Letter of the month: Accountants have hardest jobs to fill

It's become a very loud noise and it's everywhere. There are articles highlighting the strain on young talent in public practice, talent salary issues, retaining older or experienced talent, and global opportunities for talent. Consider the 24 page 'OnTheJob' lift out (May INTHEBLACK). So when does it pay not to advertise? That would be in a skills shortage.

Accountants recently rated number four in Australia's 'hardest jobs to fill', topped by sales professionals, engineers and skilled trades.

Connect Personnel reports that an international survey conducted by Manpower of 43,000 employers across 32 countries found accountants as number four on the top 10 most wanted list. Australia also ranked fifth in the world in terms of difficulties finding talent, mostly behind leading Asian economies.

In the local area job market for Newcastle and the Hunter Valley for example, the Newcastle Herald reported job growth has been described as 'particularly exciting' having increased 11.7 per cent in the 12 months to March, 2008. However, (Hunter Business Chamber reports that) 'you won't find an accountant, electrician, engineer or IT professional who is not in work at the moment'.

Yet when it comes to advertising for talent, smaller accounting firms, perhaps feeling rises in their advertising costs, must run repeat ads to have any hope of attracting staff.

While Facebook may be OK for the big four as a cool new recruitment channel, smaller firms don't have this luxury, or the formal graduate intake programs of their larger rivals. Other than to advertise, advertise and advertise, they seem to have few options if they are to remain competitive and maintain the strategic capability to deliver on the services they offer.

So skills shortage or not, if you really want to get somebody's attention, make the biggest noise

Hugh Reedman ASA
Via email

Climate change and the risks of inaction

Climate Change (March INTHEBLACK, 'Calculating your carbon footprint') is the result of human actions on top of the results of past natural events. The sum total is currently causing global warming, the effects of which are mostly upsetting to our current way of life.

Vested interests seek to frustrate efforts to reduce these dangers. The IPCC and thousands of the world's leading research scientists have solid proof that global warming is upon us, and that if human actions are not changed urgently the results will be increasingly severe. For a quick catch up try Robert Henson's The Rough Guide to Climate Change.

Human population growth from about 6 billion in 2000 to a projected 9 billion by 2050 will create major problems. Millions of people are underfed now,
and this growth would require 50 per cent more food just to maintain our present levels.

But global warming is reducing, not increasing our food production. Medical success is keeping people alive and creating rapid growth in numbers, but with probably decreasing genetic health levels. This is the root cause of our medical crisis in Australia.

The diversion of food growing capacity to producing bio fuels because of peak oil (available oil now declining while demand is increasing rapidly) is further complicating our over population problem.

The oil crisis is not caused by global warming but it sure increases our problems. The days of the petrol / diesel guzzling SUVs are numbered, but what do we see on the market? Unlimited vehicles in black (so you will use more air conditioning), with an occasional hybrid available if you wait.

But Australia is different, we have abundant sunshine, quite a bit of wind in spots, adequate geothermal supplies and wave and other energy potential. Yes, we have done a bit. A little bit.

The Queensland government offered a substantial subsidy to 1000 potential solar panel users, it was rushed. But the sad part is that these panels on offer are costly and not as productive as the cheaper SLIVER panels, which were invented years ago by the ANU and developed with financial help from Origin Energy, which took patent rights and made a small amount in solar city Adelaide to prove their superiority.

They would have been ideal for Australia to develop our own fully electric vehicles, remember the Darwin to Adelaide race recently?

Wind power is developing slowly as well. In 2006, China showed the world it had a MagLev version of wind turbines, which is 20 per cent more efficient than current models, and can start generating at lower wind speeds.

I have tried to get the federal government and industry to check them over, they would be great on, say Sydney's ocean front cliffs, and other suitable locations, but no attempt to even look at them seems to have resulted.

Geothermal power production is getting nearer, but 'clean coal' seems like a pipe dream. We do have uranium deposits (but no nuclear energy expertise). The northern hemisphere's major cities desperately need it to reduce death causing pollution.

Is your organisation looking to what it can do to reduce Australia's carbon imprint? Not just little things like turning off computers when they are not needed or changing light bulbs, but switching production from items with high power use to more helpful items. Or building new buildings to 'green' designs. Some have. Or are you waiting for the emissions trading scheme to get off the ground?

Did you know that China leads the world as the nation doing the most to actually reduce carbon emissions now?

Each year's carbon emissions will plague us for over 100 years.

Nat B Wheatley
Graceville Qld

Financially unpalatable

Brad Peters ('Forewarned is forearmed', April INTHEBLACK) comments that 'one of the most common and critical mistakes investors make is to pull money out of falling markets'. He may care to direct this advice to Japanese equity investors, whose market is down about 65 per cent from the 1989
All time high point. It may well be what Mr Peters describes as 'essentially [a] paper loss'.

Nevertheless, Japanese investors down 65 per cent after 19 years are going to have to live a long time to turn their 'paper losses' into a gain, paper or otherwise.

I don't think investors in Bear Stearns, Allco, MFS or indeed depositors in UK bank Northern Rock, to name a few, would be assuaged by Mr Peters' comment or find his views financially palatable.

Declan Conry CPA
Via email

A changing environment for director penalty notices

April INTHEBLACK published an article I wrote ('Directors' liability to the Tax Office') that dealt with director penalty notices (DPNs). As an indication of how fast the position can change, the New South Wales Court of Appeal handed down a decision in DCT v Meredith [2007] NSWCA 354 in December 2007.

This case changes one of the points made in that article, specifically when service of a DPN is deemed to have occurred.

Service of DPNs may be done 'by leaving it at, or sending it by post to, an address that appears from [ASIC or ATO] documents to be, or to have been within the last seven days, the person's place of residence or business'.

The article said: 'It may be possible to argue that the notice was not received for a few days after it was issued, but positive evidence will have to be given proving the actual delivery date of the notice. Generally, once the ATO proves that the notice was posted, the deemed delivery provisions in the relevant Acts will be upheld if there is any doubt and little evidence.'

Meredith has changed that position. The relevant words in the section are: 'sending it by post to, an address ...'

The Court of Appeal said: 'It is sufficient to ... conclude that the statutory precondition to recover under s222AOE was satisfied by sending the notice by post to the relevant address.' The word to concentrate on is 'sending'. The position at the moment appears to be that the timing of receipt of notices and the ability to submit positive evidence of actual receipt under the Interpretations Acts was not available if the ATO used the option of sending the DPN to the address listed with ASIC. Once the notice is sent it is served, even if it is not received.

The practical consequence is that directors have 14 days from when the notice was posted, not when it was received, to take the appropriate action. Given that delivery may take a few days, especially in regional areas, and that weekends may intervene, the time remaining for directors to make decisions and act upon them may be very limited. They can no longer rely on up to four business days deemed service, or the date when they did receive the notice.

We have not heard whether this decision will be appealed or not.

Undoubtedly there will be commentary issued over the next few months, but regardless of the final interpretation of this decision, directors must act quickly to avoid personal liability.

Michael Peldan
Partner, Worrells Solvency & Forensic Accountants
Brisbane

Care to comment on any business or accounting issue, or want to let us know what you think of INTHEBLACK? Send your feedback to: INTHEBLACK.inbasket@itechne.com

Letters should be kept to fewer than 250 words, and may be edited for length and style. Next month, the writer of the letter of the month receives a bottle of Chandon Vintage Brut.

Visit CPA Australia's president blog to discuss topics with the president and other members.

Reference: June 2008, volume 78:05, p. 10-11