   |
||
| Issue No 11 |  |
30 April 1999 |
|
|
|
|
||
| Issue No 11 | |
30 April 1999 |
|
|
|
Addressing the NSW Labor Council this week, Yes Coalition steering committee member Nareen Young asked union members to play a role in the November Referendum.
She said one of the key challenges would be to convince direct election Republicans, who may vote "no" because they don't like the current model, to establish an Australian head of State as a first step to further reform.
"The Yes vote is being opposed by both sides," Young said. "You have the conservative monarchists opposed to any change; and the committed Republicans opposed to the precise nature of the change."
"While there are Conservative Republicans who can engage the monarchists, the union movement must make the case to the progressive forces who want more fundamental change.
"This is our (the trade unions') issue, it has always been our issue and we must ensure we clear the final hurdle."
Young secured her first convert within minutes of speaking to the Council, when Secretary Michael Costa outed himself as a direct electionist but said he would support the 'Yes' vote nonetheless.
"Really the issue that is most important is to get a Republic," Costa said.
"We can have our own views about how the President ought to be elected, but I accept the position that the Republic could be defeated, not because the overwhelming majority of Australian don't support a Republic, but that we are divided on the sort of Republic."
"It is time that we all get together and support the fundamental notion of a Republic. It might not be the best Republic, but it's certainly better than what we have now."
Labor Council agreed to establish a commitment of affiliates to look at the best ways of getting the message out to members, including utilising trade union journals and giving delegates information to disseminate amongst workers.
Workers Online will also run regular Republican features in the lead-up to the referendum.
NSW Industrial Relations Minister Jeff Shaw says he'll look positively at the Labor Council's proposal to allow agency fees to be levied on non-unionists who pick up pay rises negotiated by trade unions.
The plan, based on US labor law, would see a weekly levy, set at a percentage of membership fees, charged to non-unionists who accept the pay rise.
Labor Council secretary Michael Costa says advocates of "user-pays" principles should have no problems with the idea.
"We're not forcing people to join unions; but if they benefit from a union's efforts, they should pay for that service," he says
"Trade unions spend immense time and resources pursuing pay claims which flow through to all workers, regardless of their union membership.
"This means the union members are effectively subsidising the non-members' pay rises. On any criteria, this is unfair."
The proposal is part of a package of reforms which have been referred to the Industrial relations Consultative Committee for consultation. Pending Cabinet approval, they would be introduced in the next session of Parliament.
The NSW Labor Council will ask the State Government to follow the lead of the Blair Government which has declared December 31 a public holiday.
Tens of thousands of workers who miss celebrating New Years Eve with family and friends currently will receive base rates only if the change is not made.
Labor Council this week endorsed the call from the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance to pursue the issue as a matter of urgency.
MEAA assistant federal secretary Mark Ryan many of his members working in the media, entertainment and on major events would be rostered to work New Years Eve.
He said the BBC has offered an additional 200 UK pounds to staff who work on any part of December 31, 1999 or January 1, 2000 and an additional 300 UK pound if any work is done between 9.00pm December 31 and 900am on January 1.
"It doesn't seem too much to ask fair-minded employers and the Government once in every 1,000 years to give those working on such an occasion something extra," Ryan said
Labor Council secretary Michael Costa said the issue was also of concern to workers in the hospitality industry, where New years Eve would be a particular busy night.
And thousands of other workers across the finance sector, state utilities and general business will be placed on stand by because of concerns about the millennium bug.
Costa called on employers to back the public holiday in recognition of the significant sacrifice workers who miss New Years Eve would be making.
The CFMEU says with low wages and no apprenticeship system, there is a chronic shortage of tilers needed to repair hundreds of rooms damaged in the fierce storms.
It says the industry, which employs about 400 tilers, needed twice that many even before the recent disaster.
The roof tile industry is dominated by three companies which control 70 per cent of the manufacture and installation of tiles, Boral, Pioneer and Monier. The union says none of those companies has employed a single apprentice in the last 30 years.
Malcolm French, the CFMEU's roof tile organiser, says a problem that has been brewing for decades has now come to a head.
"They forced all their workers to form proprietary limited companies decades ago, the aim of doing that was to circumvent awards and statutory requirements such as workers compensation," French says.
"The workers aren't allowed to collectively bargain because if they talk about their rates of pay because they are businesses, it represents a breach of the Trade Practices Act.
French says the low rates means its increasingly unviable to work in the industry and that training apprentices is a luxury few tilers can afford.
by by Peter Moss and Mikael Kjaerbye
The agreement with the Australian Hotels Association covers several hundred apprentice chefs employed in major hotels, pubs and resorts in NSW.
Australian Liquor Hospitality Miscellaneous Workers Union Assistant National Secretary Tim Ferrari said: "Apprentice chefs in NSW will now get a fair deal. Their pay had fallen behind in recent years because their wages were set by an out-of-date State award.
The number of apprentice chefs had been steadily declining in recent years as poor pay turned away young people from the chefs trade.
Last year employers imported more than 500 overseas chefs on temporary visa to fill the skills shortage.
"This agreement makes the cooking trade a more attractive long-term career option for young people. It will help arrest the declining number of apprentice chefs in Australia."
"It is appropriate the industry attracts good young people and develop skills in Australia rather than relax immigration laws to import overseas chefs.
The new rates will be phased in over 12 months, starting from April 1999, when the agreement was ratified by the Industrial Relations Commission.
When the new rates are fully phased in 1st year apprentice chefs will be paid $255.90 per week (a pay rise of $110 per week) while 2nd year apprentices will get $302.40 per week (a pay rise of up to $125.10 per week).
3rd and 4th year apprentice chefs will get paid $372.20 per week (a pay rise of up to $151 per week) and $441.90 per week (a pay rise of up to $181 per week) respectively.
$100 more per week for Daniel
LHMU member Daniel Wilson says 'it is about time' his pay rates were increased to the level of apprentices in other States.
His work, as a third year apprentice, is very close to that performed by a qualified chef.
Yet, before the agreement negotiated by the Union in April, Daniel was paid just $220 per week before tax.
Now he will earn up to $150 per week more when the new rates are fully phased in. "That's great news," Daniel said.
"I write menus, cook for functions of 30 people or more, order and prepare food and organise staff meals in a separate kitchen. It's very satisfying work but I do have a lot of responsibilities."
by Noel Hester
Eight freight trains and two passenger services to Canberra and Goulburn were locked up through Tuesday night after ASU members at Moss Vale station and the Medway signal box - backed up by train controllers - went on strike.
The dispute arose after a breach by State Rail Authority of an agreement reached during a job redesign process on the staffing of stations.
ASU members insist that unstaffed stations be managed by the nearest staffed station - in this case Moss Vale - as outlined in the agreement with State Rail.
Management were trying to have the stations managed from the sectoral office - in this case at Liverpool over 100 kilometers away.
"We were concerned about passenger safety. Passengers expect stations to be safe. The response time from Liverpool is poor to any problems such as vandalism and violence," said Darrin Bayley, a duty manager at Moss Vale station.
ASU Assistant Secretary George Panigiris said SRA were notified about the dispute 20 days before and had plenty of time to withdraw the provocation.
'There is no reason at all for the inconvenience that was caused to passengers. We told them exactly when and they knew we would be taking industrial action,' he said.
The ASU's position was supported by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. SRA backed down on Wednesday and undertook to stick by the principles of the agreement.
SRA might have been hoping the blame for the inconvenience to the public caused by their provocation would fall on union members.
But local papers report that stranded passengers were totally sympathetic and full of praise for the local Moss Vale staff.
'They have been really polite and it is not fair they have to deal with this as its not their fault,' one passenger said.
The Australian Industrial Relations Commission this week handed down safety net increases of between $10 and $12 per week for workers who had not received pay rises through enterprise bargaining.
The ruling was above the Howard government's claim for $8 and the employers' claim for nothing, but well short of the ACTU's Living Wage claim of $26 per week.
The modest nature of the claim was reinforced by Access Economics which calculated that the increase would translate to just $1.50 extra when taxation and the loss of benefits are taken into account.
Labor Council secretary Michael Costa says the ruling was particularly inadequate for NSW workers, where the increase in economic activity is flowing through to greater profits for employers.
"Employers can expect an increase in bargaining activities by the unions, especially in industries that will profit greatly from the Games," Costa says.
"All workers need to be aware that these wage rises don't just happen. This is the result of active trade unions and an Industrial Relations Commission with the power to grant wage rises. Both these institutions are still under attack from the Howard Government."
The Labor Council will apply for the decision to flow through to the state's 1.1 million workers employed under NSW awards. Unions had lodged a claim with the NSW Industrial Relations Commission for new state wage principles.
