Tag: Industry & Sector Policies

  • Industrial Strategy for Domestic Wind Energy Tower Manufacturing

    Policy framework for building Australian wind tower manufacturing capacity.

    Authors: Phillip Toner

    Download the full report.

  • Manufacturing the Energy Revolution

    That is the finding of a major new report from the Centre for Future Work. The report catalogues new incentives for production of batteries, electric vehicles, renewable energy generation and transmission equipment, and other renewable energy products provided under the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act and parallel public programs.

    Many other industrial countries, including the EU, China, Japan, Korea, and Canada have already implemented major new incentives to support the expansion of the manufactured products and technologies that will be required for those systems.

    Australia is considering its response, but with no clear announced strategy yet.

    The report provides evidence that the U.S. incentives and content requirements are sparking an unprecedented expansion in manufacturing investment in the U.S. and other industrial countries.

    This response confirms that active climate industrial policies are having an outsized effect on the volume and location of sustainable manufacturing investment. It also confirms that Australia must move quickly to respond to this new industrial landscape, or risk losing its chance to leverage our renewable energy resources into lasting, diversified industrial growth.

    The report notes that Australia has many advantages in the global race for sustainable manufacturing – including an unmatched endowment of renewable energy sources and ample deposits of critical minerals. However, the painful legacy of decades of policy neglect for domestic manufacturing has left Australia’s industrial base in poor shape to seize the opportunities being opened up by the global energy transition.

    The report estimates the proportional fiscal effort that would be required to match the American IRA in the Australian context. The government would need to commit $83 to $138 billion over 10 years in fiscal supports and incentives to match U.S. benchmarks.

    The report also catalogues several qualitative best practices that should be incorporated in the Australian response to the IRA, to generate maximum economic, social and environmental impact: including strong labour and environmental standards attached to subsidized projects, public equity participation, and parallel investments in training for workers to fill the new jobs.

    The paper was released at the 4th National Manufacturing Summit, being held at Old Parliament House in Canberra from 830am to 430 pm on Thursday, August 3, co-sponsored by Weld Australia, the Centre for Future Work, and several industry bodies.

    The post Manufacturing the Energy Revolution appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Australia at risk of exclusion from renewable manufacturing boom

    Australia risks being left out of lucrative new markets for renewable energy-related manufacturing unless government provides an urgent, domestic response to match powerful incentives introduced by the U.S and several other industrial nations.

    The finding is published in a new report released today by the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work, as part of the 4th National Manufacturing Summit, being held in Canberra.

    Key points:

    • There is an overseas manufacturing boom in the productions of batteries, electric vehicles, renewable energy generation and transmission equipment, and other renewable energy products.
    • This boom is being driven by incentives provided by the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, and similar supports in the EU, China, Japan, Korea, and Canada.
    • Meanwhile, Australia is considering its response, but no clear strategy has been announced.
    • The report estimates the proportional investment required to match the American IRA in the Australian context at between $83 to $138 billion over 10 years in fiscal supports and incentives to match U.S. benchmarks.
    • Several qualitative best practices should also be included in the Australian response to the IRA to generate maximum economic, social, and environmental impact: these include strong labour and environmental standards attached to subsidised projects, public equity participation, and parallel investments in training for workers to fill the new jobs.

    “The extraordinary response by industry to the U.S. measures confirms that these policies are having an outsized effect on the volume and location of sustainable manufacturing investment,” said Dr. Jim Stanford, Director of the Centre for Future Work and co-author of the report.

    “It also confirms that Australia must move quickly with its response to this new industrial landscape, or risk losing its chance to leverage our renewable energy resources into lasting, diversified industrial growth.”

    Charlie Joyce, a research fellow at the Centre and co-author of the report, noted: “The global race for clean technology manufacturing is well underway, and Australia is barely on the track.”

    “Australia has many advantages when compared to other competitors in this market, including an unmatched endowment of renewable energy sources and ample deposits of critical minerals.

    “However, the painful legacy of decades of policy neglect for domestic manufacturing has left our industrial base in poor shape to seize the opportunities opening up ahead of us.”

    “If we don’t support domestic manufacturing to quickly enhance its production, skills, and technological capabilities, all that will happen is we will replace one set of unprocessed minerals: coal, oil and gas; with another: raw lithium and related critical minerals.”

