|
||
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
Issue No. 125 | 22 February 2002 |
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Unfair and Dismal
Interview: If Not Now, When? Activists: Fighting Back Industrial: Croon And Divide Politics: Politics of Extinction History: Harry Bridges: International Labour Hero International: Rats in the Ranks Review: Follow The Fence, Find The Truth Satire: Howard Screws Refugee Kids: G-G Turns Blind Eye Poetry: Let It Be
The Soapbox The Locker Room Week in Review
 Dirty Politics Won't WashTom's FooleryGive Us a Spray!
|
|
|
News Building Commission's Costly Spin
This includes $700,000 allocated to Media Relations for the Commission. This figure covers fees for a media consultant, co-ordinator and at least one other person. The Cole Commission budget is twice the $29m allocation for the HIH inquiry. Estimates now allow for $35 million to be spent in 2001/02 and a further $25m during 2002/03. By comparison the HIH Royal Commission - one of the most serious corporate collapses in Australian history - has a mere $140,000 for media relations. The media budget is five times greater for the Cole Commission than it is for HIH. From a Coalition Government with a weakness for spending public money on advertising, that may not be surprising but it reinforces the perception the Howard Government has a specific political agenda for the Cole Royal Commission. The public is entitled to know why there is a difference. Indeed, some might ask, why such expenditure is needed at all? The ordinary courts perform their work every day without the need for sophisticated media intermediaries. Australian taxpayers are also entitled to expect every cent to be spent on scrupulously objective information about the Commission's deliberations. CFMEU Evidence of Company Rorts The CFMEU has not sought leave to appear at the hearings. But the Cole Commission is notifying the union of any adverse evidence against union witnesses and union officials have been submitting statements and appearing at the hearings to answer questions in relation to those statements. The CFMEU has also submitted several cartons of material to the Cole Commission dealing with problems endemic to the industry. These include 80 examples of employers who have been found to be engaged in various "rorts, rackets and rip offs" (to use Tony Abbott's words) such as: � underpayment of workers � underpayment of workers compensation premiums � Phoenix operations � tax evasion � misuse of bogus independent subcontractors � abuse of illegal immigrant labour � cash-in-hand payments � unsafe work sites � victimization of workers and union members � threats/violence against union officials/members � criminal conduct � employers going bust leaving workers out of pocket � security of payments problems and � unemployment and training issues. In addition to these 80 companies, the CFMEU has provided the Cole Commission with evidence of about 120 employers who have been caught cheating on their Workers' Compensation premiums in New South Wales. The CFMEU has also given the Cole Commission copies of several recent research papers on the Australian Construction Industry - which provide general analysis of issues, such as Tax Evasion, Productivity levels and Training needs. The union is waiting with baited breath to see when the Royal Commission will put some of these employer villains under the microscope in public hearings. We have a suspicion we might be waiting a long time. Brisbane & Melbourne hearings The Cole Commission has held hearings in Melbourne and Brisbane since opening on December 11, last year. After general statements about the industry, led by evidence from the Master Builders Association, the hearings have quickly moved to looking at specific disputes: in Queensland the Nambour Hospital dispute and in Melbourne, currently, a dispute at the National Gallery of Victoria project involving the contractor, Able Demolitions. Both Nambour Hospital and the National Gallery of Victoria are, of course, Labor State Government projects. And the Cole Commission has called witnesses from both Government Works departments in their analysis of the disputes. Arguments being raised by Commissioner Cole in these hearings that may be of interest to union members include: 1. Commissioner Cole: ".... You know that unless you have an EBA which is union endorsed, you will have industrial strife, and if you are going to get industrial strife, you won't get a Victorian Government job?" Roennfeldt: "... I think ... that is a significant issue for any principal who is actually embarking on a contract, to actually deliver a project, to be comfortable that the person with whom they are contracting is going to be able to deliver the project. It is an absolute fundamental criteria." Cole: "Absolutely. Has anyone ever thought it through as to the power that that imposes or grants to a body organising labour? --- "And the reality is that if you have to have a union-endorsed EBA, that can have the consequence that there has to be