Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Select Committee on the Future of Work and Workers
04/06/2018

SCHMIDT, Prof essor Brian, Vice Chancellor and President, The Australian National University

WESLEY, Prof essor Michael Wesley, Dean, The Australian National University

WHITEFORD, Prof essor Peter, Private capacity

CHAIR: I now welcome Professor Brian Schmidt and Professor Michael Wesley from the ANU and also Professor Whiteford from the ANU who are here on separate missions and separate topics. I understand that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses and evidence has been provided to all of you. Do you have any comments to make on the capacity in which you appear?

Prof. Wesley : I am the Dean of the College of Asia and the Pacific at the Australian National University.

Prof. Whiteford : I am in the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University.

CHAIR: Thank you for that. You've probably done this many times before, but I now invite you to make a short opening statement, and then we'll have some questions after that.

Prof. Schmidt : I will just briefly talk about the principal recommendations in our submissions. Universities such as ANU are uniquely placed to prepare the next generation of Australian workers for a future in which the fundamentals of work will be uncertain. Moving forward, we would like to see the government focus on the facilitation and support of stronger links between universities and the business community. The future of work is also about the future of our economy and, if Australia is to prosper, we are going to need to be agile in how we use new technology within business. This means Australia needs to have a workforce that makes Australian business competitive globally.

The creation of a national upskilling agenda is our next recommendation. This agenda should not be just universities but represent the whole system: vocational training, university diplomas, associate degrees and bachelor degrees, continuing education, including sophisticated microcredentialing and professional doctorates. Our next recommendation is greater ease of access for SMEs seeking education and training, including investment in digital education. This should of course link to the upskilling agenda just described before.

Australia has a chance to take advantage of its location within Asia, and we recommend the expansion of language programs in education with particular focus on the Asia-Pacific region. We recommend increased support and facilitation of student learning experiences and work experience opportunities in the Asia-Pacific region. I'm now going to hand over to my colleagues who will also provide brief opening statements: firstly, Michael Wesley.

Prof. Wesley : Thanks very much, Professor Schmidt, and thanks very much for the opportunity to testify to the committee. The free play of market forces means that, over the next decades, the Australian economy will be ever more closely integrated into the economies of the Asia-Pacific. If you read the modelling that has been produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers, you will see that four of the world's largest five economies by 2050 will be in our region of the world. This means that there will be an epochal shift in the way that the Australian economy is run and runs.

We have had, since European colonisation, the luxury of operating in a world economy, in a global economy, that has been dominated by European and American institutions and industries. This situation is starting to fray, and we are coming to a stage where most of the global economy in the century ahead and beyond will be run by large Asian institutions and run along the lines of their own ways of organising their economies.

There is a range of scholarship as to the different principles of how these economies will work, but there is an overwhelming weight of evidence to suggest that the Asian economy—that the Australian economy will be operating within—will be running on substantially different lines from what we've become used to so far. This means that to be successful into the future, the Australian economy, Australian businesses, as well as Australian workers will need to become much more familiar with different ways of operating companies and different ways of operating labour markets. The evidence is that our population, our workforce do not have the level of skill to understand these differences and to operate seamlessly within these different labour markets.

So as Professor Schmidt said, the ANU's submission is partly built around the need to expand the educational offerings at all levels of education for future Australian universities in Asian languages, Asian politics, Asian history, Asian economics, to better prepare our workforce for the demands and the opportunities of the future.

Prof. Whiteford : I've been involved with the OECD most recently on the future of social protection as a result of changing work patterns. It doesn't represent anything officially to do with the ANU but is a presentation of some of this research. If you look at social protection—that's the social security system, community services and the health insurance and public healthcare system—it accounts for about half of all government spending in Australia so it's a very substantial part of our spending. Internationally, which is why the OECD commissioned this work, there is a lot of concern that changing work patterns, particularly the rise of what's called non-standard work, are a threat to social protection systems, essentially because in most countries those systems are contributory so you have to have an assumption of a full working career, 40 years of full-time work, in order to qualify for old age pensions and a range of other insurances against risk. So if changing work patterns lead to this assumption of full-time permanent work no longer being applicable, that raises serious questions about these systems.

