On submarines and Australian manufacturing
Ian Ritchies writes: The article I reference concluded with your invitation to comment on “Should Australia have backed Tony Abbott’s submarine decision?”
Navel-gazing (as opposed to naval-gazing) is an exercise in futility. Surely your question should be directed to future successes, rather than past debacles (and Abbott was a debacle only surpassed by Morrison).
I suggest Mr Keane’s comments, “Abbott was that rare politician who was prepared to call bullshit on Australia’s obsession with manufacturing” and “It’s also a reflection of the parochialism and protectionism embedded in Australian politics”, touch on the more meaningful debate.
Australians have, decade following decade, proven themselves capable of design and innovation to the equal or better of any nation across a multitude of products.
What, in recent decades, has somewhat stymied manufacturing and production in Australia has been our enviable social advancement with education, health care, standard of living, infrastructure development, etc, all pushing the minimum wage much higher than many countries. As a result, much of our manufacturing was exported.
This is cyclical, however, and successful manufacturing countries such as Japan, Thailand and China are seeing wages and affluence grow, yet retain valuable manufacturing bases due to robotics and process control applications that go some way in offsetting wages growth.
This could be a win-win situation from which Australia can benefit — however, we are starting from behind the eight ball.
Government incentives and tax offsets can assist us to rekindle our dimly glowing manufacturing industry and allow us to compete on the world stage. We are, after all, ideally geared towards cheap renewable energy, abundant natural resources and copious land to utilise.
Picking on the past iron-lung-dependent Australian car industry, or leviathan industries like warships and submarines, is also unhelpful in determining the viability of the wider manufacturing picture. We have an absolute plethora of potentially successful industries — micro, small and large — that can be developed successfully.
As an example, and in keeping with your maritime theme, Australia’s domestic, commercial and recreational boat manufacturing sector presents as a larger employer than our automotive industry ever was in its heyday, yet the marine industry developed on its own, with limited government support and only generic tax breaks, and competes reasonably successfully on the local and world stage despite the global financial crisis, numerous recessions and a global pandemic!
With good planning, increasing trade, non-blinkered vision and locking out self-serving partisan bun-fighting, our greatest hurdle (relative remoteness) can be overcome.
Australia can benefit from automation, vertical integration and end-to-end manufacturing, from resource to consumer product. The windfall for all Australians is certainly worth chasing and supporting.
Ben Rose writes: The AUKUS subs deal should be scrapped and, as Bernard suggests, replaced with the latest Japanese or French diesel-electric hybrid models off the shelf.
As for other manufacturing, we need more of the right type that utilises our strengths and trains skilled workers, e.g., green steel, batteries and a small commercial EV with as much Australian content as possible.
Post World War II, we manufactured tractors, farm machinery and cars in Australia for one major reason: security. No matter that minor selective tariffs and government support may be required. The cost would be small compared to AUKUS. In my view, the days of completely free trade are over.
Julia Bovard writes: Regardless of the desired outcomes for Australia regarding functioning submarines, is it really fair to deride the government for being parochial and protectionist? I would imagine it is one of the functions of government to ensure that as much as possible manufacturing should involve Australians. Despite the wishes of many, expertise is not always an attribute of overseas corporations and governments. We too have industries with experience in manufacturing, including maritime machinery and goods.
It may just be a case of training those locals with experience in the actualities of new engineering. A starting point might be to examine recent overseas-manufactured local transport for NSW. Fleets of buses, ferries and trams manufactured in foreign countries such as China, Portugal and Spain all turned out to be unsuitable for local conditions.
The timing and other decisions relating to new manufactured items are obviously a decision for politicians advised by their departments. Or am I actually expecting government departments to have a level of expertise that has now been replaced by political staffers and spin doctors?
Ian Hampton writes: Overall, I think yes [Australia should have backed Tony Abbott’s decision to buy Japanese submarines], but I am not a military or naval person.
Assuming we had been able to recruit and train the required submarine crews — and that seems to be a problem — we would now have a much more capable deterrence navy than we now have and will have for years. Based on their effectiveness in power tools and EVs, the later inclusion of lithium batteries would (on the face of it) have resulted in the latest submarines being even more capable, in turns of range at least, i.e. sort of halfway towards nuclear submarine capability.
I understand a big advantage of nuclear subs is increased stealth, as they can stay under the surface for much longer periods, as well as speed, which means they are harder to “follow” and can make big distances undetected at phenomenal speeds. That makes sense with respect to defending a vast continent like Australia and our apparent ambition to be a “good” cop on the watch of the South Pacific.
AUKUS means we are now even more integrated/incorporated into the US military hegemony. While that status appears to be inevitable to an extent, having our own “more sovereign” frontline navy capability, i.e. submarine fleet, would be better. We should remember that Curtin was able to and took the decision to order the Australian troops back from the Middle East to Australia and the Pacific in World War II… that was undoubtedly historically correct and a hugely important sliding doors moment for this nation.
