Category: Industry & Sector Policies

  • Creativity in Crisis: Rebooting Australia’s Arts and Entertainment Sector After COVID

    Creativity in Crisis: Rebooting Australia’s Arts and Entertainment Sector After COVID

    by Alison Pennington and Ben Eltham

    Culture is an inescapable part of what it means to be human. We can no more imagine a life without the arts than we can imagine a life without language, custom, or ritual. Australia is home to the oldest continuing cultural traditions on the planet, and some of the world’s most renowned actors, musicians and artists. But while we have a proud story to tell, the future of Australian culture looks increasingly uncertain.

    New research from the Centre for Future Work, by Senior Economist Alison Pennington and Monash University’s Ben Eltham, reveals the ongoing, devastating impact of COVID-19 on Australia’s arts and entertainment sector and provides a series of recommendations to government that would reboot the creative sector after the crisis.



    Full report

    Share

  • Industrial Policy-Making After COVID-19: Manufacturing, Innovation and Sustainability

    Industrial Policy-Making After COVID-19: Manufacturing, Innovation and Sustainability

    by Mark Dean, Al Rainnie, Jim Stanford and Dan Nahum

    As Treasurer during the 1980s, Paul Keating lamented that Australian governments had for decades been allowing the country’s sophisticated industrial base to fall apart as unsophisticated raw materials came to dominate the nation’s exports and as a result, its economy slipped into developing-world status. Keating’s famous warning of Australia’s looming ‘banana republic’ status spurred the Hawke and subsequent Keating Labor governments into action on economic restructuring, which included considering a range of industry policy intervention options to put Australia on a track to advanced, industrial status, as had been the aim of post-war nation-building that helped to institute an advanced manufacturing industrial base in Australia.

    But since the 1990s, the ‘default’ economic and industry policy setting of government has ultimately been to favour resource extraction as our national strength. Even despite the growing threat of climate change and global economic crises that make a shift to ‘green’ industrial transformation a pathway pursued by many other nations, current Coalition government policy continues to reflect deliberate, calculated emphasis on the extraction and export of raw materials. Australia risks cementing its developing-world economic status if we do not consider important industry policy challenges.

    The COVID-19 pandemic has drawn attention to opportunities for Australia to not only rebuild, but reconstruct our economy in a way that capitalises on our national manufacturing potential and their ability to contribute to a sustainable recovery from the economic and social crisis that has culminated in lockdowns and recession. The future development of Australia’s manufacturing industry must focus on the opportunities presented by renewable energy to drive innovation, industrial transformation and a green future shaped by a skilled manufacturing workforce.

    Researchers from the Centre for Future Work, Mark Dean, Al Rainnie (Centre for Future Work Associate), Jim Stanford and Dan Nahum, have co-authored a new scholarly paper which will be published in the academic journal, the Economic and Labour Relations Review and is currently available as an online-first publication at their website.

    The article analyses Australia’s opportunities to revitalise its strategically important manufacturing secor in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, considering Australia’s industry policy options with reference to both advances in the theory of industrial policy and recent policy proposals in the Australian context.

    To examine the prospects for the renewal of Australian manufacturing in a post-pandemic economy, the article draws on recent work from The Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work – specifically, Dan Nahum’s research into manufacturing and sustainability in Powering Onwards and Jim Stanford’s research on post-COVID-19 manufacturing renewal and Australia’s record on robotics adoption, in synthesis with analyses from published and forthcoming research from Al Rainnie and Mark Dean relating to critical evaluations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and its implications for the Australian economy.

    The aim of the article is to contribute to and further develop the debate about the future of government intervention in manufacturing and industry policy in Australia. Crucially, the argument links the future development of Australian manufacturing with a focus on renewable energy. The purpose of this article has been to interpret the decline of manufacturing in Australia over the last generation and to identify the core principles and policy levers that would facilitate a revitalisation of our domestic manufacturing capabilities. The paper considers the history of half-hearted attempts by Australian governments and industry to spark a recovery: these attempts have largely lacked any critical consideration of the structural factors that inhibit a full-scale transformation of Australian industry. Such a transformation would in fact require consistent and systematic policy settings.

