Transformative Trends: New Developments Powering The Sustainable Investing Landscape Down Under

The 2024 investment landscape of Australia is a product of a multitude of transformative factors, including technological advancements, regulatory conditions, and geopolitical tensions. For investors aiming to capitalise on the untapped opportunities within Australia’s financial markets, a comprehensive understanding of these factors is crucial. According to numerous independent analysts, one trend anticipated to expand in 2024 is sustainable investing, a sector that has recently evolved from a niche to a mainstream market, compelling companies to adopt ESG-oriented policies and decisions that cater to investor demands. Parallel to this trend is the evolving definition of sustainable investing which previously entailed merely investing in companies with strong ESG credentials but encompasses a more holistic approach (Comendador, 2024). Today, investors prioritise organisations with potential rather than just past achievements and are more inclined to scrutinize ESG data in detail before making investment decisions. The following article deconstructs and analyses the key developments shaping Australia’s sustainable investment landscape in 2024, focusing specific attention towards enhanced ESG regulation, the power of generative AI, and calls for a more practical finance education.

Launching the Sustainable Finance Roadmap

The Sustainable Finance Roadmap was a proposal that was previously formulated by the Australian Sustainable Finance Initiative (ASFI) in November 2020 and was focused on transforming the country’s financial systems and markets in a way that helps mobilise funds towards the nation’s growing sustainability needs while also maintaining consistency with global sustainability agendas like the Paris Agreement or the UN’s SDGs (ASFI, 2020). In June 2024, the Australian Government released an updated version of the Sustainable Finance Roadmap, which continues to emphasise the importance of sustainable finance reforms with key priorities including instituting mandatory climate-relating reporting, establishing a sustainable finance taxonomy, and instituting a labelling regime for sustainable investments.

One crucial insight from the road map is the emphasis placed on the Australia Accounting Standards Board (AASB) to finalise its climate reporting standards and disclosures by August 2024 such that they can be implemented on a test group of companies form January 2025 onwards before it is mandated through corporate legislation across all Australian firms that bear public accountability (Segal, 2024). In addition to this, emphasis has also been placed on developing a Sustainable Finance Taxonomy which would provide investors and corporations with a definite set of criteria and algorithms to evaluate a project’s ESG impact and its alignment with global and national sustainability objectives. Through this development the government has also proposed a mandatory labelling system that seeks to flag financial products and instruments according to their sustainability impact that would help streamline the process of selecting investments.

According to the Australian Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, the Roadmap is a crucial framework that would help responsible investors make better and more streamlined decisions regarding sustainable investment thus enhancing the mobilisation of private capital from investors to the nation’s green endeavours with particular emphasis on the renewable energy transformation that aligns well with Australia’s Net Zero goals (Segal, 2024).  Moreover, the roadmap is a crucial element to modernising and reducing the inefficiencies inherent in capital markets like asymmetric information. Through mandatory disclosures, formal labelling systems and algorithmic methods developed at the hands of the government, sustainable investors will be devoid from the impacts of ingenuine reporting and unequally shared information which can be now tracked and reported through the legal system. These regulatory changes once implemented will create a new generation of responsible investors who are better capable of mobilising their capital towards productive investments that generate both economic and socio-environmental returns that cater to Australia’s sustainability interests.

Harnessing the Power of Generative AI

Unlike regulatory enforcements and frameworks, one change that is unanimously evolving the global commercial landscape is Generative AI and Australian investors are no exception to harnessing the advanced capabilities that this technology posits in the realm of sustainable investing (Comendador, 2024). Generative AI is a technology born out of advanced machine learning models and neural networks which thereby instil its capabilities in generating human content and mimicking human creativity. IntellectAI is one such tool that has grown in popularity among Australian investors which helps consolidate unstructured ESG data into structured datasets that can be used to derive meaningful insights and perform better sustainability analysis (Jhaxel, 2024). According to the developers of these tools, incorporating AI into ESG analysis enhances data precision and could help investors isolate and identify the most productive sustainable investments.

