“there was no incentive for suppliers to innovate.”

There are three general forms of innovation.

1 Innovate to establish a new market.
2 Innovate to break into an existing market.
3 Innovate to maintain position in an existing market.

So the wool industry did not carry out No 3 and No 1 sufficiently. No need to condemn an Australian industry into the ground. It was competing in the export market, and had been for many years, and it was only a few years after settlement that wool was being exported from Australia back to England.

If there was more interest in developing something in Australia, there would be more developed in Australia.

The continued rubbishing of anything Australian, means that few will attempt to develop anything in Australia, except perhaps coal mines.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/how-wool-was-pulled-over-investors-eyes/story-e6frg6z6-1226103788876

The Weekend Australian reviewed Massy's book some time ago( methinks
that Mark has spelled his name incorrectly).

I was impressed and will certainly buy a copy, when the Australian
book industry comes up to speed and sells the Ipad or Kindle version.

The thing is, it shows the disaster which can happen, when Govt
interferes massively in a market and the law of unintended
consequences that can follow.

We can see all this unfold again today, with such "you beaut"
economic schemes as being preached by the Greens, who want to
shut down the live trade. Sadly it will be farmers paying the
heavy price, not feelgood politicians and some of their supporters
who simply don't understand the consequences of their actions.
Perhaps they should read Massy's book

Mark Lawson here.

Yabby - yeek! thanks for pointing out the misspelling.. I dunno where the extra e came from.. I've asked the site administrators to fix it up quick. How embarrassing.

Vanna - I think you've completely missed the point of the article. No one is rubbishing the industry as such. This disaster was entirely self-inflicted, but now that its long past it serves as a reminder of just how damaging market interevention can be. The industry would have been a lot better off if a few agripoliticians had never been born and the AWC had never existed.

Mark, you are much better on economics. I agree with this perspective on protectionism.

Some industries should be allowed to fail, protecting them only seems to hurt them in the long run.

Bugsy,
Why should the wool industry have been left to die, when the price of wool is currently at a 23 year high.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/hope-rains-as-wool-prices-soar-to-23-year-high/story-fn59niix-1226073974949

I think there are too many who want all Australian industry killed off, but still want taxpayer funding when they demand it.

They haven’t thought too much about where that taxpayer money comes from.

Mark Lawson..(curmudgeon):

...You also neglected the mention of a key element to the story of the wool pricing intervention; political… It warrants the mention of the influence of the Australian Country Party's motivation in all this. The Country party had become the tattered symbol of the humiliating decline of wealthy landholders (wool producers) in Australia.

...Through all the good times enjoyed by wool producers over many years of Australian history, wool producers continued a relentless attack on rural workers wages enforcing grinding poverty and subservience. Little wonder it was that the Labor party attempted to ignore the plight of the industry; there was a tradition of animosity finally focused through the union movement, alive and well during those times.

vanna,
Why would the industry need life support if the prices for their products are so healthy?

*Why should the wool industry have been left to die, when the price of wool is currently at a 23 year high.*

Vanna, perhaps you should read Massy's book. Its taken 20 years,
countless farmers closing down and a reduction in the sheep
flock from 170 million to 70 million, for the industry to recover
to some degree from the disaster created by the manipulators.
Much of this pain could have been avoided, had they never interfered
in the first place.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12493#216009

Yabby, good to see Mr Anti industry/jobs at it as usual.

Protectionism is employed by every nation on earth other than Australia. There is NO level playing field. So why should we attempt to play games that are clearly rigged against us?

You know very well that the RED/greens want to shut down live exports for the same reasons that the you & your GAYLP mates want to import diseases like fire blight. Namely weaken our economy in advance of a takeover by the international socialist/bankster UN NWO.

Why else would you want to close every industry other than quarrying?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12493#216017

Curmudgeon, Mark, i hear what you are saying about "some" market interventions not working, but some have.

Should we import all known pests & diseases like foot & mouth, mad cow, fire blight, citrus canker, etc? No Aussie farmer will be on a level playing field until they are all here?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12493#216023

Bugsy, by that logic we should have no industry at all other than quarrying, tourism, services, having our intellectual property stolen by industrial espionage, or given away by foriegn aid programs & funded with your taxes.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12493#216041

Spot on Vanna, lets hear the loony left scream when Yarts or Social Talker funding gets slashed after the mining bust.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12493#216043

diver dan, correct the communists have long memories & hold grudges.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12493#216044

Bugsy, if the industry had been closed down, years ago, then there would be nobody in the land of OZ to benefit from high prices now.

