39 replies to this topic

[wot179]

I dunno what your point is,Jack.

The article just points out that without govt subsidies our car industry couldnt survive.

This is no secret.Our labour costs are high and our production runs are relatively small.

It doesnt only name Australian car manufacturers,either.

No one at all would buy oz madecars if they were much more expensive.

And no manufacturer makes cars to last,its counter productive to selling more new cars.

[Dr Terry]

I agree with John, it's a typical leftist ABC attitude, they hate private industry with a passion. She does have a point about govt. subsidies, but she just rubbishes the whole industry.

Her ABC journalist job is government funded isn't it ?? She's safe, bugger the 30,000 to 40,000 other hard working Australians that depend on the car industry. The GFC & the high A$ are not the industry's fault, but they're the ones suffering.

Dr Terry

[wot179]

If it was a leftist attitude she'd be all for subsidies.

She is pretty much saying sink or swim,which is more a right wing attitude.

[Tyre biter]

...I think It typical ABC being elitist but that is just my opinion. What are your thoughts?
Cheers. John.

To the contrary are my thoughts.
The article is a discussion piece, and makes takes no corner in the debate save for the one reference to the Australian car industry being saved from going to the wall unlike other Australian manufacturing and agricultural industries. It simply poses the observation the car industry is a private profit oriented concern to which local, state, federal and indeed international governments are spilling billions of dollars into in order to keep jobs. What she doesn't mention is successive governments have done everything to retain a car industry for other reasons as well; to keep face as an established western country, to retain engineering skill-sets, and to retain aspects ubiquitous to our largely but diluting and therefore less relevant Anglo based culture.

...The article just points out that without govt subsidies our car industry couldnt survive.
This is no secret. Our labour costs are high and our production runs are relatively small. No one at all would buy oz made cars if they were much more expensive...

Exactly - the Button plan and indeed government, industry and commerce folks identified in the late 80's that Australia didn't have the sales base to retain manufacturer's as a viable concern and therefore rationalisation needed to occor in terms of limiting models through cost ammortisation derrived from platform sharing, and the pursuit of export markets to increase the production run. Therfore the (then) future of car manufacturing in Australia was beholden to sharing platforms, ie: cost reduction. Much of this was driven by both reductions in import tariffs but also high wages in comparison to countries from where imported cars were available.

...it's a typical leftist ABC attitude, they hate private industry with a passion. She does have a point about govt. subsidies, but she just rubbishes the whole industry.

Her ABC journalist job is government funded isn't it ?? She's safe, bugger the 30,000 to 40,000 other hard working Australians that depend on the car industry. The GFC & the high A$ are not the industry's fault, but they're the ones suffering.

Really? I listen to ABC rural radio all the time and hear nothing but support for private concerns. Look at 'the inventors' the ABC airs - not exactly a shining example of 'hating private industry with a passion'. I should say I have no hard position on your opinion, but I would ask where is the evidence in making such a broad assertion because on the face of it, it seems perhaps unfair?

As for the ubiquitous comment as to government workers (public servants) and the assertion they make such comments or policies from ivory towers whilst entirely insulated from the real world - your opinion to have, but like pollies, you can loath or like them yet cannot disagree there any significant number of folk who give their energy, integrity, life effort and in some cases chose lowered earnings in the pursuit of public service - I think that is perhaps a good gesture and keep in mind you throw in ED doctors, nurses, teachers, Police, Fities and Ambos, Air Traffic Controllers and all multitude of gifted, talented and hard working folk into that sentiment - it is insulting to them and belittles folks who trumpet this sentiment so readily. And I'd again say, the article was a discussion and not a rant, nor was it even spiel arising from a seemingly politicial or idealogical motivated industrial terrorist/journalist, and so perhaps it is unfair to suggest the author took a stance with little regard to 'the real workers' as your commentary would suggest.

If it was a leftist attitude she'd be all for subsidies.
She is pretty much saying sink or swim,which is more a right wing attitude.

