Bert Kelly, The Bulletin, December 14, 1982, p. 123.

Neil Walford, chairman of Repco, really is a glutton for punishment. In a recent series of advertisements, he warned our politicians in particular and Australians in general that we were being weakened by a lot of loose thinking about free trade. He went further and I quote:

It now seems that the Liberals and the Country Party are committed to free trade. If the Labor Party were to re-assert its traditional support for protection after the Whitlam aberration, and if Labor’s other policies did not look like a complete disaster for this country, and if the Labor Party could be seen as an independent political organisation, I can see many businessmen and, indeed, many other independent people careful of this country’s future supporting Labor at the next election.

I cannot help being sardonically amused by the idea of our government being branded as free traders. Farmers think that the government will run for water whenever a high protectionist group huffs at it. They gave in gracefully to irresponsible pressures from the car industry and from the textile, clothing and footwear industries and seemed quickly to have second thoughts about protecting the steel industry when a few yahoos broke down the doors of Parliament House. They are only low tariff advocates when overseas.

At a recent symposium, Walford saw the troubles of manufacturing industry as coming from a “new class” who seem to have all crawled right out of the woodwork. I quote from his lecture:

I have no doubt that the current wave of free trade pressure and anti-protectionism can be traced to this “new class” with its almost complete ignorance of business, its security within the bureaucracy and generally its almost complete non-involvement with economic and commercial growth in any form.

Unfortunately for Walford, John Elliot, the new driving force in Elders IXL, spoke critically about high tariffs at the same seminar. Walford would have to admit reluctantly that Elliot, even if not as experienced in business as Walford is, seems to be picking up the general idea of business management in a rough sort of way!

Walford does not now blame everything on to the “new class” but this time our troubles are due to politicians polluted with this pernicious free trade doctrine.

He seems to see himself leading a large, cohesive band of disciples who think as he does.

But when he comes out of his ivory tower, he finds his theories on protection opposed by big firms such as Alcoa, MIM, CRA, WMC, Renison Goldfields Consolidated and even by BHP spokesmen in their more responsible moments. Or does he want me to quote again the speech made by Sir James McNeill, head of BHP, which I cited two weeks ago?

On this occasion also, Walford has run slap into the opinions in the report of the South Australian Development Council. I quote from it:

The council believes that one of the major economic mistakes made by Australia in the last two decades has been the maintenance of high levels of protection.

I know this is only a South Australian opinion, so I would not expect Walford to be much interested, but the council contains representatives of firms such as John Shearers and Hills Hoists who export all around the world and stand on their own two feet, not ours.

Then along comes the Balderstone Committee report which says quite bluntly that rural industries are damaged by our high tariff policies and is critical of the government’s “lack of political will” in tackling the high tariff problem.

Now, I can understand Walford brushing aside the opinion of the committee as being of little weight — coming, as it does, from the rural sector which he does not see as important.

So I hasten to inform him that though the chairman, Jim Balderstone, is a farmer he is also on the board of both BHP and ICI.

Surely a man like that would not be altogether a lightweight.

I have before me a transcript of an ABC interview with Walford on November 8.

The interviewer asked him what assurances he would want from the Labor Party before he and his fellow businessmen would vote for them at the next Federal election.

Walford replied that one thing he wanted was an assurance from Labor that they would not interfere with the operation of free market forces in this country.

I am getting the impression that Walford is getting just a little bit confused. Or is it me?