improve and be more productive over a longer period of time. Although Australia has the 7th largest agriculture land and 3rd largest territorial waters in the world does it have cheap quality food? NO it does not.

No Comparative Advantages BUT Smart:

Japan has no natural resources of note relative to Australia, however it has the 3rd largest steel production globally which sustains a profitable car/motor industry (Toyota, Honda, Daihatsu, Nissan, Suzuki, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Subaru, Isuzu, Hino, Kawasaki, Yamaha). It sustains this industry by importing the materials it needs- Japan imports from Australia 32% gas, 74% iron, 61% coal.

 

At this time Australia has plenty of natural resources but no car industry- importing 1million cars every year at a cost of at least $19 billion. Would it not be better for this $19 billion+ to be retained in Australia?

 

Stupid Government Leaders- Short term goals:

Australian exports are composed of Resources- 61.5%, Services- 17.6%, Rural- 11.1%, Manufactured- 7.4%. Although a first world country Australia is still a primary producer and is considered as such by the investment world, with interest rates and valuations adjusted accordingly. If commodity prices fall, of which the government has NO control, then the Australian economy will fall also.

Australia Government Policies do not consider long term implications-

  1. Record migration levels (600,000 per year)- although this bolsters the economic figures for future elections there is little incentive to train and upskill local labour, house prices and rents keep rising as demand for housing increases, entry level and low skilled jobs become unavailable for locals

  2. Subsidise Primary industries- subsidies given to the primary industry as the government recognises the importance of job creation, generating foreign income and maintaining food security, but as the population grows the share of a nation’s fixed wealth gets smaller. If value added industries were built using these primary products then salaries and collected tax revenue would increase, improving everyone’s standard of living.

  3. Supporting Old Car Manufacturing- foreign companies took taxpayers money to build second rate cars and then closed shop instead of upgrading the ageing factories. Buying a car is the 2nd largest purchase in one’s lifetime- 1,100,000 cars are imported per year at a cost of $19 billion. Australia exports iron ore to car manufacturing countries (China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan) which have no iron or of a substandard grade- they are 1st, 3rd, 6th, 12th respectively in steel manufacturing. Maybe we should have a new technological car manufacturer to prevent $19 billion leaving our shores each year?

  4. Best education & Research- Australia has 800,000 international students each year which obviously has a cost of places not going to local students, and the majority of these students take their skills back overseas when they graduate (short-term gain for a long-term loss).

 

Great ideas and Intellectual Property sold to overseas companies, no new industries developed nor improvement of existing industries. Examples of this below;

Aus Invent.png

FIX THESE OBVIOUS PROBLEMS:

Common age-old argument in Australia against building a manufacturing base;

  1. Population is too small - not true, as today’s population stands at 26 million.

  2. Workers too expensive – irrelevant as manufacturing is partly automated and not as labour intensive. (Germany has high wages & manufactures cars)

  3. Unions too powerful & disruptive – only 13% union membership, besides government can put in place protection for an industry considered strategic and too important to fail.

  4. Australia too far – global shipping readily accessible and safe trading routes.

Recent history proves that the Australian government has no will to develop integrated manufacturing industries. The government has the resources to undertake projects that no individual can, they should;

  • set aside land for development of integrated manufacturing,

  • accelerate the approvals (legal, native title, environmental, state government)

  • upgrade ports (high tech, high volume),

  • provide interest free loans, tax-free incentives, and at worst match dollar-for-dollar investments

  • setup high tech education institutions for the labour force

 

EXAMPLE- set up a steel & car manufacturing industry in WA, maybe contact TESLA to set up a $1 billion high technology car manufacturing plant in Australia

  • reduce $19 billion car imports by a significant factor (immediate return on investment;  ROI=1-2years)

  • replace 200,000 vehicles in government fleets with Australian made

  • reduce deaths on roads with high technology Tesla vehicles

  • reduce pollution levels which contribute $billions health care costs

  • develop a car export industry shipping Teslas to the Asian region

  • develop a high technology hub in Australia to supply workers to Tesla factory

  • develop a battery manufacturing industry in Australia exploiting minerals produced locally

CONCLUSION- Australians not stupid. The problem is that the government adopts short term populist strategies which do not benefit the local population over the long term. "Business as Usual" is not going to benefit a growing future population.

