Reports suggesting Holden is considering phasing out major parts of the manufacturing chain for the iconic Commodore points to a worrying trend of off-shoring the very skills manufacturing needs in order to survive.
While Holden have denied any decision has been made, the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers (APESMA) chief Chris Walton has claimed hundreds of engineering and design jobs may go – with the potential for many more in the supply chain to be affected.
“We would expect thousands of jobs could go in the related auto manufacturing sector, so all of the suppliers to Holden, because not only would the design be done overseas, a significant proportion of the components of the car would be brought in from overseas and simply bolted together here,” Walton told the media.
The loss would represent a serious blow the Australian manufacturing community as the Commodore has been Australia’s best-selling car for the last 15 years, and represents more than half of large car sales.
As downsizing of major manufacturing facilities continues, the future of manufacturing in Australia has been put in focus once again – after the Qantas debacle, BlueScope’s export operations which affected 1400 employees, OneSteel who scrapped 400 jobs, Toyota which temporarily downsized its operations, Ford which already planned to reduce its workforce, and now the Commodore operations seem to be in danger.
There are a number of reasons why the manufacturing sector is suffering at the moment, the main influence being the strong dollar and the high cost incurred for potential buyers of Australian goods.
Although the public has become practically numb to this cycle, it is important to realise that the manufacturing sector isn’t isolated from the rest of the economy, representing a 10% portion – when the manufacturing sector experiences slim-to-none growth, the rest of the economy suffers.
As Green and Toner point out in an excellent article published on The Conversation:
“The future [of manufacturing] remains important for at least two reasons: first, manufacturing drives innovation and technological change – key elements of our productivity performance – and second it contributes to our external trade balance.
Looking to the future, manufacturing directly employs one in five engineers, and many more indirectly as consultants. Without a solid manufacturing base, Australia faces the prospect of losing scientific, engineering and computing expertise that has taken generations to nurture in research and production.”
The other issue at stake is the future well-being of the newly unemployed technical staff due to these cuts.
Most engineers have acquired skills that can be transferred to other areas, for instance, in public service departments such as Defence, consulting firms or private contractors.
However, no structure is in place for the highly skilled to be trained to use their knowledge in new environments. Also, the longer an employee has been working in the same workplace, the harder it becomes to adapt to new work culture and practices.
As long as we continue to blame globalisation for these job cuts, we will be missing the larger point, which is the loss of knowledge and skills due to a lack of support for the highly skilled to get them back into the workforce.
The public at large also agrees with this point of view. A 2009 poll by the Australian National University looking at the public opinion about science found 85% of Australians felt that science (including engineering) has made life easier for most people, rating the contribution of scientists to society above nearly all other professions.
According to the poll, engineering ranked fourth place behind doctors, teachers and scientists to their contribution to society.
However, the poll found Australians are less pleased with government’s response to the scientific community, believing politicians do not adequately consider scientific advice, or adequately regulate industry.

There is little doubt that Australia simply cannot compete with China and India when it comes to mass manufacturing over the long-term.
But Australia does have the resources to compete in the high-end manufacturing world, and there have been some investments made at various Australian universities (including the Australian National University) in high-end robotics manufacturing technology (which my PhD currently focuses on).
That is the future of Australian manufacturing.
However, more investment in training and equipment is required to keep our world-class experts and expand our knowledge base.
Australia needs to have a serious and healthy debate on what the “Australian made” brand represents, what sacrifices are necessary, and what type of protection and safety nets are needed to keep the manufacturing industry alive in this increasingly competitive and globalised world.
sajj farahani
Engineer
i agree with you (that is if i got your point right) that Aus can compete in manufacturing ideas and science if they are not able to compete in mass manufacturing section.
that is why i dont think these big companies leaving aus is really anyone's fault. but one can prevent the complete annihilation if they keep the R&D in this country.
Paul Richards
Paul Richards is a Friend of The Conversation.
What about all the money we spent subsidising both companies, where is the long term return? Given we are losing these icons, could it be a good time to question the tax relief and funding of many of the Australian wealthier companies?
Stephen Gately
Managing Director ( BuyAustralianMade.com.au)
It is not a simple as just saying that we are not competitive or it can be made cheaper elsewhere. Innovation, inventiveness, development, security, long term returns, value adding to resources, national pride, future jobs, maintaining infra structure and capability are just a few other benefits of maintaining an extensive manufacturing sector. We need some long term thinking here rather than short term
Donncha Redmond
Software Developer
Let's face it, the Commodore/Falcon are entirely propped up by Govt., first by the regular handouts to Holden/Ford respectively, and then again by massive Govt. fleet buys. If they were left to fend for themselves they'd have died off long ago.
Even the short-lived Green Car Innovation Fund was little more than paying H/F to import tried and tested technology from abroad and make their cars a little bit more up-to-date.
At what point do we recognise that we're throwing good money after bad and just prolonging the inevitable?
Incidentally, what's the last genuine innovation to come out of the Australian operations of Holden or Ford?
Andy Scerri
Research Fellow, Global Cities Institute at RMIT University
Thanks for a great article, I agree that the need for a high tech (and a green one I'd add) industrial base is important. However, I think that Donncha has a point too, and the issue runs a lot deeper.
The fact that the Commodore even became an Australian icon is important, given that it is merely a variant of the Opel Omega, marketed as the Holden Commodore in Australia.
A triumph of marketing spin in an island nation over any kind of home-grown innovation ...
rob alan
IT Tech
Just past a decade ago now I ran a small business based in rural SA, Melton Manufacturing where Clipsal at the time gave us much help in guidance and offering of work. We employed about 20 full time locals and produced for Clipsal earth leakage detectors at same price was being done in China. We produced the leakagedetector at a much higher standard than did china plus shipping fees and instant communication between us made for smooth opperations. We charged $1.50 per unit to assemble for a 0% failure…
Read more