However having said all that & coming from a farming family background, nobody has mentioned the issue of "mono" agriculture. Any farmer who wants a future should really be having at least 2 different crops, preferably 3 or 4 or more if they want to survive long term.

Formersnag
"Any farmer who wants a future should really be having at least 2 different crops, preferably 3 or 4 or more if they want to survive long term."

Probably true, as this is not putting all eggs in one basket.

Wool was down, but now up.

"Wool has been the star performer in world commodity markets in recent months. While the wool market is in recess, wool prices prior to the recess were well above year earlier levels in both A$ and US$ terms. In contrast, world commodity prices have dipped as global economic uncertainty has gripped the market for a wide range of commodities, from metals and other industrial products through to food and non-food agricultural products."

http://www.whymerino.com.au/_blog/Blog/post/Wool_prices_diverge_away_from_broader_world_commodity_price_trends/

So if coal declines, there might be something else to fall back on.

What is freightening, are those that want as much industry killed off as possible.

Probably in the hope that China will then give us loans, to pay for all the "government spending", help out our ailing education and health systems, pay for the roads and infrastructure, pay the pensioners, pay the army, and pay off all the loans.

Mark Lawson here

Diver Dan - that stuff you mentioned is beyond the point I was making. Best you write your own article.

Formersnag - quite right, the points you mentioned are an intervention of sorts and have to be kept in place. Another area where intervention must occur is fisheries. All fisheries must be strictly controlled, otherwise they will collapse. But the wool scheme that collapsed was big-ticket, market intervention in the selling of output. A sure fire invitation to disaster.

Vanna and others have commented on mono/bi crop farms and so. Since the substantial deregulation of the agriculture industry in recent decades (much of the protection agri use to enjoy has been swept away), the trend has been to either get big, get specialised or get out.

There are still plenty of the farms where they will have both grain and sheep but change the area allocated to either depending on prices, however numbers may be shifting. I'm not sure of the story myself but a good place to start looking for details is the quarterly journal produced by ABARES http://www.abares.gov.au/ - it has more stuff on farmer incomes and crops versus flocks and herds than you can shake a stick at..

*Why else would you want to close every industry other than quarrying?*

Formersnag, I am afraid that conspiracy theories and strawman arguments, are not going to do it for you.

I simply remind you that one Australian's market rigging and tariff
protection lands up being another Australian's cost of living or
added cost of production. The wool industry is a classic example
of a disaster created by well meaning agripoliticians.

The Chinese have been trying to rig the wool market for years. They
also bought up most of the processing machinery. In the end,
as production kept dropping, they have had to accept that they would
have no wool left to process on their machinery, if they kept it up.
So today our wool industry has turned into a more profitable niche
industry, a shadow of its former self. Meantime our lamb exports
to places like the USA are booming, including wool free lambs.
Its booming because we have access to the US market and some others,
without tariffs.

The attempted rigging of the agricultural markets by both the US
and EU, has hardly been a huge hit. In fact it is one of the reasons
why their Govts are both now in crisis from overspending.

We don't need tariffs, we need get our economic fundamentals right.
It doesen't help our case, when our workers have to live in some
of the world's most expensive houses, due to poor Govt policy.

...Cm’on cumudgion; The markets that fail are those that are NOT manipulated. One steel for example, finally given a $100m golden handshake from Julia. What you need to acknowledge is the need for equality in your arguement, is it OK to supress wages?. The wool industry was renowned for tax rorts and peopled with “Pitt Street” farmers (Sir William Gunn) with political connections. Unfortunately for those here that have hope in the industry to project themselves past their accountant, as China produces more of its own wool, it imports less from overseas.

Oh Yabby, Yabby, Yabby

The world is not as neat and tidy as you may think.

Markets rise and fall for many reasons, not just protectionism.

Floods, draught and disease in another country can regularly affect prices for agricultural products in this country.

Most of the time, Brazil converts its sugar cane into ethanol. If they have a bumper year, they dump excess sugar onto the world market, and sugar prices fall. Many mills and cane farmers in this country will not make a profit, perhaps for a number of years.