While the Labor Council will ask for a flow-on of the federal pay rises, it will also pursue ground-breaking equal pay provisions which arise from the NSW IRC's inquiry into gender pay equity. The unions have asked the Commission to create a new principle, which would be applied to all awards and industrial agreements, to ensure that women's work is not under-valued.
The State Wage case is expected to be held in Newcastle in the week commencing May 17.
A meeting of ACTU affiliates this week endorsed action by individual unions against Indonesian interests, in the lead-up to a promised ballot on self-determination.
The AMWU has already boycotted maintenance of Garuda Airlines in response to the unrest, while several other unions have members who deal with Indonesian interests.
The ACTU also called on affiliates to be active in raising funds for food and medical supplies.
"The meeting believes that the promise of a peaceful transition to an independent East Timor made by President Habibe offered the potential to restore the rights of the East Timorese people free of further bloodshed," a statement issued after the meeting said.
"However the actions of pro-integrationist paramilitary militia supported by the military threaten to undermine the process and if left to continue could lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
"The trade union movement and other organisations in Australia must take a stand to support a peaceful transition to independence for East Timor."
The body overseeing the state's workers compensation scheme has asked the NSW Government to defer privatisation amidst concerns the insurance companies would set premiums at an inflated level.
The Labor Council is represented on the body, the Workers Compensation Advisory Council, which was established to oversee reform of the troubled scheme.
The WorkCover fund has been in financial difficulties since before 1995, when the Carr government came to power to discover gross mismanagement by the Fahey Administration had dissipated $ billion in surplus funds.
Since then, the scheme has moved into deficit despite a range of reforms measures by Industrial Relations Minister Jeff Shaw in consultation with the union movement. This included cutting lump sum benefits by up to 25 per cent.
The privatisation strategy followed an independent report by KPMG Partner Richard Grellman, which recommended the transfer of risk to insurers as part of a broader push to focus the scheme on rehabilitation and return to work.
While key parts of Grellman's report have been implemented, including the establishment of industry-based groups to oversee safety issues, the privatisation appears to have hit the wall.
Workers Online understands that the insurance companies are pushing for premium increases to fund what they calculate are ongoing shortfalls. However, other stakeholers argue that the insurers calculations are unnecessarily pessimistic.
Labor Council secretary Michael Costa says, whatever the government does with privatisation, workers benefits are at their lowest possible level.
"We believe if the employers and the insurers can't deliver a scheme that maintain our benefits without a premium rise, the introduction of private underwriting needs to be delayed.
"Any premium rise will be used as a trigger to again attack our benefits. the two issues are linked."
Meanwhile, the CFMEU is continuing to push for a separate scheme for the state's building workers, claiming underpayment of premiums is rife in the industry.
CFMEU state secretary Andrew Ferguson said the scheme would put greater onus on big developers, who make huge profits from construction work, to pay for injury insurance. That scheme has won the broad support of Labor Council.
The guest speaker for the dinner will be the former Primer Minister of Austalia the Hon. Paul J Keating. The marking of the 50th Anniversary of one Australia's oldest youth organisations in November took many by surprise. However, the dinner will bring together a number of the labor movements key figures who had a grounding in the organisation.
In the Legislative Council on 10 November, 1998, the Hon. Brian Vaughan MLC made the following speech commencing at 10.56 pm ...
AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY YOUTH COUNCIL FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY
The Hon. B. H. VAUGHAN [10.56 p.m.]:
I draw to the attention of the House and the community the fiftieth anniversary of an historic day in the history of the great Australian Labor Party.
On 3 November 1948, in room 61 of the Trades Hall, the first provisional meeting of the Youth Council of the Australian Labor Party-which is now known as Young Labor-was held. It was born from an idea of Dick Klugman, subsequently the member for Prospect, and Bill Fisher, subsequently President of the Industrial Court of New South Wales.
Present at that meeting 50 years ago were: Frank Miller, J. Delaney, Ann Barnard, D. Klugman, F. Howard, Cecil Lisle, H. Hudson, J. Brassil, Marie Howell, Bill McNamara, Bruce Yuill, Alan Barcan, Bill Fisher and Douglas Sinclair, who for many years was Director of Henry Lawson Labor College.
The minutes of that first meeting state: "That this meeting form itself into a provisional Council of ALP Youth for the purpose of considering the draft constitution."
That motion was moved by Mr Yuill and seconded by Mr Miller. The following pro tem officers were elected: President, Bruce Yuill; Vice-President, Mr Miller; and secretary-Treasurer, Alan Barcan. The chairman stated at that meeting that he was pleased to accept the presidency. He outlined the background leading to the preparation of a draft constitution by a subcommittee. The objects of the provisional council, which were suggested in the constitution, were read out.
The following motion was moved by Mr Miller and seconded by Mr Hudson: That this meeting express its appreciation to Mr Sinclair for his great assistance in getting this present scheme under way.
The following motion was foreshadowed: "That all members of ALP branches under the age of 30 shall constitute the NSW Assembly of Youth."
That was later to be known officially as the Youth Council of the Australian Labor Party. Four or five years later, in 1953, the sixth annual report of the Youth Council of the Australian Labor Party, in which I took part, stated:
"Youth Council should be a hot-bed of radical ideas. Secondly, we should do everything in our power to obtain a real understanding with our near Asian neighbours ... There is no doubt that Labor is facing a supreme test and in this test the Youth Council, although still young, will play its role to the full."
The role of the youth council was not simply political. Regional assemblies ensured the interaction of young members, the chief function of which was to provide cultural, social, sporting and educational activities. All those things were achieved.
There were many marriages of ideas in those early years. The youth council produced a magazine called "Youth Call". The establishment of the Youth Council provided a seminal time in the history of the Australian Labor Party, the oldest, most constant and, I think, most successful political party in this country.
Many Youth Council members became members of this House, and a great number of people in Federal and State politics today cut their teeth in the organisation. Although I was a latecomer-I did not join until 1951- I am proud to have been part of this great organisation which has produced abundant fruit for the Australian Labor Party.
The night is gearing up to be a re-union not to be missed. If anyone has some their old Young Labor memerobilia to share, please bring it on the night.
The New South Wales Young Labor Executive extends a warm invitation to those of you who would like to attend the dinner on Friday 21st May 1999.
Details are as follows:
Date: Friday 21st May 1999
Venue: Le Montage Function Centre
38 Frazer Street, Leichhardt
(Bayside Entrance)
Time: 6.30pm
Cost: $75 (including 3 Courses and Drinks)
$700 for a table of 10
RSVP: 14th May 1999
Sarah Trapla on 9724 3381 or 0419 415 496 or Peter Zangari 0414 432 406.
Your editorial point that this is one of the most critical decisions facing the union movement is probably correct although I wonder just how many people, including those in the ranks of the decision makers fully comprehend the enormity of what they are considering.
Arguably there are several approaches which could be taken. On the basis of the very limited information available the Vizard option appears to be rooted in private ownership and commercial gain.
However, the prospects of thousands of workers getting access to the hardware should not be dismissed lightly.
I am in favour of a model of democratic access which extends the role of the public library system.
Four objectives seem paramount to me:
(1) construct a democratic union approach to the discussions and decisions
(2) extend access to computers and the internet to working class suburbs (yes, it and they still exist)
(3) maintain a sense of physical community which gets people talking face to face while using the electronic medium
(4) focussing the use of the hardware and the internet on building power within and across physical and social 'boundaries'.
Our generation of union activists have a responsibility to develop the use of the net so that workers through their unions can use it to win their struggles for a better life, not just for personal recreational use.
Taking into account that it is highly unlikely that the current federal government would accept this model, a starting point could be the use of the surplus growing in union super funds.
Super funds could find a way to form partnerships with local, public libraries. The partnership would add to the hardware stock of the library and place it in currently empty shop fronts near to where people live, commute, "hang around" etc.
That is, I am proposing a socially owned and operated internet cafe network.
The staff would be expected to know how to use the technology and to teach its use to local learners, especially for organising purposes, and eventually hand over the operation to the local users.
Pricing must aim to be minimal - this can be achieved so that it beats the commercal predators - and any surplus returned to the partnership for further development.
One example of the direction I am suggesting is the Ngapartji Cafe in Rundle St, Adelaide - owned by the SA universities, I understand. But there it is sitting in 'yuppie world, Adelaide, not in Elizabeth, or Christies Beach or Enfield.
The internet is quite democratic once you have the hardware (well, at least at the moment it is), but there are obvious anti-democratic forces which shape access to the hardware and even the software.