Our systems are based on pretty different principles. We don't have contributions in our social security system, but our employment system actually does have a lot of features which require employment—not so much contributions but being attached to an employer as a basis for getting a range of social protections. The most recent in a sense is the superannuation system, but paid sick leave, which can also be used for caring for relatives, paid parental leave and workers' compensation and also adequate wages are all attached to conditions of work. If we move to a situation where there is less regular work, those forms of social protection that are attached to work will become harder to finance and maybe harder to support. So the question is: what are the forces driving that?

There's a lot of debate internationally about the impact of artificial intelligence, automation and robots on the future of work, with estimates of the impact being between the loss of up to 50 per cent of all jobs over the next two or three decades versus 10 per cent. While I'm not an expert in that particular field, my reading of the literature is that 10 per cent is more likely but that's still extremely substantial. However, having said that, historically there have always been adjustments. Technological change leads to creation of new jobs producing the new technology, for example. But what most studies identify is that what you will see is perhaps an acceleration of what's called 'skills biased technological change', which is one of the major arguments that's put for what explains trends in income inequality in high-income countries in the last 30 or 40 years. In the case of Australia, Jeff Borland and colleagues at The University of Melbourne have estimated that over the last 30 years something like 17 per cent of middle-skill jobs have been displaced—mostly that's been in a growth of high-skill jobs but some of it has been in growth of low-skill jobs, but you have this sort of polarisation of skills. The way you respond to that is by increasing educational attainment and skills, so education is an important part of the response.

The other thing that is a very striking feature that's, I think, also somewhat hyped is the rise of digital platforms, ranging from Uber, Lyft, Deliveroo to Airtasker. There are two sorts of digital platforms. The European Commission has done a lot of work on this recently and they identified two sorts of digital platforms, one of which is where everything is electronic. You do things like proof read documents, design websites and load videos to YouTube. All of this is done over the internet but then there are things that require people to be in the same city like Deliveroo and Uber. They're physical services that are mediated by digital platforms. I think the real risk there is about undermining of employment conditions and essentially arbitrage of people trying to get out of their GST or VAT obligations, not being liable for workers' compensation, not being liable for paying superannuation and so on. Those digital platforms are a tiny share of employment but, in fact, over time there is a much larger share of non-standard employment.

A recent study by the OECD a couple of years ago using the HILDA Survey estimated that Australia actually has the highest share of non-permanent employment in the OECD. We have one of the highest shares of part-time work in the OECD. We also have the highest proportion of underemployment in the OECD, so people who are working part-time and looking for more hours. In some senses, it could be argued that we're a long way advanced down this path already.

I will conclude with a couple of observations about policy. One of the very common responses that many people put is that we should have a universal basic income as a response to this. The idea has been around for a long time. It's been proposed by people in Silicon Valley. It's being experimented with in North America. Canada is having a trial over the next couple of years. Finland is reaching the end of a trial. Essentially, however, if you wanted to have a universal basic income that replaced our existing social security system, you would probably need to raise the tax revenue of the Commonwealth from a bit under 24 per cent of GDP now to over 40 per cent of GDP. This is not a minor adjustment; it's a very, very large adjustment. Therefore, I don't think that it's very likely, but there are ways that you can adjust our current system. It's about thinking about our current system—how do we deal with income fluctuations; income volatility; more changes within a year, and much less from year-to-year, that individuals may face? I think more adequate payments for people of working age are an important part of that. You can consider changes to income tests. You can consider the changes to the liquid assets test for allowances. There are a wide range of options, which are outlined in my submission, but also we fundamentally need more research. The HILDA Survey gives us a lot of good data about what happens to people as they move from year to year over time but not what happens from fortnight to fortnight or month to month. People who are between contracts; people who are working part-time, who have unpredictable shifts—all of those sorts of things—we don't know what the impact of that is on people's incomes, because we lack that sort of data.

CHAIR: Great, thank you very much. There are, obviously, a range of issues that have been canvassed there. I've got a few questions, but would you like to go first, Senator Patrick?

Senator PATRICK: Sure. Professor Schmidt, in your submission, you talked about the need to facilitate and support stronger links between universities and the business community. I'm in complete agreement. I just wonder what is fettering you in that endeavour at this present moment?