    “Without action, most of the spin-off benefits of the renewable energy revolution for industry, technology, value-added and diversification will pass us by,” said Mr. Joyce.

    The report estimates the proportional investment required to match the American IRA in the Australian context at between $83 to $138 billion over 10 years in fiscal supports and incentives to match U.S. benchmarks.

    “That is a big fiscal ask by any standards, but not out of reach for Australia,” said Dr. Stanford. “But the common claim that Australia cannot afford to undertake proportionately equivalent measures is not convincing.”

    “Our federal budget is in much better shape than the U.S. And the government has committed to other, less pressing priorities which are just as expensive – such as nuclear submarines, Stage 3 tax cuts, and ongoing fossil fuel subsidies.”

    Please see the full report, Manufacturing the Energy Revolution: Australia’s Position in the Global Race for Sustainable Manufacturing, by Charlie Joyce and Jim Stanford.

    The paper is being released at the 4th National Manufacturing Summit, being held at Old Parliament House in Canberra from 8.30am to 4.30 pm on Thursday, August 3, co-sponsored by Weld Australia, the Centre for Future Work, and several industry bodies.

    The post Australia at risk of exclusion from renewable manufacturing boom appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Sustainable Industrial Jobs in the Hunter (aluminium)

    The report, by Jim Stanford (the Centre’s Director) and Alia Armistead, looks in detail at the Tomago aluminium smelter in the Hunter region of NSW. It is Australia’s largest smelter, and is currently powered through electricity mostly sourced from coal-fired generation. The facility has pledged to move to renewable power sources by 2030 – and the new report confirms that this would underpin long-term industrial and economic benefits felt in all parts of the country.

    The report reviews the worrisome deindustrailisation of Australia’s foothold in the global aluminium industry. Australia’s exports of raw bauxite have grown rapidly, but value-added aluminium manufacturing (including smelting) has declined. This undermines employment, exports, and spin-off jobs.

    The study also reports results of macroeconomic simulations of the overall impacts of the Tomago facility on the national economy (including employment, incomes, GDP, and government revenue). These effects, because of the economic linkages between the smelter, its supply chain, and the consumer goods and services industries which depend on its continued existence, are very large. Our results indicate the Tomago facility ultimately supports:

    • Over $1.2 billion in national GDP per year, with production benefits experienced in all states (70% in NSW).
    • Household disposable incomes of almost $500 million.
    • Direct and indirect employment of over 6000 jobs: in the smelter, in its various suppliers, and in downstream consumer industries.
    • Incremental government revenues worth $465 million per year: two-thirds of which is captured by the Commonwealth, and $120 million by the NSW state government.

    The study makes several recommendations for supporting Tomago’s transition to renewable energy, and enhancing Australia’s value-added aluminium presence. These include:

    • A clear and sustained commitment to rapid roll-out of renewable energy sources: Government should assist and accelerate Tomago’s transition to renewable power with clear, powerful measures to support expanded renewable energy developments, appropriate capacities (including batteries and pumped hydro) for backing up variable renewable power supplies, and fiscal measures that acknowledge the contribution Tomago could make (through the scale of its renewable energy purchases, as well as its potential role in demand-response measures that stabilise the regional electricity grid) to support NSW’s transition to renewable energy.
    • Full-cycle financial support and public equity: Our simulations confirm a large fiscal payback to state and Commonwealth governments arising from the operation of the Tomago smelter, its supply chain, and the downstream consumer industries which depend on its continued operation. This gives both levels of government a major fiscal stake in Tomago’s continuing operation. For that reason, in addition to supporting the roll-out of renewable energy, both governments should negotiate other forms of fiscal support for future capital improvements (including those tied to developments of renewable energy supply for the smelter).
    • Leveraging public infrastructure and procurement: Considerable demand for aluminium products will be forthcoming in future years as a result of the unprecedented investments being made by governments at all levels in new physical infrastructure: ranging from transportation to utilities to public buildings. The business case for continued aluminium manufacturing in Australia can be incrementally strengthened with pro-active efforts on the part of government to ensure that these investments (which are ultimately paid for by Australian taxpayers) embody maximum Australian-made content in all building materials and inputs, including aluminium.
    • A value-added trade policy: Australia’s laissez faire approach to international trade has concentrated Australia’s exports in the extraction and export of unprocessed or barely processed non-renewable resources; this has been coincident with a severe decline in domestic manufacturing and value-added activity, and a precarious dependence on imports to meet most domestic manufacturing needs. A rethinking of Australian trade policy could help reverse this damaging deindustrialisation. This must include active interventions to limit the inflow (often at prices below cost of production) of aluminium products from other countries which are not making reciprocal purchases of value-added merchandise from us. Trade policy should actively discourage exports of unprocessed bauxite, and instead require at least preliminary processing (and better yet, smelting) of Australian bauxite in Australian facilities.

