Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to note an anniversary that will take place next week. It is not a date that will ring a bell with most Australians, and indeed the occasion itself was something that probably was not greatly remarked upon at the time. It has taken a long time—too long, I would argue—for the significance of this event to achieve the level of recognition it deserves. I am speaking of the first speech, or maiden speech as it was known then, of Bert Kelly, the now-legendary former member for Wakefield in South Australia, which was delivered on 19 February 1959—55 years ago next week.

Bert Kelly may not be a household name for most Australians, but he is a figure of enormous and enduring importance for many of us on this side of the chamber. Indeed, he is someone who has earned the admiration of some on the opposite side of politics, including no less an authority than Gough Whitlam, who has said of Bert Kelly:

No private member has had as much influence changing a major policy of the major parties.'

The 'major policy' being referred to in this instance was the pursuit of a free trade agenda through the dismantling of Australia's regime of high tariffs and the pursuit of greater economic efficiency, particularly through reducing subsidies given to inefficient and uncompetitive industries.

This is a subject that continues to be very relevant today, as we have seen over the past couple of weeks. More than once in the course of the public discussion about Australian manufacturing over recent months, I have wondered what Bert Kelly would make of the fact that his views—which were certainly not shared by the majority of his colleagues during the years he served in this parliament—are now considered orthodox. Free trade was certainly not orthodoxy in the parliament that Bert Kelly entered when he won his seat at the 1958 federal election. Indeed, Kelly entered parliament just as the power of the Country Party's new leader, John 'Black Jack' McEwen, was reaching its zenith.

That party's previous leader, Arthur Fadden, had retired at the 1958 election, and it was widely assumed that McEwen would exercise his prerogative as Country Party leader to select the Treasury portfolio for himself, as his predecessor had done. However, McEwen opted to remain in the Trade portfolio, essentially setting the department up as a counterweight to the more free-market instincts of Treasury. This move was to have a dramatic impact, both on Australia's economic policy generally and on the internal dynamics of the coalition for the next two decades. It is one of history's more ironic quirks that Bert Kelly's maiden speech actually singles out John McEwen, praising the work he had done to encourage and promote Australia's agricultural exports:

I should like, at this stage, to pay a very warm tribute to the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) for the clear-sighted way in which he has worked to do this very thing, that is, to help us sell what we produce. No one could do more, if as much.

Yet there were other lines in the speech that day that probably did not find great favour with McEwen, or with a great many of Kelly's parliamentary colleagues. In simple but effective language, Kelly challenged the prevailing protectionist climate:

We are all apt to be critical of the part played by the United States of America, for instance, in selling her surplus export production at prices which make it difficult for us to compete. Let us make sure that we are doing all that we can before we become too critical.

Do our own restrictive trade practices not make it more difficult for other nations to trade with us? The trade treaties with Japan and Malaya were steps in the right direction, but we still watch with a jealous eye lest Japan sells us too many cheap toys. How can we expect Japan to buy our barley if we will not buy her toys?

I am not sure whether Bert Kelly would be more surprised or disappointed to find that this basic question is still being debated today, at least to some extent. The neo-protectionist and pro-subsidy zeal of some in this place would surely disappoint him.

History shows that the mid to late 1960s was not an easy time to be a free trade advocate within the coalition. When Prime Minister Harold Holt disappeared at the end of 1967, many assumed that the Liberal Party's deputy leader and the Treasurer, William McMahon, would take over the leadership. But McMahon and his Treasury officials were known to be keen advocates of free trade and reducing tariffs, which earned them the wrath of John McEwen, who used his position as Country Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister to exercise a very public veto of McMahon's leadership bid. By this time, Bert Kelly himself had become a minister, serving under Prime Ministers Holt and Gorton as Minister for Works and later as Minister for the Navy. However, despite his undoubted talent and diligence, he was to rise no higher. Many observers of the Liberal Party at that time put his lack of promotion down to the influence of McEwen and other supporters of protectionist policies.

Kelly was eventually dumped from John Gorton's ministry in late 1969 but, far from sulking or taking backward steps, he instead used the opportunity to pursue his economic agenda with a renewed zeal. This he did in a variety of ways. As a backbencher, he continued to forcefully articulate his views in the party room and through his contributions to parliamentary debates. Although they may not have been welcomed by all of his colleagues at the time, there were respected—something that Kelly was always at pains to emphasise when contrasting the Liberal Party's approach with Labor's. Mr Kelly said:

Certainly I used to run into criticism from my colleagues that I was rocking the boat, but never from the Prime Ministers of the time, and certainly never from the Liberal Party hierarchy. This independence is something that we should cherish.

However, it was through his regular column—first titled 'The Modest Member' and, upon his departure from parliament in 1977, redubbed 'The Modest Farmer' that Bert Kelly's views found a wider audience, first in the pages of the Australian Financial Review, and later in the Bulletin.

It takes a special type of wit and authorial talent to make the often dry nuances of economic policy engaging yet that was precisely what Bert Kelly was able to achieve. Take, for instance, his 1982 column, in which he relates his experiences testifying at a royal commission into the Australian meat industry. He said:

I then explained to his Honour, who, I guess, lives a very sheltered life, that I was, and am, engaged in a bitter battle to get our trade barriers lowered.

I then foolishly tried to be funny and explained that, when the PM was overseas, he was a powerful ally of mine in this cause because he then made stirring statements about the evils of protection. However, he was home quite a lot and then I was very busy indeed, because he seemed to spend most of his time at home making sure that our trade barriers were not lowered.

I hoped that this sally would draw at least a snigger from the crowded court room but it went down like a lead balloon.

Evidently, it is regarded as the natural way to behave for politicians to talk eloquently about the evils of protectionism while overseas while doing their damnedest to keep up our trade barriers while at home.

It is worth noting that the prime minister being skewered here was Malcolm Fraser, demonstrating that Bert Kelly was utterly unafraid to take on those on his own side of politics if he felt they were heading in the wrong direction. Kelly's verdict on the lost opportunities and policy timidity of the Fraser era was particularly harsh. He once wrote that under Fraser, the Liberal Party's approach could be summed up thus:

We just have to govern Australia badly for fear that Labor might govern us worse.

It is indeed a great pleasure as we approach the anniversary of Mr Bert Kelly's maiden speech in the other place, to remark on his significant contribution.

Bert Kelly's legacy lives on today through the Society of Modest Members, a group originally formed in 1981 with Bert Kelly as its inaugural patron. While its fortunes have ebbed and flowed over the years, the society is still an active contributor to this parliament. Its members are acutely conscious of the need to honour Bert Kelly's legacy by continuing to push for the removal of anticompetitive trade practices on the part of individuals, businesses, trade unions and governments.

Next Wednesday, on the 55th anniversary of the maiden speech of the original Modest Member, it would be timely to reflect on our own contributions in this place. Do we expect them to have a lasting influence on the direction of our country; to elicit the esteem and respect of our political opponents as Bert Kelly's were able to do?

Senate adjourned at 19:08