Prof. Schmidt : There are a number of things, I think, that hold us back. One of the issues that we have is that the incentives to work together are mixed; they haven't been continual over time. In a university like ANU, which is very research-intensive, we would, of course, want to work with businesses that are also very research-intensive or R&D intensive. That's a very small part of the Australian ASX 200, for example. So I think those are two of the main issues. It's just the structure of business in Australia being heavily geared towards service industries, for example, and the need to connect to the R&D base of Australian universities has been mixed in many cases.

And I should say that, certainly in the past, the overarching incentive structure of how we are funded has been not one that was particularly conducive to working with business, for example. The recent change in how block grants are calculated—in particular, inputs from category 2 and 3 income, as we describe it; that's income from government and corporate sources—has actually created a new and interesting incentive. We need to see how that will play out. Certainly in our institution it is incentivising how we think about it, so in that sense I doubt we're alone.

Senator PATRICK: You're indicating that government has a lot to play in getting the right incentives to get you working together?

Prof. Schmidt : I would say yes, because at some level there is a bit of market failure going on and that market failure is a short-term versus a long-term view of Australia's economy. Right now, Australian businesses are not taking a particularly long-term view towards how they are going to deal with the future of work, for example. So I think it is important to provide adequate incentives for businesses to invest in a longer-term horizon, and that ultimately means investing more than they do presently in R&D. I would say that, globally, that is seen as a government based measure of incentives and regulation as opposed to just expecting the market to sort it out itself.

Senator PATRICK: Professor Wesley, you indicated, or referenced, a PwC study relating to business in Asia. Going back to 2012 when the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, put out a paper on Australia in the Asian century, and not having read the PwC report, are there any similarities there? Did we simply drop the ball on that paper or was that 2012 paper skewed or misguided?

Prof. Wesley : Look, I don't think it was. I think the economic modelling behind both reports was pretty consistent in terms of the increasing weight of the collective economies of Asia in the global economy. I think what really happened to the Australia in the Asian century white paper was that a change of government occurred and the incoming coalition government simply didn't prioritise that area of it, even though I'd say that in certain of the policies of the new government—and here I reference the New Colombo Plan—the sentiments were very similar, or at least there was a continuity in sentiments. So the thinking behind the New Colombo Plan is very much about helping to upskill young Australians in the languages, cultures and societies of our regional neighbours, to make them much more effective in dealing in a more Asian-ised global economy in the future.

So while the Asian century white paper has not been referenced by the current government, I think a lot of the sentiments underpinning that white paper have found continuity in the current government's policies.

Senator PATRICK: I remember when that paper came out I was actually up in the Asian region, living up there, being part of the Asian century. So, in some respects, I understand exactly what you are suggesting. However, in my own experience—I used to describe this situation to people talking about doing business with Asia—you take off from Sydney Airport and it's two movies before you get above Darwin. So I wonder whether or not we have to correctly tailor our approach to integration into that market—with that tyranny of distance that we're often labelled with.

Prof. Wesley : We do a lot of work with PwC, speaking of university-industry linkages, and we do a lot of talking to PwC partners, and to their clients as well. I hope there's not too much hyperbole in this, but I often say to them, 'You may not be interested in Asia but Asia's interested in you'—as 'in your business'. So, if you look at where a lot of the investment into the Australian economy will come from in the future, while the stocks show that our investment profile is very heavily skewed towards North America and Europe, the flows are certainly very Asian if you look at them. So what I generally say is: 'Even if you don't set foot outside of this continent, if you look ahead 50 years, the likelihood is that your children and your grandchildren will be dealing with Asian ways of doing business, even if they don't leave this country.' So, while you're right—there is a little bit of a tyranny of distance that operates at the moment—the fact is that, in time, that distance will be wiped out.

Senator PATRICK: I guess you're saying that that distance is shorter than the distance to the United States and to our traditional UK partnerships.

Prof. Wesley : Yes, very much so.

Senator PATRICK: You don't necessarily see any particular niche that we can grab on to? In saying that, I look at Singapore, who are just in a great geographical position and have put themselves in a great position through their system of government, their system of business, their transport systems. It's just a great place to work from, and lots of industry is attracted there. That is difficult when you are seven or eight hours away by flight.

Prof. Wesley : It is indeed, but I still think it's the only game in town, really. I think our economy is too small to continue or to prosper on its own resources. We need those links to the rest of the world, and I think, for the foreseeable future, while the economies of Europe and North America are much more familiar to us and much more easy for us to understand and it's comfortable for us to do business there, the fact is that they are not the high-growth economies that we've got closer to home. So I think, for the Australian economy to continue to prosper and to make the most of the incredible benefits we've got, including our highly educated and highly creative workforce, really we need to be making those investment links into our near region and be doing it in a way that really does compete with the Singapores of the world that have all of those advantages.

