Workers Online
Workers Online
Workers Online
  Issue No 25 Official Organ of LaborNet 06 August 1999  

 --

 --

 --

Interview

Beneath the Arch

Interview with Peter Lewis

Arch Bevis has been given the job of charting Federal Labor's agenda for the 21st century. He tells us where he's heading.

 
 

Federal Labor's IR spokesman Arch Bevis

What's going on in terms of policy formulation at the moment - particularly within your area of industrial relations?

The shadow ministry has established a series of committes that quite rightly have pretty broad terms of reference. For example, the committee that deals with industrial relations and living standards also deals with economic matters, Treasury matters, education and training questions, social security questions and regional development because they are all inter-related. Getting one right doesn't mean necessarily that what you get at the end of the process works. You actually do have to have all those policy arms working together. So there's a development process within the Ministry and the Caucus. We've now established the Party's policy committees and they'll be gearing up to meet towards the end of this year with the National Conference in the middle of next year. So I'm working on the basis of having a document available very early next year for those in the Party and those with an interest in industrial relations.

The notion of integrating IR into these broader areas reflects a shift in itself away from the monolithic system that's been an article of faith for labour. Is this a sign that Labor won't be turning back the clock to the sort of system we had at the beginning of this decade?

I think the important principles which have always underpinned our approach to industrial relations remain the same. What this new policy structure does is recognise that increasingly the world is more complex. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about industrial relations, or industry policy or social security, none of those are able to stand alone in the complex society in which we are operating now. So the fundamental principles we have held to in industrial relations remain important, the challenge for all of us in the labour movement is to ensure that those policies are translated into workable models that do actually deal with the challenges in the 21st century. As with any other policy, to pretend you can address the needs of 2008 by looking at 1998 is a pretty poor effort and isn't going to work. I've been involved in industrial relations directly since the mid-70s and I grew up with industrial relations through the sixties - my father was secretaty of the Transport Workers Union for 20 years - so I have had a pretty close observation of the way IR has behaved and it's gone through a whole lot of transformations and it will go through a lot more in the coming decades.

And has your personal view shifted over that time?

Well, it has in a number of ways, I guess. In some of things that stand in my mind also go to my experiences as a union official. I can well remember going to a TUTA course in 1977 and at that time there had been a big dispute in the newspapers. One of the guest lecturers was one of the PKIU union officials, so we were pretty revved up to hear the wisdom this guy who had just come form the battle, He actually left a significant mark on my thinking of how these things were done. We did a role playing exercise - half union, half employers negotiating the issue out. When we sat down and realised what we had done on the union side - we realised we had cost them a fortune which would take years to recover in lost salary and other problems. The company negotiators would be lucky to have a company left. And the notion of sitting back and looking what you had actually achieved after going through the process left a big impression on me. Things like that changed my attitude.

When I started as a union official in 1977, the standard process for wage determination was the National Wage Case. There were wage leaders and in some cases it was the metals, in others transport. I've been through that, I've been through the trade-offs, I've been through the Accord stuff and each of those models had a benefit for the times. But we're kidding ourselves if we think we can develop a model for 2010 by trying to resurrect the models I entered as a union official in the 1970s.

The orthodoxy is that the clever country that Kim Beazley pushes with education and training, also requires a free and footloose labour market. That's really the challenge to meet this argument that was started by the HR Nicholls Society in the 1980s. Your role is to challenge that, but how can you wrap it into a message that resonates?

I don't agree with the premise that the development of skills which is critically important for our nation requires a footloose, deregulated environment. increasingly people, not just in politics but in business are coming to the opinion that that's not the way you get results. It's interesting to see someone like George Soros, who's one of the richest people in the world and who Mahatir blamed for the Asian crisis, who for the past three years has been writing articles that in the post Cold War era the greatest threat to free and open society is capitalism. He is now a strong advocate of regulation and tempering the forces of the market with social and justice considerations. So there's a recognition amongst some people at the highest levels of the corporate world that the laissez fare approach that the Liberal party here continues to foster as the only solution to economic growth is simply wrong. Worse than wrong it's actually destructive to the fabric of our society. critical issues like job security mean that each year goes by and job security gets worse.

And now we have the compounded problem that people are not only worried about their job security, they're worried that if they lose their job they might not even get their entitlements,. You have Oakdale situation to which this Prime Minister has responded on a number of occasions, that that's OK because it's money that is used for investment. The Liberal Party seems to think that workers entitlements in these situations are some sort of interest free unsecured loan. So there's a lot of areas where there is a need for regulation. And one of things that gets under my skin when I hear people in the business community run the laissez faire line in relation to workers is that they have a totally different view in relation to their own companies. If small business have a problem, or when politicians in the Liberal Party think a big corporation is doing the wrong thing they're the first people to run off the ACCC or somewhere else to gain protection for these small operators.

