The deal will be launched later this month, after receiving in principle support the Labor Council Executive and the ALP Administrative Committee. Plans to launch it at this weekend's ALP State Conference have been deferred after members of the Left asked for more details on the plan.
Capital for the venture will be raised by third equity partner in the deal, Hong Kong-based company, Kingsway Capital.
The deal has been brokered by NSW Labor Council secretary Michael Costa and ALP Secretary Eric Roozendaal as an alternative to the ACTU-endorsed Virtual Communities venture..
Virtual Communities - which was valued at more than $360 million in its latest round of capital raising - only provides limited equity to unions that have invested in the venture. It is estimated to total less than four per cent.
In contrast, unions would have a full one third stake in the Labor Council venture - to be called "getonboard.com.au" - which Costa says would be dedicated to maintaining the movement's IT presence.
Key aspects of the proposal include:
- a personal computer deal involving Gateway computers, the largest supplier in the US home PC market.
- a suite of Microsoft Word softwear (including Word)
- the option to also purchase a Canon bubble-jet colour printer for an extra $1.50 per week.
- free access to 4,000 websites popular websites, including most of the top 100 sites, plus access to specialist sites for 30 hours per month in prime time or 60 hours per month off-peak.
Costa says it's important to offer a competing computer-model to that being offered by Virtual Communities.
"I've said all along that unions should be rewarded for the asset they bring to any venture of this type - their network of members," Costa says.
"This proposal will do that - it will now be up to members to decide which product they want to go with."
Unions will move a range of resolutions on issues including competitive tendering and use of government funds, following concerns about the way the Carr Government has been indirectly supporting assaults on workplace rights.
Dissatisfaction came to a head with revelations the Department for State and Regional development has funded a Stellar call centre in Wollongong that planned to force all staff to sign individual contracts.
The resolution calls on the Government, when considering funding support to business, to look beyond the potential employment opportunities that might arise and focus on the actual employment practices the firm brings to the state.
"One key obligation placed on any business receiving funding ... should be a requirement to apply industrial relations and employment practices consistent with the Government's philosophies and approach," it says.
In a similar vein, a resolution on competitive tendering seeks to build social and industrial impacts into any decision to tender government services out to the private sector.
This resolution follows growing dismay about the impact of competitive tendering on rural NSW. Transport Minister Carl Scully has already agreed to halt the push in road and rail maintenance.
The resolution states that competitive tendering should only be a policy of last resort, "after all other means of improving efficiency and productivity have been considered".
Under the proposal, tenders that receive a cost advantage by undermine established wages and conditions shall be excluded. The cost of external bids would also have a loading applied to
Other resolutions include:
- calls for an inquiry into mobile Long Service Leave for all workers
- maintaining the current levels of workers compensation benefits
- allowing trade union to levy a service fees for non-members who benefit from union negotiated pay rises
- support for a comprehensive workers entitlements protection scheme
- privacy protection for the use of workplace emails.
by Dermot Browne
The CPSU submission to the Telecommunications Service Inquiry is based on the experiences of hundreds of Telstra staff including call centre employees, IT specialists, engineers, researchers and administrators. It paints a worrying picture of a low morale / high stress workforce bullied into putting profit before people.
Stephen Jones, Assistant Sectretary of CPSU Communications Section, says, "The story in our submission is not a pretty story and is not a happy one. It shows Telstra staff are regularly disciplined for putting the customer before sales targets. Sick leave is queried as a matter of course.
"There are strictly enforced time limits on handling calls which mean staff are often forced to 'flick' troublesome or unprofitable calls by transferring the customer or hanging up. In one call centre, staff even have to raise their hand to go to the toilet."
One Telstra call-centre employee reckons staff spends too much of their day saying sorry. Complaints to Telstra have grown rapidly in recent years, yet people are increasing under pressure to get rid of 'whingeing' customers.
"I'm less likely to spend enough time with a problem customer who has queries ...because there's not much in it for me, nor Telstra I would suggest."
Another Telstra employee said, "We have statistical targets that we're obliged to meet. You always have in the back of your mind - hey, look, okay, I've got this amount of time to deal with this person or I'll blow out my average handling time, and it does detract from what we're able to do for people."
This problem particularly impacts on "low spend" customers like pensioners, who are regularly refused extensions on bill payments because of their low rate of telephone use.
The CPSU says the rapid decline in service standards was directly due to massive staff losses the corporation has endured since preparing for part-privatisation. And while there were also other issues at play, the simple fact was that there were no longer enough people on the ground to do the job properly
And who's to blame for this?
A recent staff survey, conducted by Telstra, showed that a mind-blowing 67 per cent of staff said they didn't have faith in senior management.
As an immediate step to turn this problem around, the CPSU is calling on Telstra and the Government to call off the 10,000 proposed job cuts announced earlier this year.
"Telstra workers are battling to do their best by the customer, against all odds. The casualty, of course, is customer service. An alarming number of employees say Australians just are not getting what they pay for and have a right to expect. What we need is more staff, not less," said Stephen Jones.
The CPSU submission can be found at
http://www.cpsu.org/submissions/telsub.zip. (zipped Word 97 file)
The decision, announced the same day 20,000 Sydney workers rallied outside their offices, marks another rebuff for Reith's deregulatory industrial relations agenda.
They heard testimony from workers in the finance, transport and entertainment industries, as well as building workers, about the impact of the Reith proposals.
While Reith argued the laws were necessary to quell a militant campaign in the Victorian building and manufacturing industries, the wider impact of the laws is believed to have swayed the Democrats.
ACTU President Sharan Burrow welcomed the Democrats decision as a victory for fair-minded Australia and the defeat of biased laws from a biased Minister.
"Working women and men will thank the Democrats and the Labor Party for blocking these laws," Burrow says. "They have again ensured that working Australians will not be subjected to Mr Reith's partisan and ideological agenda."
Burrow commended the Democrats for ensuring that working people were given a fair hearing over their concerns, despite the tight timetable for the inquiry process.
"Democrats have listened to working people and acted to protect their interest. We thank them for that," she said.
Labor industrial relations spokesman Arch Bevis says the Bill joins the growing list of Reith's failed industrial relations laws.
"On his current batting average you'd have to question whether he deserves his place in the side," Bevis says.
by Rowan Cahill
On Saturday a NSW Supreme Court subpoena was served on the President of the Wollongong University Student Representative Council (SRC) seeking SRC records pertaining to the Joy dispute, including mobile phone records and the names and addresses of all SRC officers.
This campus episode is yet another chapter in a bitter industrial dispute over wages and conditions in which 70 workers have been locked-out of their Moss Vale worksite since April 14 courtesy of Peter Reith's federal industrial laws.
It is believed the Company is disturbed by the extent of public support for the locked-out Moss Vale Joy workers.
Of particular concern are the protests and acts of civil disobedience that have taken place at Wollongong worksites allegedly carrying out work usually done by these workers.
All anti-Joy protests are videotaped and photographed by Joy operatives. Attempts have been made to subpoena the films and records of locked-out workers in an effort to prevent solidarity actions.
While students have been amongst anti-Joy protesters, it will be up to legal processes to determine whether they have participated as part of an organisation or simply as citizens exercising what they believe are democratic rights.
In what can only be seen as a bizarre 'fishing expedition', Joy apparently hopes the subpoena will lead to an injunction against the SRC, and the future absence of all Wollongong University students from anti-Joy activities.
The cast of individuals and organisations the Joy Company has restrained, or is seeking to restrain, from supporting the locked-out workers is threatening to become bigger than Ben Hur.
Injunctions have been obtained against the AMWU, the AWU, the CEPU, and the secretary of the South Coast Labour Council. A number of individuals are believed to be in the process of being targeted.
As one commentator wryly put it, soon Joy will have injunctions out against the whole Wollongong and Highlands telephone directories.
A source close to the Company has claimed that Joy management expected the locked out workers to cave in after a couple of weeks of being locked-out. With workers' families and dependents in a sort of hostage relationship with the Company, the workers would be forced to yield to Company demands.
But that did not happen and as the dispute widened, so too did public attention and interest.
What started out on the semi-rural backblocks of Moss Vale is now gaining national attention. This has led to an element of frustration in Joy's tactical thinking.
The Saturday subpoena visit to the student leader follows another Wollongong protest against the Company. Like all previous protests this attracted a great deal of media interest.
Last Friday about 60 people rallied outside the Joy subsidiary Cram Australia, in Unanderra, yet another site believed to be carrying out work usually done by the locked-out Moss Vale workers.
Federal Opposition industrial relations spokesman Arch Bevis addressed the rally. He said the first priority of a Labor Government would be to get rid of Peter Reith's unfair laws and restore workers' rights.
"We will ensure the Industrial Relations Commission has the authority to deal with matters when they get out of hand and we will make sure that parties negotiate so there will be no more lock-outs like this".
The bank estimates 70 per cent of branches are closed - the Finance Sector Union estimates it could be even more.
"Commonwealth Bank staff are so outraged at the way they and their customers are being treated they feel they have no choice but to strike", Peter Riordan of the Finance Sector Union said.
"CBA Staff sincerely regret that their customers will be inconvenienced. However, they're hoping most customers will agree the severe staff shortages can't go on. After all, customers are the ones forced to stand in long queues and pay higher fees for less personal service, and they're getting increasingly angry and abusive at staff who aren't to blame", Mr Riordan said.
The difficult decision to strike follows a breakdown in Enterprise Bargaining Negotiations between the Finance Sector Union and the Commonwealth Bank.
"We've given the CBA five months and 43 meetings to address the staffing situation and it simply refuses to. To top that off the Bank has offered staff an insulting 2% per year pay rise and a risky performance payment scheme that will drive down wages".
"The CBA's staff are responsible for profits of more than $2 billion dollars in the past eighteen months, yet the Bank is determined to pay them the least of any other major bank".
"Everyone is getting a fair share except staff and customers. Two days ago CBA's Executives made millions from their stock options, last year shareholders received a substantial dividend increase, the CBA Managing Director got a pay rise of 33.5% and the CBA Directors' fees are rising by 50%. All staff want is a 6.5% per year pay rise to keep them level with other banks".
"We hope this action will be enough to convince the Bank how wrong its treatment of staff and customers is. If not, more industrial action is likely", Peter Riordan said.
More than 250 university union employees stopped work at lunch time Tuesday over the decision, which would lead to the immediate loss of 30 jobs.
The workers, members of the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, have voted for rolling stoppages until a proper consultative committee is established between the union, management and board representatives.
They have also started collecting support from students and academics on campus and have obtained more than 2,000 signatures for a petition.
University management have now filed a dispute in the NSW Industrial Relations Commission, with a report back scheduled for June 23.
LHMU organizer Sophie Cotsis says the outsourcing issue has long-term ramifications for UNSW students, who face cuts to services and increased prices by a private operator.
The union is organizing a rally for mid-July when students return from semester breaks.
by Phil Davey
The dangers of asbestos have been well known for nearly 30 years, but in spite of this the industry continues to be plagued by cowboy operators who ignore their workers safety.
Stories have come to light in recent weeks of workers being recruited out of pubs and removing asbestos with their bare hands for $100 cash a day.
A child care centre in Revesby was enveloped in asbestos dust three weeks ago from illegal immigrant labor throwing asbestos sheeting from a fourth floor roof onto concrete.
Over 50 CFMEU members were exposed to asbestos over 6 months at Parramatta, due to an inaccurate safety audit being undertaken before work commenced.
The Cambodian community, which dominates in asbestos removal, is particularly vulnerable. Poor English language skills, a strong work ethic and a lack of knowledge of Ausrtalian law relating to occupational health and safety combine to place this community at particular risk from dodgy employers.
In the weeks ahead the CFMEU will utilise interpreters in community meetings with the Cambodian community to drive the message home that they no longer have to tolerate daily risks to their health.
The CFMEU is promising extreme punishment for employers caught exploiting vulnerable migrant labour.
Workers for waste contractors - responsible for the bulk of industrial, residential and clinical waste removal have voted to hold the stoppage next Wednesday.
