
Issue No 84		16 February 2001

LaborNET	Ask Neale	Tool of the Week

Interview

Life After Wartime

Interview with Peter Lewis

After ten years representing the interests of the labour movement in Parliament, Jeff Shaw is back at the bar. And loving it.


	Jeff Shaw - comfortable and relaxed version

Well Jeff, the first question from all your friends in the union movement is how you are enjoying life post politics?

I've been able to do a lot of different things. I've been freed from the shackles of the discipline of being part of a government, so it has been, in a sense a liberating experience to come back to ordinary legal practice and ordinary life. All in all I think it has been beneficial for me, and hopefully for some of the clients I have acted for.

You are still knocking around the union movement a bit though?

I'm certainly acting for unions and some of the clients that have supported me over the years in a number of matters and that's been a great pleasure to go back to those old allies and to do what I can for them in their battles. I'm acting for the Caltex delegates - the AWU members of Caltex - against the company, and I'm doing an arbitration for the NUW against Davids Holdings - but they are only examples. I've acted for a whole series of unions, including the PSA and others in their matters too.

You were out of the practise for almost a decade. Has it changed? Has the world of industrial law changed in that 10 years?

The practice has changed. It has tended to become more technical and legalistic - particularly at the federal level. As the role of informal arbitration has declined more and more cases have been thrown into the Federal court and they are highly technical and legal. This is a phenomenon that is much less so in the NSW jurisdiction and some of the other Labor orientated State jurisdictions, but Federally we are dealing with much more black-letter law that what was the case in the old days when we were simply conciliating and arbitrating disputes.

So are you saying that in an effort to deregulate Federally, we have actually ended up with a system which is more regulatory?

Well, it is certainly true that the result of diminishing the arbitration powers federally has meant that disputes are run on a more legalistic level and much more likely to be run in the Federal Court. I suppose the waterfront dispute is the quintessential example, but that is only one amongst many. Again and again unions are finding themselves, either initiating proceedings in the Federal Court, or on the other end of those proceedings, so that is adding an overlay of expense and technicality to what would, in former eras have been a relatively informal way of resolving industrial disputes. I don't think that is a beneficial development, but it has nonetheless occurred.

And for all that change, do you see the outcomes of the cases being demonstrably different?

I think the outcomes are different in the sense that there is the lack of the old sense of compromise, a lack of the former balance that used to occur in the arbitration system. It is more a case of black and white. There is either a total victor or a total loser for one side or the other, whereas traditionally conciliation and arbitration led to a balanced package which tried to give something to both sides and tried to give them a solution that they could both live with. - In other words, the art of compromise.

With that in mind, and having returned to that federal jurisdiction, what ideas would you have for Federal Labor as they move to come up with a policy for the 21st Century in IR?

I think Arch Bevis and Federal Labor are very much going in the right direction in terms of restrengthening the role of an independent arbitrator; re-emphasising the validity of the award sub-structure as representing a standard of fairness for working people. At the same time, obviously some things have moved on and the idea of greater flexibility in the labour market is a notion that can't really be negated and shouldn't be negated. So all in all, what Federal Labor is putting forward is a balanced package which recognises some changes that have occurred, but also seeks to ensure that people are not exploited by those changes.

What is the best thing about not being in politics?

For me it is a freer life. It is a life not dominated by the 6.30am media calls; or the inevitable series of crises during the day; or the need to attend multiple functions on Saturday and Sunday. So after 10 years, and particularly five years as a Minister, playing that role, it is the greater autonomy that I have in my own professional and personal life.

Looking back on that time, what would be the one thing in which you have the most pride in having achieved?

It is hard to single out one particular thing because in both the Attorney-General's portfolio and in the Industrial Relations portfolio I think we as a team - and I don't just mean me - but I mean the Cabinet and my ministerial staff and my departments - achieved a whole swathe of things which were worth doing. But the industrial relations regime in NSW, I believe, has worked very well indeed, and the fact that there is so little criticism of it from either side of the record, is a testament to the fact that it has balance. The non-discriminatory laws about property relationships, which were controversial in their time, have just settled down and been accepted and are being adopted in Queensland and in Victoria. The maintenance of the level, and indeed the increased level, of legal aid that we were able to achieve at a time when the Commonwealth was drastically reducing legal aid, was an achievement - to be able to persuade Treasury of the appropriateness of that was an achievement.

They are just examples. In fact, there were many positive things that I think were able to be done. The re-writing of the Occupational Health & Safety Act; the increased emphasis on enforcement of that Act and higher penalties, I think were very useful reforms.

Are there any things you would have done differently if you had your time over again?

I can't think of any stark examples of how you would do it differently. I think some of the changes I've mentioned and some other changes I would have liked to have achieved more quickly - there was always the frustration that things proceeded slowly through the bureaucratic and governmental processes, but ultimately most of those things were able to be achieved. For example, privacy legislation proceeded slowly, but was able to be achieved. The Administrative Decisions Tribunal took a couple of years to get up and running, but ultimately was got up and running. So, I don't think there is anything I particularly regret or would fundamentally think of doing in a different way if I had my time over again.

It is probably not a secret. There were times when you were frustrated as a Minister in the Government, at the speed of getting your reforms through. Do you think there are ways we can improve the way a government operates on a State level to increase the capacity for reform?

