The Department of Public Works and Services has mounted the argument while facing a WorkCover prosecution for breach of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Public Service Association general secretary Maurie O'Sullivan says that no Government body in New South Wales up to now has claimed to be above the law.
"That DPW&S now claims such privilege is a sad day for fair play and even a sad day for the law in New South Wales," O'Sullivan says. "It is a much sadder day for the people who may have a very just and legitimate grievance with that government employer.
"Across New South Wales the Government is the biggest of all employers and there is something rotten in the state if it now claims to be able to legally abrogate its responsibility to its employees.
Referring the matter to a meeting of all Labor Council affiliates, secretary Michael Costa said it was an "outrageous argument for the Government to be mounting, particularly in the context of the current workers compensation debate."
"If this is the law, we'll be asking the Minister for Industrial Relations to legislate to change the law to ensure all government departments are subject to safety laws," he says.
Costa says this should be included in the workers compensation reform package currently before the State Parliament.
Unions-Della Seeks 'Mutual Satisfaction'
Meanwhile, Monday is the deadline for an escalation of industrial action over the Della Bosca reform package.
Unions have put the government on notice that action will be reactivated if agreement is not reached on amendments to ensure injured workers are not left worse off under the package.
The Labor Council's negotiating committee voted last week for a seven day extension to their moratorium after Della Bosca gave a written undertaking that:
"The reform package will not proceed until consultation is concluded to our mutual satisfaction
While the respective interpretations of this letter led to some confusion, both Costa and Della Bosca publicly stated their confidence that an agreement could be reached. That faith will be put to the test at Monday's report back.
Workers across the state remain on alert for statewide action on May 29 - this alert will remain in place until a suitable package is agreed to.
10,000 More Reasons to Look After injured Workers
The formal petition against the WorkCover changes has passed 10,000 signatures. This includes more than 300 petitions that have been delivered over the website
The Labor Council's campaign committee will this week consider when this will be handed over to the Parliament.
The CFEMU construction division has made the suggestion, which would require a minor amendment to the NSW Industrial Relations Act.
The union says the problem has an easy fix, that employers must name their legal entity on a pay slip. They should also be required to inform workers when that entity changes.
"Often our members who are injured are unable to identify the correct name of the legal entity which employs or employed them and suffer unnecessary delay and frustration in respect of claims," state secretary Andrew Ferguson says.
He says the problem, which also applies in respect of wage claims, would be a problem confronted across the movement.
""Frequently employers in the private sector are changing the name of the company, closing and forming new legal entities without advising employees," Ferguson says.
"Generally these changes are initiated to circumvent group tax, payroll tax, workers compensation and other statutory requirements".
Labor Council will ask Industrial relations Minister John Della Bosca to make the required changes to the legislation.
Primus Telecommunications is currently offering unions discount services through ACTU's Member Connect, which organised a Sydney briefing to discuss the offer this week.
Two separate division of the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union have written to Labor Council raising concerns about the proposed partnership.
Ian McCarthy from the CEPU's Telecommunications and Services branch says his unions had been in dispute with Primus over the sacking of staff in Melbourne.
McCarthy says that while Primus reluctantly coughed up a termination payment for staff, since that time management have blocked every move by the CEPU to organise the Melbourne call center.
"Given the amount of business that Primus enjoys through it involvement with the Australian union movement, we believe that any expansion of our relationship should be place don hold until industrial issues, such as right of access for union officials, are resolved.
"It seems Primus is quite prepared to accept our money but our presence in their workplace is unwanted."
And Jim Metcher from the Postal and Telecommunications branch says Primus is "an anti-union telecommunications provider."
"The CEPU finds it quite disturbing that the ACTU is initiating and promoting such an arrangement to have Unions sign up with the Primus discounted telephone services, a company who have no award or certified agreement that provide industry standards for Primus employees," Metcher says.
But Mal Larsen from the Community and Public Sector Union says after a slow start, the company had agreed to make an enterprise agreement with the CPSU.
Larsen also says Primus is one company that is not resisting an industry-wide award. "While the union has encountered a lot of resistance from many of the employers in the industry, we are pleased to say that Primus is amongst the group of companies who are not opposing then making of an award," he says.
The Labor Council has referred the Primus issue to a meeting of interested affiliates.
Meanwhile, ACTU has requested that Primus meet a number of conditions relating to industrial arrangements including:
- a comittment to negotiate a collective agreement with unions
- a comittment to support the callcentral code of conduct for call centres
- a comittment to provide organising rights to unions operating in Primus
In addition the ACTU indicated to Primus and the unions that if union coverage issues are involved these will be resolved by the ACTU. Secretary greg Combet says he firmly believes Primus will meet these requirements.
Unions are working to gather sufficient support to block the merger, using their members own staff shareholding, as well as approaching institutional investors.
Workers with their savings in superannuation are also being asked to ask thweir industry funds to vote against the deal, which they say will see an Australian asset swallowed up by the South African company.
The unions are also running newspaper advertisements and are planning to hold a rally outside the Sydney meeting next Saturday. An international campaign of lobbying overseas investors in both companies will also occur over the next seven days.
Participating unions are the Australian Workers Union, the CFMEU Mining Division, the Communications, Electrical and plumbing Union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the Maritime Union of Australia and APESMA.
Bad for Australia
At a joint press conference this week, representatives of the unions said the only winners from the merger would be Biliton shareholders and BHP CEO Paul Anderson who stood to make $20 million personally if the sale goes through.
The AWU's Andrew Whilley said Australians had a direct interest in what happens to BHP, in terms of both jobs and the strength of the national economy.
CFMEU mining division's Tony Maher said the merger was a "dud deal" that was proceeding on the basis of "trust us". He said financial analysts were now questioning what had initially been hyped as a dream partnership.
And the MUA' Paddy Crumlin linked the campaign to the broader movement to hold corporations responsible to their communities.
"There has been a long line of investment by Australians to ensure that this company6 adds value to our community and our society," Crumlin said.
The unions called on both John Howard and Kim Beazley to publicly oppose the merger.