Tim Mohin, a director at the Boston Consulting Group, states that 40% of the world’s GDP is contingent upon mandatory climate and ESG disclosure as regulatory requirements are reinforced amongst nations similar to Australia’s formalisation of the Sustainable Finance Roadmap (Kell, 2024). One argument posits that this rise in regulation would subsequently drive the market for AI tools that enhances a firm’s ESG tracking mechanisms as tools available at the disposal of investors.  One insightful application of AI that would help investors is the detection of washing techniques (eg: greenwashing, pinkwashing) which can be collectively defined as a form of asymmetric information that misleads investors on a corporation’s environmental and social agendas. As these techniques threaten the credibility of sustainability, Generative AI tools can be utilised in uncovering such techniques ensuring investors make well-informed decisions that re devoid from washing. One recent development involved, EY, a prominent auditing and assurance firm, collaborating with several start-ups in designing a “Greenwashing Compass” that allows firms to screen descriptive narratives on their sustainability narratives to detect the likelihood of it being perceived as greenwashing by a human reader (Torsvik, Ellingsen &Vinge, 2023).

Despite the increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into sustainable investing, notable weaknesses and concerns persist that merit careful consideration. A primary issue is the substantial energy consumption of AI-driven data centres, which raises significant sustainability concerns. Tim Mohin from Boston Consulting Group highlights this challenge by noting, “Data centres continue to consume an outsize portion of energy”, a situation that threatens to undermine the very sustainability objectives these technologies are intended to support (Kell, 2024). This paradox of high energy consumption potentially counteracting sustainability goals presents a serious dilemma. Additionally, there are ongoing doubts about the reliability and quality of AI-generated Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) analyses. John Friedman, an expert in ESG strategy, stresses the importance of rigorous validation and human oversight to ensure that AI outputs are accurate and dependable. He cautions that investors and companies should not rely solely on AI results without comprehensive testing and validation, underscoring the need for continuous evaluation of AI models with diverse datasets to maintain the integrity of sustainable investment decisions. Addressing these concerns is crucial to ensuring that the advancements in AI within the realm of sustainable investing do not compromise the reliability and efficacy of investment insights.

Educative Developments in Sustainable Investing

As of 2024, Australia is among the world leaders in educating its youth regarding sustainability and how corporations can be part of this global challenge. This is characterised by the numerous discovery courses that are available to commencing students at university and the many collaborations, projects and competitions that are held amongst schools that bear sustainability as a central focus. Recently, the Responsible Investment Association Australasia (RIAA) also announced its intentions on launching an adviser-focused course next month about integrating ESG into investing. According to preliminary details, the course centres on equipping professional investors with the skills to leverage technology such as Generative AI in their sustainability assessments while also training them to respond to company policies by rebalancing their portfolio (Siljic, 2024). While programs like these characterise Australia’s growing sustainable investing sector while predicting further growth opportunities in coming years, question remain on whether the nation’s doing enough to educate its student population on sustainable investing.

One article authored by Lorin Busaan, a PhD student, and Basma Majerbi, an Associate Professor of Finance at the Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria, highlights a significant gap in current finance education in Australia regarding sustainable investments which in order to mitigate requires the unanimous attention of Australia’s leading higher-education institutions. In their article, they describe the system of Canadian SMIFs which serve as educational platforms that simulate an environment in which student must manage real investment portfolios which can be adjusted in ways that ESG criteria into account (Busaan & Majerbi, 2024). The authors underscore that its is innovations like these that bridge the gap between financial theory and practice are crucial to addressing the education gap in Australian tertiary sector. They posit that when simulation technologies like SMIFs are adequately adopted to financial majors, student will be better instilled with capabilities and skills to address sustainability challenges like carbon emissions and social inequality as both managers and investors. Therefore, the article’s stress the need for business schools to revise their finance curricula to include robust training in sustainable investing. This includes not only theoretical understanding but also practical experience integrating ESG criteria into investment analysis and decision-making.

