Its been talked about lately the steelworks is struggling.
Idea that if a project that needs steel, that is tax payer funded ,should come 100% from Australian steel is well overdue.
Why isn't this the case already?
Why, for that matter, aren't all government vehicles also Australian made? We would still have car manufacturers .
There is so much that can be done if someone in power, who had a backbone ,would take charge, grow some nads and start looking after the Australian people.

That concept is becoming more and more unlikely as free trade agreements formally ban such practices.

To me Fingerbone's point remains, particularly with Govt vehicles. I have always seen this as a no-brainer.

Aussie steel is a harder one, as it is difficult to compete with low wage countries to convert the ore into useable steel onshore. Has been tried, and has always fallen behind.

What would stop a Government though, from introducing a policy of all government expenditure going to Aussie made? Interesting question.

Regards,

I thought they did that, the Australian car co. Oops i mean holden is funded by us and ran and bled dry by the unions. The government was the biggest buyer of holdens, mitsubishi was only running in australia because the government was buying them as fleet cars. The only people that bought the 380 was government and taxi companies.

This is why we shouldn't, the money wasted is stupid and it was the end of mitsubishi australia. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_380

Protectionism like nationalism is a swear word these days. The powers that be (read "The Rothschilds") want to bring the world down to the lowest common denominator so there is no middle class. Their plan is 99.9% of the world will be grovelling plebs and .1% will be the ultra mega rich.

We love football, meat pies, kangaroos and Holden cars.

Yeah right!!! They say you can have the first three and you can walk.

i think we have missed the boat with cars and steel. We need to look to the future. Manufacturing in Aus is very hard. New industry new export develope the country and buy Aussie when we can. I don't think we can protect industries to the point we had with the car industry.

Select to expand quote

cisco said...

Protectionism like nationalism is a swear word these days.

And how the masses have been so wiling to sell out for cheap imports. Free trade, even playing fields! How can there be an even playing field when we compete against 3rd world labour and conditions?

Steel, cars that is so 1900's. Australia had a burgeoning video game industry. Where are they now?www.kotaku.com.au/2014/05/government-funding-for-games-pulled-the-australian-games-industry-reacts/
We can't compete and never have... successfully.... against cheaper labour. We need to look to the future not the past.

Select to expand quote

fingerbone said..
Its been talked about lately the steelworks is struggling.
Idea that if a project that needs steel, that is tax payer funded ,should come 100% from Australian steel is well overdue.
Why isn't this the case already?
Why, for that matter, aren't all government vehicles also Australian made? We would still have car manufacturers .
There is so much that can be done if someone in power, who had a backbone ,would take charge, grow some nads and start looking after the Australian people.

It also comes back to the way people are treating government departments and government projects. They all want to run them as 'profit centres', so they look largely at whether they are cost effective or not, and not much more. If it means buying imported products because they are cheaper, they will.

I think we even had something recently where there was argument over whether Holden could provide comm-cars. Holden said they could, but for whatever reason they bought BMW.

Don't worry too much,the future is coming our way soon.....under the new trade agreement with China any large project worth less than one billion dollars does not need to be local labour tested.........so we will soon see foreign labour in very large numbers.......anyone in the heavy engineering construction should be very wary.......

Select to expand quote

slammin said...
Steel, cars that is so 1900's. Australia had a burgeoning video game industry. Where are they now?www.kotaku.com.au/2014/05/government-funding-for-games-pulled-the-australian-games-industry-reacts/
We can't compete and never have... successfully.... against cheaper labour. We need to look to the future not the past.

What future. If something is not done to stop the cheap inferior products flooding in many people will have no future.

I buy Australian, but it's made in China

"What future. If something is not done to stop the cheap inferior products flooding in many people will have no future"
Its already happened , Many people previously involved in manufacturing and other small enterprises have no future right now.

There is damm all small business development support in this country for the smaller player
If I wished to set up a business manufacture say a specialised aircraft component employing previously untrained or unemployed workers. I would get very little incentive to do so in Australia, even less welcome is if was a renewable green energy item.
Most other western countries with a existing industry development plan would provide me with a subsidised premises in a industrial area. support in the form of grants and other incentives.

