The end of car making in Australia...

[dddd]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Don't put Neoliberalism rubbish from The Australian on here.

Unions were very accomodating including wage freezes for years, forced annual leave and working one week on one week off at half pay. Plus introducing casual and contract work instead of ongoing.

But its perfectly ok to put lefty propaganda from the Fairfax press on, no problem with that I'm guessing

[bobthebilda]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

For those of you playing at home, here is the report mentioned in the article link I posted yesterday:

http://www.industry.gov.au/industry/...veIndustry.pdf

Oh and the author's claim that 45,500 people are directly employed by automotive manufacture is conservative:
These numbers are taken from ABS statistics.

So what you contend,is that the number of cars being made in Australia has more than halved, yet the number of people that are being employed to make over 50% less cars has remained the same.

You are certainly fluffing around the edges. there is nothing in the Bracks report or any other report to say that 45,000 people or even 64,000 (as in the bracks report) to say that, that many people are employed in the car manufacturing industry. Most reports state, "Automotive Industry", which also includes those who fit the muffler at the local midas store, or the receptionist who works at the service desk at the local ford dealer. these jobs arent going anywhere.

Heres the phrase from the Bracks report

The Australian automotive industry encompasses a wide range of activities including vehicle production, component production, tooling and design and engineering. It is an important part of the Australian economy, employing over
64,000 people.

You say Automotive Manufacturing, Bracks says Automotive Industry.

[GASWAGON]

Surely Victoria will be sent into a 'long term' recession when all these workers lose their jobs???

WHere exactly are they all going to go???

[Kieron]

Originally Posted by Wretched

Agreed, however, the US bosses need to take some of the responsibilities. It is their company after all and not the government's.
It is their responsibility to be investing in the product and the subsequent infrastructure.

With all due respect, its their responsibility to give return to the shareholders. In order to do that, they will invest $$'s in whatever area required, be it infrastructure, new vehicle development, updates etc.

If they don't see an ROI and/or can see that spending those $$'s elsewhere will return a better ROI, then the door close, it's happened with assembly plants in the US too, not just here.

End of the day, Ford could have poured billions into Aus, but what for? the Falcon/Terri is on an aging platform that needs a complete refresh but the sales volume just doesn't support it. That leaves Ford Aus to build 'One Ford' platforms, but i'll bet the business case still doesn't stack up (the Focus was once green lighted for Aussie manufacture but knocked on the head)

Only way to get manufacture back in Aus is to raise import tariffs on O/S cars which would raise the cost of cars for us and build in the fat required for us to support a local industry again. That's why we had a buoyant car manufacturing industry in halcyon days.

[Sprintey]

You are right about the returns to shareholders Kieron.
I'm reading about the demise of Nissan Australia in 1992 at present, and there was a trail of red ink a mile long; management choosing silly cars and being at odds with product planning; government interference in disallowing Nissan to build 6's; the car sharing system and mandated factory-closing under certain volumes that were part of the Button Plan ("..designed to force local manufacturers into producing in larger volumes or quit as tariff protection was reduced."). It was a mess. How do you justify operating under such policy to your shareholders when all they see is red?

[tranquilized]

The Button Plan came about after it was recognised Australians paid too much for inferior quality cars. To try and rectify this tariffs were gradually reduced, and the Button Plan was aiming to gradually reduce the size of the local manufacturing industry to even it all out. All in all from what I can tell it was good policy. But the problem was that no other study or plan of attack of similar scope has ever been divised since. Meanwhile the tariffs are all the way down to 5% with no plan for that, (even though it had been scheduled to happen for over a decade) hence we get the sudden mass exodus of the remaining manufacturers.

This isn't what Button had in mind I'm pretty sure...

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Wretched

Agreed, however, the US bosses need to take some of the responsibilities. It is their company after all and not the government's.
It is their responsibility to be investing in the product and the subsequent infrastructure.

They did take responsibility. It was unfeasible and they pulled out. Why was it unfeasible to continue...there are many factors.

Originally Posted by tranquilized

The Button Plan came about after it was recognised Australians paid too much for inferior quality cars. To try and rectify this tariffs were gradually reduced, and the Button Plan was aiming to gradually reduce the size of the local manufacturing industry to even it all out. All in all from what I can tell it was good policy. But the problem was that no other study or plan of attack of similar scope has ever been divised since. Meanwhile the tariffs are all the way down to 5% with no plan for that, (even though it had been scheduled to happen for over a decade) hence we get the sudden mass exodus of the remaining manufacturers.

This isn't what Button had in mind I'm pretty sure...

The button plan was to make the industry competitive and raise quality. Not kill it. But no one looked at the plan after introduction.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by Kieron

With all due respect, its their responsibility to give return to the shareholders. In order to do that, they will invest $$'s in whatever area required, be it infrastructure, new vehicle development, updates etc.

If they don't see an ROI and/or can see that spending those $$'s elsewhere will return a better ROI, then the door close, it's happened with assembly plants in the US too, not just here.

End of the day, Ford could have poured billions into Aus, but what for? the Falcon/Terri is on an aging platform that needs a complete refresh but the sales volume just doesn't support it. That leaves Ford Aus to build 'One Ford' platforms, but i'll bet the business case still doesn't stack up (the Focus was once green lighted for Aussie manufacture but knocked on the head)

Only way to get manufacture back in Aus is to raise import tariffs on O/S cars which would raise the cost of cars for us and build in the fat required for us to support a local industry again. That's why we had a buoyant car manufacturing industry in halcyon days.