Senator PATRICK: Seguing from that to Professor Whiteford, if you're talking about AI, for example, do you see that AI drive coming from the US and Europe, or do you see it coming from Asia, or is it something that needs to come from within?

Prof. Whiteford : Most of the research that I'm aware of has been done on the US and Europe. There's a well-known article by two British scientists, Frey and Osborne, who are the people who came up with the 40 per cent of jobs disappearing over the next 30 years.

I think that the degree of automation and the use of robots for things like drivers and that sort of thing is pretty advanced already, but there's a lot of argument that, in fact, many of those jobs actually still require a lot of human judgement. Basically, the technological advances, I think, at the moment are mainly coming out of the United States. A lot of the digital platforms are coming from companies like Amazon, so I see that coming from the United States but also from Europe. Many European countries are much more advanced than Australia is, in terms of how many manufacturing jobs are done by robots, and I recall seeing a few years ago that, if you look at automation within factories, Australia is pretty low at the moment compared to Europe, which actually, of course, means that the risk of suddenly moving towards a displacement of jobs is possibly greater in Australia than it is in countries that have already gone down that track.

In terms of the risks, I think the greatest risk really is the risk to the system of employment regulation. It's not inherently as a result of automation; it's a result of what firms are trying to do in terms of trying to get around what are current employment obligations, like workers' compensation, indirect taxes and so forth. So I think it's actually business practices that are more of a risk to social protection than robots themselves. If we had a situation where 40 per cent of jobs did disappear over the next 20 years, obviously we'd be talking about a major crisis, so the response to that would, I think, concentrate the minds of governments about how you deal with that. But I think, technologically, at the moment it's overseas. We have a colleague at the university, Professor Genevieve Bell, who is giving a lot of thought to that sort of issue as we speak, so I'd probably defer to people in that line of research, in terms of what's likely to happen in the next decade.

Senator PATRICK: I tend to sit on the 10 per cent side as well. I watched how probably 20 years ago we had cruise control in cars and now I'm just starting to see the cruise controls reacting to what's happening around them, and I think that a nice risk based management way to go is to do it relatively slowly but eventually get there. I think a lot of AI people promote the speed with which AI will dominate as well.

Prof. Whiteford : The critique of Frey and Osborne is that what they do is look at occupational classifications and say, 'These jobs are going to be replaced because robots or whatever are going to be able to do these jobs.' The critique is that, in fact, they're not going to be able to do the jobs; they're going to be able to do tasks that are subcomponents of the jobs. What the OECD have done is look at the tasks that can be replaced rather than the jobs. That creates new synergies, basically.

So you have to have people to interact to perform the tasks. But what is quite interesting, actually, is that a lot of the digital platforms are about breaking jobs down into tasks. It's a form of outsourcing in a way. It's sort of saying, 'Well, rather than having administrative staff to do particular jobs, we'll get somebody outside the organisation to do it much more cheaply.' You can understand the financial incentives for it. But, ultimately, that raises the risks that the firm as we've known it in the first part of the 20th century and the second half of the 20th century doesn't exist in the same way. Certainly, if you look at some of the new technology firms, they have massive valuations but a very small number of employees. So I think it's more managing how the job market works rather than the technology itself that's the issue.

Senator PATRICK: That's very interesting. I'll hand to you, Chair.

CHAIR: Thanks, Senator Patrick. Professor Whiteford, I might as well stay with you for the moment. I'm interested in the point you've made about the particular risks that arise from a system like we have in Australia that is not contribution based but where a number of benefits are still attached to work, whether it be superannuation or certain leave payments. There are obvious risks to an individual worker in a world of fractured, fragmented employment and missing out on some of those benefits. Can you talk to us a little bit more about what you see as the implications for the security of households or the cost to government and the sustainability of those systems?