Select to expand quote

roybatty said..
Don't worry too much,the future is coming our way soon.....under the new trade agreement with China any large project worth less than one billion dollars does not need to be local labour tested.........so we will soon see foreign labour in very large numbers.......anyone in the heavy engineering construction should be very wary.......

not to get into a free trade agreement is good or bad argument your comments kind of jumped out to me so I checked the facts.

seems you might be misleading people a little.

The IFA allows a project company registered in Australia but with 50% Chinese ownership to bring in Chinese workers for a proposed infrastructure development project. The development must be projected to involve capital expenditure of A$150 million over its term.

theconversation.com/factcheck-could-the-china-australia-fta-lock-out-australian-workers-43470

it's not a lot less than 1 billion. it's completely the opposite.

it's not any large project worth less than 1 billion,

it's actually any infrastructure project worth more than $150,000,000
do you realise how big a project must be to have a capital expenditure of $150,000,000

plus,

companies need to be registered in Australia and 50% Chinese owned.

plus,

can only be infrastructure projects. ie nation building stuff.

Watching a segment on ABC this evening about tackling druggies, re Jaquie Lambie and boot camps, there could be an international earner there takling ice/other drug problems.

These problems are not restricted to our country, and if there is progress to be made, it could be a well worthwhile prospect for some govt funding.

Not personally involved with any of this stuff, but it could be something where we could stand above the rest, and offer a lasting solution for those individuals involved, and their countries of origin.

Regards,

Well Australia is already making a industry of imprisoning men women and children indefinitely without charge in detention camps.
so why not...

^ You want to make yourself comprehensible Seacht?

My post was in relation to things that could possibly generate income for the Country, and produce positive results worldwide.

I wasn't aware of a profitable industry emerging for Australia from "trafficked" waters, as per your avatar, coming from turning smugglers boats back.

Maybe put a little more effort into your posts. They might mean something if there is a relevant point.

Regards,

I was referring to the costs of offshore detention, 1 billion plus.

www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/offshore-detention-centres-annual-costs-hit-1-billion-20141020-118s6i.html

A industry for Australian security providers and Island inhabitants.

Plenty profitable and plenty relevant.

Your druggie rehabilitation bootcamp thing could run alongside it.

Select to expand quote

Rex said..

cisco said...

Protectionism like nationalism is a swear word these days.

And how the masses have been so wiling to sell out for cheap imports. Free trade, even playing fields! How can there be an even playing field when we compete against 3rd world labour and conditions?

We cant. In Australia the cost of labour is 160% of the wage rate due to OH&S, Worker's Comp Insurance, superannuation levies, etc, etc ad infinitum. So even if the wage rate was the same in China, we still could not compete.

The way it should be is that the developed nations pull the developing nations up. The opposite is what is actually happening.

The old saying : "You can't have your cake and eat it too" rings very true for Australia.

In the land of he free, ie. USA, wages can go as low as $5/hr. Here we set our minimum wage at $16.87/hr. It is more than 3 times higher than that of USA. If we are to compare that of China, then there is no comparison at all. Of course, in USA, folks with full time work at say WalMart need to rely on welfare such as food stamps to supplement their meager income.

Admittedly, foods are so much cheaper in USA than in Australia, but with such low wage, I wonder how much is left after paying off rent? In Australia, we are relatively well paid, but our daily expenses are very high too. With a high wage, employers are, as per usual, chase the cheap labour cost option and move offshore. We have a stronger dollar thanks to our resources, can afford to import electronic and electrical goods.

The shifting of manufacturing location is analogous to a tube of tooth paste. You depress one end, and the paste will move else where. Even China has serious competitions right now as other nations with cheaper labour force such as Vietnam, Sri Lanka, are gaining favour with manufacturers.

Of course, one needs to look into environmental consequences too. We don't like polluting industries such as steel refineries, so China took over the production role, but at the expense of its environment and the Chinese;s health.

As I said, you can't have your cake and eat it too

The sad thing about steel production not existing in Australia any more is that over the ditch in NZ they make their own steel from pretty low grade Iron sands while up in the Pilbara there is the highest grade ore in the world + virtually unlimited gas.

Sad that we can't make it work.

Go into a supply yard ask for unequal angles,dutchflats, nah sorry
Ask for hollow bar 2205, nahsorry , they have no clue
Ship grade steel, WOT
T,s? Whatdyameanmate

To answer the original question.

