As Bendigo Bank attempts to roll out community banking across the nation, the Finance Sector Union has raised concerns that it is provided using Australian Workplace Agreements as the framework for employment relationships.
Only where a community specifically requests otherwise will a collective agreement be offered.
FSU state secretary Geoff Derrick says that the community needs to be wary before endorsing community banking was more than a cute marketing slogan.
Derrick says Bendigo Bank was one of the first employers to embrace non-union enterprise agreements under the 1993 Brereton laws and had taken up AWAs with equal gusto.
"If they want to market their product on the grounds that the big banks are bastards, then that's fine," Derrick says. "But our support will require proper behaviour by you as an employer and as a corporate entity."
Derrick has called on all unions and their members who are involved in community groups examining the community bank concept to demand a collective agreement be the basis of the employment relationship.
He warned that without this, the community banks will actually erode industry standards by giving the major banks grounds to argue that they too must impose AWA s to remain competitive with the new industry player.
The FSU is arguing that the Bendigo Bank should be working with the trade union movement to establish appropriate employment frameworks before any proposal is taken to any community group.
One option could be to establish a common rule state award which would rope all community banks into a minimum set of wages and conditions.
"It is only on this basis that the trade union movement should consider supporting the community banking initiative," Derrick says.
Industrial Action Hits NAB
Meanwhile, the campaigns against the Big Four Banks is gathering pace, with FSU members to take industrial action in the National Australia Bank in the week ahead.
Staff in NAB's mail and proofing centres in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane will walk off the job for 24 hours on Monday, bringing the bank's internal systems to a halt.
The FSU says the action will jam the bank's ability to distribute work and information to its extensive netowrk across the eastern seaboard.
And stoppage at the bank's proofing centre on Tuesday will stop the bank earning interest on deposits via the money market.
"Mail mand Proof centre staff are some of the lowest paid NAB workers," Derrick says.
"Mail and Proof centre staff are particularly concerns about the threat of the bank out-sourcing their work - as has been ithe case in some of the other major banks."
With unanswered allegations of government involvement in a conspiracy to sack members of the Maritime Union of Australia, Labor's IR spokesman Arch Bevis says a genuine inquiry would go beyond allegations of corruption in the building industry.
Bevis says the commission - the first to be held since the days of the Fraser Government - should be a comprehensive review of intimidation in the workplace.
While the terms of Reference have yet to be finalised, Workplace Relations Minister Tony Abbott has signalled they will be confined to the construction industry - but take in allegations of corruption as well as the operation of industry superannuation.
"It is clear that the terms of reference have been deliberately tailored so that the Government can continue the obsession with the construction unions it has had since it was elected," Bevis says.
"If the government is concerned about the 'culture of intimidation' in the workplace the terms of reference must be able to deal with allegations such as those of coercion and intimidation by the Howard Government and its friends during the Patrick's waterfront dispute.
"It should also thoroughly investigate allegations of professional thugs being used against union members at the G&K O'Connor meatworks in Pakenham in Victoria.
History Suggests Roller-Coaster
Retired Judge Terry Cole's inquiry could end up finding more crooked behaviour amongst employers than trade unions if history is any gauge, NSW Labor Council secretary John Robertson has cautioned.
Robertson says the two previous Royal Commissions designed to uncover trade union corruption had failed to lead to any convictions of trade union officials.
"The Costigan Royal Commission exposed the bottom of the harbour tax schemes, while the Gyles Royal Commission in NSW found collusive tendering amongst building companies," Robertson says.
The Labor Council and its affiliates have vowed to stand beside the CFMEU as through the Royal Commission.
WorkCover general manager Kate McKenzie was quoted by APP making the comments at a conference this week. She said the scheme's problems dated back to the early 1990s when it was not collecting enough premium revenue to cover costs.
"We're still not collecting enough premium and the deficit has not been
addressed at this stage," she was reported to have said.
The admission adds weight to trade union arguments that injured workers should not be carrying the can for the scheme woes.
NSW Labor Council secretary John Robertson says the government needs to reconsider its approach to workers compensation reform in light of McKenzie's comments.
"Access Economics has produced an analysis of the scheme that argues that an increase in premiums would have an, at worst, minimal impact on jobs," Robertson says.
"We don't see why injured workers should be the ones who pay for the failure to collect adequate premiums through reduced benefits and reduced access to their workers compensation entitlements."
Sheahen Inquiry Hears Trade Union Concerns
Mary Yaager reports A single threshold for allowing injured workers to sue negligent employers would rule out many legitimate claims, the NSW Government's inquiry into common law has been told.
Labor Council of NSW Secretary, John Robertson with a delegation of unions and eminent doctors presented their Oral Evidence to the Inquiry into Common Law headed by Justice Sheahan on Thursday.
Robertson expressed the union view that the right of an injured worker to sue for negligence must be maintained.
"Access to common must not be severely restricted so that only a handful of victims can claim, " he said. "A second gateway such as a judicial discretion is crucial."
Robertson also told the Inquiry that the unions want to ensure that a proper and fair injury threshold test is set and that Judges retain discretion to hear worthy cases
Professor Michael Fearnside an Eminenet Neurosurgeon and well respected in the medical profession was a part of the union delegation. Professor Fearnside supported the union's position and stated that it is critical to have both tests.
Professor Fearnside told the Inquiry that there are anomalies in the guidelines used for the injury threshold test and that a number of workers with very serious injures would not pass and hence there is a need for Judge to decide on claims
Ben Kruse from the MEU confirmed that the Labor Government in Victoria had just reintroduced a second test because the majority of seriously injured workers do not get over the injury threshold test.
Nancy Searle from the Police Association said, "Police officers, ambos, teachers, nurses and a number of other groups who suffer major psychological trauma at work would not pass."
This was confirmed by a Psychiatrists, Dr Murray Wright who advised that his a patient -a police officer, who will never work again after almost being beaten to death and witnessing his co worker being murdered would not pass the injury threshold test
Full transcript of the Labor Council's oral submission to the Inquiry will be available on the official website next week.
Labor Council resolved to investigate the blow-out in working hours after it was revealed this week that miners in the Tasmanian community of Queenstown were being force dot work 56 hours weeks.
While long shift hours have been commonplace in some Western Australian frontier mines, where workers leave their families to work hard for high wages, the shift of these practices to more integrated communities is a cause for alarm.
The Australian Workers Union's Ray Sparkes says where long hours are imposed on a workforce, there are detrimental consequences for the entire community.
"Everything from workers' family lives to the operation of local sporting clubs, is effected by unsustainable shift hours," Sparkes says.
"It appears the 38-hour week is again becoming a myth for most workers in many industries."
Labor Council secretary John Robertson says all affiliates will be asked to participate in the mapping exercise, which will bring to light the worst 4excesses in shift-structures across the workforce.
"This information is vital if we are to run an effective and targeted campaign on working hours," Robertson says.
He says, Labor Council will also be keeping a close eye on the progress of the ACTU's Reasonable Hours Test case, currently before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
The six call centre unions working together to campaign for minimum standards in the industry say they are beginning to see results for their hard work.
Most recruiting of new call centre employees to their union is achieved by union delegates on the job. Union delegates in call centres often find it hard to communicate with colleagues on the job due to the nature of call centre work and the prevalence of shifts and staggered breaks, making the achievement even more remarkable.
Releasing the news at the ACTU executive meeting in July, Secretary Greg Combet commended all those involved in the campaign for this boost to unionism, particularly in this new industry.
The CPSU says it has increased membership of call centre employees in its union
by 20% in the past 12 months.
This has enabled them to become a much stronger union in call centres and has made a significant impact on the industry in improving wages, conditions and health and safety issues.
The significant role of the union in protecting sacked One.Tel workers was also considered to be a factor in the increased awareness and membership increase in call centres.
As a result of this week's decision, more than $17million in outstanding entitlements will be paid to 1600 former employees over the next three weeks.
CPSU spokesperson, Stephen Jones said, "This is good news for One.Tel workers. They should be congratulated for the stand they took. Their fight was right and they won."
As well as unpaid wages, superannuation and leave entitlements, One.Tel workers will receive up to 8 weeks redundancy pay following CPSU instigated action in the Industrial Relations Commission.
"It is indisputable that without union support, these young people would have got far less."
"The One.Tel saga underlines the urgent need for an enforceable industrial award for this industry, and demonstrates that contrary to Howard Government propaganda, unions are a positive force in the community" said Mr Jones.
The strike, by members of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union at MainTrain is the latest action in support of the Manusafe scheme - a special entitlements fund for workers in the sector.
The Australian Industry Group is campaigning vigorously to prevent employers from agreeing to the Manusafe claim.
In Australia in the past three years there have been a spate of company collapses in a number of different industries in which workers have lost their hard won, accrued long service leave, sick leave and other entitlements.
The Manusafe scheme requires the empoyer to pay these entitlements as they accrue into a jointly managed trust fund. The AMWU argues that these are workers' entitlements and they deserve to be protected from incompetent or unscrupulous employers, and from the workings of the boom-bust cycle.
The AMWU says the battle for Manusafe is an important test of the enterprise bargaining system to achieve industry-wide advances as well and is preparing for industry-wide action if necessary.
They say that in the wake of high profile collapses such as OneTel and HIH, they can no longer trust Government or their employer.
The workers are seeking community support for the workers which can be registered through the AMWU website at http://www.amwu.asn.au
" Slavica Noveska is being dragged through the court system by a boss who simply wants to deny her annual leave," Gil Anderson, the LHMU Cleaning Union ACT Secretary said.
On Monday her boss, Limro Cleaning Services, will appear before Senior Deputy President Watson asking him to overturn an earlier Industrial Relations Commission decision.
The earlier Commission decision said Limro was 'unreasonable', and promptly changed the award to guarantee annual leave to cleaners.
" Limro Cleaning Services are pushing to get a Full Bench IRC hearing to declare that a boss has a right to deny annual leave, " Gil Anderson said.
" Slavica Noveska is a strong unionist and she knows she is not fighting just for herself - she is fighting for all cleaners and all Australian workers.
" She has stuck by her union principles to help rewrite Australian workers annual leave rights with the AIRC coming down on her side declaring the boss unreasonable and changing the Award saying annual leave shall not be withheld unreasonably.
" All Slavica wanted to do was attend a family wedding in Macedonia, see her aging parents - possibly for the last time - and to see her four-year-old grandson for the first time.
" The case went before the AIRC with Mrs Noveska winning the right to take her holidays
at her chosen time - but now the boss is dragging the decision before the Full Bench.
" Despite the court challenge Mrs Noveska has gone to Macedonia for the family event.
" Her son Sasha says his mother is now concerned she may not have a job when she returns in six weeks time.
" The case is remarkable because the employer had refused to negotiate with the employee and gave no valid reason for rejecting the holiday request.
" Unfortunately we live in an environment where employers - who feel they have the backing of the anti-worker Howard Government - are becoming more and more arrogant thinking they can ignore the rights and needs of their workforce.
" Only workers who organise unions can get the leverage to stand up to this arrogance," the LHMU Cleaners Union ACT Secretary said.
Read an earlier story about this on-going dispute
Boss tries (again) to stop cleaner going on holiday
CPSU national secretary Wendy Caird accused Centrelink management of wasting taxpayers money on a "vindictive campaign" against the Wollongong officer whose case for reinstatement was adjourned in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission today.
The case was adjourned until August 8 after Centrelink unexpectedly introduced a barrister at today's hearing.
Ms Caird said it had become apparent Centrelink was determined to penalise a man it should be rewarding.
Scott, 34, was dismissed for disobeying instructions not to assist fellow workers and customers in Wollongong, after being transferred into Centrelink's retirements section in early 2000.
Illawarra Centrelink staff have signed a petition calling for Scott's reinstatement. Messages of support from clients and workmates were displayed outside the commission.
"In the face of huge support from the people who know Geoff and his work best, Centrelink are still determined to push him out," Ms Caird said. "Their actions will cost taxpayers a lot of money."
Scott has been with Centrelink for nine years.
"The AMA's report confirms the systematic causes of unsafe working hours in hospitals across Australia and deserves urgent government attention," ACTU Assistant Secretary Richard Marles said.
"The particular needs of hospital staffing are no excuse for making people work virtually unlimited hours. No-one should have to work these extreme hours."
The AMA's Risk Assessment for Junior Doctor Rosters study found that 78% of junior doctors are working hours that involve a significant or high risk of performance impairment.
Working more than 60 hours per week was commonly identified as a key risk factor. Many hospital doctors worked up to 100 hours a week, with one doctor continuously on duty for 63 hours.
"Previous research has shown that performance impairment after 18 hours of sustained wakefulness is equivalent to being too drunk to drive," Mr Marles said.
"Doctors should not be forced into the position where they cannot perform at their best. The fact that this is occurring where patients' health is at stake makes the problem doubly urgent."
The ACTU's Reasonable Hours Test Case currently before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission sought to outlaw excessive and dangerous working hours in Federal Awards.
by Mark Morey
This recent move against workers is in addition to the immediate concerns of CEPU NSW Postal & Telecommunication members given that over 2,000 full-time jobs have been lost in the past 2 years in New South Wales alone.
Branch Secretary, Jim Metcher delivered a stirring oration that highlighting the important history of the Redfern Postal Centre. Once one of the most militant mail centres in the country it was now one of the most efficient and effective mail centres in the country.
According to Metcher, Australia Post was now making a profit because of the hard work, commitment and loyalty of postal workers. It is they who have turned the postal service around and made Australia Post one of the best, if not the best, postal service in the world.