Prof. Whiteford : It's a question of—say, for example, you don't accumulate sufficient superannuation because you have multiple jobs and you don't have an employment relationship with an employer, so you're a freelancer. There's no obligation to pay the superannuation guarantee. As we know from last week, from the Productivity Commission, there are a lot of issues with superannuation, but one of the big advantages of the superannuation system is that it's portable across jobs; it isn't attached to a particular workforce. What you need to do, then, is have some way—which the Productivity Commission has talked about—of aggregating accounts and reducing administrative charges. The estimate, at the moment, is that 40 years from now—this is the Intergenerational report by the Treasury—when the superannuation guarantee is mature, age-pension spending will be about half a per cent of GDP lower than it would be in the absence of the superannuation guarantee.

To the extent that superannuation is not actually paid, people will have lower assets in retirement. They themselves will have more inadequate incomes and there'll be more calls on the government pension. There's both a shifting of the costs and benefits of superannuation onto individuals and onto the government.

CHAIR: On that, would you say the current trajectory does have us heading towards a higher dependence on the old-age pension or other forms of benefits as a result of the fragmentation of work?

Prof. Whiteford : The fragmentation of work—

CHAIR: It's probably more about the classification of work, whether it's employment that derives superannuation or contract and other forms of work that don't derive superannuation.

Prof. Whiteford : What that means is there's some subset of the population who don't have superannuation and will be, unless they have self-employment assets, more reliant on the age pension. They'll be drawing a maximum rate of age pension rather than a part rate, which is what the projections are. If you look at, say, sick leave by employers, it's massively larger than sickness allowances paid by governments. Sickness allowance paid by government, I think, has about 10,000 recipients and costs less than $200 million a year. The latest estimate I've seen for sick pay by employers is a few billion dollars a year, in terms of how much it costs employers. If employees or independent contractors don't have that sort of coverage for short-term sickness, in the future, there is a potential that they'll turn to government for that. I would have thought that most of the people who use sickness allowance now are casual employees. By definition, they don't have access to sick leave, right?

I think, quite separately, what's been happening over time is that for people of working age, essentially, Newstart is becoming more of the default system. Lone parents have been moved onto Newstart once the youngest child is eight years of age. Increasing numbers of people who, in the past, would have been disability support pensioners are going onto Newstart. There's a growth of the numbers of people receiving Newstart in the recent past, mainly because of this shifting of people from other categories.

Now, the question is: what happens to people who don't get adequate minimum wages, who don't get sick pay? Logically, they either have to turn to their families for support or they have to turn to government. I wouldn't necessarily say that that's an immediate risk but it's certainly a long-term risk. I think that a lot of the analysis in social policy terms of what's happened in the last 30 or 40 years is that, particularly in the United States, there's this process of shifting the risks from the employer onto, first, the individual and then eventually the government.

The other point about all this is that you need protection from sickness both in terms of health care and income support, if you're to have a productive workforce. The idea that the workforce is going to be productive, if individuals have to deal with all of these things that happen in their lives, I think, is unrealistic. Part of the reason I think why Australia, Europe and North America are high-income countries is that they cover these risks to varying degrees. It helps maintain a productive workforce.

CHAIR: You have also raised something that has come up from a few witnesses over the course of this inquiry about the degree to which our current social security system is built on the modern world of work. We actually had representatives from the Department of Social Services here just before, and they assured us that the current social service system is built in a way that reflects the way people are working. What do you think are the key changes that need to be made to the system—is it about smoothing income or other things?

Prof. Whiteford : I think over time we've made it harder for people to smooth income. When the liquid assets test for allowances was introduced in 1991, it was about $5,000, and people had to wait four weeks, if they had more than $5,000, before they were able to claim payments. I think there's a case for that sort of system but, if we didn't index it to inflation since 1991, it would now be closer to $10,000. The waiting period is now 13 weeks, and I believe the government's proposed that it go up to 26 weeks. What that means is that—if you've not got an astonishing amount of assets, right, but you've been saving while you've been working—if you have extended waiting periods, basically you run down your assets. So, the next time you have a period of unemployment, you have less to fall back on. That actually undermines individuals' and households' capacity to deal with stress.

