Speakers: Business Council Chief Executive, Bran Black
Date: 23 March 2026
Topics: Middle East conflict, BCA Global Investment Competitiveness Index, supply chain impacts
E&OE
Bran Black, Chief Executive: We recently released our Global Investment Competitiveness Index, and that showed that Australia ranks 21st of 42 of our competitors against which we undertook this measuring exercise. This is important because the index shows that in areas where we really put our shoulder to the wheel, like trade, we do exceedingly well. We’ve moved from 11th to 2nd over the course of six years, from 2019 through to 2025.
What it also shows is that there are areas in which we really need to provide additional effort, specifically with respect to regulation and taxation. On regulation, we rank 37th on taxation, we rank 38th.
Now, what our index does is look at a whole series of different settings. We look at seven areas all up, and within those seven areas, we consider 17 different metrics. The seven areas are rule of law, trade, we look at energy, we consider taxation, regulation, labour settings, and we also look at investment openness, which goes to our foreign investment review arrangements.
As I said, we do particularly well in some areas like trade, but we’ve got enormous work to do in other areas like regulation and taxation. The important point that I want to make today, and the reason why we’re making this announcement today, is that we’ve been able to calculate that if Australia were to increase its ranking, if we were able to move up the table from 21 to a top 10 position, then we could see our GDP increase by up to $790 billion.
I’ll say that again, if we increase our ranking from 21 to a top 10 position, we could see our GDP increase by up to $790 billion, that’s nothing to be sneezed at. And in real terms, that means that Australians are benefiting. It means that we’re getting more investment, there are more jobs, there are more taxes paid, and ultimately, the quality of life for all Australians improves. And that’s what ultimately success looks like.
The final point that I want to make is that when we’re in the context of looking at how we can improve our performance in these rankings, we need to consider how we can attract investment from the most impactful companies. And we know that it’s the largest 1 per cent of companies that account for 75 per cent of business investment.
So when we’re looking at policies to improve our competitiveness, we need to look at policies that benefit all businesses, small, medium and large businesses as well. At the end of the day, it’s investment that we need to secure to drive our productivity, to boost living standards.
That’s what success looks like. Very happy to take questions if people have any.
Journalist: Would you be comfortable with paying for a business investment allowance or some kind of business incentive to boost investment with a royalty or an increase in the PRRT or a tax on coal and gas, as the government has apparently been considering?
Bran: We think it is the wrong approach to be looking at increasing taxes on businesses at this time.
Journalist: Would you rather tax breaks elsewhere? Like the 1 per cent that, you know, you talked about those companies that are most innovative. What if you were to take from one part of the economy and boost business investment in another part?
Bran: We don’t support increased burdens on businesses at this time. What is clear is that across the board, we’re seeing that there are already significant taxes that businesses are paying. Our rate, our standard company tax rate of 30 per cent, is internationally uncompetitive when you consider it against the OECD average of 23 to 24 per cent.
And in circumstances where we need to attract more investment, and let’s be clear here, this was precisely what the Treasurer was contemplating last week when he talked about leaning into the challenges that we’re seeing overseas as a basis for improving our capacity for productive reform, in these circumstances, we need to make sure that we improve our settings for all companies.
Journalist: When it comes to work from home measures and the potential option to reduce fuel usage, obviously, you’ve said that it could have hurt some small businesses. But is there concern about the capacity for employees and some of the businesses that you cover in being able to afford to actually get to work if public transport isn’t an option?
Bran: I think we’ve just got to be sensible and smart here. What we’re seeing in terms of this particular challenge, the fuel supply challenge that we’re experiencing as a consequence of the conflict in the Middle East, is that there are similarities to the Covid circumstances that we experienced some years ago, but there are also differences.
The similarities are that we’ve got supply chain challenges. The differences are that we don’t need to socially isolate. So we already have arrangements in place and we’ve supported arrangements being negotiated as between employers and employees on a workplace by workplace basis that deliver flexibility in workplaces, and that includes working from home arrangements.
So let’s be smart about those. If we can continue to work according to those arrangements, and continue on that basis to come into work utilising public transport, reducing our fuel consumption as a consequence of that, but also being able to therefore support those small businesses that rely upon foot traffic, let’s do that. Let’s be smart about it.
Journalist: Are you against expanding any of those work from home measurers just temporarily to meet this issue?
