An interesting, if somewhat misinformed, simplistic and irrelevant rant.
I don't think you are particularly talking about BMC or Leyland in Australia.
Apart from the Morris 1500, Marina and Tasman/Kimberley debacle, and the under-funding of the P76 project and an inappropriate method of finance for same (forced on them by the parent company in the UK) from what I have found out in my researching, including taliking to many people in middle-management and from the factory floor, the company was actually not that badly run- in Australia.
Many of the problems faced by BMC/Leyland Australia were forced on them by management in the UK or outside influences completely beyond their control.
In the hey-day of the 1960s, while the Mini and Morris 1100 were the company's two top-selling models, BMC was a substantial profit-maker and reasonably important player in the industry in Australia - certainly ahead of Chrysler at the time.
Up to 1969, when ADRs were first introduced, all changes made on any of the vehicles were to improve the product, for servicability, marketability, reliability or safety, or to reduce costs. BMC was the first Australian motor company to build vehicles with front seatbelts as standard, in the Morris 1100 of 1964.
Many changes were made from the UK spec of all Australian built vehicles, to improve the product and/or reduce the cost. Take the vans for example - featured in the next issue of TME - which used the sedan front end (the UK vans were completely re-tooled and had integral front grilles) and floorpan, which reduced costs in production.
BMC Australia was also fairly small in the committee department - partly because of a smaller overall staff in design and development - which meant decisions were usually made without too much fuss, and therefore less time, and in turn less cost.
BMC/Leyland in the UK was another case altogether, and although poor management decisions, an over-importance of personal ego and an inability to accept that anything could be built better than the British way of doing things were all partially responsible for bringing BMC and later BL to its knees, there were other factors beyond the company's control.
Escalating union strife, particularly with the mining and automotive industries, made manufacturing costs increase exponentially.
Despite management and union problems within the factory and suppliers; despite the abundance of brands within the one company fighting for market share with each other; despite a slowness of development and meeting the growing market threat from US, European and particularly Japanese car makers; BMC and Leyland managed to put out some very good, interesting and up-to-the minute car models (and some real duds!).
Yet, it was the coal miners' strikes of the early 1970s that brought industry to its knees throughout the UK, resulting in record unemployment, manufacturing shortfall and almost caused the collapse of the British economy. This impact cannot really be understated. It brought down the government of the day, and sent BL over 750,000,000 pounds into the red.
Issue 16 of The Mini Experience is recommended reading.
At this time, Leyland Australia was running at a loss, primarily due to poor market performance of the 1500, Marina and Tasman/Kimberley, and production problems with the P76 which lead to expensive recitfication, a drop in public confidence in the company and falling sales across the board (especially with P76). However, by late 1973 the company had traded its way out of much of these problems and was beginning to show signs of productivity.
To compound the problems faced by the company at the time, there was a new fuel crisis in 1973 (due to yet another middle-eastern war), talk of punitive taxes on V8 cars - the mainstay of P76 production was V8 - a misinformed and misguided government publicly denouncing the P76 as a lemon or dud, a public campaign by Leyland's (understandably) scared competitors to discredit the P76, and a covert operation from the same competitors to bring pressure on component suppliers. Increased inflation, rising unemployment and a credit squeeze that almost emptied car yards across the country also played a role. There was also a dramatic increase in the number of strikes in the motor industry (while Leyland Australia was not immune they certainly suffered fewer strikes than many companies) which almost crippled component manufacturers.
Despite all this, it was the near collapse of the parent company in the UK, and the need for them to quickly inject some much-needed capital, that brought about the closure of the Zetland plant - as well as plants in Spain, Italy and others.
Yes, there were probably some changes in production that may cause a raised eyebrow or two, but I think that the vast majority of cases would and could be justified - if not on cost alone, then on safety, marketing or after-sales costs. However, these were merely a drop in the ocean of the greater picture.
Cheers,
Watto.
