4.++Evaluation+of+Solutions+using+criteria

This page will be locked on Thursday 19 August 2010 at 9:30PM

= Evaluation of Solutions using criteria =

**Your task**
1. Press edit above 2. Move your cursor below your name (scroll down) - only work in the area under your name 3.Evaluate your solutions using criteria: cost, benefit, effectiveness, efficiency, equity, other 4. Explain how they relate to your economic problem - using statistics and references 5. **Using the table button** on the menu above select a table with 3 columns and 3 rows to record your evidence and sources (**use link - external link button above**). //Just start typing in the table - it will format itself when you press save!//

Miss Stevenson's exemplar

**My** **economic problem:**

"The increasing popularity of E-books will see the demise of the printed book industry in Australia" **Hamish has set this out well - see his example below <-** LOOK EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!! I>YOU
 * || ==== **Criteria** ==== || Evaluation - how does your solution stand up against the three criteria || **Source - weblink (use link button above)** ||
 * 1 ||  ||   ||   ||
 * 2 ||  ||   ||   ||
 * 3 ||  ||   ||   ||


 * 1. Alek A**


 * 2. Jordan B**


 * 3. Ned B**
 * Solution 1: Improving educational attainment** in the youth by funding programs to increase completion rates of year 12 or equivalent
 * || ==== **Criteria** ==== || Evaluation - how does your solution stand up against the three criteria || **Source - weblink (use link button above)** ||
 * 1 || benefits || The data in Table 2 (in assignment........) indicates a pronounced, inverse association [relationship] between unemployment and educational attainment. For example, the unemployment rate of those who did not complete a high school diploma is three times higher than that of college graduates. Make sure you say where this info is from - I am guessing this is US info There is also a notable difference between the unemployment rate of a non-high school graduate (7 percent) and one who has graduated (4 percent). The pattern in the data stronglysuggests that individuals can enhance their employment prospects considerably by completing high school.  there is a surplus of teachers in some subjects, and for some year groups, and perhaps this program would allow this supply to be better utilised This last sentence is very subjective - you need specific evidence to back up these claims ||   ||
 * 2 || costs || greatest financial cost to taxpayers of the solutions why? ||  ||
 * 3 || effectiveness overseas || Scandanavian countries - high labour force participation rates in youth is the result of high investment in education programs you need specific evidence to back up this claim ||  ||

Delaying retirement has benefits to business in terms of a greater workforce, more people with broader skills. They can work as teachers, drivers, post masters, etc. This solution is the most direct at targetting the diminishing LFPR in Australia - targets source of the issue rather than merely mitigating its effects This feels like it has been cut and paste - make sure you are pulling out key fact or quoting in your assignment Ageism is declining "Older workers are recognized and valued for having a good work ethic and for providing experience, knowledge, and job stability in the workplace," Leven says. "They are viewed as loyal workers who can be counted on in a crisis. All of these attributes make them desirable workers in our service-oriented economies." || [|About.com] ||
 * Solution 2: Delaying retirement** by increasing the age to receive superannuation and pension.
 * || ==== **Criteria** ==== || Evaluation - how does your solution stand up against the three criteria || **Source - weblink (use link button above)** ||
 * 1 || benefits || Given longer lifespans, many individuals retiring in their early 60s can expect to live for another two decades or more. This is a long period of time for healthy and productive individuals to be idle. Many Australians might be nefit by staying active in the workforce longer — at least on a part-time basis — simply because they derive satisfaction from working and from the social relationships they develop in the workplace. Keeping active through working keeps their minds intact and gives them a more healthy, enjoyable life
 * 2 || costs || Despite its gradual decline, ageism is still rampant

Some have argued that r etirees play a vital role and valuable task of providing much needed free labour as

volunteers and carers, and that if retirement is delayed then there could be the consequence that there will be a smaller pool of volunteers and unpaid workers.

immoral??????????? What are the acutal costs of this - e.g. the government has done advertising - what else could the government or employers do to encourage this solution and how much would it cost? || [|Productivity Commision] ||
 * 3 || effectiveness overseas || The Government of Japan has, for many years, encouraged "life-long employment" in order to mitigate the effects of an ageing population. While it is true that the country has the fastest-growing ageing population, it has much stronger LFPRs than Australia on account of this policy. In Japan, older men step down from senior positions and take lower-level jobs to make way for younger generations, but they still remain in the workforce. 60 per cent of men aged 65 to 69 continue to work. The rate of workforce participation in Japan for men over 65 is three times higher than in Australia, where only 17 per cent of this age group work. One-quarter of Japanese men are still working after they have turned 75.great reserach!

