I believe it has more to do with globalisation. There was no competition from developing economies form white collar jobs further, the unions' intransigence provided a high cost, unsustainable base for production of consumer goods without high tariff barriers.
Production line workers earning total salaries (forget the quoted base rates, real salaries are more than double if allowances and conditions are applied) earning more than teachers and salaried young doctors goes along way to explaining the profitability problem.
Defence production can sustain these costs if the government is willing to pay.
K
The UK now produces 10 million vehicles per year from new factories (eg Nissan in the NE) with labour rates less than half of those in Australia and because of volume it is sustainable. Bill Shorten has much to ponder.
Sorry for being off topic
No problem, besides I started it
Anyway I agree with the wages side of what you said and I believe it's a bigger problem than just the unions.
There seems to be a sense of entitlement in this country where many believe they are worth more than they really are while competent para-professionals and professionals are under valued. Basically if your career requires years of study and lower or even unpaid work you are worse off than the demographic pets of the major political parties.
Had government invested in attracting high tech, highly automated and flexible manufacturing we would still be in the game and competitive. There would be fewer jobs for stoners and dumb bogans but we would be growing more of the technically competent people modern industry needs. Major defence projects don't need production workers, or for that matter, hospitality, retail, tourism or hair and beauty workers, they need, competent trades, technical and engineering workers.
Both sides have it wrong and we are stuffed if things don't change.