I do not dismiss personal ownership in the private home but any serious user knows that in its current, dominant form of development it tends to disconnect people from face to face dialogue and communication also.
The model I have described above attempts to challenge the current private and privatised framework. It needs a lot more work and of course detail and there are probably lots of 'yeah buts...' that I haven't begun to think about.
Nevertheless the main point is there are other models of democratic development of access besides that which has so far been discussed.
In conclusion, I plea that decisions only be made after widespread participation at all levels of the union movement. The emerging generation of union activists should not have to contend with an albatross designed in an ivory tower.
In Solidarity,
Don Sutherland
Following up on your East Timor story, the education unions AEU and IEU, together with APHEDA, the union movement's overseas aid organisation, visited Dili at the invitation of Fretilin in mid-February.
We saw the way in which the Indonesian military, ABRI, has formed and armed the violent pro-integration militias. We also discussed projects on the needs of East Timor's education sector.
As a result we are developing aid projects in early literacy and school curriculum reform.
We met the embryonic trade union organisation and are asking unions to join with us in providing funds to help with organising and trade union training. Contributions can be made through APHEDA.
It was a privilege for me to represent the AEU and to begin the process of helping a country whose people Australian governments have betrayed.
The union movement should be in the forefront of restoring our honour as we have opposed our government's policy all along. Fretilin is very aware of the support of many Australians over the years.
Rob Durbridge, Federal Secretary, AEU
Pardon me, but isn't this just Marxism turned on its head? Workers have had enough of this kind of authoritarian, pseudo-intellectual claptrap.
Labor politicians should be about arresting and reversing the increasing disparity between rich and poor in this country, not justifying it with neo-liberal nonsense. Workers want a clear action program that will advance their interests, not more muddled thoughts.
Increasing resources to education is probably a good idea, but will not of itself lead to a change in the distribution of income, as the wealthy will always be able to purchase a higher quality education for their children than can workers
Stuart Svenson
I am a currently doing my Master of Industrial Relations degree at Monash Uni and am interested in hearing from anyone with experiences of/from 'works councils,' or who might be able to provide info about organisations that are utilising them currently or previously. This info will help me with my thesis, due towards the end of this year.
Any info greatly appreciated.
My email address is: mailto:[email protected]
by Peter Lewis
What role will you be playing in the lead-up to the referendum?
I'm the co-chair of the Yes Coalition and a member of the Yes Funding Committee. There are three main Republican structures, the Australian Republican Movement, the Yes Coalition and the Yes Funding Committee. Each has distinct roles. The ARM is the main campaign political infrastructure; they're the ones with all the networks set up around the country. They will be developing the message and laying the foundations for the campaign, as well as a certain amount of message dissemination. The purpose of the Yes Coalition is to diversify the Yes message; its a Coalition from all parts of the community; from the science, the arts, entertainment, academia, business, people who may not be members of ARM, but who want to campaign Yes for the Republic.
Is this a recognition that the Australian Republican Movement has an image problem?
Its to diversify the Yes message and the benefits that comes with that. Some people may be reluctant to join the ARM, it may have that elitist stigma with some people. It's not taking over from it, but it is aimed at sending the message: this is not an ARM Republic; that there's lots and lots of Australians from across the community who want to see a Republic. The Yes Coalition is merely about message dissemination, we won't be about campaign infrastructure, although we will be working with the ARM on this.
The Yes Funding Committee will control the $7.5 million for advertising in the last four weeks. This does not have any formal links with the ARM or the Yes Coalition. It is a formal body and its members are appointed by the Prime Minister. The three bodies will be integrated to the extent that everyone is working towards the November referendum. The Yes Funding Committee has also been making submissions to the Attorney General's Department on the form of the legislation. For example, we weren't happy with the name. The long title of the Bill, which is what people will see on the ballot paper in November, is "Bill to bring into law an amendment to the constitution to have a Republic in Australia with a President elected by a two-thirds majority of the Parliament". We weren't happy that it wasn't an accurate portrayal o the proposal, which involves community consultation, nominations from the people, a screening committee and then parliamentary approval. This is a much more transparent process where the public has a say, which wasn't reflected in the referendum question . We also wanted to emphasise that it was an Australian citizen who is going to be the Head of State.
How much of these types of manoeuvres is an attempt to actually prevent the Yes vote getting up?
It's hard to comment on what John Howard's intentions really are but the effect is that it is confusing and there are lots of distractions out there, whatever his motivations.
How confident are you that the vote will get up?
Reasonably confident. In the last Newspoll in The Australian, which as admittedly a couple of months ago, people were saying that 33 per cent of people support the model. A lot of people read that as doom and gloom for the Republic. I disagree. The campaign machine hasn't started at all and that 33 per cent isn't a bad start at all. Without any campaign starting to roll, that's not a bad start. Bear in mind also that at the time of the Constitutional Convention, support for Parliamentary appointment was lower than five per cent. So there's been a significant increase.
How do you view the merging of the monarchists with the Direct Electionist supporters ?
Completely baffling. I'm not sure how they are going to work together. In a sense they are the most diametrically opposed groups. They are the groups who should be most at war with each other. The monarchists, or the constitutionalists as some like to call themselves, say our major problem is changing the constitution. What we are advocating is the minimalist change, it's not going to change our system of government in any significant way, we're just getting an Australian Head of State. What the direct electionists want is more large-scale change to our system of government.
And why do you, as someone with progressive political views, shied away from the idea that we should make the centenary of Federation an opportunity to have this broader debate?
Because I'm being pragmatic. I'm looking at what can be achieved in this time frame. The polls are saying "we want a directly elected president", you can't deny that. But you won't just get a direct election, there are all these other things that must accompany it: you have to codify the powers, you've got to do something about the Senate's ability to block supply. There are all these peripheral changes. To be completely honest with you, I'd like to see a directly elected President. I just don't think it will get up for another 20 to 50 years because although people want to directly elect a President, can we get a majority of Australians in a majority of states to support a significant move away from our present system of government.
This is an important first step. The proper context for looking at direct election is where we're having a broader review of the governmental process, when we're looking at the role of the Senate, where we're looking at the role of the minor parties.
But when will that happen if not now?
There's a lot of inertia out there, but I think it will happen within ten years. People are very unhappy with the system of government right now. There's written commitment to ongoing constitutional review out from the ConCon. But this is a good first step. I honestly think that it would go down and continue to go down for 10, 20 years and more if you have a direct election model. In other words, this bipartisan model is the only one that can be politically successful. I don't want to wait 50 years for a Republic.
The other point is this, there's a lot of constitutional negativity out there, people are saying: we've had 43 referenda and only eight have got up, none have gotten up without bipartisan support. If this gets up, all of sudden there'll be this attitude of: look, we can do it, we can change the constitution progressively. It's a very good starting point for the direct electionists.
A third point, the main enemy of direct election is not us Republicans, its the monarchists. And its very very strange that they're getting into bed with them right now. If this gets up in November, the monarchist/Republican debate is over, the Monarchists are out of the game. Then there'll be no distractions, the monarchist argument will be out the window, you won't have to deal with them. Then you'll be intelligently, over a longer time frame, with more debate, looking at a genuine, progressive reform of the governmental system. That's the way it should go.
Let's talk about the way you engage with the public on an issue like this. From where I sit, political elections are about personalities. This referendum is about ideas, not personalities. What different methods of campaigning do you see needed to get it up?
I agree this is not your usual political campaign because the issue is complicated on the one hand, and its very emotional and close to people's hearts on the other. So it's not a campaign that's going to be won by fancy sloganeering or razzle-dazzle electioneering, it's going to be won by giving the pubic lots of opportunities to get information, ask questions, take the answers home, talk about it and reach their decision over a period of time, an evolution of consciousness. The advertising, I think, will reinforce people's opinions once they have been made.
How are you facilitating that first step?
That's the role of the Yes Coalition. We're going to set up lots of little forums, events in town halls where people can turn up after work on an evening and in a very informal, non-antagonistic environment, chat about it. We'd like to answer questions, see what people want to know.
So a bit of a travelling road show..
All over the state and hopefully all over the country, so people can come and ask questions and talk about what they're worried about, get the information and talk to their family and friends about it. Then, hopefully, we'll have a second round where they can iron out any residual issues. Then, in the end, that's where the advertising will come to the forefront. So it won't be your traditional political campaign, it's going to be won on the ground.
Now you came into this debate via your election to the Constitutional Convention. At the time you were working for the War Crimes Tribunal in the Netherlands. Why did you nominate?