Contrarily, a strong majority has constantly voted against the idea of delaying retirement in America vague statement - need facts to back up

Our culture is more similar to America's vague statement || [|The Age] ||


 * Solution 3:** To maintain the aggregate LFPR, the states could consider the funding of **affordable, high-quality child care centres**.


 * || ==== **Criteria** ==== || Evaluation - how does your solution stand up against the three criteria || **Source - weblink (use link button above)** ||
 * 1 || benefits || Affordable and high-quality child care centres allow women to balance work and family life. There is a definite shortage of quality, affordable child care centres: "Certainly for children's services close to and within city CBD areas, there's [an] incredible shortage of zero-two-year-old and zero-three-year-old places," Many women with young children wish to work (give statistics here .................... ), and this demand could be catered for by increase in the supply of appropriate centres. great! || [|ABC.net.au] ||
 * 2 || costs || The money to pay for childcare subsidies obviously has to come from taxes, and higher taxes in general reduce people’s desire to work, so there are limits to how far this policy can go. The Federal Government made an election promise in 2007 to build 260 new childcare centres, but the Government has recently announced they are not worth their yield when compared with their cost - most likely spin so how many have they rolled out ... what was the $$ in the budget for this? || [|TAI] ||
 * 3 || effectiveness overseas || Most Nordic countries have invested substantial amounts in providing affordable, high-quality childcare centres, and also have high female labour force participation. <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">give example Childcare support may be seen more as a subsidy to female full-time work than to part-time work, and indeed, the share of part-time work in Nordic countries has declined. Other countries, such as the United States, manage however to achieve high female participation without large-scale subsidisation of childcare. In this case, because of a wide dispersion of wages, many households can afford to meet the costs of childcare by themselves. || [|OECD Observer] ||

Winner: Either solution 1 or 3. Statistics will be looked at in more depth to determine which is preferrable


 * 4. Albert C**


 * >  ||> Criteria ||> ﻿Evaluation - How does your solution stand up in the criteria || Source ||
 * > 1. ||> Cost ||> <span style="display: block; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">employing more instructors to train pilots through encouraging retired instructors to return to the workplace, and encouraging pilots to change employment to become instructors <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">who pays for this - is this a private cost or a government cost? <span style="display: block; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"> A focused national government initiative providing both technical training and employer support combined with some form of FEE – Help for both pilots and engineers. <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">How much does this initiative cost? e.g. how much was allocated in the budget  ||   ||
 * > 2. ||> Benefit ||> Companies training their own pilot are another alternative, similar to Rex Aviation. <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Albert - what are the benefits of each of your solutions - you need to find out the benefits for solution 1, the benefits for solution 2 and compare  || <span style="display: block; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">//[|Regionals suffer in pilot shortage]// ||
 * 3. || effectiveness || <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">pilot instructor numbers need to be increased by at least 15% over the next 5 years and an estimated 1800 additional pilots will be needed over the next 2 years. - <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">so which solution will do this ? <span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt;">a minimum increase of 5% in pilot instructors is need- s <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">o which solution will do this?  || [|Aviation Review] ||

Albert - you need to compare each of your solutions. For example with Cost - you need to compare your three solutions (using evidence supporting how much each one costs) and then pick a winning solution for cost. You then need to repeat this process for Benefits etc. You probably only need 3 criteria.