    The post Sustainable Industrial Jobs in the Hunter appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Australia ready to become sustainable EV-making powerhouse: new research

    The new report, Rebuilding Vehicle Manufacturing in Australia: Industrial Opportunities in an Electrified Future, has found Australia is uniquely blessed with advantages to attract and retain EV manufacturing and rebuild the nation’s car-making capacity. This potential, however, will not be met without major government action.

    “When it comes to creating an EV manufacturing sector, Australia enjoys advantages other nations would die for: rich reserves of lithium and rare earths, strong industrial infrastructure, a highly skilled workforce, powerful training capacity, abundant renewable energy options, and untapped consumer potential,” said Dr Mark Dean, the report’s lead author.

    “And contrary to popular belief, we wouldn’t be starting from scratch. Thanks to the resilience of our remaining automotive manufacturing supply chain, a surprising amount of auto manufacturing work – including components, specialty vehicles, and engineering – still exists here.”

    But Dr Dean said his research found Australia’s advantages would count for little without significant government support. The report makes a number of recommendations including:

    • Establishing an EV Manufacturing Industry Commission
    • Using tax incentives to encourage firms involved in the extraction of key minerals – primarily lithium and rare earths – with local manufacturing capabilities, especially emerging Australian EV battery industries
    • Introducing a long-term strategy for vocational training, ensuring the establishment of skills to service major EV manufacturers looking to set up operations Australia
    • Offering major global manufacturers incentives (tax incentives, access to infrastructure, potential public capital participation, etc) to global manufacturers to set up – especially in Australian regions undergoing transition from carbon-intensive industries
    • Introducing local procurement laws for the rapid electrification of government vehicle fleets

    “No nation builds a major industry without its government taking a proactive role. Our new research shows there’s no excuse for inaction, because there are a huge range of powerful levers our government could be pulling,” Dr Dean said.

    “If we capture the moment we’ll capture abundant benefits: creating tens of thousands of regional manufacturing jobs, reducing our dependence on raw resource extraction, reinforcing our accelerating transition toward non-polluting energy sources, and spurring innovation, research, and engineering activity in Australia. We just need our government to act.”

    The post Australia ready to become sustainable EV-making powerhouse: new research appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Rebuilding Vehicle Manufacturing in Australia (EVs)

    Global automotive manufacturing is rapidly transitioning to the production of Electric Vehicles (EVs) in line with technological advancements and the global community’s commitment to addressing climate change. This transition presents an enormous opportunity for Australia to rebuild its vehicle manufacturing industry, taking advantage of our competitive strengths in renewable energy, extractive industries, manufacturing capabilities, and skilled workers.

    Australia possesses many of the crucial elements for an EV manufacturing industry: rich mineral reserves, an advanced industrial base, a highly skilled workforce, and consumer interest. But what it lacks is an overarching, coordinating and strategic national industry policy. Global experience shows that this is central to EV-oriented industrial transformation. Australia can play an important role in global EV manufacturing industries but developing a strategy to realise this will require active government policy responses to both the challenges and opportunities at hand.

    Australia’s natural resource endowments and industrial capabilities make EV industry development a viable economic and social strategy. Our moral obligations to create a sustainable future make it essential public policy. This report illustrates how Australia can rebuild a vehicle manufacturing industry, on a sustainable ecological foundation, and meet our international environmental obligations. The report covers several important related dimensions of the issue:

    • How an EV manufacturing strategy can add value to Australia’s existing exports of primary resources – connecting them to innovative, sustainable manufacturing industries;
    • Developing supply and value chain linkages to the global EV industry by increasing the capability for innovation and advanced manufacturing amongst small and medium-sized enterprises;
    • The central role of Australia’s education systems in delivering sustainable industry-focused training and skills development, to provide workers with career pathways shaped by lifelong access to education and learning;
    • How active government intervention can coordinate economic sectors in an innovative and strategically oriented industry policy driving sustainable economic and technological transformation; and
    • Understanding the importance of automotive manufacturing to our industrial future, its role in redesigning transport systems, investing in new technology and gearing production systems to meet social and environmental requirements.