  • if Federal government taxes use something other than 'Profit" they can set up a fund similar to Norway

  • if we integrate our primary products into a manufacturing industry (gas-iron-coal) we can produce a high tech car industry that can displace Japan.

Junk Yard

Australia Road Safety- TESLA can be the answer; build a Gigafactory here and bring on the subsidies
-posted May 2022

Tesla

With the introduction of motor vehicle safety technologies such as seatbelts and airbags etc fatalities have been consistently on the decline. If one extends the trendline The Australian National Road Safety Strategy 2021-2030 Safe System Principles of; zero deaths and serious injuries by 2050 & reduce the rate of deaths by at least 50% and rate of severe injuries by at least 30% within 10 years will be met. However, the question is:

 

“will existing costly TANRSS strategies produce this result, or is the decline in fatalities primarily due to safety technologies in motor vehicles?”

Road.png

www.bitre.gov.au/

www.abs.gov.au/

I would posit that existing strategies will not achieve zero deaths and serious injuries…with no logical plan in place this is a ridiculous unachievable strategy. The only way this could be achieved would be for a new safety technology that would displace older existing vehicles- fully autonomous vehicles is the only realistic strategy. With a 2050 target of zero I would hazard a guess that those that have designed TANRSS have factored in autonomous vehicles but wish to continue existing strategies, taking advantage of government largesse. The Australian Government is investing $33.4 billion over 4 years from 2020-21 to improve safety on Australian roads– this appears to be a cash grab of public (taxpayers) monies into private hands, rather than providing 21st century solutions.

 

The number of registered motor vehicles on the road since 1980 has increased 83% to 19.8 million, with an associated 71.8% increase in vehicle kilometres to 245.9 billion kilometres. More cars on the road have increased the probability of vehicle accidents- this is reflected in the rise of hospitalised injuries since 1996. As these injuries are increasing it is newer vehicles and safety technologies that are reducing fatalities.

What to Do? Fully autonomous vehicle strategy- create bipartisan support and legislation to speed up the processes for the following;

  • Entice Elon to build a $1.5 billion TESLA Gigafactory in Australia (match Elon’s investment $ for $)

  • Provide tax incentives to create attractive business proposal for TESLA shareholders

  • Locate and acquire land for the Gigafactory- offer to TESLA with all environmental, Native Title, local authority clearances etc.

  • Ensure easy access to PORT and RAIL with up-to-date facilities

  • Develop technology scholarships and build technology hub/university that produces tech savvy workforce for the Gigafactory

  • Provide subsidies and remove stamp duties of TESLA vehicles

  • Upgrade road infrastructure to enable safer autonomous vehicle navigation

  • Cash up CSIRO for battery/energy research

  • Speedup discovery and development of mines focussed on battery minerals

 

The outcome of this 21st century approach may include;

  • Zero road fatalities and serious injury

  • High value jobs

  • Technology hub (attract talent and develop our own expertise)

  • Lower carbon emissions

  • Envy of the world with our road safety outcomes and technology hub

  • Attract other technological manufacturers and research

 

In summary- the conservative Liberal government and their alliance with the National Party (regional country voters) are willing to spend $8 billion per year on road safety to save maybe 50-100 lives per year. However, this alliance is reluctant to recognise Climate Change and spend 1 red cent towards saving 26 million Australian’s futures. This fully autonomous vehicle strategy cost is only a fraction of the road safety spend by the Australian Government, will not only be more effective in reducing fatalities and injuries but will give Australians a means to support local business with their new car purchases, reduce household energy costs, reduce carbon footprint, etc. This is a better solution than a few new roundabouts, roadside barriers or rumble strips.

broken submarine leaking a stream of bubbles from the bottom of the sea.jpg

AUKUS Submarine Deal- too expensive & unnecessary
-posted March 2023

News media only seem to be pushing the government narrative of better defense and 20,000 jobs for Australians, and attacking former Prime Ministers for criticising the deal. This deal is not what the Australian people asked for nor want. The $386 billion AUKUS deal has no return to the Australian economy aside from assuaging imagined fears.

