LaborNET

  Ask Neale

  Tool of the Week

Interview

Back to the Battle

Interview with Peter Lewis

Federal Labor's new industrial relations spokesman Robert McClelland outlines the challenges for the next three years.

	Robert McClelland

How hard has it been to dust off after the Federal Election?

You have just got to get back up and get into it. The most disappointing thing was to not have Kim Beazley as our Prime Minister. He would have been a great Prime Minister, but then we are into the battle.

What is your take on the debate that is currently engulfing the labour movement about the influence that unions should have within the ALP?

We have got a pretty successful model in the Labor Party that has existed for over a hundred years - twice as long as any other political party in Australia - one of the oldest social democratic parties in the world. So, you have got to start off and say, well we have got a pretty good model. But, having said that, it is na�ve not to say that you should examine all your structures as to their appropriateness.

I think our goal quite frankly should be to expand our membership base generally, but in so doing I am not sure that you have got to diminish any of the existing influences that are in the ALP.

In practical terms, what impact would a reduced union vote in the Party have had on the last Federal Election do you think?

Basically, in the use of the vernacular "bugger all". It didn't register on the Richter scale. Indeed, there is no question that trade unions assisted our campaign in terms of their communication with their members on matters that affected their working entitlements and matters that affected their family standard of living generally.

Trade unionism today is itself a broad movement. It is far more than simply a blue collar movement or a waterside workers movement or a mining movement. It reflects people who are nurses, who are policemen, who are firemen, who are engaged in call centers, in financial institutions - a whole spectrum of people that are ordinary Australian families. The trade union movement connects with the broader labour movement into ordinary Australian households.

You are pitted against Tony Abbott who is a very aggressive and confrontationalist politician, who actually uses IR as a platform for running politics. How do you plan to counter him in your portfolio?

Very much by focusing on the issues. Tony Abbott's problem is that he is playing to a very limited gallery. He is playing to the gallery of Liberal Party/National Party members in terms of his leadership aspirations. Now while his prancing about is superficially attractive to them, from the point of view of the broader Australian community, I think it is quite repugnant.

I will meet his style by simply focusing on the issues, and if there is one weakness that Tony has as a result of all his prancing about; as a result of him wanting to delve into the private lives of not only the Labor Party members, but also Liberal and other Coalition members, he hasn't had the time that he should have to spend in getting on top of his brief - and I intend to really exploit that.

How seriously do you think the Liberals are about pushing through their next wave of industrial relations changes?

I think the main thing they want to set up is the fact of opposition to their proposals, as opposed to achieving an outcome where they get their proposals up. Again, it is all for their political tactical reasons.

They were very, very good in the last election in terms of finding a new generation of Reds under the beds; namely these boat people coming to Australia. They are the old Menzies version of Reds under the beds, about to take over our society - and they are looking for some more Reds under the beds, and those are trade unionists. So they will be wanting to paint a picture that the Labor Party in terms of the Federal parliamentary party is dictated to by the unions. That is entirely false.

We will meet that by putting forward some very forward thinking agendas of our own. And that will include reintroducing the concept of good faith bargaining. In other words, restoring the rule of law in industrial relations, and also assistance for non-organised sectors of the workforce, such as your independent contractors, your bricklayers, your plumbers, your tilers, your courier drivers, your transport operators, who may not have award coverage.

We will look at doing stuff such as an unfair contracts sort of jurisdiction.

The other area where I am tremendously passionate about is just trying to empower workers generally by giving them the opportunity to be involved in workplace councils and actually get a piece of the action in terms of their participation in management decisions, and indeed, I would also like to see a situation where they have the opportunity to participate in sharing of the profits of the enterprise where they work.

Those last two issues - the councils and the shareholders - are issues that have been contentious in the union movement. Obviously you are not wanting to merely run the same IR policy that went to the election last time. In your view, is that all up for grabs again?

Well substantially. You have got your fundamental principles of fairness in the workplace, which is at the heart of the Labor Party, and indeed, I think it is fair to say that is why most people who are in the Labor Party ran for it - to keep general fairness and equity for working Australians.

