Update with Holden @ Elizabeth - closing down more likely??

[Reaper]

I'd be all for imports from countries that have no carbon mitigation plan to be hit with the cost when it arrives in Australia.

Pitty our current government doesn't think so :bang:

One thing they have done today which I do agree with is to mandate that all levels of government use Australian built vehicles wherever possible. They also pledged $200mill for I'm not sure what which is somewhat questionable however the "buy Australian" directive is a good thing. I hope the LNP do the same.

 

[Jesterarts]

Ya think? Not the awkward moment when you realise what "universally quoted" means?

Well, true. But I was hoping we would be only referring to credible sources.

Otherwise nothing in the world could be deemed as "universally quoted" as any muppet, or "climate change official" could give educated opinion on the matter to throw a spanner in the works.

If you're going to clutch at that straw, I am happy to quality the "universally quoted" statement with "by credible and relevant sources" ?

 

[c2105026]

Given that a VF Commodore is largely superfluous to the needs of an urban based fleet person getting from A to B, I predict a noticeable run on the Cruze and 4cyl Camry. VF Commodore, Falcon, and Aurion may be preferable for long distance fleet driving (Like when I was at the RTA) but for the average fleet manager there'd be nothing wrong with the 4cyl models even for this usage.

I too would support an 'environmental levy' on any import arriving from an extensively environmentally deregulated country. This could encompass more than just Carbon.

But then 'Free Trade' is out the window with that. (Idea is bollocks anyway. Nothing is 'Free'. It is all paid for by someone in the end...)

 

[vr94ss]

Well, true. But I was hoping we would be only referring to credible sources.

Otherwise nothing in the world could be deemed as "universally quoted" as any muppet, or "climate change official" could give educated opinion on the matter to throw a spanner in the works.

If you're going to clutch at that straw, I am happy to quality the "universally quoted" statement with "by credible and relevant sources" ?

I wasn't clutching at that straw, I was making a point about what Reaper said. If you read the first link where it talks about the pwc report you'd see that taking the biggest number, ignoring gov assistance and say that is what it will cost as a fact as LNP does, it's a bit of a porky and not a credible source. In fact TA has said he's not credible unless certain caveats are met.

The 2011 report also said that government assistance to the industry would reduce the carbon price impact on the cost per vehicle to a range of $121 to $215. The mid level of this range is $168, close to a reported $150 per vehicle stated by car industry spokesmen in news reports when the carbon price was announced.

 

[vr94ss]

Pitty our current government doesn't think so :bang:

One thing they have done today which I do agree with is to mandate that all levels of government use Australian built vehicles wherever possible. They also pledged $200mill for I'm not sure what which is somewhat questionable however the "buy Australian" directive is a good thing. I hope the LNP do the same.

I'm at a loss to understand why this has not always the case. Both sides of govt have had many years to do something like this. It should be all levels of govt too, from local to federal.

 

[Jesterarts]

What does government assistance have to do with the price of fish?

If you are buying something for $400 and you have a gift card for $200, it doesn't magically make the thing cost $200. It stills costs the same.

And if the goverment is the one paying for said gift card, its safe to say they are not getting that money from return on good investments hit rather out of the tax payers pocket, so we all pay more tax to cover this.

With one hand the government is proping up the car manufacuring industry while with the other they are killing it.

 

[vr94ss]

What does government assistance have to do with the price of fish?

If you are buying something for $400 and you have a gift card for $200, it doesn't magically make the thing cost $200. It stills costs the same.

And if the goverment is the one paying for said gift card, its safe to say they are not getting that money from return on good investments hit rather out of the tax payers pocket, so we all pay more tax to cover this.

With one hand the government is proping up the car manufacuring industry while with the other they are killing it.

I understand your point but the assistance is probably from the carbon tax so in effect it's giving the car industry a cut in it's emission tax.

 

[Reaper]

I'm at a loss to understand why this has not always the case. Both sides of govt have had many years to do something like this. It should be all levels of govt too, from local to federal.

