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.

The ‘logic’ hasn’t hit Bill Shorten. He is still blaming the Abbott government for all the problems and loss of the motor manufacturing industry.

The Abbot government must be pretty powerful if it can have the effect Shorten claims for it in only 5 or 6 months in the job. Shorten forgets, too, that Holden and Ford had already made up their minds to leave Australia while Labor was still ruining the country.

I heard 14 months ago, car companies were going. Relative told me through a source in industry.

If Shorten did not know, then maybe it tells you something about him.

If he did know, this also tells you something about him.

Sometimes it appears the debates are merely for show, a bit like the community cabinets I also wrote about. Shorten was one of Labor's best spinners then too.

Chris Lewis,

My apologies. Just as I sent off the comment, I thought, "Wonder if he is going to right it as they do it". It's very hot here this morning and the brain is slow. Good luck with the book. I will read it if I'm still around when it's published.

NTPoliticians (your post 11:12 am) Well said that man!

No need to be quite so petulant, Chris Lewis.

>>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.<<

You were simply using the lazy-journalist technique of selecting a generalization as your headline, without acknowledging a major qualification to the signal it was giving.

Totally understandable. After all, the number of people who would actually click on the piece in question would be minuscule.

I expect your "book" will use none of these tricks.

The real problem here is that no politician of any political persuasion is able to take leadership on the problem. Which is understandable, because it is a difficult one, and no politician likes to face difficult problems - it makes them look weak and indecisive, and they hate that.

Releasing ourselves from uncompetitive and unprofitable industries is a necessary step for our economy. Working out what we are actually good at is the hard part. Sadly, every government believes that their intervention will help, when in fact the best thing they could do would be to get out of the way. Which once again has the side-effect that they could be seen as weak and indecisive.

Good luck with the book, Chris Lewis. If it runs true to the form you show on this Forum, it will just be another "Labour bad, Liberal good" pamphlet, and we know how much the world will be looking forward to that.

*Australia needs to plan for the next phase of our economic story, when we can no longer rely upon the cushion of primary industry.*

How soon before the Chinese boom goes bust?
When it does we will be left with a huge workforce that is trained to dig stuff out of the ground and ship it away and nowhere to ship it to.
When the "level playing field" was introduced it was never level at all.
If wages and conditions in the third world countries had been raised to a level close to the first world levels there would have been some degree of fairness.
Now it is an inducement for businesses to move to Asia and gain the extra profits of low wages and costs and in no way raising living standards in the host countries.

No one mentions the trade deficit when all out cars are imported. Also all the other small industries that service industries that service this manufacturing. Abbott is quite happy to subsidise Qantas. No questions asked.

The Unions need to pull their heads in because OS workers have nowhere near their scams and benefits.

Agenda 21 had its origins back in 1968 to de-industrialise the West and make the ownership of property and assets impossible .The catch word was "sustainability" and they have used environmentalism, as their avenue of suppression. They are a long way toward achieving their aims.

Senator Anne Bressington did not at first believe how evil and pervasive this policy is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sES6_OXPwOU

Hi GY,

This article is essentially about polls and opinion, but it must be accepted that opinions are formulated based up on the information available through the media.

Sadly this has little to do with the actual issues faced by motor vehicle manufacturers in Australia.

Motor manufacturing is not adequately separated from other forms of manufacturing, some of which are doing well.

Automotive is a global business, as such Australia’s sector must view itself in the global context.

Global Market Costs; Primarily energy, labour, exchange rate variations and supply chain.

In market terms Australia produced 474,000 cars in 1970, 374,122 cars in 2004 and 209,730 cars in 2012. Global ranking somewhere between 28th and 30th. Not only has our domestic market collapsed, it plays a minor role in the globalised export market.

Add to this increased energy costs, poor exchange rates, protectionism and relative labour costs. (CoDB, Costs of Doing Business)

The EU has a captive volume market without ERV’s, it’s all Euro’s, it has very short supply chains, Pan-European trade, no tariffs or trade barriers but it has very high energy costs. Who would have thought that VW’s latest car plant would be built in the USA? Who would have thought that developing nations could “get the jump” on Australia in car manufacturing? Who would have thought that South Korea, China, India and the heavily subsidized and tariff laden EU markets could put us out of business?