Ultimately there are certainly educative developments pertaining to sustainable investing that are present at secondary, tertiary and professional level in Australia such as introductory courses that introduce students to the interactions between commercial disciplines and sustainability challenges as well as professional courses that equip responsible investors with skills to leverage AI in investing sustainability. However, despite these courses, as expert evidence evinces, a tertiary education gap persists in Australia’s finance education that does not allow its graduates to replicate theory into practical settings especially those that require the analysis and synthesisation of ESG data. As the article above proclaims, lessons from Canada’s SMIF system can be incorporated to current finance courses in order to enhance student’s performance as both a responsible financial manager and investor. These enhancements, if embraced by Australia’s business schools would help better unlock the stocks of private capital that could be mobilised into projects focused on achieving Net Zero objectives such as the renewable energy sector transformation and ultimately drive sustainable investing in future years.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the investment landscape in Australia for 2024 is shaped by significant transformative factors including technological advancements, regulatory developments, and global pressures. Sustainable investing stands out as a pivotal trend, evolving from a niche interest to a mainstream priority. The updated Sustainable Finance Roadmap and advancements in generative AI are poised to reshape how investors approach ESG considerations, enhancing transparency and efficiency in sustainable investment decisions. Educational initiatives are also crucial, yet there remains a notable gap in integrating practical sustainable investing skills into finance education at all levels.

To address these challenges effectively, Australian business schools must urgently adapt their curricula to incorporate robust training in sustainable finance. This includes leveraging simulation technologies and practical experiences like those seen in Canadian SMIFs to equip students with the skills needed to navigate complex ESG landscapes. By doing so, Australia can foster a new generation of finance professionals capable of steering investments towards both economic prosperity and sustainable impact, thus driving forward the nation’s aspirations for a greener, more resilient future.

REFERENCES

Australian Sustainable Finance Initiative, (ASFI). (2020) Australian Sustainable Finance Roadmap (2020): A plan for aligning Australia’s financial system with a sustainable, resilient and prosperous future for all Australians Acknowledgement of Country.https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6182172c8c1fdb1d7425fd0d/t/6240de97b51f1159dbc20e24/1648418477411/FINAL+Australian+Sustainable+Finance+Roadmap+%28mobile+version%29+%28Embargoed+until+24+November%29.pdf

Busaan, L. & Majerbi, B. (2023, August 27) Business schools must step up on sustainable investing education. (2023, August 27). The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/business-schools-must-step-up-on-sustainable-investing-education-208352

Comendador, N. (2024, May 26). The future of investment: Trends shaping Australia in 2024. Www.nestegg.com.au. https://www.nestegg.com.au/invest-money/investment-insights/the-future-of-investment-trends-shaping-australia-in-2024

Jhaxell. (2024, June 13). How Generative AI transforms ESG data into sustainable investment success. FinTech Global. https://fintech.global/2024/06/13/how-generative-ai-transforms-esg-data-into-sustainable-investment-success/

Kell, J. (2024, March 27). How AI can boost sustainable investing. Fortune. Retrieved July 19, 2024, from https://fortune.com/2024/03/26/smart-strategies-ai-investing-sustainability/

Segal, M. (2024, June 20). Australia Launches Plans for Mandatory Climate Reporting, Taxonomy, Sustainable Investment Labels. ESG Today. https://www.esgtoday.com/australia-launches-plans-for-mandatory-climate-reporting-taxonomy-sustainable-investment-labels/

Siljic, J. (2024, June 27.). RIAA to launch sustainable investing course for advisers | Money Management. Www.moneymanagement.com.au. Retrieved July 19, 2024, https://www.moneymanagement.com.au/news/financial-planning/riaa-launch-sustainable-investing-course-advisers

Torsvik, V., Ellingsen, S. & Vinge, E. (2023, October 3). Can artificial intelligence uncover greenwashing? EY. https://www.ey.com/en_no/digital/can-artificial-intelligence-uncover-greenwashing‌

The $450m Painting? : Interactions and Incongruences between Market Values and Artistic Values in Art Auctions

Unlike traditional investments like shares or bonds, whose prices reflect the discounted net economic benefits expected over an observable future, valuing artistic endeavours is often perceived as complex task that is usually left to the judgment of historians and art experts. The fundamental problem of determining the monetary value of art cyclically resurfaces during auctions of renowned artworks. For instance, in the Autumn of 2017, Christie’s held a historic auction of Da Vinci’s “Salvator Mundi,” which sold for an astronomical US$450.3 million, the highest price paid for an artwork since Picasso’s “Woman of Algiers” in 2015 (Freeman, 2017). As news of the auction spread across global communication channels, questions arose from academics in various disciplines whose inquiries were later compiled into the 2021 documentary titled “The Lost Leonardo.”