In years gone by it was a strictly "Buy Australian" mandate. That was wound back as 20 -30 years ago Australian manufactures were taking advantage of the situation (and high tariffs) by delivering a significantly inferior product at artificially inflated prices. At the time, Australian manufacturers needed a slapping. That was a long time ago and things have changed. Contrary to some opinions on this site, quality these days is streets ahead of "the bad old days" and is generally on a par or better than their foreign competitors at a given segment/price point.

With that in mind, I think these days we can and should go back to favouring Australian production wherever possible. I think it's far preferable to just handing over wads of cash. At least govco gets the additional benefit of use of the vehicles and the manufacturers will have a base of cars (all be it very low profit) to add to their schedule each month. If it's found that Holden/Ford/Toyota are starting to take advantage of the situation, it's only a regulatory change that will send the golden goose to the axe man.

FYI the Victorian state government went to a Buy Australian policy early this year (may have been last year - can't remember the exact timing).

 

[Calaber]

I'm at a loss to understand why this has not always the case. Both sides of govt have had many years to do something like this. It should be all levels of govt too, from local to federal.

Further to Reaper's comments, I also think part of the reasoning behind past decisions which permitted purchase of just about anything, imported or local, was to do with running costs and availability of suitable vehicles for specific purposes. In years gone by, when fuel prices were much more volatile than they are today (yes, Priscilla, there have been worse times than the present), fuel consumption was a major determinant in vehicle purchases. I can well remember when Toyota Coronas were purchased as patrol cars by NSW Police because Holdens and Falcons of the day were too thirsty. More recently, vehicles such as Foresters were purchased for specific duties because the locals didn't make a suitable alternative.

It's worth considering that when it comes to high speed vehicles, local cars remain king for police use and have been almost the exclusive use, with certain periods of digression back in the 80's and 90's when a hi-po import might have been used. If you look at the UK police, you find they don't use British vehicles for their highway patrols - generally the vehicles seem to be BMW's.

Even today, we will find that government authorities will continue to purchase/lease imported vehicles because the local industry doesn't manufacture a suitable alternative. The new edict won't change that. It just means that a few thousand more Holdens, Fords and Toyotas will take up government duties than might otherwise have been the case.

 

[c2105026]

Further to Reaper's comments, I also think part of the reasoning behind past decisions which permitted purchase of just about anything, imported or local, was to do with running costs and availability of suitable vehicles for specific purposes. In years gone by, when fuel prices were much more volatile than they are today (yes, Priscilla, there have been worse times than the present), fuel consumption was a major determinant in vehicle purchases. I can well remember when Toyota Coronas were purchased as patrol cars by NSW Police because Holdens and Falcons of the day were too thirsty. More recently, vehicles such as Foresters were purchased for specific duties because the locals didn't make a suitable alternative.

It's worth considering that when it comes to high speed vehicles, local cars remain king for police use and have been almost the exclusive use, with certain periods of digression back in the 80's and 90's when a hi-po import might have been used. If you look at the UK police, you find they don't use British vehicles for their highway patrols - generally the vehicles seem to be BMW's.

Even today, we will find that government authorities will continue to purchase/lease imported vehicles because the local industry doesn't manufacture a suitable alternative. The new edict won't change that. It just means that a few thousand more Holdens, Fords and Toyotas will take up government duties than might otherwise have been the case.

Quite true. As I mentioned before Vic Police trialled VB Mercs in the 80s; they were better at the job of highway patrol than the VH Commodore/XE Falcon, but govt wanted to back local industry. Also if you go back far enough it wasn't only cost of fuel but availability of it. In the 1979-1980 oil shock supplies were low; indeed the 1979 Repco Trial may not have run because of the shortage! Then again, given Australia's oil supply has peaked (back in 2000) and we get more and more oil from OPEC (whose countries are unstable) this may well be something we have to deal with in years/decades to come.