The other thing is that these sort of risks are incredibly common. When you look at the HILDA Survey, over the past 14 years, 70 per cent of households of working age included somebody who has received income support payment during that period. It's not family payments, it's not the age pension; it's disability pension, parenting payments or Newstart. So 70 per cent of the population of households include somebody who gets a social security payment. The reason for that is that spells of unemployment are extremely common, particularly for lower-paid workers. Lots of people have temporary illness, either themselves or somebody else in their household, so these risks exist already. The risk of automation or changing employment regulation is that it actually makes employment-related risks more common. For people, who essentially do contract work, who have to look to see how they can fill up between contracts, it potentially creates a lot more income volatility, a lot more fluctuation in people's incomes, which then makes saving for retirement or a house much more difficult. I don't think we are there yet, but I think that that's the risk that is associated from these changing work patterns.

CHAIR: Professor Schmidt, there are many things in your submission that I'd like to talk about, but time really allows me to focus on only one: your call for a national upskilling agenda. What is the importance of that, and what would you see as its main components?

Prof. Schmidt : I think the current system does not work as a system; it works in bits and pieces. We need to have a system that has the ability to take any person in Australia and allow them to gain skills that are necessary to gain, to have what I would describe as a reasonable-quality job. And that has to extend from when they are young, when they are from backgrounds that are less than optimal. But it also now has to extend—and this is a place where the current system is particularly weak—to people later on in their life, when they need increasingly sophisticated training updates. The change of work means that people from what I would call middle Australia in professional jobs are likely to be displaced in a way that we aren't used to seeing, and we are going to need a way to have those people who are in professional jobs upskilled to the next level.

The current system does not cater to that particularly well, and the notion of a master's degree—I mean, that's one way to do it, but I think, as indicated, smaller forms of credentials that might be able to be highly flexible, highly transportable, bolted together in a variety of ways, need to be looked at. The whole way of accrediting these things needs to be quite agile. Right now we have, for example, a huge shortage of people in cybersecurity. We simply cannot train the people at any level, from the ground floor up to the really sophisticated people within the system. We need to be able to turn on things like that more quickly than we can now, and we have to expect people, post university or post tertiary education, to come back and actually get recredentialed over their time, one way or another.

CHAIR: Thank you for that. I suspect that's something we'll be looking at the in more detail in years to come. And Professor Wesley, my one question for you: you made the point that because of the rise of Asian powers and the greater integration that's needed between Australia and Asia we need to ensure that Australians are learning different ways of running businesses and labour markets to be more Asia literate. What would you see as the major things that Australians need to come to grips with that they're not at the moment and that we're not preparing people for at the moment?

Prof. Wesley : The great pattern of Australian business in Asia has been a pattern of being scared of Asian markets, thinking Asia is just too hard, and relying on a number of horror stories of companies that have gone into Asia and lost a lot of money. We don't seem to make much of the horror stories about, for instance, Bunnings going into the UK and losing a lot of money, but any time an Australian company does so in Asia it becomes business lore. You get the situation where, for instance, once ANZ announces it will be leaving Asian markets its share price goes up by five per cent. So, I think one of the big issues that we have to grapple with, as a start, is culture. The fact is that there are a lot of western countries and companies that are doing very well in Asian markets, but there are very few Australian companies that are doing that. There's a cultural hurdle that we need to get across.

The other thing I would say that is really important in terms of different ways of doing business is a different approach to business relationships. I think there is a sense in the way that we do business that if there is a business proposition that makes sense from both sides then both sides come together and negotiate quite a complex agreement between them and then they go away and the agreement largely frames the rest of their commercial relationship. It's silly to try to generalise about Asian ways of doing business, but I think one of the things that does crop up again and again in different Asian countries is that that is not the way you develop a commercial relationship. Personal relationships are very important. Time spent getting to know each other is very important. The thought that an Australian business person can simply fly up to Asia, spend a week there, stitch up a deal, come home and expect everything to go well is one of the big misconceptions that, I think, dominates our ways of doing business.

To be successful in Asia, and there are a lot of Australian companies that are, you need to put in the time, spending time on the ground, building relationships, getting to know the people. What that means is that you don't have to be completely fluent in a range of Asian languages. What it does mean is that you need to be comfortable operating in Asian societies, you need to be able to understand what ever language you're speaking, understand different ways of conveying information, and understand different ways of developing those relationships. That means that you need to be cross-culturally comfortable, cross-culturally competent, and willing to spend large amounts of your time in those countries building those sorts of relationships.

CHAIR: Thank you very much. There is lots in everything you said we would like to explore, but our next witnesses are waiting and we need to get on with them as well. Thank you very much for your time today.

Prof. Schmidt : Thank you.