Precisely. Pretty much what I had been trying to get at without actually saying it. Though I don't agree with the high tariffs but everything else agreed.

[GTP534]

The Button Plan was to reduce the number of models manufactured locally as we had GMH, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota and Nissan manufacturing here. The Button Plan recognised that for the size of the Australian market this was too many.

It encouraged model sharing and that's how we got Ford Mavericks/Nissan Patrols, Holden Appollos/Toyota Camrys and so on.

This rationalisation was to make them more productive in a climate of a gradual reduction in import tariffs. Meanwhile, importers were always crying for lower tariffs for a more level playing field.

I'm not an expert on it but it was intended to make the local industry more productive and to reduce the number of manufacturers so the industry could survive.

[Sprintey]

So there was no provision in the Button Plan that once a certain size - ie 4 makers and 200,000 cars per year - was reached there was a defensible "line in the sand" that policy would shift to protect? How on earth could such a policy be approved without some view of how to act once it was successful?

[joolz]

Originally Posted by Sprintey

So there was no provision in the Button Plan that once a certain size - ie 4 makers and 200,000 cars per year - was reached there was a defensible "line in the sand" that policy would shift to protect? How on earth could such a policy be approved without some view of how to act once it was successful?

Would I be correct it was ex Vic Premier Steve Bracks wanted the import tariffs reduced to zero to make it a level playing field. (Thailand import tariff over 50%) Well now there is no other opposition so it must be level now... So now flood us with the imports if there is anyone with jobs to buy these flashy gizmo filled cars not tested in Australian harsh conditions.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by joolz

Would I be correct it was ex Vic Premier Steve Bracks wanted the import tariffs reduced to zero to make it a level playing field. (Thailand import tariff over 50%) Well now there is no other opposition so it must be level now... So now flood us with the imports if there is anyone with jobs to buy these flashy gizmo filled cars not tested in Australian harsh conditions.

Only thing harsh about Australian conditions is the wild life.
The rest is no worse than other parts of the world.
It used to be bad here before we had sealed roads everywhere, that's changed for the majority of places people drive cars. The rest, you wouldn't take a car there anyway.

[Vesper Martini]

I'm really sick of those built for Australia's harsh conditions comments.

[Express]

Some people need to take a drive overseas.

Even a highly advance industrial country like the US which has some great highways also has some very tough conditions.

Death Valley gives a vehicle a good test and I’ve yet to see a modern city that has more rim cracking, suspension breaking potholes than New York.

Even a road as famous as Mulholland Drive is a shocker in some places.

[Bossxr8]

Our UV levels are the highest in the world I thought?

Very tough on interior plastics like dash boards etc.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Our UV levels are the highest in the world I thought?

Very tough on interior plastics like dash boards etc.

Sth America.
http://www.livescience.com/46701-and...-measured.html

Yes tough on plastics and roof linings.

[Trump]

http://m.cartrade.com/car-bike-news/...re-130099.html

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Our UV levels are the highest in the world I thought?

Very tough on interior plastics like dash boards etc.

Manufacturers do test in Australia usually in the outback for hot weather testing.

http://www.test-trak.com/testservices.htm

http://www.caradvice.com.au/333449/h...-in-australia/

http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/n...326-35jrv.html

http://www.ausbt.com.au/boeing-787-9...ralian-outback

[Spammy]

The only two cars that I can think of where the suspension design has failed as a result if our so-called harsh conditions are the XK Falcon and the ford territory.

[XR Martin]

BMW E46 3 series rear subframe, VP IRS and FJ Cruiser front end are three that I can think of off the top of my head.

All of which were far worse than the ball joint issue on the Territory.

[paulb351]

Originally Posted by Spammy

The only two cars that I can think of where the suspension design has failed as a result if our so-called harsh conditions are the XK Falcon and the ford territory.

Mercedes G wagon a famous fail with all eight breaking suspension with journos in tow. And stuck in WA outback needing airlifted of parts in...

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

BMW E46 3 series rear subframe, VP IRS and FJ Cruiser front end are three that I can think of off the top of my head.

All of which were far worse than the ball joint issue on the Territory.

The suspension bushes in the Territory are prone to short lifespan - long enough to get them past warranty, short enough to be an unwanted large expense for the owner. Terrific suspension in terms of the way the car works but rather fragile imho. Not very good for the "built-tough-for-Australia" image.

Then there's the never-ending rattles on rough roads

Not critical of the Territory, it's a fantastic design. Just sayin!

[Spammy]

[QUOTE=new2ford;5477654]The suspension bushes in the Territory are prone to short lifespan - long enough to get them past warranty, short enough to be an unwanted large expense for the owner. Terrific suspension in terms of the way the car works but rather fragile imho. Not very good for the "built-tough-for-Australia" image.

Then there's the never-ending rattles on rough roads

Not critical of the Territory, it's a fantastic design. Just sayin![/QUOT

Whereas I'm very critical of the Territory, the build quality is embarrassing, the rear susp design is laughable and the rust issues are inexcusable.

Why is auto manufacuring dead in aust? Because the local cars are do not meet modern expectations of features, quality or value for money.....dead simple.