It was an interest in the NESB issue. Dad called me and said: you know the Constitutional Convention is coming up and I know you're interested in this stuff, do you want to run? I thought: how the hell am I going to run an election campaign from Europe? So we decided to forget it and just follow it. Then they appointed half the delegates and Dad faxed me the list of appointed delegates and there were almost none of NESB background and on an issue as important as this, we decided to run to make a statement. We didn't really think we'd get in.
When you say "we", who do you mean?
Me and the old man.
And was the old man involved in politics?
Not at all. I came back for two weeks. We did a very limited campaign in Sydney under the title "a multicultural voice" and we ended up getting about 40,000 primary votes, which showed there was a lot of people who find this notion of inclusivity very appealing.
When you got down there what happened? How did you get into the centre of things? Was it calculated or what?
It was a lucky star. There was this Republican deadlock, the ARM model versus direct election. My advantage was that I came in without a fixed frame of mind, I didn't belong to either group and didn't have any of those allegiances, I didn't feel committed to any particularly model. I guess that facilitated the circuit-breaker role. I sat down at the end of the first week and realised there was a problem. The idea was to make a concession to direct election to hopefully bring some of them on board and there was an obvious concession - the crux behind direct election is that the public has to have a say. There's a fear of leaving things to the politicians, so that's where the suggestion of a public nomination model came from. And also a presidential nomination screening committee which would be non-political. So on both levels there would be meaningful community involvement at both those points. And that succeeded in bringing quite a few direct electionists on board.
But did you ever ask yourself: what are they going to do listening to me. I'm just a snotty nosed young person
Yeah, I was very lucky. We just started going around to the direct electionists asking what would happen if there was public nomination with this community committee. We all want a republic, would this be enough to sway you? A lot of them said, OK.
Was there a degree of goodwill around the process?
Heaps of goodwill, people really wanted the best for Australia. In the end people were willing to put that before their personal agendas. That's the thing, a lot of people have their view about what the perfect Republic would look like. If you got 100 people, you'd get 100 models. So the idea was always to reach consensus. That was what came out of ConCon.
Of course, your profile out of the ConCon saw you courted by the Unity Party during the federal election. Tell me a bit about that?
After the ConCon I went back to the UN in the Netherlands. Then the Pauline Hanson stuff came up and the way it was dealt with by the political machine in Australia. We felt in the context of the federal election there had to be an organised political protest at the highest level against One Nation or else Australia and Australians would look they endorsed it or that they weren't doing enough against it. That was our main reason for being involved in Unity. It wasn't with any particular agenda, it was specifically to tackle One Nation, to make a public stand that could be seen around the world.
And why that, rather than, for instance backing Labor?
Because we saw that all political parties have constraints of pragmatism. If you take too strong a stand you will alienate a section of the electorate. Perhaps the Labor Party would have been afraid of alienating a particular group of base voters if they came up too strong against One Nation and all their policies. And if you are trying to win government, these things are legitimate. But the reason the people I was involved with formed Unity was not to win a seat or win government, but to make a principled stand.
You left Unity during the state election, what had changed from the federal campaign?
Exactly that. We had set up unity to put principle ahead of political pragmatism. What happened in the State Election is that the people running it decided they did want a seat and so they did a preference deal with the Shooters Party and Fred Nile's Christian Democrats. So it completely betrayed what we understood Unity stood for, it went against the whole essence of it.
Do you have personal interest in getting involved in politics again?
My main concern is the Republic now, after that I don't know.
What would a party like the Labor Party have to do to make it more attractive to a young person form a multicultural background like yourself?
The talk about breaking down the factions is very, very positive because there is a perception I feel that it's very difficult for someone who is not in the mainstream to make it, to get anywhere within the Labor Party. That's a very strong perception among minority groups. There is also a perception of a contradiction in policy that's very strong in its minority focus and, on the other hand, an understanding that it's quite difficult as an ethnic Labor Party member to get anywhere because of the factional system. I think its important for Labor to break down those old ways of working and to revitalise its membership as part of a refocussing down.
by Jenny Doran
ACTU EXECUTIVE SUPPORTS AUSTRALIAN REPUBLIC
The ACTU Executive, meeting in February this year, reaffirmed its support for an Australian republic. Having heard an address by The Hon Neville Wran AC QC, the Executive unanimously expressed continuing support for an Australian republic and urged all affiliated unions to campaign actively for a 'yes' vote in the republic referendum to be held later this year.
The Executive also expressed support for a new Preamble to the Constitution but was concerned at t he manner in which the Prime Minister has raised this issue. It called for broad consultation and bipartisan support and acceptance by indigenous Australians of any Preamble before one was put in a referendum.
Unions and unionists were involved in the lengthy public debates that preceded federation. With the early introduction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in the newly established Federal Parliament in 1904, unions and union members were amongst the earliest beneficiaries of our new system of Government.
It is important that unions and union members have a say in the present republic debate. Every one of us will have to vote in November this year. We need to know what the issues are and make an informed choice.
Some will argue that this issue does not matter because there are more important issues relating to jobs and services that should take precedence. Certainly economic and social policies are important and have to be addressed. Nevertheless we can at the same time deal with this significant symbolic issue.
As union members we face the consequences of economic rationalism and globalisation of industries and work arrangements on a daily basis. We are more often than not in put in the position of defending a particularly Australian way of doing things. Thus asserting our national identity is not such a remote idea as it might seem.
As unions fight to preserve our unique system of industrial relation, we recognise the value of preserving our Australian identity and our 'Australian way'.
As Neville Wran said in his Whitlam lecture "the change to an Australian republic, and to having one of our own as Australia's Head of State, will lift and invigorate our spirits at home and will earn us respect and dignity abroad". He recognised it could be "a stimulus to present industries and the creation of jobs".
Voting 'yes' in the referendum and having an Australian as our symbolic head of State is a vote of confidence in ourselves and our capacity to look after our own affairs.
WHAT ABOUT THE PREAMBLE?
The ACTU Executive meeting in February this year supported a new preamble to the Australian constitution in the event Australia becomes a republic but expressed concern at how and why the Prime Minister was suddenly championing this issue.
The potential for a debate about the content of a preamble to distract from the central issue of a republic was always evident and has now been realised.
The Prime Minister's impertinance in taking it upon himself to write a preamble to Australia's constitution in itself is entirely unacceptable.
As Gerard Henderson said; "What is surprising is that Howard appears to have thought he could write a preamble to wide acclaim. That will remain unlikely. Until hubris freezes over". (Age 30/3/99).
Such a document should be written on behalf of all Australians and should be developed only after significant consultation with the community.
In fact such a process was reflected in the work of the Constitutional Convention which was representative of the community and which reached a high degree of consensus about the words that should be included in a preamble. The Prime Minister has paid no regard to the proposals put forward by the Convention.
The Prime Minister's preamble has been criticised for both style and substance. . Paul Kelly called it "an utter shambles," saying "it wanders about like a tipsy journalist into prejudice, fashion, ideology, achievement, excellence and mateship" (Australian, 24/3/99).
Conservative commentator in the Bulletin David McNicholl said it should be consigned to the wastepaper basket. (Bulletin,6/4/99).
The Prime Minister has shrugged this criticism aside as being from the 'elites' and therefore presumably of no significance.
But his preamble has also been rejected by ordinary Australians as measured by talkback radio monitoring. It has also been rejected by all State Premiers except for John Olsen in South Australia. We now have the unedifying spectacle of individual Premiers - and the odd reporter - penning preambles and putting them up for public consideration.
Most of those that have been published since the Prime Minister's effort have been better by a long shot.
This is not surprising given how bad the Howard preamble is. It is inconsistent and illogical. From it's opening 'hope in God' it betrays a lack of confidence. The Founding Fathers of the Constitution at least 'relied' upon their God. The phrase 'equal sovereignty of its citizens' has been criticised as meaningless - countries are sovereign, not people. Reference to 'Our vast island continent' excludes the many islands including Tasmania that make up Australia. No-one needs to be invited to be proud of their country - in fact the preamble is meant to make us feel such pride. This does no such thing.
Freedom to 'realise ourselves as individuals' is something that would better suit a Liberal Party platform. It is not the sort of fundamental freedom normally protected in constitutions such as freedom of speech or liberty. Similarly the reference to 'valuing excellence' sounds like a Liberal Party manifesto. It is certainly not universally accepted as an Australian trait as our 'tall poppy' syndrome attests. To juxtapose excellence and our sense of fairness merely serves to undermine the significance of our sense of egalitarianism which most Australians do see as a national characteristic. To paraphrase that sense of fairness as 'mateship' further downgrades the concept.
Equality under the law has been similarly diminished by being expressed as 'dignity' capable of being 'infringed' by 'fashion' and 'ideology'. This has been rightly lampooned by cartoonists depicting tramps worried they might have their 'fashion' mocked.