Well, I think the idea of more rapid consultation - I think consultation is vital - but some things tend to get stretched out into years of consultation, when really, if people are given a reasonable opportunity - in say a period of a few weeks - that should be enough. I think we could truncate some of the consultative processes. I think the idea of ensuring that departments who are commenting on Cabinet minutes do so in a timely way, rather than simply delaying the matter excessively - ought to be looked at. But by and large, I would have to say that the input of bureaucracies does save the government from some of its possible mistakes. So I would be the last one to advocate a completely free hand for Ministers independent of the Cabinet process. I think that process will always be a break upon our ideas, which with hindsight might not be the smartest ideas in the world.

What about the power of the Cabinet Office?

The Cabinet Office does play a vital role and Ministers will always be frustrated from time to time with that role, but at the same time, if you can argue your case, if you can persuade the Cabinet, then you will overcome any public service opposition to the contrary of your proposals.

Looking at the ALP currently - and I know that there have been some difficult times in Queensland. You have been called on to give some advice over the way the Party has been structured up in Queensland in the wake of the recent troubles up there. What sort of perspective do you take to that? Do you think the Party needs fundamental changes?

I think the Party has got to adopt the ethos that its decisions about pre-selections and about the validity of processes have to be above the factions. They have to be seen to be completely legitimate. So I would favour disciplinary tribunals or appeal tribunals in the Party which are seen by the Party membership as a whole as beyond the pushing and shoving of factional competition. I think if we had that legitimate review process, then no one could say that there wasn't access to a fair system of adjudication within the Party.

Secondly I think we need to put the interests of the Party, well and truly above the interests of individuals, and so where there s improper conduct, rorting or stacking, then it seems to me the Party leadership ought to come down strongly against such malpractice as I think Premier Beattie has shown in Queensland.

One of the difficulties seems to be for someone who wants to get into power has got to play that game or be sponsored in. You were basically sponsored because you were regarded as somebody of talent, but there is not many people that get in that way. Do you think it is actually hurting the Party in terms of the sort of people that they are getting into Parliament?

There is nothing wrong with the idea that if you want to get into Parliament, you have to work assiduously in your branches; be seen to be an activist; or an activist in the union movement; you have to show leadership and so on. I think though it is certainly a detrimental factor if it were seen that you need to simply encourage large numbers of people that aren't seriously interested in the Party to obtain membership. We have got to try to distinguish the genuine activist and leader within the Party, who is entitled to go on to bigger and better things, that the person who is simply a stacker of branches.

Having gone through your time as a member of Parliament, do you retain an interest in the way the Labor Party functions over the coming years?

I do. I will always retain an affectionate interest in the Party and my membership in the Party, and if I can contribute in any way - whether by way of ideas or otherwise, I will certainly be available to assist the ALP.

I guess on that, one of the big debates now is what the ALP is going to stand for in the future and this whole ... I guess over the last couple of decades some keystones of traditional Labor ideology seem to have been whittled away or to have gone by the wayside. What does Labor stand for in the 21st Century?

In the broad, it should stand for a fairer society - giving everyone a reasonable go. And it is a case of putting that into practice. The old doctrinaire socialist ideas of nationalisation of industry have obviously been bypassed by history, but that doesn't mean that Labor shouldn't take a very conscientious and serious interest in people who are disadvantaged - whether by way of people who are working on low wages; people who are discriminated against in the workforce; people who are forced into casual work where they aspire to permanent part-time work. I think there is still a very vibrant role for basic Labor values - to say that everyone in this society should get a fair go. The battler whose children are aspiring to do the Higher School Certificate and who don't have adequate resources - that is the sort of person that the Labor Party should look to - not only for their voting support - but to help in a positive way.

View entire issue - print all of the articles!

Issue 84 contents

Interview: Life After Wartime
After ten years representing the interests of the labour movement in Parliament, Jeff Shaw is back at the bar. And loving it.

Legal: Why the Freeloaders Should Pay
Michael Costa explains why service fees are not only fair - they are economically rational.

Organising: Young Activists Bask in Union Summer
Sydney students have spent three weeks of their summer holidays experiencing on-the-ground work with unions.

Unions: Things Are Looking Up On The Dock
After six years as a call centre worker, Marios Ellas has joined the union movement. Here's his first impressions.

History: Trades Hall � The Royal Connection
Republic, who needs it when we have the Trades Hall decreed by Royal Imprimatur? So tug your forelock as work commences to restore the building.

International: Greetings from Hong Kong
Chan Wai-Keung from the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions outlined the challenges facing Hong Kong workers.

Politics: One Nation - The Old Labor Link
The resurgence in One Nation in the WA election has the pundits again reaching for the tea-leaves. But are they pouring from the wrong pot?

Review: Elect the Ambassador
Labor frontbencher Duncan Kerr unveils his vision for a new international democracy.

Satire: Man Buys Big Issue for the Articles
A Melbourne businessman claims his recent purchase of the "Big Issue" was due to his interest in the magazine's editorial content.

» Young Workers: The Wage Gypsies

» Union Members Tell Scabs: Sing for Your Supper

» Genetic Advances Spark New Privacy Issues

» Wentworth Twenty Emerge Victorious

» Racing Radio Makes Way for Workers� Voice

» Another Major Centre Takes Union Call

» Transport Passes Key Issue for Young Workers

» Shier Calls the Cops! - Fear and Loathing at the ABC

» BHP Contracts Battle Goes Back to the Coalface

» Newcastle Mill to be Union Project

» Government Must Lead on Casual Leave

» Della Ends Discrimination on Leave Entitlements

» Rural Safety Campaign Pays Off

» Mom Always Said � Don�t Break a Picket