Transport Worker's Union Delegates from the Waste Industry across NSW met this week over the continued failure of the industry to take their health and safety concerns seriously.
"Our members in the waste industry across NSW have had enough of their employer's and bureaucrats in the NSW Department of Health, Waste Services and the local Government Association refusing to take their concerns seriously and act to protect their health and safety," Transport Worker's Union State Secretary Tony Sheldon says.
For over six months the industry has been promising the introduction of proper practices and procedures for the disposal of clinical and domestic waste to ensure our members are not at risk of needle stick injuries or exposure to blood, bodily fluids and other forms of contaminated waste.
"The industry expects us to keep waiting until they get around to it, and for waste industry workers and their families across NSW, both union and non-union members, to continue to accept the risk of serious injury and the possibility of life threatening infection."
In the most recent case of a needle stick injury that has come to the attention of the TWU a member and his family has been torn apart by the injury and the risk of serious infection.
by Andrew Casey
Mr Fennamore from Laidley - west of Brisbane - had been battling to get four years back pay for underpayments when he asked his union to step in and help.
" The $100,000 is like a lottery windfall, except Stephen Fennamore had earned this money and it had been taken out of his pocket by the boss, LHMU Queensland research officer, John Martin, said today.
The Brisbane case is an important win for the union.
" This is an industry where members often work in isolation, records can be hard to obtain so there is a constant battle to ensure people are paid correctly.
" Enforcing award compliance in the security industry is not an easy affair," John Martin said.
Thomas Ronald Sugden, a director of WASP Security Services Pty Ltd was found guilty of failing to pay wages due under the Security Industry ( Contractors) [State] Award.
Sugden was fined $2,500 plus court costs and ordered to pay $99,341.28 backpay for an underpayment which occurred between May 1995 and 1999.
" As far as our union has been able to determine this is a record for an individual underpayment claim in Queensland and represents almost $25,000 a year for four years."
The Society invites entries based on an aspect of Australian labour history in the form of a short story, essay, or preformance piece.
The closing date for entries this year is 1 September 2000.
For entry forms and conditions of entry contact any of the following:
Janis Bailey mailto:[email protected]
Andrew Gill (ph) 08 9379 8899
Patrick Bertola mailto:[email protected]
Or the Secretary, ASSLH (Perth Branch), PO Box 8351 Perth Business Centre, WA 6849
VTH's special guest will be Labor Council Assistant Secretary John "Robbo" Robertson.
Robbo fresh from battling it out on the conference floor will answer any questions that may be poised.
For more information contact Paul Howes at mailto:[email protected]
My daughter until two weeks ago was employed as a casual at Australia Post. She had no idea how long she'd be employed for.
It appears a pattern is emerging with employment agencies and employers of Casual Workers She worked there and at three months employment was told she had to leave. On the Monday morning a new employee started.
It appears that there is a huge turnover of young casual workers going through the doors of Australia Post and others Companies and interestingly getting retrenched after three months.
If they are employed after three months the employee then starts to have rights.
An investigation may be warranted in regards to Employment Agencies who are sending these young people to places like Australia Post knowing full well if that employee loses their job there is someone else ready to move in.
I have advised my daughter not to accept Casual Employment until she has more rights.
K. Lucas
HANOVER, Germany (ej) - Germany's first world fair, Expo 2000, opened June 1st to Latin American music from Brazil and chanting from anti-capitalist campaigners. The Expo grounds, almost as big as an average town, filled quickly with visitors, most of whom had not paid US-$57, nearly double the standard price of US-$33, for the experience. Owing to subdued public interest in the event, Expo organizers have admitted giving free entry to over 38,000 local schoolchildren and 6,000 Expo building workers as well as an unknown amount of local and international VIPs trying to boost attendance on the first day to more than 100,000.
Just as German President Johannes Rau cut the ribbon for the public opening of the five-month burlesque in the northern city of Hanover, as well as during the opening speech by German Prime Minister Schroeder, a larger amount of left-wing demonstrators began chanting "Expo No" beyond perimeter fences.
Expo 2000, which is expected by local sources of the left Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) to lose around US-$290 million or more, has been dogged by controversy ever since it was conceived to showcase the "new" Germany born out of unification a decade ago. Host city Hanover has a long record of rebel action and even violence by unsatisfied young people, based on a strong left subculture in the capital of Lower Saxony.
Police herded protesters away but there were no arrests on Expo ground. Not all German and foreign dignitaries ignored the chanting, even local union and church leaders belong to the faction of Expo opponents.
Outside, Expo opponents flung burning tires on to the main Hanover-Hamburg railway line, halting trains for half an hour. Blockades on streets, leading to the Expo grounds, lasted over one hour.
The protesters see the fair as a "neoliberal" glorification of capitalism with its pavilions and exhibits from over 170 nations and international organizations and share their critics with the protesters at Washington and Seattle a few months ago.
"This a waste of public money to spend it on VIPs and big business and on a Disney Land of
Police forces from all over Germany are concentrated at Hanover. They had searched a camp of peaceful anti-Expo activists, known by its inhabitants as part of the FAUST complex, an alternative center of culture and events on the day before Expo opening but made no arrests and declined to comment on a newspaper report that they had seized Molotov cocktails. The protesters affirmed this to be untruth: "This action had been organized to discredit peoples action in the public".
At the early evening of June 1st police herded more than 450 protesters after a peaceful manifestation away. All of them were arrested and taken into small mass cages at Hanover central police headquarters for over 12 hours. Most of them had been forced afterwards to leave Hanover and will be object of a trial by court.
On Saturday, June 1st, young Expo opponents called to celebrate a "Reclaim the Streets-Party" on the streets of Hanover City. But even dancing on the streets was forbidden and brutally interrupted by police violence.
Expo chief Birgit Breuel said in her opening speech: "The Expo has been made by people for people, our guests. It's not virtual. It's there to touch." But subdued public interest in the extravaganza touches only workers and clerks on Expo ground, a lot of them lost their jobs only 5 days after Expo start. Only 15 % of the visitors awaited by the Expo organizers had really shown interest to enter the grounds.
(US-$1-2.088 Mark)
Ekkehard Jaenicke, Hannover / Berlin
(All about the anti-Expo protests in German language: www.expo-calypse.de)
-----
Dear Sir,
What an appropriate headline, for the well written article on childcare Workers, and the safety of our children in their care, by Rachael Morris" Daily Telegraph"
While the intent of this legislation is admirable , it is unfortunate that - this legislation will provide just that, a screen from which behind, we can all pretend we have ensured the safety of our children from the harm that is lurking in all the dark and shrouded little corners of our perverted and sick society.
If one would care to examine the statistics in child abuse and molestation, it is not the abusers or molesters that have been previously apprehended and punished that repeat the offence from positions of authority. It is the cunning deviates, who like germ ridden cockroaches, only come out of their filthy nests under the cloak of darkness, that darkness being our own deliberate domestic blindness.
A blindness which we are fearful to confront.
Fearful to confront, because of our own fears, perchance we find ourselves looking into a mirror and are terrified to lock horns with our own conflicting thoughts. Fearful to acknowledge our own humanity and doubtful of our ability to live up to our Christian/Cultural values. This legislation, through omission, is an absolute disgrace to a caring and thoughtful community, and reflects a sad lack in our ability to honestly battle with the evil in society, relying on the sacrifice of the occasional perpetrator of perversion and abuse upon our children.
It is imperative that childcare centers, schools, sporting centers, in fact anywhere that children could possibly be vulnerable, be under continual surveillance. This idea is not some novelty, it has been used extensively in Europe, Canada, U.S.A. and in some other states of Australia. It is inexpensive compared to the costs of investigations and court cases instigated long after the offence, due to young children waiting years before gaining the confidence to make a complaint.
This "smoke screen" legislation introduced by the New South Wales government only works after the horse has bolted.
But even the most determined pervert or child abuser will be reluctant to perform their evil activities under eye of the ever-present security cameras, be they monitored by humans or connected to video recorders/internet services.
Safety Screen... No! No! No! More like a SMOKE SCREEN!
This legislation has not gone far enough!
Security Cameras for Child Safety will work.
Tom Collins
Letters to the Editor
Child Care Laws Should Go Further
by Peter Lewis
Could you first outline the concept behind Country Labor?
Country Labor was announced at last year's State Conference but it is a process that has been around for quite some time. The ALP's Rural Policy Committee for a long time has been working towards that sort or a situation and a number of those members have been working very hard to try and get a high focus within the Party of country issues. In addition to that, at the last State election Harry Woods ran a series of ads throughout country NSW that ran under the banner of the Country Labor theme and they were very, very successful. The National Party obviously objected to them quite substantially and to be able to continue to run those, we needed to be sure that we could use the name electorally. So, for that reason it needed to be formalised under the Electoral Act so that we could continue to run under that banner in country areas.
So to some degree it is a new idea, but to some extent it is also a very old idea. The Labor Party was formed in country NSW and country Queensland with the union movements. The very first election that was ever contested in NSW by the Labor Party won just over 30 seats anyway and 19 of those were in non-metropolitan areas - they were in country areas. So the majority of the seats that the Labor Party won at its very first election were actually in country areas. At the last State election, despite the protestations of the National Party that they are the country party - at the last State election country members of the Labor Party won a significant number of seats - and they are now the representatives of seats that cover 38.24% of the geographical area of country NSW. The National Party only cover 32%.
Is it just a branding exercise? Do you have any sense of autonomy within the Party Room - the Caucus Room?
Not within the Caucus Room. What we do do, is we meet on a regular basis as the the Party group of Country Labor. The old Rural Policy Committee is now called the Country Labor Policy Committee and they do what they have always done - develop policy for rural and regional issues. We have got to make sure that we do not fall into the trap of thinking that outside of Sydney/Newcastle/Wollongong that there is only farmers. There is only 42,000 farmers in the State. The rest of the million or so people outside of that area live in urban situations and they have specific problems.
So, we meet on a regular basis - on a weekly basis - and discuss particular issues. For example, high on the agenda now is the issue of dairy deregulation and we have obviously a very close relationship with the Minister for Agriculture - and he takes a lot of notice of what we do.
Probably one of the more significant benefits of Country Labor is the way the public service think of country issues these days. In the past they seemed to be only interested in what a particular Minister would say or they would give a cursory glance as to what the Opposition might say. The feedback that I'm getting is that they now look to what Country Labor says as well. So what we have been able to do is raise the profile of country issues, not just within the Party but within the public service and within the media, and I think that is a great thing for country people.
Have you got specific issues that you are taking to the State Conference this weekend?
Well, the Country Labor Policy Committee will be taking specific issues which they do every year and that flows through deom the Country Labor Conference, which is the old Rural Conference, so that is the same as it has always been. What we have also been able to do as a parliamentary group is to get a number of specific initiatives through the Government in the last year and through Budget process, that have significantly changed the situation for country people - or stopped proposed changes that would have affected their areas.
For example, we are at the lead of making sure that compulsory competitive tendering for local government - for RTA works for local government - didn't come in. Now whilst the National Party might have jumped up on trucks out the front of Parliament and had no show of changing anything, we worked with Bob Carr and the Minister with the eventual result that we were able to get the Minister to change his mind and the Government to change its mind - and that was acknowledged by the unions at the time because they knew what we were doing behind the scenes.
In addition to that, there is significant funding that the Government has given for West 2000, for Peter Black's area - Western Division. Significant increases in expenditure opening new railway lines in country areas which is completely the opposite to what the Coalition Government, the National Party Government, did back in their time. They were closing down railway lines. This government has opened them up. The increase in the Health Budget has been significant. Again, acknowledged by the Minister is the support of the Country Labor group. Farm safety issues were also given priority in this current State budget. So there are quite a number of things that we have been able to achieve in the last 12 months, and we are obviously working on quite a lot of other matters.
What actually happens now is that a lot of these lobby groups or interest groups come direct to us rather than to the Opposition when they have a problem, because they see the Opposition as irrelevant.