    The Coalition government’s evolving policy framework – focused on tax cuts for high-income households and companies, subsidies for further fossil fuel use, and further interventions to weaken industrial relations practices – reflects its attempt to use the pandemic as an opportunity to reinforce its previous commitment to a business-dominated economic strategy. But Australia can, and must, do better than this. The article analyses the possibilities and the challenges of developing a new industrial policy that is informed by modern understandings of technology, sustainability and social cohesion.

    A modern, sustainable industry policy is not a catch-all solution to addressing climate change, economic crisis and pandemic recovery – but it does hold great potential to help redirect Australia’s lurch further towards the banana republic status first identified nearly forty years ago.

    You can access a pre-publication version of this article below and those with access can read the article publication on the Economic and Labour Relations Review website.



    Full report

    Share

  • Missing a Stitch in Time:

    Missing a Stitch in Time:

    The Consequences of Underinvestment in Proper Upkeep of Australia’s Electricity Transmission and Distribution System

    Australia’s electricity industry constitutes a large and critical component of our national economic infrastructure. The industry produces $25 billion per year in value- added. It employs around 50,000 Australians, paying out $6 billion per year in wages and salaries. It makes $45 billion in annual purchases from a diverse and far-reaching supply chain, that provides the sector with inputs ranging from resources to equipment to construction to services.

    Most important, of course, the industry literally keeps the lights on: it provides an essential input, electric energy, without which no other industry could function and the safety and comfort of Australians would be immediatel jeopardised. In this regard, electricity is clearly an essential service: a utility vital to virtually everything else that occurs in the economy and society.

    Given that critical importance, we would assume that investing in the proper capitalisation, modernisation, upgrading and maintenance of this system would be a top priority of economic policy and corporate decision-making. Unfortunately, however, irrational and unintended consequences arising from the business-friendly, market-driven regulatory regime presently governing Australia’s electricity sector have produced exactly the opposite result. A structural pattern of sustained underinvestment in the upkeep and quality of the transmission and distribution grid is jeopardising the safety and reliability of the network – and harming both the people who work in this industry and the customers they serve.

    The present system was established on the assumption that profit-seeking behaviour of private businesses, with appropriate regulatory supervision, will best ensure an efficient allocation of resources, top quality service, and lowest possible prices for consumers. On every one of these grounds, however, the system has failed. Alongside chronic underinvestment in the system’s equipment and reliability, there is abundant evidence of an enormous waste of resources by self-dealing, rent-seeking corporate entities – diverting billions of dollars of expenditure away from necessary upkeep, redirected to ultimately unproductive activities (including overlapping corporate bureaucracies, frenetic selling and re-selling within the industry, and intense financialisation) that have nothing to do with the production and delivery of reliable, affordable energy. The national grid is unable to meet several challenges to its safety and reliability: including its ability to safely withstand extreme heat and severe weather events, and its capacity to adjust to the accelerating roll-out of variable and distributed renewable generation investments. The workforce in the industry has lost jobs and real incomes. And consumers (both residential and industrial) have faced an unprecedented and unjustified inflation of electricity prices.

    To be sure, this privatised, fragmented, and badly regulated industry has been consistently and increasingly profitable for its owners. Given the monopoly power these energy businesses have been granted over a critical piece of public infrastructure, these profits are hardly a surprise. What is surprising (and disappointing), however, is how Australia’s regulatory regime has failed to recognise and respond to these perverse outcomes. Despite growing evidence of deteriorating efficiency and reliability, and the inflation of both prices and profits, regulators continue with a business-as-usual approach to managing the industry. This approach routinely turns back legitimate requests for needed upgrades, modernisation, and maintenance on the system’s real capital base – while turning a blind eye to the rampant waste of resources on unproductive and self-serving corporate functions. Given the increasing pressures associated with climate change, more severe and frequent bushfires, population growth, and the shift to renewable generation, this business-as-usual approach cannot continue.