Senior management recently removed three local posties from Stockton and then contracted out their jobs. Australia Post management has signalled that they intend to use the Stockton model for contracting out additional postal workers jobs at Blayney, Dubbo and Helensburgh.
This action places at risk the future employment of every postal worker in this state. In addition Australia Post has announced they intend to close 100 corporate Post Officers at locations unknown to the union at this stage.
Labor Council's John Robertson called on Australia Post management to think about the benefits they have reaped from the loyalty and service of their workers. He called on Australia Post to remain committed to providing quality services to the Australian public and not to let fanciful management hyperbola about economic rationalism drive a contracting out of quality services to rural and regional Australia.
In his opinion, CEPU members, the Labor Movement nor the Australian public would or should tolerate this action. Robertson committed the Labor Council of NSW to supporting the workers in their campaign in ensuring Australia Post repaid its debt to its workers loyalty and commitment.
"Australia Post must commit itself to ensuring workers have job security in order for a quality postal service to be maintained in regional and rural Australia."
The meeting was also addressed by Federal MP's Roger Price and Laurie Ferguson and Joanne Yates from the Australian Democrats.
"It was a blatant attempt to mug our members into submission - but they failed to get the courts to side with them, " Terry Breheny, LHMU Security Union Victorian Assistant Secretary said.
"The company has been told to get back to the bargaining table - and to put back onto that table their original offer to our members. This was the offer that they snatched away earlier in the week just as our members' were about to take a vote.
Senior Deputy President Brian Lacy of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission said he did not believe the rolling 24-hour stoppages by union members employed by Group 4 Securitas was causing any danger to passengers.
Group 4 tried to have the LHMU strike declared illegal, and argued at the IRC for the ending of the bargaining period because industrial action was endangering the life, personal safety or health of passengers.
.
Senior Deputy President Lacy said he was 'mystified' by the Ansett application because they had provided no evidence to back up their arguments.
LHMU Security Union members had walked off the job on July 10 as part of their industrial campaign. But earlier this week they were to hear a report from union delegates on the state of the negotiations.
" Just as we were about to report on Monday evening the company withdraw all their offers so on Monday evening the members reacted and walked off the job for 24 hours.
" The bosses then tried to put a legal stop on any further industrial action - but they failed.
" They have instead been told to come back to the union within the next seven days with a proper offer.
" The company wanted the courts to give them a leg up - they failed. Now we'll wait to see if the company listens properly to what the court had told them to do."
More than 140 security guards at Melbourne airport working for both Group 4 Securitas and Chubb have been involved in this industrial campaign. The LHMU Security Union has close to 100 per cent membership among security guards working at the airport.
Read an earlier story about the airport security guards campaign
Pay offer snatch triggers security strike
The reaction follows Brough's announcement this week that the Productivity Commission is to "examine the policy framework for the Job Network....and the potential for application of the model to other types of Commonwealth Government services."
Community and Public Sector Union National Secretary, Wendy Caird, claims the Job Network's ongoing accountability and transparency problems should encourage a move away from - not towards - further privatisation.
"This government's record on privatisation is appalling. Without fail, services are cut, jobs disappear and profits are creamed off. We have seen it with Telstra, detention centres and IT outsourcing. Quite frankly, I don't think the community believes their privatisation rhetoric any more," Caird says.
"Notwithstanding the skills and commitment of many Job Network providers, the imposition of 'for profit' structures on these kinds of public services will always compromise their transparent and impartial delivery."
"What the Government is suggesting would lead to the privatisation of Centrelink. This would directly affect Australia's 6 million welfare recipients and remove certainty and security for many of the community's most vulnerable people" she says.
At an Executive meeting today it was decided that the Queensland union movement would hold a peaceful march and rally in support of raising the labour standards of workers and their families across the Commonwealth.
"It is important decision that we would be part of such an event to highlight and raise the awareness of the poor working and labour standards in some of the countries that will be represented here in October," QCU Acting General Secretary Chris Barrett said.
"We welcome discussion and debate on human rights, indigenous rights and issues and democracy within the Commonwealth," Mr Barrett said.
"However, it is also our role to highlight the issues of labour standards, governance, debt and environment issues as well as human and union rights violations," he said.
"Our key issues are ones that have an effect on the working lives of Australians," Mr Barrett said.
"Globalisation and third world debt impact on workers' rights and core labour standards across the Commonwealth," he said.
"It is crucial that the union movement in Australia and especially Queensland have a voice at this time," he said.
" The response by hospitality employers to the recent violent incidents has been inadequate and uncaring - words mouthed, no real action," LHMU Assistant National Secretary, Tim Ferrari, said.
" We are prepared to lobby all Ministers responsible for gaming and hotel venues asking for changes to the law to protect our members who are increasingly at risk through working in this industry."
The LHMU National Executive meeting in Sydney heard a report this morning on the increasing violence that hospitality workers are facing in their workplaces.
The National Executive called for a full range of security measures to be considered at all venues where cash takings from gaming machines or general operations can be a target for criminals.
These should include:
� the use of security guards;
� time lock safes;
� security cameras;
� metal detection equipment at entrances;
� more regular cash collection;
� better cash handling procedures
In circumstances where robbery occurs, the trauma for staff associated with it requires the establishing of post robbery measures including:
� professional counselling;
� paid trauma leave
Mr Ferrari said the LHMU is seeking meetings with all relevant employer associations in the first instance to outline the problem and gain recognition by them of the need for action not words.
" Failing this process the union will seek meetings with relevant Ministers responsible for gaming and hotel venues as well as law enforcement agencies to gain their support for legislative change to protect workers who are increasingly at risk through working in the industry," Tim Ferrari said.
The Foundation for International Legal Rights and lawyers representing the unionists has made the claim in a lawsuit filed in US District in Miami.
In a news conference here, Terry Collingsworth, one of the attorneys, said: "There is no doubt that Coca-Cola knew about the systematic repression of labor rights in its Colombian bottling plants."
The lawsuit, filed by the Colombian union Sinaltrainal which represents workers in Coca-Cola's Colombian plants, alleges that throughout Colombia paramilitary forces have assassinated more than 50 unionists since the beginning of the year, and killed 128 union members last year.
More than 1,500 union members have been killed by paramilitary agents in the last 10 years, according to the lawsuit.
Soup Kitchen Outside World Bank President's Feast
On the 1st August, the President of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, will be at a speaking engagement in Sydney. Mr Wolfensohn will be greeted by a group of protesters, who will be hosting a free 'Soup Kitchen' and alternative forum in a peaceful show of support for those adversely affected by World Bank projects around the world. From Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Genoa and Africa, the number of victims of globalisation continue to grow. The Soup Kitchen is to highlight the costs paid by nations around the world who are subjected to World Bank development projects and policies.
When: Wednesday, 1st August 2001 Where: Outside the ANA Hotel 176 Cumberland St, Sydney.
Timetable of events:
3.30 pm Crowd gathers for beginning of soup kitchen
4.00 pm Press conference held at the front of the ANA Hotel - Speakers:
� Rev. Ann Wansborough, Uniting Church
� Paul Bastion, Australian Manufacturing Workers Union
� Yoga Sofyar, Mineral Policy Institute and Indonesian activist
� Andrew Stanton, student activist (also representing PNG students)
� Moses Havini, Bougainville Provisional Government (TBC)
� James Arvanitakis and Melanie Gillbank, AID/WATCH
5.00 pm Official start of the rally and Soup Kitchen free organic pumpkin soup
6.00 pm Alternative Forum held at the front of the ANA Hotel Speakers:
� Anthony Albanese MP, Australian Labour Party
� Rev. Ann Wansborough, Uniting Church,
� Paul Bastion, Australian Manufacturing Workers Union
� Kerry Nettle, Australian Greens
� Sen. Vicki Bourne, Australian Democrats
� Yoga Sofyar, Mineral Policy Institute and Indonesian activist
� Moses Havini, Bougainville Provisional Government (TBC)
The speakers will be demanding that the World Bank:
� write off 100% of the debts owed by the HIPC countries.
� Provide reparations for the millions of people who have been displaced and adversely affected by Bank-funded projects.
� include labour clauses in World Bank guidelines to ensure that all direct borrowers of funds, plus all firms contracted and sub-contracted under Bank project funding, enforce ILO labour standards.
AID/WATCH is a community-based organisation that campaigns on Australian involvement in overseas aid and development projects, programs and policies. As we 'Monitor the Development Dollar', we work to ensure that aid money reaches the right people, communities and their environments. AID/WATCH was established in 1992, and its Advisory Board includes intellectual Noam Chosmky and journalist John Pilger.
For more information phone AID/WATCH's World Bank Campaigner Melanie Gillbank on 02-3987-5210 or AID/WATCH's Campaign Director, James Arvanitakis 0421-068-167
************************
Hiroshima Day 2001 March & Rally Sat August 4
At 8.15am on August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, incinerating 140,000 men, women and children.
Three days later at 11.02am, at least 74,000 men, women and children were killed in Nagasaki by a second atomic blast.
For many years, the Hiroshima Day Committee in Sydney has organised a commemoration of these events, under the slogan of 'Hiroshima Never Again'.
Over the years, the march has focussed on different issues. But the central theme has always been: the only answer to nuclear threat is to abolish all nuclear weapons.
Protest against the US National Missile Defence plan
The 2001 Hiroshima Day commemoration takes place against the background of the US National Missile Defence plan. Australia is involved in this plan through the US military facility at Pine Gap, near Alice Springs.
The US National Missile Defence will destroy the existing international arms control and disarmament regime, provoke a new nuclear arms race and trigger a wave of destabilising events around the world.
NMD is, in fact, an offensive program which would allow the US to attack other countries without fear of retaliation.
With NMD, the US Government is using its economic and technological strengths to launch a new arms race. The aim is to reinforce US dominance in the Asia Pacific region - as Asian countries, especially China, are provoked into exhausting economic and social resources in their attempt to match the US military might.
NMD is the armed wing of globalisation.
Australia's involvement
The use of the US base at Pine Gap near Alice Springs for NMD will involve Australia and make us a nuclear target. The Australian Government's support for NMD makes us complicit in a program that will significantly destabilise global security.
92% of Australians called on the government to take a leading role in the elimination of nuclear weapons, according to a Morgan poll. The Federal Government has chosen to ignore those views and the Senate resolution calling on the US not to deploy NMD.
Hiroshima Day 2001 provides an opportunity for all thinking Australians, trade union members and the wide community, to demonstrate your opposition to the US Government's missile plans.
Commemorations will also refer to local issues, such as the threats from the planned new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights and plans for a nuclear waste repository in Australia.
Hiroshima Never Again:
Hiroshima Day Committee: PO Box K257 Haymarket NSW 1240: Chairpersons: Bronwyn Marks, Brian Miller, CFMEU Construction, NSW Branch.
*********************
RALLY FOR THE RIGHTS OF REFUGEES
(on the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Refugee Rights Convention).
Sunday 29th July is the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Rufugee Rights Convention. Meet at 11:30am at McDonald's Circular Quay to march across the Harbour Bridge to be at Milson's Point at 1pm. Then march to Kirribilli House (Howard's house).
For more information contact the Refugee Action Collective on 9660 5222.
*********************
ADVANCE NOTICE
EVATT FOUNDATION SEMINAR Privatising Democracy? Government and the Crisis of Consent.
When August 30th 9am to 1pm
Where State Parliament House Theatrette, Macquarie Steet, Sydney.
The Evatt Foundation in conjunction with Pluto Press will host a half day seminar examining the changing nature of political representation in our new century.
The direction of recent government reforms both in Australia and elsewhere, especially the new enthusiasm for mutual obligation "compacts" as part of the mechanism of government suggest that the practice of democracy is undergoing a far-reaching transformation. The relatively benign rhetoric of mutual obligation now masks the heavy and unequal burden of "good" behaviour being imposed on welfare recipients, while the complementary responsibilities og government bodies, political representatives, the business sector and the "community", are barely articulated, let alone policed and imposed.
What are these reforms doing to the idea of "the public", or the "public good"? How much of these reforms have the people consented to? Are we imposing a language of contractualism on relationships that are far too intricate to be encompassed by it? Are we in the process of privatising democracy itself?
For more information contact the Evatt Foundation on telephone 02 9385 2966 or email [email protected]
******************
Community Economic Conference 2001:
Strategies for defusing the debt time-bomb
Date: Saturday 18 August, 2001
Time: 9.00am - 5.00pm
University of South Australia (City West Campus)
61-73 North Terrace, Adelaide
Barbara Hanrahan lecture Theatre,
Room No BH2-09 (Ground Floor)
A Rare Opportunity !
From the UK, a speaker much sought after on the international stage, Michael Rowbotham, is an outspoken critic of corporate globalisation and the debt of the developing world. Not to be missed. From New Zealand, Stephnie de Ruyter will talk about possibilities for reversing the disastrous neoliberal experiment inflicted on one of Australia's nearest neighbours.
PROGRAM
9.00 Introduction
9.10 Breaking the chains of debt
Michael Rowbotham
(Gen Secretary, UK Christian Council for Monetary Justice, author of The Grip of Death, and
Goodbye America! Globalisation, Debt and the Dollar Empire)
10.00 The community loan proposal -- a democratic solution
Stephnie de Ruyter
(Deputy Leader, New Zealand Democrats)
10.30 Self-financing development : buy-back of World Bank debt
Dr Shann Turnbull
(Author of Democratising the Wealth of Nations, etc.)
