Some protection is essential

Carbon, in the form of coal, illustrates this problem. If domestic and foreign consumption of Australian sourced coal is allowed to grow at projected rates then, by any reasonable estimate, coal will be exhausted within about three or four generations and when exhausted substantial production of metals such as iron, copper or aluminium from oxide or sulphurous ores will be impossible.

Technology will not rescue us from the immutable laws of chemistry and physics. Carbon, as coal, is the only reducing agent available, in sufficient quantities and at an affordable cost for the production of not only iron and steel, but most other metals.

Enlightened discussion and planning is essential if this particular impediment to human comfort is to be delayed as long as possible. We will arrive at that point sometime in the future but surely we should delay that day of reckoning as long as possible and not have it arrive for our grandchildren's grandchildren. Coal is also a source of feedstock for many other products.

For this exercise, consider what would be necessary to make our coal and metal ores last for a population of 40 million for say four times as long as present plans. That would require that we ease back on our exports of these raw unprocessed products and start to live without exporting assets to buy current consumption items, contrary to what we are doing at present.

What would that mean for our future employment?

It would mean that we would have to restart producing many of our consumer durables, structural and infrastructure materials and transport equipment. Probably it would never be sensible to produce computer chips or minor printed circuits, or even laptops, but it would be sensible to produce refrigerator and washing machine cabinets and drives, television sets, cars trucks and buses, trains and other rolling stock, furniture, fasteners, pots and pans and even our shoes and clothing.

This is crucial, given that the ease back suggested would result in a fall in our exchange rate. That would improve the sales return per tonne for our reduced exports of coal, metal ores and surplus agricultural products. The lower exchange rate would also improve the competitiveness of our processing and manufacturing industries.

Some protection would be required. The level of that protection is the only real point of contention. In my view, after easing back our current exports of our resources assets, the protection would need to be little more than an import duties rate that would replace the income taxes and business taxes foregone when compared to manufacturing the products within Australia.

Possible rising international shipping costs will assist, as oil supplies decrease and oil becomes more expensive. Although, nuclear fuelled freight vessels may come to the fore.

The GST is now recovered on the sale of consumer product imports but governments, such as the NSW Government when it imports trains, probably avoid that. One government importing trains while another government is paying unemployment benefits to the unemployed (and the under-employed) makes no sense whatever. Dumping protection should be made more readily accessible and enforceable. This is one instance where the onus of proof could be on the imported goods supplier.

What jobs do we want for the generations I am considering?

My experience in manufacturing has been that such work can be satisfying. Productive and caring jobs tend to provide more satisfaction and fulfilment than repetitive jobs that employees often perform for people who could do such work for themselves. Taking in one another's washing or making coffee is not desirable or productive employment.