Making things in a high-dollar Australia: the case of the surfboard industry

In August 2011 the announcement by Bluescope Steel of mass layoffs at

its Port Kembla steelworks, in the Illawarra region, sparked renewed

public debate and media commentary on the future of manufacturing in

Australia. The debate has since spread to cars, aluminium smelting –

even Mortein fly spray – and has quickly coalesced around the

unprecedented high Australian dollar, its impacts on exports, and the

prospects of the production of goods shifting overseas. As Australian

mining magnates such as Clive Palmer, Gina Rinehart and Twiggy

Forrest attempt to remould Australia around their ‘quarry vision’ (Pearse,

2009) of extractive minerals exports, a high value Australian dollar puts

at risk any industries where import substitution is possible: tourism,

education, retail (doubly threatened by the rise of e-commerce), and the

manufacturing sector.

In this article we seek to provide a fresh perspective to the debate on

Australian manufacturing by focusing instead on the internal dynamics

of industries and regions – where a political economic analysis reveals

important insights.

Our case study is the Australian surfboard-making industry. By focusing

on internal as well as external dynamics, we illuminate the problems with

orthodox approaches to comparative advantage, and suggest critical

factors beyond the high dollar that need to be addressed if this iconic

form of manufacturing is to remain viable in Australia.