11.00 Morning Tea break
11.30 Controlling international financial flows
Gerald McBride
(Economist, University of South Australia)
12.00 Social justice alternatives to neo-liberalism
Chris White
(Secretary, SA United Trades & Labour Council)
12.30 Lunch break
2.00 Debt traps facing low-income people
Mark Henley
(Senior Policy Officer, Adelaide Central Mission)
2.30 Debt, globalisation and the environment
Lou de Leeuw
(CEO, Ecobusiness Corporate Research)
3.00 Afternoon Tea Break
3.20 Interactive Panel Session
Written questions and comments from conference participants relating to the
speakers' presentations will be put to a panel consisting of all the speakers.
4.40 Action Agenda
(a) Resolutions.
(b) Formation of a working committee to formulate and monitor ongoing activities.
Note: Conference participants might wish to avail themselves of the opportunity to have a collective
evening meal at one of the many excellent local restaurants and cafes.
SCOPE OF THE CONFERENCE:
This conference will consider the role and impact of debt upon the interlocking global crises of economic under-development, the foreign control of local industries, downsizing and employment insecurity, the rapid depletion of the earth's natural resources, and ecological ruination.
Strategies devised for tackling these problems will take into consideration the common threads of
(a) an escalating drive for economic growth and consumption, (b) the huge growth of debt on a global scale, (c) the speculative excesses of the financial system, and (d) the demonstrable failure of many multinational corporations to operate in an accountable manner which recognises their social and environmental obligations.
Specific issues: reform of the process of credit and money creation; strategies for cancelling the debt of the developing world; viable alternatives to borrowing from the financial system for funding infrastructure, capital works and environmental projects; the creative use of progressive tax methods; and reform of the IMF, World Bank and WTO.
During the 1990s a number of People's Summits and TOES conferences were successfully held within different Australian cities. This conference aims to follow in their tradition. An interactive panel session in the afternoon will invite the participation of attendees, and this activity will culminate in the formation of a working committee to coordinate an ongoing action agenda.
Registration cost:
$25.00 / $20.00 concession
Please forward the registration fee to the conference coordinator as soon as possible. Cheques should be made payable to Adelaide Community Economic Conference 2001 (or CECADL), and mailed to PO Box 505, Modbury, SA 5092. A receipt will be issued by return post.
Tea, coffee, biscuits, fruit juice and spring water will be provided. There will be facilities for ordering lunch. Signs directing attendees will be provided at the conference venue.
Conference Venue:
University of South Australia
City West Campus
61-73 North Terrace, Adelaide
Barbara Hanrahan Lecture Theatre
Room No BH2-09 (Ground Floor)
Sponsors:
Economic Reform Australia
Jubilee Australia
Caritas
Reworking Tomorrow
University of South Australia
Organising Committee:
John Hermann
Barbara Sheppard
Tony Roach
Andrew Buchanan
Carole Grubisa
Michael Pilling
June Ayres
Gerald McBride
Michael Plowright
Hugh Wigg
Further Information:
John Hermann, Tel (08) 8264 4282
Email: [email protected]
I am honoured to have been made a tool. Let it stand as a marker that I and the Whitlam Institute will be free of factions, free of any party political interest and will fiercely pursue ideas and issues without fear or favour. However, if only because of the company I am now forever compelled to keep in the infamous Rogues Galley, I feel the need to reply in earnest.
Your nominator caricatures a number of issues from my 'winning' radio discussion with James Valentine:
- As reported in Labor Net before, my contention is that the real challenge is for unions to link up with people (especially younger people) working in and starting up small businesses in some constructive way. This is one of the supreme organising challenges. It's where the future members are. The organising model is about a defensive older style industrial unionism. The services (credit card) model sells the union movement's strengths short and competes in an area where there are others with primary experience and skill. The seeds of an alternative model were talked about back in Unions 2001 and involve building workplace based expertise that anyone, be they in a big or small workplace, need and want. This is the secret of the union movements' that have high levels of union membership.
- Union membership has fallen to 25.7% of total employment from 41% of the total workforce, (let alone the voting population!) only a few years ago, yet unions continue to control as much as 50% of votes at various state conferences of the ALP. Should we ignore this fact because of some romantic notion of Henry Lawson chewing a piece of wattle up on the top floor of Labor Council? Does it suit some union bosses for membership to fall and influence within the party to effectively increase? Why don't we create some incentive scheme that rewards high participation and strong membership based unions to participate in conference rather than the reverse? Of course this is a principle that I acknowledge the ruling factions of Labor Council will find hard to understand. Bring back the felt hatters! The alternative way of modernising the party base is to strengthen other constituencies, if the Labor Party is to be reflective of the Australian community!
- There is an increasing danger that, what is now a minority voice of the workforce, through ill discipline and some crazy activist rationality, could lose Labor its chance to govern Federally (should we ignore the Aston by-election? and the AWU in Queensland made it as hard as it could for Peter Beattie in Qld during the last election, the National Party/One Nation/Liberal Party leadership meltdown neutralised the issue, but this will not be so Federally). Robert Menzies eat your heart out! The Labor Council's sensitivity on this matter must have been extreme because, in my comments, I don't think I adversely commented on the workers comp demonstration. If I did it was only to lament the research that Michael Easson wanted done many moons ago on funding workers comp in NSW! I don't think anyone supported him in that work! Instead he copped a few knives in the back, for being too concerned with research and ideas I suppose.
- As for think tanks and ideas, the community wants decent policy development, I don't want to defend Barry Jones particularly, he doesn't need me. But it was plain to see that just because his diagram could not fit into a media grab of five words, he was hacked to death. (Though not in the community I think.) The larger point is that policy requires years of work not a bout of opinion poll driven research papers. The union movement needs to invest in this process not be scared of it, yet how often do we hear of major voices within the union and labour movement suppressing research that they consider politically threatening. I have seen this across the right, centre and left of the party and the union movement. In that respect the tool is a tool.
- Gough, as John Faulkner said at the Roast last week, embodies the greatest strength, solidarity, integrity and moral courage of the labour movement. I understand that, and will not use my position at the Whitlam Institute to make criticisms of the union movement for gratuitous or self seeking purposes but I will not recoil from issues that I think someone has to bring up, probably from outside the fold. In that respect, tool of the week is funny, but you cant walk away from the issues I was discussing on the ABC so easily.
Finally let us wait for the day, when Michael Costa one day appears as a tool. I for one will be watching his performance in the parliament with keen interest and my nomination pen at the ready. Will the man whom Trotsky schooled only to become an honorary member of the Catholic mafia, ever make the grade?
Ed's Reply: Regular Tool Shed afficiandoes will know that Costa has already kept the Shed warm for a week
This message has not been organised by any political movement or special interest group but by a private citizen fed up with being driven into poverty because this country and the people's assets are being sent down the drain towards a socialist state owned by multi-nationals and New World Order banking systems - and no one has the "guts" to stand up and fight for their rights. The sender appeals for the help of all patriotic Australians who believe in their country and its sharing of wealth to support this "people power revolution". There should be no poverty in Australia - we have everything - we do not need to import goods into this country. The government, the non-taxed multi-nationals and the banking system are denying Australians their rightful prosperity. It is time to revolt. Let's introduce the French Guillotine to the banking system for not giving justice to ordinary people like you and me by acting on the following message.)
"Stop the Bank Rip-off" Days begin on Wednesday, 1st August 2001
This is an urgent call for action by all concerned Australians
Have you had enough of banks ripping you off with their exorbitant bank fees with their "user pay" schemes to increase their massive profits? ("A Current Affairs" programme (20/07/2001) stated banks made a further profit increase of 6 billion dollars plus from all their service fees.")
Are you sick of queuing up for what seems like hours just to get normal counter service because of staff reductions?
Are you sick of being moved from queue to queue for simple enquiries to find the staff has to ring their head offices for advice?
Ever applied for a loan with the computer being fed all your details and it replies "Yes, you can" or "no, you can't" because of its set formulas - the loans officer just smiles and says sorry?
Are you sick of waiting to be served at the busiest times on normal days because of dramatic staff reductions unable to meet efficiency demands by customers?
Are you sick of being forced onto the street and subjected to weather conditions and possible robbery or injury because you have to "talk" to a machine to get money? (Scenario - what if you were an ordinary person standing on local council property of which footpaths are, doing bank business from that footpath from an ATM facing the footpath and not within a safe area of the bank and you get injured, assaulted or robbed on council property doing that bank business from a bank who does not pay fees like any other business or organization conducting business (stalls displays etc)? Who do you sue? The Council or the Bank? Certainly not the bank - it didn't happen on their property! The ratepayers cop it again! Then what if you were just a normal citizen walking down the street and was obstructed, injured or whatever by one conducting bank business on council controlled land? Think of all the huge lawsuits!!! It's a wonder someone hasn't thought of that angle yet.
Are you sick of having to ring a bank number, follow directions by numbers from a mechanical voice, wait in line because an operator is busy, then get the "shove around" and have to hang up - all at your cost?
Have you noticed that withdrawal and deposit slips are rarely seen on writing desks these days and on asking for them, you are directed to use ATM's or Telephone Banking because it is much easier - and convenient?
Whatever happened to good old personal banking service? "People power" can stop the rip-offs by the banking systems. Have you forgotten that:
1. A bank exists because of YOUR MONEY
2. A bank cannot survive without YOUR MONEY
3. A bank uses YOUR MONEY
4. A bank profits from YOUR MONEY
5. A bank has TO SERVE YOU
6. A bank is not there FOR YOU TO SERVE THEM.
NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT on the big 4!
Note: Every effort will be made from the banks to stop your action from the moment
they become aware of this "people powered revolution".
On Wednesday 1st August, every private customer of the Westpac Bank wherever you are should go in and close down all your private accounts on this day. Take your cash to a Building Society or Credit Union and open up a new account on the same day with people who work for their customers.
On Wednesday 8th August, every private customer of the National Bank should do the same.
On Wednesday 15th August, every private customer of the ANZ Bank should do the same.
On Wednesday 22nd August, every private customer of the Commonwealth Bank should do the same.
By the end of July, we shall see if "the big 4 banks" have sat up, listened, and taken remedial action. If not, the " people power revolution" will advance to the next stage. Without customers - they don't have YOUR MONEY to make their big profits. They will soon come back to serving their customers - or close up from incompetency or greed.
THIS ACTION CAN ONLY WORK IF EVERY CUSTOMER PARTICIPATES.
Please send this message to every person you know on the internet in Australia before the 31st July. Make copies and hand it to friends and relations without internet facilities. WE NEED MAXIMUM ACTION FOR MAXIMUM EFFECT AT MAXIMUM SPEED.
When you receive this from a friend, please do the following:
1. On receiving this message, cut and copy it completely onto a separate file.
2. Give it the same name as the original message.
3. Edit and erase all email addresses and names shown for confidentiality.
4. Then send this message to every person you know with a new list of email addresses.
5. Do not delete any part of this message (including this section).
6. Remember, the only areas that need to be deleted are email addresses listed on the message you receive. This way, sources cannot be traced.
Now it is up to you - Stand up and be counted or do nothing and lose the lot because your government won't do a thing to help you.
The Community Sector suffers continued oppression from all sides of the Parliamentary Political fence.
Kim offers no confidence to the marginalised or dis-empowered. The only real fight is coming from those who are currently taking a militant stand against domination by world Government as demonstrated this weekend at The G8 Summit. More strength to them I say.
The working Class will never win the Class War by standing on the sidelines. Those prepared to abide by social nicecities will be thrust aside as World Capitalism marches forward.
We can not sit back and wait for the Labour Movement in general, for the ALP in particular, to take up the Working Class fight for us.
This war has to be taken up in the streets of Capitalism and against those supporting Globilisation,for them to take notice.
We can not be put off by the Capitalist Press attacking those who take a militant position ( interestingly the Press are using same language that was used by the press in the 60s against those who stood up against the war in Vietnam).
Rulers never freely give, they have to be taken to the barricades before they will relent. We have to take what is rightly ours.
In the end, the fight must be taken up by us, and if we have to take The Union Movement to task, then so be it. Some sections of the Union Movement clearly take the middle road when it is the high road that must be travelled.
In Solidarity the masses can win, but it means commitment for the long fight.
Anthony Burton
Tuntable Via Nimbin NSW
Dreams do come true
The Howard Government's job creation policy, just released....
*Ten public servants standing in a line,
One of them was downsized -- then there were nine.
*Nine public servants who must negotiate,
One tried enterprise bargaining -- then there were eight.
*Eight public servants thought they were in heaven,
'Til one of them was redeployed -- then there were seven.
*Seven public servants, their jobs as safe as bricks,
But one was reclassified -- then there were six.
*Six public servants trying to survive,
One of them was privatized -- then there were five.
*Five public servants ready to give more,
But one golden handshake reduced them to four.
*Four public servants full of loyalty,
Their jobs were all re-advertised -- then there were three.
*Three public servants under review,
One left on secondment -- then there were two.
*Two public servants coping on the run,
One went on stress leave -- then there was one.
*The last public servant agreed to relocate,
Replaced by 10 consultants at twice the hourly rate
by Peter Lewis
Kelvin Thompson |
Universal superannuation has been with us for nearly a decade now, how successful has that strategy been?
I think it's been very successful. In the first instance, prior to the introduction of universal superannuation ... Australia had a superannuation reserves around $40 billion. We've now crossed $500 billion and in terms of a pool of national savings and the wealth of the nation, that is a very good thing.
Secondly, in terms of the individuals, prior to the superannuation guarantee, superannuation tended to be the preserve of white collar workers, public servants, executives and so on. It extended to about 40% of the population. It now extends to over 90% of the population and includes blue collar workers, women, and many part-time and casual workers. So the coverage has improved out of all sight.