The Prime Minister's preamble has rightly distressed indigenous leaders. The statement that 'since time immemorial our land has been inhabited by' indigenous Australians treats them as objects and equates them with flora and fauna. Stating they are 'honoured for their ancient and continuing cultures' begs the questions 'what cultures' and how are they 'honoured'? Relationship to the land is critical to Aboriginal culture - the preamble itself specifically dishonours that relationship by omitting any reference to custodianship.
This preamble should not be proceeded with. Ultimately it may not be supported in the Federal Parliament which would mean it would not be put as a referendum question. The Federal Labor party has indicated that in its present form it would urge a 'no' vote on the Prime Ministers version.
It is important that this preamble debate not distract republicans from their support for the fundamental question that is being asked of us all in the referendum and that is whether we think that as a country we can have one of our own as our Head of State.
Union members who want to get involved can contact Jenny Doran at the ACTU on 03 96635655 or email mailto:[email protected]
by Jenny Doran
From 1897 to1900 trade unionists in Victoria were scrutinising and agitating about the Federation Bill through the radical magazine 'Tocsin' which was produced by a co-operative of trade unions, Labour Leagues and individuals.
Then as now, those seeking to engage the public in debate found it hard going. Writers in Tocsin bemoaned the lack of interest in the dangers they were revealing in the Federation Bill in colourful language. "The apathy of Australians while Australia is roping herself for suicide is appalling, and can only be explained as symptomatic of the general paralysis of an insane people. What sort of national nostrils have we, that the miasmatic odours of such a putrefaction of our freedom do not affect them?"
The trade unionists and their supporters in Tocsin were worried about both their immediate interests and broader democratic principles.
They were concerned about the effect on those colonies, like Victoria, which had relatively progressive Factories legislation at the time. It was feared that "most of the factories of the continent will be concentrated in the Sweater colony." This would force the remainder, as customers, to participate "in the crimes of those in the other colony who murder their fellows with the sanction of its laws. They will have to use goods which it would be a crime to make under similar conditions in their own colonies."
This view was summarised most lyrically by the Butchers' Union delegate to the Trades Hall, Mr. W. A. Bayst when he wrote in May 1898; "Victoria cradled in Trade Unionism, about to give birth to a newer set of ideas, higher aspiration, broader hopes and purer ideals; about to spread her protecting wing more completely over her own; about to put on her state book labour reforms that would be an eye-opener to the whole world ..... must tack herself to sleepy Tasmania; ... the best planks in the platform of Democracy must be surrendered."
At the same time it was feared that improvements in wages and working conditions, and the rights of trade unions were unlikely to occur in a Federal Parliament which was to be "subject to the veto of States owned by a few capitalists."
For Tocsin contributors; "constitutional reform is only an object with us in so far as it enables us to see industrial reforms within measurable distance. But this Federation instead of doing that, supplies our enemies with a new stock of constitutional problems and Gordian knots, all of which must be solved before we get any industrial legislation at all."
In fact federal conciliation and arbitration legislation was passed in the first few years of the new federation in 1904. However these views proved more prescient during the turbulent years of the Whitlam Government as it attempted to implement its progressive programs regarding health, social security and urban renewal in the early 1970's.
It was then that political wrangles over the relationship between the two Houses of Federal Parliament, and the Senate's powers in relation to money bills were found to be, as predicted, "useful as a war for staving off reforms that will give our children and women folk more bread and butter, healthier bodies and more cultured minds."
The most fundamental objection writers in Tocsin had against the Bill related to the Senate. "Democrats can justly object to any Second Chamber at all" but this proposed chamber was fundamentally anti-democratic because delegates to the Constitutional Convention "by their inalterable provision as to equality of State representation in the Senate, placed a permanent veto on the legislation of the vast majority of the people in the hands of the smaller States."
They were also implacably opposed to the "most dangerous cancer in this diseased Constitution" which was that it "places a NOMINEE, IRRESPONSIBLE, IRREMOVABLE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT, composed of men drawn from classes inimical and generally inaccessible to progressive ideas, over parliament and People, Victoria and Australia."
The referendum mechanism contained in the Bill was another problem. It's effect was to make the Constitution "an absolutely rigid one, a practically inalterable one, and, therefore, a dangerous and anti-democratic one...the fact of its rigidity, its inalterability, its unresponsiveness to progress must irrevocably condemn it to every true lover of liberty to every worker, to every democrat who values the privileges he has inherited and had thought for the peoples who are to come after him." An alternative requiring any amendment supported by one percent of the population to be put to the people was put forward in Tocsin in March 1898 by Mr. G.M. Prendergast, printer, journalist and later MP and Leader of the ALP.
Concern was also expressed about the possibility of "a Royal Prince, with ambitions" to become Governor-General and try to establish an independent kingdom, and whether the Governor-General would follow the directions of an English Cabinet let alone an Australian one.
These fundamental concerns were summarised by Ben Tillett, Secretary of the British Dockers Union who, in speaking on the Yarra Bank in April 1898 pleaded with his audience to, "say that we shall not be prepared to hand our liberties at this stage of our development to either an irresponsible Governor-General, an irresponsible but mischievous, Supreme Court, or an irresponsible and unrepresentative Senate."
Finally trade unionists at the time were wary of those who supported federation. As Butchers Union Trades Hall delegate Bayst put it, everyone "who is opposed to labour, who is opposed to the new movement, and to new ideas yet unborn, or if born known only to a few, is to be found on the side, screaming and barracking for the Federal Bill; every bad lawyer, every bad citizen, every bad politician, every cultured criminal says "Vote for the Bill."
Only one Labor politician campaigned for the Bill and that was W.A.Trenwith, a former secretary of the Bootmakers Union and MLA for Richmond, later expelled from the ALP and later a Federal Senator.
Tocsin, in true democrat spirit accepted the will of the people following the 1898 referendum on the Bill at which it was approved but not by the statutory limit imposed by Parliament. "In so far as the voice of the people has been heard in this modified referendum, it must be respected." It noted with some pride that the paper had taken part in the "desperate battle between Yes and No .... without faltering or hesitation on behalf of principles it strongly held and strongly holds."
It is to be hoped that trade unionists will be as active and as spirited in the battle for Yes and No in this year's referendum on the republic.
(All Quotes taken from 'Tocsin - Radical Arguments Against Federation 1897 -1900', Ed. Hugh Anderson, Drummond, 1977.)
30 January this year marked the 350th anniversary of the execution of Charles I. This put in train events which led to the declaration of England as a republic.
Did anyone know about it, let alone commemorate it? I think not.
The rich and powerful on both sides of our republican debate imposed a republic of silence on the anniversary. Why?
Monarchists fear examining the English Civil War because it shows, contrary to their propaganda, that even the English can lop off the head of their King and declare a Republic. The ARM fears looking at history because it shows that real republics are made by the people, not born of talkfests.
Perhaps we democratic republicans should have been holding regicide parties to stir things up. So far the whole debate has been boring. I blame the Australian Republican Movement and their milksop presidential nomination model.
People are hardly dancing in the streets at the prospect of ousting Elizabeth and replacing her with some aging male lawyer appointed by John Howard and Kim Beazley. We know in our hearts we don't want more John Kerrs.
Why are we so disinterested? We the people are being denied a say in our President - we have no ownership of one of our proposed institutions. So why should we give a rat's about the nomination model?
What has been remarkable so far has been the attempt by the political elite on both sides - the Monarchists and the ARM - to avoid involving ordinary Australians in the process of constitutional change or its outcome. Both of these groups may have different visions for the head of state, but they are absolutely united in denying the people a role in their institutions.
Take the way membership of the Constitutional Convention was determined. Only half were elected. Those appointed were anointed by a conservative monarchist. Some of the appointees only made it to the Convention because they were Young Liberals.
The election process for the Convention itself was a travesty. It was, contrary to recent Australian history, non-compulsory. It was short, giving an advantage to the conservative and already well-known ARM and its presidential nomination model over the direct election democratic republicans.
Even then, the ARM model failed to gain a majority at the Convention. I seem to remember the Prime Minister - Mister 48% - promising to hold a plebiscite to find out the people's views on what to put at a referendum if no model had the support of the Convention. Of course there won't be a plebiscite. The PM knows that the ARM model is the best one for monarchists because it is so unpopular among ordinary Australians.
So the presdential nomination model that will be presented to us at the referendum in November is illegitimate.
In essence conservative republicans and monarchists have conspired in an attempt to keep ordinary Australians with their democratic aspirations out of the republican process as far as is possible.
