Doctrine vs Doctrinaire

The recent “debate” surrounding the Federal Government’s proposed Religious Discrimination Bill was a staggering example of political overreach combined with poor policy management. It was also a stark reminder that although we live in a secular, pluralistic and liberal democracy, some politicians cannot refrain from bringing religion into the Parliament and on to the Statute Books, even where there was neither a strong mandate nor an overbearing need to change the existing law in the way the Government attempted.

As far as I can tell, the Bill was originally intended to give people of faith additional protection against discrimination on the basis of their religion. But when linked to related Sex Discrimination legislation, it would likely have given religious institutions some degree of protection against claims of discrimination in the areas of gender and sexual orientation, particularly in respect of children’s access to education and in relation to employment by faith-based organisations.

If that wasn’t worrying enough, the Bill was underpinned by a controversial “statements of belief” provision. As drafted, this would have granted a person immunity from prosecution for the consequences of their words or actions if such deeds were based on a “genuine” religious belief. I find this particularly troublesome, not because I think people should be vulnerable to persecution for their faith; rather, it sets a dangerous precedent for what religiously-motivated people may feel emboldened to do in the name of their particular faith, especially where their actions cause actual or genuine apprehension of harm (the “God told me to do it” defence).

The shift from doctrine to doctrinaire is all too palpable. It’s one thing to believe in Transubstination, yet another to use a public platform (including social media) to proclaim that “gays will burn in hell”  unless they renounce their ways. The problem with a very literal application of ancient religious texts (most of which are open to wide and sometimes contradictory interpretation) is that this approach does not allow for any concept of progress (scientific, cultural, societal). It also gives rise to extreme forms of fundamentalism, such as banning music or refusing to ordain women priests. History has also shown us that people purportedly adhering to the same religion frequently disagree, leading to turbulent schisms, violent sectarianism and untold bloodshed. Then there are the religious death cults that kill themselves and their children for the sake of achieving their own “beliefs” (in which their offspring surely couldn’t have been compliant or willing participants).

As Luke Beck wrote recently in The Conversation, “There is broad agreement a person should not be discriminated against on the basis of their faith or lack of faith. However, the extent to which religion should be a licence to discriminate against others remains enormously contentious.”

This putative “license” may be an unintended consequence of the Bill, but the implications, should it be enacted, could be far-reaching: archeologists being sacked for saying the earth is older than 6,000 years; anthropologists for saying that the first humans were living 2 million years ago; astronomers for saying the earth orbits around the sun…. And that’s just in the area of science.

I understand that a person of faith may have a deep-seated belief against birth control, or pre-marital sex, or alcohol, or tattoos, or marriage equality – but that doesn’t mean their faith should impose their choices on the rest of the population. (Just as people of faith aren’t being forced to consume booze or get inked against their will.) As it is, religious institutions enjoy significant tax benefits, public funding and legal exemptions, and this current “debate” is bringing some of these discrepancies into sharp focus.

The last time I looked, here in Australia we aren’t living in a theocracy, people of faith aren’t being fired from their jobs because of their religion, and secularists, agnostics and atheists aren’t calling for places of worship to be demolished. What the latter do expect is people of faith not to use their beliefs either as a pretext to justify any form of discriminatory, pejorative or harmful acts or statements, or as a protection against being accountable for their words and deeds.

Next week: When is a print not a print?

Opening Up…

This week, Melbourne is trying to get back to some semblance of normality, following 11 weeks of the current lock-down. But it’s far from “business as usual”.

Based on casual observations, people were desperate to queue up for personal grooming services, restaurants and outdoor shopping. (I did see at least one classic mullet, but I wasn’t sure if it was a fashion statement or just another case of Covid hair…)

Despite the latest changes announced by the Victorian Government over the past week, the ongoing public health provisions mean there will still be a “work from home” directive, retail and restaurants will be subject to density limits (and vax certificates) and masks will be required indoors.

One cafe in my neighbourhood, which has kept going during lock-down with serving takeaways, is deferring opening up for dining-in because they can’t get enough staff. This demand for talent within the hospitality sector means that employers are having to offer sign-on bonuses and higher wages.

While this should be good news for job seekers, the resulting upward pressure on staffing costs will likely trigger a rise in inflation (and higher interest rates?), and possibly further disruptions in supply chains.

Added hiring shortages will come from those employees who have used the lock-down to reassess their career options, and have decided to change jobs – also known as the “Great Resignation”.

Even among those employees who are returning to the office, many of them are only intending to be there 2-3 days a week. This will create a mid-week bulge in the CBD, with various knock-on effects: traffic jams, cramped public transport, and erratic trading patterns for small businesses in retail and hospitality. Employers will also be stressing how they maintain productivity levels with the adoption of extended weekends.

Finally, some industries such as tourism and international travel will take several months to get back to pre-pandemic levels – expect to see steep prices while capacity and supply remain constrained.