Cost- This $386 billion spend is arguably the biggest investment in Australia's history- it provides no revenue stream, will require further $billions in the form of weaponry, port facilities, training, personnel etc and is geared towards war. It translates to $16,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia, for a handful of subs.

As a comparison, Australia’s largest infrastructure project on the books is the $16.8 billion WestConnex 33km traffic motorway in NSW. About 200 infrastructure projects are currently under construction or in planning phase in Australia at a total cost of $359 billion, which is $30 billion less than the AUKUS submarine deal which arguably provides no benefit to Australians. These 200 projects include; x54 Energy, x50 Road, x33 Rail, x31 Hospital, x8 Water, x5 bridges, x5 Entertainment, x5 Dam, x4 Port, x3 airport, x6 other which provide a (in)direct benefit to all Australians and in many cases revenue streams and long term employment opportunities. It is obvious there will be less $$$ for infrastructure projects in the future and tax increases to pay for these subs.

Outdated Technology- It is likely that the technology these subs employ will be outdated by the time they hit the water. The $51 billion National Broadband Network is a case in point; upon completion it was not a world class network, alternative technology 5G available and superior, the cost blow-out due to regional areas was unnecessary as Elon Musk’s Starlink now available. The future of warfare will not be submarines, tanks, planes and soldiers with guns, but will be carried out with drones, robots, cyber warfare and AI.

Nuclear waste- where and how are they going to dispose of the waste?

Diplomacy- future diplomacy will become more difficult.

The outgoing Scott Morrison's Liberal government has burdened future generations with a $1 trillion national debt and a $368 billion Opportunity Cost, meaning Australia will not realise its full potential as a high technology sophisticated society, but will remain tied to the land as 3rd world farmers and miners with cute accents.

If you believe President (General) Eisenhower 1961 speech about the USA military-industrial Complex, then it can be feasible to believe that the USA is creating instability in the Asian region (eg. Nancy Pelosi visiting Taiwan at the height of US-China tensions) in order to sell military arms in the region. Military spending in the SE Asian region has increased markedly since 2010, with Australia now falling into line.

Submarine
Opportunity Cost of AUKUS submarine deal is 200 infrastructure projects
2023 Australia current infrastructure projects by state
Anchor 2

Australian Government spending is out of control!
-posted May 2022

The Commonwealth Gross Debt as of 2021 is $817 billion, the Budget projects this debt to surpass $1 trillion over next few years (>50% GDP). This is not a number bandied about by the government very often as this would freak people out and cost them votes, and the public would demand more restraint on spending.

There is a Liberal Party trope that they are a good manager of the economy, this may have been the case in 1996-2007 for the Howard government whereby the Gross Debt was reduced by half. However, from 2014-2021 the Gross debt has increased by $560 billion (+320%) which is 68% of Gross Debt. The Morrison government appears to be dependent upon borrowed monies to manage the economy, arguably the worst manager of the Australian economy in the modern era.

Note that debt is often reported as Net Debt- this indicates the ability of the government to payback the loans, however I think this is the preferred reference used as the total amount appears significantly less.

Australian Government spending debt vs gdp (1963-2021)

https://data.worldbank.org/

https://data.imf.org/

https://www.aofm.gov.au/data-hub 

Military spending in Australia is generally in lock-step to GDP (2%), however defence spending appears to have escalated with the current Liberal government- it has almost doubled. This appears to be in line with the aggressive (un-)diplomatic rhetoric (of international relations) of the Morrison/Dutton Liberal government.

Australian Government gross debt and military spending
bottom of page