    To make the case for a national EV manufacturing policy, this paper reviews existing literature and presents relevant data to show that an EV industry in Australia is not just desirable – but it can also lead the sustainable transformation of Australia’s economy.

    The paper is arranged as follows. The next section provides an overview of the Australian national EV policy landscape and the international context, to identify trends and opportunities in EV manufacturing.

    The bulk of the paper is then dedicated to reviewing four key ‘Building Blocks’ of an industry policy: the resources sector, skilled labour, supply chain capabilities and capital assets, and the capacity of government to develop a policy response that assembles these key elements as the foundation for rebuilding Australian manufacturing with EVs at the centre.

    In mapping this foundation of an EV manufacturing policy, the subsequent section cautions that an EV industry is not a panacea for addressing the broader climate crisis and creating a sustainable economy. It argues, however, that a sustainable EV industry should be considered as a major driver of industrial transformation alongside other positive cultural and environmental changes within Australian society.

    The conclusion summarises the paper’s overarching theme that Australia can build a strong EV manufacturing industry with the right policy settings and government actions. It makes several specific recommendations to get the ball rolling on developing these settings – including recommendations touching on industry planning, energy requirements, consumer demand, resource use, supply chain developments, skills and training, and government support.

    The post Rebuilding Vehicle Manufacturing in Australia appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Submission: Senate Inquiry into Australian Manufacturing Industry

    Submission advocating for active industrial policy for manufacturing.

    Authors: Stanford, Nahum

    Download the full report.

  • Industrial Policy-Making After COVID-19

    But since the 1990s, the ‘default’ economic and industry policy setting of government has ultimately been to favour resource extraction as our national strength. Even despite the growing threat of climate change and global economic crises that make a shift to ‘green’ industrial transformation a pathway pursued by many other nations, current Coalition government policy continues to reflect deliberate, calculated emphasis on the extraction and export of raw materials. Australia risks cementing its developing-world economic status if we do not consider important industry policy challenges.

    The COVID-19 pandemic has drawn attention to opportunities for Australia to not only rebuild, but reconstruct our economy in a way that capitalises on our national manufacturing potential and their ability to contribute to a sustainable recovery from the economic and social crisis that has culminated in lockdowns and recession. The future development of Australia’s manufacturing industry must focus on the opportunities presented by renewable energy to drive innovation, industrial transformation and a green future shaped by a skilled manufacturing workforce.

    Researchers from the Centre for Future Work, Mark Dean, Al Rainnie (Centre for Future Work Associate), Jim Stanford and Dan Nahum, have co-authored a new scholarly paper which will be published in the academic journal, the Economic and Labour Relations Review and is currently available as an online-first publication at their website.

    The article analyses Australia’s opportunities to revitalise its strategically important manufacturing secor in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, considering Australia’s industry policy options with reference to both advances in the theory of industrial policy and recent policy proposals in the Australian context.

    To examine the prospects for the renewal of Australian manufacturing in a post-pandemic economy, the article draws on recent work from The Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work – specifically, Dan Nahum’s research into manufacturing and sustainability in Powering Onwards and Jim Stanford’s research on post-COVID-19 manufacturing renewal and Australia’s record on robotics adoption, in synthesis with analyses from published and forthcoming research from Al Rainnie and Mark Dean relating to critical evaluations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and its implications for the Australian economy.

    The aim of the article is to contribute to and further develop the debate about the future of government intervention in manufacturing and industry policy in Australia. Crucially, the argument links the future development of Australian manufacturing with a focus on renewable energy. The purpose of this article has been to interpret the decline of manufacturing in Australia over the last generation and to identify the core principles and policy levers that would facilitate a revitalisation of our domestic manufacturing capabilities. The paper considers the history of half-hearted attempts by Australian governments and industry to spark a recovery: these attempts have largely lacked any critical consideration of the structural factors that inhibit a full-scale transformation of Australian industry. Such a transformation would in fact require consistent and systematic policy settings.

