Time to call a “spade a spade” and a “resources economy” what it is. “93rd in the world for economic complexity”.

?We export iron ore. Good job too. We export coal. Good job too. Plus, gas, gold, copper and zinc ore. 65%.

Then wheat, beef, lamb, barley (5%) and the first sign of us adding value to anything is wine.

We are a resources economy. Dirt out the door.

It’s not that we don’t have the “smarts”. We do.

We use the most advanced technologies to make exporting “dirt” as effective and productive as possible. AI, Robotics, Drones. Automation.

We apply smart thinking to automating the removal of resources from the ground, then transporting it to ships and delivering it to markets.

But not much smart thinking is given to adding value to our economy. The image above shows clearly the lack of economic complexity.

Visit the Atlas of Economic Complexity and look at any OECD country and compare Australia.

https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu

You will see completely different images for Japan, Singapore, Germany, Norway, France, Netherlands, Switzerland and so on.

They make things.

We don’t make things.

We just ship commodities out the door with no “added value”.

The royalties on minerals pay for everything.

Australian governments have tried to do something about this from time to time.

The Federal government’s Industry Growth Centres initiative aimed to increase collaboration and commercialisation, improve international opportunities and market access and so on.

But, the Growth Centres didn’t “grow anything”. They didn’t work together. They didn’t collaborate.

And they certainly didn’t shift the ratings on Australia being 93rd in the world for economic complexity.

It is hard rebuilding economic complexity after letting the car industry wither and die. As we did.

It is now the turn of the National Reconstruction Fund to try to do something.

Similar goals to the Growth Centres. Same challenges.

We lack economic complexity. How do we reconstruct it?

Australia has a lot of different associations and organisations, all in competition with each other for funding and attention, none of whom are willing to collaborate for common purpose.

Multiple associations competing for the same audience and attention.

Each has its own “brick” – its membership - but is not willing to add its “brick” to other “bricks”, to create a pile of bricks, build a wall or even construct a house.

No vision for what might eventuate from sharing and collaborating.

Just the jealous protection of territory and membership.

Individual players failing to operate as team players. We have so many of these.

We are a country of small businesses plus some big mining companies, banks, telcos and government agencies.

How do we rebuild economic complexity with that organisational mix?

It is tough going.

We have the brainpower in our universities, but they are not encouraged or supported to use that brainpower to rebuild the economy. They are given no funding for industry engagement.

Engagement still happens, but in an ad hoc way. Mainly from goodwill.

Randomly. Locally. But with no common or shared vision, goal or objectives.

A lot more “bricks”, but still no “walls or houses” as a result.

Our universities compete, when they should collaborate.

We have innovators across Australia. We even have an innovation map. But we don’t have an innovation ecosystem. We have innovation “activity”, but not a system.

A system implies organisation, rules, structure and purpose. Vision. A goal.

What are we trying to achieve? We don’t know.

Other countries don’t seem to have the same problem.

The Atlas of Economic Complexity demonstrates that clearly.

93rd in the world is a big issue. And without collaboration and a common objective, do we have a chance of changing our status?

The Growth Centres didn’t achieve anything much. Not really. There was a report (we are good at reports), a review and they were closed down. If they had really been successful that would not have happened.

So, do we have much chance with this latest initiative?

Realistically in Australia, a SME nation (99.5%), there are probably only a very small number of businesses that could act as catalysts, with a chance to grow significantly, employ, export and demonstrate what might be, for others to follow.

So, we need two strategies.

One strategy is to support the very small number of businesses that potentially can take on the world.

In Agritech for example, that would be Ceres Tag, Data Farming, Farmbot, Lyro, Optiweigh, Swarmfarm, Bitwise and so on.

In every sector, there are a few exemplars, but not many.

So, it is possible to identify these businesses and support them. Connect them to research, other businesses, and export markets.

And the other strategy is to lift the game for all productive businesses.

In 2022, the Productivity Commission said, “While novel, ‘new-to-the-world’, innovation is an important source of economic performance, it relates to only one to two per cent of Australian firms.

The slow accretion of existing knowledge across the economy — diffusion — is often overlooked as a source of productivity. It has the scope to lift the performance of millions of businesses.”

That is an interesting comment. Diffusion.? The scope to lift the performance of millions of businesses.

Sharing information on “what works, what doesn’t and why” would be useful to any and every business in the country.

Stories, case studies, strategies, events, webinars.

Case studies are easily digestible, illustrations of the benefit of adopting and using new approaches, new technologies, accessing new markets, export, collaborating with others and building capacity.

Online events can be stored and accessed at any time to stimulate and catalyse positive change.

So why don’t we do this strategically? We can.

Visit myREGION.au

Join a STRATEGY group. Post. Share. Collaborate.

Visit myEXPORT.au to see what we can offer the world.

If we rely on Business as Usual (BAU) again, it is going to deliver the same result as last time. And in 3 years time there will be a new initiative with yet another "rebuilding, reconstruction, growth" related name. Possibly even the National Resuscitation Fund.

So, we have to do something different.

Because unless we try something new, we will just keep slipping down the ratings towards the bottom.

And 93rd is just not good enough.

We can do much better.