Bran: What we’re saying again, let’s be intelligent about how we go about looking at this. If we can sensibly reduce our consumption by utilising public transport, let’s do that. If there are employees who aren’t able to use public transport, then they’re going to have different arrangements that apply. But where you can use public transport, where you can continue to come to work, and where you can, as a consequence of that, continue to support small business, then I would heavily encourage people to do that.
Journalist: So does an idea like perhaps using public transport, governments making that free, for example. Does that need to be a step first before they mandate people, perhaps, working from home or greater encouragement for them to work from home?
Bran: Look, I think let’s just deal with the issue in front of us right now, which, very clearly, is giving consideration to how we can go about making sure that as much as possible we maximise the capacity for people to continue to support small businesses, but doing it sensibly. As I say, if you can’t take public transport to work, that’s a different situation entirely.
But if you can, why not do it and why not continue to support your local small businesses?
Journalist: And just on that idea of those that can’t take public transport, are you open to the idea, or would you suggest that businesses consider subsidising petrol costs, travel costs for those employees that might need to come in but can’t necessarily afford to anymore with current fuel prices?
Bran: Again, I think it just goes back to the answer that I provided before. Let’s be smart about the way that we’re looking at it right now. Where you can use public transport, we would encourage you to do.
Journalist: (inaudible).
Bran: I think it’s a really good question, because it goes to the fact that there are so many unknowns that we’re experiencing right now. I wish I could stand here and say we know precisely what’s going to happen, and as a consequence of that, we’re putting in place steps to address all of these different scenarios. But the reality is that we can’t anticipate everything.
In these circumstances, and as per the Covid experience, what we have learned is that we need to try and plan for a variety of different scenarios and in the context of scenario planning right now, that means looking at particular supply potential constraints and seeing what the different mitigations are that we can put in place to address those potential constraints.
I know that’s the work that the Government’s doing. It’s certainly doing it with respect to fuel. We’ve already seen useful measures stood up. But we know that in due course, we need to be considering and, indeed, I note we already are considering so many different other areas as well. The business community is closely engaged with government in that process. That’s precisely what you’d expect. That’s what you’d hope for. And we know that that process will continue.
Journalist: The Treasurer said he wants business tax reforms to be Budget neutral or better. But he’s thinking very much in a straight first order effects underlying cash balance, money in, money out, flat. Do you think that’s the right way to be thinking about this, or should he be thinking more broadly about the up to $790 billion of this additional GDP that you’re talking about here, and what that could then mean in better income taxes, higher corporate taxes, the second round effects that aren’t currently considered?
Bran: We do think there should be more consideration given to second round effects and we’ve been clear on that in terms of our communications for some time. If you take the research and development tax incentive as an example of that, we prepared modelling, I think about this time last year, or perhaps six months ago and what that showed is that for an investment of about $1.4 billion that would return to government coffers something in the order of $1.9 billion because it would increase GDP by $7.7 billion.
So we would like those types of effects to be able to be considered in the context of planning. We think that’s a useful approach. And not all measures, of course, are going to stack up in the way that the research and development tax incentive proposal that I just mentioned does. But we think that we should be able to be open to have those types of conversations.
We see that there are other countries around the world that have taken that approach. They’ll look at the competitiveness of their company tax settings, and they’ll consider that if they have a more competitive company tax approach, a more competitive effective tax rate, then that means they’re able to secure more investment over time, ultimately to use the standard expression expanding the pie, meaning that in the end, they take away more tax revenue.
Journalist: Is the Treasurer being a bit short-sighted in that demand then to have Budget neutrality?
Bran: Well, look, I would just reiterate the point that we would encourage consideration of proposals that have really demonstrably useful second round benefits. We think that there are some great proposals out there. I’d highlight, once again, that point that I just made in terms of the research and development tax incentive. To my mind, that stands out.
We know, for instance, from overseas experience. If you look at the Catapult system in the UK, which is direct investment in specific precincts for research and development, that has a £5.50 return for every one pound invested. That’s an example that’s already out there in practice.
We’re saying let’s utilise a similar type of approach for the purposes of taking assessments that ultimately yield more investment for Australia.
Journalist: What’s the BCA’s response to the Government’s new guidelines or requirements for data centres needing to basically fund their own power?
Bran: Look, it’s a really good question. When I talk to our members about data centre development, they are acutely conscious of the need to be responsible and proactive in terms of energy and water and planning, and they’re very heavily leaning into that. If you consider the remarks that have been made in recent times by the Chief Executive of AirTrunk, Robin Khuda, you can see that he’s specifically addressing these types of issues.
