Submission to the Productivity Commission issues paper business set-Up, transfer and closure

The Commission has been asked to identify appropriate options for reducing entry and exit barriers including advice on the potential impacts of the personal/corporate insolvency regimes on business exits...

Submission to the Productivity Commission draft report business set-up, transfer and closure

The Commission has released a Draft Report on Business Set-Up, Transfer and Closure for public consultation and input. It is pleasing to note that three chapters of the Draft Report address aspects of personal and corporate insolvency. Nevertheless, we continue to make the submission to national policy inquiries and discussions that a comprehensive review should be undertaken of the regulation of insolvency and restructuring in Australia. The last comprehensive review of the insolvency system was by the Australian Law Reform Commission (the Harmer Report) and was handed down in 1988. Whilst there have been aspects of our insolvency laws that have been reviewed since that time, none has been able to provide the clear and comprehensive analysis that is able to come from a more considered review. Such a review ought to be conducted by the Australian Law Reform Commission or similar independent panel set up for the task. We also suggest that there is a lack of data available to assist with addressing questions raised by the Draft Report. There is a need to invest in finding out, in a rigorous and informed way, how the current law operates. Until there is a willingness to make a public investment in such research with less reliance upon the anecdotal (often from well-meaning but ultimately inadequately informed participants and others) the government cannot be sure that the insolvency regime we have provides the most effective regime to underpin Australia’s commercial and financial dealings, nor that any change is justified. We also make the submission that there are benefits in a serious investigation into a merged regulatory architecture of personal and corporate insolvency and a combined personal and corporate insolvency regulator.

Grassland productivity limited by multiple nutrients

Terrestrial ecosystem productivity is widely accepted to be nutrient limited1. Although nitrogen (N) is deemed a key determinant of aboveground net primary production (ANPP)2,3, the prevalence of co-limitation by N and phosphorus (P) is increasingly recognized4,​5,​6,​7,​8. However, the extent to which terrestrial productivity is co-limited by nutrients other than N and P has remained unclear. Here, we report results from a standardized factorial nutrient addition experiment, in which we added N, P and potassium (K) combined with a selection of micronutrients (K+μ), alone or in concert, to 42 grassland sites spanning five continents, and monitored ANPP. Nutrient availability limited productivity at 31 of the 42 grassland sites. And pairwise combinations of N, P, and K+μ co-limited ANPP at 29 of the sites. Nitrogen limitation peaked in cool, high latitude sites. Our findings highlight the importance of less studied nutrients, such as K and micronutrients, for grassland productivity, and point to significant variations in the type and degree of nutrient limitation. We suggest that multiple-nutrient constraints must be considered when assessing the ecosystem-scale consequences of nutrient enrichment.

Location and labor: Critical crossroads in global film and television

I approached the editorial prompt as an opportunity to work through some of the concerns driving my current research on creative labor in emergent or ‘peripheral’ media hubs, centers of production activity outside established media capitals that are nevertheless increasingly integrated into a global production apparatus. It builds from my research on the role that film, television and digital media production have played in the economic and cultural strategies of Glasgow, Scotland, and extends the focus on media work to other locations, including Prague and Budapest. I am particularly drawn to the spatial dynamics at play in these locations and how local producers, writers, directors and crew negotiate a sense of place and creative identity against the flows and counter-flows of capital and culture. This means not only asking questions about the growing ensemble of people, places, firms and policies that make international productions possible, but also studying the more quotidian relationships between media workers and the locations (both near and far) where they now find work. I do not see these tasks as unrelated. On the one hand, such queries underscore how international production depends on a growing constellation of interchangeable parts and is facilitated by various actors whose agendas may or may not converge. On the other hand, these questions also betray an even more complicated dynamic, a process that is shifting the spatial orientation of both location and labor around uneven and contested scales. As local industries reimagine themselves as global players, media practitioners are caught up in a new geography of creative labor: not only are personnel finding it increasingly necessary to hop from place to place to follow the work, but also place itself is changing, as locations morph into nebulous amalgamations of tax rebates, subsidized facilities, production services and (when it still matters) natural beauty.

Energy productivity and decarbonization of the global economy: Factor five resource productivity

In the 21st Century much of the world will experience untold wealth and prosperity that could not even be conceived only some three centuries before. However as with most, if not all, of the human civilisations, increases in prosperity have accumulated significant environmental impacts that threaten to result in environmentally induced economic decline. A key part of the world’s response to this challenge is to rapidly decarbonise economies around the world, with options to achieve 60-80 per cent improvements (i.e. in the order of Factor 5) in energy and water productivity now available and proven in every sector. Drawing upon the 2009 publication “Factor 5”, in this paper we discuss how to realise such large-scale improvements, involving complexity beyond technical and process innovation. We begin by considering the concept of greenhouse gas stabilisation trajectories that include reducing current greenhouse gas emissions to achieve a ‘peaking’ of global emissions, and subsequent ‘tailing’ of emissions to the desired endpoint in ‘decarbonising’ the economy. Temporal priorities given to peaking and tailing have significant implications for the mix of decarbonising solutions and the need for government and market assistance in causing them to be implemented, requiring careful consideration upfront. Within this context we refer to a number of examples of Factor 5 style opportunities for energy productivity and decarbonisation, and then discuss the need for critical economic contributions to take such success from examples to central mechanisms in decarbonizing the global economy.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

ACE Research Vignette 047: What is the hard evidence on innovation and business productivity

This series of research vignettes is aimed at sharing current and interesting research findings from our team of international Entrepreneurship researchers. This vignette, written by Professor Beth Webster at Swinburne University of Technology, examines how innovation in small and medium size businesses affect their productivity.