If it is such a good idea why has the Victorian Government and the Federal Government baulked at it?
Well, I was actually out with Kim Beazley at Hillston and Narrandera and Leeton and Griffith a couple of weeks ago when Kim Beazley announced that he was going to embrace the idea and he did, and we have done and now the Party has been registered federally - or lodged for registration federally - a couple of weeks ago, subsequent to Kim Beazley's announcement.
But each State is a bit different. For example, I have had discussions with the Tasmanian branch of the Party and other States as well, and Queensland, for example, their politics is more regional. Northern Queenslanders think of themselves quite significantly different perhaps the country people in the southern areas of Queensland. So the appropriate thing up there might be more of a regional grouping. To some degree they are more like the Murray, the Hunter and the Illawarra and Western Sydney. They are groupings of Members of Parliament and Party Members that have been around for a long time.
So, it is different in each State.
But Steve Bracks has knocked it back hasn't he?
I'm not aware that he has knocked it back. He just hasn't embraced it yet. But again, in Victoria their population and geographical locations are different to NSW. They are a more compact State and larger concentrations of people in places like Geelong and Bendigo and places like that, rather than in smaller country towns. They probably don't appreciate the gains that we have made for rural NSW, but I know they still keep a good eye on it.
Also I suppose one of the other major achievements is the fact that the National Party is completely on the run over Country Labor. They attack us now in every speech. Every time they open their mouth, every newsletter they put out on their Website, if you visit their Website, they attack us. They attack Country Labor, obviously for only one reason. It is because think we are being successful in taking some of their ground. I am aware that at their Conference there are going to be moves again to try to split the National Party or to re-name it to try to counter the strength of that Country Labor grouping in NSW.
What about the relationship with the union movement? There's several unions active within the regions. Is that something that Country Labor is looking to develop as well?
Well, we have always had a strong relationship with the union movement. One of the great things I think about Country Labor grouping so far, is there doesn't seem to be factionalisation that appears to be in the city. Our Parliamentary group has members from all factions and non-aligned people, and consequently our union involvement is the same. There doesn't seem to be a "them" and "us". We are working together on issues with left and right unions and our group all seem to work together for a common issue. I suppose that is the way country people work. They don't get involved too much in factional groupings. They just want to get the result.
But certainly - I don't want to name unions - but particularly the CFMEU and AWU and MEU are ones that are sort of really close linked with us. And those unions are actually providing resources for us in the country areas. They have actually got offices and so forth that we work out of.
Let's get down to the nitty-gritty of policy. Where do the fault lines between Country Labor and the National Party lie?
Well, I suppose what has happened is that the National Party is not the old Country Party. The old Country Party used to be to a large degree closely aligned to the Labor Party, in that it had agrarian socialist policies. And the National Party has moved towards the Liberal Party in their national competition policy at any cost. Let the market solve the problem. And that's evident with dairy deregulation. The National Party aren't coming out there trying to re-regulate or trying to have some regulation. They are happy to see the dairy industry deregulated and they are trying to deflect onto the State Government some of the blame for that because they are not game to embrace the issue that their old Country Party would have years ago.
And I suppose that is probably a significant difference. I would see that the Country Labor group is the Labor Party and therefore we have heart. We still have social issues as our main thrust - you know, all those Labor Party issues, whereas the National Party, or the majority of the National Party, seems to be a bit of a split these days. The majority of the National Party and their Executive and their leadership seem to be very free market oriented at present and by doing that their support is crumbling away.
So we are starting to get a lot of support - it quite surprises us the votes that are actually coming across to the Labor Party. Small rural areas where you have just a tin corrugated iron hall. There's nothing around it except farms. The Labor Party is getting 22 votes out of 70 and 80 now, and they can only be farmers.
Just on the economics though, you seem to be talking about opposing globalisation, or whatever globalisation is. Are you about running almost a One Nation anti-change agenda?
No, there is a significant difference between us and One Nation. Obviously One Nation have tried to appeal to country people, but their policies are probably market driven as well. And their social attitudes are hard line right wing - where we would be much more middle of the road.
On the economic issues, obviously they are particularly against national competition policy. I don't think there would be any person that would be in the Country Labor grouping - whether they would be in the parliamentary group or one of the five or six thousand members that we have in country areas of the ALP - I don't think any of them would support national competition policies because there is just not the number of people in the bush to benefit from it. Competition policy might work within some areas where there is a big concentration of people and there is a great market. But in rural areas there needs to be cost subsidisation.
Had national competition policy been around when Captain Cook arrived in Australia there would be no power lines the other side of the Blue Mountains. There would be no roads in country areas. There would be no rail lines in country areas. And that is the significant difference between us and the Nats and the Libs.
By the same token, is there discussion within your groupings about how to harness the benefits of the opening of the Australian economy for regional and rural areas
There is certainly a lot of that discussion going on. For example we've been talking to some people who live up the North Coast and are heavily involved in the movie industry. They are investigating ways they can work from home rather than move back to Sydney each time they want to get involved writing scripts. Certainly that is going to help rural areas and that needs to be developed, but really the globalisation issue has hurt country people a lot more than it has helped them.
And maybe, and I'm not an economist - but I'd argue the fact that there really doesn't seem to be any great benefits coming from this free trade agenda. As example is the treatment of cheap apples, it's allowed supermarkets and groups to get a monopoly. Now 70% of our produce is now sold through supermarkets - two or three supermarkets - and they seem to be able to dictate the price they pay for apples and for oranges and so forth. So if it's not them then the globalisation argument comes in and you've got citrus coming in from Brazil.
But what can a State Government do about that?
They are all Federal issues. We have to constantly argue that the Federal Government should do something about it. Because of our Constitution and free trade across borders, a lot of those issues have got to be addressed by the Federal Government.
So, you would be pushing for a winding back of free trade if Labor came into power federally?
Well, we'd certainly be trying to address the problems that are brought about by free trade. For example, the dumping of citrus in Australia. The way for example, the supermarkets are paying the growers 30 cents a kilo for their apples when the cost of production is a dollar. The way the milk processors are now offering 27 cents a litre for milk where they were paying 54 cents only a few weeks ago. Those sorts of things need to be seriously addressed.
On the other side is social policy - and the country people have always had a stereotype of being more conservative than the urban elites. How do you bridge that gap in what it means to be a Labor person?
I think that is perhaps a concept that people have. I don't think it's ever been real. I think to a large degree country people are perhaps Green - they are conservationists. I think they are very socialistic in their attitudes to a large degree. It is just that the National Party for a number of years were allowed to take the agenda and make country people look like rednecks.
If you look at Labor country councils for example, in the Labor Party one country council I know down the MIA the Labor Party followers had seven of the nine councillors. Most very strong Labor council groupings in the metropolitan area of Sydney would love to have that sort of number. So it's quite surprising. There are a lot of country areas that still vote a majority, first preference for the Labor Party - very strongly so. And you see when there is a change - particularly if a National Party member might stand- quite often there can be dramatic changes in the voting patterns.
Cowra, for example at the last State election went from 30% Labor vote to in excess of 50% of the Labor vote, just in one election, purely because that town was redistributed out of where their long standing member used to represent them, even though there was a National Party member in both seats.
Finally, the history of Coalition in Australia has been one of the city Conservatives and the country Conservatives, or the Country Party joining up to form government. Can you see a time in the future where there may be different sorts of coalitions forming and that Country Labor people are actually deciding which government is in power?
No. Because the Country Labor group of the Australian Labor Party is, and will always be, part of the Australian Labor Party. It can't be anything else. It can't be another DLP, it can't swap its votes around, and none of us would want that anyway because our strength comes from the most powerful political party in Australia and being the oldest political party and I think the most successful political party in the world is without doubt the Australian Labor Party, and to that extent the NSW Branch of the Australian Labor Party. So, for anybody to even consider leaving that and thinking they can get more say somewhere else would have to be living in fairyland. Our strength will always be the fact that we can go into Caucus and we can debate our issues there right where all the decisions are made, and if we have got a good enough argument they will come with us and they will all walk in and support us when we go into parliament.
by Russell Lansbury
In this article he focuses on the type of employment relations needed to meet the challenges of the next millenium, and to promote equity and efficiency in the workplace.
Social Equity in the Workplace
Australia is a nation which is increasingly divided at the workplace. The division is not only between the well-paid and the low-paid, but also between a diminishing number of workers who are in secure, career-oriented jobs and the increasing number of casual and part-time workers whose jobs are often precarious. According to the OECD, Australia has one of the highest rates of 'involuntary' part-time employment among its member nations. Almost one third of part-time workers would like to work more hours, according to surveys by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Yet the number of persons holding more than one job has almost doubled in the past decade. This means that many people are working in multiple part-time jobs in order to make ends meet, while others have no paid work at all. Furthermore, almost half a million workers are classified as 'full-time casual' and have no access to 'community standard' employment conditions such as annual leave, sick leave and long-service leave.
Another division, not unrelated to the emergence of 'secure' versus 'marginal' workers, is between the 'over-worked' and the 'out-of-work'. A growing number of Australians are working excessively long hours, often including unpaid overtime, while others have no work at all. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, almost 40 per cent of the workforce worked an average of 49 or more hours per week last year, compared with only 28 per cent a decade ago. This places Australia among countries with the highest average working hours in the advanced industrialised world. The longest hours are being worked by the lowest and highest paid members of the workforce, often for different reasons, but resulting in similar levels of stress which are reflected not only in problems within he workplace but also in the home and community.
Income Inequality
A major source of division at work in Australia remains income inequality. Professor Bob Gregory at the ANU, a former board member of the Reserve Bank, has described the 'hollowing-out' of the labour market which has been occurring since the mid 1970s. According to Gregory's analysis, employment growth over the past 25 years has been strongly concentrated at the top and bottom ends of the earning distribution. During this period, one in three full-time jobs held by males in the middle 60 per cent of the earnings distribution were lost, relative to the growth in the Australian population. Gregory reports that 90 per cent of all new jobs in the past 25 years were to the either end of the earnings spectrum. The phenomenon of the 'vanishing middle', he argues, became even more pronounced in the 1990s. This means that many former middle class workers 'skidded down' into the low wage sector of the labour market, while many of the old working class slipped into unemployment.
Fragmenting Flexibility
Many of the labour market reforms which have been introduced in recent years, not only by the current government but also by previous ones, have contributed to the widening income gap on the grounds that this would improve flexibility and productivity. Certainly it can be argued that the previous industrial relations system was over centralised but have we really achieved a better outcome? During the latter part of the 1980s we moved from a system which has been described as 'managed decentralism' to one which might be described as 'coordinated flexibility'. The Australian Industrial Relations Act was amended to strengthen employment protection and to broaden the range of minimum entitlements to workers. Enterprise bargaining was extended during the early 1990s but a major role was maintained for the Industrial Relations Commission.
Now, at the end of the 1990s, we are moving towards a system of 'fragmented flexibility' with more decentralised, less regulated approach in which the role of labour market institutions has been further eroded. A small number of workers who have strong bargaining power through their unions are likely to do well in such a system but increasing numbers of workers will have to rely on diminishing safety net wage rises through the Industrial Relations Commission. This is likely to exacerbate the wages gap in the labour market. This is essentially taking us down the US path of low minimum wages and less social security which will lead to greater inequality in the workplace. The solution lies not in a return to the past, when high wages were achieved behind high tariff protection, but a better balance between equity and efficiency, achieved by a combination of strong social and economic institutions with high performance workplaces.
Efficiency in the Workplace
We are entering the twenty first century working longer hours under more unequal terms and conditions, but are we working smarter? While there are many ways in which our national performance could be improved, it is important to emphasise our strengths. A recent report by the World Economic Forum in Switzerland ranked Australia twelfth in terms of international competitiveness, ahead of countries such as Japan, Britain and several European economies. The Report emphasised Australia's ability to sustain high rates of growth in GDP per capital over the past decade, the general high quality of education and skills and increasing openness of the economy. However, there is no room for complacency. Investment in both higher education and vocational training has been falling in recent years, at the very time when a 'knowledge-based' economy is most needed. Recent ABS data indicate that there has been a sharp decline in the number of employers providing structured training in key industries - including manufacturing, construction, finance and mining. Traditional trade-based apprenticeships are at a five year low, with new training arrangements insufficient to replace those leaving the workforce. Many private sector and government organisations which previously trained and retained their own skilled tradespeople no longer do so. This raises the spectre of skills shortages for the long-term development of the nation.