    The Coalition government’s evolving policy framework – focused on tax cuts for high-income households and companies, subsidies for further fossil fuel use, and further interventions to weaken industrial relations practices – reflects its attempt to use the pandemic as an opportunity to reinforce its previous commitment to a business-dominated economic strategy. But Australia can, and must, do better than this. The article analyses the possibilities and the challenges of developing a new industrial policy that is informed by modern understandings of technology, sustainability and social cohesion.

    A modern, sustainable industry policy is not a catch-all solution to addressing climate change, economic crisis and pandemic recovery – but it does hold great potential to help redirect Australia’s lurch further towards the banana republic status first identified nearly forty years ago.

    You can access a pre-publication version of this article below and those with access can read the article publication on the Economic and Labour Relations Review website.

    The post Industrial Policy-Making After COVID-19: Manufacturing, Innovation and Sustainability appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Post-COVID Manufacturing Renewal Represents Potential $50 Billion Boost to Economy

    Key Findings:

    • Australia ranks last in manufacturing self-sufficiency among all OECD countries. Australians use $565 billion worth of manufactures each year, however, we only produce $380 billion. Therefore, Australia produces only 68% (just over two-thirds) of what we use: less than any other OECD economy.
    • The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the strategic importance of domestic manufacturing capacity. Disruptions in global supply chains and protectionist trade policies by foreign governments have increased risks we might not be able to access essential products (like health equipment and supplies) when we need it.
    • Manufacturing is not just ‘another’ sector of the economy. For several concrete reasons, manufacturing carries strategic importance to broader national prosperity and security.
      • Australians purchase and use more manufactured goods over time; and manufacturing output is growing around the world. Allowing domestic manufacturing to decline, while our use of manufactured products grows, undermines national economic performance.
      • Manufacturing is the most innovation-intensive sector in the whole economy. No country can be an innovation leader without a strong manufacturing base.
      • Manufactured goods account for over two-thirds of world merchandise trade. A country that cannot successfully export manufactures will be shut out of most trade.
      • Manufacturing anchors hundreds of thousands of other jobs throughout the economy, thanks to its long and complex supply chain. Billions of dollars’ worth of supplies and inputs are purchased by manufacturing facilities, supporting many other sectors of the economy.
      • Manufacturing offers high-quality jobs, full-time hours and above-average incomes. And thanks to strong productivity growth and the capacity to apply modern technology, manufacturing offers the prospect of rising incomes in the future.

    “As Australian governments and business leaders realise the importance of manufacturing in rebuilding the national economy after COVID, this research shows that Australia now has the smallest manufacturing industry relative to domestic purchases of any OECD country,” said Dr. Jim Stanford, Director of the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work and author of the report.

    “These findings confirm the enormous task ahead of the country in rebuilding our domestic manufacturing capacity. However, it also highlights the enormous economic benefits that would be generated by getting manufacturing back to a proportional size: including $180 billion in new sales, $50 billion in new GDP, and over 400,000 new direct jobs.

    “While two-way international trade in manufactured products will always be essential, as a nation we should be manufacturing in aggregate as much as we are using. If we rebuilt a manufacturing sector that was broadly proportionate to our needs, our manufacturing industry would grow by almost 50% – generating enormous benefits in jobs, incomes, innovation and exports.”

    The post Post-COVID Manufacturing Renewal Represents Potential $50 Billion Boost to Economy appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Pandemic Shows Australia Needs Domestic Manufacturing

    In this commentary, Centre for Future Work Economist Dan Nahum reviews the qualitative reasons why manufacturing retains a special strategic importance to the overall economy, and discusses the potential synergies between the development of sustainable energy resources and a revitalisation of manufacturing.

    Rebooting the Australian Manufacturing Sector in the Era of Coronavirus and Climate Change

    Since the COVID-19 crisis emerged, Australians have been starkly reminded of the importance of being able to manufacture goods domestically. International shortages of, and restrictions on, the export of medical equipment and personal protective equipment have given us all a fright. While thankfully critical shortages have not yet emerged, the crisis has confirmed that being able to domestically produce a full range of essential manufactures is a matter of national wellbeing.