See our features section for a full rundown on the campaign
See the Tool Shed for a full rundown on Anderson
by Andrew Casey
" We would see breweries, wineries and hotels throughout Australia passing into the hands of a foreign multinational with little loyalty, commitment or understanding of our national interests," Tim Ferrari, the LHMU Assistant National Secretary, said today.
Around 14,000 workers are employed by the Fosters group with six Australian breweries, a number of wineries, more than 150 hotels and over 90 bottle shops.
" Our most famous pub, the Melbourne icon The Young and Jackson, will end up not being owned by an Australian company," Tim Ferrari said.
Howard's not in the Shout, 'cause he's going Dutch
" This morning's reports that the Dutch brewer is interested in Fosters is no surprise to this union when the Australian government seems to have done little to defend our dollar.
" The current value of the Australian dollar makes Fosters a cheap drink for a multinational to quaff.
" For Heineken it is happy hour with the half-price dollar. And Howard's not in the Shout, 'cause he's going Dutch," Tim Ferrari said.
" The Prime Minister can't back Fosters against Heineken because his government has not put the resources into industry research and development, helping Australian companies to expand here and overseas.
" John Howard's failure to adopt a manufacturing industry development policy has sent out the wrong signals.
" The commitment by Fosters to Australian jobs would disappear overnight if a take-over by this enormous Dutch brewer is allowed to go ahead.
" As proof just look at the US company, Campbells Soups and their take-over of that other Australian icon, Arnotts biscuits.
" They have shown no commitment and loyalty to our people.
" They are now proposing to close their Victorian plant, with the loss of 600 jobs, because the US company can make more profit by selling the site as land for housing.
" The Federal Government should not pussyfoot around.
" Howard and Costello should come out immediately and can the idea of selling off Fosters to Heineken."
Give us your views on Heineken buying Fosters
Do you have a view about Fosters being bought by a foreign company? What do you think the Howard Government should do? What do you think LHMU should do?
Write a note in our Guest Book by clicking here.
by Andrew Casey
Around 100 workers from Arnotts took their protest against the closure to the special Centenary of Federation joint sitting of Parliament at Melbourne's Royal Exhibition Buildings.
And next Wednesday they are planning another protest rally on the steps of Victoria's Parliament House. Three days later the LHMU, with the backing of the Victorian Trades Hall Council, have a huge community rally organised for the Dallas Brooks Hall.
At the Centenary celebrations the Arnotts workers briefly blocked the main entrance to the buildings just after midday to protest the closure of their factory and the loss of jobs.
Chanting "Arnotts, Arnotts, you're no good, you've sold out our livelihood", the protesters waved placards at politicians arriving for the centenary celebrations.
The LHMU, which represents 400 of the 600 workers, has called on the state and federal governments to intervene to either keep Arnotts in Victoria or to ensure another biscuit manufacturer buys the plant.
It is believed that Arnotts plans to sell off the plant machinery and equipment and sell the land, throwing 600 Victorians out of work in September.
Victoria feels strongly about Arnotts closure
LHMU Victorian Assistant Secretary Terry Breheny said this week that Victorians felt very strongly about the closure of Arnotts.
" Choosing not to buy Arnotts products will send a strong message to the company that it has not behaved as a responsible corporate citizen.
" There was no good reason to pull out of Victoria and place in jeopardy the livelihoods of 600 working Victorians and their families," Terry Breheny said.
Mr Breheny said the call for a boycott was meant to send a strong message to governments and to overseas investors that the community would not tolerate callous and irresponsible corporate behavior.
" I ask Australians, and Victorians in particular, to choose another product when buying their biscuits in the supermarkets. Tell Arnotts how you feel about them.
Manufacturing policy needed
" I also ask the Victorian and federal governments to become more involved in this issue and to do all that is possible to save the jobs of these workers.
" We need a stronger industry policy for manufacturing in this state. Too many
jobs are being lost. People want to know what the politicians are doing about it."
In other developments, Arnott's representatives met the LHMU on Thursday to discuss concerns over workers' entitlements, including the fate of 180 casual labour hire workers who at present will not receive a single dollar in retrenchment monies.
After the meeting the LHMU's Terry Breheny, said the members had put a wide range of proposals, including better redundancy arrangements, to the company.
During the talks some of the members had got quite emotional.
"It's still fairly demoralising. There was two or three of the union representatives that actually broke down emotionally and had to leave the meeting. There's a lot of anger about the decision."
Talks are now scheduled to resume next Tuesday, the day before a planned rally on the steps of Victoria's Parliament House.
The LHMU members want Arnott's parent company, Campbell's Soups, to send representatives from the US to Melbourne to explain the reasons for the closure.
Community Campaign
Mr Breheny said the Arnotts workforce had unanimously endorsed a community campaign which included the call for a boycott.
Union delegates from other manufacturing areas have also strongly endorsed the LHMU campaign.
A community rally will be held in on 20 May at the Dallas Brooks Hall. Contact the LHMU office in Victoria 03/9235 7777 for more details.
Give us your views on the Arnott's campaign
Do you have a view about the effectiveness of consumer boycotts? What else do you think the LHMU should do? Why not write a note in the LHMU's Guest Book on their website.
Give the union your views by clicking here.
Contact Arnotts and tell 'em what you think
You can also make contact with the Arnotts bosses, and tell them what you think about LHMU members getting the sack.
In your message you can remind the company about their now hollow claim that they are more than just a biscuit company, they are part of Australian culture.
Contact Arnotts and leave a message by clicking here.
by Alison Peters
This alone was enough to demonstrate the success of a project to establish a Vietnamese Women Outworkers Network.
The project was undertaken by Asian Women at Work (AWAW) in partnership with the Vietnamese Women's Association and with the support of the Textile Clothing and Footwear Union (TCFUA). The report points out that "outworkers are often strong gutsy women who are trapped at home, isolated and misinformed. For many, the migration experience has brought with it a change of personality as assertive women struggle to make themselves understood and struggle to understand the world around them. Experiences en route to Australia have also instilled fear and mistrust in many".
The establishment of a network for these women was seen as a way to address this sense of isolation and to build their confidence both individually and collectively to deal with the issues confronting them. Key elements of the project were identifying ways to make contact with outworkers, identifying their issues of concern and establishing activities to bring the workers together in groups. The TCFUA worked with AWAW to deliver a Workplace English Language and Literacy (WELL) class to network members and also an Assessors program that qualifies workers to assess the technical skills of other outworkers so that these can be formally recognized.