The importance of knowledge and skills in a global economy has been emphasised by Robert Reich, former Secretary of State for Labor in the Clinton administration, in his book The Work of nations: Preparing Ourselves for Twenty-First Century Capitalism he argued that the primary assets of a nation are 'the skills and insights of its citizens'. Reich castigated American industry for failing to renew the nation's most valuable resource: its skills and intellectual capital. Yet if the US performance is lacking in this area, Australia's record is abysmal - and the US is soaking up the world's meagre supply of skilled people in new and growing areas such as information technology.
The US experience is instructive because leading thinkers and reformers have highlighted investment in skills and knowledge development combined with employee involvement in work reform as key elements in building greater efficiency and competitiveness. There are issues which were highlighted in the report Make or Break written by the Economist Intelligence Unit for the MTIA in 1997. This Report stressed the need for Australia to develop a strong industry policy which could achieve a balance between social and industry objectives. It criticised our failure to create full-time jobs, our loss of skills in research and development functions and our poorly balanced economy.
Poor Communication
These findings echoed the Australian Manufacturing Councils report on The Global Challenge: Australian manufacturing in the 1990s, which argued that Australian firms had been slow to adopt new systems of work design and production, that managers had not incorporated workers' ideas to improve productivity and quality and that they had not fostered worker commitment. The Karpin Report on Leadership Skills in Australia (1995) highlighted the lack of open-mindedness and rigidity towards learning; deficiencies in team work and empowerment of the workforce; inability to cope with differences; and poor people skills. Finally, the 1997 Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey highlighted the failure of managers to consult their employees at a time of momentous change in the workplace, despite the existence of formal mechanisms to do so.
Surveys of enterprise agreements have also shown that although they are required to include provisions dealing with consultative arrangements, these procedures are frequently ignored. Yet unless management is able and willing to engage the full potential of the workforce, and forge ahead with work reform, Australian industry will not achieve sustained world class performance.
Most workers, whether they are engaged in process work or the highest levels of R & D, want not just a job which will provide them with an adequate income but also one which gives a sense of fulfilment. Enlightened employers recognise that the combination of effective organisation of work and worker involvement are key sources of competitive advantage. Progressive unions realise that they need to meet not just their members' basic needs for decent wages and conditions but also engage their broader interests as well. It is noteworthy that the ACTU's recent report Unions@Work, which outlined at strategy for rebuilding unionism in Australia, emphasised not only the need to achieve better wages and safe, secure working life for their members but also sought to encourage active involvement in broader union activities. The Report noted that unions needed 'a flexible approach ... taking into account workplace culture and employee attitudes'. There is a growing understanding among both enlightened employers and unions that effective organisations must pay attention to the way in which workers' interests are engaged, as well as how their work is designed and performed. While there are a growing number of experiments with team work, employee involvement, total quality management and the like, the diffusion of these practices still remains uneven.
Building New Social Partnerships
A century ago, our founding fathers realised that the confrontation between labour and capital during the 1890s had been devastating for both sides and the way forward required a historic compromise. This was achieved through the establishment of what has become the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Unions at the end of the 1890s were in a parlous condition with only 6 per cent coverage of the workforce, having been undermined by wide-scale unemployment, a disastrous series of strikes and an effective employer offensive. Yet forward thinking representatives of capital realised the need to rebuild working relationships with labour, and unions rebuilt their strength during the first decade of the century.
In their World Labour Report, 1997-98, the International Labor Organisation warned that established systems of regulating employment within individual nations are being threatened by global economic forces, collective bargaining coverage is shrinking and legal protection afforded to workers by the state is shrinking. The ILO has argued that total deregulation of the labour market and the dismantling of institutions designed to harmonise or achieve some balance between the interests of labour and capital is likely to lead to social dislocation and ultimately undermine economic prosperity.
What is required, in the Australian context, is a new social partnership between employers, organised labour and government. This will recognise the need for labour market flexibility but will also preserve collective bargaining as a primary means of achieving agreements between the parties on the broad parameters of the employment relationship. In the context of a liberal democratic society, this is a preferred approach to either party having a monopoly of power or the government regulating all aspects of employment. It is also likely to be a more effective means of achieving high trust relationships between management and employees. It is also a prerequisite for maximising employees' commitment to high performance work-organisation which will achieve high quality and productivity. While greater decentralisation of bargaining may be highly desirable in some circumstances, a more co-ordinated approach at the industry or even national level may be more effective in other contexts.
Government can play an important role in providing mechanisms for co-ordination of bargaining, as well as means for settling disputes, but the decisions about whether to bargain at the enterprise or industry level should be left to the parties. Legislative changes should be the outcome of tripartite recognition and debate rather than the imposition of one parties views on the other. The stark alternative is between a return to the 1890s conflicts which left a legacy of bitterness and division or a more enlightened consensual approach which embraces the contributions and views of all interested parties to achieve both equity and efficiency.
This is an edited version of a paper by Professor Russell Lansbury, Work and Organisational Studies, School of Business, University of Sydney.
by Hansard, June 6, 2000
********************
As the advisers box is flooded with officials from the department and various agencies, I rise on behalf of the opposition to lead the debate in this House on the government's Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000. I indicate to the House that I have had prepared a second reading amendment which reflects the opposition's views at this point in the cycle. I am quite happy for that to be circulated in my name at the appropriate stage, and before the conclusion of my remarks I will formally move that amendment.
The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill arises from the government's framework legislation, which was enacted by the parliament in 1998. That legislation--the conversion to digital television legislation--set the framework for Australia's television broadcasting industry, both commercial free-to-air broadcasters and our national public broadcasters, to make the conversion from analog to digital. The short rationale for conversion to digital is that digital is inherently more efficient than analog in its use of the terrestrial spectrum and it potentially provides a far greater range of services for a consumer. Parliament agreed to the government's framework legislation almost exactly two years ago, in June 1998, and at that point in time the Labor opposition pursued two amendments to that legislation. One amendment was to reduce the government's proposed moratorium period for commercial free-to-air broadcasting licences by two years to 1 July 2007 and the second aspect of the Labor Party's thrust, in the course of the debate on the framework legislation, was to require a series of reviews to report back to the parliament rather than the government's then recommended model, which was a series of disallowable regulations.
As a result of those reviews the government made a series of policy decisions in late December last year and now seeks to effect those decisions with this legislation under the umbrella of the 1998 framework legislation. Without going into exhaustive detail, that framework established, as I have indicated, the moratorium period for commercial free-to-air broadcasting licences until 1 January 2007; it effected a loan of spectrum to commercial free-to-air broadcast licence holders to make the conversion to digital broadcasting, in particular higher definition digital television, HDTV; it required a simulcast analog and digital broadcast until 1 January 2009 and, on the expiration of analog broadcasting, the return of the analog spectrum to the Commonwealth; it envisaged a new provider of information services--datacasters--who were not to provide services which were broadcasting services; it ensured that commercial free-to-air broadcasting licence holders were not able to become subscription television industry players but provided that commercial free-to-air broadcasting licence holders could use some of the spectrum made available to them for the purposes of what is described in the legislation as `enhanced services', but not for multichannelling; and, depending upon your point of view, it left open the question or tilted the parliamentary lever in favour of whether the ABC and SBS, the two national public broadcasters, ought to be able to multichannel.
In the course of the various reviews, a range of these issues have been considered, in particular whether the definition of datacasting ought to be amended in any way--a definition of datacasting being contained in the 1998 digital conversion legislation and effectively defining a datacasting service as not being a broadcasting service--what the nature and extent of enhanced services should be and the issue I have referred to, the question of whether the ABC and SBS ought to be able to multichannel. The government announced some policy decisions in late December 1999. It was not quite as we anticipated with Richard. It was not quite Christmas Eve, but it was getting there. It was enough to disturb the Christmas Eve shopping nonetheless. On 21 December, the government, through the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, made a number of public policy announcements which this legislation seeks to effect. Amongst those was a decision by the government that it require that there be a broadcast of not just high definition TV but standard definition TV and that there be a simulcast requirement for high definition TV and standard definition TV. When you add to that simulcast requirement the requirement that analog continue to be broadcast or simulcast, you have in effect a triplecast. In response to that decision, on the same day, 21 December, I indicated on behalf of the opposition that, given that this decision was made on the grounds of accessibility and affordability for consumers, we would not oppose that part of the government's decision. The legislation which is before the House effects that public policy decision.
The second of the decisions was a detailed indication as to a definition of datacasting. The government indicated that that definition would be content based, that it would be based upon content or program distinctions. It also indicated some details as far as enhanced services were concerned but was silent on the question of whether the ABC and SBS would be able to multichannel, the decision in respect of the ABC and SBS not being announced until the legislation was presented. From memory, that was on 10 May, a couple of weeks ago.
I might digress from substance issues to the question of process and timetable. For the sake of industry certainty, it is obviously clearly desirable that this legislation be enacted by the parliament prior to the parliament rising for its winter recess on 29 June. Upon the introduction of the legislation into this place--it was introduced here together with the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Amendment Bill 2000--the Senate under its processes automatically referred the legislation to the relevant Senate legislation committee to conduct an inquiry and to report to the Senate on Thursday, 8 June. Public hearings were held by the Senate committee on Wednesday and Thursday last week. The Senate committee was prevailed upon by all of the usual suspects and some new ones to examine the effect of the government's legislation. The Senate committee, which has had the task of a detailed examination of the legislation before the House, will not report until Thursday. On that basis, the House will not have the advantage and the benefit of the Senate committee's report in advance of its own deliberations on this bill. On that basis, the opposition propose to make some general points but to reserve our right to make detailed amendments, if any, to be pursued at the Senate stage.
On the process and timetable point, it was expected by industry and the opposition that, having made the 21 December 1999 decisions, the government would introduce legislation when the parliament resumed after the Christmas break and as early as February or March this year. In any event, that did not occur, and the government has now left the parliament in the seriously difficult position of being required to deal with detailed and complex legislation on a short timetable. All my entreaties to the minister to provide me with a copy of the draft bill in advance of its tabling fell upon deaf ears. We are doing our best to ensure that we are in a position not to delay consideration of this legislation, but the process has been less than ideal and the second reading amendment, which I will formally move later, reflects that.
I will return to the major issues that I think the Senate committee will be seized of and what may well be the focus and some of the key issues in this place. It is unquestionably the case that the proposed datacasting model or definition by the government is much too restrictive. It is content based, not service based. The ABA is effectively given the job of determining on a program by program basis whether a particular `genre' of content--to use the expression adopted by the government--is datacasting or broadcasting. I make two comments in that respect, both of which I have previously made publicly. In my view, as soon as you attempt to introduce into Commonwealth statutes a distinction based on French language, you run into trouble immediately. I will give just one modest example. The government has put the ABA in a position where it may well have to determine the distinction between things which are informative and educative but not lightly entertaining. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is an obligation on my part to inform you and educate you, but I dare not lightly entertain you. There are many things in life that I might want, but being a member of the ABA and determining that distinction is not one of them!
The second grave risk as far as the government's proposed datacasting restrictions are concerned is that you run the risk of stifling a new information service before it has had a chance to flourish, that you essentially kill it at birth and that the regime that you propose for it is much too restrictive and, as a consequence, it will not get off the ground.
The third point regarding restrictions on datacasting--and this is made adroitly by the Productivity Commission and made in this place, to the embarrassment of the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party--is that it is clear that rural and regional Australia stand to suffer most as far as a restrictive definition of datacasting is concerned. As I indicated when the government made its initial policy announcement in December and consistently since then, on this side of the House we will be looking to a more general definition of datacasting, a definition of datacasting which more warmly embraces the future, which is not predicated on arcane distinctions and which might actually give a new information service industry the chance of flourishing.