    A timeless adage reminds us that ‘a stitch in time saves nine.’ Prudent attention to maintaining productive assets in top quality condition, and upgrading capital in line with new technology and evolving best practices, is a hallmark of efficient and successful management. Australia’s electricity industry is controlled by self-seeking private businesses, and a few state-owned corporations directed to act just like them. They are governed by a regulatory system which places far too much faith in the inherent efficiency of private sector actors. Hence the industry is failing to make that stitch in time. Australians will pay the price for the chronic neglect of proper maintenance and upkeep of our electricity system in many ways: through a system that is inefficient, unreliable, cannot meet the challenges of the coming energy revolution, is unduly expensive to consumers, and which in many cases is unsafe for both workers and the public at large.

    This report provides evidence of a pattern of systematic underinvestment in the upkeep and capability of Australia’s electricity grid, drawing on three major sources of data:

    • A project to gather original qualitative data from dozens of power industry workers employed on the front lines of maintaining Australia’s transmission and distribution network. Their personal and professional experience attests to a widespread and sustained pattern of underinvestment and neglect, and provides worrisome details regarding the consequences of that underinvestment for the well-being of workers, communities, and the environment.
    • A review of other research and findings in the public domain (including several government commissions and inquries) regarding the importance of a top-quality, well-maintained electricity grid for our economy and society. These previous studies have also warned that the current system is falling behind in safe and efficient upkeep of its capital assets.
    • A review of available quantitative data – from the Australian Energy Regulator, from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and from individual companies. This review confirms the steady decline in allocations of real resources to the capitalisation and good operating condition of the transmission and distribution grid. And it documents the erosion of real maintenance and upkeep according to several indicators, alongside evidence of unprecedented inflation in both electricity prices and industry profits.

    The main findings of this comprehensive qualitative and quantitative analysis include the following:

    • First-hand accounts from dozens of electricity sector workers in various roles and all parts of the country confirm the ongoing failure of the current system to allocate adequate resources to pro-active maintenance, upgrades, and safety, with serious consequences for workers, community safety, and the environment.
    • Real spending by the transmission and distribution sectors on operations and maintenance of the grid has been reduced by at least $1 billion per year since 2012.
    • Adjusted for inflation and the expanded base of customers in the network, real operating expenditures per customer have declined by 28-33 per cent since 2006.
    • Even within that contracting overall envelope of spending on maintenance and operations, several indicators confirm a reallocation of resources away from concrete system operation and maintenance, in favour of corporate overhead functions, re-selling, and financial activities.
    • The transmission and distribution system now employs 40 per cent more managers and office-based professionals than electricians.
    • Capital investment, spending on materials and equipment, capitalised own-use activity, and employment of electricians, linespersons, and related specialists have all declined markedly in the past several years.
    • Fundamental measures of efficiency in the industry (including total factor and average labour productivity) have also deteriorated, dragged down by misallocation of resources to corporate and overhead functions.
    • The squeeze on maintenance and upgrading expenses resulting from a combination of AER pressure and corporate profit-seeking has not produced savings for consumers. To the contrary, prices for both residential and industrial users have soared dramatically (almost doubling in real terms) since 2000.
    • High electricity prices have boosted revenues and profits in the industry – which have doubled in nominal terms since 2006, and grown substantially as a share of the industry’s total value-added. The AER’s superficial and ineffective oversight processes have not prevented private energy businesses from profiting through underinvestment in the industry’s asset base, and exploitation of consumers andworkers alike.

    After reviewing this worrisome evidence of systematic underinvestment in the quality and capability of Australia’s electricity grid, the report concludes with seven concrete recommendations to begin repairing and reversing these irrational and destructive outcomes. These include:

    1. AER determinations of allowable capital, upgrading and maintenance investments by regulated businesses should be ascertained on the basis of concrete bottom-up auditing of system capability, reliability and performance, undertaken by independent arms-length technical experts. Regulation of capital and maintenance expenditures needs to be ‘grounded’ in analysis of real-world challenges and constraints facing the system – including assessments of additional requirements arising from climate change and severe weather, risk mitigation (including bushfire prevention and vegetation management), and challenges related to the growth of distributed renewable generation. A broader economic benefit test should be applied to ensure the interests of workers and the community are factored into decision-making around capital investments and upkeep.
    2. Once appropriate levels of system capital and maintenance expenditures have been identified, explicit mechanisms must be established to reflect and recover those costs in regulated electricity prices.
    3. When adverse events (such as severe weather, bushfires, or other occurrences) necessitate capital or repair expenditures above and beyond previously approved regulated levels, provisions for additional cost recovery must also be accessible.
    4. Costing of capital installation, upgrading, and maintenance expenditure must take explicit account of the need for high-quality skilled, certified labour to perform that work – including appropriate wages, entitlements and working conditions in line with industry best practices.
    5. The accelerating transition to renewable energy sources, through both utility- scale projects and distributed sources, poses a unique and historic challenge to the capabilities of the national transmission and distribution grid. The AER, in conjunction with the AEMO and other industry bodies, should undertake a thorough assessment of the investments and system changes that will be required to meet the new requirements of an increasingly renewables-focused power system. This assessment must incorporate a broader economic and social cost-benefit lens, rather than the current narrowly-defined conception of economic costs. The findings of this assessment must then inform the AER’s subsequent determinations regarding allowable capital and maintenance expenditures by regulated businesses.
    6. Businesses which underspend allowed capital and maintenance budgets should be issued financial penalties which offset the impact of this underspending on their operating margins. This would eliminate the current perverse incentive for private transmitters and distributors to artificially suppress needed maintenance and upgrades in the interests of a short-term bonus over and above their already-substantial profit margins.
    7. The AER must undertake more detailed reviews of the submitted overhead, marketing, and financial activities of regulated energy businesses. Instead of providing blanket approval for whatever operating expenses companies deem to be in their interests, within an overall ceiling that is not differentiated with respect to specific cost activities, the regulator should focus on reducing the deadweight costs of duplicated, self-serving corporate bureaucracies.

    It is past time for those in charge of Australia’s electricity system – both private owners and government regulators – to acknowledge the widening tears in the fabric of this vital public service. And it is well past time for them to begin making the necessary repairs.



    Full report

    Share

  • Rebooting Australian Aluminium

    Rebooting Australian Aluminium

    The Economic, Social and Environmental Potential of the Portland Smelter
    by Jim Stanford

    A new report from the Centre for Future Work highlights the continuing economic importance of Alcan’s aluminium smelter in Portland, VIC, and discusses the potential of new renewable energy technologies to underpin the facility’s rejuvenation and long-term viability.

    The report updates previous research by the Centre on the far-reaching impacts of the facility for employment, incomes, exports, and tax revenues. It also identifies the growing capability of renewable power sources to support heavy industrial activities like smelting.

    Main findings of the report include:

    • The closure of Portland would reduce Australian national GDP by $800 million, exports by $840 million, household incomes by $250 million, Commonwealth government revenues by $192 million, and Victoria state government revenues by $50 million. (All figures annual.)
    • A total of 3600 direct and indirect jobs would be lost as a result of the facility’s closure – with the economy of southwestern Victoria suffering the worst blow.
    • Rapid developments in renewable energy technology could significantly improve both the cost and the reliability of electricity supply to the Portland smelter. Already renewable energy enjoys a 30% saving in levelised costs compared to coal (which currently powers the majority of Portland’s consumption). That advantage will widen in future years, driven by falling costs for both renewable generation and storage.
    • Global businesses, including top-tier manufacturers which purchase aluminium and aluminium components, are increasingly demanding high sustainable production standards from all of their suppliers – including aluminium ingots and components. Australia’s endowment of renewable energy resources gives us a major head start in responding to this trend.
    • In addition to renewable power sources, new technologies can also allow aluminium smelters to operate with significantly lower power inputs for several hours at a time, on relatively frequent occasions, without damaging capital equipment. This ‘frequent demand response’ technology effectively allows the smelter to act as a huge battery for the electricity system, and could even generate significant incremental revenue for the smelter (supplementing sales from aluminium production).