These activities have seen the establishment of a network of 80 women who through different group activities have been, in their own words, daring to speak out about their working conditions. They have developed strong relationships with each other and have become confident to do many things they would never have dreamed of doing a year ago such as speaking in public, taking up issues with their local council and traveling into the city to take part in Fair Wear rallies.
The report recommends that the approach used in this project be adopted and adapted for other outworker communities. It is an interesting model for unions to consider both as a way to work with community organizations and with workers from diverse cultural backgrounds.
This inspiring project demonstrates quite clearly the strength workers have when they work together on resolving their issues. This strength doesn't stop with the workplace. It allows ordinary people to take some control over their lives.
AWAW should be congratulated for this report on the project. Our biggest congratulations must, however, go the Vietnamese women who make up the network because they have dared to act.
Copies of the report are available from Asian Women at Work. They can be contacted by email at [email protected]
by Sarah Roberts
On 26 February this year Dr Ted Steele was summarily dismissed from his position as Associate Professor at the University of Wollongong. The letter of dismissal was delivered by hand to Steele at home at 5.15pm that day, along with a letter from the Head of Human Resources asking him to make arrangements to collect his `material' from the university as soon as possible.
The reason given by the University for taking this action was Steele's public criticism of honours assessment procedures adopted at the University, and his refusal to withdraw his statement that he had been instructed to alter marks, which was published in the Sydney Morning Herald.
Dr Steele was dismissed without notice and in breach of the procedures for investigating allegations of serious misconduct outlined in the Enterprise agreement, itself agreed on after lengthy and at times difficult negotiation with the University.
The clause that was breached sets out agreed procedures for hearing allegations of serious misconduct by members of staff at the University. Essentially, it ensures that staff engaging in academic debate, public or private, are accorded due process, regardless of the nature or the content of their comments. Similar clauses appear in most University agreements.
The NTEU's position is that regardless of whether Steele's actions were justified or not, he had a right to due process. Steele was accused of serious misconduct without a proper investigation being mounted, and the Vice-Chancellor appointed himself judge, jury and executioner.
The case raises important issues for all workers and for the public interest.
In sacking a tenured academic without reference to the agreed disciplinary procedures in the Enterprise Agreement, the Wollongong Vice-Chancellor not only denied Steele natural justice, but also showed a blatant disregard for the employment security of all staff.
The public is also entitled to know that public comment by academic staff is free from the threat of intimidation or dismissal, especially where unpopular or controversial opinions are being expressed.
If the Vice-Chancellor's actions are not challenged and overturned, a dangerous precedent is established: if employers believe they can get away with breaching Enterprise Agreements in this way, they will try it at every
turn.
Please sign the on-line petition at http://www.datalink.net.au/nteu/ or follow the links from http://www.nteu.org.au/ - and publicise the issues at your workplace.
The campaign to extend a right enjoyed by federal and state public sector workers into the local government sector is being run by the Municipal Employees' Union.
MEU State Secretary Brian Harris says while the union has been able to achieve Paid Maternity Leave in some councils such as Sydney City, Newcastle City and Wollongong City, it is something that should be available to all workers.
"Within NSW many employees in Local Government undertake a variety of functions for the community that often resemble those functions undertaken by other public sector authorities.
"However, because the employees work for a Local Government authority as opposed to directly being employed by the Crown (Federal or State), they have been excluded
NSW Labor Council secretary Michael Costa says parity for local government workers is an issue Labor councilors should be promoting.
"Paid maternity leave is a principle that is supported by ALP Policy and Platform and it is not an unreasonable ask for councilors endorsed by the ALP to be publicly supporting the issue," Costa says.
Members of the Rail, Tram and Bus Union had feared that their jobs were under threat as the government moved to purchase "rolling stock" - that is, the trains and carriages - from private companies.
They initially intended to offer the private sector contracts for both supply and maintenance of the trains - meaning the outsourcing of 1,000 public sector jobs.
But after talks brokered by the NSW Labor Council, the Minister has undertaken that all future contracts will be for purchase only, and that the SRA workshops will get all the maintenace work.
RTBU state secretary Nick Lewocki paid tribute to both Transport Minister Scully and Labor Council's Michael Gadiel for the decision to "support for long-term job security for rail workers and their families."
South Coast knitwear manufacture Tooralie faced the first round of legal action this week in the Chief Industrial Magistrate's Court, when it was ordered to pay $27,000 in claims and fines arising from union prosecution for two of its workers.
They are amongst 10 workers who have launched legal action for underpayment of the award and unpaid entitlements, after Tooralie moved its premises from Bombala to Canberra.
The union argued in separate proceedings in the Australian Industrial relations commission that the termination of the Bombala workers was prompted by the decision of the Bombala workers to refuse to sign the Australian Workplace Agreement proposed by the employer, which was drafted by the Employment Advocate.
The AWA abolished public holidays and annual leave and rolled these into a flat rate and allowed the employer to unilaterally stand down employees and vary hours. Prior to the AWA, the company had been paying below-award wages, had been reneging on superannuation payments and was even failing to pass on employees' own superannuation contributions.
It is these underpayments, that has been the focus of the current action before the Industrial Magistrate. With 60 charges still pending the TCFUA estimates the final bill will pass the six-figure threshold.
Meanwhile, Tooralie's new non-union Canberra workforce is facing similar underpayment of superannuation, despite complaints to the federal Department of Industrial Relations. Two of the workers have made complaints to the Tax Office.
TCFUA state secretary Barry Tubner says the lesson from Tooralie is simple: "If you want to pay above the award, it's easy under a collective agreement. If you want to rip workers off its easy too - you offer them an AWA."
Ngadinah, the general secretary of the shoe factory's trade union has been held in a women's prison since April 23, and was dragged before the local Tangerang District Court this week to face charges of inciting people to resist authority and 'unpleasant treatment towards other people'.
The latter charge is said to relate to Ngadinah's poor relationship with the boss and management of the shoe company - PT Panarub.
The chairman of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Indonesia (GBSI), Bandung Eko Saputro, this week vowed to have Ngadinah's case brought before the ILO and international trade union forums.