As far as the ABC and SBS prohibition on multichannelling is concerned, on this side of the chamber we will pursue, here and in the Senate, the view that the national public broadcasters, the ABC and the SBS, ought not to be restricted from multichannelling. They do not come into direct competition with the commercial free-to-air broadcasters, they do not come into direct competition with the subscription broadcasting industry or the pay TV industry, but they perform essential public and national interest good, again particularly in rural and regional Australia. So the second reading amendment will reflect that the government's restriction on datacasting and the government's restriction on the ABC and SBS not being able to multichannel will do disproportionate harm to rural and regional Australia as those areas are deprived of what could be a flourishing new information industry and information services.
As far as enhanced services are concerned, there is a distinction in the legislation between multichannelling and enhanced services. The framework legislation is predicated on the basis that the commercial free-to-air broadcasting licence holders can engage in enhanced services but they cannot multichannel. When you look at the fine print between the government's announcement on 21 December and the legislation as introduced into the House, there are two areas which, on the surface, appear to take the boundary further out, as far as enhanced service is concerned. One is the overlap provision. The government's previously announced position indicated that overlap of a sporting program would be allowable if that abutted a scheduled news program--the six o'clock news being the obvious example. That definition of enhanced services will now apply if a sporting program abuts any scheduled program. The second provision is the notion of one sport, one venue--a new concept introduced into the legislation whereby, if the same sport is being played at the same venue, the enhanced service definition will apply. The obvious example there is the Australian Open or Wimbledon where you can have matches at the same venue - one on center court and one on one of the outer courts.
The fourth area where I think there will be a focus in the Senate committee and in this place is the abundance of reviews which the legislation suggests. Aficionados in this area may well recall that the 1998 legislation suggests a whole series of reviews which are already required by this parliament to be conducted. They are a series of reviews too many to commit to memory, so I am again indebted to Dr Pelling in the advisers box for providing me with a very neat summary which I will use for more than just today as an aide memoire. There are a series of reviews to be conducted before 31 December 2005--they arise out of the 1998 amendments--and a series of reviews proposed to have been conducted under this legislation before 1 January 2004. Those reviews, for example, go to a general review of the legislation, a review of the HDTV quota arrangements and a review of the datacasters' transmission licence holder licensing arrangements at the expiration of the free-to-air moratorium period on 1 January 2007.
As a general proposition, my own view is that all these reviews should be statutory, all these reviews should return to parliament and all these reviews should be timely, and some of them should be held sooner rather than later and earlier than currently suggested. There are also a couple of reviews which the government has suggested, either by way of press release or by way of second reading speech. The government, through the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, has indicated that at some point in the cycle it would be sensible or desirable for a review to be conducted in advance of the expiration of the free-to-air commercial broadcasters moratorium on 1 January 2007.
Given that there is a review suggested in the legislation for what consequences might flow to datacasting transmission licence holders at the expiration of that moratorium period, also having a review as to what general circumstances might apply at the expiration of the moratorium period might also be a sensible thing. So I think one can give serious consideration as to whether a review in advance of the expiration of the moratorium period would not be a sensible thing to do. That does run the risk that it opens it up to the argument that the moratorium period ought to be extended. This is not something I had in mind--just to calm the excitable listeners who may be taking note in this area.
The government has also suggested by way of a second reading speech given by the minister in this place that there be a review by the ABA of the question as to whether streaming video and audio is a broadcasting service or not, and it is suggested that this occur within the next 12 months or so. Again, because of the importance and relevance of that issue, it seems to me appropriate that that review be required to be a statutory review.
To summarise, I think there are four issues which need very serious attention in the Senate committee, in the Senate itself, in industry debate or in here. The first is the definition of datacasting and the too restrictive nature of that definition; secondly, the desirability of the ABC and SBS to be allowed to multichannel; thirdly, the question of enhanced services and whether the difference in the proposals between the government's policy announcement in December and now is significant and breaks the framework tone, which is that just as datacasters cannot be de facto broadcasters neither can enhanced services be de facto multichannelling; and, fourthly, the nature, extent and series of reviews. That is not to say that they are all the issues in play. Other issues have been discussed in the Senate committee and have been the subject of commentary in the various public submissions that have been made in respect of the legislation.
In addition to the usual array of HDTV versus SDTV, what the cost will be, what the take-up will be, how successful the triplecast will be and whether HDTV will ultimately be successful, and in addition to the datacasting definition, the question of enhanced services and the question of reviews, a range of interesting issues have been deliberated. One is the capacity of a datacaster to become effectively a one-click Internet service provider. When the government was giving consideration to its legislation, for one dreadful moment many of us thought the government would seek to impose the same content based restriction as it does on datacasters for the web site itself. The legislation envisages that a one-click entry by a datacaster customer to a web site will enable access to the web site. Fortunately, there is no great attempt at that same content distinction, if only on the basis that even the government by now would have learnt from its own online content legislation experience that that would be an impossible task.
There are two issues which will fall for consideration: firstly, the practical limitations that technically are placed on the capacity of people to have access to the Internet via a datacaster; and, secondly, whether or not a walled garden Internet site ought to be accessible via a datacaster. There is also the question of interoperability and standards, and the Senate committee hearings have seized on the question of whether the Dolby audio standard ought to be preferred to the MPEG standard. This is really one for the aficionados, but the question in public policy terms here is whether one adopts what is described as a proprietary standard or whether one adopts a platform which one might regard as being open and accessible. So attention needs to be given to that point.
A separate issue which has popped out of the legislation and has not previously been referred to in any great detail is the question of EPGs, electronic program guides. The open and accessible as compared to the closed, proprietary or restricted availability of electronic program guides will also fall for consideration.
The question of datacasting transmission licence holders has been the subject of commentary before the Senate committee. The legislation suggests that datacasting transmission licence holders will receive what is generally a standard 10 years plus five years option for a datacasting transmission licence under the Radiocommunications Act, or the Radcom Act. So one could envisage that, in 2000 or 2001, a person or a corporation may become the proud possessor, after a price allocated base system operated in the marketplace, of a 10 plus five year datacasting transmission licence.
The legislation envisages a review, in advance of the expiration of the moratorium period for free-to-air broadcasting commercial licences, of what regulatory and revenue arrangements might apply to that licence if it comes to pass that the datacasting transmission licence holder was in a position to transmit unencumbered or unrestricted broadcasting services content.
A restricted datacasting licence is inherently not as valuable as an unrestricted broadcasting service licence. In my view there is clearly a need to pay serious attention to what competitive and regulatory arrangements might apply if that were to occur and what revenue might flow to the Commonwealth by way of a betterment tax, for example, if that enhancement or uplift does take place. That issue needs to be the subject of serious consideration. A datacasting transmission licence holder, under this legislation, can only be effectively guaranteed 10 plus five years of transmitting restricted datacasting content, however. So this legislation ultimately restricts that. The parliament should reserve to itself the public policy questions of competition, egulation and revenue to the Commonwealth if there is to be an uplift to essentially a broadcasting services content transmission licence.
A separate issue, which I have referred to, is whether streaming audio and video is a broadcasting service. There is also a question for the national broadcasters--the ABC and SBS--as to whether they can use their own streaming audio as part of a datacasting service if indeed they use some of their spectrum to be datacasters. The legislation envisages that, if the commercial free-to-air broadcasters use some spare spectrum to engage in datacasting, they pay a fee. How that fee is raised, struck or determined has not yet been designated. The ABC and SBS argue that there is no point in them paying a fee for the same purposes, on the basis of their distinction as national public broadcasters. That seems to me, frankly, a sensible argument because, with the ABC and the SBS, what the Commonwealth wins on the merry-go-round it generally loses on the slide. So, as an in-principle starting point, I cannot see the sense in requiring the ABC and SBS to pay a fee if and when they engage in datacasting.
To bring these issues to a conclusion: community broadcasters are not dealt with by the legislation. Community broadcasters, in particular, will remember--even if the government does not--that the government made a commitment when it first announced its proposals to effect a transition or conversion to digital broadcasting that community broadcasters would be guaranteed spectrum to effect that. They are still waiting. As I understand the evidence given by the community broadcasters, they are still waiting to get a reply from the minister, let alone a substantive decision. So there is an issue as to how community broadcasters will be managed or governed in this process.
Captioning has been the subject of three ranges of comment: firstly, by regional broadcasters, who say that the standards might be a bit too tough for them; secondly, by people interested in captioning, who say that the standards do not go far enough; and, thirdly, by the closed captioning industry, who essentially say that these are good proposals and much better than the current analog requirements. So far as regional broadcasters generally are concerned, in addition to captioning, there is the question of equalisation, a decision made by the government in the budget, and whether the timetable still remains appropriate for the transition of regional broadcasters to a digital framework.
These are some of the issues which no doubt will fall for further consideration when we get a chance to contemplate the Senate committee's deliberations and the various evidence and submissions made before it. This is unquestionably an area where the devil is very much in the detail. On that basis, as I have indicated publicly today, we will be reserving to ourselves the right, following the Senate committee report, to announce specific detailed amendments which we would seek to move in the Senate, reflecting some of those concerns and issues to which I have referred.
Well assisted by the Clerk, I now would like to formally move the second reading amendment, paragraphs 1 to 7, which has been circulated in my name. On the moving of that amendment, I indicate that we will now apply ourselves very much to the detail of the Senate committee deliberations, with a view to amendments that we would move in the Senate to ameliorate the mistakes that we believe the government has made. I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House
(1)condemns the Government for the inordinate amount of time it has taken to introduce the bill, and the unacceptably short time now available for parliamentary consideration of the measure;
(2)regards the narrow approach taken to the definition of datacasting as much too restrictive and certain to risk stifling a new industry before it emerges;
(3)deplores the Government's failure to enhance the future potential in this area, as evidenced by its datacasting proposals;
(4)calls on the Government to allow the national public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS, to multichannel;
(5)believes that the restrictions on datacasting and the prohibition on the ABC and SBS from multichannelling will have particularly adverse consequences for rural and regional Australia;
(6)believes that the enhanced services provisions in the bill go further than previously anticipated and will require careful scrutiny; and
(7)believes that there will need to be careful, appropriately timed and statutorily based scrutiny through the review provisions proposed in the bill".
by the Australian Society for the Study of Labour History
Working Lives in Regional Australia : Local History and Labour History : an Introduction
Greg Patmore
Since the 1960s there has been a shift in Australian labour historiography away from labour institutions towards the study of workers and their everyday lives. Despite this, only recently has there been a focus on the spatial dimensions of working class experience. An interest in community or locality, however, does not mean that labour historians are no longer interested in labour institutions such as trade unions and political parties. Indeed community or locality studies may provide further insights into working class mobilisation. While community studies have been criticised for `dismembering' their subject matter from the broader society, it is agreed that the external environment does have an impact and should be incorporated into any community study. The explanatory power of community or locality study can also be increased by bringing together a number of case studies.
Like a Bicycle, Forever Teetering Between Individualism and Collectivism : Considering Community in Relation to Labour History
Lucy Taksa
Australian labour historians have used the concept of community to tease out the social intimacies of the working class experience. In emphasising class identities, experiences and affiliations in specific places, their attention has focused on the integrative pressures that enabled certain groups of workers to mobilise politically and industrially in pursuit of collective interests or that produced 'labour-community coalitions'. By contrast, this paper looks beyond ties of class and place and assumptions about shared interests in order to explore how community came to be associated with consensus and group authority rather than social diversity and division. Instead of focusing on integrative pressures that promote conformity to imposed notions of identity and norms of conduct, it emphasises differentiation by recognising that people have numerous sources of identity and interests and that places are spatially fluid and internally-fragmented. Hence, it points to the need for historians to re-examine the question of individual choice in order to enhance our understanding of precisely how the structural and subjective aspects of community and class relate to each other and the way that individual and group identities cohere and fragment across time and space.