Next week: Crypto Regulation in Australia

 

 

“What Should We Build?”

Over the past week, the Leader of the Federal Opposition has been asking a series of questions on Twitter and elsewhere, about “what should Australia be building?”. As well as building the foundations of Labor’s Federal Election policy platform for boosting jobs in the manufacturing sector, it also provides lots of photo ops for pollies in hard hats and hi-viz clothing. (I do wonder why the potential Prime Minister hasn’t thought of this idea before, or why he appears to not know the answer – isn’t that his job? It also makes me wonder whether we need Parliament anymore, since our elected representatives prefer to conduct their “debates” via Social Media and Press Conferences…. it would save a lot of time and money!)

By this time next year, Albo could be PM (Photo sourced from Twitter)

There has been no shortage of suggestions from the Twitterati, which fall into the following main categories:

  • Renewable energy
  • Trains
  • Trams
  • Ferries
  • High-end engineering

But there has also been commentary around Labor’s ambivalence on the coal and gas sector (especially in the key state of Queensland), and the irony that we export cheap raw materials and import expensive finished goods. Then there is debate on the amount of local manufacturing content that already exists in Australia’s state-based trains and urban trams/light rail systems (skewed by the question of local vs foreign ownership). Plus, there’s the thorny issue of high-speed inter-city trains…

As I commented recently, the manufacturing sector accounts for fewer than 1m local jobs (less than 10% of the working population), and 6% of GDP. It has been declining steadily as a contributor to GDP since the 1960s, and more rapidly in recent years since we abandoned key subsidies to the car industry. I don’t think anyone is suggesting we return to the days of metal bashing and white goods. And while we’ve got to be selective about the type of manufacturing base we want to to develop, we also have to be realistic about the manufacturing capabilities we want to encourage and enhance.

The latter involves developing transferable skills, creating interoperable production lines, deploying modular designs and inter-changeable components, and recycling/repurposing. All of which should mean we don’t need to make every part of every item domestically, but we know how to assemble, service, maintain, repair and replace goods locally, and we can focus on adding value that can be fed back into the supply chain, which in turn can be exported (via know-how and services). Australia has some decent research and development capabilities, but we are not always very good at raising domestic investment, or commerciliasing our IP (so this value ends up being transferred overseas, with little to no return accruing locally).

I’m not a huge fan of simplistic “buy local goods/support local jobs” campaigns, or local content quotas. The former can degenerate into trade protectionism and economic nationalism; while the latter tend to favour inefficient incumbents within cozy duopolies (see the broadcasting and media sector). The current debate has also raised questions about procurement policies, and I for one would welcome a total revamp of government IT purchasing and deployment at Federal, State and LGA levels.

There’s also the consumer angle: Australians are notoriously “cost conscious”, so will they be prepared to pay more for locally-made goods, even if they are better designed, well-made and energy efficient, compared to cheaper, less-sustainable imports? (This is also linked to the question of wage growth and restrictive trade practices.)

The recent pandemic has highlighted some challenges for the structure of the local economy:

  • Disruption to distribution networks and supply chain logistics
  • Food security
  • Energy self-sufficiency
  • Inability to service equipment locally or source spare parts
  • Different standards across the States
  • Medicine and vaccine manufacture, sourcing and distribution

For an up-to-date perspective on where Australian manufacturing policy needs to be heading, I recommend taking a look at the Productivity Commission’s latest submission to a current Senate enquiry. (Am I alone in thinking that the PC, along with the ACCC, is doing more to develop and advance economic policy than our elected representatives?)

The PC’s submission addresses a number of key points:

  • R&D incentives are hampered by complex tax treatment
  • Policies (and subsidies) favouring one industry create uncertainty for others
  • Need for IP reform (especially “fair use” of copyright)
  • The National Interest test needs clarifying
  • More effort on up-skilling through more relevant education and training
  • The role of manufacturing capabilities in supporting supply chain infrastructure

Finally, while I agree that there needs to be some focus on renewable energy and public transport, we should not ignore food and agriculture, bio-tech, IT, automation, robotics, materials science and other high-end capabilities in specialist design, engineering and recycling (including reclaiming precious minerals from obsolete equipment).

(And did I mention the “Innovation Agenda” and the revolving door at the Federal Ministry?)

Next week: Dead Pop Stars

Startup Vic FinTech Pitch Night

The Australian tech sector, especially at the startup end of the industry, is having to grapple with what is fast becoming a major structural and operational challenge: how to hire, remunerate and retain staff. With closed international borders cutting off the supply of overseas students and graduates, and a lack of sufficient home-grown skills, it’s a problem that established businesses and startup ventures alike are having to address. Just last week, the AFR reported that some wages in the tech sector have gone up 30% in the past 12 months. Perhaps this issue was on the minds of the four founders who presented at the recent Startup Victoria FinTech Pitch Night.

