Was John Button right

[olds]

In hindsight was the Button plan the way to go

[gtxb67]

no - unless giving us more free time was a good thing

[LG17]

In a word - NO!

[Nikked]

No...

[XD 351 Ute]

Ah, no...

Ed

[Struggo]

I believe he was or should I say the plan was up to a certain point, but the Automotive world changed and such changes should have been made.

[Wretched]

I think so.

[Falcman0o7]

Who????

[flooded one]

the button plan still exist today!! I see commodores with chev badges!!!

[Jim Goose]

Hes the man who brought you the Nissan Falcon ute...

Mazda Laser... the Toyota Nova...

The Button car plan, also known as the Button plan was the informal name given to the Motor Industry Development Plan. The plan was an Australian federal government initiative, intended to rationalise the Australian motor vehicle industry and transition it to lower levels of protection. Industry consultation had begun in mid 1983 with the scheme announced, after John Button visited Japan to inform the car companies there of the contents of the plan, in mid 1984 with a proposed start date of 1985. The plan took its name from Senator John Button, the federal Minister for Commerce, Trade and Industry.

At the time of its inception, Australia's motor industry was heavily protected by import tariffs, and quantitative restrictions on imports or quotas which protected the assembly of thirteen models by various manufacturers. The Button car plan aimed to reduce this number to six models, with the aim of forcing industry consolidation. The overarching aim of the scheme was to make the motor vehicle industry in Australia more efficient by consolidation of resources, allowing the import tariffs to be gradually reduced. This in turn would theoretically expose the local industry to increased competition from imported products, fostering improvement in local vehicles and creating the basis for a competitive export industry.

The most obvious effect of the plan for the Australian car buyer was the appearance of badge engineered vehicles, where the same basic vehicle was sold by several companies under different names. Other approaches included the Ford Courier and Mazda B-Series utilities utilizing Mitsubishi's 2.6-litre Astron four-cylinder engine, and a proposal to replace Mitsubishi's locally built Colt with a rebadged Toyota Corolla. This proposal however, never eventuated.

Holden initially teamed up with Nissan in 1984, where the Nissan Pulsar was sold as the Holden Astra. Later Pulsar and Astra models in Australia used Holden-sourced powertrains. This arrangement dissolved in 1989, and General Motors–Holden's and Toyota formed United Australian Automobile Industries (UAAI). The vehicles produced as a result of this joint venture, the Holden Apollo (Toyota Camry), Holden Nova (Toyota Corolla) and Toyota Lexcen (Holden Commodore) lasted until 1996 for the Holden-badged derivatives models, and 1997 for Lexcen.[1]

This sharing of models proved unpopular with buyers, and original models outsold their badge engineered counterparts.[2] The last of such models, the Toyota Lexcen (Holden Commodore), was dropped in 1997. Rather than share locally assembled models with other manufacturers, Holden, Ford, and Toyota decided to import fully built-up models from subsidiaries elsewhere in the world, mainly Europe and Japan. Mitsubishi Motors did not share models with other manufacturers during the period of the plan and ended Australian manufacturing in 2008; Nissan ended car manufacturing in Australia completely in 1994.

[2011G6E]

Hey, the Nissan Ute was a fantastic bit of kit, and a person would have been mad not to buy one instead of a Ford XF ute...

You know why? If you bought an XF ute from Ford, you got a one year 20,000km warrantee. Buy the exact same vehicle from Nissan with Nissan badges on it, and you got Nissans standard 2 year 40,000km warrantee...

Of course, it did work the other way around as well...if you bought a Ford Maverick (Nissan Patrol), you got Fords one year warrantee instead of Nissans two year warrantee...

I vividly remember being present at a spare parts counter argument between the spare parts guy and a customer who owned a Toyota Lexen. The guy wanted a rear window louvre, and was not happy when he was brought a louvre labelled for a VN/VP Commodore..."I've got a Toyota Lexen! Not a Commodore...go back and get me the right one!"...

[SPArKy_Dave]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Hey, the Nissan Ute was a fantastic bit of kit, and a person would have been mad not to buy one instead of a Ford XF ute...

You know why? If you bought an XF ute from Ford, you got a one year 20,000km warrantee. Buy the exact same vehicle from Nissan with Nissan badges on it, and you got Nissans standard 2 year 40,000km warrantee...

Yep, I've got one of those babies........

I've got a brochure, and even a VHS with a Nissan ute ad on it.

[mik]

it may have been valid at the time, but it`s time expired long ago and changes should have been made accordingly to keep up with the times.

[dom_105]

How about Ford and Holden using the same production line?

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by dom_105

How about Ford and Holden using the same production line?

Was your mouth out. They are competitors, you can just imagine cars being sabotaged by one eyed workers.

[Bossxr8]

It worked to bring local vehicles up to standard, but then it went too far and ended up screwing them. It should have stopped the tariff reduction when it was 20%.

[flappist]

If it wasn't for Button the current Commodore and Falcon would be front wheel drive yank tanks.....

