Your sayMy say

In December 2000, DIST released its Action Agenda on Chemicals .

Our comments apply to the Draft Executive Summary (pending our review ) of 12 December 2000 that said....

	The Chemical Industry is currently "fighting to do little more than stand still."
	The deficit in trade in chemicals will grow to A$16 billion by 2010.

Its key recommendations are: (with our comments in italics). 

Include for regulations to be consistent and recognise those of other countries

(ie. no regard to the potential to promote competitiveness).

"The Commonwealth to pay for common use infrastructure with the cost to to be repaid through user fees."

By implication a public subsidy, the question of which infrastructure. The government has a record of supporting mature industries (eg. motor vehicles) or for commodity products (eg. alumina).

Industry and government to work together to ensure training delivery systems meet industry needs, and are nationally consistent, particularly for the plastics sector.

This fails to recognise future needs and the implications of current bias to old industry or unrepresented industry.

Note the Steering Group, next.

Representative	Key activity	Ownership	Export?	R&D in Aust. leading to innovation development in Aust.
Australian Challenge	Plastics processor	Australian	NO (modest)	NO
Nylex Polymer Group	Plastics processor	European	NO	?
Wipco	Plastic pipes and fittings	Australian	NO	NO
Ecolab	Detergent formulating	USA	NO	NO
Cussons Pty Ltd	Soap manufacture and detergent	European	NO	NO
Ameron (Australia)	Formulation and importer of surface	USA	NO	NO
Qenos	Manufacturer of Explosives & polymers	Australian/US	5 %	NO
Wesfarmers CSBP	Ammonia, ammonium nitrate, fertiliser	Australian	NO	NO
APS Chemicals	Organic formulation & synthesis	Australian	NO	YES
Dow Chemical	Polyols and styrene polymers & foams	USA	NO	NO
CSIRO	Government research	Australian	N/a	YES
PACIA	Industry association	Association	N/a	NO
Dept Resources Devt	State Government	Government	N/a	NO
Dept of State & Reg Devt	State Government	Government	N/a	NO
Dept of State & Reg Devt	State Government agency	Government	N/a	NO
The Royal Australian Chemical Institute	Academe		N/a	NO

 

Support for landmark project that is at the forefront of science and innovation that integrates the chemical industry into other sectors, such as the emerging bioprocessing industry.

This is picking winners again ('sunrise' industry) without regard to industries where Australia is particularly competitive as in the mineral processing sector. The interface with competitive industry (resources) can be particularly important sources of competitiveness generation. Technology has 'leaked' out of Australia. 

The committee fails to recognise that: 

§    domestic competition, notably at the the interface of other competitive industries; and

§     progressive regulations (ie. not those that follow international trends)

can be a particularly effective sources of competitive industries (Michael Porter, 'The Competitive Advantage of Nations').

Governments at state and federal level continue their factor cost based initiatives and indeed contribute to be describe the chemical industry in Australia as...

"fighting to do little more than stand still." We most certainly agree on that point. 

Australia stands in stark contrast to more progressive countries and is behaving like a third-world resource rich economy. Government has the opportunity to become a facilitator of change but seems trapped by political expediency and, being off the public agenda, applies limited funds except for politically motivated support for very mature industries exclusively foreign owned. There are signs of change, but these are occurring despite, not because, of government. We call for a accountability, an address of economic efficiency and with less political expediency of preservation.

 

Custom Search