    For many years the conventional economic wisdom was that as a high-wage, resource-rich economy, Australia was unable to competitively manufacture — nor did it need to. Between digging up raw materials and shipping them to Asian trading partners (subsequently paying a premium for reimported manufactures made from those resources) and our pivot to a ‘service economy’, we could somehow sidestep the need to produce what we materially use. Even Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has now conceded that unbalanced strategy is not viable.

    It’s true the extraction of our extraordinary mineral endowment made some Australians wealthy, but in a lopsided way: unbalanced reliance on resource extraction, combined with the long decline of manufacturing, has made Australia far more unequal — indeed, we are now more unequal than most OECD nations. Additionally, this myopic economic focus has put us at the mercy of boom-and-bust cycles in global demand for our resources.

    There are many core reasons why Australia needs a healthy, proportionate manufacturing sector:

    • Australians are buying more manufactured goods over time; and manufacturing output is growing around the world. The absolute decline of manufacturing in Australia is an exception to the experience of other industrialised countries.
    • Manufacturing is the most innovation-intensive sector in the whole economy. No country can be an innovation leader without manufacturing.
    • Manufactured goods account for over two-thirds of world merchandise trade. A country that cannot successfully export manufactures will be shut out of most trade.
    • Production costs in Australia are not expensive relative to other industrial countries (now that the Australian dollar is once again trading in normal range).
    • Even small remote countries (like Korea, Ireland, New Zealand and Israel) are increasing their manufacturing output, and preserving and creating manufacturing jobs. Their experience demonstrates that we cannot blame geographic isolation for our deindustrialisation.
    • Manufacturing anchors hundreds of thousands of other jobs throughout the economy, thanks to its long and complex supply chain. A myriad of supplies and inputs are purchased by manufacturing facilities.

    There’s another key reason to be optimistic about Australian manufacturing — if we create an appropriate policy environment for it. Australia is poised to take advantage of our bountiful renewable energy endowment to reinvigorate manufacturing, on the foundation of plentiful, competitive, and reliable power.

    Read The Centre for Future Work’s report Powering Onwards: Australia’s Opportunity to Reinvigorate Manufacturing through Renewable Energy, which considers the potential and actual connections between renewables and manufacturing in detail.

    The following core policy levers would help to ensure that Australia’s manufacturing sector thrives in decades to come, enhancing our prosperity and our national security:

    Targeted Tax Incentives: No-strings-attached tax cuts for corporations do not stimulate investment, innovation, or employment. Rather, fiscal incentives are more effective when they are linked directly to investment. Examples include accelerated depreciation provisions (allowing companies to write off the cost of new investments faster), investment tax credits, and public co-investments in specific strategic projects.

    Investing Public Funds in Key Industries: International experience confirms that public financial assets can effectively lever greater capital investment in key industries. These include state-owned development banks (as in Japan and Korea) or other forms of sovereign wealth (as in Singapore, the UAE, and Norway). Public investment vehicles have been used successfully — indeed profitably — in numerous applications in Australia (for example, the CEFC to finance sustainable energy projects). The same principles can apply in manufacturing investment. Additionally, industry super funds could play a larger role in financing the development of strategic products and sectors.

    Innovation: Empirical evidence shows successful innovation must be embodied in the hands-on process of ‘learning by doing’. And there is no other sector more directly connected to the innovation process than manufacturing. Government needs to provide tangible, direct support to innovation in manufacturing. We need better systems for linking public innovation activity with commercial applications. And we can emulate successful public equity investments in innovation-intensive businesses in other countries (like the effective methods for financing innovative firms used in Israel, Finland, and Ireland).

    Sector Strategies: Government needs to identify manufacturing sub-sectors with the right criteria for success, and then co-ordinate investment and growth. These sector strategies must engage all relevant sector stakeholders (business, unions, educational institutions, research organisations, state and local governments). Even businesses which compete with each other can benefit when the whole sector succeeds. Criteria for identifying high-potential sectors include innovation, export orientation, productivity, and strong supply chain linkages.

    Networks, Eco-Systems, and Clusters: Successful modern industrial policy relies centrally on connections and collaboration among players from different firms, agencies, and stakeholders. Research shows that spillovers among these diverse sector participants, and the sharing of knowledge between them, are crucial to the development of ‘critical mass’ in any high-tech industry. Often, these networks and clusters are geographically concentrated. Government cannot simply ‘create’ clusters, but it can facilitate their emergence.