We know that in the course of realising opportunities like data centres, which are real opportunities for Australia, we need to take the community with us, as we always do, as we advance into new areas of opportunity, and that means having an appropriately robust approach to managing the community along the way. But at the same time, we cannot forget that this is an extraordinary opportunity. Australia is a safe environment. We have ample sources of renewable energy, we have a secure rule of law, we have space, we have good planning settings. All of those things matter in the context of decisions to invest in data centres. We should be heavily leaning into that. Here’s a major opportunity for us to grow our economy.
Journalist: The head of the IEA has said that the current shocks (inaudible). Is that what your members are also telling you?
Bran: I think the question underlines the point that we need to be planning for all scenarios. That’s certainly what our members are doing. We’ve seen over the course of the last couple of weeks that our members have really stepped up their work in scenario planning. We’ve seen some members comment that scenarios that they started with are scenarios that need to be revisited now, because they see that the war is likely to drag on. They see that there is certainly a risk that there may be further supply implications. It’s not just a case of fuel, but considering what the downstream implications of fuel restrictions are.
So in all of those scenarios, they need to be considering, well, what are the mitigating steps. That’s the work that our members are doing. That’s the work that Australia’s companies are doing. But importantly, that’s the work that Australia’s companies are doing collaboratively with government. And that’s the point that I want to stress. This is a time where we really do need to adopt a ‘Team Australia’ moment. We need to come together, we need to be working together, we need to be collaborative, we need to be engaged and we need to recognise that it’s only by being together and working together that we’ll get through it.
Journalist: Andrew Charlton this morning said that Australia’s copyright system, the status quo was not working, especially in terms of attracting AI and computer training models to Australia. Do you think that is right? What kind of reforms would you like to see, or your members like to see to copyright laws to get that investment in?
Bran: So what we’ve indicated is that we think that, to the greatest possible extent, with artificial intelligence, we should be looking to rely on existing regulation. Now, I would make that point more broadly, not just with respect to AI, that wherever we see a potential opportunity to impose additional regulation, we should consider first whether or not there’s a gap. And if there’s a gap, only if there’s a gap, should we look to step in.
Our position specifically in this regard has been that, to the greatest possible extent, we should be looking to rely on our existing copyright provisions, but we recognise that there are content creators who might not want to have large language models utilise their works for the purposes of training their models. And so in those circumstances, our position has been that there should be scope for content creators to opt out.
And the technology for that exists. And that would mean that there is then an opportunity for those content creators, if they wish, to engage with large language models for the purposes of licensing arrangements.
Journalist: In your response to a previous question, you were talking about this ‘Team Australia’ model and planning for future scenarios in terms of fuel mitigation. But what are the specific measures that your members are taking right now to meet this crisis? (Inaudible).
What is the business community doing now to mitigate this?
Bran: The critical thing that we are doing, and the critical thing that we need to continue to do, is talk with Government, talk with other businesses, understand where the supply constraints are, what steps we can take to mitigate those. If you look at fuel as an example, that’s a really good example, because we’ve seen that at the moment, the challenges that we’re experiencing are largely driven by increased demand.
The consequence of that is that we need fuel suppliers to be working directly with the independents, with the smaller retailers, and we’re already seeing that’s happening now as well and of course, talking with government about their expectations with respect to further shipments.
If we can continue those types of conversations, then we’ve got scope to understand better what the potential impacts are, and therefore put in place mitigating actions. And those actions can include, as we’ve seen, standing up National Cabinet so there is that nationwide coordination, setting up the national coordination mechanism so that there is direct scope for engagement between government and business, and also appointment of the Fuel Coordinator to help make sure that we’re having the types of conversations that I just mentioned. It’s this type of approach that we need right across the board, and that we are starting to see, which is really important.
Journalist: Do you have any response to the reports today that Australia is potentially using its LNG coal resources to secure oil supplies from overseas?
Bran: Well, I think in times such as this, where we are looking to engage with our friends and partners overseas to secure supplies of fuel into Australia, I believe it is counterproductive to be putting potentially additional burdens on the fuel that they rely on for their own quality of life, being our LNG.
So I think in these circumstances, what has made us attractive has been our capacity to be a reliable trading partner for so many decades now. We should continue to operate as a reliable trading partner.