LaborNET

  Ask Neale

  Tool of the Week

Interview

Chewing the Fat with Della

In a rare extended interview, NSW 's new industrial relations minister State John Della Bosca outlines his vision for the new workplace.

A lot of people may not realise this but you actually started out your working life as a trade union official. What is your clearest memory of your work with the trade unions?

As a union official I had a dispute once in the Central Reservation Service at Central Railway and it was probably the most interesting dispute I ever handled. Funnily enough, it was a dispute over new technology and new work practices. At the time the Public Transport Commission introduced a computerised system for recording reservations for interstate and intrastate major passenger services. This was a changeover from the old- train diagram system - each train had a long drawer which the clerks would pull out and actually enter the passengers name and details on a diagram of the train. Suddenly and quite properly they decided to put it all into a computerised system. It created a lot of difficulties because clearly there was a lot of people who had been working in an essentially computer-free, keyboard-free zone, suddenly put in a situation where they were operating quite a sophisticated range of software and hardware.

It had a curious end because as I was working for a white collar union - UI was called upon to represent the manager who had been the centre of the dispute! I think he was charged with one of those omnibus incompetence charges that used to exist in the Railways Act and I had to defend him as a member.

That was in the pre-Accord era. How do you think the union movement has changed since those days?

Well, the good thing is that the fundamentals haven't changed. The fundamentals the labour movement is about are still there, which is collective action in defence of individual rights; collective concern and concern for the right to combine and negotiate with your employer, not only on your own behalf, but on behalf of your colleagues. Out of that the basics of human activity are the same. They've been the same not just since I became involved, but the same since the labour movement started.

But the ways in which we go about it and the impact of it are completely different to a lot of the ones that we were dealing with back in the 80s. I think the union movement has completed the leap to being pro-change rather than anti-change when it comes to the workplace. It's the Conservative side of the workplace agenda that wants to turn back the clock. I think the labour movement now pretty readily accepts a whole lot of economic fundamentals that it was less likely to accept in the past - and that's really across the factions and across the different organisations which probably wasn't the case back in the 70s and 80s.

At the same time, numerically the membership coverage has dropped. Do you think that has had an impact on the unions' ability to play a role?

It doesn't seem to have had an impact in a major way in the union movement's ability to play a role in the political context. I suppose we have to think about the role the unions can play in the workplace itself when there are obviously a smaller number of people who are union members. But if you look at the wages and conditions of ordinary working class Australians, the only people standing up for them in the debate that really matters is the union movement. So, even if they are not union members, it is still the union movement doing the job.

There is the new organising model and new approaches the union movement is taking. A lot more of the union members are really active union members or aware, conscious union members. They have to be because the Federal laws and other things mean that they will be. Perhaps going back a bit longer - about 20 or 30 years ago a lot more of union members are what were otherwise thought of as conscripts by one form or another.

What about the other side of the equation? What would be the implications for the ALP if trade union density continued to fall?

People have been asking me that in different forms for a long time now. I have always been careful to say that I'm not a soothsayer, I can't tell into the future what will happen. I think the unions have accepted a more democratically organised Labor Party internally. I have never seen the entire union bloc in any party forum vote down a proposition from the general party membership. So at this stage of the game unions just remain a dynamic part of the Labor Party - and I personally can't see a serious diminution of the unions' role.

You have this debate over what the formal nexus should be. It is one that I didn't really prosecute as a party official. I mean, we kicked it around a few times: whether the formal nexus between the general membership and the union membership should be 50/50 or 60/40 or 60/40 in reverse. That is literally a numbers game that doesn't really mean anything. It is all about symbolism. As I have said, I have never seen the unions do anything but accept quite reasonably - in fact in many cases more easily than the general membership - the difficult calls that Labor in government has to make and the party organisation has to make. I think in terms of pragmatic support there is more coming from the unions than the general membership in many cases.

I guess one of the issues that is resonating with workers today is job insecurity. What can a Labor Government do in a practical way to make work more secure? More importantly, is it possible?

That is one of the really big challenges and it is one that I would like to be able to produce some new answers to over the next few months. Our current approach has been twofold. One, we have concentrated on the existing protections in the NSW industrial action system, with the acceptance of a neutral umpire and the notion of award making as the principal kind of method of protecting employees. The second angle, which I think is less shouted from the treetops, will become more and more important: that is that the old ethos was that a good employer gives an employee a job for life has passed: the idea was that unless the employer went broke, died or the employee died or became incapacitated, the employer always had a job for them if they were otherwise observing the employment contract. Nowadays that just isn't so, because the nature of the economy just isn't so.

I think we have got to instil a new ethos with employers - a new ethic for employers and employees alike. We may not be able to employ you for life but we can do things on the job that make sure that you are employable for life. We don't just chew you up, either physically or emotionally - or vocationally; we keep renewing your skills on the job. So, if here is a bumpier market and people have to change jobs and the skill sets required to do their job change - well, how do you get security? You get the feeling that you can change jobs without finding yourself mixing with the thieves and street brawlers.

So, you would be talking about something like putting obligations on employers for ongoing training?

