Policy implementation analysis by QUT Graduate School of Business https://padlet.com/gsbvid/hs2lon3yx9f8 Upload your Word document and comment on others. en-us 2018-05-28 02:03:18 UTC 2019-09-06 05:34:28 UTC hello@padlet.com FAYOL – Sue Hall – 5th September 2019 https://padlet.com/gsbvid/hs2lon3yx9f8/wish/380234159 Current Policy Issue – To increase participation of Australian businesses into the Defence supply chain and to increase capability and knowledge of Australian businesses to access both domestic and international defence business.

What is the current government’s policy on this issue, if they have one?
The Defence White paper in 2016 suggested the development of a combined agency between Defence and Industry.  This agency was tasked with increasing the knowledge capability and skills of Australian businesses to better enable access to the Defence supply chain both domestically and internationally. This agency was formed in December 2016 and is known as the Centre for Defence Industry Capability.
 
Is your minister clear as to what he or she has committed themselves to?
Yes, there is strategic direction from the Minister, with a clear timeline for implementation and evaluation controls apparent.
 
What is the law on this issue?
No particular legislation exists as this is a skilling and capability programme, rather than a legislative requirement.
 
Determine the legal boundaries of action within the policy environment.
The establishment of the Centre for Defence Industry capability was designed to draw expertise from both Defence, who understand the appropriate certifications and requirements of the components that are used within Defence to produce aircraft carriers, tanks, guns, ammunitions, boots, uniforms, backpacks, catering, tents, radio equipment, drones, satellite equipment etc..  Industry was tasked with utilising established relationships with the business community to look at ways small to medium enterprises (SMEs) can access these supply chains, initially for domestic Defence products but ultimately looking at export opportunities within the international Defence community.
 
What is the history of this issue in this jurisdiction?
Defence has traditionally been tasked with the development of capability to provide Defence inputs.  This has worked to varying degrees in the past.  The large “prime” companies are well aware of the requirements of Defence and as such have adapted their businesses to provide large amounts of inputs for Defence business.  This has the effect of limiting small to medium sized businesses from accessing these markets, regardless of the quality or competitiveness of their products.  Industry in the past hasn’t particularly targeted Defence industries but has provided some capability assistance and certification advice, with most programmes concentrating on a specific skill set (Accelerating Commercialisation – the development of novel, “new to world” intellectual property, Innovation Connections – connecting businesses with researchers to solve a technical problem, Business Management – reviews of IT, systems and processes for existing businesses in order to improve productivity)
 
Is there a recognised world’s best practice on this issue and how does your current policy/activity measure up to this?
Other countries have various programmes on implementing local content into their Defence forces.  See UK Ministry of Defence example below.

What have other jurisdictions done to address this issue?
The Ministry of Defence (UK) has a very similar programme running which seeks to establish connections, skills, certifications and supply routes between SME’s and Defence.  Below is the mission statement from the Ministry of Defence:
‘Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) are the backbone of the UK economy, fuelling economic growth and providing more than 15 million jobs. At the Ministry of Defence, SMEs also play a vital role in helping to deliver efficient, effective and affordable equipment, services and support for the Armed Forces. As the MOD’s SME Champion, I am passionately committed to making sure that this department takes a robust approach to improving how we engage with smaller businesses. The SME agenda is one of our priority issues, and I am pleased to introduce our SME Action Plan which outlines the approach we are taking both within MOD and working jointly with our industry partners. This Action Plan explains how we will improve our procurement spend with SMEs, by working with our major suppliers to remove barriers and improve access to opportunities for doing business with defence. It addresses behavioural, policy and process change. It also includes information that I hope will help you directly - information about MOD, what we procure and most importantly where to find our opportunities. Progress against the Action Plan will be reported regularly to the Defence SME Forum, chaired by the Minister for Defence Procurement. I have asked for the plan to be thoroughly reviewed and reissued on an annual basis.’
The CDIC has been heavily based upon this model.
 
What are the key geo-political issues that can influence this policy in this jurisdiction? This includes geographic issues of the size of the jurisdiction or physical environmental issues that will affect the policy implementation. It also includes demographic issues and the nature of the range of stakeholders.
Changes within the current international political arena that may force Australian Defence forces to quickly re-prioritise policy (ie. China/US tensions, China/Hong Kong tensions).
The influence and persuasion of the Defence “primes” may make it very hard for Australian SME’s to enter and establish trade with Defence.
Geographically our SME’s are very dispersed, making the cost of transportation and access to skilled workforces hard to consistently deliver a competitive product.
Defence supply chains are extraordinarily complex, with millions of parts required for larger capital items (tanks, submarines, aircraft carriers etc).  This can make the coordination of parts/processes hard to manage.
 
 
What are the current resource implications, financial, staffing and other resources, that apply to the present policy?
CDIC is very affected by ASL caps.  As a result we are heavily reliant on contracted staff and secondees from Defence. This means the “churn” of contractors is high, with contractors moving onto more secure, longer contracts frequently.  With this is the resultant knowledge drain that occurs and succession planning is quite hard to achieve with any degree of success.  Due to the geographical dispersed nature of Australian SME’s a large proportion of budget is spent on travelling to these organisations.  Defence and Industry have very different cultures and this is proving troublesome (especially for secondees) to negotiate.
]]> 2019-09-05 03:50:59 UTC https://padlet.com/gsbvid/hs2lon3yx9f8/wish/380234159 FOLLETT https://padlet.com/gsbvid/hs2lon3yx9f8/wish/380753365 Current policy issue: Geographic indications - protected names or markings for goods generating from a particular place, because of an essential feature or quality associated with the producing region. Most famous example is champagne, most topical currently is feta.

Current government policy: Many indicators are not recognised. Those that are fall under certification trademark systems, which do not provide the same level of protection as EU and other jurisdictions. The Minister has not committed to a position - the department is currently engaged in a consultation process (3 months) to hear views without collaboration -genuine desire to understand positions, particularly for Australian producers.

Law on the issue: using Trademarks Act 1995. No treaty specifically on geographic indications, but some mention of them in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Legal boundaries of action in policy environment: the Trademarks Act provides a lesser degree than the EU. Products can be listed in a schedule that provides exemption from free trade agreements. There has been no appetite historically in Australia to tighten protections.  

World's best practice: there is no established 'best practice' - although EU would argue that their practice is best and an increasing number of countries are complying with its system. EU has relatively strong bargaining power because its members produce a lot of the goods subject to protection/proposed. 

Key geopolitical issues: Brexit - four products will drop off the list, but will be addressed in subsequent negotiations. Broader issue of countries gaining market share for their own brands - e.g. Tasmanian whisky market developing, and unable to be labelled Scotch whisky. 
Protecting a region gives less flexibility to adapt, e.g. if there is a natural disaster, business cannot relocate and continue to produce the same product.
Anti-competitive potential within geographic indicators, such as defining the area or the method that means that others are excluded. 

Financial/resourcing impacts: no significant impact on department/IP Australia - not intending to increase staff. Potentially significant impact on Australian producers.
Negotiations can go for several years. DFAT involved alongside IP Australia.

]]> 2019-09-06 05:12:01 UTC https://padlet.com/gsbvid/hs2lon3yx9f8/wish/380753365