As the events surrounding the establishment of the English republic those many years ago show, elites act to keep the lower orders in their place if they believe their own interests, political and economic, will in any way be interfered with.
Back then, the parliamentary forces and their generals were reluctant republicans. They were forced to execute the King by the pressure from the radicals in London and Charles' intransigent belief in his divine right to rule.
The execution of the King was a coup by the Army to forestall a more radical alternative - a democratic republic - and to protect private property from those who would share the wealth.
The ARM too has engineered its own coup - the coup of a Clayton's republic. They too want to forestall a more democratic alternative and ensure the unquestioned rule of the rich and powerful.
The ARM fears a directly elected president because the people's choice may be genuinely popular and challenge, shock horror, the rule of the political and economic elite.
A directly elected head of state raises questions about the nature of Australian society.
Most of our institutions (except for unions) are undemocratic - the courts, the public service, and of course our present head of state. Indeed, the whole of our society is essentially undemocratic.
Ordinary people have no say in "private" economic decisions. Even our parliament is not fully democratic because our "representatives" are elected for three or so years and we have no control over them once elected.
As the support for an elected president shows, the people yearn to democratise their institutions and society.
The ARM, just like the reluctant republicans of yesteryear, fears spreading democracy. A democratic President sets a dangerous precedent. If we can elect our head of state, why not our judges? Why not our top public servants? And why not our bosses?
The men and women of property - the people who run the ARM and its alter ego, Conservatives for a Republic - fear what they cannot control. Whereas they have learnt that they can easily control Parliament, they are not so sure about a directly elected President. There is no guarantee that such a President would be their reliable servant.
There is the possibility that an elected President might express the desire of ordinary people for a just and equitable society. Since private property is built on inequality and injustice, a directly elected President, owing allegiance to the people, could pose problems for the untrammeled rule of the rich.
And so the grandees of the ARM oppose a directly elected President and offer us a nominated president.
Democratic republicans cannot support such an anti-democratic model, a model which entrenches privilege and power.
Come referendum day, I'll be voting against the ARM nominated president model.
This is not a vote for the monarchy. It's a vote against the republic of the rich.
And every opportunity I get this year I'll be toasting the end of King Charles.
John Passant
John is an independent socialist
Workers Online's Reader's Forum welcomes contributions on the republic and other issues of interest to our readers
by Neale Towart
A fascinating collection of banners, photographs and memorabilia looking at working life over the past 100 years is on display at the Braemar Gallery in Springwood until the 9th of May.
Th exhibition was opened by Phil Drew, well known in the union movement through many years of involvement with TUTA, and more recently with the ILO.
Phil's comments highlighted the fact that the more things change, the more they stay the same for union members as the battles of 100 years ago are being fought all over again.
Working hours have again become a big issue. The eight hour day was an early success of the Australian union movement and now strategies are being developed around working time arrangements as average working hours in Australia have increased to being some of the longest in the OECD.
Job security was shattered with the great strikes of the 1890s and was fought for and won over many years since. Now the Federal government seems intent on stripping away all protections from working people.
The 1890s strikes were defeats for the union movement but from those defeats came the formation of the ALP and great strategic rethinks which made Australian unions and the ALP the strongest social democratic forces in the world and great examples for working people the world over. With union membership declining in the 1990s once again new strategic thinking is needed.
LABOUR REVIEW; NO 16
21 APRIL 1999
Australia's Young Adults
The Dusseldorp Skills Forum has recently released its report on Australia's youth, with alarming findings about the increasing inequalities in Australian society, particularly around opportunities in the workforce.
The rapid changes in recent years in the nature of work has particularly hit young workers, with 300,000 young adults continually disadvantaged in the labour market. This has manifested itself in the following ways:
The research also shows that the harshness of the labour market has a larger impact on 20-24 year olds than teenagers.
The report follows up the Forum's report of 12 months ago, Reality and Risk. The reports present a uniquely informed and challenging portrait of Australia's young people.
The reports conclusions point to the need for comprehensive strategies of assistance and support for young Australians to be developed by governments, local communities and employers, together with young people themselves. The need is for a social partnership, encompassing these groups and thus looking at social, economic and labour market policies together, avoiding compartmentalisation.
(Australia's Young Adults: the Deepening Divide: a national perspective on developments that have affected young adults during the 1990s/ Dusseldorp Skills Forum, 1999)
Individual Bargaining: research sheds light on workers' attitudes
Even Mark Textor couldn't hide the fact high levels of support for the role of trade unions in Australia, particularly amongst young people. The research was commissioned by Peter Reith and presented to a meeting of the state and federal Labour Ministers Council. They surveyed 100 people, 33% of whom were union members. Details of what Textor claims the survey revealed are discussed in this article.
Textor's report says that opposition to individualised bargaining is based on employees feeling of inadequacy in communications skills and thus the feeling that they will be taken advantage of. Self esteem is claimed to be the major determinant.
Other parts of his research indicate how unions do play a role in this process. The responses to questions about feelings on unions gave answers indicating that unions enhance self esteem and the quality of work life considerably, are an important source of information and help workers feel a sense of personal security because "they are not alone". 93% of young people (16-34 in this survey) and 78% of older people held positive perceptions about unions. (Workplace Change; February 1999)
With the Community Behind us, we can't lose
Laureen Lazarovici looks at example of union and community coalitions in various US cities where thet are showing that good jobs (well paid and secure) can make strong communities. This part of the AFL-CIO Union Cities programme, which was launched in 1996 through more than 130 central labor councils. The programme provides a strategic framework to help union and community groups come together. It does not just work through peak bodies, but with local church groups and union locals in various industries (hotels, catering, food processing).
One good example was in Morganton, North Carolina, where parishioners of the St Charles Church collected food for striking workers from the poultry processing plant, many of them Guatemalan immigrants who had voted to join the Laborers Union. The church has become the unofficial headquarters of the workers and the church people and workers have carried out repairs to the church. The union has sponsored a soccer tournament, second language classes for both English and Spanish only speakers, and a citizenship workshop.
(America@work; vol. 4, no. 4, April 1999)
Wage Dispersion
In our last issue we highlighted the trend to increased earnings inequality overr the past quarter of a century in Australia. The trend is exemplified in the data collected by ACIRRT on wage trends in enterprise agreements which shows average annual wage outcomes varying between 24% increases and 0.7% increases. The data they have analysed on workplace agreements (AWAs) backs up this view, generally showing a low number of agreements (25%) which provide for any wage increases during the life of the AWA. (ADAM Report; no. 20, March 1999)
A Bit of Restraint Required
Employees are often required to sign restraint of trade clauses which require them to give an undertaking not to compete with the employer when they leave their position. The legality of such clauses depends on the facts. The NSW Court of Appeal finding in Barrett &Ors v Ecco Personnel Pty Ltd (NSW Court of Appeal No CA 40586/96, EQ 2628/96, 24 November 1998) found that former employees had breached such clauses, even though they had merely responded to an approach by a client of their former employer, rather than initiating the contact.
The client had become dissatisfied with Ecco (a blue collar labour hire firm) and had approached Barrett to take over the business. The case turned on the meaning of the word "solicit". It was not a defence that the former client had made the first approach. The issue was whether the person entices away his or her former employers clients, regardless of who makes the initial approach.
(Employment Law Update; newsletter no 144, 15 April 1999)
Work, Time, Pay and Gender: a European Union study
Job flexibility has been put forward as one of the cures for employment and economic ills and as one way of approaching equal opportunity for men and women in working and private life.
A study in EU Member States shows women over represented amongst the flexibly employed, accounting for 83% of all part time workers, 70% of family workers and 50% of temporary workers. Flexible working time was essentially a response to the drive for long term competitiveness and market efficiency, rather than an attempt to address the needs of working families.
Other studies discussed in this article:
(Equal Opportunities Magazine; no. 7, March 1999)
by Michel Hryce
The notion that Australia is an English Colony heading into the 21st Century is an absurdity and contrary to our own strong cultural identity and real place on the world stage.
Just as absurd is the notion that Great Britain is our Imperial governor. British Imperial Colonies, rightly or wrongly belong to the Nineteenth Century, not the Twentieth and definitely not the Twenty First Century. Royal Britainia no longer rules the waves nor should it rule Australia.
As NSW Secretary of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance I am elected to represent the people who entertain and inform Australians and indeed was re-elected yesterday for another term. The Alliance is the Australian professional and industrial organisation for actors, journalists, musicians, theatre workers, film makers, artworkers, opera, ballet and independent performers, orchestra members, cinema and sports ground workers and professional sports persons.
Our members, as Matt Carroll says, "are charged with telling Australians their stories", of articulating and defining the Australian experience, of informing and updating the nation about Australian news and interpreting and relaying world events as they happen.