Maybe it ends up being obligations, but maybe it just ends up so that there is arguments over things like construction training levy and things like that. That is all out there in the political marketplace as an argument to be had between the unions and employers and government. But I think it is also about the culture of the workforce. It is also about the culture of the workplace and government has got a critical role of leadership in saying, well, that's the way a decent employer should behave.

That's a different line from governments actually going out there and pretending they can give formal security and jobs for life...

I tend to take the view that the best way forward in these sorts of political debates is not to give people false expectations. It is important to give people real expectations about what governments can do.

On a bigger level a lot of the cynicism that has arisen is this notion that a political culture exists in democracy that says that the government and ministers have to know everything - have to have it all right and can never admit that they don't know. I think that comes from the days of depressions and wars when the big decisions - we couldn't possibly admit that you didn't know what to do, and you had to give everybody the impression that you knew everything, or the government knew everything and could look after it.

The reality is that the population is now much cleverer. The population is now much better educated. There is not only rising economic literacy there is rising political literacy. People actually know that that is not the way institutions work. They know that no bureaucracy, no government research bureau, no minister, no government or political party has all the answers to any problem, and it is all a matter of an ongoing debate and progress bit by bit. And I think it is probably prudent for politicians not to pretend that they have all the answers, but rather admit that they have got to canvass it more widely, or find out the way forward by other means.

One of the things that would sit well is the current inquiry into labour hire that Jennie George is carrying out? What would you like to see come out of that inquiry?

Well, I suppose we wouldn't be holding an inquiry if I thought we had a pretty clear view as to what I thought should come out of it. But I suppose what we need out of an inquiry is the factual basis for some new policies in this changing area. We know that a lot of workplace and industrial relations issues have been changed partly by technology, partly by change in the nature of competition. Employers are no longer thinking how do I market my widgets here? I'm making them in Newcastle, how do I market them down in Sydney? If they do, they probably would pretty quickly go broke. They are probably thinking, what is the global niche for this widget that I'm making? How do I get some markets all over the world? How can I keep them? They are the businesses that seem to be succeeding and providing jobs, and I think the evidence here has increased and that they will be the businesses that do provide jobs for the future - for Australians at least.

So given this context you have got to say what we are looking for from the George inquiry is guidance on what new obligations exist in the labour market; what new regulations might be required in order to provide for a fair basis for people to contract into this array of more flexible arrangements based on employers having to keep tight costs, and based on the fact that technology requires people to be hired in and hired out. Certainly labour hire, has, with the established labour movement, a bad name and in the past that has been in some cases, deservedly so. But I think what will increase a balanced view of what the facts are; what the options are; and to present it as fairly as we can.

Another issue that must be taking up a bit of your time is workers compensation. In recent weeks you have downgraded the Advisory Council and also advertised for debt reduction strategies. What is the gameplan??

The gameplan is fairly public. I'm a bit worried about your use of the term "downgraded the Advisory Council". What I have sought to do is clarify the role of the Advisory Council. In some ways I have upgraded its role because now it advises me directly. I have taken the WorkCover General Manager off the Advisory Council - made it a sort of stand-alone body - and I have merged it with the Occupational Health & Safety Council. So I have changed the role of the Advisory Council, but certainly I don't think I have downgraded it at all, I think I might well have upgraded it, and I am glad if that is the outcome.

The second specific point you mentioned was debt reduction. That's pretty innocent. There is a lot of debt reduction type initiatives that exist again, largely in the global marketplace for insurance products. What we want to do is explore what options there are to fairly and as acceptably as possible, start making progress on that debt reduction

The game plan above all else, is that my priorities are occupational health and safety, and getting some incentives and motivations in the system, wanting to do as much as possible towards injury management of people that have been injured and giving them proper compensation and giving employers incentives to reduce the risks of their employees. Obviously too, we have put some things in that are compliance issues, to get the punishment right for those that don't do the right thing, whoidon't pay their proper premiums and other things.

The second tranche, if you like, is working towards better dispute resolution - quicker, more timely settlement. If you look at the old pie chart I want to make sure that that bit of it that says workers benefits, doesn't get any smaller and if possible gets bigger. I'm sure if I looked at one of those pie charts for 1950, employee benefits would be a much, much bigger part of the pie than they are now. And if you look at it over the last decade, what has happened is that employee benefits have just gone down and down and down, as other things have intruded and taken more and more of that pie. What I want to see is a fight back for the bit of the pie that is employee entitlements.

The privatisation issue has been on and off the agenda really. Where is it sitting with you?

I regret to say that you have got to watch this space. I think the fundamentals of good workers compensation reform are not bound up in the issue of whether it is a private scheme or not. I think if you look at the options in the system; if you get the incentives and the motivations and the rewards and the sanctions right, you could in theory do that either under a managed fund, or a private, underwritten fund. It doesn't really matter a lot. I think that once you get a lot of the fundamentals of the system right - the actuarial fundamentals and the dispute resolution fundamentals, you will make a final view as to what the ideal shape of the Workcover system.