[Jeddak]

yet on the other hand we got the ford laser and holder barina
both in their early years were popular with the markets

[Chopped]

[flooded one]

you do see the odd nissan ute every now and again. the ford maverick/ GQ patrol and the XF/ nissan ute where defently good cars if you ask me

[wrongwaynorris]

Absolutely not under any circumstance .

[Resurrection]

Yes for the first few years. The local automotive industry was booming in the 1990s.

What irks me is that none of the governments, regardless of political persuassion, were willing to revisit the plan which was written in the 1980s. The global political and economic environment changed significant more than what anybody in the 1980s could have predicted. Therefore the Button plan should have been reviewed every 10 years to determine if it needed any modifications. But none of our governments were willing to do the required work - what the late John Button released was accepted as gospel and was followed without question. To the detriment of the industry and our country.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

What irks me is that none of the governments, regardless of political persuassion, were willing to revisit the plan which was written in the 1980s.

you're wrong, they both support it wholeheartedly, for some reason they want to sell us out.

[JG34JA]

Just compare number of jobs/manufacturers before the plan and after, and there's your answer. Nissan, Renault, Land Rover, Mini, hello? *crickets*

It was a deliberate plan to downsize, reduce protection we couldn't probably afford to pay for as we opened up Australian markets, increase competitiveness (funny: Aussie made is bagged out just as much now, or more than before the plan while our cars are lauded as world class...). We have exports to show for it in Camry, and on-and off for GMH, but Button could not have foreseen that Ford would not permit Falcon into Crown Vic's markets. That was someone else's plan.

Like all central plans where the solution of one central planner is applied to everyone, it misses developments and cannot cater to everyone's best interest. If I am allocated to be a plumber but my skills are those of a carpenter, tough luck.

What also occurred is we ended up entering some very strange free trade agreements, which I am sure the plan could not have foreseen. Thank goodness there has been a commodity and real estate boom.

[2011G6E]

Be careful what you wish for with protective tariffs...

Does anyone honestly think we'd have the standard of Australian car we have now if they had continued to be protected from the big bad world out there by high tariffs and taxes, instead of being exposed to strong competition from makers overseas who throw in a lot of extras as standard?

I'm old enough to remember when things like air conditioning and even stuff as basic as power steering or even a cassette player were an option...

[Buntz]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

you're wrong, they both support it wholeheartedly, for some reason they want to sell us out.

The people who run the Government, do so only to further their own personal gain. Australia can belong to China for all they care.

[flooded one]

might see great walls being rebadges as colarados

[Luke Plaizier]

Well, if the plan was to eliminate manufacturing in Australia, and open up markets to oversaturation by foreign competitors, then we can call it a complete success.

Once apon a time the government used to be focussed on production in Australia for Australian employment. Today even their purchasing policy is mainly of foreign cars.

I say we should outsource all the functions of our government function to India, and simply complete the process of moving all australian employment offshore. They would do the same job at a lower cost to the tax payer. There'd be no real difference in policy.....


Lukeyson

[Road_Warrior]

Here is something I wrote ages ago and posted in another thread. Could be relevant here.

The large car segment in Australia has been in decline for over 10 years. Staple products in this segment, the Ford Falcon and Holden Commodore, once dominated the automotive landscape in Australia but now command less than [percentage] of overall new vehicle sales in the country. Up until recently, Ford and Holden relied on their respective large cars as their main source of revenue. This is still the case, to a degree.

In concert with the overall decline of sales of large cars, there has been a gradual increase in consumer takeup of Sport Utility Vehicles (SUV's) and smaller vehicles, particularly from the C-segment (eg. Toyota Corolla, Mazda 3). Compounded with an increase in petrol prices, and new product offerings in a variety of segments, new car buyers in Australia have shunned the traditional Aussie sedan.

Tax reforms relating to vehicle imports by car companies have led to an unprecedented level of choice for consumers. Similarly, a change in consumer attitudes towards vehicles that offer more 'flexibility' for lifestyle choices and vehicles that are more family friendly have introduced a new dimension into the automotive market.

In 1982, the Minister for Industry and Resources, Senator John Button, proposed a reform of the Australian automotive industry which was called the Button Car Plan, or Button Plan for short. The Button Plan called for indigenous car makers to establish joint ventures with one another (and foreign car makers), badge engineering, and a reduction in the import tariff rating effecting new imported cars. Whilst the joint venture and badge engineering aspects of the Button Plan ultimately failed, successive governments continued to roll back import tariff ratings to the point where the tariff is currently 5%.

The thinking behind tariff reduction was that it would allow imported cars to become cheaper and more accessible to Australian consumers, thereby increasing competition in the market and providing incentive to local car makers to improve their products to meet the competition, to level the playing field. In short, the theory was "competition betters the breed".

Whilst this theory was sound in principle, in practice it has had the effect of pushing local car makers towards insolvency and closure (like Mitsubishi's manufacturing operations in Australia). The rollback of tariffs has gone over and above what was necessary to open the market up to competitors. Local car makers are owned by foreign corporations and are given limited funding for development of new models. Those foreign corporations will not allow a local arm to duplicate a car here that is being made in lower-cost assembly plants elsewhere in the world, and because of this, local car makers have over time designed and built their own products with the funding they have available.