A tax payer funded project that uses Chinese steel probably makes Australians (on average) better off. Chinese workers/companies are will willing to produce the steel for far less than any Australian company will/can. This means the project costs less for tax payers, which means lower taxes.

I prefer lower taxes. Why should my taxes prop up a small % of over priced labor, or pay for an inefficient company to profit? I would prefer us (Australia) to take advantage of the fact that someone else is willing to work for low wages and low capital cost to provide us with certain products (a product that is probably better than we could make ourselves).

By doing the above it allows Australia to focus our labor/companies toward providing services (producing products) that we have an advantage in providing/producing. These are the products/services which allow us to maintain our high wages.

Australia doesn't have high unemployment. We have high wages. We don't produce steel. I don't see the problem. Why do people get so concerned about us not participating in certain industries?

Select to expand quote

secondplace said..
Why do people get so concerned about us not participating in certain industries?

Dunno about you - but I live [quite proudly] in Western Australia.

A few years ago, we had huge railway workshops based in Midland.

They had a policy of hiring 4 to 5 times the apprentices than they really needed.
Welding, forging, blacksmithing, spring makers, sparkies, carriage builders, you name the trade - they had them all - if they couldn't make it there - it couldn't be made!
Same with the State Housing Commission, The Public Works Department, The Water Authority, the State Electricity Commission and all the other State Government bodies.
They all hired many more trainees than they needed - kept some when they finished their training - while the rest were ready for private enterprise to hire.

Admittedly - not the most efficient way to run - but it worked. We always had a decent supply of tradesmen and skilled workers on tap.

We could make anything ourselves - and did it well.

Cue government cutbacks, with the prompting of big business players.

They shut down the railway workshops - now we taxpayers have to pay through the nose to purchase trains and busses from interstate and overseas, with middlemen raking in huge profits.
The mines were screaming for tradies and labour - but didn't want to train their own - poaching and importing labour, so wages went through the roof.

Even building homes was hard - not enough brickies to go around!

We cant even make simple engines here anymore - let alone build decent vehicles.

We might not have "high unemployment" - but there is a lot of under-employment where people fall through the cracks or are hidden out of sight in the official surveys.

And you don't see a problem?


stephen

Select to expand quote

secondplace said..
To answer the original question.

A tax payer funded project that uses Chinese steel probably makes Australians (on average) better off. Chinese workers/companies are will willing to produce the steel for far less than any Australian company will/can. This means the project costs less for tax payers, which means lower taxes.

I prefer lower taxes. Why should my taxes prop up a small % of over priced labor, or pay for an inefficient company to profit? I would prefer us (Australia) to take advantage of the fact that someone else is willing to work for low wages and low capital cost to provide us with certain products (a product that is probably better than we could make ourselves).

By doing the above it allows Australia to focus our labor/companies toward providing services (producing products) that we have an advantage in providing/producing. These are the products/services which allow us to maintain our high wages.

Australia doesn't have high unemployment. We have high wages. We don't produce steel. I don't see the problem. Why do people get so concerned about us not participating in certain industries?

It is naive to think that workers in other countries are willing to work for low wages when they wouldn't have a choice. In simple terms, we are utilising labour to bypass our own legislated working conditions and impacts on the environment.

The concern with not participating in certain industries is - where will it end, and who and why should any industry be exempt from subsidy.Costs could be reduced by sending a considerable chunk of the work offshore that the public service does, same with farming and farm subsidies, why pay fuel subsidies to miners and so on, and of coarse, why not bring in cheap labour like Gina would like? Rocky road.

Select to expand quote

sn said..

secondplace said..
Why do people get so concerned about us not participating in certain industries?

Dunno about you - but I live [quite proudly] in Western Australia.

A few years ago, we had huge railway workshops based in Midland.

They had a policy of hiring 4 to 5 times the apprentices than they really needed.
Welding, forging, blacksmithing, spring makers, sparkies, carriage builders, you name the trade - they had them all - if they couldn't make it there - it couldn't be made!
Same with the State Housing Commission, The Public Works Department, The Water Authority, the State Electricity Commission and all the other State Government bodies.
They all hired many more trainees than they needed - kept some when they finished their training - while the rest were ready for private enterprise to hire.

Admittedly - not the most efficient way to run - but it worked. We always had a decent supply of tradesmen and skilled workers on tap.