" Ngadinah is a representative of worker activists throughout Indonesia who struggle for workers' rights," the GBSI chair told the Jakarta Post this week.
He compared Ngadinah with Marsinah, an Indonesian labour activist in East Java who was found dead in 1993 three days after staging a demonstration demanding welfare improvements for workers.
The Marsinah case became a cause celebre in the international trade union movement.
The GSBI has appealed to Adidas to urgently respond to the Ngadinah case and order all Indonesian companies who hold their licences to comply with Adidas's code of conduct.
The GSBI has vowed to garner international support for a campaign of boycotts of Adidas products should the company fail to comply with the union groups demands.
Ngadinah was arrested after her bosses complained to local police that she was the mastermind of massive strikes conducted by 8000 workers at the company's compound in Tangerang between September 8 and September 11 last year.
Her lawyer said the striking workers were only demanding that the company, PT Panarub, abide by government regulations on workers' rights which granted health, family and meal allowances for workers.
by Andrew Casey
Senior politicians like Senator Ted Kennedy, top union leader's like the AFL-CIO's John Sweeney and popular culture figures like Mel King and Matt Damon lined up in front of the television cameras on the Harvard campus showing their support and praising the students.
More than 50 students occupied the administration buildings on April 18 demanding that the university pay more than 1000 university cleaning and catering workers at least $10.25 an hour - the basic living wage.
The students had not expected to be there for more than a few hours, maybe a couple of days, as they resolved to give voice to their campaign for Harvard university to boost the wages of its lowest-paid workers.
Several of the protest leaders had been involved during their university vacations with the AFL-CIO's Union Summer intern program which had inspired them to return to their campus and promote the union cause in their local community. The AFL-CIO's Union Summer program was introduced in 1995, soon after John Sweeney took over as head of the US national union centre.
( In Australia the ACTU's Organising Institute has copied this initiative, running a successful first Union Summer intern program for university students at the end of last year.)
But as Harvard management resisted the campaign demands the students dug in and started receiving national media attention.
Eventually Harvard management was not just negotiating with the students but they were contending with lawyers from the AFL-CIO, pro-union academics and daily repeated solidarity marches and calls for strikes from university workers who were members of the SEIU and HERE.
Meanwhile the US commentators and the media started highlighting what they said was a new convergence of the union and student movements.
You can read more about what the US media said about the Harvard sit-in if you click here.
Labor Council has been seeking feedback as they design the first specialist website for IT workers, under the auspices of the IT Workers Alliance.
The site would provide information and services for existing union embers employed in the industry, as well as highlighting the advantages of collective action to a sector that is not heavily unionized.
Affiliates including MEAA, APESMA, the SDA and ASU Services Division have been involved in the steering committee, but all interested unions are welcome to the next meeting, scheduled for May 24.
We've received some excellent suggestions on name, functions and structure and uncovered a few potential activists to drive the new organization.
If you have a view, enter it in our online forum by clicking here:http://www.labor.net.au/forums/itworkers
The 1000th story was post about 14 months after the LaborNet portel was launched - meaning we are average close to 20 stories per week.
The International Council of Free Trade Unions is one of more than 60 union organizations around Australia and around the world who place stories direct to the Newsfeed via password.
The Newsfeed has now replaced fax as the primary source for trade union communication between affiliates and with the mainstream media, many of whom are now routinely checking out site.
If you want your union to join the feed, just go to http://www.labor.net.au and apply to join the LaborNet News Netowrk.
***************
Workplace Democracy Conference
Check out the Worksite website for details of the Workplace Democracy Conference to be held at the University of Sydney on 1 June 2001.
You can register for the conference from the website:
http://www.labor.net.au/worksite/index.html
Urban Theatre Project
A site-based performance about refugees:
Voices, sounds & images from the camps within our borders.
"Naw?" asks the woman at the big desk. "Nawi to ciea?" She waits, pen poised above a sheaf of papers. "Walami prsirako bdarawa!" the man next to her barks. "Nawi kasakaw sabay ziarat ciea?" Someone in the queue behind you comes to your rescue: "They want your name and purpose of visit."
This is not Border Control, but Front of House at the latest production by Urban Theatre Projects, Asylum. It's a show about refugees, engaging with the on-going public debate about how Australia should respond to them. "Australians like to think we have a proud history of welcoming refugees and migrants," says the show's director, Claudia Chidiac. "There are these warm and fuzzy images of the old migrant hostels like Bonegilla. But times are changing - now we greet new refugees with Detention Centres in the middle of nowhere, razor-wire, and years of waiting."
Claudia has researched the show extensively, speaking with detainees inside the Villawood Detention Centre, as well as people who have been through the lengthy and difficult process of gaining refugee status.
"People don't leave their homes and families, and travel to the other side of the world for no reason," she says. "They've left because their life was in danger. But to gain asylum, to be allowed to stay, they need to prove that to the immigration authorities."
"The have to keep telling their story, over and over again. Every detail is checked and challenged. So they become wedded to their story - it's their passport and only chance of survival, but it's also a burden. They have to keep telling and keep living what may be very traumatic events. They become their story, and they become performers," says Claudia. "That's the kind of uneasy relationship we want to bring out in Asylum."
Asylum is performed by an ensemble of five: Angel Boudjbiha, Sepideh Fallah, Anna Nguyen, Nahro Saaid, and Cyrus Sarang. Some have been through the experience of coming to Australia as refugees, from Algeria, Iran, Vietnam and Kurdistan. Some were practising theatre artists in their former homelands.
Claudia has performed and trained with western Sydney company, Urban Theatre Projects for over three years - as has writer, Khoa Do. Video is by Denis Beaubois, while Rik Rue provides a soundscape inspired by his visit to Villawood Detention Centre.
The venue for Asylum is a vacant wallpaper shop in Lidcombe - a place of transience and transformation. UTP is known for its innovative site-based performances in unusual urban spaces, including trains travelling through western Sydney (TrackWork, 1997), a residential street in Liverpool (Speed Street, 1998), and the Bankstown shopping district (Subtopia, 1999). The company also has a long-standing commitment to working with communities to make theatre, and to making performance that reflects Sydney's cultural diversity.