If Brazil has a draught year, they dump very little sugar onto the world market, and the sugar price increases, and the mills and cane farmers can make a substantial profit.

That’s an example of the uncertainty of commodity markets that few in the cities realise.

They think the world is as neat and tidy as skipping on down to the local shop each morning to buy the milk and have a chat to the store owner about the weather and football results, before skipping on home to make the breakfast, and then feed the cat before catching the train for a day at the office, and maybe a few beers at the pub during lunch hour, and maybe opening that bottle of port tonight while watching a DVD.

@Bugsy: Mark, you are much better on economics. I agree with this perspective on protectionism.

I was thinking the same thing. When Mark writes about an area he knows a bit about, and I find myself thinking he has done a good job. Both those things are rare, yet they happened at the same time. What a coincidence.

Mark Lawson here

rstuart/bugsy - I thank you for complementing the article guys, but you need not worry, I will be back to confront your dearly held beliefs with more reality.. but maybe not for the next few weeks. Not sure on that point.

Diver Dan - your argument verges into incoherence but what I believe you're thinking of is the market boom-bust cycle. Sure, a free market booms and busts - the market goes temporarily out of whack, and it might be a year and more until it corrects. In the great depression, because the Yanks and others stuffed up their banking and protection policies, it took more than four to correct. The idea is to minimise the busts. Getting rid of the market itself by disguising price signals causes failures that are far more damaging. In the long run, its markets by seveal laps of the field.
Sir William Gunn as a Pitt Street farmer? He was nothing of the kind. The 'Sir' may have confused you. The old Imperial titles were handed out to all sorts of people.

Curmudgeon:

...Life is pretty much a “set piece” as opinions go. The point to be made was this; the wool pricing scheme was introduced for why? I say it was introduced to “save” wealthy woolgrowers from themselves and help continue their life of power and influence, fast fading.

... My comparison was with the treatment of the farm workers over a long period that reflected the hypocrisy of their stand by using political clout to supress wages and conditions as historical. Obviously the point you gallantly resisted to the end.

Diver Dan - you need to read the book.

The problem is that what you say in that last post - which is different from the theme of the previous post - is almost entirely beyond the scope of anything I've written, and you have trouble seeing that.. the wool scheme was set up for wool growers large and small, but whether it was at the instigation of the squatocracy is entirely beside the point I was making..

Treatment of farm workers? Not with you at all. If you have something to say about the treatment of farm workers then you should write an article and not drag me into it. Neither the book I reviewed, or my review, says anything about the treatment of farm workers one way or another.

*Oh Yabby, Yabby, Yabby
The world is not as neat and tidy as you may think.
Markets rise and fall for many reasons, not just protectionism.*

Vanna, I'm really not sure what your point is. I am well aware
of the above. And so?

Nevertheless, protectionism drives up input costs for growers.
If those same growers export their produce, it makes things
that much more difficult for them to compete in the real world.

It also makes goods more expensive for consumers, including workers.
Those same workers then need higher wages to survive, to pay for
increasingly expensive consumer goods. So it lands up like a dog
chasing its tail.

Fact is, we are part of the real world, we cannot pretend that we
are not.

...Mark, it was actually you who made the sweeping statements at the beginning of your article. Statements not actually connected with a book review but in line with a non protectionist ideology; your own no doubt. You use Massey to argue against protectionist policies and the failures apparent in the wool reserve price scheme. I considered my comments were very relevant to your article.

...The point of my argument was to use history to make the point that protectionism is all well and good if the protected are “connected”. Your line ignores that point, and claims it as irrelevant; or you simply ignore the relevance. The wool price initiative was a classic example of the ability of certain industries to featherbed themselves at the expense of others (taxpayers). You argue that price fixing is counter productive, if not in the short term then definitely in the long term. You argue of the need for the market to be used as an acclimatiser of reality.(still using Massey’s book as support for your personal proposition)!

...Many industries used fixing mechanisms such as tariffs to not only protect the industry but to protect the jobs of the (sometimes) thousands of workers.(as opposed to the long history of the wool industry in pandering to self interest at all times) I believe that in those circumstances price fixing is actually socially responsible. You point to Europe now as an example of tariffs ill effects; It is you that fails to point out why you believe that point to be true. Its not sufficient to use that argument as the central plank of debate to support the negatives of protectionism without at least some example.