What are the current political fault lines on superannuation policies?
I think one of the fault lines relates to the Government's choice of superannuation fund agenda where the Government has essentially been hostile to industry funds, incorrectly seeing them as trade union funds and vehicles of trade union power. One of its objectives of its choice of superannuation funds legislation has been to damage industry funds and therefore, and for a range of reasons - but that is one of them- for a range of reasons Labor has not supported that legislation and has raised a variety of concerns.
As for other superannuation issues, we think the key issues are adequacy - whether the 9% that the superannuation guarantee will go to next year is sufficient. The question of the complexity of the existing superannuation arrangements, and I'd note the tax arrangements in there amongst issues contributing to superannuation complexity, and its interaction with social security and how you encourage people to stay on in the workforce - perhaps on a part time or casual basis post 55/60 and indeed even beyond 65. I think they are some of the key issues and they are some of the things we want our review of the superannuation to have a look at.
On that question of adequacy, the ACTU is arguing for a 15% compulsory contribution level. What's your personal view on that?
We don't have a concluded view on what number is adequate. We accept that the concerns that people have about whether nine per cent is adequate or not is sufficiently valid to warrant an inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry is to establish whether 9% is adequate, and if it is not, to look at what's the appropriate mechanism for going beyond nine per cent.
I guess on the other side of the coin you've got people that see their super taken away each week and they'd rather be putting that money into their current mortgage or their current daily costs of living. What's your response to those people.
I think that superannuation is a stone cold necessity given the kind of society we live in, and in particular, the demographic challenge - that is to say that a couple of million baby boomers are going to retire in the course of the next ten years. Meeting their retirement income needs, the aged care accommodation, the health, the pharmaceutical costs and so on is a considerable social challenge, a considerable public policy challenge. Australia is not the only country with it of course. Many of the European countries are in a worse situation than we are. But what we would say is that one of the ways you meet that challenge - an absolutely critical way you meet that challenge - is to be putting money aside during the course of your working life.
Currently the super funds are managed by trustees. Is this the right model or should there be a more corporate based structure?
I am very sympathetic to the existing model, the trustee model. I don't believe that it has failed. I think that evidence suggests that the superannuation supervision legislation and the trustee model have been highly successful. So I think those who wish to change it, the onus of proof is on them to show why it is unsatisfactory or why it has failed.
What about on the issues of tax. Currently superannuation savings are taxed, but given that these are savings that ease the pressure on the public purse in the future, is that a fair thing?
One of the issues we would be considering in our review of superannuation is the question of the taxation arrangements and whether they can be improved upon. I have publicly acknowledged that taxes on voluntary contributions make the system very complex and they act as a disincentive to voluntary contributions. Having said that, the contributions taxes yield very substantial and immediate government revenue. So the superannuation surcharge, for example, is $500 million and the other contributions tax a much larger figure again.
So if you are going to abolish them or transform them in some way, you've got to explain to the Treasurer how it is you're going to come up with - in the case of the surcharge - the $500 million to address that, or in the case of voluntary contribution taxes generally, a much larger amount of money. And clearly, if we want to do this, you've either got to come up with a reconfiguration of the taxes which is revenue neutral, or you've got to do battle with people who believe - and I think on quite legitimate grounds - that expenditure in areas such as health and education and community services, are more pressing priorities.
Do you believe a Labor Government does have a role to play in encouraging industry based super funds over the products offered by big banks and financial houses?
It was the work of the previous Labor Government that enabled the establishment of those industry funds in the first place and we consider them to be an outstanding success. We are very proud of them. I think that in the modern world they should compete with the for profit superannuation funds for business. I think that is entirely appropriate. What we have endeavoured to do, in a public policy sense, is hold the ring and enable them to offer the services they provide. One of the things we have been concerned about, as I mentioned earlier, is our view that the Government's choice of superannuation legislation was driven by hostility to industry funds. We've also noted some of the changes that have been proposed in the area of trustees, that there may be an anti not-for-profit fund agenda in some of those things, and obviously that would influence the way we responded to the Government's legislation.
There was some talk today about C+BUS' role in actually investing in big construction projects. Would you like to see the industry super fund taking a more pro-active role in job creation opportunities with the money that they have to invest?
I don't know enough about the investment practices of C+BUS or other funds to comment on investment strategies. I would express a note of caution about putting all your eggs in the one basket. That is to say if a worker's employment prospects are tied up in a particular workplace or industry, that if their retirement income prospects are also tied up in that area, there are some potential dangers in that. But, as I say, I'm not familiar with the detail of the C+BUS investment strategy or other investment strategy of various superannuation funds, and others would be better qualified to comment than me.
On a broader level, there is significant purchasing power in super funds and obviously the potential for some shareholder activism there. Yet the current fiduciary duty laws constrain what a super fund can actually do. Is that something you'd like to see reviewed?
We support the sole purpose test, that is that superannuation is about retirement incomes. Having said that, I've taken quite a lot of interest and so has my colleague, Stephen Conroy, who is responsible for corporate governance issues and Financial Services and Regulations spokesman. We've taken quite a lot of interest in ethical investment and issues of shareholder activism, and think that that has the potential to be a socially progressive and constructive thing and also note a fair bit of evidence to suggest that ethical investment need not have an adverse affect on the bottom line. There's evidence to the contrary - that it can have a positive affect on the bottom line. We have talked about choice of investment as opposed to choice of fund, and it may be that with an investment choice that funds will increasingly see fit to offer ethical investment choices.
Are there fiduciary duty problems though with those ethical investment returns that are less than non-ethical investments?
If the choice is offered to the fund members and they make those choices with proper disclosure and in the light of adequate information, I wouldn't have thought so. There could arise problems for trustees who invested their members funds in investments with poor returns. You couldn't justify doing that on the basis that the one investment was more ethical. What I'm supportive of is a fund member themselves could make a choice to have their money put in, what they believe to be ethically superior investments.
Do you see the Government having a role in setting up that sort of infrastructure - to actually have some sort of personal choice in where your retirement funds are going?
Part of our choice of superannuation model, as an alternative to the Government's choice of fund model, has proposed choice of investment. So superannuation funds would offer a range of investment choices to their members.
You were talking before about the aging population. Where is savings policy going in the mid to long term?
One of the things which I think savings policies needs to do in having regard to the fact that it looks like we are all going to live longer - it looks like we are all going to live 'til we're 90 - is to encourage people to spend more time in the workforce rather than seeing retirement at 55 as being the be all and end all. I know this is something which the OECD and European countries, which have a very substantial demographic issue on their hands, have been thinking about and directing policies to.
It partly a question of employee culture and not thinking that it's 55 and out. It partly employer culture, and I do detect some ageism and reluctance on the part of employers to employee mature age and older workers and I think we need to tackle that culture. I think that older workers are going to be healthier and are going to have the experience and the qualifications and so on to continue to make a contribution. Not necessarily doing nine to five but doing part-time casual, flexible work arrangements. And I think our social security system, the way in which it interacts with superannuation, needs to encourage that. So there needs to be a bit of an incentive there to remain in the workforce.
Finally. I'm in my early 30s. What sort of retirement can I look forward to?
I think that superannuation guarantee is ensuring that we will be able to meet the pressure of increased number of people retiring in the future so that the social security, the safety net we have in place now, will be sustainable. But if we want to provide better retirement incomes than the pension, and better benefits for the generation ahead, then we will need to encourage the voluntary contributions and we'll need to have a retirement incomes policy which is putting aside more money than is being set aside now.
e-change |
*****************
Looking at the change in the political debate in the past decade, you begin to wonder whether the world really has gone crazy. The speed of the change across the political economy has created new political fault-lines. While conservative political parties, catapulted into office on the back of resentment over the Keating Government's pro-change agenda appear happy to be swept along by the tide of global change, meting out political favours as they always have; progressive political parties like the ALP have an even more difficult dilemma to resolve. Are they for change or against it?
The alliance of the anti-corporatist Seattle and S11 'Green-Left' and the protectionist industrial bloc of the union movement has meant a large section of what was traditionally seen as the labour movement is placed in the corner opposed to change and arguing for, what is effectively, the status quo. They are pitched against the more pragmatic in the movement, who see the change as inevitable and the challenge to mitigate the negative impacts on people while maximizing the benefits. This necessitate a politics of picking winners and losers, something that Labor has always found difficult to reconcile with its egalitarian roots.
Symbolic of this confusion in core values is the debate at the 2000 Federal ALP Conference in Hobart over 'Fair Trade'. The left-wing Australian Manufacturing Workers Union led the debate for 'free trade' over 'fair trade' arguing that the opening of trade borders had gone too far and we should place social tariffs on trading partners who don't meet the same labour and environmental safeguards as Australia. Regardless of the merits of the debate - what was intriguing in Hobart was the way the protagonists lined up. While the proposed change to party platform was defeated on factional lines, members from both sides confided later that if there had been a free, non-factional vote the lines would have been very different. The outcome would have probably been about the same, but free of factional discipline, many in the traditional Left would have voted for 'Free Trade' and many in the right would have voted for 'Fair'.
What that debate showed was that the old factional alliances, based on the Cold War split had finally collapsed. Instead the industrial wing of the party is, quite rightly, taking positions that reflect the immediate interests of their membership. For workers in the old economy sectors like mining, manufacturing and rural labouring globalisation is a threat that should be resisted. To those in the service sector and IT as well as construction, the changes carry new problems for workers, but offers a net opportunity of more jobs. So as institutional self-interest replaces adherence to ideology, a factional realignment is inevitable.
This confusion, we believe, is largely caused by the absence of a focused and properly defined debate about the changes taking place through a Laborist framework. We need to pull back from a holistic ideology, look at the changes occurring and then apply core labour values to them in order to gauge where a progressive party should position itself.
One of the problems in making this shift is that Labor's faith has been placed in Industrial Age institutions to deal with the challenges of the Industrial Age. Big government, public ownership of assets, centralised wage-fixing all evolved to serve the interests of working people in a hierarchical society. They were structured responses to the structural issues that workers faced. But if these structural issues change, blind adherence to dogma may be counter-productive. We need to remember that these Labor icons were always only means to the ends of furthering the long-term interests of the trade union membership.
Another problem is that a 'Labor' philosophy has never been set in stone. Labor values have reflected the interests of working people, generally as articulated by the elected representatives of organised labour. For example, in the early part of the 20th century 'labor values' included an immigration policy that limited the entry of workers from non-Anglo countries. By the end of the century, Labor values were about embracing ethnic diversity and creating closer ties with Asia. Likewise, the 20th century saw a shift in the attitudes toward women in the workplace, to trade protection and to the notion of state ownership.
But beyond the doctrine there have been certain values that could be regarded as consistent. If we were to lay out the core values, they would look something like this:
- collective well being over individual rights;
- equality of opportunity and
- redistribution of privilege.
As a legacy of the Keating era, a fourth core value: 'diversity over homogeneity' could probably be added to this list.
It is these values that should provide the benchmark as Labor debates it's position on globalisation and technological change. In simple economic terms, it may be a matter of quantifying the number of jobs created and comparing it to the number of jobs lost and saying there is a net gain so that is positive. But this is not enough.
Labor needs to show where the jobs are going and how they advance the long-term interests of its core constituents. And it needs to convince the electorate that these often painful changes will do more than turn Australia into a cheap imitation of America, but rather help unleash a robust culture that gives us a sense of place and identity. Despite, the accepted wisdom that people do not want a Big Picture, without one they are left to be buffeted by global change without any understanding of why they are hurting.
Labor does not need to reinvent an over-riding ideology. Instead, it needs to place these values as the key reference point when making decisions. When dealing with the impacts of technological change it needs to apply these values openly and systematically. And when debating the broader merits of embracing the Information Age it needs to ask itself how the new technologies intersect with these values.
New issues such as globalisation of the economy and the resulting restructuring of industry, the opening of the education system, the changing ownership of capital, the shift in economic value from capital to skills, the influx of immigration and the end of the mono-culture all represent challenges and opportunities for government. Labor must decide how it adjusts to the changed external environment. Labor must find a way to engage its constituency as these changes occur - it can either try to force a fit with it's existing ideology, which may not work, or find a solution by evaluating each problem against the core values.
It is hoped that in the second part of this project, the discussion of the implications of network technologies on specific spheres of public policy will help us make this evaluation. The challenge for the labour movement is to come to a clear position on whether it wants to resist or shape the transition. Our argument is that active engagement is the only course that truly reflects core Labor values. We believe the challenge for Labor is not to resist the change, but to position our society to make the most of it - and ensure that Labor's natural constituency, working people and their families get a real stake in the great opportunities it provides.
The Bull Ring |
An interlocking directorate means having a director of a company board sitting on another firm's board, thereby being in a position to feed back information from a wider corporate scan. This information can keep the board aware and strategically poised as to other's firms' likely actions. A political economic study of interlocks needs to look at the corporate politics of these interlocking director clusters, at their radiating networks, and at the economic power that derives from having directors with dominant share ownership in their companies. These aspects have to be examined simultaneously if we are to get a coherent picture of modern business.
This article examines interlocks in the top thirty Australian companies. It begins with a summary of the interlock literature. Primary data from annual company reports is then used to consider hypotheses arising from the literature and interviews with directors. Finally, there is discussion of the interpretation of these patterns and their significance for political economy.
Why Interlocks are Important
Theorists classify perspectives on interlocks into four groups according to the emphasis on control, collusion discretion and social embeddedness.