Asylum is presented at 54 Joseph Street, Lidcombe (5min walk to train station). It runs two weeks from May 31, playing Thursday to Saturday. Admission is free, but book on 9707 2111.
������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
PERFORMERS Angel Boudjbiha, Sepideh Fallah, Anna Nguyen, Nahro Saaid, Cyrus Sarang
DIRECTOR Claudia Chidiac DRAMATURGY John Baylis & Khoa Do VIDEO Denis Beaubois SOUND Rik Rue LIGHTING DESIGNER Richard Montgomery
DATES May 31 - June 9 (Thu-Sat 8pm) FREE BUT BOOKINGS ESSENTIAL - call 9707 2111
VENUE 54 Joseph Street, Lidcombe (5min from train station)
������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Visiting activist: Indonesian human rights sacrificed to service Debt
As Indonesia descends into political and economic chaos, its people are becoming shackled in foreign Debt. From 1997 to 2000 Indonesia's debt rocketed from US$54 billion to $142 billion.
Visiting human rights activists to Australia are critical of the international community's - including Australia's - response to the crisis. Binny Buchori, Executive Director of the peak body known as the International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID), speaks out this week against the policies of creditors, including Australia. A clear and articulate speaker, she will be addressing a public meeting on Friday May 11th at 7 pm at 169 Philip St, Sydney.
Australia is owed over A$1.5 billion by Indonesia and has influence in a number of international creditor institutions, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Buchori asserts the creditor community helped create Indonesia's debt crisis and should therefore accept some of the responsibility to find solutions. The World Bank worked in co-operation with Soeharto's "New Order" regime, turning a blind eye to persistent corruption, and it must be accountable. The IMF must also take responsibility for exacerbating Indonesia's debt problem by its interventions following the Asian economic crisis, when it made clumsy efforts to reform the private banking sector. The result was a conversion of massive private debt into public debt, which accounts for almost three quarters of the hike in the country's debt burden since 1997.
Far from taking any responsibility, the World Bank and IMF are currently concerned with Indonesia raising its capacity to repay, thereby placing full responsibility on an impoverished Indonesian public. Nor does the country receive the same debt relief normally offered to other Severely Indebted Low Income Countries.
The country is now using 36% of Government revenue to service its foreign Debt while it spends 8% spent on education and 4% on health. At the same time the number of people in severe poverty has doubled since the Asian economic crisis. UNICEF predicts that due to its grave debt burden Indonesia will sustain a lost generation, a weak generation resulting from lack of education and ill health.
INFID is advocating for an international insolvency tribunal, so that countries like Indonesia will not be forced to repay debts even if this means sacrificing the human rights of their citizens.
For further information, please contact Jamie Isbister on 9299-2215
or Thea Ormerod 9150-9713
Globalisation - the real issue is act local
I agree with the S11 and M1 protestors. The global economy is rigged in favour of the multinationals, the banks and the rich countries.
I don't agree, though, with their analysis or their solutions.
The problem is that globalisation is nothing new. The global economy has always been rigged in favour of multinationals in some form or other (they used to be called empires).
The protestors and other well-meaning commentators, such as Duncan Kerr in his recent book Elect the Ambassador, argue globalisation is seeing more power amassed at the global level. But it has always been there. The other important trend is the growth of potential power for individuals, wherever they are in the world.
The technological revolution, the freeing of world trade and the explosion of democracy have profoundly broken down barriers. A young woman in Burnie or Berlin, a middle aged man in Johannesburg or Jakarta, have roughly equal capacity to sit at a PC with a modem and sell goods and services to people all over the world.
So potential power has actually grown at a local level. The problem is, how do we ensure all sections of the community have the capacity to tap in? How do we empower people at an individual level to use that new potential access to the world market to make a living and to be a part of the global community?
The real challenge is education. We need to equip the next generation (and today's people without work) with the skills and capacity to take on the world. We need to learn how to seize the opportunities that others around the world are seizing right now to make real money and create real income security. We need to work at our local level to help create more world competitive businesses. Engage with the world, don't turn your back on it.
And what about the world being rigged in favour of the rich? Yes, it is. The US and the European Union still have huge trade barriers against the rest of the world. What we need to do, to build a more level playing field, is to bring those barriers down, not raise new ones of our own.
In Australia, we rely on our huge trade surplus with Asia for our prosperity. If we were to erect barriers we would be the first to lose.
What we must do, though, is support practical attempts for more human rights and more labour rights in our neighbouring countries. Just because we have won those rights here does not mean we should turn our backs on the rest of the world. The more wealth we can help create anywhere in the world is more jobs here in Australia, providing goods and services for the world.
*************************
Not the telegraph
Reading cyber news, oops, have I clicked on to the Daily Telegraph by mistake? Surely this can't be WoL, voice of the NSW Labor Council, characterising the M1 protest as a carefully choreographed violent scene and the protesters as simplistic as One Nation? Isn't this the way the mainstream media usually distorts union disputes?
Even more disturbing, however, was the accusation by WoL that M1 was "usurping the labour movement's traditional day". To usurp is to wrongfully assume power or the throne, to encroach upon something. What? The legacy of May Day is one of internationalism and workers struggle, of uniting in alliances and action for the working class against the interests of capital. This was absolutely the message of M1. In any case, when was the last time that the official union movement took action on May Day? It was a vacant space waiting to be reclaimed.
Perhaps the editorial writer should have taken a dose of his own glib message and used the IT tools that globalisation has given us. Rather than a simplistic message you quickly discover that the burgeoning anti-corporate (not against all) globalisation movement shares information, ideas and debate at a pace unimaginable a few years ago. A quick cybersurf would demonstrate that rather than "resisting change", as WoL implies, the activists in this movement are trying to make change.
Websites and e-lists are prolific: you can uncover extensive information about the growing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an un-elected few; the rapacious greed of multi-national corporations; the role of the IMF, WTO and World Bank in exacerbating poverty and inequality; abhorrent levels of union busting and attacks on human rights. There are a myriad of links to campaigns against 3W debt, sweatshops and environmental degradation, union pickets, actions and solidarity with worker and community struggles wherever the fight to put people and the planet before profit rears its head.