But that's a fundamental point that Howard and conservatives run. That is you make it harder for investment you end up hurting the workers. So any initiatives to protect workers rights in the short term actually hurt them in the long run . How do you argue with that?

Winning investment for Australian business and particularly new venture capital is a major problem, but you don't solve it by stealing workers money. Because that's actually what is happening, this is money that is the workers' legal entitlements, And if John Howard is so worried about that, why doesn't he let them take the group tax payments - instead of taking the group tax of their employee let them play with that as an interest free loan. He doesn't do that and the Tax Office doesn't do that, no other creditors allow their money to be dealt with like that. And workers are entitled to their payments. That is a totally bogus argument. The need for investment capital is important but you don't steal workers' money to get it.

That leads into the broader question of to what degree must government pander to big business in the name of creating more jobs? How for, instance should a Labor Government deal with an anti-union firm like Rio Tinto?

Obviously companies like that who have an unacceptable attitude to industrial relations are not going to be banned. But as incidents arise, such as the Hunter Valley mine dispute, the government was actually a player in that process. But they were a player for negative outcomes rather than positive ones. Where you will see a difference from the Labor Government is both directly and openly in Commission hearings, directly in the way we structure our industrial relations legislation and directly in the approach we take with corporations as to how the government sees these events being properly conducted. There would be a very different message going to the company. Whether at the end of the day the company chose to adopt that view would be a matter for them, but they would be operating under a different legislative regime. It was an absolute disgrace that the Hunter Valley dispute dragged on so long and we had a full bench of the Industrial Relations Commission saying "sorry folks, keep fighting till there's no-one left standing because Peter Reith's laws don't allow us to do anything". Thankfully, the Federal Court told the Commission they had it wrong and some commonsense prevailed. But that was done directly as a result of this government's laws and with the encouragement and support of the government at the time.

Speaking about the Reith laws, we're about to kick off the Second Wave campaign. What's your simple message to the punters about why this is a bad thing?

This second wave, even more than the first wave, is designed to achieve four objectives. It's designed to destroy the Industrial Commission so it's no longer relevant. It's designed to sideline unions so they can't participate in securing or advancing workers' conditions. It's designed to put people on individual contracts - one on one negotiations of AWAs. And the combination of all that is the aim to reduce the award safety net. Peter Reith's on the record in his letter to the Prime Minister as saying minimum wages have been "too generous".

All this is about leaving workers unsupported with a reduced minimum standard at the mercy of employers' good will. There's only one answer you can give to that - you throw it out and you make sure governments like that don't get into the Treasury benches again to perpetrate that sort of disgraceful legislation. We are already in breach of ILO Conventions, the 1996 legislation has been criticised by the ILO, this Second Wave is going to put us in the Third World basket. One of the really things for Australia is that if you look through the post WWII period, whether we had a Liberal or a Labor Government our standing in the ILO has always been high. We've been regarded as one of the nations with a very good record. That has gone now in the space of three short years. The Reith legislation has put us at the bottom of the international list.

They're not bad spin doctors though, calling it More Jobs, Better Pay. How can you match that rhetoric?

You've got to hand it to them, this government's got hide. After the Patricks dispute and all the rest, Peter Reith gets up and refers to the dispute as one of the great victories from his period as Minister. So calling black white is not a new thing for Peter Reith. The simple message is about job security and basic rights. Australians are entitled to some decency in the workplace, they're entitled to a government that provides balance and fairness. They have none of that now and with this Minister they have someone who is ideologically committed to reducing what are basic rights. Have a look at the things he wants to take out of awards - long service leave, he's having a second go at superannuation, he's even proposed to remove things like paid jury service. The idea of a jury with 12 of your peers judging you is a fundamental part of our society. We're now looking at entering an era where you'll be judged by 12 of your peers as long as they're rich enough to give up their job for a while. This is really insidious stuff. The simple way of characterising it, I think, is an attack on security, an attack on entitlements and an attack on basic fairness in the system. And what we need to do is restore a bit of decency to the system.

Finally, let's look into the crystal ball. Labor wins the next election, Arch Bevis is industrial relations minister. Ten years down the track, what will our industrial relations system look like?

