
Issue No 92		20 April 2001

LaborNET	Ask Neale	Tool of the Week

Interview

Beyond the Accord

Interview with Peter Lewis

Simon Crean cut his teeth in the trade union movement, now he's gearing up to run the economy.

How has the economic debate changed in Australia since you were leading the ACTU?

I think the changes are twofold. When I was leading the ACTU, supply-side economics a la Thatcher and Reagan was all about tax cuts and giving individuals that freedom of purchasing, and that raised a whole lot of equity issues. The equity issues still remain but I think the supply side has got more to do with skills, innovation - support for the drivers of economic growth. And that is what our "Knowledge Nation" agenda is about today, and increasingly it is also about continuing to forge those partnerships at the enterprise level - the partnerships for productivity and for production.

Increasingly now the debate about surpluses beyond the retirement of debt is the choice between distribution in tax cuts or investment in the drivers of economic growth. That is a fundamental difference. The OECD interestingly is paying a lot of attention now to the drivers of economic growth and that is what Labor's "Knowledge Nation" is essentially about.

Another big thing that has come up over the last ten years is this concept of globalisation. Many of your core constituents feels that they have been locked out of this process, and they see the Hawke/Keating Government as being the initial drivers of this. What can a Beazley Government offer these people?

They were the drivers of it, but in partnership with the trade union movement through the Accord. Bear in mind that there wasn't an argument in the trade union movement in those days against the Cairns Group initiative, against the APEC initiative, and against the notion of opening up of global opportunities. The argument was about industry policy and how we position our industries more effectively to take advantage of global opportunities.

Now what has happened in the last five years is that the Government has dropped the ball on the implementation of the agenda that came out of the WTO and it has certainly dropped the ball on industry policy.

That doesn't mean much for people who are feeling the pain. What can a Beazley Government offer them that they are not getting at the moment?

It offers them job security and career opportunity in a way that wasn't there before. We can't get away from the fact that the workforce is constantly changing - that the key ingredient in this is training and re-skilling and re-equipping and the ability to embrace that change in a way that doesn't threaten people but actually rewards and encourages them. People need to be secure in the knowledge that there is a future for their industry - even though the industry is going to have to do things differently - that their core skills are being recognised and developed. I think it is that that we were genuinely prepared to offer and work towards, and which this government has shown no inclination towards.

Does it frustrate you though that when you are trying to portray this alternate vision you appear to be confined to arguing about GST and petrol prices?

You can't get away from the GST and petrol prices because they are day-to-day issues and they threaten people most of all. There is no point talking about globalisation or its impact if the GST is taking your job away - or if the GST has stripped your purchasing power - or if the GST means you can't afford to get in the car, take the kids to the cricket practice and the football practice, and can't go and visit the grandparents.

You can't ignore the bread and butter issues and the GST has done more to withdraw the bread and butter than anything in recent times in this country. Nothing that the Coalition argued about the GST has been borne out.

People in the construction industry, people in the retail sector - both important employers - have been significantly hit. And so I think the GST threatens the economy and it threatens equity. That is why you can't ignore it and you have to respond to it.

The petrol issue was one graphic example where the combination of broken promise plus GST impact came together in a way in which the public's mind was firmly focussed on something that was having a huge impact on their daily lives.

What we have to do, of course, is to continue to tackle those day-to-day issues, but still not lose sight of the broader direction - the broader framework - in which we have to secure longer-term sustainable growth into the future. And that is why our emphasis is on the drivers of economic growth.

You can have two debates in the current political climate. One is tax cuts versus GST roll back. The other is tax cuts versus investing in our future, investing in the Knowledge Nation. And I think Labor has to be in a position to respond to both of those arguments in developing our priorities for the next election, particularly when we see the true state of the books.

What we are trying to pinpoint is not just priorities for the next election that reflect the day-to-day problems, but priorities for where we take the country over the next decade and beyond.

Just on tax: Do you agree with the proposition that there should be some taxes on services, given they are the emerging area of the economy?

We opposed the GST, but we also said that once the GST was in, you couldn't unscramble the eggs. So we are stuck with the GST and we said that would be the case. And that carries with it the fact that a whole range of things are taxed that previously weren't taxed.

But do you think that is a good move?

Our task in the roll back of the GST is to identify the priorities by which you address fairness in its application, and that is the broad parameter against which roll back is judged. It has to be made fairer, but it has also to be made simpler. It can't add further complexity to those who have to administer it.

But would you say that as a principle that services should be taxed? Or in a perfect world they wouldn't be?

No, I wouldn't say that as a principle, because we argued against the Goods and Services Tax. We did not see the need to fundamentally change the tax mix. We always recognised that a taxation system needs to get the balance right between direct and indirect taxes. We thought we had the balance right.

The emphasis was also on taxing goods, not services, but trying to do it in a way that reflected necessities versus luxuries. Now, of course you can come up with all sorts of examples of inconsistencies whenever you have exemptions, but that was the principle behind it. And we always recognised the need to constantly review those processes but not to go through the fundamental turmoil that this Government has put through the system.

In terms of the relationship between a future Labor Government and the union movement, everyone is aware there won't be a formal Accord. But what alternative mechanism would you like to see in terms of wages policy between the Government and the union movement?

I think it is one that has to develop in government. It is always extremely difficult to define these relationships from Opposition. I have no doubt that the relationship will be an important one, but we have to do better at demonstrating a commitment to tripartism. The government needs to play more of a facilitative role in getting the partnership at the enterprise between a worker and employer, and I think against that background a framework, of necessity, needs to involve not just the trade union movement, but employers as well.

What is you general view of the union movement at the moment? Obviously there is a far smaller percentage of the workforce that is now unionised from when you were running the ACTU. Does it still have the voice it once had?