...And finally, I am not at all surprised you ignored China as the shining light of success in non protectionist policies as a reason for their huge progress in economic growth

Yabby,

I'm wondering, if public servants are employed within a protected environment.

I have noticed that many of them are highly anti-protectionist, but they never stop asking for more taxpayer funding.

I'm not totally in support of tarrifs, I'm more in support of so-called Australians being more in support of Australian industry.

That I don't often see, and I rarely see it amongst government employees and members of the education system.

In fact, I'm sure some of them would rather commit hari kari on a blunt sword than be forced to even look at something made in Australia.

And they would rather have their lips sown together rather than say anything positive about Australia.

Maybe such people should go and live in China, Hong Kong, India, USA etc.

*The wool price initiative was a classic example of the ability of certain industries to featherbed themselves at the expense of others (taxpayers).*

Diver Dan, not as far as I can remember. In the end growers were
paying a levy of 27% of any shorn wool, to bankroll the huge losses
involved. After the whole thing collapsed, they continued to pay
off the debts for years.

The thing is, the rot set in much earlier. Woom boomed at the time
of the Korean war in the 50s. Along came synthetics, all the time
better and the wool industry refused to accept the changes. Meantime
the inputs they were paying to produce wool, were heavily taxed
with protectionist tariffs to featherbed Australian industry.

By the early 90s the whole thing had fallen to bits and Australia
was broke, the old sheep had collapsed. That is when we got
Keating's banana republic statement and the rest of Australia had
to accept that it was all over, they had to join the real world.

Vanna, I agree with you, public servants live in their own little
world, protected by the Public Service act and I gather its virtually
impossible to sack them. If it was up to me, every Govt dept would
be overhauled every few years, where everyone would have to actually
justify as to what they do all day and why.

...Yabby

$300m subsidy feb1991 wool floor price suspended: The scheme was Government guaranteed and funded (read tax payers): Identical similarities to bank bail outs during the GFC recently. Who walked away with the “goodies”?

Diver Dan, 300m$, given the Govt culpability in all of this and
seen against 6 billion assistance to the automotive sector, is
frankly peanuts. The wool industry carried the rest of Australia
for decade upon decade. Without it, the Ponzi scheme of high
tariffs could never have been introduced in the first place.

I've seen the other side of agriculture. Of farmers in the backblocks
of WA, living in the back of shearing sheds, who got stung by all
this, many had to give up farming because of it.

Yabby,

Something of interest.

Below are photos of some of Detroit’s manufacturing areas.

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1864272_1810098,00.html

Below are photos of shopping malls in the US.

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1852939,00.html

The shopping malls look attractive, but 1 in 6 in the US are on food stamps, and over 50% of adults cannot quickly raise $2,000 for an emergency.

In Australia, we give up on manufacturing and agriculture, placing all hope on coal mines and the service industry.

I think this has been done before in the US.

Vanna, I think your analysis of the US economy is a little simplistic.

Yes, manufacturing in Detroit reduced substantially, as union
stubbornness sent GM broke. Meantime BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda
and others, have all opened plants in the South. There is still
plenty of manufacturing in the US. We buy their planes, medical
equipment and all the rest. Meantime whole new industries have
been created. Google, Amazon, Facebook and others generally
hardly existed 15 years ago, look at them now and their employees
don't work for peanuts either.

The housing industry is definately on its knees, but that can only
be blamed on Americans living it up and borrowing for far too long.
At some point they spend less and repay some of their debt, that
is exactly what they are doing.

US industry won't invest until they have a bit more certainty and whilst there
is a standoff about the future between Obama and the Republicans,
that uncertainty will remain.

Interestingly in the US, when Americans are offered the lower paid
jobs, like farm work, mostly done by Mexicans, they don't want the
work.

Meantime many US companies are cashing in bigtime around the world
but for tax reasons are keeping their money offshore. They are not
going to repatriate it home, without good reason. Perhaps Govt
should give them such a reason.

The US also needs to sort out its litigation mess. Like in Australia,
training lawyers seems more important then training engineers, so
much of Silicon Valley is driven by foreigners. The US spends
something like 15% of GDP on healthcare, because lawsuits drive
the cost through the roof. That is reflected in the cost of its
products and services. Hardly smart thinking in a global economy

At 1900, over 70% of Americans lived in rural areas, but now only 17%.