    Reinvesting in the Portland facility, including in a secure and sustainable electricity supply, holds the potential to lead a broader revitalisation of aluminium manufacturing in Australia, and contribute to advances in sustainable manufacturing.

    The update was commissioned by the Australian Workers Union.



    Full report

    Share

  • A Fair Share for Australian Manufacturing

    A Fair Share for Australian Manufacturing

    Manufacturing Renewal for the Post-COVID Economy
    by Jim Stanford

    New research from the Centre for Future Work reveals that Australia ranks last among all OECD countries for manufacturing self-sufficiency. The COVID-19 pandemic has reminded Australians of the importance of being able to manufacture a full range of essential equipment and supplies; and the COVID recession has created a large economic void that a revitalised manufacturing sector could help to fill in coming years.

    This report, A Fair Share for Australian Manufacturing, describes the strategic importance of the manufacturing sector to Australia’s future prosperity, and provides an inventory of policy tools that could help rebuild the sector to a size proportional to our domestic needs for manufactured products.

    While the report documents the decline of domestic manufacturing in recent years, it also reveals the enormous potential benefits that would be generated by rebuilding manufacturing back to a size  proportional to our national needs: including $180 billion in new sales, $50 billion in additional GDP, and over 400,000 new jobs.

    Key Findings:

    • Australia ranks last in manufacturing self-sufficiency among all OECD countries. Australians use $565 billion worth of manufactures each year, however, we only produce $380 billion. Therefore, Australia produces only 68% (just over two-thirds) of what we use: less than any other OECD economy.
    • The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the strategic importance of domestic manufacturing capacity. Disruptions in global supply chains and protectionist trade policies by foreign governments have increased risks we might not be able to access essential products (like health equipment and supplies) when we need them.
    • Manufacturing is not just ‘another’ sector of the economy. For several concrete reasons, manufacturing carries a strategic importance to broader national prosperity and security.
      • Australians purchase and use more manufactured goods over time; and manufacturing output is growing around the world. Allowing domestic manufacturing to decline, while our use of manufactured products grows, undermines national economic performance.
      • Manufacturing is the most innovation-intensive sector in the whole economy. No country can be an innovation leader without a strong manufacturing base.
      • Manufactured goods account for over two-thirds of world merchandise trade. A country that cannot successfully export manufactures will be shut out of most trade.
      • Manufacturing anchors hundreds of thousands of other jobs throughout the economy, thanks to its long and complex supply chain. Billions of dollars’ worth of supplies and inputs are purchased by manufacturing facilities, supporting many other sectors of the economy.
      • Manufacturing offers high-quality jobs, full-time hours and above-average incomes. And thanks to strong productivity growth and the capacity to apply modern technology, manufacturing offers the prospect of rising incomes in the future.

    If we rebuilt a manufacturing sector that was broadly proportionate to our needs, our manufacturing industry would grow by almost 50% – generating enormous benefits in jobs, incomes, innovation and exports.



    Report summary



    Full report

    Share

  • Powering Onwards

    Powering Onwards

    Australia’s Opportunity to Reinvigorate Manufacturing through Renewable Energy
    by Dan Nahum

    With disruptions in international supply chains for essential products (like medical equipment and supplies) disrupted in the current COVID pandemic, Australians have a new appreciation for the importance of retaining a flexible, high-quality, domestic manufacturing capacity. And the ongoing transformation of Australia’s energy industry, with rapid expansion of renewable energy sources, would add momentum to the renaissance of Australian manufacturing.

    That is the conclusion of a new study written by Dan Nahum, Economist at the Centre for Future Work.

    The report notes that power from renewable energy sources (both solar and wind) are now substantially less expensive than fossil fuel generation on a full lifecycle cost basis – and moreover, that cost advantage will grow in coming years. The report simulates the annual power cost savings to manufacturers if the sector’s current use of fossil fuel-fired power was fully transferred to renewables (as existing generating facilities are retired and replaced). The sector’s power bill would decline by an estimated $1.6 billion per year, or 23%, compared to the current fuel mix. The saving swells to $2.2 billion (in constant dollars) by 2050.