Yes, because it still has influence in the wages policy area... in the key areas. The interesting thing about it is that when I was President of the ACTU we had two million members. There are still two million members. The trouble is the workforce has gone from six million to close to nine million.

What hasn't happened is organisation in the area that has seen the greatest growth - the service sector - and that is still an organisational aspect that the trade union movement has to face up to. The point I'm making is there is still that important influence and role in traditional areas of activity that do have an impact into other sectors. So therefore, having a sensible relationship with the people that represent that part of the workforce I think is a requirement of all governments. It is a pity that this government sees them as the enemy and wants to have an ideological debate rather than a practical, constructive partnership.

Do you think that there are constructive things that a Federal Labor Government can do to help the union movement get back up on its feet, or isn't that your role?

It is important for the Government to create the environment for a better partnership for achieving the commitment to longer-term sustainable growth, because that is what determines job opportunities. It determines living standards. It determines the development of regions. Increasingly we have to come to grips better with these concepts of sustainability - not just economic sustainability, but environmental sustainability. So I think it is important for governments to have an over-arching view as to where those policy frameworks sit, and it is important that we involve key players in the development of common objectives.

So as to the organisational base of the trade union movement, that is a matter for it - and it can get on with that a lot easier if it is not having to fight the ideological battles with government and if it is being encouraged to play a constructive role. I think most organizations fare better in circumstances in which membership, or potential membership, can see that they are playing a constructive role, not just a defensive one.

Under the previous Keating Government, Bill Kelty sat on the Reserve Bank Board. Would it be your intention to put a trade union rep back on the Board?

I've got no commitment to that. Our commitment in terms of the Reserve Bank is its continuing independence, and the continuing requirement to address low inflation because that underpins low interest rates. But it must also have as part of its charter, which is in there in its charter now, a commitment to addressing significantly better employment opportunities. Now, what we therefore need on the Reserve Bank Board is quality, fairness and independence. I think we are looking for the best people, not nominees.

So you wouldn't rule out looking within the movement for those sort of people?

I wouldn't rule out anyone being considered if they met the priorities of the quality representation. But I don't want that to be taken as a fact that we are going to appoint a trade union representative. I think the criteria are not from where they come, but what they offer.

Can I just ask you about a specific policy option that hasn't really come up on the Australian agenda, which is the Tobin tax, which is something that is being pushed, both within the Left and more recently in more conservative circles. Do you have a position on a Tobin tax?

It is something that I am not against further consideration of, but you can't do it on your own. Increasingly what I have come to understand is that, with suggestions like this, unless there is a universal acceptance and a preparedness to embrace them, we are whistling in the wind if we think we can do it on our own.

Is that something you would see a Labor Government taking an international leadership role on?

Whether it is an international leadership... I think it is a discussion to have at the international levels. But there are more important issues at the international level at the moment. One of which is getting the international financial architecture into place - something this government has dropped the ball on. What we cannot afford is another consequence of an Asian economic meltdown because of poor prudential controls. Australia should be leading the way in that because it has a strong track record domestically.

I guess the other big global issue coming up on the agenda is the US/Australia Trade Agreement. Would you support the ACTU's line that there should be core labour standards included?

We have said that the labour standards issue is something that has to be addressed and addressed appropriately through an ILO role that is recognised through the WTO. And that is something that when I was ACTU President, I worked very hard at trying to get acceptance of.

On the question though of the agreement itself, we need to have a much better understanding of what this proposed agreement does. There are a number of criteria, and I think the important one is: Are we committed to getting improved access in the United States for industries of ours that currently are effectively locked out? What we don't want is some cosy arrangement that ignores the framework that really has been developed by us through WTO and APEC.

View entire issue - print all of the articles!

Issue 92 contents

Interview: Beyond the Accord
Simon Crean cut his teeth in the trade union movement, now he's gearing up to run the economy.

Politics: In Defence of Della�s List
The proposition that trade unions should ask members of the ALP for a commitment that they uphold Party policy should hardly be controversial.

Corporate: The Real Rorters
The unspoken sore of the WorkCover Scheme is non-compliance by employers. None more so that in the construction industry, as this CFMEU paper details.

Legal: In the Real World
Lawyer Ross Goodridge exposes the defficincies in the new medical assessment guidelines for workers compensation by looking at real case studies.

International: The Docklands and Global Labour
Ma Wei Pin and Jasper Goss recount how the struggle of a group of Indonesian hotel workers effected a lucrative Melbourne contract.

History: Sweatshops in America
Since the dawning of the Industrial Revolution, many generations of Americans have toiled in sweatshops.

Unions: Losers Never Start
At the end of her six week vigil, Grenadier delegate Michelle Booth gave her heartfelt thanks to the trade union movement.

Review: Working Classes: Global Realities
The Socialist Register 2001 looks at class realities and the lives of workers in the new century.

Satire: Democrats Change Leader
The Democrats have a new leader after belatedly discovering that Meg Lees had become the second Democrats leader in a row to defect to another party.

» Costa To Join Della�s List

» Compo Campaign Gathers Steam

» Della�s List: Dissident MPs Targeted

» Day of Mourning to be Compo Focus

» Small Steps in Negotiations � But Hard Yards Still to Come

» Important First Step for E-Mail Privacy

» Outraged Cleaners Continue AXA Axings Protests

» Grenadier Picket Ends � But Legacy Lives On

» Entitlement Dramas in Health and Printing

» Nurses Still Waiting on Olympics Bonus

» IRC Delays Hit Eight Month Barrier

» Claims of Dirty Tricks Conspiracy at Mobil

» Sydney Water Workers On Strike

» MUA Rides Anti-pollution Wave

» Governments Urged On Child Slavery

» Time To Act on Pay Discrimination

» Construction Union Supports Folk Festival

» Activists Notebook