This framework is entirely consistent with union and labour movement ideals. As a long term union and political activist I welcome S11, M1 and its international counterparts as an inspiration and hope for the future. Rather than make scurrilous charges it would be more appropriate to pass on the baton to those enthusiastically embracing the militant legacy of May Day. Union activists should applaud, encourage and unite with this new generation of activists involved in the M1 protest.
Melanie Sjoberg
**************
Davey's Conversion?
: It is good to see Phil Davey be honest enough to admit a change of heart about M1. (WOL 4 May)
The anti-capitalist movement has grown through inspiration. Young activists have shown the courage, determination and anger to take a stand against global capital, on the streets and facing up to police violence. Meanwhile union leaders worry about declining membership and respectability in the media. Fear of a repeat of the so-called Parliament House riot (when unions demonstrated in August 1997 against Reith's First Wave of anti-union laws) has paralysed further union mobilisation against the Howard Government. Instead of blaming Reith and Howard for inflaming workers' anger, Jenny George cringed and apologised to the TV cameras.
The anti-capitalist movement is young and diverse, so disagreements can be heated. No-one has the power to suppress ideas. No-one earns a living from running it. You can join in however you like. You can experiment. It only happens because the people on the ground are committed and free to do what they think is best. And it is committed to challenging the whole power structure of global capitalism.
The union movement is integrated into the system, bogged down in routine, and only rarely looks beyond defensive tactics, wages and conditions. Thousands of people make a career from it and it is difficult for dissenters to be heard. (Workers Online is a wonderful breath of free speech in the union movement, having censored but once in its life, I believe).
However, the anti-capitalist movement has not yet gone beyond targeting capitalist trade, forums and symbols. It does not fight capital at its heart, at the point of production, where workers face capital daily. Unions can benefit rapidly from the energy and commitment of the new activists if rank and file workers and anti-capitalist activists get together.
Phil Davey says he recognises that "irrational fears" are a barrier to unity. It will be good to see Phil and many other union leaders get over their fear of critical opinions, and acting more democratically, for a start by lifting bans on left groups. If the union leaders won't build the links, workers will organise with the inspiration they have drawn from the anti-capitalists anyway. It will just take longer, and union leaders who get in the way will be challenged.
Janet Burstall
mailto:[email protected]
*********************
The Real Way Forward
Your editorial "The Workers United?" May 4th 2001 globalisation mass movement to define itself, perhaps even to quantify itself and tell the world what it actually stands for. I believe that this would be a fundamental mistake in terms of the political evolution of what has become one of the fastest growing mass movements in modern political history.
Twelve months ago M1 attracted 200 people, this month M1 attracted 4000-5000 people a twenty fold increase on a cold and wet winter morning. If next M1 increases only five fold next year we will see 25 000 people in the streets of Sydney.
This is not an aberration this is a global phenomena that is currently cast in resistance to the unprecedented damage that the laissez faire flow of capital is doing to the environment, to society and to all facets of humanity. Far from sitting along side One Nation in its reactionary nationalist position, this mass movement is directed squarely at the catastrophic consequences of the unfettered flow of private capital and its insatiable hunger to suck the life out of everything it desires (Corporate $cumbags).
Healthy and constructive debate is essential in delivering the intellectual and democratic processes needed to ensure that this movement achieves the political outcomes it desires. A definition of what it stands for and thereby what it does not will serve only to alienate many of those people that choose to express their politics in the street as opposed to the ballot box.
The five thousand people in Bridge Street were not there through dogma, through free t-shirts and stickers or through loyalty to any entity. They were in the streets through considered political expression. A political expression that has the potential to sweep away the very best political and industrial activists in the NSW Trade Union movement if the leadership of these unions don't take their legitimate place at the public meetings called to organise these events.
The next big target in the sights is CHOGM (Commonwealth Heads Of Government Meeting) October 6, 7 and 8th in Brisbane. Hopefully we will see lots of Trade Union leaders because we will most certainly see lots of rank and file members.
Simon Flynn
Dear sir/madam,
One has to wonder about the quality of the workers' representation in Parliament following the latest offering by Ian McDonald MLC in response to allegations recently made against him by Green MLC Lee Rhiannon in relation to his actions on the workers compenstaion. Rhiannon claimed in a letter to the edotor in Workers Online, issue number 92 that Mcdonald is a strong backer of Della Bosca's Workers Compensation Bill which has generated significant opposition from unions and Labor MPs. Despite such opposition, Rhiannon claims "He [that is, McDonald] has consistently lobbied the Greens MPs and other cross benchers to support the current legislation."
What does McDonald say in reply?
In Issue 92 Workers Online published McDonald's response directly below Rhiannon's letter so presumably he has been given a copy of the letter before it was published so he can respond. In his response he makes the following claims.
1. Rhiannon has worked against the re-election of her colleague Ian Cohen MLC;
2. He, that is McDonald, lobbied the cross benches to oppose the Liberal Party initiative of a judicial inquiry into Workcover;
3. He has never stated to Rhiannon that workers would be worse off if the Workers Compensation Bill is not passed.
4. He has never said that most Left unions support his position on the Bill.
All of this is very interesting but fails to address the key point raised by Rhiannon, that is, that he, that is, McDonald, has lobbied Green MPs and other cross benchers to support the proposed legislation.
The question remains for Ian McDonald to answer: has he or has he not lobbied Green MPs and other cross benchers to support the proposed legislation.
Michael Purvis
The industrial implications of the commercial arrangements between Qantas and Impulse will be significant for the employees of both airlines.
First, there is the question of redundancy for Impulse employees on the ground.
Second, there is the question of wage parity for all Impulse employees. Former Impulse employees wou
d have a reasonable expectation to be paid as Qantas employees on Qantas rates if they are working for Qantas under Qantas colours.
The third significant issue will be the impact on aircrew unions, since neither pilots nor flight attendants are Impulse employees.
Impulse pilots have been employed for some years by a labour hire company, Air Crews Control Pty Ltd, based in Broadmeadow, NSW (also see Flight Attendants article in Workers Online No. 66, 11 August 2000).
Qantas has already shown an active interest in alternative employment practices, including contracting out and competitive tendering.