Women's Work in a Rural Community : Dungog and the Upper Williams Valley, 1880 - 1900
Glenda Strachan, Ellen Jordan and Hilary Carey
This article analyses the position of women in the economy of a rural community in the second half of the nineteenth century. The town of Dungog and its surrounding region in the Hunter Valley of New South Wales were being settled by Europeans in these decades. The article explores the relationship between family needs and aspirations, the economic constraints and opportunities available to women in this community. It concludes that while more economic opportunities such as teaching and nursing were opening for single women, most women's work remained part of the family enterprise. In addition, women's unpaid labour was vital in the creation of Dungog's quality infrastructure such as schools, churches and hospitals.
Localism and Labour: Lithgow 1869-1932
Greg Patmore
This paper explores the concept of localism and its impact upon labour. Localism is an identity associated with a particular geographic space, which provides employment and social interaction for particular individuals. It does not deny the importance of other identities based on gender, class, race, sexual preference, which may also influence behaviour. Localism may not be shared by all groups, particularly those who face discrimination or have little influence in a particular location. Localism does not prevent workers seeking solutions beyond their particular geographical space.
A Time 'the like of which was never before experienced': Changing Community Loyalties in Ipswich, 1900-12
Bradley Bowden
During the nineteenth century, Ipswich was Queensland's premier industrial centre outside the colony's capital, its prosperity resting on the district's coal mines and railway workshops. Yet, despite Ipswich being an overwhelming working class town, organised labour remained a marginal force. Instead, Ipswich's workers and their families placed local loyalties ahead of industrial allegiances. The strength of these local ties reflected the importance of family-owned concerns, which allowed the town's patriarchs to dominate Ipswich's political and social life. After 1900, however, Ipswich's political-economy underwent a profound transformation as the town's old families lost their position of pre-eminence to outside firms. As new avenues for employment emerged, organised labour found the social space in which to develop its own sense of identity. This labour identity was, however, shaped by the experience of Ipswich's various locations, producing not a united working class, but one fractured by differing goals and aspirations.
The 'Place' of Politics: Class and Localist Politics at Port Kembla, 1900 - 30.
Erik Eklund
This article is an analysis of the political forms that emerged in the New South Wales town of Port Kembla over the period 1900 to 1930. It argues that two principal types of politics dominated the political landscape of industrialising Port Kembla. The first type was class politics, based on the industrial labour market. In the 1910s local workers formed union organisations and a local labor league, culminating in major industrial action in 1919-20.
The second type of politics was localist politics, characterised by claims of local unity and development. Localist politics, best represented by the local Progress Association, clashed with class-based organisations, and established ascendancy by the 1920s. Local unity and cross-class alliances were encouraged by a number of factors including the common interest in protecting town infrastructure. Towards the end of the 1920s, as industrial disputes intensified and economic conditions worsened, class politics was resurgent, ultimately overwhelming the localist coalition by the eve of the depression.
Men dominated local politics, though behind the public face of these organisations women were active as fundraisers. Kooris were excluded both socially and physically, with their living spaces tellingly located on the fringes of the town itself.
Making A 'Union Town': Class, Gender and Consumption in Inter-War Broken Hill
Bradon Ellem and John Shields
Broken Hill is one of the few localities in Australia in which a local working class managed to establish 'hegemony' over the local social and political structure. While many of the ideas, institutions and practices which were to underwrite working-class control were evident in earlier years, it was only in the inter-war period that this control was effectively asserted and consolidated; it was only then that Broken Hill became truly a 'union town'. This study focuses on three key aspects of the extension of union influence and control in this locality in the inter-war years: a concerted drive to unionise town employees; a related campaign to extend union and working-class control over local commodity supplies and prices; and an accompanying demobilisation of married women. The one section of the Broken Hill working class which was effectively demobilised at this time was married women. This particular conjunction of class solidarity and gender marginalisation generated its own contradictions. While women willingly participated in boycott action in support of improved wages and family income, they refused to surrender the one real site of economic autonomy left to them - household spending and consumption. The male unionist strategies may have achieved the desired economic ends but by entrenching gender power inequality, these strategies also constrained the potential for class mobilisation.
A City To Struggle In: Wagga Wagga and Labour, 1940-75
Warwick Eather
In 1977 the Wagga Wagga branch of the Australian Labor Party supported a team of 'Progressive' candidates, many of whom were party members, in the Wagga Wagga City Council elections of that year. They did so because they wanted to' dominate the council'. This call for domination was a result of the lack of authority and influence enjoyed by the labour movement generally over the preceding 37 years. This paper charts the activities of the Wagga Wagga and District Trades and Labor Council, the branches of the trade unions and the local branch of the Australian Labor Party over the period 1940-75. It highlights the factors that prevented the labour movement from playing a positive role in the city.
Community, Class, and Comparison in Labour History and Local History
Elizabeth Faue
This postscript is a response to the studies in the thematic section on Labour History and Local History. It places the effort to understand the connections between the history of communities and of working classes in the context of the new labour history in the United States and Australia. At the same time that local history has been the vehicle of much new scholarship, there have been major lacunae in the lack of a fully developed spatial analysis and the failure to analyse the various meanings and constructions of 'community'. This postscript summarises the major findings of the essays in terms of the connections between community and localism and class identity and politics and finds some resonances in the ways that US and Australian labour historians treat these aspects of working class lives. In particular, the essays suggest the importance of gender in understanding the strengths and limitations of local working class political organisation. The postscript concludes by pointing out new directions in the study of working class and community history by exploring the uses of public space and of community as geography, metaphor and strategy.
Job Control and Commonwealth Industrial Relations Policy: The 1920-21 Strike and Lockout of the Federated Marine Stewards and Pantrymen's Association
Richard Morris
This article describes the 1920-21 strike of the Federated Marine Stewards and Pantryman's Association (FMSPA), the only major industrial conflict directly initiated by this now defunct organisation in its 70-year history.The author explains this episode in the evolution of Commonwealth industrial relations policy and its response to maritime union activism. The basic thesis of the article is that the 1920-21 FMSPA lockout and strike was an inconclusive battle between capital and labour which tested the interventionary mettle of W.M. Hughes' Nationalist government as well as the special leverage of workers in the island continent's maritime transport chain. The ramifications of this major dispute were to reverberate in later struggles and its study advances the explanatory understanding of 'job control' and state intervention in industrial relations.
The Senator Sam Cohen Affair : Soviet Anti-Semitism, the ALP and the 1961 Federal Election
Philip Mendes
This paper explores the Senator Sam Cohen Affair, the public brawl between sections of the Jewish community and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) during and following the 1961 federal election. Attention is drawn to the factors which precipitated the Affair including Left/Right conflicts within the Jewish community and the ALP, Cohen's controversial pre-selection for the Senate ahead of Maurice Ashkanasy, the international Jewish campaign against Soviet anti-Semitism; and Cohen's apparent defence of the Soviet Union's record on this issue. The Affair arguably led to a revision of Jewish lobbying strategies including the community's traditionally close relationship with the ALP.
Both nations have been struggling for 25 years for independence from colonial powers. Only now while the people of East Timor have won their freedom, those of the Western Sahara are still waiting.
The public meeting will be held on June 14 at NSW Parliament and will feature Jose Ramos Horta and Kamal Fadel, the Australian representative of Polisario, the Saharawi Liberation Movement.
"Like East Timor only a year ago, the people of the Western Sahara are waiting for their freedom," Kamal said. "We all saw how quickly the colonising power there retreated once international public opinion was mobilised."
Western Sahara has been on the UN's decolonisation agenda since 1963. A UN mission (MINURSO) has been trying to organise a referendum in the Territory for the past nine years without success because of Morocco's obstructions.
Last week, the United Nations Security Council urged parties pushing for independence and the colonial power Morocco to continue negotiations towards a referendum on self-determination. Public opinion is crucial at this time in the history of the Western Sahara.
"The Australian people were instrumental in helping the people of East Timor gain their freedom," Kamal Fadel said. "We can only hope that they show the same spirit towards another people suffering the horrors of colonisation."
The unfinished struggle
The Morrocan occupation of the Western Sahara has been based on violence. Despite nearly ten years of international pressure to allow a free referendum on idependence, Morocco is still obstructing the process. Human rights violations are being used as a tool to block the Saharawi's path to independence.
* Human rights in the Western Sahara
Since its occupation Morocco has undertaken the systematic 'disappearing' of Saharawi people, kidnapping individuals, imprisoning and torturing them. It has been calculated that almost 1,000 have been disappeared since the Moroccan occupation.
In 1991, as a result of international pressure, Morocco released 270 Saharawis who had 'disappeared' for 16 years. Former Saharawi detainees have told of torture and the death of many of their people. None of those released have been compensated, nor have the families of those that have been killed.
Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International have regularly condemned Morocco's human rights record, especially its treatment of Saharawis in the occupied areas.
In 1995 the Deputy Chair of MINURSO's identification Commission, former US ambassador, Frank Ruddy, described Moroccan behaviour as 'Mafia-like" and characterised it as 'thuggery". He also stated that "Morocco does not want the referendum because the risks outweigh any possible gains".
The presence of the UN in Western Sahara has not deterred Morocco from continuing to abuse human rights. Peaceful demonstrations have been violently suppressed. For just listening to the Polisario radio, Saharawis have been tortured and jailed.
Saharawis in the occupied areas are under siege, very few foreigners have managed to visit the area, and travel outside the territories is very restricted. Amnesty International have identified 500 "disappeared" Saharawis whose whereabouts remain unknown.
* Towards a referendum on independence
After 13 years of war, diplomatic activity by the UN and the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) resulted in a settlement plan which was accepted by both parties in 1988. UN Security Council
Resolutions - 658 (1990) and 690 (1991) outlined the settlement plan's objective to organise a free and fair referendum supervised by the UN.
The UN peace-keeping mission known as MINURSO was responsible for drawing up a list of eligible voters and organising the poll. MINURSO was also to monitor the lead-up to and holding of the referendum.
The referendum would offer voters two choices: either integration with Morocco or independence for Western Sahara. The UN planned to commence the official cease-fire from 1991 leading up to a referendum in 1992.
One month prior to the official cease-fire's commencement (an unofficial cease-fire had been in place for two years), Morocco launched fierce air strikes against POLISARIO settlements. Morocco subsequently denied freedom of movement to MINURSO, denied access to independent observers to the occupied territory and governed the territory in complete contravention of the UN peace plan.
In December 1991 the UN's Special Representative resigned in protest at the UN's failure to confront Morocco. In May 1994 Jean-Luc Held, former head of MINURSO's medical unit said "the UN is ....unable to react... the UN is frightened, those who work there are frightened..."
Morocco has delayed the referendum for years with arguments over voter eligibility. Approximately 200,000 Moroccan settlers have moved to the territory of Western Sahara with the aim of skewing the vote. A date for the referendum had been set for July 31 2000 but it now appears as if Morocco will continue its delaying tactics and not honour its agreement.
There appears to continue to be a breakdown in negotiations and diminishing hopes for a free and fair referendum. POLISARIO has intimated that if no referendum is held by the end of 2000 it may recommence hostilities.
The parallels with East Timor are striking. The key role of the international community in working toward a free and fair referendum cannot be overstated. POLISARIO made a commitment not to hijack planes, kidnap people or target civilians in order to seek world attention.
Thy have consequently been largely ignored by the international media and the communities whose opinions influence international efforts such as those of East Timor or in assisting organisations like the PLO.
The Western Sahara people require Australia's assistance raising the international attention needed to pressure Morocco to hold the vote that they have sacrificed everything to obtain.
For more information contact:
Kamal Fadel, Australian Representative, Polisario
Phone: 02. 9319 32 11
Mob: 0416 335 197
Paul Reid, Secretary of the Australia Western Sahara Association
Mob. 0407 242 092
Western Sahara, the unfinished struggle
Featuring speakers Jose Ramos Horta, East Timor independence leader and Kamal Fadel, Polisario representative. The film "The forgotten war" will also be screened.