Bloody spot on. The fundamentalist capitalists long held refrain was to let the free market play out at all costs, and thereby the strong will succeed and the weak will perish, and the death of the weak was collateral damage (justifiable) within the outlook of the same - a neccessary evil if you will. Then look to the GFC and see how the same folks abandoned their idealogical post and ran... no make than sprinted to government seeking what had previously been described as socialist and even communist policy whereby it was tantamount to sin to the state (tax payer) to bail-out commrical concerns including banks and industry despite the good the same might brong to the capitalist system in the long term when considering job retention, spending, consumer and business connfidence, interest rates and economic growth...or stemming enconomic decline int he very least. It is somewhat humorous to see how this departure from capitalist mantra has neglected to have been recorded by those nowadays opposing other state ventures like Obama-aid; ypocracy is one word that comes to mind but this is the problem with fundamentalist views regardless of which end of the spectrum one takes a seat - they fail to account for the grey.

i,m sorry i missed her point?
so the govt pays car workers 30k a year....they get that back out of taxes every week
with the holden/ford/toyota factory workers
it's the indirect jobs they are protecting....and making the 4.5 odd billon back with...
and fyi biatch...we have the lowest import duties of any 1st world country
this should be changed in my view....bloodly john button...mumble mumble mumble

I am sorry, but exactly how is the Button plan to blame? Political party members, unionists, commentators and industry type folk are on record as accepting the reason we have a resiliant industry today is down to the Button plan - indeed that we have any car manufacturing industry at all is rested upon the Keating/Button plan. Ideal it was not. Relevant for the long-term it was not, but it was a policy that was needed if manufacturing cars in Australia was to continue through the 80's. To blame the current situation on this policy is unfair and fails to recognise what the policy was about, the level of support it garnered from industry and unions, what it achieved, and that it lapsed a long time ago but nevertheless lead to a resurgence that saw the likes of GM and Ford remain in the country until now. There was much, much more to the Button Plan than tariff reductions and we all know what crap the ingrained manufacturer's would have kept churning out to us had protection remained - jeepers even Ralph Nader identified this back in the 60's yet seemingly we again fail to heed the lessons of history. The imports and the reduction in tarfiffs lead to a better and cheaper (non-inflated) product for you and I including the introduction of vehicle standards, quality, specification, materials and inclusions that we would never have seen from the Big Three unless their hand was forced as it was. That is a given.

In closing, I say re-read the article and you will see it as a few here have, it is but a commentary - a document that makes observations regarding money tipped into an industry by the tax payer via the government and by implication it poses the question whether the auto manufacturing industry can stand on its own feet anywhere let alone in Australia, and with this outcome in mind, whether the level of government support here can be and should be sustained.

Cheers, TB

[Tyre biter]

And this is expected - tariffs down, imported product sells more units for all number of reasons; cost perhaps but also aspirations, size, features, etc.

We should not confuse the Australian Auto Sales Industry with the Australian Auto Manufacturing Industry - they are different creatures and the decline of one doesn't mean the decline of the other.

We also need to accept the relevance to the market of the car platforms made here - they are no where near what they once were and haven;t been for a long time - indeed I heard the other day that merely one in 90 Commodore sales are private (not to sold to fleet, business or government) - it is amazing the platform has been sustained this long.

I do appreciate one reason - Iaccoca tells in his AB how big cars are only minimally more expensive to make than small cars but have profitis twice or perhaps three times their cost to manufacture whereas a small care only has a very small amount of profit. This is why all industry pundits raised their eyebrows when GM and Ford announced small car manufacturing in Australia a couple of years back - Ford pulled out of course; IMO they recognised the returns werent there and even while Falcon was selling but 1500 units per month and the Terry a tad better, they'd have to sell six, seven or maybe eight thousand Focus' to generate the same profit. GM have rolled the dice with their Cruze and if it is, or can be sold OS then maybe it has a chance otherwise I cannot see its manufacture being sustained IMO. Toyota seemingly appreciate this outlook and manufacture their large plaforms only - high profits per unit and export sales to support the high cost of manufacturing here.

I'll keep coming back to these idealogical points;
Should the tax payer need to fund a profit making private company?
Should this funding ever be returned by the company to the tax payer, or is the company/shareholder the only to see a direct financial benefit/windfall?
Should this funding go on despite the manufacturer producing a product clearly irrelevant to and largely unwanted by the market?
Should we the taxpayer flip this outlook and ensure our tax dollars go to a private business to assist our community?
Should we the consumer accept having to pay extra for a product than elsewhere and who domestic product is often of an inferior standard in order to assert this level of civic generosity?