With those underlying principles we will be putting forward a whole matrix of stuff which is very creative.

The Clinton administration did a whole lot of research in this area about how to get a next generation of productivity improvements from the workforce, and overwhelmingly the advice came back to them through a Commission that they established, was that you are not going to get a committed workforce giving 110% if they feel alienated with their employer.

A way to avoid that occurring was this concept of actually giving them a piece of the action; giving them the opportunity to participate in the management decisions; actually empowering them within their own workforce.

So, you are going to get a much more committed workforce - a workforce that is anxious to keep on developing best practice. Indeed, a workforce that wants to continue to learn, not only about their actual job, but about the running of the business.

At the next election it will be a choice between the current government that keeps on chanting the mantra of employer prerogative, and on the other hand a Labor Party that will actually be about empowering workers in a real and practical sense.

What about some of the issues that took a lot of negotiation to get into policy last time around? I am thinking particularly of AWAs. Will you continue to promise to abolish AWAs?

Again, the whole area is up for grabs. The way AWAs have operated has just been atrocious. You are getting sixteen year olds being compelled to sign AWAs in circumstances where there is no obligation on the employer to ensure that they have independent advice, either from a trade union, an industrial advocate, or from lawyers.

To think of that in any other area would just be an outrage. I think it is even more so when you are talking about people giving their physical labour - actually giving a part of their life to work for the profits of an employer.

The whole way that AWAs have operated has been harsh and oppressive and we have clearly indicated our opposition to AWAs as they operate.

In the past there has been opportunity for flexibility. I know in the finance sector for instance, there were provisions contained in Federal awards for there to be individual agreements about specific trade offs, particularly in circumstances where an employee was at a sufficient level where they weren't likely to be exploited. They could trade off things such as a lump sum annual fee instead of overtime, and a variety of other things that they could trade off in the context of their home loans and other various things of that nature.

We would certainly be prepared to look at this whole area, but in looking at the whole area our underlying point will be that it is a complete fallacy to assume that an individual worker has equal bargaining strength with an employer.

To think of a young worker, or a migrant worker for instance, to go in and sit down with the employer, who will most likely have the immediate supervisor of that person, the general manager and the accountant, sitting at a table with this individual being given a document saying this is the AWA that we are offering you. To consider that situation as an equality of bargaining power is just wrong, and that sort of arrangement we would continue to oppose.

What do you see as the main battleground over the next three years between yourself and the Howard Government?

Firstly, our goal will be to defend existing rights in term of the First Wave, which is going to be the unfair dismissal laws. We have said to the government, look, if you put to us propositions that are based on the concept of a mutual obligation of good faith on the part of the employer and the employee; if you put to us a proposition that is based on the concept of a fair go all round, and that means necessarily, before anyone is sacked they are given the right to be heard - then we are prepared to talk to you.

We don't think, however, that that is the Government's aim. We think the Government simply wants to cause this division by actually completely removing unfair dismissal rights for employees in businesses of less than 20, and moreover, in the election they said that they were going to try and extend those federal laws into the State area - to actually override State protections. Given that small businesses employ about 50% of the workforce, that would remove the protection of about 4 million Australian workers and their families, and that is something that is simply outrageous.

That is in one area. In the other areas we would very much be putting these positive agendas about the concept of good faith bargaining; about restoring the powers of an independent umpire - the Australian Industrial Relations Commission - and about actually going a step further and empowering workers by giving them a role to play in workplace councils.

Do you concede that the workers' entitlements issue is now effectively neutralized with the scheme that the Howard Government has come up with?

No. Far from it. They are talking about payment for they say eight weeks community standards. There is virtually no federal award employee that has only eight weeks for redundancy. That is based on the 1984 Termination Change in Redundancy Cases. In all other areas the States have moved considerably ahead of that, so they are talking about taking Australian workers back to a standard that is 17 years old and has been superseded by reality.