Precarious Creativity: Global Media, Local Labor

Precarious Creativity examines the seismic changes confronting media workers in an age of globalization and corporate conglomeration. This pathbreaking anthology peeks behind the hype and supposed glamor of screen media industries to reveal the intensifying pressures and challenges confronting actors, editors, electricians, and others. The authors take on pressing conceptual and methodological issues while also providing insightful case studies of workplace dynamics regarding creativity, collaboration, exploitation, and cultural difference. Furthermore, it examines working conditions and organizing efforts on all six continents, offering broad-ranging and comprehensive analysis of contemporary screen media labor in such places as Lagos, Prague, Hollywood, and Hyderabad. The collection also examines labor conditions across a range of job categories that includes, for example, visual effects, production services, and adult entertainment. With contributions from such leading scholars as John Caldwell, Vicki Mayer, Herman Gray, and Tejaswini Ganti, Precarious Creativity offers timely critiques of media globalization while also intervening in broader debates about labor, creativity, and precarity.

Football supporter cultures in modern-day Brazil: Hypercommodification, networked collectivisms and digital productivity

This thesis analyses the implications for football cultures of the profound socio-economic changes that Brazil has experienced in the last decade. It explores two major impacts: the economic boom of the domestic football sector, and the large-scale adoption of new technologies in fans' activities. The study identified a new phase of football culture in Brazil, characterised by the domination of market logics and intense commercialisation. The empirical findings also showed that new technologies are changing how supporters coordinate activities that challenge the gentrification of the game.

Australian Property Institute Inc, Submission to the Productivity Commission on Intellectual Property Arrangements – Issues Paper

This submission responds to the document Intellectual Property Arrangements Issues Paper (Issues Paper) released by the Productivity Commission in October 2015 for public consultation and input by 30 November 2015. The API is grateful for the extension of time granted by the Commission to complete and lodge this submission. The overall need for an inquiry into intellectual property is supported by API. In particular it is noted with approval that the Commission states in its Issues Paper that it is to consider the appropriate balance between “incentives for innovation and investments, and the interests of both individuals and businesses in assessing products”.1 However, API is of the view that intellectual property in the area of real property presents a number of issues which are not fully canvassed in the abovementioned Issues Paper. Intellectual property embedded in valuation and other property-related reports of API members involves the acquisition of information which may possibly be confidential. Yet, when engaged in banks and financial institutions the intellectual property in such valuations and/ or reports is commonly required to be passed to the client bank or financial institution. In the Issues Paper it is proposed that there are seven different forms of intellectual property rights.2 It is the view of API that an eight form exists, namely private agreements. The Issues Paper, however, regards private agreements between firms as alternatives to intellectual property rights. The API considers that “secrecy or confidentiality arrangements”3 as identified in the Issues Paper form a much larger part of the manner in which intellectual property is maintained in Australia for the purposes of trade secrecy or more often, financial confidentiality...

Personal health records as sources of productivity evidence

Capturing data from various data repositories and integrating them for productivity improvements is common in modern business organisations. With the well-accepted concept of achieving positive gains through investment in employee health and wellness, organisations have started to capture both employee health and non-health data as Employer Sponsored electronic Personal Health Records (ESPHRs). However, non-health related data in ESPHRs has hardly been taken into consideration with outcomes such as employee productivity potentially being suited for further validation and stimulation of ESPHR usage. Here we analyse selected employee demographic information (age, gender, marital status, and job grade) and health-related outcomes (absenteeism and presenteeism) of employees for evidence-based decision making. Our study considered demographic and health-related outcomes of 700 employees. Surprisingly, the analysis shows that employees with high sick leave rates are also high performers. A factor analysis shows 92% of the variance in the data can be explained by three factors, with the job grade capable of explaining 62% of the variance. Work responsibilities may drive employees to maintain high work performance despite signs of sickness, so ESPHRs should focus attention on high performers. This finding suggests new ways of extracting value from ESPHRs to support organisational health and wellness management to help assure sustainability in organisational productivity.

Now the real international fight begins for the Trans-Pacific Partnership

In Atlanta, the trade ministers of a dozen countries across the Pacific Rim announced that they had successfully reached a concluded agreement upon the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The debate over the TPP will now play out in legislatures across the Pacific Rim, where sentiment towards the deal is much more mixed. The ministers insisted: “After more than five years of intensive negotiations, we have come to an agreement that will support jobs, drive sustainable growth, foster inclusive development, and promote innovation across the Asia-Pacific region … The agreement achieves the goal we set forth of an ambitious, comprehensive, high standard and balanced agreement that will benefit our nation’s citizens … We expect this historic agreement to promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and to promote transparency, good governance, and strong labor and environmental protections.” But there has been fierce criticism of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, because of both its secrecy and its substance. Nobel Laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz has warned that the agreement is not about free trade, but about the protection of corporate monopolies. The intellectual property chapter provides for longer and stronger protection of intellectual property rights. The investment chapter provides foreign investors with the power to challenge governments under an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime. The environment chapter is weak and toothless, and seems to be little more than an exercise in greenwashing. The health annex — and many other parts of the agreement — strengthen the power of pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology developers. The text on state-owned enterprises raises concerns about public ownership of postal services, broadcasters and national broadband services.