it will be interesting to see to what happens to Aust three years down the track.

This is a key issue of book I am currently writing on Abbot govt's first term.

Interestingly, 75% of debate on the Economist stated manufacturing crucial to economic success.

http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/717

Dear Graham,

Thank you for the article.

Here is where I am struggling with your survey.

Yours was conducted in December as was this one by Essential;

http://essentialvision.com.au/documents/essential_report_131217.pdf

They asked;

Q. How important is it that Australia has a car manufacturing industry, even if it needs hundreds of millions of dollars each year in Government support and investment?

And they found;

"60% think it is important that Australia has a car manufacturing industry, even if it needs hundreds of millions of dollars each year in Government support and investment while 33% think it is not important. This is a slight increase in both measures since October as those saying “don’t know” has declined from 12% to 6%."

"Labor voters are most likely to think a car manufacturing industry is important (70%) while Liberal/National voters are split (50% important/46% not)."

What I am particularly interested in is the differences between the LNP polling in the two surveys. For your figures to have only 2% of Liberal/National voters disagreeing with Tony Abbott's decision to abandon Toyota and thus car manufacturing seems just too much at odds with Essential's polling and even just the general sentiment in my community, many whom include rusted on Liberal Voters (although this being a car manufacturing region might have something to do with that).

If you figures are coming from the OLO community then I acknowledge that the proportion of let's say the more vigorous species of conservative supporters might prevail to some extent, but still the discrepancy surely can't just lie there and in the way the questions were phrased.

I'm interested to hear your assessment.

Neatly selective, Chris Lewis.

>>Interestingly, 75% of debate on the Economist stated manufacturing crucial to economic success.<<

In the proposer's opening remarks in that debate, we find:

"Of course, there are some countries, such as Australia, that maintain high living standards without a big manufacturing sector, thanks to exceptional natural resource endowments. But most other countries are not so lucky. Without a substantial and productive manufacturing base, it is impossible for them to attain high living standards."

Note particularly the "them" in the last sentence, which recasts the debate as "unless your country has exceptional natural resource endowments..."

Nevertheless, I agree with the underlying theme. Australia needs to plan for the next phase of our economic story, when we can no longer rely upon the cushion of primary industry. We don't need to panic about it just yet - unless of course we allow Clive Palmer to single-handedly screw our entire minerals export industry. Frankly, having to deal with people like him would have most countries scurrying for a more realistic and less arrogant, home-town-litigious business partner.

But plan we must. And I see not the slightest hint that any politician of any stripe is prepared to open the debate with anything except the most banal of platitudes.

At the same time, let's be honest with ourselves. Attitudes like the following will guarantee that no manufacturing industry will ever be profitable in Australia:

"[Toyota] had been embroiled in a bruising industrial battle with the AMWU over the enterprise agreement. Australian car making was already in trouble, with a soaring dollar and massive global overcapacity in the wake of the global financial crisis. Yet Toyota’s workers went on strike for five days and banned overtime to secure the deal which tripped Toyota up in court and which will give them two pay rises this year – even as the company prepares to pull out."

We need to face the obvious fact that no manufacturing capability can exist, anywhere, unless its products are affordable and the process is intrinsically profitable - i.e. not in receipt of subsidies, or protected by tariffs.

oh yeah, I am somehow being selective by putting up link so people can read same thing you did by clicking every aspect of debate.

Good one.

I must be evil.

The Lewis book on the Abbott government's first term should be a very slim volume - it's only been in government 6 months.

assuming it gets published, it will be based on research which spans a long period, 2010-2016.

I hope you read it should it be published, that would mean one reader at least.