Another issue on the agenda, although not of your making, is Peter Reith's plan for a unitary industrial relations system. What is your position on this?

I said today at a briefing, that there is a tradition that the Victorian labour movement supports the unitary system and the NSW labour movement opposes the unitary system. I remain highly suspicious of the unitary system. I suppose you can't ever write anything off, but you can see that the Reith inspired unitary system is all about continued attacks on workers' conditions; and all about attacks on collective bargaining; all about continued attacks on wage levels - so I'm not really interested in it.

I also think that it is one of those "if it's not busted why fix it?" arguments. The two systems work quite well together, some employers and unions find it easy to organise themselves under a Federal Act, others go for the State jurisdiction. I don't see any reason why government has to decide all of a sudden it will have a single system. There are a few on the employers side that are arguing that that is a better way to go, but I think we think it is an unconvincing argument.

What are your other priorities as IR Minister?

I think the labour movement needs to claim back the workplace. One of the things that has happened, is that because we have needed for political reasons to defend the role of the umpire; because we have needed to defend collective bargaining, while issues of individual contracts have come into place, we've lost control of the agenda. The critical thing is for Labor has something to say to the workplace, that we have got more to say about it than anybody - and working with the union movement I would like to to take the initiative to make for a more productive, safer, better trained workplaces. At the moment Peter Reith sort of owns the workplace and I think that is a bad thing

So, how do you seize the mantle back?

Maybe I will give you another interview in a year and tell you how we have done it. I think you can only do it cooperatively with the union movement, and frankly, you have to do it with the employers. It doesn't make sense to try to do it without them. It gets down to sponsoring a bit of a cooperative effort to reclaim the workplace issues - everything from occupational health and safety right through to legal relationships; right through to coping with change; productivity issues and all those sort of things.

Having been in State Parliament now for about 18 months, what do you think the main differences are between Macquarie Street and Sussex Street?

Almost everything!

Which is the more powerful place?

That's a bit like asking which is more powerful on a chess board a Queen or a King ?- It depends on what you are trying to do. I'll only talk about functionality and how I felt about the job on the one hand being a minister and on one hand being a senior party officer. As a senior party officer I think I developed a personal style that suited me. I think I got the respect of a lot of people. I could come and go more or less as I chose. I set a lot of my own agenda. Things are a little bit different as a minister - as someone I know used to say "it's like fighting for your food every day". That is probably an inelegant way to put it, but you have really got to establish a new set of credentials for every day. And that is a difference that I find both challenging and tough.

Just a brief question on Federal Labor. What chance do you think at this stage of a Federal Labor victory next year?

A good one. I think a lot of the fundamentals are there for Labor to move forward very positively and I am looking forward to it ending up being a tough contest and one which Labor can win.

What impact would a change of Federal government have on the Carr government?

Ask me when one is elected. I think that it would give us the ability to branch out a bit more. At the moment we are carrying the overwhelming burden of good health policy and good education policy. I think with a Federal Labor government we could work cooperatively those two areas, which would make a hell of a big, positive difference. It would also mean that we could strike out and concentrate on some other issues as well, because we have got to do a lot of backing and filling to make up for the deficiencies of the Federal government in both those two critical areas. So, I think that is one way of looking at it. In a whole lot of other areas it is fair to say the difference would be in the level of cooperation more than anything else. I think we would get a more cooperative attitude out of the Beazley Labor government on a range of areas.

Finally I have to ask you, as your sole public defender at the time, after the infamous lunch with Maxine, what really happened?

I'll have to pass on that one Peter. I decided some time ago to leave sleeping dogs lie on that. The fact of the matter is, as I said at the time, is that I have always in the past: I always was opposed to the GST. I have said consistently that the Party needed to campaign on progressive policies as well as a critique of what the Federal government was doing. That was the substance of the comments. How they were construed by Maxine McKew, I'll have to leave to history.

  View entire issue - print all of the articles!

  Issue 80 contents

»	It's Official: Union Leaders More Trusted than Bosses!
»	Reith Isolated on Workers Entitlements
»	Light for Shafted Woodlawn Miners
»	ATO Workers Stand Up to Bullying Bean-Counter
»	Schweppes Lockout Bubbles Internationally
»	Online Registration Takes Hold
»	Bush Apprentices Face Breadline
»	ALP Council Faces Workers' Wrath
»	Local Action to Back Burma Sanctions
»	WorkCover Needs First Aid Help
»	Shier Under Fire � At Your ABC
»	Social Charter Puts Heat on Howard
»	Wattyl Make 'Em Fair Dinkum?
»	International Union Aid Jobs on Offer

»	The Soapbox
»	Sport
»	Trades Hall
»	Tool Shed

»	Botsman Off Beam
»	Botsman Off Beam II
»	Fatherly Advice
»	Concerns on Fundraiser
»	Let's Be Frank about Frank!

Notice Board
- Check out the latest events

Latest Issue

View entire latest issue
- print all of the articles!

Previous Issues

Subject index

Search all issues

© 1999-2000 Labor Council of NSW

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

[ Privacy Statement | Disclaimer | Credits ]

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