The commercial arrangements announced by Qantas on 1 May include Impulse contracting to Qantas its eight Boeing 717 and 13 Beechcraft 1900D aircraft, complete with pilots and cabin crew, who will fly the Boeing 717s in Qantas livery to primarily leisure destinations.
>From the outside, there appear to be a number of unanswered questions for airline unions. These include, first, the status of Air Crews Control pilots and Flight Attendants working for Impulse. Second, the arrangement creates a new precedent within Qantas of outsourcing future technical crew employment. The Qantas brand will be flown by pilots subcontracted to the McGowans' Impulse remains in hands. In the long run, this can only provide another model for alternative employment practices within Qantas. In the long run, the Australian and International Pilots Association and the Flight Attendants' Association of Australia may find themselves in a battle to protect job security.
Jim McDonald
Senior Lecturer in Industrial Relations
University of Southern Queensland
Dear Sir,
I am proud to be a member of the New South Wales Fire Brigades Employees Union. A union that has successfully resisted the many attacks on workers from conservative governments, has supported other unions whenever needed, and has for over ninety years struggled for and won great improvements to the working conditions of its members.
The NSWFBEU can once again stand tall following the actions of its members on MAY DAY 6/5/01. This most important day for the organised labour movement, held to honour fallen comrades in the fight against capitalist tyranny and to celebrate the successes of the union movement, was saved by over 100 members of the FBEU who, despite the march being "called off" by the organisers, marched from Hyde Park down Macquarie St past Parliament House and onto Circular Quay where a brief rally was held.
Congratulations to my fellow unionists who upheld this fine tradition. To the organisers who tried to pull the plug you need to take a long hard look at yourselves.
yours in solidarity,
Mark Lutherborrow
by Peter Lewis
Geek Guys: Rossy & McGrath |
How far down the track do you think unions are towards making the transition to being truly networked organisations?
Mark: I'd probably say a good 2 years away, judging by how far they have come at the present time and they have only made the preliminary first step so far for 80 to 90% of unions, and that is getting a public-web presence which is just the first step in becoming a networked organisation as far as using new media goes. What is required further down the track is for unions to use new media technology so it becomes part of their everyday communication workflow internally and externally, and we are only seeing the early adopter phase of that for probably 5 to 10% of unions that are looking towards taking the next step and that is in terms of using more advanced tools for new media - and that is not just websites and e-mail, but also mobile phones, SMS messages and integrating those technologies within the workflow of a union workplace.
One example of a union that is going down that track is MEAA, how has that union made that transition?
Peter: With the Alliance, we are finding that the use of their technologies - the mobile phones, the e-mail trees and the website itself are really where the Alliance has started to expand into using electronic communication tools. I think the cultural shift is the first, most difficult thing - to actually train the existing people, to convince them it doesn't have to be quite as time consuming. One e-mail can be sent out to many as opposed to doing the old culture of the mail out and the ring-around. For us to be able to do that is now becoming second nature, rather than thinking, all right, we have got to do a mail out, let's get a squadron of members in here to stuff envelopes. We will now go to an e-mail out, and without abandoning the old technologies we are using those things as secondary or third step tools.
If you could think of one killer app that the union movement should be taking up, what would it be at the moment?
Mark: I wouldn't nominate one single application, I would nominate a matrix or a set of applications that would be used together intelligently, and I am talking there about using different mediums to communicate the one message or a set of messages to their audience. For instance, using the website to enable 2-way communication between the union and its membership - and also between the membership itself, with different mediums, specifically: web to e-mail; web to mobile phone; and web to fax. There is the capability now for unions to produce one message and have it deployed through one technology that then gets distributed through different mediums, ie those I have just nominated.
So instead of replicating the message-making across those different mediums, you do it once and it goes out to all those different forms.
Some unions do some of that, but there is no union who has got that as a total solution.
The RTBU are building a Web-to-fax gateway, which is great, because they have got a lot of their delegates out there in the shops with faxes. Every delegate's shop has a fax. So they are keeping some old technology, but they are converging it, or they are merging it with the new technology - the Web. This is a smart way to go.
I am suggesting to the MUA that they consider developing a Web to SMS - Short Message Service - on mobile phones, because I am told that a lot of MUA members have mobile phones so it would seem a good way to distribute critical campaign information to these members fast.
Peter: I agree that it is horses for courses. Within the context of our membership, there are journalists who are lashed to the desktop, lashed to a PC, who have e-mail access. Similarly with the actors, we have got a lot of people who are time rich and asset poor. They have got time and they will sit there and they have taken up the new technology such as the Web, so they are using our Website, getting e-mail bulletins and communicating - feeding back into the organisation via e-mail. You can tell they've really taken up the e-mail. Every time we expand the amount of bandwidth coming out of our office people realise that it is more accessible for them, it is not long before that bandwidth is choked up again from people utilising that more.
What about some of the recent campaigns? For example, the workers compo campaign has been very much a web-based campaign. Being behind that site, what are some of the interesting applications?
Mark: It is probably the first, truly web-driven campaign that I have seen in Australia that has had a clearly identifiable result, in that the action of the campaign was precipitated by the Web, and primarily that is the targeting of local MPs - backbenchers, and you could see the effects of that action within a very short period of time. That was very impressive.
What was probably different about this campaign than others I have seen, is that there seems to have been a conscious decision by the Labor Council to use the Web as the prime vehicle for their campaign, so consequently a lot of resources were dedicated to the campaign Website. So very quickly we saw tools developed that had an immediate impact upon the campaign's target - namely the backbenchers and the front bench at Macquarie Street. So within one week we saw State MPs being bombarded with e-mail from concerned citizens and that was obviously sending a message that this is a hot issue that was having a lot of resonance out there in the electorate and it was obviously presenting a political liability to the Carr Government.
Similarly, the back-bench members could see that there was a hell of a lot of heat out there on the issue and more pointedly, they were seeing that if they weren't going to support workers via the Labor Council's position, that they were going to be picketed by various unions through that targeted campaign.
That was very, very clever use of the Web in concert with coordinated offline action, or on-the-ground campaigning. So I think the lesson there is that you are not going to win a campaign just with a campaign website, it's got to be coordinated and complemented by what is happening on the ground as well. And if they can work in tandem you will get a much better success rate.
