“There is currently no Australian Accounting Standard that comprehensively deals with intangible assets. However there are general requirements contained in a number of standards that are applied to intangible assets.“

And then the policy goes on to explain:

“The main impact of this standard on ACT Government agencies is in relation to software, as this is the only material intangible asset that is held by the ACT.“

I’m asking you- how is something “material intangible”? According to a Princeton definition it can be one or the other…If you take away the physical code of this asset, it won’t function. Operating systems in this definition are described as tangible (they are make of code, too) but application software isn’t. But for classifying reasons (and tax purposes?), we can look at it any way we want, I suppose. Further down in this defining policy:

“Internally generated brands, mastheads, publishing titles, customer lists and items similar in substance shall not be recognised as intangible assets. This is because expenditure on these internally generated intangibles cannot be distinguished from the cost of developing the business as a whole. Therefore, such items are not recognised as intangible assets”.

Brands are NOT defined as intangibles. Wow! Al these scholars who define IA’s as …must clearly not be thinking of the same thing as the policy makers in NSW!

Since 2001, where Daley found that Australia is not utilising intangible assets (IA) to its full advantage, and therefore falling behind in R&D, something interesting has happened.

The economy boomed on the back of the mining and resource demand despite study findings that the IA driven economy is the sustainable future direction for developed nations.

The advocates of social capital and the creative class seem pretty silent after the dot com crash and amongst the gold rush mentality of the current mining boom in Western Australia.

Perth, Western Australia is a prime example of a state in an identity struggle for the quest to please existing and new citizens.

Although there is a movement to revitalise the city and a call to continue with the IA paradigm to ‘build a state of creativity’ , we are a far cry from amalgamating the operational with the mundane concept of ‘culture and the arts’ in this city.

The money flow that is currently pouring down on the employees and stakeholders of the resource boom, manifests itself also in the State Governments announcements such as:

“Our scientists deserve our support…

“And so too do those employed in our creative industries.
Our local music and fashion scenes are setting the pace.
Again we have so many examples of individual brilliance
and talent in WA. So much potential. All it needed was a spark.

“Two months ago we announced the “Ignite Package” – the
single biggest ever funding boost to Western Australian
cultural and creative industries.

The $73 million injection, over and above the $160 million
already budgeted, will provide unprecedented support for
our most creative people. Support in so many ways.

• Better facilities.
• Greater reward and recognition.
• More and better performances and productions.

“So many different components – different parts of this
package – that will amaze you.

“It will also be used to lever matching donations from the
corporate sector to purchase new art. That fund should be
$25-30million….” Premier Carpenter, 13 Feb 2008 – Speech to the Committee for Economic Development Australia (CEDA)

However, increasing skills and entertainment of residing citizens does not exponentially increase IA. Should we look to IA business models for the state? Quo Vadis, creative state of mind?