    The paper also provides numerous examples of manufacturing industries which are already making use of renewable power to capture cost and reliability advantages, as well as various manufacturing industries which hold great potential to supply Australian-made manufactured inputs to renewable power systems (from lithium-ion batteries and electric vehicles, to public transportation rolling stock, to green hydrogen). The paper reports international evidence showing that companies which have reduced greenhouse gas emissions more successfully have attained greater success in manufacturing output and exports than Australia.

    The paper also shows there is a strong majority overlap between Australians regarding the manufacturing sector as important, and those in favour of expanding the use of renewables, making this a viable dual public policy goal for governments.



    Full report

    Share

  • The Future of Transportation Work: Special Series, WA Transport

    The Future of Transportation Work: Special Series, WA Transport

    by Jim Stanford and Matt Grudnoff

    A special 6-part series of short articles from WA Transport Magazine:

    Researchers have identified the transportation industry as one of the sectors likely to be most affected by the coming implementation of new technologies: such as self-driving vehicles, artificial intelligence, and automated logistics systems. How will transportation workers fare as these technologies are rolled out, and what measures can be taken – by employers, governments, unions, educational institutions, and other stakeholders – to ease the transitions?

    Earlier this year the Centre for Future Work completed a comprehensive review of factors influencing the future of work in transportation industries, commissioned by TWUSUPER (the main industry super fund serving the transportation sector). The report (co-authored by Jim Stanford and Matt Grudnoff) concluded that technology is not the only factor transforming work in transportation; in fact, if anything, accelerating changes in the nature of employment relationships (including the spread of independent contractor roles, “gigs”, and other forms of insecure work) are having a bigger immediate impact. Moreover, with appropriate planning, consultation, negotiation, and investments in training and adjustment, the employment impacts of new technology could clearly be managed without undue harm or displacement – but only if all stakeholders commit to an inclusive, collaborative process of planning and adjustment.

    In the wake of our report, the industry journal WA Transport has published a very readable compendium of short articles, each exploring a different aspect of our report.

    With the kind permission of WA Transport, we reprint those articles here. Together they are a useful resource for leaders and educators in the transportation industry.

    Part I: The Economic Importance of Transportation

    Part II: Transportation Work Today

    Part III: Twin Drivers of Change

    Part IV: Applications of New Technology in Transportation

    Part V: Work Organisation and Employment Relationships

    Part VI: Change Scenarios and Policy Implications

    We thank TWUSUPER for the opportunity to undertake this research, and WA Transport for publishing this series of articles.



    Part I: The Economic Importance of Transportation



    Part II: Transportation Work Today



    Part III: Twin Drivers of Change



    Part IV: Applications of New Technology in Transportation



    Part V: Work Organisation and Employment Relationships



    Part VI: Change Scenarios and Policy Implications

    Share

  • Advanced Skills for Advanced Manufacturing

    Advanced Skills for Advanced Manufacturing

    by Jim Stanford and Tanya Carney

    Australia’s manufacturing industry is at a crossroads.  After years of decline, the sector has finally found a more stable economic footing, and many indicators point to an expansion in domestic  manufacturing in the coming years.  Manufacturing added almost 50,000 new jobs in the last year – making it one of the most important sources of new work in the whole economy.

    However, one key factor that could hold back that continuing recovery is the inability of Australia’s present vocational education and training system, damaged by years of underfunding and failed policy experimentation, to meet the needs of manufacturing for highly-skilled workers.  The skills challenge facing manufacturing is all the more acute because of the transformation of the sector toward more specialised and disaggregated advanced manufacturing  processes.  This naturally implies greater demand for highly-trained workers, in all its occupations: production workers, licensed trades, technology specialists, and managers.

    To sustain the emerging turnaround in manufacturing, the sector has an urgent need for a concerted and cooperative effort to strengthen vocational education and training. This report contributes to that process: by cataloguing the emerging skills challenges facing manufacturing, reviewing the failures of the existing approach to vocational education in this sector (and across Australia’s economy as a whole), and proposing twelve key principles for reform.

