I smash ACT Labor again for their car-buying policy

[turbodewd]

(Ive emailed our local govt again, see below)

Chief Minister

I note with interest Holden yesterday declaring the loss of several hundred jobs. Accordingly, I wish to raise the following points.

1. Labor at the federal level provides support to local car manufacturing while ACT Labor undermines this policy by not having an Australian-made purchasing policy. Are some Australian workers more equal than others according to ACT Labor? Could the Federal government provide less assistance if ACT Labor bought Australian cars in the first place?
2. Canberra exists almost wholly as a result of taxes levied a that the Federal level. We should return the favor and buy locally. I think if any auto workers in Adelaide, Melbourne or Geelong were seeing their taxes turn into foreign cars in the ACT they would certainly be outraged.
3. The Victorian and South Australian governments have Australian-made purchasing policies concerning cars – one is a Liberal government, one Labor. Please note section 3.2.1.4 from the VicFleet policy document on this matter available at https://www.vicfleet.vic.gov.au/CA25...hicle-policies

“Only passenger vehicles that are substantially manufactured in Australia are permitted for lease or purchase under the government’s motor vehicle acquisition policy. ‘Substantially manufactured in Australia’ is defined as any vehicle where the body is assembled and painted in Australia and the compliance plate is fitted at the point of manufacturer in Australia. “

4. As I have noted before, I have seen Toyota Klugers and small Hyundais sporting ACT government plates. I find it extraordinary that these were not Ford Territorys or Holden Cruzes.

ACT Labor is happy to pay a rich Sydney AFL team $20 million over 10 years to visit our fine capital. Do we not also have the good sense to give back to greater Australia by buying locally in such a crucial industry?

regards

James xxxxx
BONNER ACT 2914

[stevz]

Well done and I commend you on your initiative. This needs to be shoved in the face of not just the ACT government, but every single government department around the nation. I have seen several local councils with fleets of Corollas and Hyundais.
We should also be attacking fleet companies, buisnesses and even individuals who purchase imported vehicles. Make them feel guilty for spitting in the face of the Australian worker and economy in general while supporting a foreign country's economy. Maybe a public campaign to boycott the products and services of companies who use imported fleet cars could have some effect?
Lastly, I think there needs to be strong campaign to abolish these ridiculous 4 cylinder only policies that many fleets now enforce. They are doing nothing but damage to our automotive industry while providing little if any benefit to the environment.

[Itsme]

QUOTE =stevz;4692261]We should also be attacking fleet companies, buisnesses and even individuals who purchase imported vehicles. Make them feel guilty for spitting in the face of the Australian worker and economy in general while supporting a foreign country's economy.

Sounds like a Stalinist tactic, maybe we should live under a communist government like North Korea.

What I choose to buy local or import is my business not yours.

Our economy, trade & tarrifs policies is controlled by the Federal government, maybe you should question these policies to make it a better playing field for our companies to compete with overseas companies.

PS: As an Australian I support local industries & our companies are struggling to compete, bit hard when you have policies that impose unfair restrictions.

[Road_Warrior]

In Wait Awhile they've changed the government fleet vehicle procurement policy to basically ban any vehicle that produces over 185g of CO2/klm.

[bobthebilda]

Surely you could answer the following question:

Originally Posted by turbodewd

(Ive emailed our local govt again, see below)

Are some Australian workers more equal than others according to ACT Labor?

Not many (non public servant) Australian jobs are subsidised to the tune of $40,000 per worker.

[turbodewd]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

In Wait Awhile they've changed the government fleet vehicle procurement policy to basically ban any vehicle that produces over 185g of CO2/klm.

I know WA exports a lot of iron ore...are they a big coal exporter too?

Surely the Cruze still fits the bill.

bobthebilda,

where art thou figures from?

[Spinner77]

On the one hand, there is no future in this:

We should also be attacking fleet companies, buisnesses and even individuals who purchase imported vehicles

We tried it for long enough, with heavy import tariffs (taxes on foreign importers). Didn't do much good. People still wanted - and bought - the Japanese imports. Subsidies are at least better. With a subsidy, at least you know what the exact cost is to the taxpayer. With a tariff, you don't.