Far from saying that it is a neutral issue, we are about workers having their full entitlements and the employee protection scheme that we came up with at the last election I think is still sound policy.

I will be pushing and I believe we will continue to pursue this as a major part of our employment strategy.

Given though, that the next election is three years off, could you understand workers starting to go down their own track with schemes like ManuSafe?

You couldn't blame them could you? Insofar as that is the only game in town, given the attitude of the current Federal Government, you can well and truly understand it, but my personal view is that you need a much broader base, rather than a scheme that is applicable to an individual industry.

Even our scheme still enables these individual industry schemes to continue to operate. If an employer was participating in an individual industry scheme, they weren't going to be compelled to have to double up and pay into the Employee Protection Scheme. The desirable way of doing it is to have as big a pool as you can, so that would still be the major thrust of our policy, I anticipate.

You have personally taken on the IR portfolio, but also Attorney General. Does this represent a downgrading of the portfolio within the Federal Opposition?

Not at all, and far from it. Simon Crean very much wanted to enhance its significance from the point of view of the very significant legal protections that Australian workers have.

I think it is fair to say that at a federal level, the last bastion of safeguard for some of the greatest assaults from this Government has come from very strict legal interpretations regarding current protections by the Federal Court, so regrettably as a result of the policies that this Government has adopted, the courts have become important in industrial relations - the courts as opposed to the Industrial Relations Commission - and it recognizes that reality, so I think I am best placed, having both the legal expertise and the industrial relations background, to cope with the assault that this government is going to have.

Finally, how do you want to work with the unions over the next three years?

Very much. I have got a number of close friends in the union movement. I have got to say I have got a number of close friends on the employer side. Just having worked in the area and indeed, my experience is that there are people who are close friends who are employer advocates, employee advocates, involved in trade unions, involved in employer management.

Very much what we are about and Simon Crean has indicated, whereas the current government has been one of the most socially divisive governments in Australia's history, we will be very much a government that wants to build consensus.

We are firmly of the view that we are only 18 million people in a very volatile and competitive global environment. If we are going to prosper as a nation we can't afford to be divided against ourselves.

Another three years of this very divisive government is going to cause tremendous damage to the relationships within society, so we will have a hard job rebuilding those relationships, but very much during my period of Shadow Industrial Relations Minister I will be working at maintaining those relationships from the point of view of building consensus outcomes.

Sure, you are not going to get everyone agreeing to everything you put forward, but I think the most important thing is to listen, and then when you have formed your point of view; after receiving feedback to that point of view, you explain your reasoning, and I will very much be doing that.

  View entire issue - print all of the articles!

  Issue 121 contents

»	Union Journo on Death List
»	First 'Lab Rats' in Bank Hold-Up
»	Monk's Mad Power Grab from States
»	Big Print Merger Threatens Jobs
»	Anger as Labor Staffers Shun Unions
»	Unions Are Well Advanced In Change Unions Tell ALP
»	Unions Step Up Organising Drive
»	Education, Call Centre Unions Sweep Awards
»	Bank AGMs Focus of Worker Anger
»	Gender Balance in Transport Concessions
»	Concern As Sydney Collapses
»	Bakers Seek More Bread
»	CFMEU Forces Re-Think On Asbestos
»	Call Goes Out for Union Summer
»	Twelve Weeks Parental Leave For Kiwis
»	Organiser of the Year Nominations Open
»	Activists Notebook

»	The Soapbox
»	Sport
»	Labour Review
»	Tool Shed

»	What's Wrong With Labor
»	Why I'm Quitting the ALP
»	Compo Flak
»	Union Democracy
»	Multi-Skilling Corrigan Style

Notice Board
- Check out the latest events

Latest Issue

View entire latest issue
- print all of the articles!

Previous Issues

Subject index

Search all issues

© 1999-2000 Labor Council of NSW

LaborNET is a resource for the labour movement provided by the Labor Council of NSW

[ Privacy Statement | Disclaimer | Credits ]

LaborNET is proudly created, designed and programmed by Social Change Online for the Labor Council of NSW