When: Wednesday 14 June, 5:30 - 7:30 pm
Venue: Theatrette, NSW Parliament House, Macquarie St
RSVP : Janelle Saffin MLC 02. 9230 22 35.
by Zoe Reynolds
Mal and Lehi are among a dozen members employed at Cargolink, Fishermen's Island protecting the community from such villains as the exotic giant snail (above), lizards, bees and bugs which smuggle themselves into the country on containers from Asia and the Pacific.
"We call it the snail pit," said Mal.
Cargo link is the only purpose built vermin trap in the nation. And MUA members work alongside quarantine keenly inspecting every container inside and out before they are cleared for pick up. So good is their detective work they have apprehended as many as 40 snails in one investigation,
creatures as potentially damaging to the Australian environment as the now infamous cane toad.
"We all take turns," said Mal. "When the boxes come in they are placed on the stand, one by one, so we can walk under them. Then we put up a ladder so quarantine can get on top. Any empty ones we help them check inside. Anything with an insect or reptile on it we fumigate. Our record is 114
boxes in one day."
This May the Maritime Union of Australia was judged winner of both the 'Community and Individual Contribution to Quarantine' award and 'Contribution to the Environment' award. Deputy Secretary Trevor Munday was flown to Canberra on May 23 for the presentation. "Quarantine work is part
of the union's commitment to social justice and the environment," he said.
Mr Howard said he was especially sorry that he was abused throughout the ceremony.
He said he couldn't understand why he was repeatedly jeered during his speech about the evils of reconciliation.
'The crowd was wild and unruly,' said Mr Howard. 'It was typical of the kind of uncivilised behaviour you'd expect from Aborigines. I mean, imagine if we carried on like that in parliament. It's just lucky that Aborigines are so rarely elected to Parliament'
Mr Howard said he was particularly affronted when several Aboriginal people in the crowd turned their backs on him, saying that is not something his government would ever do to them.
'We clearly still have a lot of differences to sort through. On the one hand white Australians are more than ready to commit to reconciliation, while the blacks still seem to have a problem with accepting our hatred and intolerance of them.'
Compere Ray Martin tried to restore peace to the ceremony by assuring everyone he'd be making no more episodes of "Simply the Best".
But tempers were inflamed when the Prime Minister symbolically dipped his hand in black paint, and then wiped it clean on the shawl of Aboriginal Reconciliation chief velyn Scott.
The Prime Minister and his Cabinet later refused to join the Reconciliation Walk across the Harbour Bridge, preferring instead to walk in the opposite direction against the flow.
'It's important that the government is out of step with the rest of the nation,' said Mr Howard. 'Plus this way we avoid the bridge toll.'
by Zoe Reynolds
Front Stage
MELBOURNE: Curtains go up on a play inspired by the Patrick Dispute in Melbourne this month. Writer and director Peter Houghton says he set out to wrap fiction around the 'bare bones of the dispute' In so doing he uses a fair bit of artistic license, creating his own players and personalities
to act out the drama on the stage. "There's a line that divides us. A line between right and wrong. Sometimes you can't see where it is. Sometimes it cuts you in half," he writes.
Front tells the story of the war on the wharves (unfortunately described in the play by the British term 'docks'). He does this through the eyes of sacked wharfies and their families, an undercover journalist and a one time
wharfie's mate and ex serviceman working with the Dubai mob.
Houghton does, however, take some unfortunate liberties with his script. One of his main characters, Curly, is a wharfie who scabs, something unheard of during the dispute (except for supervisors). Members may also be offended by Houghton scripting another off his main characters, Fido, as a bit of a simpleton. But Fido is balanced by the well read central
character, Jerry, who unwittingly finds himself in bed with the journo. And the fool in this Shakespearian plot does come out with some of the best lines: "Little fishes swim together, don't they? All of them in a group. No-one can make them stop. It's there nature. The fish are our ancestors, Jerry, and they all swim together," ends Curly, capturing the solidarity that wins the day in language anyone can understand.
Says Houghton: "From the beginning I wanted this to be a story about ordinary people. People who are flawed and complex. I wanted to see what happened to these people when the rug was pulled from under their feet, to see when people gave in and when people didn't."
On the whole a sympathetic look at the war between capital and labour on our wharves. It must be, The Melbourne Age gave it a scathing review for being too worker friendly.
Front, Theatreworks, 14 Acland Street, St Kilda, June 14 to July 1. Bookings 9534 3388.
PULPED FICTION
SYDNEY: Fairfax journalists Helen Trinca and Anne Davies, however could never be accused of getting into bed with the wharfies to research their account of the Patrick Dispute, Waterfront.
A pacey, well written suspense thriller, the book is somewhat spoilt by gratuitous and flawed character analysis. Corrigan refused to talk. But Trinca and Davies are obviously charmed by Reith to the extent the writers describe him as PM material.
This is probably the real reason that Treasurer Peter Costello, widely regarded as leaving Reith for dead in the race for the top job, thanks to the wharfies, chose to have the book withdrawn and pulped for a careless remark about his staff having forged documents leaked to Labor in 1996.
Police never found evidence to support these claims. But the book will be back on the shelves, with all its flaws and inaccuracies.
For example they refer to former Deputy National Secretary Tony Papaconstuntinas, Papa for short, as Papy throughout. And MUA National Secretary John Coombs adamantly denies the claim he agreed to sack 'troublemakers' to get the farmers off Webb Dock. We will leave it to readers to decide who to
believe, Mr Coombs or Mr Reith!. In the meantime don't expect a workers' history. Members play little part in the dispute according to the Fairfax duo. Trinca and Davies choose to focus on the court action, politics and top level union power play at the expense of the labour movement and the fish swimming in the undercurrents.
by Speech to the PSA's Annual Conference 25 May, 2000
What I want to talk about today is a matter that has arisen for me I guess throughout my life but been reinforced in the recent times since I've become a magistrate and it's this: you go to the courts all day, the local courts and you work with adults or currently as I am working in the children's division and you come home at night and you watch television and what you see on the news is basically a discussion on the strength of the dollar, the business report, the price of shares and this seems to be the be all and end all of all discussion these days.
What concerns me about that is this: the economics of society is in my view, of course as important as it is to anybody else in this room, and indeed to society as a whole. But we seem to have turned it in the twenty years since the Thatcher Government's election and the era of economic rationalism, into an end in itself. We no longer seem to discuss the social issues that that is supposed to be about.
And I've been thinking about this in recent times as I go to the courts in the real world say, west of Parramatta in those areas that make up half of this city, and I ask myself are we seriously suggesting that what we hear is the be all and end all of what life is supposed to be about? For I say that there are huge percentages of our society who are suffering greatly in our society which allegedly is so happy and booming along.
When I see members of the Federal Government on television talking comfortably about our society it disturbs me. When I see the Federal Labor party giving predominant emphasis to the economic issues as though they're the be all and end all of life it disturbs me. Because they are not the be all and end all of life and for many, many people in this society not just the bottom two or three percent, I'm talking about significant numbers of this society, the distribution of wealth is now such that their lot is becoming worse.
And my deep concern is that what used to make the difference was the public sector and the public sector has been one of the great modern creations of the last 100 years if we take it in its modern form in this country and in others and what we're seeing is people over worked and under resourced in the public sector, federal and state, trying to do more and more because of this capacity of government, Labor and Liberal alike, to say we will rely on the good will of the people in the public sector while under resourcing them more and more and more, and I see it more and more and more, and frankly, I'm sick of it. Now.
I've raised in discussions with Maurie and the Teachers Fed and ACOSS and the national union of students that I believe there is a need for a great coalition to be set up. I don't believe any one organisation can match anymore the sheer sophistication of the power lobbies that support the multinationals and which terrorise politicians of all political persuasions to total silence about the real issues in our society. I don't think the Teachers Federation can do it, I don't think the PSA can do it, I don't think ACOSS by itself can do it. It's just too big an issue. What is needed is a major coalition. These statistics came from ACOSS. The top 2,000 people in this country have had a 60% increase in wealth in five years.
You may have heard on this morning's radio the announcement about the current breakout of who the wealthiest people in Australia are. We're talking billionaires, a number of billionaires. Now I'm not so unsophisticated as to say that all we need do is tax such people harder. What I am saying is that the distribution of wealth in this country patently obviously is being distributed in a less and less fair manner all the time. The bottom 50% now have 5%; the top 10% increased their wealth in the last 15 years from 43 to 48%.
Just how much longer does this have to go on before we say the economy, in a global sense, may be going well and without knocking the importance of issues like the strength of the dollar and share prices etc the reality is for most Australians that it is not being spread evenly. That is the role of government. But government seems to be dominated by cowardice these days whatever its political persuasion, in the face of these huge and powerful companies. The question I ask myself is, when are we going to set up a sophisticated lobby group on the social issues to say to government well, you've listened to them and you'd better listen to us because we're serious about organising campaigns, about organising demonstrations, we are not putting up with this distribution process any more, and in particular we are not putting up with the destruction of this country's public services any further. Enough.
In the middle of it all of course we see the total disintegration of permanent jobs. I have watched from my work with the Teachers Federation and the PSA, the disintegration of permanent jobs in the public sector for over a decade now. The casualisation of work has reached astronomical proportions. In teaching the amount of casuals used to be a very small figure 25 years ago. There are now approaching 20,000 casuals.
If I went through the public service, various groups that you all represent, we could talk about the same thing for every one of them. I ask myself why are we doing this? Because, it is said to save costs. Well, it would have saved costs twenty or thirty years ago. The real reason we are doing it is because we are not prepared through tax to provide governments federal and state with enough money to provide permanent work to provide the public servants we want. So the answer - make it cheaper. Everything comes down to your credit rating. Everything as a state or a federal government. Everything comes down to minimising the cost. And there is no combined response to that by those who feel it deeply: you, and the members you represent. Because it's impossible to match those organisations as single organisations.
I see it in the courts. If I go out to the adults courts, I go out from here today to one of them, and if I was doing the list day where you do short matters, pleas of guilty, adjournments, matters like that, I would deal with fifty or sixty people in a day. If I went and dealt with the AVO (apprehended violence order) list which each of the big city courts would have a day at least, sometimes two, every week, I would deal with fifty to sixty people in a day.
People assaulting each other, people abusing each other. Immense unhappiness. And yet I can go home at night and turn my television on and I can hear them yakkety yakkety yakking about the strength of the dollar, the shares, the exports, I can see a major business report, and that's all important. But why don't I see equivalent time on the issues I am describing - those big social issues of the day? Because we're not in a position at the moment to do anything about it in my view. If I go to the Children's division I can deal with kids coming out of custody as young as ten, and I do. I can deal with kids dealing with robbery in company for the second time around of twelve and thirteen. I can deal with care cases whereby kids are as young as two days or two years. I'm in a situation where we have to decide between what's the best way to deal with the needs of that child - the parents, the grandparents, close family relationship, DOCS itself? So my description of those various court themes is to make this point: your members, perhaps some of you who are here, are under tremendous strain in that system. Tremendous strain. The people who work in DOCS are under-resourced and overworked. That's a fact of life. The people who work in legal aid and legal aid's there for all the children's matters, are under resourced and overworked.
If I was to move on to the police area, another union, the police prosecutor sits there on AVO day with a pile of papers going up to the height of his or her head! And the upshot is, the complainants come down and talk with the prosecutor who then deals with the defendant and we move on through a day of great tension. And everybody there is under tension and the court staff themselves are under tension.
And why are they under tension? Because they're underresourced and they're overworked. I keep asking myself how much longer is this going to go on? I see it with teachers. What are they supposed to make of public sector education? They're continually told they should do this, they should be doing that, what's wrong with them. What's wrong is, they haven't got enough resources to do the job properly. For example, if you're going to put kids in those classes with various intellectual or physical handicaps, then provide the resources to allow them to do the job. Otherwise what you get are complaints by parents of other kids saying this is disturbing for me.