What factors play into the fair value determination of a historic artwork? How does the economics of auction markets justify the staggering price tag of the “Salvator Mundi”? Can contemporary market theory be applied to art auctions, and can formulaic approaches assist in the valuation of art? This article, part of a three-part series, and in the context of the “Salvator Mundi” auction, systematically analyses the first of these questions on what factors play in the price determination of an artwork with specific focus on artistic and market values interact with each other. Together, both articles attempt to redefine our contemporary comprehension of arts auctions and cumulatively assess the extent to which the “Salvador Mundi” fits it exorbitant price tag.

What factors play into the fair value determination of historic artwork?

Before answering this question, it is important to make a crucial distinction between what constitutes as artistic value and market value. Predominantly artistic value is a reflection of the intrinsic worth of an artwork based on a broad range of subjective factors at the discretion of its critics like its cultural significance, emotional impact and critical acclamation while market value is based on observable and objective economic forces like the artwork’s scarcity and market dynamics usually accounted through a monetary figure. Intuitively the market value of an artwork is contingent upon its artistic value and at times these values maybe at disequilibrium although there is now a growing consensus that the two share a bidirectional relationship (Blum, 2021). In the context of Salvador Mundi for example, its fair value was predominantly derived from its association to Leonardo Da Vinci himself whose feats in multi-faceted disciplinary areas still remain a revered endeavour thus increasing the painting’s market value. Conversely, the market value of the Salvador Mundi as decided by the auction market at $450 million triggered artistic debates and renewed scholarly interests regarding the secrets and provenance of the painting which consequently increased its artistic value. This bidirectional relationship is one that is crucial to understanding the economics of arts markets, although frequent debates emerge regarding which value should systematically have a greater influence over the price of an artwork.

One interesting proposition was developed through research published by the University of Melbourne’s Arts faculty concluded that the increasing commercialisation of art coupled by overpowering salesmanship and dynamic market forces is reshaping the arts market such that the artistic value of an artwork is overshadowed by its market counterpart. This tendency tends to discriminate against the artist’s merit which calls for the innovation of methods and mechanisms that while persevering the intrinsic cultural and emotional significance of artworks allows the market value of an artwork to operate (Zhang, 2022).

Through a business-oriented lens, the outcome of Christie’s record-breaking $450.8 million auction is one that encapsulates how increasing commercialisation has led to market values overpowering artistic values in a way that exorbitant prices like this maybe a negative reflection of the artworks intrinsic worth. At first glance, it is feasible to state that the price was a result of the heightened competition among buyers to procure the scarce, one-of-a-kind artwork but extending beyond this argument we realise that marketing and branding in addition to prior ownership of the painting played a significant role in its final price determination. Christie’s compelling branding of the painting as the “Lost Leonardo” generated immense hype and anticipation which led to an associated media frenzy which may have overshadowed the painting’s intrinsic artistic qualities. Similarly, the artwork rocky past of having being owned by controversial figures could have also led to its grand price tag likewise overshadowing its artistic value. These figures with Charles I of England, Swiss dealer Yves Bouvier and Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev where the latter two were involved in a fierce legal dispute over the market price at which the painting was sold. Like previously stated the influx of market factors is what desecrates and debilitates the intrinsic artistic value of a painting which given the disputed provenance, cultural impact and authentic of the painting could potentially mean that the artistic value of the Salvador Mundi was significantly less that what was reflected through superficial market prices (Kjaer, 2021).

Despite the objectivity of market value over artistic value, the previous passages indicate its inefficacy of determining a ‘real’ price for an artwork just as imperfect capital and product markets today may understate or overstate the values of investments and commodities respectively. As described in the previously mentioned research, independent arts valuators are those responsible for assessing the intrinsic value of art before they allow markets to decide its final price. Art valuators assess artworks based on factors such as cultural and emotional significance, as well as technical attributes like colour and authenticity. They consider the artwork’s historical context, its impact on culture, and its ability to evoke emotional responses from viewers, recognizing these elements as core to its artistic value. In addition, valuators employ modern scientific visual examination techniques to analyse the physical properties of the artwork. These techniques include infrared reflectography, X-ray fluorescence, and pigment analysis, which help determine the authenticity, condition, and original colours of the piece. By combining these scientific methods with an understanding of the artwork’s cultural and emotional importance, valuators can provide a comprehensive assessment of its true artistic value.