A few things you would see as a result of that. You would see restored a genuine respect and authority for collective processes in industrial relations; that is, the right of workers to collectively organise and negotiate their conditions and seek advancement. you would see restored an independence for the Commission which it has largely lost and which the Second Wave would totally destroy. You would see the government get out of this business of political policeman in industrial relations. The Office of Employment Advocate would be abolished very early, we would not have the OEA running around building sites and other places trying to inflict a political ideology on workers and companies. One of the entertaining things, if this Second Wave goes through, is the closed shop arrangements; because if Peter Reith is going to implement his laws one of the first people he'll to send his pretend policemen to go in and knock over will be the Federal Police - the real police because they have in excess of 60 per cent membership. Then they'll have to go into all the school where those terribly seditious left-wing teachers are being cajoled into joining unions in numbers above 90 per cent. This is a circus.

The other thing you'd see a significant shift in is a role I don't think government has picked up in the past and is ignoring totally at the moment - the need to foster a better knowledge base and understanding within the industrial relations community. There are always going to be disagreements between people. That's the nature of human beings and it's what democracy is about. But we should make sure that disagreements are informed disagreements, that people know what's going on. Too many times, and I can say this having spent 13 years as a union official, there are disputes where people don't have a good enough understanding of their own constituency, let alone the attitudes of other people around the negotiating table. very often they don't have an appreciation of how the actions they are taking relate to other things that are important social and political goals and vice versa - they don't understand how outside influences impact on them. I predict government has an important role in fostering the development of that understanding and better knowledge. It doesn't happen by accident. Some unions and some comapnies have got a good record in that area, many of them don't. And it's not good enough to leave it to individuals, government needs to take a role. One of the by-products of that would be you would have far fewer disputes.

But you would still have an "industrial relations" community?

Definitely. I don't shy away from that. there are people running around saying that we shouldn't' talk about industrial relations. Peter Reith has tried to change the language to workplace relations instead - that it's just what goes on in the workplace, between the that employer and this employee. He's dead wrong. Industrial relations is much more than that - and it's more than the tripartite thing of the unions, the employer and the government. The implications of industrial relations goes into the home of every Australian worker. I'm an unashamed for the maintenance of an industrial relations community and an industrial relations science. And it dovetails into training and skills development, it links in with social security, it is an important part of how the whole economy operates. What I want to see is an industrial relations community that has an understanding about its place in the world - not just it's own constituency, but the broader consideration. We talk about the smart nation and being a clever country. It's not something that happens at the CSIRO. It has to happen with all of us and IR is part of that.


------

*   View entire issue - print all of the articles!

*   Issue 25 contents

In this issue
Features
*  Interview: Beneath the Arch
Arch Bevis has been given the job of charting Federal Labor�s agenda for the 21st century. He tells us where he�s heading.
*
*  Unions: What If the Bug Bites?
Health workers are planning contingencies for the Millennium Bug. Just in case...
*
*  Politics: It's a Wired, Wired World
Labor's federal IT spokeswoman Kate Lundy looks at some of the challenges for politics in the information economy.
*
*  International: Lufthansa faces Global Cyber-picket
270 workers sacked for a one�day strike - support the T&G campaign for human rights at Heathrow.
*
*  Satire: Outrage as Freed Killer Lives in House
Despite moving away from Waterloo Primary School, controversy continues to follow released killer John Lewthwaite after it was discovered that he is now living in a house.
*
*  Review: Reversing Union Decline
A leading labour thinkers asks: how do we turn back the membership tide?
*

News
»  Unions Embrace Open Shop
*
»  Council Sets Benchmarks for Vizard Deal
*
»  Steggles Treats Workers Like Chooks
*
»  Rail Workers on Collision Course with Carr
*
»  Reith Shamed Into Talk On Entitlement Fund
*
»  Unionists Asked to Defer NRMA Vote
*
»  Fire Fighters Use Net
*
»  Crew of Convenience Behind Sydney Oil Spill?
*
»  Sixty Junkets Join Currawong Hit Squad
*
»  Workers Table Petition for Gay Reform
*
»  Indonesian Trade Union Leaders to Visit Australia
*
»  International And Community Groups Oppose Reith�s Bill
*

Columns
»  Guest Report
*
»  Sport
*
»  Trades Hall
*
»  Piers Watch
*

Letters to the editor
»  Country Labor Asks Question
*
»  The Ombudsman Replies
*
»  Confessions of a German Call Centre Agent
*
»  WorkCover Off the Track
*

What you can do

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

Enter keyword(s):
  


Workers Online - 2nd place Labourstart website of the year


BossWatch


Wobbly Radio



[ Home ][ Notice Board ][ Search ][ Previous Issues ][ Latest Issue ]

© 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/25/a_interview_arch.html
Last 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

 *LaborNET*

 Labor Council of NSW

[Workers Online]

[Social Change Online]