Ms Stevenson, the stuff that you marked for the Solutions section was not the right thing (real one got deleted somehow). I will post the actual one here.
 * 5. Peter C**

Solution 1: Get rid of the national system and change it so that the money is distributed to each state, and health workers are payed by their local representatives Solution 2:Get rid of the current system (go back to old one) and if a similar one is implemented, run both systems is tandem to make sure there are no problems with it before making it the standard Solution 3: Bring in Foregin specialists to fix the system <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Good start - but now you need to start finding evidence and statistics to back up your claims.
 * || Solutions to the problem that the recent nurses pay dispute will have an adverse affect on the economy || Source ||
 * 1 || Get rid of the national system and change it so that the money is distributed to each state, and health workers are payed [<span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">paid] by their local representatives ||  ||
 * 2 || Get rid of the current system (go back to old one) and if a similar one is implemented, run both systems is tandem to make sure there are no problems with it before making it the standard ||  ||
 * 3 || Bring in Foregin specialists to fix the system || [|�10�] ||
 * || Criteria || Evaluation - how does your solution stand up in this criteria || Source - weblink (use link button above) ||
 * 1 || Time Frame || Would take the longest as requires a whole new system to be designed and implemented <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">does anyone have a view on how long this would take ||  ||
 * 2 || Cost || Fairly cheap
 * don't have to employ more people - <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">really? local reps already have a job - they are now going to have to do this job as well? ||  ||
 * 3 || Benefits || * better system then previous one <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">why? explain why
 * fixed system encourages nurses to go back to work
 * not having to worry about pay problems leads to higher productivity <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">provide some statistics or evidence here
 * less demand on the government as less out of pay nurses relying on benefits <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I don't understand this?
 * || Criteria || Evaluation - how does your solution stand up in this criteria || Source - weblink (use link button above) ||
 * 1 || Time Frame || Can be done very quickly as it only requires a shift back to the old system ||  ||
 * 2 || Costs || Very few as the system is already well known an tested. Although it would be expensive to change the systme, the additional costs would be minimal as it does not require any additional money for research and design . <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">would the costs therefore be the cost of the new system? You need to find out how much the new system cost? This solution would make the new system obsolete ||  ||
 * 3 || Benefits || * tried and true system
 * nurses already used to it
 * low costs <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">?
 * can be quickly implemented
 * fixed system encourages nurses to go back to work
 * not having to worry about pay problems leads to higher productivity
 * less demand on the government as less out of pay nurses relying on benefits ||  ||
 * || Criteria || Evaluation - how does your solution stand up in this criteria || Source - weblink (use link button above) ||
 * 1 || Time Frame || fairly quick as it is just a patch for the broken system (14 week contract) <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">where is your evidence or source for 14 weeks ||  ||
 * 2 || Costs || High costs- almost $350,000 <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">source? ||  ||
 * 3 || Benefits || * Best system if it can be made to work properly
 * fixed system encourages nurses to go back to work
 * not having to worry about pay problems leads to higher productivity
 * less demand on the government as less out of pay nurses relying on benefits


 * 6. Ian C**
 * Solution 1: Increase Number of Berths Operating at Dalrymple Bay**

- Increased exports thus growths in foreign sector - Increased exports may allow the production sector (mining companies) to meet their export contracts - Reduced Demurrage costs = More Profit for mining companies - Reduced queues at bay ||  || - Extra employees need to be employed to operate berths after construction ||  || However new timetable could be organised within months ||  || - Rail network will not have to be closed down for maintenance - Ability to transport more coal to Dalrymple bay thus more exports - More exports = more injections into production sector therefore the production sector will expand - Greater profit for QR ||  || - Extra long-term Maintenance Costs (due to extra tracks) - More services = more hours for employees = wages needed to be payed <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">would this be offset by productivity gains? ||  ||
 * **Criteria** || **Evaluation - How does your solution stand up in this criteria** || **Source** ||
 * Time Frame || - Can be implemented relatively quickly <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">how long does it take to build a berth .... check historically the time frame it has taken ||   ||
 * Benefit || - extra jobs for household sector
 * Cost || - Relatively Cheap <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">historically how much has this cost?
 * Solution 2: Upgraded Rail Network [including extra lines, more rail services]**
 * **Criteria** || **Evaluation - How does your solution stand up in this criteria** || **Source** ||
 * Time Frame || Long - very long and remote rail network
 * Time Frame || Long - very long and remote rail network
 * Benefit || - More employment - for construction and extra rail services
 * Cost || - Extra track is expensive to build, however the extra services may help QR in funding <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">how much does it cost to build extra tracks?