Another flaw of the tariff reduction program was that it failed to consider the fact that importers were able to import vehicles that were global platforms developed for global markets, which have an according budget allocation to develop them. This expenditure on such a car would be quite high, but can be recouped through amortisation of those costs across the global market as those cars are sold in several different regions (like the Mazda 3 is sold in Europe, North America and Asia). The local car makers do not have this luxury and cannot compete with the economies of scale foreign car makers can bring to bear, and the production volumes they can draw on. Contrary to the intent of the Button Plan to create a level playing field, it has resulted in a playing field that is substantially lop-sided.

However it would be misguided to assume that the fortunes of Australia's car makers are poor because of government intervention.

Local car makers have generally failed to account for changing market trends and consumer preferences. In Ford Australia's case, incessant management change and interruption (and cancellation) of approved products and plans has created uncertainty over the future of its local operations and has delayed the release of crucial new products to the market. In GM-Holden's case, the Global Financial Crisis caused irrepairable damage to its parent company, General Motors, which adversely effected Holden's ability to raise capital and bring new products to the market.

This corporate dithering and uncertainty, combined with rising fuel prices and tariff reductions, has created an almost "perfect storm" which could engulf the local car manufacturing sector and the thousands of supplier jobs that it supports. This in turn could cause the collapse of an industry that the Federal Government has termed a 'strategic industry'. The consequences of a failure of one of Australia's strategic industries would be catastrophic.

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Here is something I wrote ages ago and posted in another thread. Could be relevant here.

The large car segment in Australia has been in decline for over 10 years. Staple products in this segment, the Ford Falcon and Holden Commodore, once dominated the automotive landscape in Australia but now command less than [percentage] of overall new vehicle sales in the country. Up until recently, Ford and Holden relied on their respective large cars as their main source of revenue. This is still the case, to a degree.

In concert with the overall decline of sales of large cars, there has been a gradual increase in consumer takeup of Sport Utility Vehicles (SUV's) and smaller vehicles, particularly from the C-segment (eg. Toyota Corolla, Mazda 3). Compounded with an increase in petrol prices, and new product offerings in a variety of segments, new car buyers in Australia have shunned the traditional Aussie sedan.

Tax reforms relating to vehicle imports by car companies have led to an unprecedented level of choice for consumers. Similarly, a change in consumer attitudes towards vehicles that offer more 'flexibility' for lifestyle choices and vehicles that are more family friendly have introduced a new dimension into the automotive market.

In 1982, the Minister for Industry and Resources, Senator John Button, proposed a reform of the Australian automotive industry which was called the Button Car Plan, or Button Plan for short. The Button Plan called for indigenous car makers to establish joint ventures with one another (and foreign car makers), badge engineering, and a reduction in the import tariff rating effecting new imported cars. Whilst the joint venture and badge engineering aspects of the Button Plan ultimately failed, successive governments continued to roll back import tariff ratings to the point where the tariff is currently 5%.

The thinking behind tariff reduction was that it would allow imported cars to become cheaper and more accessible to Australian consumers, thereby increasing competition in the market and providing incentive to local car makers to improve their products to meet the competition, to level the playing field. In short, the theory was "competition betters the breed".

Whilst this theory was sound in principle, in practice it has had the effect of pushing local car makers towards insolvency and closure (like Mitsubishi's manufacturing operations in Australia). The rollback of tariffs has gone over and above what was necessary to open the market up to competitors. Local car makers are owned by foreign corporations and are given limited funding for development of new models. Those foreign corporations will not allow a local arm to duplicate a car here that is being made in lower-cost assembly plants elsewhere in the world, and because of this, local car makers have over time designed and built their own products with the funding they have available.

Another flaw of the tariff reduction program was that it failed to consider the fact that importers were able to import vehicles that were global platforms developed for global markets, which have an according budget allocation to develop them. This expenditure on such a car would be quite high, but can be recouped through amortisation of those costs across the global market as those cars are sold in several different regions (like the Mazda 3 is sold in Europe, North America and Asia). The local car makers do not have this luxury and cannot compete with the economies of scale foreign car makers can bring to bear, and the production volumes they can draw on. Contrary to the intent of the Button Plan to create a level playing field, it has resulted in a playing field that is substantially lop-sided.

However it would be misguided to assume that the fortunes of Australia's car makers are poor because of government intervention.

Local car makers have generally failed to account for changing market trends and consumer preferences. In Ford Australia's case, incessant management change and interruption (and cancellation) of approved products and plans has created uncertainty over the future of its local operations and has delayed the release of crucial new products to the market. In GM-Holden's case, the Global Financial Crisis caused irrepairable damage to its parent company, General Motors, which adversely effected Holden's ability to raise capital and bring new products to the market.

This corporate dithering and uncertainty, combined with rising fuel prices and tariff reductions, has created an almost "perfect storm" which could engulf the local car manufacturing sector and the thousands of supplier jobs that it supports. This in turn could cause the collapse of an industry that the Federal Government has termed a 'strategic industry'. The consequences of a failure of one of Australia's strategic industries would be catastrophic.

One of most intelligent local car industry posts I can recall,
the last 2 lines are most important.
Well done!
Bill.