Comments on: Have your say on the Bracks Report

By: Mike T

Mike T — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:43:50 +0000

Apparently the Labor government ignored the Bracks report, which is a great pity. The FBT cutoff points are silly, and I’m sure there a large number of people doing unnecessary trips as they approach 15,000 or 25,000 kilometres. One aspect of novated leasing and the required kms seems to be overlooked- most cars on the market have optomistic speedometer readings- which means the odometer undereads. A 3% error means that over 25,000km an extra 750kms has to be covered- and 3% is pretty good, I’ve seen worse. There should at least be some way that the dealership can calibrate the speedo on delivery (for a specific tyre size) so that even more unnecessary kms aren’t covered. Obviously this would require a declaration to the lease company or even to the government. I’m sure the government wouldn’t want to know though- apparently ADRs allow TEN PERCENT error, which is totally ludicrous. As far as I’m concerned, speedo error should he held to 1%, if outside this margin, it’s FAULTY.

By: Peccadilloes FCPA

Peccadilloes FCPA — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:12:37 +0000

we live in troubled times
instead of kneejerk reactions vision is needed to make sure all decisions are carefully made to overall policy objectives which include climate change criteria and measure the interventions clearly.
if the workers are subsidised $300000 each where is the money going? to the fat cats who cry poor? and persist in moronic efforts to do the least, confident that their pull with their government cronies will see them through while the disadvantaged in society suffer unjustly because there is no political leverage being applied on their behalf.
even labour is cowardly here.
why not apply the market? require firms to disclose clearly GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES (or better still call it TAXPAYERS DOLEOUTS) to clearly identify the inefficiencies in each business and the inefficient supports needed for inefficient outcomes without accountability.
and the fat cts pay themselves more and sack more workers in spite of this.
Better still would be to train public servants to take on directorships in the companies needing HANDOUTS so that they can directly monitor and influence companies to adopt public policy outcomes consistent with government support.
a blank cheque is a total dereliction of accountability by governments and smacks of corruption when the rich network with their sycophantic political cronies wooing supposed leaders and influencing them to take biased decisions which impoverish society overall and cheapen leaders’ credentials and credibility.
Mybe it is time for governments to be issued new shares in the companies at market value to reflect the massive investments and have mandatory board membership as a condition for these DOLEOUTS.
The item should be show not just as revenue for the current year but as GOVERNMENT CAPITAL OWNERSHIP in this case.
Only if leaders can measure the effects of their decisions on inefficient industries will there be any rational decision making.
In this way we will see growing amounts however classified of GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES/DOLEOUTS for the year and cumulatively and this will allow taxpayers to compare the payments made say to private schools and hospitals against those to the public sector and be enabled through productivity measures to make rational decisions on whether to change such interventions to more effective ones.
This is very easy in accounting terms.
It is time for governments to actively assist efficient businesses and disengage from inefficient white elephants, now matter how much the white shoe brigade does its snow jobs.
Mitsubishi would have survived if its best efforts with the Magna were rewarded and Ford and Holden made accountable for their inefficient interventions.
government SUBSIDIES for all car manufacturers more efficiently administered could have ensured Mitsubishi’s survival, required HOLDEN’s implementation of CSIRO design improvements and moved the car industry to more effective models long before they chose to come to taxpayers with their begging bowls.

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:30:21 +0000

Why don’t we use the absence of an international level playing fiild to our advantage. If all the other government’s of the world are subsidising their car makers to make better and cheaper cars than we do… why fight it?

Instead lets remove the subsidies from our uncompetitive, unsustainable car industry, free up scarce labour and resources for those industries that we are world leaders in (eg. mining, insurance and banking) and import better cars at cheaper prices.

The only thing worse than an ineffective subsidy is a subsidy which benefits the taxpayers of another country. The way to benefit from this is to stop subsidising the US and Japanese shareholders of GM, Toyota and Ford and instead import the cars that other governments subsidise. In the meantime Australians can pay less tax.

By: Rick

Rick — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 01:19:12 +0000

Industry works when you manufacture things people actually want. Pretty simple from where I’m standing.

As others have stated, the car manufacturing industry in aus has died because the manufacturers here have been making stupidly big, stupidly thirsty vehicles which are no longer relevent, not in the least because petrol prices are rising and rising.

There would be no problem if car companies in the country made cars that suited the times. There’d be even less of a problem if the prices of these cars benefitted us… then we’d actually buy these products and therefore support the industry. That way companies wouldn’t have to rely on fleets to buy their product.

By: Peter Shaw

Peter Shaw — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:02:15 +0000

I see where we have stopped building Corollas in Australia, but not Camrys, indeed we will have a petrol/electric Camry. In view of the fuel crisis, which will get worse, why not build Corollas?? I see where Ford will build Focus in Australia, this move should succeed.

But then what about Holden?? Any plans to build a small car in Australia, if so I haven’t heard of it. They must consider this, but not Daiwoos.

John Carswell’s comment is spot on in regard to Manufacture.

By: Alan Youdell

Alan Youdell — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 02:59:06 +0000

We have to maintain our local car manufacturing industry. We have to support local industry irrespective of what our econimic hardheads state. If we lose this industry then the next attack will be the steel industry which is what our competitors want. Time and again we have seen good local industreis move off shore leaving employees to be supported by the taxpayer. Surely its better to provide people with work than leave them on ths scrap heap.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:45:54 +0000

who are we kidding – there is no international level playing field, every other country provides some form of benefit to their local industries: tarrifs, fuel/power subsidies, tax breaks, government financial props etc. Not just cars but across many industries. Australia seem to have a niave view of what the rest of the world really does for their ‘locals’.

Maybe we have far too much choice, more choices than you see on the streets of Europe or Japan or Kopea or China. Restricting the depth of the market would make life much easier when buying a car.

I drive European, but I’ll happily pay the extra for the advance level of engineering and safety. Environmentally it would be nice to have no local industry, but on a global stage Australia has a better chance of a positive track record of thinking/being green than countries outside Europe; do we want to push the problem somwhere else? do we think is carbon neutral to bring the cars to Australia in big, old, diesel driven ships?

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:55:08 +0000

I would have to agree with Francoise, we need to maintain our local car industry and if that means subsidies to it and tariffs on imported cars then so be it. After all, our cars are world renowned as being well-built safe cars; please allow the manufacturers to grow this reputation.

Vehicles should be taxed on two things: Firstly their carbon footprint and secondly on their safety rating. A stepped tax rate, based on the price of the vehicle just reeks of a money grab.

By: David R.

David R. — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:55:01 +0000

Norman the Foreman is from the same school as me.If its a public utility the government can throw money at it, the motor industry is privet enterprises just like any small business and we don’t get Tax deals or big MD pay outs for not being able to do our job, be competitive or get out, Go dig a tunnel that we can use, thats what our tax’s are meant to be used for. one more privet enterprise still only a small business with big overheads, (MD Pay outs)

By: David Galea

David Galea — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:07:28 +0000

While I am not in favour of dismantling local car manufacture it is obvious that the locals are not building the cars that Aussies want to buy. The days of the large gas-guzzling Fords & Holdens are over so therefore the government should dictate the types of vehicles they build locally before handing over any more of our money.