    Industrial Infrastructure: Government investments in public capital assets of all kinds will play a crucial role in fostering manufacturing growth. Infrastructure investments help to offset the sustained weakness of private investment, and improve weak macroeconomic conditions. One key focus of infrastructure investment should include facilities and services which support manufacturing: ranging from transportation infrastructure, to utility connections (especially renewable energy), to modern training facilities (to help better integrate TAFE and university training with industry). We should maximise the use of Australian-made manufacturing content in those (and all other) infrastructure projects.

    Connecting Renewable Energy Investment to Manufacturing: Given Australia’s superabundance of renewable resources, Australia should position itself as the world’s renewable energy superpower. Renewable energy is appropriate for most industrial applications, including heavy industry, and now offers lower costs than fossil fuel sources (including gas). To expedite the transition to renewable energy, the manufacturing sector requires stability in energy policy, industrial strategies to take advantage of Australia’s renewable energy endowment, and government partnerships with firms that can benefit from and add value to Australia’s renewable energy endowment.

    Skills and Capacities: Enhancing the future skills and capacities of workers must be a vital component of future sector strategies. Consistent funding for skills training at all levels is essential, as are efforts to more closely link training programs with future workforce needs in strategic sectors. Germany’s apprenticeship system is perhaps the most outstanding international role model in this area.

    Leveraging Procurement: Australian governments are massive purchasers of manufactured goods. An obvious way to support domestic manufacturing is to ensure those expenditures generate the maximum possible boost to domestic industry. This also helps to reduce the final net cost of the program: since the government collects additional revenues through the new work spurred by domestic procurement decisions, offsetting the public expenditure. Other countries regularly utilise domestic content targets in procurement to support domestic producers. Australia can do the same.

    Trade that Goes Both Ways: International trade is essential to the viability of most manufacturing due to the importance of economies of scale in production. Australian trade negotiators need to do far more than mutual tariff reduction to stimulate Australian manufactured exports. And Australian agencies (like Austrade) can be much more proactive in promoting Australia’s exports, through initiatives like expanded credit financing, initiatives to leverage Australian participation in global supply chains, and government support for international marketing.

    A thriving manufacturing sector confers important benefits across the whole economy. Even more importantly, a large and adaptable manufacturing sector offers resilience against periodic crises such as COVID-19. If Australia does not add value through the expansion of our manufacturing sectors, we can anticipate that our relative standard of living will decline, and our vulnerability to future supply disruptions and health crises will only increase. We can and must build a manufacturing sector that is economically and ecologically sustainable, and that adds complexity and resilience to Australia’s economy.

    See the Centre for Future Work’s previous research on the Australian manufacturing sector:

    Manufacturing Still Matters (2016) shows that manufacturing, far from being inherently doomed in Australia, is quite viable. Similar countries manufacture successfully. It provides an agenda of policy recommendations for support of the sector.

    Manufacturing: A Moment of Opportunity (2017) demonstrates that while the Australian public underestimate the size and therefore strategic economic importance of the sector, it enjoys strong popular support. Furthermore, the report identifies some promising signs of future growth in the sector.

    From Consensus to Action: Report from the First National Manufacturing Summit (2018) summarises the key findings of the first National Manufacturing Summit, including areas of strong policy consensus reached among the business, industry peak bodies, trade unions, government departments, academic institutions and vocational training providers and other summit delegates. The report also identifies several priorities for further policy research.

    Advanced Skills for Advanced Manufacturing (2018) argues that Australia’s present vocational education and training system, damaged by years of underfunding and failed policy experimentation, is a weak link in meeting the needs of the industry. High-skilled, high-paid jobs rely on a strong VET sector, and this report identifies twelve key reforms to achieve that.

    Auto Shutdown Another Economic Blow (2016) analyses the causes and impacts of the closure of the Australian car manufacturing industry. It notes that secondary job losses will be several times larger than the direct jobs eliminated at the car plants.

    Penny Wise and Pound Foolish (2016) analyses the impact of the NSW government’s decision to source railroad rolling stock manufacturing work to Korea rather than taking advantage of the opportunity to procure domestically. Governments need to account for the full range of potential costs and benefits of their procurement decisions (job creation, industry development, government revenues, and so on), not simply minimise the up-front purchase cost.

    The post Pandemic Shows Australia Needs Domestic Manufacturing appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.