 * Solution 3: Coal Terminal Further South**

- Around 11 Years to construct after planning and approval for a 70 million tonne capacity <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">excellent research! - Approval time || [|Wiggins Island Coal Terminal] || - Relieving pressure from Dalrymple Bay - Reduced transport costs (closer to other mines) - Competition between ports may lead to competitive pricing - Boost local economy due to influx of workers - Demand for housing in area rises ||  || therefore May not be able to be covered by the queue management system savings deduction from Dalrymple Bay and the QMS would have to be implemented for a long time {please note Ms Stevenson, this is how I plan to fund all of my solutions using government policy}
 * **Criteria** || **Evaluation - How does your solution stand up in this criteria** || **Source** ||
 * Time Frame || Long - infrastructure, planning, new rail network, clients
 * Benefit || - More Jobs for household sector
 * Cost || - Extremely expensive [Approximately 4 Billion for a 70 Million Tonne Capacity] <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">excellent research!

- environmental costs (destroying cost line to construct) || [|Wiggins Coal Terminal] || <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Ian - some great research - well done ... see if you can boost solutions1&2 with some stats or evidence. Make sure you compare each of your solutions in the assignment by criteria and therefore make a decision per criteria (3 decisions) + an overall decision .... (So 4 decisions in total)

7. **Fletcher F**

8. **Callum G**

9. **Elliott G**

10. **James H**

11. **Noah K** Solutions to my economic problem that - A water shortage will have a serious effect on the economy Solution 1 - Government to subsudise water saving devices and products such as water tanks or low flow toilets Solution 2 - Government to invest in the development of new technologies and systems for conserving water and increasing the efficiency of current products/systems

COSTS As no solutions can ever be perfect, there are costs associated with both alternatives, and these costs must be taken into account when making any decision on how to best solve the water shortages. The most prominent cost involved in both these solutions is the financial cost. By subsidizing the devices already available, the Government must pay an amount that cannot be controlled, as it is up to the consumer to decide whether or not to buy the product, and therefore the government may be forced to allocate large amounts of money to these rebates. <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[any evidence on how much Government is subsidising at the moment - what was allocated in the Federal or State or Council budgets?] By investing in the production and development of new technology and devices, the government can choose exactly how much money to contribute, and will have no uncertainty as to how much money is required. <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[any evidence on how much Government is subsidising at the moment - what was allocated in the Federal or State or Council budgets?] This means that the rebate scheme may force the government to save money that could be better spent elsewhere, whereas investing in new products does not require any money to be unused. Due to the fact that investment gives the government greater control on the amount of money spend and does not require any excess or emergency funds, it is clear that the costs of this solution are far lower than the costs of subsidizing other products. <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[not sure this last sentence makes sense ....]

BENEFITS Both solutions bring about their own benefits, which may or may not cause the desired effect of reducing the demand for water. The rebate of devices already available will definitely have a positive short term effect, as many people will buy and use the products being subsidized, but the long term effects are relatively small, as these products may break or become damaged. <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[evidence - what is the break down rate, or has this been measure in Australia or has this happened o.s] By investing in new technologies, there is a lesser chance of returns from the investment [<span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">why invest then if no return?], but in the long term this decision is much better as it may permanently reduce demand through greater efficiency in the use and collection of water. <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[evidence] In the short term however, investing will be practically useless, as it will take time for the returns to begin o show. <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[how long does it take on average to produce a new product?] Due to the different benefits of both options, in the short term a subsidization scheme will be much more effective, but in the long term investment in new technology will provide greater returns, therefore a combination of the two would be optimal in the case of a severe drought.

EFFICIENCY As well as the costs and benefits of a solution, the efficiency of the solution must also be considered when making a decision. Due to the different time frames of the two solutions, they will both be efficient in different ways. For example, the rebates will cause a large short time impact, they will only be efficient for a small amount of time, and after that time has passed, their impact will decrease. Investment however, will have a very low efficiency in the short term, as it requires time for returns to emerge, but once they do emerge it will be effective for a long time, as the technologies can now be incorporated into products and systems in the future. The short term solution of rebates and subsidization will comparatively cost much more for a smaller return when compared to long term investment. This means that long term investment is much more efficient financially, as well as having a consistent impact in the future.<span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[Any evidence or stats? or uni professor's views?]