    This report, by Dr. Tanya Carney and Dr. Jim Stanford, was prepared by the Centre for Future Work for the Second Annual National Manufacturing Summit.  The Summit, held at Parliament House on 26 June 2018, will gather leading representatives from all major stakeholders in Australia’s manufacturing sector: business, unions, universities, the financial sector, suppliers and government. They will consider the industry’s prospects and identify promising, pragmatic policy measures to support a sustained industrial turnaround.  It is a highly appropriate forum at which to begin a discussion about multi-partite efforts to rebuild vocational education and address the looming skills challenges facing manufacturing.



    Full report

    Share

  • A Portable Training Entitlement System for the Disability Support Services Sector

    A Portable Training Entitlement System for the Disability Support Services Sector

    by Rose Ryan and Jim Stanford

    A new proposal for a portable training system for disability support workers under the NDIS would help to ensure the program achieves its goal of delivering high-quality, individualised services to people with disabilities. The proposal is developed in a new report from the Centre for Future Work.

    Under the plan, disability support workers would receive credit for one hour of paid training, for every 50 hours worked in NDIS-funded service delivery.  Those credits would be vested with each individual worker, allowing them to accumulate credits even if they work for multiple employers or directly (as sole traders) for NDIS participants.  The training system thus takes account of the very flexible and mobile nature of work in this growing sector. 

    The system would allow a typical disability support worker to access one three-day upgrading course per year. A corresponding system of advanced recognised qualifications (and matching job classifications) would provide specialised pathways allowing disability support workers to develop their careers over time, thus reducing the very high staff turnover that has bedevilled the roll-out of NDIS services.

    The proposal is detailed in a new 70-page report, A Portable Training Entitlement System for the Disability Support Services Sector, co-authored by Dr. Rose Ryan and Dr. Jim Stanford.

    The NDIS has the potential to enrich the lives of people with disabilities through customised individual packages of services. But to achieve that goal, the system must facilitate ongoing investments in specialised skills and qualifications, rather than relying on short-term ‘gigs’ performed by high-turnover, casualised workers.

    Most disability support workers are employed in part-time or casual jobs, and spending on staff training by established service providers has shrunk as the NDIS has been rolled out.  The NDIS is expected to spur massive job-creation in coming years, adding as many as 70,000 full-time-equivalent positions, but evidence is accumulating that the quality of many jobs is very poor, undermining stability of the workforce and the quality of delivered services.

    Cost estimates suggest the overall scheme would require $192 million per year in additional funding, which the authors suggest should be delivered through a separate state-Commonwealth funding stream (to avoid undermining the revenue base for delivered services). Compared to the $22 billion annual pricetag for the NDIS, the authors suggest this cost is modest: less than one cent on the dollar to support the development of a workforce with state-of-the-art knowledge and training.



    Full report

    Share

  • From Consensus to Action: Report from the First National Manufacturing Summit

    From Consensus to Action: Report from the First National Manufacturing Summit

    by Tom Barnes

    The first National Manufacturing Summit was held at Australian Parliament House, Canberra, in June 2017, organised by the Centre for Future Work and the Australia Institute. The event was attended by over 100 delegates from the full range of stakeholders concerned with the future of Australia’s manufacturing sector: including businesses, industry peak bodies, trade unions, government departments, academic institutions and vocational training providers, and other civic organisations.

    This report, prepared by Dr. Tom Barnes from Australian Catholic University, summarises the key findings of the day, including areas of strong consensus among the stakeholders represented, as well as priorities for further policy research.

    We release the report as we proceed with planning for the Second National Manufacturing Summit, which will also be held at Parliament House on Tuesday, 26 June 2018.  This year’s Summit is hosted by the Welding Technology Institute of Australia, and co-sponsored by the Centre for Future Work and several other organisations.  It will focus on two key issues that could constrain the industry’s recent encouraging recovery: secure supply of affordable, sustainable energy, and badly-needed improvements to vocational training and apprenticeships in manufacturing.



    Full report

    Share