The USA is repatriating much of it’s industrial revenues back to the USA from low labour cost markets, back to a domestic, low energy cost home base. The EU is paying twice as much as the USA for energy.

Capital and labour resources in Australia must be redirected to viable new opportunities. These may be in “other” manufacturing, services, technology and infrastructure.

To do this, firstly the reality of car manufacturing in Australia must be accepted as high risk, as evidenced by globalized companies withdrawing. The dreamtime of belief that Australia can possibly impact a global car industry must end.

Time to stop polling and accept reality.

Thank you for the article.

I guess the fact that the eventual closing down of our 75 year old car manufacturing industry doesn't take place for several years has resulted in the citizens of our once great nation showing indifference to the situation.

But just wait until the axe actually falls and people and journalists will suddenly run around like headless chooks crying out, "What happened? Who took our car industry?"

Oh well, it doesn't matter I guess. America will own us lock, stock and barrel by then and we'll all speak American!

Have a great day won'you-all! YuuSssHay!

Australia R.I.P.

Correction David G. China will own us lock stock and barrel. The USA has been looted by their financial system with a complicit Congress.

Barnaby Joyce wants to initiate a new Rural Bank for the farmers. Watch Abbott knock that on the head quick smart. Hockey,Turnbull and Abbott will never go against the will of the big bankers.

So much for free market when banks are concerned. Remember when the Bank of Mitsubishi wanted to come here and were stopped by our Govt?

Goodness me. The resignation here!. If this US exported ideology was at the very least practised by the US it would then merely suffer from the characteristic of being wrong. But as this purity is absent in the US but none the less promoted as gospel, it is patently malicious.

Whatever the polls may say, it would be historically astounding for the coalition to survive a single term if the automotive and component industry were to depart. A half wit ALP in election mode would paint it for the naive ideological vandalism that it is.

I and I think much of the thinking electorate believed the coalition was simply engaging in a game of chicken. That at the 11 th hour they will come to some kind of arrangement. It seems however, that I have given them far too much credit. They actually believe this nonsense.

I imagine Shorten suddenly sees his chance will arrive much sooner than seemed possible only a few months ago.

Invest the money in overseas teachers & in a National Service scheme & in no time industry in Australia will pick up with an educated & committed workforce. We can't keep expecting good products/productivity with the present mentality. We all know what to call trying the same thing & expecting a different outcome.

Shorten suddenly sees his chance will arrive much sooner
YEBIGA,
Here's a look into the crystal ball-Shorten who ?

This whole issue is only reinforcing a few things.

Bill Shorten is inadequate.
Abbott has done the right thing with the motor industry.
Napthine is doing the right thing with SPC Ardmona, and O'Farrell is doing the right thing with the drought, as the states should.
As Hockey and Abbott grow the non mining economy, including agriculture and address the debt, the economy does't go into recession as the next mining boom kicks in as the world economy picks up and the Royal Commission and the corruption trials start to hog the headlines...well ... labor will be in opposition for years to come.

the ideology which is applied nowhere except in text books, Australia alone is to implement. Who needs automobiles or manufacturing when you can just be the world's biggest quarry. I suppose this passes as visionary. When the entire world is trying to move into high tech, Australia alone is reversing history and returning to agriculture and the Stone Age.

I suppose this is what Hockey meant by calling it the end of the Age of Enlightenment?

Before we become too exulted by this ideological break through, we should perhaps at least take a moment to consider that once the automobile industry and the associated component manufacturers leave it is near impossible they will ever return. All the highly trained technical engineers in the this industry will have to look for work overseas. Similarly many engineering courses in the country can no longer lead to any career here.

This is a significant intellectual loss to Australia and entirely at odds with being a clever country. Attaching our entire economy to old low value industries should give us all cause to pause

YEBIGA,
Intellectuals are largely ineffectuals = a huge drain on our purse. It's work & production that creates the wealth many of you suckle on with the left corner of the mouth whilst condemning it with the right corner. The worker will always out-do the intellectual in usefulness, it just doesn't sound that sexy.