Productivity Commission lost its strategic insight

Comments on Productivity Commission "Superannuation policy for post-retirement", 8/07/2015

I agree with the former Treasurer Mr Peter Costello (who was interviewed by the ABC's 7.30 program that was broadcast yesterday evening) that the public has lost confidence of the superannuation system/policies, given the nature of frequent changes in government policies. In that light the Productivity Commission (PC)'s inputs are not helpful at all.

The Productivity Commission, as its name suggests, should focus on productivity so people work smarter as opposed on force people to work longer and to retire or access their own superannuation more late in their lives.

As a result, the PC has lost its overall strategic insight on good or better policies in Australia.

Has the PC also become simply revenue driven?

Further, the PC may be helpful if it does research on how to improve older Australians' employment in the context of a strong age based discrimination that people over 50 are finding it difficult to find new employment once they are out of employment for one reason or another.

Another point is that even its title is deceptive or misleading when compared to its content and intention. If it is post-retirement, then why do not allow them to access their superannuation after retirement? It is a bit of inhumane, isn't it?

That is regrettable on the PC part.

Productivity Commission should be given more indpendence

Comments on Bill Carmichael "Expand the reform agenda and let Productivity Commission be heard", 20/02/2013, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/expand-the-reform-agenda-and-let-productivity-commission-be-heard/

I think it is important not only that the PC should be fully utilised in developing big policy items, but also that it should be well funded to the degree that it has the capacity to initiate its own policy review/research to deal with any areas where it sees there is big potentials in addition to government initiated reviews.

To do that, PC should be more independent and should be reporting to the Parliament as opposed to the government of the day.

Of course, government initiatives should have priority, should there is a conflict between government initiatives and PC's own.

In this way, it will be ensured that productivity will be in the centre and heart of government policies irrespective which side of political parties is in government. It will make Australia will be more efficient, more productive, more internationally competitive and less wasteful in spending government resources.

It might be called the Australian Parliamentary Productivity Commission, in a similar fashion to the newly established Parliamentary Budget Office.

Banks' sole criterion of policy reform too bare!

Comments on Michael Stutchbury “Lucky country can't bank on populist reforms”, 14/12/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/lucky-country-cant-bank-on-populist-reforms/story-e6frg9p6-1225970526451
Michael, while I agree with you the Swan banking reforms are not real reforms but popular political treatments that will worsen consumer welfare in total, I do have some issues with the following criterion of reforms put forward by the Productivity Commission Chairman (to quote from your article):

'Last week, Productivity Commission chairman Gary Banks suggested that policy changes should only count as "reform" if backed by compelling evidence that they were the best option for improving productivity.'

Productivity is and should be only a part of overall consideration. Even though it could be an important consideration, it should not be the sole criterion for reforms.

For example, if the productivity effects remain the same and there are other significant benefits (say social distribution) under a policy change, it would be an important and worthwhile reform.

One has to understand that there are trade-offs between different policy objectives and productivity is but one of those objectives.

In that sense, what Banks argued was a partial approach and could be argued as an unhelpful argument or lobby by and from a special interest group, although I do not mean that Banks really had that intention. He might have been either in a different context or misunderstood.

What do you think?

"Two strike rule" on executive pay incomprehensive and onworkable

Comments on news “Directors slam Productivity Commission's 'two strike' rule”, 12/10/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Directors-slam-Productivity-Commissions-two-strike-pd20091012-WQQTU?OpenDocument

It is unclear why the Productivity Commission has chosen 25% of shareholders as the deciding factor.

Why did the PC use that as opposed to the rule of majority of over 50%?

Requiring just a quarter of shareholders vote will be potentially very destabilising and will work against the interest of shareholders in the long run, because it will make the board less talented and profit driven to maximise shareholders' interest with less incentives to competent directors.

PC' recommendation is really strange and incomprehensive.