Conclusion

In summarising the current insights, it is evident that artistic value and market value maintain a reciprocal relationship. However, commercial influences such as marketing, media, and supply and demand dynamics often cause market value to overshadow artistic merit. This trend is notably observed in art auctions like the 2017 sale of the Salvador Mundi. Buyers frequently prioritize superficial factors shaped by commercial environments—such as brand prestige and previous ownership—over the intrinsic qualities of the artwork when determining their purchasing decisions. Conversely, assessments conducted by art appraisers tend to offer a more accurate reflection of an artwork’s true value. These evaluations take into account cultural significance, historical context, and aesthetic appeal, factors which contribute to the artwork’s worth. Despite their subjective nature, such appraisals are generally regarded as providing a clearer assessment of value compared to market metrics. Looking forward, advancements in technology are expected to enhance the precision of art valuation processes, potentially making artistic value more objective and comparable to market indicators. This alignment would contribute to a more balanced consideration of both artistic and commercial aspects in the valuation of artworks.

REFERENCES

Blum, M. (2021, July 9). Auction mechanisms and the formation of prices in the art market. Theses.Hal. Science. https://theses.hal.science/tel-03648839/

Freeman, N., & Freeman, N. (2017, November 16). Leonardo da Vinci’s “Salvator Mundi” Sells for $450.3 M. at Christie’s in New York, Shattering Market Records. ARTnews.com. https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/leonardo-da-vincis-salvator-mundi-sells-450-3-m-christies-new-york-9334/

Leonardo da Vinci’s “Salvator Mundi” | 2017 World Auction Record | Christie’s. (n.d.). Www.youtube.com. Retrieved July 27, 2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3orkmMlSpmI

Kjaer, H. (Director). (2021). The lost Leonardo [Documentary]. Art Documentary Productions.

Zhang, X. (2022) The Value of Arts and Its Force: The Artistic Value and the Art Market, 638(1). https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/icpahd-21/125969473

Economic Intuitions behind Australia’s Right to Disconnect

On 15th February 2024, California Assembly Member Matt Haney introduced AB-2751, a bill that defines an employee’s right to disconnect by empowering them to disregard and discard work-related communications after hours, except in emergencies or crisis situations. Interestingly, this legislative move was inspired by parliamentary debates surrounding Australia’s right to disconnect, officially passed as federal legislation on 26th February 2024. This law is set to be implemented through the national employment system starting 26th August 2024 for large-scale businesses and from 2025 for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) (K&L Gates, 2024).

As predicted by Australia’s Senate Committee on Work and Care, the legislation was born from the increasing prevalence of “Availability Creep,” referring to the gradual, often unnoticed expansion of work-related expectations beyond normal working hours (The Conversation, 2024). This phenomenon has been exacerbated by the ubiquity of mobile technology and the COVID-19 pandemic, which blurred the boundaries between work and personal life (SmartCompany, 2024). Consequently, the right to disconnect aims to protect employees from being penalized for not being available at all hours, forming part of a broader strategy to enhance work-life balance and organizational culture. Beyond its social rationale, what implications does this law have for Australia’s labour economics, and how has the country responded to its introduction? The following analysis explores three key economic arguments surrounding the legislation.

1. The ‘Wellbeing-Productivity Relationship’ Argument

The relationship between employee wellbeing and productivity is widely regarded as positively correlated, forming a critical foundation for organizational success. Prioritizing employee physical and mental wellbeing naturally boosts productivity, creating a workforce that is more engaged, creative, and efficient (Lovich, 2024). This relationship is reflected in reduced absenteeism, lower turnover rates, and heightened job satisfaction, all of which contribute to overall productivity. Thus, initiatives that promote employee wellbeing are essential for improving individual performance and achieving strategic organizational goals

The Right to Disconnect builds on this principle, aiming to improve employee wellbeing and, consequently, productivity. A 2022 report by the Centre for Future Work revealed that 71% of surveyed workers felt pressured by managers to work outside scheduled hours, which led to increased stress, disrupted personal relationships, and diminished job satisfaction, ultimately contributing to higher turnover rates (K&L Gates, 2024).