a unionised workforce. Correct?" [to Richard Roennfeldt, Director of the Office of Major Projects, Vic 13/02/02] 2. Commissioner Cole: "What you have just indicated is that because the outcomes, that is, there was industrial disputation on a Kelly's site, occurred, therefore you should put a yellow flag on them. The consequence of that is that you are handing an enormous power to the unions. If they create industrial strife, rightly or wrongly, then that will have the result of a contractor having limitations placed, or restrictions placed, possibly, upon him obtaining future government work, and you were not in a position to know whether the industrial disputation was in fact the fault of Kellys or the fault of the unions?" [to Smith, Qld Public Works Jan 23, 2002 p. 1052, line 17) 3. Commissioner Cole: "If this preferred option were to proceed and if it has, as I suspect it does, the effect that only union-endorsed EBA builders, subcontractors, would be able to be embarked on these works, that would have the practical effect of compulsory unionism, wouldn't it?" [to McLean, MBA, Qld Jan 23, 2002 p1100, line 31) 4. Commissioner Cole: "That's the whole problem isn't it? It's so many nice words, this Code of Practice, and yet all it does is say that anyone who wants to contract with the government must comply with it. The unions don't contract with the government, therefore they don't have to comply with it. It's as simple as that. And when you come to sanctions, there are none against the unions, but there is against anybody else? [to G. May, Deputy Dir Gen Qld Dept Public Works, Brisbane Jan 24, 2002 p1160 line 14] 5. Commissioner Cole: "And it [the notion of a level playing field] eliminates, so far as labour costs are concerned, competition between the major head contractors, because they all know that all the subcontractors who they might use will have EBA rates?" Knight: "In respect of the wage component of the normal costs, I think labour costs normally work out somewhere around 30 to 35 per cent, so it's in that area. The competitive edge comes in the other 65." (to Knight, CCIQ, Brisbane, Jan 23, 2002 page 1088 line 35) Attack on the AIRC In opening days of the February hearings in Melbourne, Counsel Assisting the Commissioner accused the Australian Industrial Relations Commission of "first degree negligence" in its EBA certification procedures on the basis of an examination of 17 randomly chosen electrical EBAs. The comments have been criticised by industrial relations specialists and some media commentators on the basis that the alterations to the statutory declarations do not appear to have been motivated by corruption or malice, were procedural in nature and did not alter the content of the agreements or the genuineness of the agreement-making. Peter Richards, the Industrial Registrar, subsequently pointed out in evidence, that it was not the Registry's responsibility to ensure the accuracy of EBA applications. The CFMEU is also particularly concerned about the security of the Royal Commission's information system. This follows an alleged attempt to sell confidential Royal Commission documents to the union's Victorian Branch Secretary, Martin Kingham. The matter is the subject of a Federal Police investigation. On February 21, without notifying the union regarding the adverse evidence - but after alerting the media - the Commission called a self-proclaimed standover merchant to provide a lurid anti-CFMEU statement to the Melbourne hearings. The Victorian Branch issued a statement rebuffing these allegations. Meanwhile, Workplace Relations Minister Tony Abbott assured major contractor Multiplex on December 24 that: "the Cole Royal Commission is not enquiring into any particular company, but into coercive and collusive conduct in the building and construction industry generally. A key focus of the Royal Commission is the "closed shop" which generally operates in the industry and rorts, rackets and rip-offs arising from breaches of freedom of association principles. It is not a "Fraud Commission" although it is certainly interested in any culture of illegality present in the industry.". It seems Mr Abbott has his own version of what the Commission's Terms of Reference are. Commission Asserts its Independence Following publication of that letter, at the opening of the Melbourne hearings, Commissioner Cole re-stated the independence of the Inquiry. "The Commission will not be influenced by statements or writings of political parties or politicians of any persuasion, by employers or employer organisations, by unions or union officials or by the media," he said. "Any perception that the Commission will be influenced in the performance of its work is entirely without foundation." The Cole Royal Commission hearings are scheduled to move to Hobart on March 4 and to commence in Perth on March 18. The Commission has indicated that five or six case studies will be investigated in each State.
|
| Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue |
|
© 1999-2002 Workers Online 
|
|
