A Modest Farmer [Bert Kelly], The Australian Financial Review, October 12, 1979, p. 11. Reprinted in Economics Made Easy (Adelaide: Brolga Books, 1982), pp. 98-100, as “Textiles (5).”

There was a time when the recent publication of the IAC’s draft report on textiles, clothing and footwear would have made me mad because it exposed the damage being done to my farmers.

The report spells this damage out yet again and also measures it which is a thing the industry cannot stand.

They hate everyone knowing what they are costing us. We know now we are subsidising the industry at a cost of about $200 a year per household.

But I used to comfort myself by hoping that the damage done in this way might be offset by the employment gained as a result of the startling high rates of protection that these industries get.

Of course, Eccles has taught me that the employment gained by protecting one industry is almost always lost by the damage done to other industries.

But I couldn’t help hoping that, in this case at least, there would be some increase in the direct employment in these industries to offset the inevitable loss of employment in other parts of the economy, caused by the high rate of protection.

But the startling fact is that, in spite of the imposition of these burdens on Australian families in particular, and on the economy in general, employment in these industries continues to fall.

Those who remember the piece I wrote on this subject in June last year will recall that the drop in the employment level was then exposed.

And it still continues, in spite of our expensive efforts to shelter the industry from the traumas of change.

Mr McCann, the executive director of AFCO, the organisation which bravely and competently defends the poor consumers — the group that no one else seems to care about — pointed out recently that retail clothing prices had risen by 85 per cent since June, 1974, which is faster than the rise n the cost of living, namely 74 per cent.

Yet, during the same period employment in the clothing industry had dropped from 89,400 to 69,000 now, a fall of 22 per cent.

When I saw these figures first, I could not understand them.

“How can this be?” I said to myself, “surely there must be some employment benefit to an industry we are helping so generously, to compensate for the damage done to the rest of us.”

But when you come to think of it, I suppose the reason for the fall in employment is that the high rate of protection afforded the industry has made clothes and footwear so expensive that the demand for them has fallen.

Why this should be a surprise is puzzling but we seem to have got into the way of thinking that the old law of supply and demand has been superseded by edicts from the Government.

But clearly, the law is still grinding away in its old fashioned way.

To demonstrate this I quote from a piece in the Adelaide Advertiser on September 11, and written, not by an economist like Eccles with a view to maintain, but by a woman fashion writer who has been watching what is happening in the clothing scene.

A recent examination of retailing at a seminar conducted by the fashion industries of Australia, found that Australians now spend only 5.2 per cent of their income on clothing and footwear, compared with 11 per cent in 1955.

Fashion experts are now convinced that most Australians are buying clothing and shoes only to replace worn out products.

They also feel that consumers with spare money prefer to spend it on holidays, with the introduction of cheap air fares, and leisure activities such as theatre-going.

So clearly the law of supply and demand is still working.

We now know that the only way to increase employment in this group of industries is to pass a law to make it compulsory for people to spend a certain amount of money on clothes and shoes.

But even the Government would hesitate taking such a step, although I guess the spokesman for the industry, Mr Aitchison, would not be so concerned.

But if you want to see the law of supply and demand really in action, come to our place on Thursdays which is Mavis’ sewing day. You will find her bent over her old sewing machine, pedalling away furiously, turning sheets outside to centre or whatever women do when they want to rescue an old sheet from its inevitable doom.

She may have her mouth full of pins which will inhibit her eloquence, but when she takes them out she will tell you in no uncertain terms that she is only doing that because new sheets are too dear to buy.

And there are people all over Australia doing the same thing with sheets, kids’ clothes and other garments.

So if industry leaders want to find out what is wrong with the clothing industry, come and ask Mavis.

I bet they aren’t game!