The judges for this on-line event, sponsored by LaunchVic, were: Nicole Small, Investment Director at Rampersand; Kim Hansen, Co-founder and CEO of Cake Equity; Caitlin Zotti, Operations Manager at Pin Payments; and “the people’s judge,” Eike Zeller, Community Lead at Stone & Chalk Melbourne. Compered by Josh Sharma, Head of Labs & Startups at LUNA, the evening also featured a virtual fireside chat between Rebecca Schot-Guppy, CEO of FinTech Australia, Dom Pym, Co-Founder of Up, and Julia Bearzatto, Head of Technology for Financial Services at MYOB.

The four startups in order of presentation were (links in the names):

Elbaite

Claiming to be the “first non-custodial cryptocurrency exchange“, part of Elbaite’s mission is to prevent theft or misappropriation of crypto assets held in exchange wallets. What makes Elbaite different from other decentralized exchanges (DEXs) and peer-to-peer platforms is that they escrow the fiat involved in any transaction. While they may not be charging the fees of centralized exchanges (CEXs), they are charging a 1% on crypto purchases (although there is 0% commission on sales). Elbaite is hoping to target institutional clients who may not be as comfortable trading on “traditional” crypto exchanges – although in my experience, many institutional clients actually need third-party custody services as part of their governance and compliance obligations. The judges felt that this is a crowded space (there are more than 250 crypto exchanges globally, plus numerous fiat on/off ramps, brokers, OTC desks and P2P platforms).

Sequrr

Speaking of custody and escrow, who would have guessed that stolen house purchase deposits are such a major issue, unless the team at Sequrr had told us? Despite the use of Real Estate Trust Accounts within the industry, apparently there is not much to stop the account holders from walking off with the deposits. Which rather begs the question why the industry does not already use something like multi-signature digital wallets, which mean that the funds can only be moved once all parties to the transaction agree. Even though this is a tech solution using a 3-way verification model (innovation patent pending), the different real estate laws in each State means that it’s not that simple to roll out nationally. However, the team also see opportunities for other professional and commercial sectors: solicitors, builders, aged care. (Note to the founders: I know that invented brand names were once flavour of the month for tech startups, but I question the wisdom of adopting a word that reads like a spelling error, and sounds like someone coughing up phlegm – especially if you want to be taken seriously by banks and solicitors. Just a thought.)

Nextround

Another issue of trust exists between employers and employees when it comes to reward and recognition schemes. There’s always a risk that whatever structure and incentives companies use, someone will try to game the system (or collude with colleagues) especially if the stakes are high; or, if the rewards are simply handed out for turning up and doing your job, their currency becomes debased. Then there’s the (ill-advised) link between rewards and recognition on the one hand, and performance reviews (plus bonuses and salary adjustments) on the other. It’s a balancing act which Nextround are addressing by making it easier (and less expensive) to reward and recognise all of your staff, not just the usual top 5-15%. They do this by offering managers and team leaders access to rewards of a smaller (yet still meaningful) value, which can be easily redeemed by the recipients, for hospitality rewards, events and experiences. The commercial model relies on an annual corporate subscription fee, and taking a cut of the reward vouchers. Nextround consults with employers on their preferred merchants and suppliers, who don’t necessarily see the vouchers as eroding their margins – rather, it’s another sales channel. This is not a hospitality app (e.g., loyalty program), more of a procurement app. And although there are numerous competitors for reward and recognition schemes, the “smarts” are in the way managers and HR teams can budget and allocate accordingly, without the need for onerous expense form claims because the transactions can all be tracked from the point of redemption back to the point of issuance. The resulting data will also generate a further revenue stream from the valuable analytics, although would I want my employer to know how I used my vouchers (assuming they are not tied to a specific reward)? My other reservation is that if the rewards really are as small as a cup of coffee, or even a round of drinks at the pub, isn’t it a bit like tipping?

SpendAble

Letting people make their own financial decisions is also a form of trust. Most of us would feel we can be trusted to spend our own money how we like. But this assumption may be challenged when it comes to people with a disability. SpendAble is developing payment, saving and investment solutions for people who face physical, societal and intellectual barriers to managing the financial affairs. Starting with a budget-based spending app, SpendAble helps users to allocate, identify and track their purchases more easily, and with much of the payment friction removed. The team will also develop specific applications such as voice-controlled functions for the visually impaired. Largely reliant upon the NDIS for funding and end users to cover transaction costs, SpendAble will plug into existing banking platforms – which might be a better way to underwrite the app? However, some of the online chat on the night suggested that SpendAble could provide well-needed general financial education to school kids as part of its offering, as well as helping to address financial inclusion.

Such was the enthusiasm for SpendAble that they took out the Peoples’ Choice as well as the Judges’ Award.

Next week: Accounting for Crypto