They drifted to the cities as agriculture declined, and then manufacturing declined.

The US has lost over 20,000 jobs a month from manufacturing since 2001, and now over 100 cities in the US are on the verge of bankruptcy, because their councils can’t raise enough rates to pay for maintenance of city infrastructure.

Many of the employees in companies such as Google and Amazon are casual, and low income jobs account for 40% of jobs in the US, with many Americans now willing to work for anything.

Now globalisation is a wonderful thing, because everyone is better off, but quite a few of the above statistics are very similar to those in Australia.

Thankfully, Australia has coal.

Agree Yabby...

Life has its sad moments for everyone...witness the live cattle export debacle, as an indicator of the shift in political clout occurring in the rural sector. Once, the rural sector was the “Government of Australia” those days now long gone!

Vanna, US agriculture did not decline, it changed, as it did in
Australia. So did manufacturing in both countries, something
which you seem to completely ignore.

Why? Continuing mechanisation and automation. Robots by the millions.

People used to use 100 hp tractors, now they are 500 hp. They towed
17 ft seeders, now they are 60 ft. They drove 8 tonne trucks, now
they are 65 t roadtrains.

People made things on lathes, one by one. Now they are CNC machines,
spitting out lathed items by the millions. Robots are
everywhere. Computerised lasers, cutting out sheetsteel in every
imaginable shape, are everywhere. Need I go on?

One of the joys of being semi retired in my late 50s, is doing the
things I want to do, when I want. That includes watching a bit of
Bloomberg TV and watching how modern production lines work on good
old commercial telly, like the Discovery and BBC Science channels.

The biggest problem for companies like Google, Microsoft and others,
is employee poaching. Zynga, Groupon, Linkedin and other upstarts
are stealing all the talent! The biggest problem for Wall St
investment banks remains employee poaching. For the best employees
are who makes them all the money for the companies. So they can virtually name their
price.

So what you have in economies like the US, Australia etc, is a
division based on skills. Both countries are importing skilled
labour, meantime the unskilled have a problem. Don't blame
globalisation, blame education and Govt policies.

BHP has just offered jobs to the 1000 workers let go by Bluescope.
It will be interesting to see how many will take up the offer. The
first reaction I have read is that people really don't want to move
anywhere, they want a job within a few minutes of where they happen
to live. How lucky they are to be able to think like that.
I still remember the days when Australians moved to where the work
was

Yabby,
You can always go and live in the US, if you like Apple, Google, Amazon, Boomberg etc.

The US economy is rationalised and globalised, with many oppurtunities.

Nothing is any good in Australia, because we aren't as rationalised and globalised.

Oops Vanna, Australians have of course taken to Apple, Amazon,
Facebook, Twitter, Google, the internet and all the rest, like
ducks to water!

Some are accepting change, accepting that people are free to make
choices and are creating all sorts of new businesses and thriving.

The world is changing and moving on Vanna, even if some old fellas
can't deal with change. Can't deal with wifey not being home to
darn their socks anymore, can't deal with Google as a search engine.

So your post and others, tell us a great deal about you and the real
problem here, ie your attitude to life. Well that is your choice,
Vanna.

Australia and Australians are clearly not the problem Vanna, for
a good majority are leaving you behind, as the world changes and
you want to go backwards 40 years. Its not going to happen.

Yabby,
Thanks for the lecture, but it has no meaning to me.

Globalisation is of course a wonderful thing, although there are an increasing number of countries now on the verge of economic catastrophe, while executives in many places are awarded bonuses.

I think it has become fashionable to bag Australian industry, as you well know.

But it can reach the absurd stage where a government will not take any action or offer any support if an industry in the country is failing, because that could be protectionism.

The present federal government would be the most useless government we have ever had, (and I think the polls reflect that), but it now wants to absolve itself of responsibility for Australian industry, by saying that industry “must ‘find new, efficient and greener ways’ to compete”

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/job-loss-fears-on-back-of-strong-australian-dollar/story-fn6bfkm6-1226120789498

Still waiting on the federal government and its public service to find new, efficient and greener ways to operate or compete.

*although there are an increasing number of countries now on the verge of economic catastrophe, while executives in many places are awarded bonuses.*

Vanna, I am really not sure how you relate the two. Many countries
have a problem, because they did not have a Costello, who limited
borrowing and paid off debts. Bonuses are paid to executives
according to their employment agreement. Some companies are still
doing very well. Why should their boards break those agreements,
because Govts borrowed too much?