RECOMMENDATIONS By using the three criteria of cost, benefit, and efficiency, the best solution to Australia’s droughts can be easily decided upon. The long term investment in new products and system allows the government to regulate and manage the costs involved very easily, and this will provide long term relief from any water shortages that may occur in the future. Investment will also be more efficient financially, as a smaller investment will give larger returns when compared to rebates on water use reducing products. By rebating certain products that reduce water use, the Government can quickly reduce the demand for water in a time of scarcity, but the costs are relatively volatile, as there may be many people who buy the product, or there may be only a few. Due to this uncertainty, there much be funds in reserve that can be drawn upon if sales go too high, which means that there is money that could be used elsewhere not being used at all. In the short term, this option can quickly reduce demand, but it comes at a large financial price, and may not last very long. For these reasons, it would be optimal for the government to provide a steady flow of money that is invested in designing new product and systems in order to reduce the impact of a water shortage in the future, but also be prepared to subsidize products to quickly bring water demand down in a severe drought or other water crisis.<span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[this decision has been make without evidence]

<span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Noah - great comparisons by criteria but you do not have any evidence in the above ... you must find facts and statistics to back up your claims ..... 12. **Sam L** Solution 1: <span style="display: block; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">government funded old for new car buyback scheme

Criteria: 1.Cost- a estimated 7.5 million cars in Australia are registered as more then 10 years old. As such, at $3000 per car a maximum total of $22,500,000 of government payouts will emerge from this scheme for the first year, however not everyone will crush there current car and therefore it can be expected to be lower in the year of introduction. <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">great - make sure you have a source for this?

2. Effectivness- Able to reduce transport emissions drastically if taken up by the australian population. Example being, a 1998 toyota camry 2.2 produces 232 grams of CO2 per km while the 2010 toyota camry hybrid produces 84 grams per km, a improvment of 276%. <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> great - check your spelling and make sure you have a source for this

<span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">3. Third criteria?

<span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Sam - this is good for your first solution but you need to find a third criteria to evaluate this solution. You then need to find a second solution and evaluate it using the same three criteria. Make sure you compare each of your solutions in the assignment by criteria and therefore make a decision per criteria (3 decisions) + an overall decision .... (So 4 decisions in total)

13. **Caleb L**

14. **Angus L**

<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Importing Doctors:

<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">May not be trained to Australian Standards <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">so how much does this cost to do this bridging course? How many places are available? <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Time <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">how long does it take to process these doctors and how long does the bridging course go for? ||  || <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">No training costs- arrive ready to work <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">That is not what you have said above? ||  || <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Many doctors are needed <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">How many? <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">May increase unemployment in Australia <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Only for foreign workers? Any domestic impact? ||  ||
 * || **<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Criterion **  ||  **<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Evaluation **  ||  **<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Source **  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">1 || <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Cost  || <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Processing costs –visa’s <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> how much does this cost?
 * <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">2 || <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Benefit  || <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Have to buy/ rent housing (living costs)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">3 || <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Effectiveness & Efficiency  || <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Long term solution to the problem. <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Any evidence for this - who agrees with you?

<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Lower Retirement rates: <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Do you mean increase retirement age?

<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Lose support – no future doctors at <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I don't understand this? ||  || <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Is applicable now  ||   || <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">May make problem worse in long run- encourages people not to become doctors <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">why ||   ||
 * || **<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Criterion **  ||  **<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Evaluation **  ||  **<span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Source **  ||
 * <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">1 || <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Cost  || <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">May have to pay more benefits for retired doctors <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> who pays this? does this happen overseas?
 * <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">2 || <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Benefit  || <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Trained to Australian Standards
 * <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">3 || <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Effectiveness & Efficiency  || <span style="font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Only short term fix

<span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Angus - good start but you do not have any evidence in the above ... you must find facts and statistics to back up your claims ..... what does the AMA think? What do Doctor Groups think? What do Uni Professors think? What does the govenremnt think?