The first approach, emphasizing control, aims to provide independent motives for the actions of interlocking directors. The Weberian-based theorists taking this approach want us to see interlocking as an issue of managers' control and power rather than ownership or class collusion. Power is treated as multifaceted because it resides with many shareholders rather than capitalist-owners. The companies that managers control are usually characterized as relatively democratically run, in ways that are answerable to the wider community, and diversely owned by 'mum and dad' shareholders.
A hypothesis taken from this Weberian model is that if share ownership is dispersed then managers (unlike owners) are free to be civically responsible and need not be motivated just by economic self-interest.
The majority of theorists that write in groups two, three and four - emphasizing collusion, discretion and social embeddedness - adopt a more critical, typically Marxist, approach. These theorists generally see interlocking boards as a strategy to reproduce class advantage and further exploit workers and/or consumers.
The collusive model looks at interlocks as structural mechanisms that cement collusion and subsequently help the development of business cartels. The foundation of this approach was Hilferding's Finance Capital (1910). Hilferding worked on material provided by Jeidels (1905) to find why "if you took possession of six large Berlin Banks [it] would mean taking possession of the most important spheres of large scale industry". He saw bank interlocks as the vital dynamic within this system of collusion. Banks were shown to act to make finance capital dominant in early twentieth century capitalist Germany.
Hilferding's central argument is that the most significant development facing capitalism is the concentration of banking and industry. Having bank representatives on the productive companies' boards establishes permanent supervision of the companies' affairs and protects the ownership interests of banks.
The collusive approach has been influential in Australian interlock research, including the pioneering work of Wheelwright and his student Rolfe. In Rolfe's 1967 study of fifty top companies, banks and insurance companies were found to have the biggest spread of directors, and chairmen were their key links. Higley et al subsequently studied 79 of the largest Australian companies and found all but 19 of these companies were interlocked and that the density of their interlocks paralleled the pattern of dominance in business lobby groups.
One hypothesis that this collusive model offers is that if bank ownership in the top companies is high this will be reflected in dense patterns of interlocks between banks and industrials.
Another bank-centered approach is the discretionary model. Finance capital's discretion, in controlling the direction of lending, is the key to understanding the role of interlocks within this perspective. Mintz and Schwartz, in The Power Structure of American Business (1985), argue that it is the direction of credit through interlocks (and other methods) that is the central function of finance capital. According to this analysis 'Interlocking directorates are not a source of hegemony but a method for managing discretion... bank centrality in this context reflects the dominant position of financial institutions in capital-flow decision making' (Mintz and Schwartz, 1985: 250).
Mintz and Schwartz also argue that banks use interlocks to mediate inter-firm disputes, thereby allowing business to approach the state as one actor. This is closely parallel to Useem's (1984) view of an inner circle comprised of the CEOs of banks and other businesses who form a lobby group to influence the state with one voice. In Australia's case this would be through the Business Council of Australia (BCA). Support for this thesis, or that part of it which argues a strong business unity as a continuing phenomenon, comes from Mizruchi who studied 167 large firms between 1912-1935. International comparative support also comes from Stokman et al showing the result of interlocks across twelve countries.
The hypothesis that arises from this discretionary perspective is that directional clusters of directors from banks reflect the dominant position of financial institutions in capital-flow decision-making.
The embeddedness perspective focuses on the directors' social location, providing an awareness of class formation missing in much other interlock analyses. Interlocks are seen as a mechanism for capitalist class reproduction (i.e. 'jobs for the boys') and class cohesion (i.e. 'don't rock the boat; employ your own'). Although these two ideas are implicit in many earlier interlock studies it was not until the 1980s that such social embeddedness was systematically explored. Granovetter stresses the importance amongst business actors of social, rather than just economic profit-driven, motives for involvement with each other. He suggests that interlocks between companies could influence a wide range of organizational behaviour, such as strategies, structures and performances.
Interlocks as a communication node or information conduit are another focus in the literature. Useem's The Inner Circle (1984) sees this as the most important aspect of the interlocks, and he writes of a firm's interlocking directorates as providing the business scan it needs to give it an 'awareness of its environment'. Following on from this perspective, Davis argues that central interlocking directors carry 'social capital'. These most heavily interlocked individuals are key class members, the corporate elite's vanguard and its most likely innovators.
Scott and Griff had previously made a major contribution to embeddedness theory when they argued that interlocks encapsulate practices and strategies of transformation. Transforming, coordinating and organizing board relations happen on a variety of levels through personal relations and creating a community of interests (that can result in joint ventures, mergers, takeovers and amalgamations).
However, according to Scott, a primary function of interlocks is as a conduit for information flows.
The major hypothesis that this embeddedness perspective suggests is that the most interlocked individuals act to integrate the class and reassure its members as to the value of the innovations they propose.
The Australian Study Results - Methodology
Specifically in relation to interlocks, Mintz and Schwartz's (1985) centrality, breadth and depth analysis method shows that the value of interlocks is dependent on the strength of the tie (e.g. between an executive or a non-executive director). Although interlocks between two directors bind two enterprises through one agent, not every interlock has the same density. The most intense interlock is a tight interlock, usually where a relationship exists between a parent company and its subsidiary. A primary interlock is one in which an executive director operates on another board as a non-executive director. An induced interlock is the serendipitous result of two primary interlocks (e.g. X is a chief executive officer on board A but is a non-executive on boards C and B). The most common interlock is where no primary relations occur.
What light is thrown on the competing hypotheses about interlocks by the study of Australian experience? The Australian sample of top thirty companies analysed here comes from the Business Review Weekly (BRW) and its list of 1000 top companies (BRW, 1992 and BRW, 1998). These top thirty companies were chosen on the basis of their revenue earning capacity. This material was triangulated against top thirty company director interviews and data from annual company report about the top shareholders in each. The first case study is based on the 1992 data and the second case study is on the 1998 data. This six-year time period gives some indication of changing trends.
Applying these calculations to the 1992 map of the top thirty interlocked companies shows the centrality of Pacific Dunlop and CRA and the key roles of John Gough and Alan Coates.
Pacific Dunlop is revealed as the leader with 10 interlocks, followed by other productive capital (e.g. CRA, BHP, etc). The only financial institution with some centrality is the ANZ Bank. In contrast to the European or US evidence, this material shows a lack of centrality of bank directors on boards of industrial enterprises in Australia. In the US and Europe directors from banks are visible as a force on boards. That is not the case in Australia or New Zealand, as a director explained to me:
[It's] different from the way they are in Europe, particularly in Germany where the banks are usually the shareholders. Many of these companies or certainly the main shareholders of them...are very concerned with management.
The predictive capacity of the collusive and discretionary models is evidently limited by their geographic and social specificity. However, when the patterns of share ownership are shown, the dominance that these models give to finance capital is vindicated. The interlocks, as a surface political integration of control, need to be considered in the context of a deeper underlying economic structural grid of ownership.
1992 Shareholding in the Top Thirty Companies
The proportion of shares in the top thirty companies in Australia in 1992 that were owned/ controlled by the five major financial institutions has also been analysed. These amounts are particularly significant because, as O'Lincoln argues, strategic control of a company can result from as little as five per cent of the company's shares. Finance capital, by this evidence, had a very dominant ownership position in relation to the top thirty companies in Australia in 1992. The key owners of the major companies were not the little shareholders (the fifty four percent of 'mum and dad' Australian shareholders of whom forty two per cent had portfolios of $10,000 or less (ASX 2000 Survey, 2000: 1)). Nor were they the workers who may have employee funds tied up in the company. Rather, they were the large shareholders, taking the form of nominee companies representing banks, mutual insurance or superannuation funds and occasionally individuals. That these finance capitalists are the key to this web of power and research indicates that these large shareholdings are becoming more concentrated O'Lincoln's research shows that, whereas in the 1950s the top twenty shareholders held thirty seven per cent of the shares in the top companies, by the 1990s this had grown to sixty-three%.
The distinction between ownership, management and board membership is important. Managers make key executive decisions about the running of companies and they are answerable to a (maybe interlocked) board of directors who are in turn answerable to the major shareholders. Though managers, directors and owners may be one and the same, the evidence above shows that in the top thirty companies they are not. The top shareholders are banks (usually operating through nominee companies) and investment fund holders. So the key role of interlocking directors must, by default, be read as primarily political. Managers often have a very healthy sized shareholding; for example, John Gough had 11,889 shares in BHP, 806,249 in Pacific Dunlop, and 26,838 in CSR. However, this does not necessarily give them a large shareholder status in a major company. The central point here is that, although a lot of the directors collectively manage, direct corporate strategy and gather corporate intelligence, ultimately their most important task is to protect the interests of their major shareholders. The data shows that these major shareholders are likely to be finance capitalists.
The key institution of financial capital in this period was AMP, the leading Australian mutual insurance company, subsequently de-mutualised in 1998. However, both AMP and Gough, the key interlocker, lost centrality by 1998. This change in key players reflects the changing needs of the class and the addition of new overseas players, alongside the continuity in the underlying structures of financial power irrespective of individuals or their companies.
The 1998 Australian Interlock Data
Thw pattern of interlocks addresses most clearly the social embeddedness hypothesis and those theorists' concern to identify the central interlocker as an innovator and key elite player. The distribution of interlocks amongst the top 1998 directors shows John Ralph at the political centre of top business. Ralph also has a lot of shares - in 1998 he had 160,000 shares in Pacific Dunlop, 14,134 shares in BHP, 10,602 shares in CBA, 40,000 in Telstra, 38,500 in Fosters. Ralph, a newspaper reporter suggests, was 'close to the Byzantine workings of government ... John Ralph, a ... former BCA President ... worked as a link man between the Federal government and the Alliance of business groups, the Business Coalition for Tax Reforms'. Ralph was also the person who helped put the concept of 'enterprise bargaining' into the lexicon, and into practice, as the Managing Director at CRA. In an interview this is how Ralph put this achievement:
There was a study commission set up by the BCA that worked through a period of about five years [from 1983], from which time it developed the ideas of enterprise bargaining. Enterprise bargaining was, I won't say our greatest success, but it is a really good example. Enterprise bargaining was an anathema when the stake was put in the ground. Now the words are used commonly sometimes to mean something quite different but at least it's in most agendas and things have moved.
Ralph acts for his class as both an innovator and a key connector to government.
The 1998 figures show an accentuated pattern of centrality of productive capital amongst the interlocks (e.g. BHP had 6 central interlocks, Pacific Dunlop 9 central interlocks and Amcor 10 central interlocks) with the banks showing relatively little centrality. This overall lack of centrality of banks (with the exception the ANZ Bank and the NAB, each with five central interlocks) is contrary to the predictions of the collusive and discretionary models.
1998 Shareholdings in the Top Thirty Companies
When the evidence on director interlocks is correlated with information about the top five shareholders' ownership, the importance of the banks and nominee capital becomes more obvious. The extremely concentrated bank capital ownership (as represented by the top five shareholders) is barely reflected in the patterns of interlocking directorates.
These 1998 figures show a growth in the concentration of finance capital ownership in the top thirty interlocked companies since 1992, particularly in relation to Westpac Nominees (8% average ownership compared to 1.5% in 1992), Chase Manhattan Bank (7% ownership compared to zero ownership in 1992) and National Nominee (5% average ownership compared to 3% in 1992). The 1998 figures also represent a loosening of Australian finance since 1992 (particularly AMP, perhaps around the debacle of its hostile GIO takeover) with the integration of US capital (e.g. Chase Manhattan).
This ownership data muddies the picture of interlocks whose power is focused on productive capital and on key professional directors such as John Ralph. Instead it lends weight to the view of an underlying domination of finance capital, which has been misleadingly neglected by interlocking theorists because of the Australasian tradition of not commonly putting bank directors on others boards. Rather it seems that the prevailing pattern is for management to make decisions answerable to an interlocked board that in turn makes decisions answerable to finance capital, the board's major stakeholders.
Evaluating the Results of the Australian Case Study
The data does not show a heavy pattern of directional interlocks or clusters from banks to productive capital (with the two exceptions of the ANZ Bank and the NAB). So little support is provided for either the collusive or the discretionary models of the general character of interlocks. These models would imply that, if bank ownership in the top thirty companies is high as they expect it to be, this will be reflected in dense patterns of interlocks between banks and industrials; and if directional clusters of bank directors occur (i.e. that centrality occurs) then it can be assumed this reflects the dominant position of financial institutions in capital-flow decision making. Instead it appears that finance capital ownership has not resulted in a dense pattern of interlocking directorates, because finance capital ownership is so ubiquitous throughout the top thirty companies that it has to be seen as acting neutrally between them. Collusive cartels cannot therefore be surmised from this data.
Finance capitalists' control of credit decisions is similarly removed from the direct control of the board because non-finance capitalist directors dominate these boards.
Finance capitalists intervene when they see their interests at stake in a crisis, and may then step in to suggest changes in strategy and board members, but they normally give day-to-day autonomy to the executive and the board. Australian finance capitalists seldom put their members on boards because their large ownership stake gives them ultimate hegemonic control. Australian boards even appear to favour having board members who are not major shareholders or do not represent the major shareholders. For example, in 1992 the CRA chief executive officer, John Ralph, was on the Commonwealth Bank board but the company's major shareholders were Bankers Trust, Chase Manhattan and Westpac Nominees. Whilst the defining characteristic of finance capital in Australia, like elsewhere, is the realisation of surplus value through the lending of money to productive companies, the special characteristic identified here is the organization of relationships that allow it to exert dominance whilst maintaining only arm's length control of industry.