Personally I find criticism very constructive. It either stands up
to scrutiny or it does not. If it does, then it brings about change.
The ostrich approach is doomed to failure.

I really don't think the Govt should be throwing money at every
industry that gets into trouble. For that becomes a cost to
other industries. For instance Bluescope cannot make money anymore
from steel exports. So they plan to wind down that section of their
business, whilst their local market remains profitable. Why
should Govt interfere?

OTOH Govt plays an important role in getting the basic economy
right. Less red tape, no carbon tax, no cushy union deals,
leave super at 9%, get rid of payroll tax, would all be welcome
options to assist all industries and would help us maintain a
manufacturing industry.

Look at the latest union rort on the oil rigs. $312'000$ a year
for 182 days worked by a laundry hand, is hardly being reasonable.

No wonder some manufacturers want to pack up and leave.

Yabby
Well of course governments could try using industry inefficiency as an excuse or smokescreen for poor government performance.

I personally know of an industry in Australia (sugar), that would send representatives to other countries to look at their sugar mills, and came back learning nothing new.

The mills in Australia were already producing the highest quality product in the world, and what technology was being used in other countries was already being used by mills in Australia, or had been tried and discarded some years previous in favour of something better.

They also found many factories in other countries that could not operate in Australia because they would not meet environmental or workplace health and safety regulations.

So when people such as Minister Kim Carr call Australian manufacturing inefficient, they label all Australian manufacturing inefficient, when that is not the case, but it could easily lead to a drop in public confidence regards Australian made products.

The result would be people such as yourself, who want to buy nearly everything from outside of the country, while still living in Australia.

That is not sustainable.

I doubt whether the present federal government will be around for much longer either, as it is obvious they are not very efficient or sustainable.

*The result would be people such as yourself, who want to buy nearly everything from outside of the country, while still living in Australia.*

I made no such claim, Vanna, so that is purely in your imagination.

Australian sugar would indeed be of good quality, for it has had
to compete in the global marketplace. You don't sell there, if
you produce rubbish.

So my point is, all manufacturing should be exposed to real
competition, or it simply leads to price gouging and shoddy products.
Not much different to our Govt services. They can afford to be
shoddy and expensive, for they have no competition either.

Back in the days of high tariffs, I was getting alot of gear made
up in fibreglass for a new export venture. I got to know the bloke
making it, pretty well. He pointed out to me that he could buy
high quality fibreglass matting in Singpore, but the import tariff
was 140%, to protect the local manufacturer. Fact is that the most
profitable thing to do in those days for a manufacturer, was not
to make a better product, but to simply convince the Govt that
the import tariff should be increased and then cream in the profits.

Its a shame that I can't find the URL for you anymore, but I read
of one local washing machine maker, who did not even bother to
test his new models. People would soon complain if they were no good.

Now tell me Vanna, which Australian manufacturer actually made a
vehicle that was suitable for the outback, despite the huge market,
given the huge country? Wow, the Holden 1 tonne ute is as good as
it got. Not a 4wd in sight locally. The punters would just have
to buy what they produced. It took Toyota and others to manufacture
4wd diesels, country people flocked to buy them. But they still had
to pay tariffs. That hardly helps to make an industry such as
agriculture, more efficient.

Yabby,
The federal government may have had an inspired moment, although some would say a little too late.

“Ms Gillard ruled out mandating "buy Australian" campaigns for mining projects but said the Government would advocate greater use of local products.

A tax forum in October will consider ways to help industries such as manufacturing and tourism that are being hit by the strong Australian dollar.

Labor MPs based in manufacturing areas have already discussed options including tougher local content rules for companies that want to do business with the Government.”

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/gillards-buy-australian-jobs-fix/story-e6freomx-1226119989147

Of course it is to be applauded, after years of politicians saying that buying Australian made products was not good for Australia.

I would suggest the federal government should initially focus on two areas. Start and convince government departments and the education system to consider buying Australian made, and then after that, start and convince the public to buy Australian made.

Spending taxpayer funding to convince the public to buy Australian made, while government departments and the education system would not even glance at an Australian made product, will likely be another giant waste of taxpayer funding by this government.