It is a vexed and difficult question and whilst we pine for the comfort derrived from a simple answer, the truth is there is not one.

Cheers, TB

[Dr Terry]

the vl THAT was a direct result of the button plan....wow didn't that work out well?

The VL was not a direct result of the Button plan. The VL/Nissan engine deal was instigated by GM-H through necessity, in 1982/3 & was in production by Jan 1986. The Button plan was only mooted in late 1985 & I believe the first fruits were the N13 Astra/Pulsar in late 1987 & then the U12 Pintara/Corsair in 1989. From there we got the Lexcen, Nova, Apollo & Nissan XF Ute etc.

The earlier Astra/Pulsar, the Mazda/Laser & Telstar/626 twins were all a result of the manufacturers own effort, not Government assistance or interference.

Dr Terry

[Potta]

You forgot the Ford Econovan/Mazda E Series Dr Terry.

I only care cause we had a Mazda when I was a kid and the Ford parts were cheaper.

[Dr Terry]

Really? I listen to ABC rural radio all the time and hear nothing but support for private concerns. Look at 'the inventors' the ABC airs - not exactly a shining example of 'hating private industry with a passion'. I should say I have no hard position on your opinion, but I would ask where is the evidence in making such a broad assertion because on the face of it, it seems perhaps unfair?

As for the ubiquitous comment as to government workers (public servants) and the assertion they make such comments or policies from ivory towers whilst entirely insulated from the real world - your opinion to have, but like pollies, you can loath or like them yet cannot disagree there any significant number of folk who give their energy, integrity, life effort and in some cases chose lowered earnings in the pursuit of public service - I think that is perhaps a good gesture and keep in mind you throw in ED doctors, nurses, teachers, Police, Fities and Ambos, Air Traffic Controllers and all multitude of gifted, talented and hard working folk into that sentiment - it is insulting to them and belittles folks who trumpet this sentiment so readily. And I'd again say, the article was a discussion and not a rant, nor was it even spiel arising from a seemingly politicial or idealogical motivated industrial terrorist/journalist, and so perhaps it is unfair to suggest the author took a stance with little regard to 'the real workers' as your commentary would suggest. Cheers, TB

My, we did get out of bed on the wrong side this morning didn't we.

I agree with your proposition re: The Inventors, but when it comes to the ABC they are the exception rather than the rule. Maybe 'Rural" ABC is a little less biased than the Sydney version.

Where did I make a "ubiquitous comment as to government workers". All I said was that it was a bit rich for her to call the auto industry "rubbish" because it need subsidising (which she did twice) while she is working for an entirely subsidised entity. Nowhere did I state that I had any beef with the efficiency (or otherwise) of public servants in general.

Dr Terry

[Tyre biter]

TB, your ideological points are very insightful, and really what this is about.

However, there are a couple of other points worth adding I believe. Holden had a thriving export business to the Middle East, and to a lesser extent the US. There have been suggestions it died because of the product. It wasn't because of the product (i lived in the Middle East from 99 until recently and the product is a popular one), but the strength of the Australian dollar. That has been a major factor in the undoing of GM Holden at least.

Oz, make no mistake, I am no ideologue - just have a Scottish heritage several generations back that makes me an opinionated sod, but I do like to think I read fairly widely on the auto industry and therefore I can claim to be an armchair critic (no real world experience in the auto industry or any business fo that matter) and thereby keyboard warrior!

I think your thoughts are accurate, and I do wonder if (in the case of Holden) GM isn't looking after its core in the first instance by not pursuing more export opportunities with the Commodore platform - clearly the car has a number of markets it could play well in. We all know there have been significant restrictions on importing it into the US arising from a number of things including the UAW Union objecting to it, but clearly GM appears to want to protect US interests at any cost, and if this means if a provincial interest withers and perhaps even dies then so be it. Of course, I also expect the US government to be somehow woven into this outlook given they are reported to be majority shareholder in GM and therefore have leverage to protect US interests (industry/jobs).