Or complaints by the parents of those kids saying my kids are entitled to be put in that ordinary class. Fine. But provide the resources. How do we do that? Well we look at that distribution of wealth and say to ourselves, this is ridiculous. The global economy might be going alright, the national economy might be going alright, but what about all the people it's supposed to be about? If we want to talk about shareholders, everyone talks about shareholders these days. These chief executive officers, as you know, with their millions say "My basic responsibility is the bottom line. The profit level - I'm a CEO." OK, let's accept that's true. While everybody 18 and over is a shareholder in this country with governments, and I say to those governments, labor and liberal alike, you are not representing the majority of your shareholders anymore.
You simply represent the rich and powerful at the top and your terror in the face of the multinationals. And enough is enough. What about us, the shareholders?
When I find myself in these courts dealing with people I come across a range of problems. I come across mental illness, I come across drug problems, drug problems which can involve young people say in issues of shoplifting for drugs, or middle aged women who need the basics of life. I tend to find poverty and alcohol are huge problems because they probably go together to a significant extent, and the violence of course flows from all of that. All of that is being dealt with by members of your union. And you know it.
And they are all under-resourced and they are all overworked. And the question I then ask myself is, what are we going to do about this?
I can tell you that with some resources, amazing things at times happen. For example, seven out of ten kids who appear in the children's court on criminal matters the first time never re-offend. Eight out of ten come back never more than twice. That's done with the limited resources we've got now. We know that we've set up nationally, as all first world countries have, public education systems; one of the great achievements, I would have thought, in civilisation in the last 150 years that we've done that in those countries. And now we're running them down. Our great welfare services. We're running them down. If we had federal public servants here I bet they'd tell us about how hard it is to work in various aspects of the federal public service at the moment. Well, we've all watched the annihilation of their jobs.
So I say to myself, enough. Just enough. What's needed is a great coalition to be set up. That coalition needs to be a seriously resourced coalition, if need be with people permanently employed in it, and it needs to have an umbrella effect in my view of bringing together all the great organisations in the public sector. Not just the unions. All of them. And running campaigns aimed at federal and state governments, labor and liberal alike. Overall, without such a coalition, you ask yourself honestly, what you will do over the next two days and rightly so is look at major issues that will affect this union directly. And rightly so.
And you will deal with them as best you can. But the fact is that everybody in this room knows that the overall cutbacks are having the effect that the total effect in the public sector is that it's going backwards. And what's happening more and more is that we say to individual public servants federal and state, do more, will you? We can't give any more resources, because we've got to make the budget balance. We've got to impress the credit organisations overseas. The multinationals won't invest. So do more. We never move on and say well hold on, we're the government, and we're going to have to come to grips with the responsibilities that that means for all people.
If people choose to be in public life in federal or state politics, they choose to make decisions for all of us. It's not good enough to say well what can we do - we're faced with a multinational - there's a very big problem. Then don't go into public life if that's your view! They choose to be elected by us - let them solve the problems for all of us and I'm saying to you at the moment they're never going to do that, because the individual organisations that make up what I call the social side of life by themselves are too small to worry them. It'll only happen when we get it together. And I just feel that enough is enough on this and I hope that eventually we can put something together on it.
I was thinking I mentioned this once before in a speech, I was going around a supermarket, I had a trolley and I'm putting the gear in, and you know they play that muzak for you as you walk through the supermarkets, and, as I'm walking through the supermarket, on came Bob Dylan. You know, I thought to myself, well that's the point we've finally reached, eh, that Dylan's in the muzak. And I thought, wow, the times are a changing (get the salt), the answer is blowing in the wind (get the tomato sauce). I thought I can't believe this. Everything reduced to this sort of "wow, isn't life terrific" atmosphere. You just go around, you buy your goods. What's that famous thing I saw on a railway cutting once? - consume, be silent, die. Well, I think it's time to stop the consuming, being silent and ultimately dying! I think it's time for this coalition I'm describing. And perhaps I might finish by just mentioning Dylan's lyrics as they ought to be mentioned. One of the verses "Yes, and how many times can a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn't see? The answer, my friends, is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind."
****************
What can I say? It was the night of nights last Saturday when the wonderful Lebanese community of Sydney came out in support of the People's Team.
Yes, it was the Lebanese community's way of expressing their support for our cause, which they know is just and right.
These fantastic people put on a night to remember and the 400 people who attended the sell out dinner at the Monterey Function Centre at Bankstown not only had the times of their lives, but also managed to raise $50,000 for the Souths ighting fund.
It was so uplifting as co-host Dr Jim Lahood, my great mate and magnificent Souths supporter introduced former Souths legends to the stage. People such as Jack Rayner, Bernie Purcell, Clem Kennedy, Bob McCarthy, Ron Coote, Gary Stevens, Wayne Stevens, Ivan Jones, Les Davidson, Craig Coleman and Tricky Trindall.
According to Tugger, "I didn't have one drink, yet I had the best time I've ever had in my life".
And Tricky was no shrinking violet either as he danced the traditional Lebanese dance until about 2 o'clock in the morning.
Jim Lahood spoke most eloquently about the tradition of Souths and what the Club means to us and we all sang our anthem Glory, Glory to South Sydney.
It was a night where inhibitions were left behind as even I, a bloke with two left feet, got up and proudly danced with my Lebanese brothers and sisters in their traditional style.
And what a thrill to see people of the ilk of Brett Kenny, Mark Laurie and the Lebanese whiz kid Hasam El Masri turn up and actually puchase tickets.
Everything about the night was overwhelming to me, including Joe Younis paying more than $7,000 for a signed print of Bob McCarthy taking that famous intercept against Canterbury. It seems he went to school with Bob.
And I've got to thank my good friend Arthur Correy for the Canterbury jersey and the people at the Bulldogs' table, not just for their show of solidarity, but also for spending about $8,000 on the night.
To the organising committee, Jim Lahood, his co-host Norm Nicholas, Anali and Peter Basha, Ray Basha, Jim Hanna, Richard Younis and Joe Moubara: I salute you all.
You are my type of people: loyal, determined, dedicated and unafraid to stand up against the odds.
You have proven that it is in adversity that real heroes are made and all of you are heroes in my book.
It just goes to show that the headline last Sunday in the Sun Herald acclaiming Souths as "The People's Team" is correct.
Next month the Greek community is holding a similar function at the Barclay Lounge in Rockdale. Tickets are available by downloading the order form from this web-site just check out the Events section), for only $50.00 each
The support for Souths knows no racial or religious barriers and it occurred to me that if the whole world supported Souths, there would be no wars.
I've never seen anything in this country that has gathered so many disparate people to fight for a common cause.
As you are all aware by now, Tuesday June 12 marks the start of our life and death battle in the Federal Court.
We have declared that day Red & Green Day. We are asking everyone who supports the cause to purchase for $2 a red and green ribbon from our club at Redfern or from any Newspower Newsagent throughout the State.
We will also be holding a supporters breakfast on June 13 at the South Sydney Leagues Club from 6.00am to 10.00am. Everyone is welcome.
So the time we have all been waiting for is upon us. It's bigger than any of the 20 grand finals we've won since 1908. We are going into court armed to the teeth in a fight to the death.
With the support of the people, which we know we have, our chances of getting justice are second to none.
So let's all stick together, wear our ribbons on Red & Green Day and shout in one voice....
Come on the Rabbitohs!
****************
The NSW Government has announced its intention to again defer the transfer of the WorkCover insurance scheme to the private insurers. This was a recommendation of the Workers Compensation Advisory Council.
There are some who would have the Government abolish or significantly downgrade the role of the Workers Compensation Advisory Council. This Council is made up of employer and union representatives and was set up by the government on the recommendations of the Richard Grellman Inquiry into workers compensation.
The Workers Compensation Advisory Council was set up in 1998 when the seheme was costing around 3.4% of wages. As a result of the Advisory Council's initiatives, costs have been pruned to about 2.8% - the break-even premium rate for the 1999/2000 premium year.
According to the Council's Actuary, David Zaman, this will continue.
David Zaman said: "the scheme is continuing to improve and the rate is down from what was expected and is below 2.8%".
Zaman further stated, "that an independent firm of actuaries has reviewed these figures and has confirmed these results".
Ian West, Labor Council representative on the Advisory Council, said the Council has delivered real results and stability to the workers compensation system, which in the past has been a very volatile issue, and has had the union movement protesting in the streets. Ian further stated that he "found it quite an insult to the Advisory Council that the Government intended to set up an expert group". Ian said that the Advisory Council has this expertise but where they need highly specialised information, they consult with the experts.
Ian further stated "it would be very detrimental, and a backward step to the scheme, if this mechanism is lost or downgraded."
Garry Brack, Chief Executive Officer of the Employers' Federation and employer representative on the Council said: "the only reason that the scheme has delivered positive results is that the Council has had capacity to formulate policies that would work and the good fortune to have a Minister, Jeff Shaw, who was prepared to positively evaluate and implement those policies. The outcomes speak for themselves.
Brack further said "scheme costs have dropped dramatically. Workers benefits have not been attacked and the average premium cost has been held down - We've all been winners!
Brack further said: "Much more needs to be done and the Advisory Council is right in the middle of further fundamental initiatives and ensuring we add to the gains already made and the only way that we can continue to achieve positive outcomes is through the endless process of monitoring, fine tuning and reform which the Advisory Council has carried out to date.
Greg Patterson of Australian Business Ltd, another employer representative on the Council, said:
"It confirms my opinion that the principles, which underline the reform program have been followed and are valid and appropriate, and if we are to have sustainable long term reductions in human and financial terms this needs to continue.
This process appears to have taken a long time and has been more difficult than any would have anticipated. However, it is clear that there are no quick fix solutions. All quick fixes require either increased premiums or substantial changes to benefits.
The Minister needs to be mindful of what has been achieved by the Council and in contemplating his next steps needs to take this into account. In other words, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
Charles Vandervord, the Law Society's representative stated "the establishment of the Council has resulted in stability and cost effective initiatives being introduced to what had been an unstable and costly workcover scheme and the lawyers endorse the initiatives and have cooperated in their implementation".
It seems that the Advisory Council is the real driving force and is delivering positive results which has the full support of the stakeholders.
by Dermot Browne
Why should you care? Because he recently made the following speech in support of Peter Reith's doomed Workplace Relations Amendment Bill.
"With the election of this government, we seized the opportunity to say, `Let's trust the workers to negotiate for themselves with the bosses and see what the results are.' The results are obvious-an increase in wages and in productivity. You have those rotten slugs from the union movement, who drive around in their cars, sit in flash offices and contribute nothing to the process, except create division, intervention and problems where there are none, out of the way."
News of this devastatingly witty outburst spread around the union movement like wildfire. One of the CPSU's more 'sensitive new age' officials, Mark Gepp from the Community Services Section, took particular umbrage and was compelled to write to the honourable Mr Cadman demanding an explanation.
****************
Dear Mr Cadman,
I read your contribution to the Workplace Relations Bill, Second Reading debate on 1 June and, I seek clarification on your comments and their meaning. It is your particular ambiguous use of the word 'slugs' that I am interested in. The Concise Oxford Dictionary contains four meanings of the word:
� Shell- less gastropod often destructive to small plants
� Bullet of irregular shape
� Unit of mass given acceleration of 1 foot per second
� Tot of liquor
You can see my dilemma.
********************
Not to miss a trick, our Mr Cadman shot back the following reply.
Dear Mr Gepp
Thank you for your fax today in regard to my speech.....I appreciate your drawing my attention to the term "slugs" because I had not had the time to check the transcript of my speech. That term is not one I would and I believe I used the term "thugs". I can understand your dilemma and have asked Hansard to correct its record accordingly.
Your sincerely
ALAN CADMAN MP
****************
So now we know. And in case you were wondering what the Concise Oxford Dictionary says about 'thugs' ....
� a 'member of religious organisation of robbers and assassins in India suppressed about 1825', or
� a vicious or brutal ruffian.
So now everybody is happy.
© 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/57/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 |