The legislation seeks to address this conflict by providing employees with “rooster justice,” as described by the Senate—ensuring certainty and clarity over their working hours. This approach aligns with Herzberg’s Two-Factor Model, which identifies work-hour certainty as a hygiene factor that reduces dissatisfaction. By creating a conducive work environment where employees have greater control over their schedules, the legislation is expected to foster stronger relationships between management and employees, thereby enhancing long-term productivity and retention (Lovich, 2024)

However, while Australian unions and legal experts support the legislation, employer groups such as the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) have expressed strong opposition. In a Fair Work Amendment Bill submitted on 8th March 2024, the ACCI characterized the legislation as overly restrictive, arguing that it conflicts with the modern, flexible working environment that many organizations rely upon. The ACCI contends that employers may respond by becoming less accommodating during regular hours, potentially negating the legislation’s intended benefits.

2. The Labor Mobility Argument

The Right to Disconnect also raises questions about its impact on labouur flexibility and mobility—two pillars of modern workplaces. Flexible work arrangements allow employees to adapt to changing personal and professional circumstances, fostering labour mobility by enabling workers to transition between jobs or geographic locations more easily.

Critics argue that the legislation could inadvertently reduce workplace flexibility, particularly in industries that rely on non-standard hours, such as education or healthcare. For example, independent school associations have voiced concerns that the legislation could hinder teachers’ ability to manage extracurricular activities and other responsibilities outside school hours. These restrictions, they argue, could discourage individuals from entering the teaching profession, ultimately reducing labour mobility and impacting the quality of education services (Sydney Morning Herald, 2024).

On the other hand, some public opinions suggest that the law’s impact on flexibility may be minimal. Rather than fundamentally altering workplace practices, the legislation simply seeks to prevent employees from being unfairly penalised for ignoring after-hours communications. However, while this perspective downplays the economic implications, it overlooks the possibility that rigid enforcement of the law might inadvertently limit adaptability and innovation in the workplace.

3. The Coase Theorem Argument

The introduction of the Right to Disconnect highlights underlying issues within Australian workplaces that legislation alone may not fully address. While the law aims to combat “broken workplace relationships” caused by overwork and poor boundaries, it does not guarantee a comprehensive resolution to these problems.

Deborah Lovich, a researcher at the BCG Henderson Institute, argues that the need for legislation reflects deeper systemic issues. Drawing on the Coase Theorem, which posits that private solutions are often more efficient than government interventions in addressing externalities, Lovich suggests that employers must take the lead in improving workplace culture. Initiatives such as incentive programs, wellbeing schemes, and flexible policies could complement the Right to Disconnect, fostering stronger employee-employer relationships and enhancing productivity (Lovich, 2024).

By relying solely on legislation, Australia risks missing opportunities to address the root causes of workplace dissatisfaction. Employers must recognize the strategic benefits of creating a positive work environment, not merely as a legal requirement but as a competitive advantage in attracting and retaining talent

The Bottom Line

The debate over Australia’s Right to Disconnect reflects a pivotal moment in labour policy, addressing the challenges posed by modern work environments. While the legislation seeks to mitigate the negative effects of  “Availability Creep” and restore work-life balance, its economic implications remain complex.

Proponents argue that the law will improve employee wellbeing and productivity, aligning with theories like Herzberg’s Two-Factor Model. However, critics caution that it could reduce workplace flexibility and hinder labour mobility in certain industries. Moreover, the legislation alone may not resolve underlying cultural issues, emphasizing the need for complementary private initiatives

Ultimately, the success of the Right to Disconnect will depend on balanced implementation and collaboration between lawmakers, employers, and employees. By combining regulatory measures with proactive workplace improvements, Australia can create a sustainable model that promotes both wellbeing and economic growth in the digital age.

