Bert Kelly, The Bulletin, April 26, 1983, p. 108.

Neil Walford, the chairman of Repco, is indeed a glutton for punishment. In April last year he made some very forthright criticisms, when speaking at a meeting of the Institute of Directors, about the influence of the “new class,” the bureaucrats, academics, economists and farmers, who he felt were unduly influencing the government towards a lower tariff policy and who were ignorant of what went on in the real world.

But this comment rather lost its impact when he was followed by John Elliot, the head of Elders IXL, who was definite in his criticism of our high protection policy and the amount of government regulation with which we have to content. Even Walford would find it hard to deny that Elliot knows his way around the rough cruel world.

Then in October last year, Walford, in a widely circulated advertisement, made some trenchant criticisms of the behaviour of Liberal and National Party politicians for their alarming free trade tendencies. I quote him:

I can see businessmen and indeed many other independent people, careful of this country’s future, supporting Labor at the next election.

He must be proud indeed of his powerful influence.

He followed this up with an ABC interview in which he said that he wanted an assurance from the Labor Party that it would not interfere with the operation of market forces in Australia. Up till this stage, he had been loud in his complaint that the government had not been interfering enough with market forces by not placing enough barriers in the way of imports. This left us Walford Watchers a trifle confused.

In order to help our understanding, and perhaps to clarify his own thinking, Walford has had his say yet again, this time at the mid-year Repco meeting on February 18. I have a copy of his statement in front of me but it would be unfair if I were to take you through it. I am sure he would prefer to do this himself. However, there are a few general criticisms I will make. He says:

The reality is that our industries have no protection at all when it comes to competing with countries whose workers are paid only a quarter or a fifth of ours. Some of the factors which contribute to this massive disparity are our shorter working hours, holiday pay loadings, absurdly high workers’ compensation insurance, payroll tax, last-on first-off rules, restrictive union practices and trade unions which are outside the law and, of course, a much higher wage level.

That is true indeed. But which are the employer groups who give in most readily to union pressure for wage increases and to the demands for the fringe benefits which make it uneconomic to employ people? It usually has been the metal industry group that gives in first, secure in the knowledge they can then go to the government and get another tariff hand-out to make it better. You can always tell a man who is dining out on an expense account by the enthusiasm with which he summons the waiter. Even farmers would be generous if others were picking up the tab, but we have to pay for our own generosity, if any. And we resent having to pay for other people’s.

I quote again from Walford’s report:

The nation has to accept the higher cost of manufacturing because we cannot, and do not wish to, walk away from decisions made at Federation.

Neither in the Federal constitution nor in the constitution debates was there any commitment made to tariff protection. This only raised its ugly head when the powerful political grip of urban Victoria twisted the arms of the non-urban States and landed us with a system which is now making us the poor man of this part of the world.

Finally, Walford expresses his disappointment about the media’s reception of his previous speech in this quote:

The comment about my chairman’s address last October was, with minor exceptions, poorly reasoned. The comic relief was provided by the Modest Farmer who indeed has every reason to be modest.

This witticism is getting a bit hoary; Sir John McEwen used it of me about 12 years ago. Still, the comment is true for all that; I have indeed plenty to be modest about. But I have one advantage which Walford cannot claim — I can get my point of view read without having to pay out money.

Walford, or someone else from the “Old Class,” should try to write a Modest Manufacturer column each week in one of the many papers which so readily print his advertisements. I can assure him that nothing clarifies the mind like the knowledge that each week you have to demonstrate publicly the cause of your modesty and try to persuade someone to publish it, so that he who runs may read. And I am sure that Eccles would help him if he were approached nicely.