How bemused would Joe Hockey, who these days has found his niche as a K Street lobbyist in Trumpworld, be by the reaction of his erstwhile colleagues to the final closure of Holden?
Hockey was the treasurer who chased General Motors out of the country. Having declared that the age of entitlement was over in opposition, Hockey began his stint as Tony Abbott’s treasurer full of neoliberal enthusiasm.
The car industry, which had enjoyed decades of taxpayer handouts and tariff barriers (even now, you can’t import a second-hand vehicle without paying a punitive tariff), was a particular target.
As questions swirled about the future of the last three local manufacturers — Ford, Holden and Toyota — in December 2013, Hockey rose in parliament to castigate General Motors and its local subsidiary.
We want them to be honest about it — we want them to be fair dinkum –because, if I was running a business and I was committed to that business in Australia, I would not be saying that I have not made any decision about Australia. Either you are here or you are not.
The next day, GM told the government that it would not be here, thanks very much. Ford and Toyota followed in short order.
Yesterday Hockey’s colleague from back then, Scott Morrison, claimed he was angry about GM’s decision to shutter the Holden brand altogether and close its remaining design and finance operations. Angry and disappointed.
Presumably he raised his concerns about Hockey’s language back in December 2013. After all, you can’t invite a company to leave and then turn around and complain when they do, can you?
Industry Minister Karen Andrews went further and said “it’s appalling that Holden did not reach out to the government, didn’t speak to the Prime Minister until just before they made the announcement today”.
When pressed on exactly what the point of that would have been, though, Andrews said it was so they could have given the government a “better explanation”.
While everyone’s lamenting the end of the “iconic” Holden brand, overlooked is the extraordinary waste involved in propping up the car industry for so long, with taxpayers spending $18,000 to protect each job in a heavily unionised, politically well-connected industry while less well-connected industries or those with high levels of female participation were left to wither.
Much of the money flowed into the coffers of the big Japanese and American car multinationals — vastly profitable corporations that exploited protectionist sentiment and economic irrationalism and tax laws to reap billions and pay little or nothing in tax.
Not that the government is mentioning that. The kind of rhetoric Hockey used six years ago is now unthinkable. Morrison and Andrews have to feign outrage. Neoliberalism and the kind of hardline economic policies it drove, like slashing protectionism and industry assistance, have become politically unacceptable.
But it’s not merely a change of rhetoric: to back up its words and signal to the electorate that it gets the turn against neoliberalism, the government — first Malcolm Turnbull, then Scott Morrison — has had to plunge deep into protectionism and re-regulation.
Whereas we once spent $18,000 per automotive industry job, we’re now preparing to spend 10 times that, perhaps 20 or 50 times that, per defence industry job, to locally build submarines that by any rational assessment should be built overseas (something Abbott originally wanted to do, but then was forced to abandon for South Australian electoral reasons).
Taxpayers have been signed up for decades to come to fund a naval shipbuilding program that will end up employing maybe 20,000 people — far fewer than the automotive industry just a few years ago.
It’s as if the incompetence and learned helplessness that now pervades government in Australia extends to us not even being able to do protectionism well any more.
If only GM had found a way to make cars out of coal, eh?
What happened to the hybrid Camry that Toyota had invested in new assembly lines to build and was opened by Julia Gillard to much optimism? Was this too much for Abbott and Hockey to stomach and it had to go too?
The point about the car industry being heavily unionised is why it had to go.
And I’m sure that those workers whose jobs were secured with $18,000 each were paying much more than that in tax. How much are they paying now?
Meanwhile, what are the subsidies in the coal mining industry costing per job?
I agree with your comments, Wayne.
Would also add that I come from SA, and at the height of the car industry closure here (Holden/GM), we were told that there were 19 nations on the entire planet who manufactured cars from beginning to end.
Of those 19…ALL received government assistance in various forms, and Australia was number 18…second lowest…in subsidy amounts.
So… far from being a ‘failure’, there were 17 countries ahead of us paying much more than $18,000/job. That seems to be the nature of the beast!
And Bernard…please stop with the neo-liberal economics, and what a great deal it is/was. Try telling that to the hundreds of thousands of car industry workers who have lost their jobs, homes, security and sometimes family because of it. All Bull…T!!!
I have just read and article in The Age about this.
“Under the last car plan, up to $300 million in assistance was available each year to car and parts makers, who employed around 50,000 tier one and tier two workers just a few years ago. This assistance also supported the jobs of many other workers in tier three operations.”
“What they failed to realise was that those workers, earning average industrial wages, were contributing around $1.3 billion a year in income tax each year. By closing the car industry, Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey actually cost the budget around $1 billion in annual revenue, because very few of the displaced workers actually found 40-hour, award-wage jobs after they left the automotive industry”
https://www.theage.com.au/national/holden-s-problem-was-not-the-taxpayer-subsidies-20200218-p541ww.html
Remember Joe Shonkey blaming “AMWU intransigence and militancy” for Toyota picking up it’s bat and ball – then Toyota contradicting him.
Meanwhile Andrews is typical of this government – having squeezed the life out of yet another toothpaste tube, wonders why it’s gone.
A cage fight between BK & Grundle would be fun, using WTO rules & vorpal blades.
Wasn’t it Great Gough who began the abolition of protectionism and was thrown out for his trouble.
What goes round, comes out square, like wombat shit.
Great to see Scotty the jilted lover:
“You left me, after all I’ve done for you! You didn’t talk to me…I was the last to know…”