To assess our growing confidence in ourselves as a Nation and our entrepreneurial prowess on the world stage we need to look no further than our entertainment and media industries.
Over the past fifty years we have witnessed the development of a uniquely Australian form of journalism, what Alan Kennedy, the President of the Alliance, describes as our "tradition of excellence in investigative reporting with an edge of ratbaggery: this is internationally acclaimed through the works of the likes of Germaine Greer, John Pilger and Clive James". Unlike journalists in other countries Australian journalists have not stooped to the lowest depths of scandal obsession. Mind you, Strewth is a good read. To quote Rupert Murdoch, "Australian journalists are the best in the world". The Melbourne Age and Sydney Morning Herald still rate amongst the top twenty newspapers globally.
Fifty years ago Australian journalists were employed on the Mason - Catholic divide. (No Catholics at the Sydney Morning Herald please) and Australian journalism focussed on issues other than a sense of their Australianism. A growing sense of confidence in Australian journalism has developed over the years and is reflected in quality investigative journalism, ongoing battles for press freedom in Australia, diversity of ownership in our media, campaigns to maintain a strong independent public broadcaster and fights for editorial independence.
In 1998 who will forget Pamela Williams' Gold Walkley winning piece in the Financial Review, "The plan to smash a union", which revealed the detailed planning the Federal Government had secretly undertaken to stymie the MUA; Christine Lacy's story also in the Financial Review on the Crown Casino's failure to meet its contractual obligation to the Government and Belinda Hawkins Award winning documentary "Kicking the Dust: the Wik People" which offered unique insights into the political process, past and present, that have impacted on the lives of the Wik People.
In entertainment, the increasing number of new Australian works on our stages and their box office successes highlights a respect for our own culture and a demand by Australian audiences to be entertained through our own stories, by our own performers.
In the early 1960's when a foreign artist playing the lead in a theatrical production of "Funny Girl" was unable to "go on" she was replaced by her Australian understudy Jill Perryman. Australian Theatre audiences embraced their own first theatrical star. Until that event it was chorus - understudy parts only for Australian performers. Foreigners automatically got the leads. Thirty years later the controversy over casting Tom Conti in "Art" reflects our respect and confidence for our own performers. Do we really need him? Haven't we got some one here?
Last year Tod McKenney playing Peter Allan, opened in a new Australian commercial musical, "The Boy from Oz". Whilst other commercial musicals languished the Boy from Oz became an overnight box office success. Part of the sheer joy of seeing this production is to sense the excitement of the audience as they embrace an Australian story and respond to Tod's electrifying performance as if Peter Allan was resurrected and on stage before us. Isn't it ironic that Peter Allan had to travel to America to grab success and reach the heights of his career whilst in the 1990's Tod McKenney is becoming our newest star playing Peter Allan to home grown audiences.
In the 1990's it is hard to find an Australian Theatre Company which is not producing an Australian work. An STC (Sydney Theatre Company) season is not complete without at least one Williamson, "The Stables" reputation for developing new Australian works is legendary and currently Leah Purcell's extraordinary performance in "Box The Pony" is wooing audiences with an Aboriginal experience.
Through the mediums of film and TV Australian stories are travelling the world. Those of a distinctly Australian flavour are becoming box office successes and rating well overseas. Strictly Ballroom, Priscilla, Muriel's Wedding, Shine, Water Rats sold to 120 Countries, Frontline to American Pay TV and even Icelanders can't escape Neighbours, Breakers or Prisoner.
In fact we are so good at telling our own stories other nations are coveting Australian's to tell their stories.
In the context of the Republican debate none is more Poignant than our own Cate Blanchett playing Elizabeth 1st.
On a trip to Europe fifteen months ago it struck me how much Australians are respected on the world stage in our industries. During the course of that trip I attended an International Journalist Council and International Performers Conference. Thirty years ago Australia was not considered a force in the international trade union movement. International trade unions were governed by American or European representatives. In the late 1980's our very own Michael Crosby was elected as Secretary to the International Federation of Actors. Currently one of the Alliance's Joint Federal Secretary Chris Warren is the President of the International Federation of Journalists and the other Alliance's Joint Federal Secretary Anne Britton is an Executive Officer of the International Actors Federation.
More and more Australians in the international labour movement are seen as the pivotal connection between first and third world countries between east and west, north and south.
What I also noted during my last European trip was that the English no longer treated Australians as convicts or poor colonial cousins. In the 1990's the English respect Australians and are in awe of our fighting spirit, our entrepreneurial aggression and ability to move with the flow. Rupert Murdoch beat the Poms and went on to build his international media conglomerate on the back of Australian newspapers.
At an International Conference on performance in Paris I was invited to speak on Performers Copyright in Australia. As I took to the podium I was introduced by name (pronounced correctly for once), my organisation then with the words, "from the land down under", the audience cheered warmly and I suspect not one of the delegates at the conference gave a thought to the Queen of England.
This speech was delivered to the Women and the Republic Series on April 20
There is an assumption abroad that because of the enthusiasm generated by the Constitutional Convention a year ago, we the electors are on top of the issues and fully understand what the referendum is all about.
The reality is that misconception and misinformation about the referendum, and its subject matter, is rife throughout the Australian community.
From the republican point of view it is imperative to keep it simple.
Also, it is easy to keep it simple, because the substance of the question - preamble included or not - is: "Do we Australians want an Australian as our Head of State?"
United or disunited, all republicans - irrespective of their view as to the mode of election or appointment -can reasonably be expected to support this fundamental proposition.
Indeed the majority of Australians have in their hearts and minds already answered the question "Do Australians want an Australian as their Head of State?" with a resounding "Yes". It's probable that a great number of Australians had already answered "Yes" to that question by the end of last year's Constitutional Convention.
The task is to rid the debate of misinformation and misconception; to emphasise and re-emphasise the simplicity of the fundamental referendum question; and to make it clear that there is no menu of options from which to choose and that a "Yes" or "No" answer is required.
The next important task for republicans who want to have the republic in place at the turn of the century, is to compare the stability, the safety and the reasonableness of the model to be submitted to the people at the referendum with the proposals advanced by those who advocate a general election to elect the president.
The direct electionists are irreconcilably divided. None of their models cobbled together at the Constitutional Convention addressed the power of the Senate to create a constitutional impasse and, hence, the need for an impartial umpire, in the form of a president, to resolve the impasse.
Whilst superficially embracing a motherhood principle - that of the popular vote - this approach is a recipe for chaos and confusion and, in the light of day and commonsense, does not bear scrutiny.
By now it is abundantly clear that in the final analysis what Australians do not want is a politician as their Head of State. I share that view.
Politicians carry all sorts of political baggage with them, not the least of which are policies and other commitments stemming from their political party allegiance, past or present.
Under the direct-electionists proposals, each political party would nominate a candidate for the presidential election. Once nominated, each candidate would have the financial support of his or her political party, and resources of the political parties would be thrown behind the various candidates.
The candidates would espouse policies - some consistent, some in conflict, with the policies of the government of the day - and a full-blooded election campaign would ensue. It would be entirely predictable that serving Federal and State politicians would join in the campaign to support the candidate of their parties' choice. At the end of the day, one candidate would win the election and become President.
Does anyone believe that the winner would at that moment exchange his or her biased political coat for an impartial one, free of bias and political commitment to the Party which helped him/her become President? To believe that, is to believe that there are fairies at the bottom on the garden.
One result of such a political campaign is that you could end up with an ALP President and a Liberal PM or vice versa - hardly a recipe for good stable government. Rather a ready-made recipe for conflict and instability.
Direct elections will produce political presidents. In the Australian context, once that is understood, and accepted, the direct-electionists' case is destroyed.
Even if a candidate was not a politician, within the popular meaning of that term, when the campaign for President commenced, he or she would certainly be a politician by the time the campaign ended.
We cannot have our cake and eat it too. Australians want one of their own as the Head of State. At the same time, they do not want the present system of parliamentary democracy interfered with.
That, however, is exactly what the Ted Mack (or is it the Ted Mack/Peter Reith) proposal would do. Ted Mack wants the President to be an executive American-style President, with the attendant structures which are part of the U.S. system. There is no room for the Prime Minister. Cabinet Ministers could be appointed without the benefit of election by the people.
