{"id":29121,"date":"2016-10-12T15:06:06","date_gmt":"2016-10-12T04:06:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=29121"},"modified":"2016-10-12T15:06:06","modified_gmt":"2016-10-12T04:06:06","slug":"interpreting-asc-split","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/interpreting-asc-split\/","title":{"rendered":"Interpreting the ASC split"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
Yesterday the Australian government (with the PM and three cabinet ministers in attendance) announced that it\u2019s going to split ASC<\/a> into three separate but still government-owned companies, to ‘support the key capabilities of shipbuilding, submarine sustainment and infrastructure\u2019. It was heartening to see some movement on the issue. It’s vitally important that government gives serious thought to the industrial arrangements for projects that will cost the taxpayer tens of billions of dollars\u2014something we noted last year<\/a>.<\/p>\n At yesterday’s announcement, the government was at pains to note that it ‘does not have a plan to privatise these three new companies’. So what\u2019s been gained and lost by the split? On the positive side, the newly created businesses will be able to focus single-mindedly on their respective specialisations. And the separation will provide greater public transparency into the business performance of the three components (though the government won’t necessarily see that as a benefit).<\/p>\n On the negative side, we\u2019ll see corporate overheads (including board positions) multiplied by three. At the same time, interactions between the three newly created companies will generate additional transaction costs<\/a>. Where once an internal company memo would suffice, a legal contract will become necessary; and where sharing of human resources between business units was once possible, now there’ll be competition for talent.<\/p>\n No doubt the consultants advising the government provided a compelling case for why the swings outweighed the roundabouts. But irrespective of what the government\u2019s plans are today, the split manifestly creates the option of selling some of the businesses down the track, while keeping the shipyard infrastructure in government hands. There’ll be some negotiation required with the South Australian government, which has stumped up $300 million of its own money for infrastructure down at Osborne, but the federal government seems determined. The Finance Minister was<\/p>\n \u2026 very clear. This is a strategic asset of national significance and it is explicitly the Government’s intention to\u00a0maintain the infrastructure business and infrastructure assets in Commonwealth ownership.<\/p>\n By owning the infrastructure, the government can then sell the other businesses, leasing out the facilities to users as required. That’s smart, inasmuch as it allows the government to retain the option of competition for future projects, rather than granting monopoly control of core naval maintenance and construction assets to a single commercial entity in perpetuity. That’s why the Commonwealth retained ownership of the facilities at Garden Island in Sydney.<\/p>\n