15. **Hamish L**

Solution 1: Importing skilled workers from the foreign sector <span style="display: block; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 17px;">these workers would need little to no training so not as much money spent on this facet || understand you don't need a source here - but you might be able to find out admin cost to issue a visa? and i cant find a source/dont know where to look ||
 * **Criteria** || **Evaluation - How does your solution stand up in this criteria** || **Source** ||
 * Cost || The overall cost for such a large scale migration plan will be minimal. The only real money spent will go towards administration costs for arranging visas etc.
 * Benefit || The benefit that such a large increase in resources will give is massive. Also an increase in the labor force will lead to an increase in output and exports and therefore a large gain in money for the resources sector, which will go into output and income, which will give more money into they household sector then before and overall a large expansion in the economy

this large increase in population would give a boost back into the housing market as the demand picks up with all the new workers seeking households || you need a source here [|rpdata] || the percentage of sponsored skill as opposed to unsponsored skill that is migratiing through skilled labour migration has increased from around 20% in 2004 to almost 60% currently. An overhaul of the currently implemented s457 immigration system which is limiting around three and a half thousand skilled workers could see a whole new solution to the scarcity in the labour force. || [|Acacia Immigration Australia]
 * Effectiveness & Efficiency || The skilled migration program for Australia has undergone many changes over the last 4 years, these changes are continuously working towards a more effective and efficient skilled migration program. For example the previously implemented critical skills list is to be revoked after poor effectiveness and to be replaced with the new skilled occupations list. The skilled occupations list, SOL, will include occupations "where the economic impact of not having the skills is significant." It is also said that the result will most likely be a much shorter list which should hopefully lead to greater efficiency with a more precise detailing of occupations.

[|ready migration] || Solution 2: Improvements in Training and Education

|| <span style="color: #ff0000; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Hamish - this looks pretty good - Make sure you compare each of your solutions in the assignment by criteria and therefore make a decision per criteria (3 decisions) + an overall decision .... (So 4 decisions in total). Also ensure that your sources provide you with additional facts and statistics to back up you r claims.
 * **Criteria** || **Evaluation - How Does your solution stand up in this criteria** || **Source** ||
 * Cost || The government has planned to fund $200 million over the next four years through the critical skills fund which goes towards:
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">up-skilling eligible companies existing workers
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">training for unemployed job seekers;
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">training for mature age trades people at the Certificate IV or Diploma level to allow them to move into a role as a supervisor, workplace trainer/assessor or mentor to support young workers, including apprentices;
 * <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">other priorities following the report of the National Resources Sector Employment Taskforce. || [|media release]
 * Benefit || he benefit that such a large increase in resources will give is massive. Also an increase in the labor force will lead to an increase in output and exports and therefore a large gain in money for the resources sector, which will go into output and income, which will give more money into they household sector then before and overall a large expansion in the economy    will not have to draw on overseas migration and therefore, population will not increase to drastically   no new housing will need to be built which would possibly cost monies  ||   ||
 * Efficiency || a large scale training program could be very effective however training takes time and the labour shortage may be much worse by the time workers get proper training, a more immediate and viable solution needs to be found.  ||   ||
 * Equity || delete ||  ||

16. **Neil M**

17. **Jon O**

18. **Josiah** Dependent on which alternate fuel is pursued; Cost (may be cheaper) Likely to be more environmentally friendly More stable, non-politically based pricing
 * Solution 1 : Focus on finding an alternative fuel**
 * **Criteria** || **Evaluation - how does your solution stand up in this criteria** || **Source - weblink (use link button above)** ||
 * 1. Effectiveness ||  || [|DPI] ||   ||
 * 2.Cost ||  || [|Sustainability] ||   ||
 * 3.Equity || Advantages:

Disadvantages: Dependent on which alternate fuel is pursued; Cost (may be more expensive) May be harder to produce and or distribute || [|FossilFuels] ||  || This research is not adequate

Solution 2: ?????
 * **Criteria** || **Evaluation - how does your solution stand up in this criteria** || **Source - weblink (use link button above)** ||
 * 1 ||  ||   ||   ||
 * 2 ||  ||   ||   ||
 * 3 ||  ||   ||   ||