We could make anything ourselves - and did it well.

Cue government cutbacks, with the prompting of big business players.

They shut down the railway workshops - now we taxpayers have to pay through the nose to purchase trains and busses from interstate and overseas, with middlemen raking in huge profits.
The mines were screaming for tradies and labour - but didn't want to train their own - poaching and importing labour, so wages went through the roof.

Even building homes was hard - not enough brickies to go around!

We cant even make simple engines here anymore - let alone build decent vehicles.

We might not have "high unemployment" - but there is a lot of under-employment where people fall through the cracks or are hidden out of sight in the official surveys.

And you don't see a problem?


stephen

The Midland railyard scenario you described also played out in all regional centers and towns throughout WA, all had the same facilities although scaled down.

Select to expand quote

sn said..

secondplace said..
Why do people get so concerned about us not participating in certain industries?

Dunno about you - but I live [quite proudly] in Western Australia.

A few years ago, we had huge railway workshops based in Midland.

They had a policy of hiring 4 to 5 times the apprentices than they really needed.
Welding, forging, blacksmithing, spring makers, sparkies, carriage builders, you name the trade - they had them all - if they couldn't make it there - it couldn't be made!
Same with the State Housing Commission, The Public Works Department, The Water Authority, the State Electricity Commission and all the other State Government bodies.
They all hired many more trainees than they needed - kept some when they finished their training - while the rest were ready for private enterprise to hire.

Admittedly - not the most efficient way to run - but it worked. We always had a decent supply of tradesmen and skilled workers on tap.

We could make anything ourselves - and did it well.

Cue government cutbacks, with the prompting of big business players.

They shut down the railway workshops - now we taxpayers have to pay through the nose to purchase trains and busses from interstate and overseas, with middlemen raking in huge profits.
The mines were screaming for tradies and labour - but didn't want to train their own - poaching and importing labour, so wages went through the roof.

Even building homes was hard - not enough brickies to go around!

We cant even make simple engines here anymore - let alone build decent vehicles.

We might not have "high unemployment" - but there is a lot of under-employment where people fall through the cracks or are hidden out of sight in the official surveys.

And you don't see a problem?


stephen

"under-employment" would exist regardless of whether you let certain industries fall away, so its neither here nor there. Besides, statisticians have shown that under reporting of unemployment figures has actually improved over time (aid of technology)

The fact that certain companies poach and import labour is unfortunate, but again its irrelevant to the topic of whether you should have a government support an unprofitable industry. Shortage of trades during the economic boom in Western Australia would also have occurred with or without government intervention and governments are notoriously bad at forecasting economic cycles, so I'm not really sure what the point is? Potentially there is an argument for government promoting more training (HECS, subsidised Tafe [think these both exist already]).

Sounds like the Midland operation was pretty inefficient, which came at the expense of tax payers. Personally, I'd rather get value for my tax money and see it spent on something efficient. Let the free market figure out how to provide the majority of (non public) goods and services.

You also need to consider that any labour tied up in inefficient operation means that other more efficient areas are going to be constrained. So it costs you twice, the government overpays for an inefficient operation and at the same time holds back growth in efficient operations.

Anyways, these are just my thoughts. To answer your question, i don't see a problem with letting efficient companies/industries prosper at the expense of inefficient companies/industries. Got to get back to my beer now.

Select to expand quote

fingerbone said..
Its been talked about lately the steelworks is struggling.
Idea that if a project that needs steel, that is tax payer funded ,should come 100% from Australian steel is well overdue.
Why isn't this the case already?
Why, for that matter, aren't all government vehicles also Australian made? We would still have car manufacturers .
There is so much that can be done if someone in power, who had a backbone ,would take charge, grow some nads and start looking after the Australian people.

Personally I think it's better for the country if we all paid less tax, rather than subsidise inefficient, sub-scale industries making things that are available cheaper elsewhere.

Select to expand quote

roybatty said..
Don't worry too much,the future is coming our way soon.....under the new trade agreement with China any large project worth less than one billion dollars does not need to be local labour tested.........so we will soon see foreign labour in very large numbers.......anyone in the heavy engineering construction should be very wary.......

Another trade in jeopardy by the Trade agreement with china
www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-29/government-not-to-assess-chinese-electricians-skills/6579290