There is more support for the fourth major hypothesis, which centres on the political role of the clustered interlocked individuals as a vanguard of the corporate elite and as its most likely innovators. These key directors are held to integrate the class and reassure them as to the value of the innovations that they propose. The values, as in the case of John Ralph, are typically based in economic rationalist thought - support for enterprise bargaining, low tariffs, low corporate tax rates, privatisation and other ideas that are generally compatible with the pursuit of competitive advantage. These measures are held to be necessary to discipline labour, to get more productivity and in return give workers insecurity of tenure, lower real wages and poorer working conditions. As Higley et al's work suggests, the interlocks run parallel to positions of power in the lobby groups; specifically in the 1990s the BCA, of which Ralph was President from 1992 to 1994.
Towards Globalisation
The major difference between the situations in 1992 and 1998 is that finance capital, still primarily Australian based in 1992, had been infiltrated by overseas finance capital by 1998. However, only a small degree of penetration is revealed by the data considered here. Industrial capital has until relatively recently been tied to the local (later national) circuits of capital, whereas finance capital circulates equally easily nationally or internationally. The as yet small degree of international finance capital penetration ties into other similar findings. The bulk of capital investment continues to be by Australian capitalists in Australia. What this data has shown is that the bulk of the investment is made by finance capitalists who are happy to see industrial capital's directors running industrial boards and in some cases also as directors of banks (e.g. Ralph, chairperson of the Commonwealth Bank).
This is not because globalisation (interpreted as the penetration of overseas capital) is in the process of disintegrating finance capital in Australia but rather the opposite. Finance capital in Australia is only a part of the circuit of capitalist production, but it has a dominant role in controlling and organising productive capital.
This is an edited version of an detailed article with tables published in the Journal of Australian Political Economy; no. 47, June 2001 and online at http://jape.org
Georgina Murray is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Humanities, Griffith University
Members Equity |
******************
Michael Crosby, co-Director of the Organising Centre, has a penchant for graphs. He has the "scary" graphs on membership decline that scare the living daylights out of union secretaries across the country. But Michael recently found a new graph and began to show it to everyone he met. The graph was a comparison of the Super Members Home Loan (SMHL) interest rate compared to the major banks, RAMS and Aussie Home Loans. The graph showed that SMHL has had the lowest interest rate since March 1996.
The Super Members Home Loans program started in 1994 and was the brainchild of the then ACTU Secretary, Bill Kelty. Since 1994 Super Members Home Loans has advanced more than $5 billion dollars to members. Over the last seven years SMHL's mobile lenders have become well known to union organisers and members.
In August 1999 the SMHL program became part of a new joint venture company called 'Members Equity'. The business is now 50% owned by 44 mainly industry superannuation funds and last week was issued with a banking licence by APRA.
Why has Members Equity become a bank?
There are three reasons why Members Equity sought a banking licence.
The bank licence is in part a response to the trend within the finance sector for financial institutions to become 'one-stop shops' and offer a range of financial services including banking and super. By using the close links with unions and super funds Members Equity is confident it will be able to offer competitive banking products to members.
Secondly, Members Equity is focused on achieving profitable growth for its shareholders. It is worth noting that Members Equity has historically provided the 100 investing super funds in the Super Members Home Loans program with returns that are better than the benchmark for their asset class.
Thirdly, Members Equity hopes to be able to place greater competitive pressure on the existing banks. The success of their mortgage business indicates that Members Equity will be able to achieve this goal, one that is in the national interest. They plan to launch a savings account to existing customers in August than roll out a personal loan facility and a competitive credit card product.
Will they be different from other banks?
In conducting their home loan business Members Equity have demonstrated a capacity to act differently from other financial institutions. Recent media reports that in 2000 the major banks charged $6.3 billion in fees provides a stark comparison with the philosophy of Members Equity. During the same period ME removed its home loan application fee, in response to feedback from its customers, unions and super funds.
Members Equity will provide Australian families with low cost easy to understand banking services. This clearly explains a focus to provide their customers with straightforward and easy to understand products. Their past performance demonstrates that union members can be confident that they will not be slugged by hidden fees and costs.
Members Equity places the interests and needs of its customers on an equal footing with its shareholders. A central part of the Members Equity business strategy is that their customers are genuinely valued and can contribute to the development of a sustainable banking business. They are aware of community antipathy towards the existing banks and have a strategy that can take advantage of this.
Members Equity will only have a modest branch network with offices in every state. Customers will be able to complete their transactions over the internet, at Australia Post outlets and using ATMs. Members Equity have a constructive relationship with the Finance Sector Union (FSU) and were the first company to sign the ACTU Call Centre Code of Conduct. They are currently negotiating their enterprise agreement.
The Role for Unions
For the ACTU and unions a unique opportunity exists. We will be able to offer members the full suite of banking services provided by an organisation that we know can deliver; we have strong historical ties with; and that is 50% owned by Australian workers.
Super Members Home Loans and Members Equity have demonstrated over the past seven years that they can deliver an outstanding service to union members, and one that union secretaries and organisers can promote to members with confidence. In my role I am acutely aware that when endorsing a service the priority for a union secretary is that he or she does not end up with egg on their face. Members Equity have proven themselves in this regard.
The ACTU and unions have made a significant contribution already to the development of the home loan business for Members Equity. We have been able to offer to union members arguably the best home loan product on the market. The achievements of Members Equity is one that every supporting union and labor council can be proud.
The ACTU, through Member Connect, will continue to work closely with Members Equity, and will seek to help them in whatever way we can to provide low cost banking services to union members. Our priority in this venture is to ensure union members are able to gain further benefit from their union membership.
The workers bank is now a reality. We have a financial institution that we are proud to promote as our own, one that builds on the success of the industry funds and that is committed to providing union members with practical, low cost banking services. Unions should be proud of their significant role in the achievements of Members Equity.
David Whiteley is the General Manager of ACTU Member Connect. Member Connect is the commercial arm of the ACTU and is owned by the ACTU and 16 unions. David has a home loan with Members Equity.
ACTU Member Connect : 1300 362 223 - http://www.memberconnect.com.au
Phil Davey |
***************
I am in the colonial city of Sao Luis, on the Atlantic coast of Brazil. Sao Luis is over 500 years old and the historical centre (where we r staying) is all World Heritage listed. It reminds me a lot of Havana, but has been maintained much more systematically.
I am recovering from a week long odyssey down the Amazon River. We travelled with the locals on a succession of small wooden riverboats. Strung our hammocks up on the deck and just rolled down the longest river in the world, stopping at little river ports and watching cargo being loaded on and off.
(No straddles or cranes in Brazil, the wharfies and deckhands humped the cargo the old fashioned way. They left pools of sweat on the deck)
The Amazon is amazing. Apparently the river carries 20 per cent of the world's fresh water. The jungle contains 30% of the worlds remaining forests. The river is 6275 kilometres long and has an amazing 1100 tributories.
I can believe it about the tributories...you could see them flowing in to the Amazon itself every few kilometres, sometimes you could see two or three tributories flowing parallel, one behind the other into the distance.
Anyway, it was a long slow trip...at times the river got so wide you could only just make out the shorelines...at other times it was narrow and you got great views of jungle and little Indian villages.
At many of these villages the Brazilians on our boats would throw clothes in plastic bags out to local tribesfolk in waiting dugout canoes...charity Amazon style.
Less commendable was the way the Brazilians on the ferries threw every bit of rubbish they had out into the river. Beer cans, wrapping, everything went overboard. A pamphlet was distributed early on the first day which detailed how long it takes for, say an aluminium can to break down. Irony of ironies these pamphlets were carefully read by most and then themselves thrown overboard. (The pamphlet said it took three months for pamphlets to break down).
Anyway, I don't sit in judgement but I was genuinely suprised that the locals obviously didn't give the Amazon the "icon" status the rest of us do...or at least they have a different idea of what constitutes pollution maybe.
The first boat we caught was going to Parintins- a huge festival, the biggest in the Amazon region.
The journey took 27 hours. For 27 hours the bar on the top deck pumped out top volume Samba. Sleep was impossible so we just drank and partied with the locals...much hysterical dancing...you can imagine.
When we got to Parintins we had another 24 hours or so of Samba music before fleeing the party in a sleep deprived stupor.
I'm glad I went to a Brazilian festival, particularly such a big one which (they reckon) rivals Rio's Carnival now. I wont go into huge descriptions of what I did or saw there...suffice to say it was a very big party and I have images from it that will stay with me for a long time. Brazil is simply the best for parties.
The next few riverboats were more ferries than party boats. They turned the Samba off at 11PM.
Every day little dugouts would skilfully intercept our boat, almost rolling in the wake before lashing on properly. Then river prawns were brought aboard and sold to us passengers. They were delicious but very salty.
In terms of other river traffic, the size of the Amazon seemed to make it appear minimal. Occasionally you would see other riverboats/ferries, very occasionally a huge super-tanker or cargo ship would barge past.
In the evenings you got a feel for how empty the Amazon is in places...you could look out into the blackness and see no lights of any sort on either shore for many hours at a time. We saw lots of bird life, occasionally a river dolphin which was a thrill.
Two or three times a day a huge rainstorm would power past. You could see them building and coming towards you for hours before hand. When they hit they blotted out all light and everyone had to flee to the bowels of the ship to escape a soaking. They only lasted 20 minutes but were incredibly powerful.
You know you're in the tropics when...
Everyone got very bored on the last boat from Santarem to Belem, at the mouth of the Amazon. That was 48 hours straight on the boat. Again we were the only non locals so we suffered through a succession of well intentioned locals bailing us up and wanting to teach us Portugese/recruit us into the Assemblies of God/introduce us to their daughters.
In Portuguese, no one can understand your polite "�'d just like to read and watch the jungle" excuses. On the boat, there was no escape.
It was a relief in the end to see the high rise and heavy industry of Belem hove into view.
From here we cruise slowly down the coast...Fortaleza is the next stop big enough to appear on a map. I set aside 7-8 weeks to see Brazil. It wont be nearly enough.
P.S. More amazing facts about Brazil...
* The richest 10% of the population controls 54% of the nations wealth
* The poorest 10% have 0.6%
* Half the population of Brazil is under 20 years old
* There are 12 million abandoned children in Brazil
* Half of Brazils land is owned by 2% of landowners
King O'Malley |
**************
We got a people's bank because we couldn't trust the financiers. Some ALP politicians realized that discontent was rife, especially in rural areas, where the ALP had a lot of support. Andrew Fisher eventually supported the idea and the Commonwealth Bank Bill got up in 1911. Chifley's proposal to nationalise the banks after WWII was prompted by the same ire from the rural sector, and the massive social unrest caused by an unemployment rate of over 30%. The people's bank has gone, but the discontent remains, as One Nation support and Bob Katter's discontent with the Nationals shows.
(SCENE. O'Malley in Federal Parliament)
King: You will listen to me!
If it's ends and means
Then I'll get your attention
By any way at all that is fit for me.
It's a bank
It's a bank
A Federation Bank
That we need here and now
To stop us going bust
With its own note issue
And a plethora of branches
For all the workers' money and the workers' trust.
...
(next scene)
Angel: Once upon a time there was a lovely green meadow called the Labor Party.
Where all the boys got together
While their wives were scrubbing floors
And having children
And they were all happy...
...
King: But, oh best beloved, into this lovely garden came a slinky, sleaky serpent all gaudied up with fancy ideas and nasty remarks. He said they should leave their happy meadow and go places and do things they'd never heard of. He even got some of the children on his side to make a big hole in the garden called a Commonwealth Bank where all the children could bury their toys.
It probably wasn't quite like that. Michael Boddy and Bob Ellis' dramatized the story of the "American Bounder" King O'Malley getting the Commonwealth Bank established under Labor PM Andrew Fisher. You get the idea though.
A people's bank to protect people from the evils of finance capital and overseas bond holders was O'Malley's aim Rural people were some of the key supporters of the idea. Many ALP MPs were opposed as they feared the opposition of the newspapers and public opinion to the idea. O'Malley and Jimmy Catts campaigned hard to change popular opinion on thei ssue. Eventually they got it into the ALP Fighting Platform in 1908. The ALP lost the 1909 election, after not pursuing the ban k policy. O'Malley kept at them and eventually in 1911 a bill for the bank was introduced to Parliament. Some dispute O'Malley's story of the move for the bank, but there can be little doubt that he campaigned long and hard for it, against the small mindedness of his colleagues.
Rural people also were some of the first movers for full nationalisation through the lobbying of the Farmers and Settlers' Association, the forerunner of the Country Party.
The ALP, after the Depression of the 1930s and having acquired increased commonwealth planning powers during the War (taxation powers in particular), sought to nationalise the whole banking industry in 1947. This got massive opposition from the Libs and the finance industry, and was a major factor in the 1949 election loss. Labor supporters, however, had built up huge resentment against banks after the ravages of the 1929 crash and the demand from the banks that all loans, in particular loans to British banks, be repaid and money not be used for Australian reconstruction and employment generation purposes.
W F Sheahan in a pamphlet from the 30s on the nationalisation campaign, set out the credit trickery of banks.
"It was once thought that governments controlled finance, but it was now realised that financial interests controlled governments".
Sheahan attacked the Niemeyer plan (Premier's Plan) which forced Australia into a repayment scheme that protected the bank profits, decided upon by an international banking conference at Basle in 1929 (shades of Genoa, Davos etc) which resulted in a restriction of credit. Our interest burden was very heavy.
"Socialisation of credit is simply the control of credit by the people on behalf of the nation, and not by a limited number of private banks, who now have complete control, and by restricting credit they can force the people to live in destitution and poverty."
"If the Commonwealth Bank had been left to function as it did under Sir Denison Miller, its first governor, it could finance Australia now as it did during the war [World War I].
"If such financing can be done in Australia for destructive purposes, it can be done for productive work," commented Sheahan.