Mr. Mack's proposal needs to be fully ventilated. He wants to dismantle our Westminster system and replace it with some poor relation of the U.S. system. The sooner the public knows that the better. What he is on about is an executive president - a political president. The Ted Mack proposal is the classic instance of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Another direct-electionists, Mr Clem Jones, has a proposal which is completely at odds with Mr Ted Mack's American system. Mr Jones seemingly wants to retain some of the features of our so-called Westminster system, but his proposal, as articulated at the Constitutional Convention, fails to confront the power of the Senate and the Constitutional impasse the Senate can create. He seems content to have a political president and leaves the impasse unresolved in the vagueness and uncertainty of the language and terms of his proposal.
Already fifty-nine per cent (59%) of Australian electors are in favour of the preferred model.
At every critical stage of the process provided by that model, the Australian public is involved and the final approval of the nominee for president, by a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Parliament, means that the successful candidate will have bipartisan support - because never in the history of Federation has any one party commanded such a majority.
In other word, the preferred model delivers:
- An Australian as our Head of State;
- An Australian who is not a politician;
- An Australian selected by a process characterised by the involvement of the public.
- An Australian who is capable of being impartial in the resolution of a Constitutional impasse.
The preferred model provides a step in the right direction of constitutional reform.
It provides an opportunity, at long last, to have one of our own as Head of State, with the prospect of further reform once this critical first step has been taken.
But this is only the first step. Last year's Constitutional Convention resolved that, if a republican system of government was introduced by referendum, then not less than three years, or more than five years thereafter, the Commonwealth Government should convene a further Constitutional Convention with two-thirds of the delegates to such convention being directly elected by the people.
The referendum vote in November is not the last step in this historic process: it is the first step - the step which will give us the right to have one of our own - an Australian as Head of State - and within a short time to have the process committed to the scrutiny of a further Constitutional Convention, with the prospect of such changes as the Constitutional Convention deems necessary.
We must take this historic opportunity to vote for an Australian Head of State. The opportunity that the referendum offers may not be available again in our lifetime.
Tennis great John Newcombe is understood to be coordinating a group of sporting greats to assist the Yes campaign. Already a long list of sporting personalities have signed themselves up for pro-Republic events.
Rugby League players on board include Andrew and Matthew Johns, Arthur Beetson, Bradley Clyde, Mal Meninga and Wally Lewis.
Other sports personalities include Justin Madden, Ron Barassi and Eddie Maguire (AFL), Andrew Vlahov and Damien Keogh (basketball), Duncan Armstrong (swimming), Iain Murray (sailing), Kerry Saxby-Junna and Nova Peris-Kneebone (athletics), Mark Ella and Simon Poidevin (rugby union).
Roy Slaven and HG Nelson are also committed Republicans.
Australian Republican movement coordinator NinaBlackwell told Workers Online people who had represented their country had a special understanding of the importance of national identity.
Speaking at the Convention I said, "An Australian Head of State at the pinnacle of our system of Government has important symbolic significance. It reflects our sense of self worth as a nation to acknowledge that we want one of our own citizens to fill the position."
The Convention recommended that Australia become a republic and doing so recommended a model for appointing and dismissing an Australian President.
The republic is now back on the political agenda and has been making headlines in the papers since January this year because the Government is now preparing for a referendum on the republic model recommended by the Convention.
A referendum is the only way the Australian constitution can be changed. It requires a vote of all Australian citizens and needs to be supported by a majority of voters in Australia overall as well as by a majority of voters in a majority of states in order to be passed.
The referendum question must be passed by the Federal Parliament before it is put to the vote of the people who then get to say 'yes' or 'no' to the question so determined.
The referendum on the republic will take place in November this year. All Australians will finally get a say on whether Australia should take the last, essentially symbolic, step to independence from Great Britain.
We will get to say whether we want an Australian to be our head of state instead of the Queen of Great Britain.
The ACTU has been involved in the republic debate since it began and has always supported an Australian republic. The ACTU Executive in February 1990 decided that all affiliates should actively campaign in support of a 'yes' vote in the referendum.
The choice in November will not be about different models of an Australian republic. In this referendum voters will get to choose between the Convention model for selecting an Australian head of state and the status quo - having the English monarch and her representative, the Governor-General continue in that role.
The Convention recommended that an Australian President be selected in the following way. First by calling for nominations from the public. Secondly, having a committee which is representative of the community report on those nominations to the Prime Minister of the day.
The Prime Minister is then required to put a single nomination, that must be seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, to a special sitting of both houses of the Federal Parliament. If this resolution is approved by a two thirds majority the President will be chosen.
The Convention chose this model because it is most consistent with our current system of government under which Parliament is the supreme political body. It ensures the appointment process is outside the normal political processes and virtually ensures that a politician will not be President.
Some republicans have argued for a directly elected President. They are supporting a no vote in the referendum in the hope that a directly elected model of republic will eventually be put in another referendum.
There are compelling reasons why a directly elected President would not be suitable in the Australian context. This is why that model was not supported by the Convention.
An elected President would necessarily be a politician. To win office a person will need to be supported by either of the major political parties. He or she will need a political platform to put to the people in an election.
The office of President would become a political office with a political mandate to rival that of the Prime Minister of the day. The role of the President would be very different from the role the Governor-General performs today.
In particular in any constitutional crisis that arose because of a conflict between our two houses of the Federal Parliament the President would not be able to fill the role of politically independent umpire. This is a critical difference between our system of government and, for instance, Ireland's.
It is therefore unlikely that either of the major political parties would ever seek to put a referendum supporting this model to the people. This is especially the case if an earlier referendum on the republic had failed in which case the whole issue would be seen as problematic politically, being both divisive and of uncertain outcome.
It is highly improbable that a further referendum on the republic question will be put to the Australian people in the near future if November's referendum fails.
On the other hand if the referendum succeeds there may well be a groundswell of support for further refinements to our system of an Australian President once that system has been in place for a period of time.
A successful referendum would also encourage future governments to honour the recommendation of the last Constitutional Convention that a further Convention be held within five years of Australia becoming a republic in order to consider other constitutional change.
Winning this referendum for those who support an Australian Head of State will not be easy. Already we have seen the Prime Minister seek to confuse the issue of a Preamble with the republic question. Those in charge of drafting the referendum question have chosen a misleading form of words to put to the people implying that Parliament alone chooses the President.
The referendum should be supported for the reasons Neville Wran gave in his Whitlam Lecture in November 1997. That is because an Australian republic is about full nationhood for Australia, about a true Australian identity; about an undivided allegiance to Australia, about belief in Australian citizenship and about a believable Australian Constitution which means what it says and says what it means.
We all need to work hard to convince as many of their fellow Australians of the wisdom and the safety of a 'yes' vote. If you want to be involved in the yes campaign contact Jenny Doran at the ACTU on 03 96635655 or email [email protected]
Piers cited Kirby's admission that he has had a male partner since 1969, to suggest Kirby had broken the criminal law, which had homosexuality illegal until the late 1970s.
He went on to ask whether his sexual orientation could lead to him to "perhaps turn a blind eye to chaps who engage in the sort of sexual antics which might constitute statutory rape?"
Notwithstanding the fact that Justice Kirby's position on the High Court does not routinely deal with these sorts of cases, the implication is grubby beyond the grounds of accepted standards of journalism.
As we argued last week, Piers is playing with a man of substance, who's contribution to making Australia a more civilised society would be matched by very few.
This attack must stop; and if Piers can't help himself, Workers Online will lend a hand.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, we say.
Accordingly, we're putting up $1,000 to anyone who can prove that Piers has breached the law at any point in his illustrious career.
Using the same criteria he has applied to Justice Kirby we'll set the cut-off date at 1969, meaning we'll excuse any indiscretions in his youth.
But any breach of the criminal law since then is up for grabs.
We admit the inspiration comes from Larry Flynt's pursuit of hypocritical Washington politicians who pursued Clinton over the Lewinsky affair (if that's the appropriate term).
In the same tradition, Workers Online believe that it's time our newspaper columnists are held to account for their views, prejudices and general outlook on the world. No more double-standards!
Here's the deal:
- we need a statutory declaration laying down the facts of any criminal breach.
- the statutory declaration would be forwarded to police.
- if charges are then laid, the money is yours!
Of course, we are not suggesting that Piers has broken the law. But if he has, thousands of Telegraph readers would be entitled to know.
|
|
![[ Home ]](/images/nv_home.gif){kind=small} ![[ Notice Board ]](/images/nv_board.gif){kind=small} ![[ Search ]](/images/nv_search.gif){kind=small} ![[ Previous Issues ]](/images/nv_previous.gif){kind=small} ![[ Latest Issue ]](/images/nv_latest.gif){kind=small} |
|
|
|
|
© 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/11/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 |
|
![[Workers Online]](/images/logo_small.gif){kind=logo}
![[Social Change Online]](/images/sco_logo.gif){kind=logo}