On the other hand, I don't know of a successful industrial country that does not provide massive support of one kind or another to its favoured industry. The is done through a web of direct subsidies, research incentives, tax breaks and other support for certain manufacturing. Germany does it with cars (ever wondered why Ford has factories there?). Japan with cars and cameras. The US does it with the IT industry, by turning a blind eye to tax avoidance through the use of foreign entitities. China does it by keeping its currency lower than it would otherwise be - some have called it currency manipulation.

So you're welcome to complain about jobs "subsidised to the tune of $40,000 per worker". But don't imagine that other countries are industrial virgins in this regard either. Not by a long shot.

Now you never hear about this from the toothless, Homer Simpson-comb-over economic experts on TV. They just want to harp on about how inefficient it is. In economic terms, it may be inefficient.

But what sort of country do you want to live in? One with a few mining jobs? What does everyone else do? Become hairdressers and accountants? Do you see your sons' and daughters' futures in being golf-caddies, croupiers and bar-girls for rich foreign tourists?

An amazing thing about Australia is that these days there is an assumption that everything - yes, everything - must be economically efficient. Nobody is arguing that we must have some highly efficient export industries. But does everything, every little thing have to be jammed into the efficiency perspective?

Here's a little example. There is now a move among some Melbourne councils to close down open-air swimming pools. Why? They are not making a profit. My question is: did anyone ever expect them to be? A great Australian tradition under threat from the pale and the pointy-headed.

If those views were influential in Europe, the French would tear down the Eiffel Tour to replace it with a concrete apartment block. The Italians would kick the Pope out of the Vatican to make St. Peter's into a series of bars and restaurants.

Having said all that, it is another matter when governments deliberately choose not to buy Australian-made, as goes on all the time. There will be times when there are sound reasons to not to buy local vehicles (e.g. for some purposes in the police and armed forces). But just moving public servants around town is not one of them.

[mik]

Great post Spinner77, totally agree mate. I think you could add many many gov services and institution s , I imagine this is why we no longer own utities, railways, electricity, gov services, because some clever bugger decided because it is gonna cost a bit more we should outsource the lot, it's worked out well for our trains..............re brake blocks being hurled off the bogies !

[Spinner77]

because some clever bugger decided because it is gonna cost a bit more we should outsource the lot, it's worked out well for our trains

Yes, it's called the user-pays principle. Some say it is the loser-pays principle.

Three points.

First, there would never have been a single mile of rail built in this country if today's rules of economic efficiency had been applied then. Rail was expected to be a subsidy to industry.

Second, rail and electricity used to provide a great proportion of the apprenticeships available for the community as a whole. These were well managed apprenticeships. Young people came out of them very well trained, and with a breadth of experience you can get today only at one of our very largest companies.

How many apprenticeships are provided by rail and electricity today? Two-fifths of three-eighth of sweet Fanny Adams.

Third, the old utilities provided a form of social security. Almost anyone could get a job on the railways. It didn't pay much, but it was a job. It also provided some self-respect, and a lot more self-respect than lining up for the dole and being humiliated at Centrelink.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Lefty. But I think the Right has fooled itself, in going along, quite uncritically, with ideas that fail the tests of common sense, and now experience over - how long? Maybe a quarter of a century.

Let's be realistic and pragmatic.

[vanman_75]

Off topic but Eiffel tower has its own economy ,without it I reckon Paris would be in trouble, and the Vatican pulls in more people a year than Justin beiber will in his whole life ...for a hundred acre paddock it would make a tidy return

Oh and I agree with your post ..

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by Spinner77

because some clever bugger decided because it is gonna cost a bit more we should outsource the lot, it's worked out well for our trains

Yes, it's called the user-pays principle. Some say it is the loser-pays principle.

Three points.

First, there would never have been a single mile of rail built in this country if today's rules of economic efficiency had been applied then. Rail was expected to be a subsidy to industry.
.

Wouldnt be any paved roads outside the capital cities either.

[MITCHAY]

I could not find any information on specific procurement policies but found this document

http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/__data/***...lines_2010.pdf

The i30 and Kluger ratings are slightly better in green rating and I'd imagine that they are probably cheaper to procure compared to the equivalent Australian vehicle.

I'd be interested to see what their response is if you get one. I'd place bets on it containing 'value proposition' or some words similar to that :