19. **Keiran S**

20 **Craig S**

Solution 1. <span style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #0000ff; display: block; font-size: 11pt; height: 85.3pt; width: 702.25pt;">Evaluation of Privatisation of the Electricity industry Cost of breaking up the state-owned generators into smaller companies. Costs due to the above should be easily recovered from the sale of assets. Generation costs currently amount to 44% of the electricity prices No liabilities (eg. subsidies, wages, pensions, maintenance…) should reduce this. Will be a high number of redundancies but a distinct feature of state-owned industry was excessive over manning.
 * 1.Cost to Government || Generation

Transmissions and Distribution Again there will be redundancies for the reason above. Reduced liabilities and less waste. The outsourced activity would be selected from established contractors who are already in competition with each other. This would aid in reducing costs. Generation costs currently amount to 47% of the electricity prices.

Retailers Government issues (sells) more licences and thus revenue is created. 5 Years after privatisation in the UK, the Government was £1.2 billion better off. [great point] Qld has $8 billion in generation, more than $3.9 billion in transmission and more than $13 billion in distribution. || [|Public Policy for the Private Sector] [|Department of Mines and Energy] [|National Audit Office (UK)] ||

New companies can be bought at discounted rates. In the UK the profits in the shares of the privatised companies equated to £ 9.7 billion (less sales proceeds). Free market results in competition. Consequently there will be less waste and more productivity (more efficient overall). Thus lower electricity prices.
 * 2. Cost to Consumer || Generators

Transmissions and Distribution End of easily approved multi-billion dollar spending schemes for Energex and Ergon because of outsourced activity. Increased efficiency and productivity means less tax and lower electricity prices for consumer. At the moment, all of Queensland pays electricity at the same rate regardless of T+D cost to that area (ie. Roma pays the same as Brisbane despite different distribution costs). This is due to Government subsidies. No subsidies result in fairer and more competitive prices ie. transparent costs

Retailers More retailers, more competition, more choice. Lower prices for most areas. Rural areas will face higher prices. 7 years after privatisation (in the UK) electricity prices were cut by 20%. || [|Department of Mines and Energy] ||

Discounted share prices encourage public investment which means this is no longer a liability for the consumer or government. Companies can then afford to maintain assets. || source? ||
 * 3. Future Investments || As power stations and other assets age they need to be replaced or rebuilt.

Solution 2: Evaluation of Regulated Electricity Industry

No restructuring resulting in no extra costs Money is made through the sale of assets. Qld currently significant electricity assets worth approximately $8 billion in generation, more than $3.9 billion in transmission and more than $13 billion in distribution. No longer under Government control and so no longer a liability (wages, pensions, maintenance…). No redundancies
 * 1. Cost to Government || Generators

Transmissions and Distribution Gains and losses as companies exceed and fail to reach industry standard.

Retailers Increased revenue due to sales of licences.

Cost of regulating market || [|Department of Mines and Energy] ||

More competition, lower prices. No government input should result in less tax.
 * 2. Cost to Consumer || Generators

Transmissions and Distribution Regulated standard means decent levels of efficiency and productivity. Results in lower prices.

Retailers More choice and more competition. Therefore lower prices.

Regulation of T+D and the retailers would insure the security of supply of electricity (like when the industry was predominantly state-owned) yet also result in sensible electricity prices. || [|National Audit Office (UK)] ||

Regulated market insures a constant price level in the long term. Regulated market provides a steady return for the investor. || source ||
 * 3. Future Investments || Old assets no longer a liability for the consumer of Government.

Privatisation - best solution Benefits the government in reducing its liabilities and increases revenue from sale of assets Benefits the consumer in lower prices due to competition (which leads to higher efficiency and productivity) Helps future investments (with no burden on government or consumer). Potential of very high returns.

Great - when you write this up - use headings in your report that reflect criteria e.g. 3.1 Costs to Government. In this para - compare the 2 solutions and come up with a winner. Repeat this process for the other 2 criteria and then in your 4.0 Conclusion - make your final recommendation

21. Cameron W