 References

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. (2024, March 8). *Fair Work Amendment bill*. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Minek/Downloads/Sub04_ACCI%20(1).pdf

BCG. (2024). *Lessons from Australia’s new law on work-life balance*. Retrieved from https://www.bcg.com/publications/2024/lessons-from-australias-new-law-on-work-life-balance

K&L Gates. (2024, May 14). *Right to Disconnect: A Needed Solution or a Potential Disruption to Businesses and Employees? Australia May Provide Some Guidance*. Retrieved from https://www.klgates.com/Right-to-Disconnect-A-Needed-Solution-or-a-Potential-Disruption-to-Businesses-and-Employees-Australia-May-Provide-Some-Guidance-5-14-2024

Lovich, D. (2024). *The need for legislation and broken workplace relationships*. BCG Henderson Institute. Retrieved from https://www.bcg.com/publications/2024/lessons-from-australias-new-law-on-work-life-balance

SmartCompany. (2024). *Right to disconnect clause and Australian Council Trade Unions FWC*. Retrieved from https://www.smartcompany.com.au/people-human-resources/industrial-relations/right-to-disconnect-clause-australian-council-trade-unions-fwc/

Sydney Morning Herald. (2024, April 18). *Will the right to disconnect disrupt the way we work?*. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/will-the-right-to-disconnect-disrupt-the-way-we-work-20240418-p5fkvn.html

Sydney Morning Herald. (2024, June 11). *Private schools oppose right to disconnect for teachers*. Retrieved from https://www-smh-com-au.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/politics/federal/private-schools-oppose-right-to-disconnect-for-teachers-20240611-p5jksb.html

The Conversation. (2024). *Smartphones mean we’re always available to our bosses. Right to disconnect laws are a necessary fix*. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/smartphones-mean-were-always-available-to-our-bosses-right-to-disconnect-laws-are-a-necessary-fix-222738

A Starry-Eyed Student’s Attempt at Economic Management

Centuries ago, in the mystic cradle of Taoism, an astute Chinese philosopher said that leaders are best when people barely know their existence but where work is done and aims are fulfilled allowing the people to say we did it ourselves (Lao Tzu, 571 BCE). This ancient saying still echoes amidst the world of economic leadership wherein governments despite their complexity are still nothing but  unified leadership entities that conduct their responsibilities democratically yet undisturbingly from the citizenry, creating an economic environment that promotes stability, growth and equity.

Before proliferating growth, economies must be stabilised which governments achieve through the implementation of policies upon overseeing the three main economic indicators. Firstly, governments must ensure that resources are fully utilised such that unemployment is maintained in a way market forces cannot put workers at idle. Through expansionary fiscal policies, incentives for work and enterprise are created thus ensuring that a country’s resources are naturally employed. Secondly, as resources are employed and output is produced, increasing that output is key. This could include further expansionary policies as well as supply-side policies that boost supply chains and exports. Through such incentives, GDP could proliferate and its benefits such as better living standards could be savoured by the citizenry. Finally, as GDP rises, further policy-making is needed to ensure that  economies do not overheat and cause inflationary or deflationary pressures. Falling prices as much as rising prices lead to uncertainty, reduced confidence and lack of investment hence maintaining prices  at stabilised levels is key to a sound economy. Therefore, governments could used contractionary monetary or fiscal policies that shrink aggregate demand and keep prices at sustainable levels. The importance of policy making cannot be understated especially fiscal polies as they promote macroeconomic stability economic busts and moderate economic activity during periods of boom (Otmar Issing, 2005).

Laissez-faire economics idealises that issues within free markets can be catered through self regulating mechanisms (Allan Parson, 1971). However, free markets and economies are not perfect and issues could always be lurking in its atmosphere. As an economy grows and stabilises, government intervention becomes necessary when specific goods maybe underprovided by the private sector, when workers or consumers are exploited by profit-oriented organisations or when business activity leads to social costs like resource depletion and pollution. For instance, The Anti-Trust laws passed in 1890 were a revolutionary use of intervention to prevent customer exploitation through restrictive trading practices ensuring that free and unfettered competition was the rule of market  efficiency (Congress, Sherman Act, 1890). Similar regulations, incentives and laws have been used in tackling issues like labour and environmental exploitation ensure markets generate more external benefits and allow sustainable economic growth

The recipe to a well-managed economy does not end until the government has ensured that income inequality and poverty does not deter everyone’s ability to benefit and engage in the economy. Through the use of progressive government taxation and rational spending, a fairer distribution can be achieved and civilians can spread social benefits with better healthcare and education leaving room for further economic growth and else disruption. When the poor has less financial burden, the worst form of inequality is circumvented (Adam Smith, 1956).

Conclusively when these tasks are sequentially undertaken by the government, their role to sustain an economy that promotes not just growth and stability but also equity and benefits to all levels of its citizenry is achieved.