The referendum campaign run by the ALP in office after the defeat of attempts to legislate for nationalisation took on the panic merchants and part of it was addressed to rural people who suffered heavily in the 1930s. As the pamphlet said:
FARMERS WILL REMEMBER
� when dairymen received as low as 6d to 7d per lb. for butter
� when wheat returned the lowest for 300 years
� There were 2,000 deserted farms in Victoria in 1940
� 1,400 farmers in South Australia passed through Bankruptcy Court in a few years
� There were 2,790 deserted farmers in Western Australia
THIS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN AGAIN
IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN IF THE PEOPLE HAVE CONTROL OF THE WEALTH OF THE COUNTRY.
Eddie Ward also campaigned hard on the issue as his pamphlet
Should the People or the Banks Rule showed.
Of course the scare campaign won out.
As Evan Jones pointed out in Workers Online a few weeks ago "In the past, government and community groups created other institutions that by-passed bank intransigence. State government savings and agricultural banks joined with mutuals to complement private sector priorities. However, the constituents of the Commonwealth Bank (Central Bank, savings bank, trading bank and development bank) became the centrepiece of socially-oriented government infrastructure.
"These days the historically sensible procedure of public sector provision is politically unthinkable. Worse, the institutions that were established to counteract and complement the private sector have now been appropriated for the same narrow private purpose."
References
Michael Boddy and Bob Ellis The Legend of King O'Malley; in; Plays of the 70s volume 1 edited by Katherine Brisbane. Sydney: Currency Press, 1998
Dorothy Catts. King O'Malley: man and statesman. Sydney: Publicity Press, 1938
J B Chifley. Bank Nationalization: "the welfare of the Australian Community." (in Things Worth Fighting For. Melbourne Uni. Press, 1952)
A R Hoyle King O'Malley: 'The American Bounder.' South Melbourne: MacMillan, 1981
L C Jauncey. Australia's Government Bank. London: Cranley & Day, 1933
Evan Jones. Banking on Goodwill. Workers Online issue 101, 6 July 2001
Labor's Bank Reforms: Credit Trickery Exposed: address by Mr W.F. Sheahan, LLB
NSW Fabian Society. The Case for Bank Nationalisation.. Pamphlet no. 1
Yes Nationalisation Concerns You! Do you believe in the Welfare of the Community or the Welfare of the Few. ALP NSW Branch
Activist Culture? |
**************
I'll admit it, when Workers Online rang asking me to check out the Sydney Active Fair I very nearly said no. You see I'm a cynic at the best of times, but mention so called 'activist culture', or 'anti-globalisation movement', anywhere in my presence and you're likely to be on the receiving end of an apoplectic rant containing phrases like 'father funded revolutionaries', 'crusty dreadlocks competition' and 'living in daddy's Newtown terrace house'. In fact the only reason I ended up going was the involvement of several unions and the lure of guest speaker Naomi Klein.
Klien is a youthful Canadian activist whose No Logo manifesto has made her into the pin-up girl of the anti-globalisation movement. The fair itself was billed as an attempt to 'inform and involve people about the activist community in Sydney in all its diversity', and seemed to double as a networking event for groups involved in anti-globalisation protests. It purported to offer visitors the chance 'to join with other progressive folk, share ideas and spirit make our small voices resonate'. But despite these motherhood statements plastered across the promotional material for the event, I still entered the UTS campus as an extremely doubting individual. As the smell of activism literally hit me from all angles, I immediately sought out the displays from the various unions involved in the anti-globalisation movement. I finally found the AMWU stall and was very impressed by what I found. In comparison to many of the other stalls, the AMWU had a range of well-presented and focused literature on display, as well as a video presentation detailing some of the union's recent activity. At this point I was rudely interrupted from making my introductions to the AMWU representatives by the announcement that Naomi Klein was about to address the fair. My patented Workers Online interrogation would have to wait.
I don't know what I was expecting from this quasi-celebrity, but I must admit to being surprised at an understated delivery that proved to be a far cry from the radical symbolism of No Logo. Instead, Naomi chose to focus on her words on the need for a brand (no pun intended) of activism that is rooted in community. Her vision of a loose worldwide activist network of community based organisations was intriguing if not admirable. This said, it was actually her closing remarks that really got the mind ticking over. After a broad ranging discussion, Naomi pointed out that the global economic forums that are attracting the wrath of protesters are for the most part symbolic. Economic policy is generally not decided at these forums, and the only real way to influence these important decisions is to exert community wide pressure on both political and business leaders. Her words confirmed my fears, are protests such as S11 a waste of time and resources. Does protesting in this context at best send a symbolic message, and at worst create a media relation's nightmare?
As I continued musing, a brilliant organisational stroke began to unfold before my eyes. You see, the fair's 'soapbox period' was just about to begin. Instead of watching the convenors try to organise a crowd of would be speakers who actually outnumbered the audience I decided to pose some questions to the AMWU contingent who thankfully had chosen not to involve themselves in the melee. What was I hoping to find out? Well, my most pressing concern was one of exposure. Is the union movement taking a risk by allying itself with a myriad of other groups, many of who lack the discipline, focus, organisation and solidarity of organised labour? And of course there was an even more basic question to ask. Is a fight against some undefined notation of globalisation any of the union movement's concern?
"Unions have a responsibility to fight for their members," explained an AMWU representative in response to this query. "And globalisation is a huge worry for our members in the manufacturing sector. The absence of a strong local industry policy to create and protect Australian manufacturing jobs is impacting on working families across the country due to many jobs being sent offshore."
"I think there's a social aspect to the struggle as well, people's lives are being affected outside of work. Unions like the AMWU and others have recognised this and moved to work with a wide range of community based organisations, many of whom are not political, to voice our opposition to corporations that treat our planet like their own private playground".
Although my scepticism remained, mainly due to the fact no one could offer me a decent definition of globalisation, I had to concede she had a point. The material produced by the unions involved was realistic and relative to workers lives, with the main messages being; support Australian jobs; end child and forced labour; and the need for both labour and environmental standards to be included in all trade agreements. But still, part of my question remained unanswered, were all the groups involved on the same page? Many of the activists at the fair seemed more interested in pushing their own political agendas and overthrowing global capitalism within the next two weeks rather than protecting Australian jobs and encouraging socially responsible trade. Once again I asked, is it risky being part of such a broad and at times unwieldy coalition? Surprisingly, I found the answer to be very reasonable.
"While protest is an important democratic right, no one in the union movement will ever support violence of any kind at rallies. As far marching alongside a number of different groups, the issue still comes back to the unions setting a good example. On November 13, 1000 delegates from the International Metalworkers Federation will join the Stop Corporate Globalisation rally, at which representatives from numerous other unions will be present. We are the organisations that are in a good position to lead by example, to demonstrate that a disciplined and peaceful protest will always be the most effective way to broadcast your message to the wider community. And of course the union movement isn't just relying on street level action, we're fighting the war on a number of different fronts."
I left with these words ringing in my ear. Perhaps my earlier doubts were a little harsh. It was obvious that the unions involved in the broad anti-globalisation movement were not relying solely on symbolic protest marches and empty rhetoric. As for the term globalisation, I still didn't know what it actually meant. But ask me whether many corporations move their operations throughout the world to squeeze extra profits out of areas that lack labour or environmental standards, then the answer is yes. So with this being the case, the union movement has no choice but to stand up and be counted. And as for many of our erstwhile allies in the activist scene? Well I remain a little worried about their commitment to realistic goals and peaceful protest, but as a learned scribe once wrote in Pierswatch Issue 30:
"Given the choices between the ferals and the Akermanites, we'd take the ferals any day. At least they have the soul, compassion, and commitment to make a stand for what they believe in".
Abdurrahman Wahid |
**************
The transfer of Indonesia's presidency from Abdurahman Wahid (Gus Dur) to Megawati Sukarnoputri captured much of the attention of Australia's media over the last week. But for most of the media, the wider implications of the transfer of power escaped their attention.
The first major transfer of power in recent history was the downfall of Suharto in 1998. Suharto's regime captured control of Indonesia through one of the greatest state-organised massacres of the Twentieth Century, the killing of one million trade unionists, communists and sympathetic leftists. This massacre in 1965 continues to shape the possibility of progressive politics in Indonesia since it cemented the military and its proxies at the centre of political and economic life.
When in 1999 Indonesia held it first elections since the 1950s many workers and rural poor voted for Megawati, and she was able to capture the largest portion of the vote. Yet, her campaign was based more on linking herself with the
nationalist resonance of her father, the founder of independent Indonesia in 1945, than with economic or political policies that might be considered progressive.
However, the Indonesian political system uses the parliament to elect the president, and while Megawati's party captured the largest number of seats, conservative Islamic parties in coalition with Suharto's old party, Golkar, and military-appointed members used their votes to elect Gus Dur, initially viewed as a conservative, as President.
Yet, much to these reactionaries' surprise, Gus Dur turned out not to be their man.
Gus Dur encouraged open debate on the 1965 massacre, sought to distance himself from sections of the military (especially those associated with the policies directed at the destabilisation of East Timor), was prepared to speak openly (albeit contradictorily) on the question of Aceh and encouraged a free press.
After 30 years of dictatorship this was progressive. For the labour movement these were genuinely radical moments. Suppressed via a system of state-controlled unions, workers in Indonesia were left with neither genuine protection nor valid means to represent themselves politically.
So the opening afforded by Gus Dur, was relatively speaking, very significant.
Genuine independent trade unions formed for the first time since the 1960s. Across the archipelago, workers were able to demand and fight for rights and conditions long denied via collusion between the military and local and foreign capitalists.
At the same time, this upsurge in independent labour activity was not to the liking of the old order. Even though only three or four percent of Indonesia's workforce is unionised and, compared to levels prior to 1965, lacks coordinated strategy, such a resurgence of labour was unacceptable in the eyes of those who had maintained unquestioned rule.
Starting last year, the political forces of reaction began to move against Gus Dur. Ironically, these were the same forces which had placed him in the presidency. Led by sections of the military and the Golkar party, accusations
of corruption were leveled. Whether true or false was ultimately immaterial as this week's vote demonstrated: Gus Dur was replaced with a new person believed to, this time, be more favourable to the demands of the old order.
Clearly, the military are now closer to the centre of power than they were during Gus Dur's presidency. Moreover, the crony class associated with the Suharto-era of enrichment and personal aggrandisement continues to escape any calling to account for previous actions. Finally, a number of incidents over the last six months hint at worse to come.
Independent trade union activity has been undermined. Goon squads associated with the military and local cronies have attacked workers, including brutal assaults and murders. Left political parties have been targeted and activists
detained.
There is no certainty as to how Megawati will react to these circumstances. Indonesia's economic situation remains in permanent crisis its debt burden alone shackles the country into a system of modern penury. Nor have the polices of global financial institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, who gave unqualified support to the Suharto regime, helped in anyway defend the rights of workers to decent conditions and living standards.
However, Megawati has sought to present herself as a nationalist and such image making, to some extent, necessitates concern for all Indonesians, especially the pool of workers and rural poor who voted for her.
Furthermore, it should be noted that her own political party was destabilised and her headquarters destroyed during the Suharto dictatorship. She cannot unquestionably be assumed to do the bidding of the old order, the lesson that should be learned form Gus Dur's presidency.
Paradoxically, she could not be where she is today without the initial support of democratic forces and the subsequent support of old order forces.
The question is which group will she come to rely on for her political survival? At the moment it seems the old order has the upper hand. For Indonesia's workers the coming period will be one of trying to consolidate the
gains made over the last two years. For the international labour movement it is vital that all support be given in protecting Indonesia's independent union movement and extending and deepening Indonesia's emerging democracy.
Jasper Goss is Information and Research Officer with the Asia and Pacific regional secretariat of the International Union of Food, Agriculture, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations.
by Peter Lewis
Scenes from "The Bank" |
***************
Due out later this year, Robert Connolly's 'The Bank' could well add momentum to one of the sleeping issues for the upcoming federal election - the growing perception that the banks have become too big, too greedy and too self-interested.
The Bank skillfully weaves two plots: a young gun mathematician (David Wenham) who has worked out the killer program to predict market fluctuations recruited to clean up for the bank; and a young family decimated when the bastard bank forecloses on them. As the two stories fall into each other, the sheer greed driving the industry becomes a key protagonist. That and the bastard (Anthony Laplagia) who runs the bank.
Some of the lines in the script are vintage soap-box:
- "The shareholders are our people, they are our society - the public can look after itself."
- "We have now entered the age of corporate feudalism, and we are the new princes."
- "A the end of the day, it's really quite simple. I just hate banks"
But this is more than a polemic - it is a rollicking good yarn. And it is not one of those Australian movies that sneers on mainstream Australia - it treats its audience as intelligent and able to deal with complex issues. The dramatic tensions centre around chaos theory, pure mathematics, short-term profit taking and the amorality of the finance sector.
But the real success is that it is not a dry treatise, but a drama in the finest traditions of David and Goalith. A little guy using the gray matter to triumph over the powerful and evil. Only this time it isn't a crime boss or a corrupt politician, but an entire institution that is slain in the name of justice. And the heroine, the voice of truth and justice - is a bank teller!
The film is not due for release for some months and advance screening are being organized to get build the vibe before it goes public. For Labor it could be a pre-election God-send, an opportunity to import a social issue and give it the polish and glitz to take it out of the boring world of political spin and into the popular culture. With a Banking Social Charter to roll out during the campaign, let's see if the campaign honchos have the savvy to see a gift-horse when it comes along.
by The Chaser
The Chaser |
"Look, I'm not to blame. I only issued the orders. You should talk to the people who carried them out."