For the same reason I suspect Ford has the same view. The Falcon is a bloody wonderful car and surely has a place in their line-up, and whilst it is not reverse engineered like the VE, I can't otherwise understand why they would not pick it up and sell it in umpteen export marketssave for protecting themselves at a number of levels.

you a liberial voter tb?
you love jonny howard....even though he rode on all of keatings work (it takes 8 years for ecomic stratigies to take effect)
who btw is the most hated pm in recent aussie history
so try rationalizing this to all the workers at mitizy in sa?
or all the poor failed engingeering we will get when holden/ford/toyota call it quits and stop bluffing?
how's a great wall going to fare?
they fail after 6 months....you think any other countries cars will last when the locals no longer compete?
you forget the vb and all the rework holden did to fix opels frock ups?
or the vl THAT was a direct result of the button plan....wow didn't that work out well?
hey frock youse i'll continue to drive my 20 year old shitheaps than drive a pos not designed for our roads
at least i am australian and proud
you my friend can buy whatever you want....good luck getting parts in 5 years....

You couldn't be further from the truth their Quagmire - I am a Whitlamist to the core, and whilst I am not a fan of modern Labor Party policy, outlook or identities, like you I understand how significant change in both the Whitlam and subsequent Hawke/Keating governments brought divedends to the Howard government. Heck, Costello is well and truely on record desbribing how the policies and changes enacted by the Hawke/Keating governments allowed his government to do what they did. I think you have confused my commentary and questions as being a firm stand-point. They aren't, but rather just posing questions that should IMO be considered. I rue the day when we loose GMH and Ford as manufacturer's here but I think it is a reality that we will faceat some stage. I am reminded about the slogan; 'escalting one's commitment to a failed course of action' and wonder if the tax payer keeps tipping in to these private companies will it solve the issues or merely delay the inevitable. Time will tell I guess.

A wee history lesson though - the VB was put upon GMH by GM who wouldn't allow a budget to make a clean-sheet car. The car was a mish-mash of engineering (derrived as it was from two cars - Opel Senator and Rekord) but even then had significant engineering issues that were never sorted desite GMH's best efforts. As to the VL - it went bloody well; gave Holden access to a ULP engine because they simply couldn't afford to re-design one of their own and thereby remain competitive. I submit this outcome was a turning point in GM then strongly considering withdrawing from manufacturing here - apparently it was a bloody close call tipped in GMH's favour in measures of good-will and a reinvigorated performance in the market place . And so the VL saw GMH through a very difficult period, the resurgance from which we've all rejoiced in these past couple of decades. It seems to me that we might be at another cross road just like that one, but I think you are right in that the manufacturer's seem to bluff like this every few years and in doing so, eek more government tax subsidies, protections or outright cash payments. Jeepers, GMH are reportedly doing well in the balance sheets, and have engineering abilities not existing anywhere else in the GM empire but like I said earlier, I suspect GM would kill off GMH if it meant retaining a core portfolio.

I will also say I think this all to common speil on cars designed for our roads is important and we need to 'get over it' - this sentiment belonged in the 40's, 50's, 60's, perhaps the 70's and maybe even a bit of the 80's but car engineering has improved world-wide and let's face it, our roads aren't the bullock tracks they used to be. Toyota and others have shown for decades their engineering is well up to our roads and having owned four new SS variant Commodores including the VE, they are bloody cheap in places and unreliable in a number of instances - I used to look at some things in the VE and wonder just where exactly the 'Billion Dollar Baby' had all that money spent notwithstanding the car is indeed world standard for the cost.

Again, merely the world according to TB and by no means do I confuse my opinion with being fact, but let's not portray someone who questions the way things are with not being a patriot - that is George W and Tony Blair speeak (you are either with us or against us). Indeed Teddy Roosevelt said the oppositie; that is was unpatriotic not to question one's executive and equally, to suggest that posing questions and having a conversation that questions the viability of manufacturing our beloved Holden cars is a tad unfair IMO.

Cheers, TB

[Dr Terry]

You forgot the Ford Econovan/Mazda E Series Dr Terry. I only care cause we had a Mazda when I was a kid and the Ford parts were cheaper.

There were many examples of Ford/Mazda sharing, but my point was that they had very little to do with the Button plan. Ford actually had a majority shareholding in Mazda back then, so it was to their advantage to do it this way.

In addition to the Econovan/E Series, there was also the Courier/B Series & the Patrol/Maverick. This went on all over the world, so it wasn't unique to Australia & certainly had squat to do with Sen. Button.

Dr Terry