"If you follow the logic that I'm guilty of war crimes, then, hell, Hitler and Pol Pot would be liable as well."
Milosevic has received a court-appointed attorney who made a short statement to the press. "I will be briefing Mr Milosevic on his rights under the UN's Human Rights Charter just as soon as I've finished the drink driving case I'm working on at the moment."
Last night, Milosevic described his transferal to The Hague as "illegal and unconstitutional" unlike the deaths of the 200,000 Kosovars, Croats and Muslims he ordered.
Having handed Milosevic over, Serbia will now immediately receive $1 billion in aid.
"This is a great day for Serbia," said a government official. "Not only are we now rid of Milosevic, but we've also got rid of all those Kosovars, Croats and Muslms and we get paid a billion dollars for it!"
A representative from Serbia said they were pleased to hand Milosovic over as it would help the battle to bring all those responsible for the carnage to justice had not ended. "This means we're one step closer to having the US commanders face trial over their bombing of civilian targets."
"If only their country wasn't a recalitrant nation that refused to respect international law and hand their war criminals," he said.
Carr gets a Make Over Photo by FBEU |
******************
The last two Workers Online editorials have covered the topics of the trade union movement's current relationship with the ALP (not good) as well as a story on the ACIRRT survey that points up the increasing relevance of the trade union movement to the citizens of Australia (bloody good).
Firstly, good on Workers Online for tackling a topic carrying an enormous level of sensitivity amongst the officials of both the industrial and political wings of the Australian labour movement. That being: Where to for our long established relationship?
It may be that my own cynicism led me to believe that the long term cuddle between the ALP and the trade union movement would prefer to remain a "love that dare not speak it's name". This increasingly worthy web site has taken it well past the quiet whisper that's been going on lately -and it's not before time.
After the 1996 electoral rout that saw Keating and the Federal ALP jointly voted out of the House, those of us that were left were invited to attend regional meetings for a debrief of sorts. If I recall correctly it was a response from the new parliamentary leader Sara-Maree Beazley in an attempt to find out where the vote had gone so horribly wrong.
Overseas in post-Tory Britain we had Tony Blair actively distancing the New Labour team from the trade union movement and contemporarily Beazley had been quoted as making some very similar murmurings about reshaping the ALP without the baggage of the old felt hat brigade from Trades Halls around the country.
At that time, many of the trade union officials at the Kiama meeting I attended were outraged that the ALP might contemplate evicting trade unions from their own bloody house. And further, unions were understandably reluctant to pick up the rent for an ALP in the leafy localities where Kim and Bob sought relevance with this new society. Relevance is as important a topic now as it was then.
As I waited my turn to vent my spleen it occurred to me that Beazley's New Labor might be right. Not because the ALP needed to distance itself from the pursuit of workers rights. Quite the opposite. Perhaps the time had come for the workers representatives to distance our members from New Labor. My rationale, as delivered to the panel, was that I counted 82 people in attendance at this all-important conference. This, from an ALP branch members catchment that took in an area from Helensburgh to Bega and over the Southern Highlands. I'm not sure how many ALP members are in this region but I'm sure it was a hell of a lot more than I had in my tiny sub branch of my tiny union.
The night before, I had presided over a meeting of 87 union members out of a regional membership of about 160. Twenty five percent of that 160 were on shift and therefore could not attend. All of these people made the effort to turn up to Wollongong to have their say in their union, their jobs and their social issues. So I told 'em. I told these party officials that we were not about to be lectured on relevance when my own little poll indicated that trade unions are more relevant to working people than the current load of jumped up spivs and lawyers that could not deliver for them. The same one's that formed up the lemming-like rush from the brass plated chambers straight across Macquarie Street and straight over the cliff to an unmitigated electoral disaster.
Moreover, the electorate had just bloody well told them that it was they that were losing relevance to working people-not us. And that it might be a further sign of the unbelievable sanctimony and arrogance that saw them lose the election in such handsome terms if their response was to sheet the blame home to the nasty presence of trade unions. Felt bloody good, it did. Stuff them.
In hindsight, maybe I was over the top and/or the ALP was just being a very bad loser and Sara Maree Beazley was only giving a loud voice to that empty feeling that accompanies being voted out earlier than expected. But in trying to invoke the stain of the trade union movement New Labor could be seen as a worse loser than Andy, the dominatrix and maybe even worse than that insufferable flight attendant.
Ever thought that the real danger that exists for us increasingly relevant cool dude types is in hanging around those sort of people? Although I don't think he was referring to Bob Carr at the time that esteemed futurist, Zaphod Beeblebrox once put it "These guys are so unhip it's a wonder their bums don't fall off." Personally, I've always thought that Bob Carr was less than hip and I am dead sure that he completely lost his bum on the steps of Parliament House a few weeks back.
So maybe that was the sign we were all waiting for. I know that over a thousand firefighters told us that the taciturn behaviour of an increasingly soul-less (and now bum-less) parliamentary wing was no longer part of our desire for the future. Heartily sick and tired of the company we kept, we could take no more and voted ourselves out of the House.
And just quietly from someone who has seen both sides. Trade unionists are much nicer House guests than most of those political types. We were here at the beginning and we'll be here at the end. As Workers Online suggests-perhaps its time we let the kids loose. We wont evict them but.......No more pocket money, no more home cooked meals, no more running the sideline on our precious days off. Like the sign on my daughters door says:
Kim and Bob
Tired of being harrassed by your stupid parents?
ACT NOW!
Move out, get a job, pay your own bills
While you still know everything.
Losing Johnno is a misfortune but losing trade unions looks like carelessness.
Darryl Snow is State President of the NSW Fire Brigades Employees Union
|
*************
A cynic might contend that if a certain German-Jewish philosopher had been born 150 years later he would have labelled sport, and not religion, the opium of the people. Perhaps so, but the great attraction of sport is that, still in 2001, it holds a mirror to the human condition in all its strength and frailty.
That's why Rupert Murdoch was on a sure-fire winner from the day he decided to ride the pay TV wave on a sport board.
Movies, documentaries, cartoons and music have their places. But none can touch top-quality sport for its ability to smoke people's emotions.
The secret, Hansie Cronje and Hayden Haitana aside, is that it is generally unscripted. Graham Green, John Steinbeck, Agatha Christie and even old Billy Shakespeare, himself, couldn't have come up with the convoluted twists and turns of plot that marked last year's India-Australia cricket test series.
But what about the gut-wrenching drama of watching athletes having success ripped away just as they start to bask in its glory?
In the past seven days we've seen two amazing examples.
The way the faces of those young women on Australia's 4x200m relay team changed in a matter of seconds was extraordinary, as was the language of less-than-gruntled British golfer, Ian Woosnam.
Imagine training your butt off for years, winning a world title, then being disqualified for taking a celebratory jump before some slow-coach in the far lane had dragged her butt to the wall.
Woosnam, having honed his craft over decades, lost a top-three British Open finish, and many thousands of pounds, because his caddy left a 15th club in his golf bag.
The swimmers and the golfer were undone by technicalities that made not a blind bit of difference to their respective sporting efforts. But rules are rules, and their disappointment struck raw nerves with anyone who ever felt duded by beauracracy or let down by workmates.
Sporting history is littered with such tales.
The effort of a mathematically-challenged Terry Lamb in dropping a last-minute field goal that left his Bulldogs still a point shy of Newcastle is right up there.
Hawks fans still delight I reminding Melbourne men of the day their import, Jim Steynes, stepped across the mark to gift Gary Buckanara a penalty 15 metres and turn an impossible goal attempt into a post-hooter trip to an AFL grand final.
Few will forget the double break that cost sprinter Raelene Boyle her chance of Olympic gold in 1976, nor the stunned-mullet dial on time trialler Sean Kelly when a broken strap cost him precious metal two decades later.
What about Adelaide, circa early 90s, when Allan Border had pulled the Aussie cricketers up by a somewhat stronger bootstrap. One-nil ahead in the series they were a chance of beating the mighty West Indians when Craig McDermott joined Tim May with nine wickets down and something like 40 still needed.
Run by run they whittled away the advantage until, just one shy, Courtney Walsh whistled a ball around McDermott's ears and he was given out - caught behind off his helmet. Border, appropriately clutching a stress ball, vent his emotions for all to see.
Unsurprisingly, as it later transpired, none of those punters on racetracks across the country who rode Fine Cotton home at Eagle Farm ever got to see a cent of their winnings.
On reflection, it does appear Australians might have turned the act of horrendous, gut-wrenching defeat into something of a national trait. Perhaps it stems back to a nation-building ethos born of the shores of Gallipoli.
VTHC Joins the Gang http://www.vthc.org.au |
******************
Victorian Trades Hall Council joins LaborNET family
The Victorian Trades Hall Council (VTHC) being the peak body of unions in Victoria launched a new website today which is apart of the LaborNET group of union websites. The site located at http://www.vthc.org.au was designed and programmed by Social Change Online http://online.socialchange.net.au, who are behind all LaborNET sites. VTHC Online features loads of information regarding the union movement in Victoria, info on their latest campaigns and much more. Whilst were on the subject of LaborNET unions, after months of work the new Labor Council Online site is almost ready ... so keep an eye out for it over the next few weeks.
Wobbly Radio hits the Online Sound Waves
Labor Council's latest foray into the world of broadcasting is in the form of Internet based "Wobbly Radio" http://www.wobblyradio.com. Wobbly was set up in conjunction with Radio 2KM (AM 1620), and aims to be a "100% Australian music web radio station". Soon Wobbly will be streaming programs showcasing the latest new Australian music, and already it allows new bands to upload their MP3s which are added to the Wobbly play list. There is much more to come from Wobbly so watch this space.
Pilbra Unions Launch fight online
The continuing fight by workers and their unions in the Pilbra against BHP now has a home in cyberspace. The Combined Pilbra Unions (AWU, CEPU, AMWU, CFMEU & TWU) have launched a site at http://www.pilbaraunions.com/index.htm, whilst it's pretty basic, it's a great achievement and idea, and well worth your support.
ACTU's Virtual Prison
The ACTU has revamped their website and moved into the Virtual Communities portal "vtown". The site is still located at http://www.actu.asn.au. Whilst the content is still good and plenty of information is still available, the site is very disappointing. Considering the potential for the ACTU to launch a truly nation union portal they have unfortunately got into bed with the private sector and are stuck in a moneymaking virtual prison. The entire philosophy of a "votwn" site goes against the ideals of the information age, that being freedom of information and freedom of movement. Lets hope the ACTU will realize the potential for organizing over the internet and consider a new approach soon.
Carr Gets a Make Over
Have a quick look at the Fire Brigade Employees' Union Website http://fbeu.labor.net.au this week and check out the make-over they gave Bob Carr.
If you have any sites you want Paul to review email him at mailto:[email protected]
It was not long after Four Corners had broken the story about the Piggery and the Dirty Tricks, that the word began spreading around the office. 'Isn't that name John Seyffer familiar?'
Seyffer was portrayed as the mysterious James Bond wannabe who acted as an intermediary between a group of failed businesspeople and the Liberal Party hierarchy. As the Four Corners report unfolded and Seyffer took us into the under-belly of politics, business and the courts, dredging up dirt on Keating, leaning on the Commonwealth Bank to cancel loans, meeting senior liberal figures in coffee shops and invariably managing to avoid the secret cameras that were trained on his every move.
And he did it with an exaggerated flair - silver grey mane and bowtie, three piece suit and an umbrella which may or may not have a poison tip - more Austin Powers than Bond. As details emerged it all became too surreal - no name on the electoral role allowing total deniability for all involved, 'volunteering' for the Liberals - while being paid by a major construction company, recognised by the powerful but known by nobody.
Surely this was not a credible scenario, we mused. Surely there was more to this John Seyffer character than met the eye. Robbo started the conspiracy, recalling the name from his youth - 'Johnny Seyffer's gonna get ya," the jingle came flooding back. Then it clicked. Late sixties. Saturday mornings.
Showing the Four Corners team how to do their work properly, we tapped the name into the Google. Nothing. We tried permutations. Then it appears: - Johnny Cypher and the Dimension Zone. 1967. A not-so-successful cartoon concept. Cypher, a brilliant scientist, who finds out he has super powers and can travel between dimensions. With his newly found powers he battles sinister beings, helped by a button in the centre of his chest that sends him careering into the space-time continuum whenever he presses it.
The plot deepened. Could this be the same man? Had he used his time travel powers to enter the fifth dimension of Liberal Party politics? And if so, for what purpose? Was it to join the fight for evil? Or to help it unravel before a federal election?
It doesn't end there. Cypher/Seyffer's persona is so over the top, that you suspect he is actually a caricature. He exists and then he doesn't. Couldn't he in fact be an animation, the product of the latest in computer programming - a syn-thespian? And the giveaway of course is the nom de plume. The definition of the cipher is: 'secret code, interweaving of initials of a name, non-entity". It works on all three levels.
Until the real John Seyffer steps forward the doubts will remain. Until we can squeeze him and see him bruise, we will propagate the theory that John Seyffer is really Johnny Cypher - a cartoon character on a mission through time - to drag the PM and his closest advisers into the vortex of doom.
© 1999-2000 Labor Council of NSW LaborNET is a resource for the labour movement provided by the Labor Council of NSW URL: http://workers.labor.net.au/104/print_index.htmlLast Modified: 15 Nov 2005 [ Privacy Statement | Disclaimer | Credits ] LaborNET is proudly created, designed and programmed by Social Change Online for the Labor Council of NSW |