What is an example of some of the campaigns MEAA has run through he Web?
Peter: I think the beauty of the new, emerging technology is the immediacy of what is going on, because the moment you put something out there, you are getting feedback straight away. We will post a bulletin. I can get responses from some members within five to ten minutes, which can be sometimes quite frightening, from the point of view of content provider. For example, during the Olympics campaign, when there was some debate over the Opening and Closing Ceremonies and the amount of performers who were primarily our members. Just by constantly publishing bulletins it enabled us to certainly place pressure very early in the piece and get an immediate response
And I guess that is the area that we haven't really examined. I think that with the Web stuff we need to qualify the fact that the new bandwidth revolution is where some of the new technologies are going to come into their own. As the bandwidth gets bigger we are going to be able to do some cleverer things. Your multi media; your web radios; your broadcasting screen; and videos and the like.
But I think we can't forget that the main constituency aren't necessarily going to be early adapters. People who are interested in technology are greatly ingrained with it, but there is a lot of people who will still be on 56k dial ups or 28k dial ups, and we can't forget about them as well.
Mark: I agree with Peter. Although the Web offers fabulous new opportunities for unions to organise and engage people on and then recruit new members and revive themselves, we shouldn't kid ourselves.
It is only going to reach its full potential once we get an expansion of bandwidth, that is faster access and easier access to the Net, and also - and this is a related factor - that expanded bandwidth and cheaper bandwidth will enable greater take-up. Because at the moment it is only the more white-collar based, office based unions that can truly justify throwing a lot of resources at a Web strategy for their union because they have got a high rate of connectivity.
People like teachers, journalists and so on, and the public service workers that do have ready access at their workplace to the Web. For the other unions that are more industrial based or based on manufacturing work or outside of an office environment, we are relying on home access for the Web, and at the moment home access is less than 50% of the population. And I dare say if you broke that take-up rate down by demographics, I think you would find it even less for lower paid workers.
This is a Federal election year. What would a really wired political party be doing with their Web at this point in the cycle, and what sort of Web applications would you like to see being used in a campaign at the end of the year?
Mark: In broad terms I would be trying to replicate their offline campaign strategies and migrate them to an online environment.
What does that mean? That means developing contact lists of the public, broken down per marginal electorate; broken down per issue - so that they can narrowcast. What you are doing with direct mailing and electoral tracking data bases that can define audience groups by areas and interests, you should be doing that via a website as well, with a smart e-mail strategy. Whatever is going in the letterbox offline, should be going in the inbox online.
So, what should a political party be doing to achieve that: They should be building the infrastructure to allow them to do that, come the Federal campaign. That is sophisticated data base technology that begins to grow within a Website, but takes quite a lot of lead time to develop. You would have to be developing this now, rather than waking up the day that writs are issued for election and wanting to build this within a couple of weeks. That would be my advice to major parties.
Peter: The first thing that we should not do would be hack the Opposition's Website because past experience has shown that isn't an effective campaigning strategy. I agree with Mike in that the niche targeting of firstly sending out text based - e-mail messages, not HTML, e-mail messages - keeping the technology as simple as you can in terms of e-mail - not trying to send out glamorous corporate logos and photos of the local member and trying to do the glossy brochure approach, because that will just backfire. You will lose a lot of people. A lot of people have the kind of technology at home that HTML e-mail, is kind of a bit rude a lot of the time now.
Going on from what Mark said, you can get a really niche and target market, and you can do that with e-mail because it is so cheap. It really is. To send out an e-mail specifically closely targeting a particular area, that is really where the strength of the technology is.
Mark: It might take you $40,000 to do a direct mail to an electorate. If you had the equivalent number of e-mail addresses it would only cost you less than $100 for distribution and certainly well less than $40,000 for the permananent infrastructure to run this application over and over again. The economies of scale are quite vast. There is great benefit, from a campaign point of view online, as opposed to offline. I'm not saying you should replace what you are doing offline, but it is potentially a very powerful medium to use in a campaign, especially e-mail wide, because unlike the Web, people are prompted to read e-mail. You can put something up on a Website, but unless you have got an e-mail coming into someone's box saying: Hey, this is new, read this! They are not necessarily going to go and view it. But with e-mail, people tend to check their
e-mail on a regular basis, some people even have e-mail checked all day. They are online all day, or at night time, so as soon as something arrives they will get to see it.
Are Websites going to play any role in this election campaign? Or a better question: What sort of Website would you need to actually have an impact in a Federal election?
Mark: What I think you need is something beyond brochureware. Something that engages the voter, that allows them to actually take action and that includes having their say, being able to ask questions and get answers, being able to join a campaign team, being able to make a donation, getting access to the people that they may vote for, and getting some personalised responses. In other words, getting access to the people that in previous campaigns, people don't usually get access to. In other words, if they are not going to get door-knocked by their local Member or local candidate, there should be some way, via the Web, to have some sort of similar experience.
Peter: I would agree with that and I would be inclined to think that the average voter isn't a stupid person. To have access to proper policy documents and to be able to examine them themselves. To be able to download and get the actual text, rather than the spin doctors' versions they are going to read in the media, depending on what paper and what their agenda is. For people to actually be able to see the proper policy documents for themselves, well for a lot of voters I think it would give them a lot more confidence in the process as well.
Mark: If I was a candidate running a campaign, I would want a campaign Website that would make me available to the electorate in terms of live chat, bulletin boards. I would be having enquiry forms on there where I would be responding personally via e-mail - or my office - not just with generic messages but actually addressing personal responses, the same as in an electorate office if there is a phone call that comes in people get a personal response by that phone call. They don't get a form response - they don't get a robotic response. So you should be aiming to do the same thing via e-mail and then up on the site as well.
Plus, I would be using it as a campaign vehicle internally. I would be using the Website to recruit campaign team members and coordinate campaign team members. I think that has got a lot of legs. Why? Because as a lot of people in the Labor movement experienced over the last generation, it is getting increasingly harder to get people outdoors and to meetings and to participate in collective events. The Web is one way around that dilemma where people can participate in collective actions, without having to go outdoors, and still have an impact.
A final question: How many years do you think we are off, until the Web will actually decide a Federal election.
Mark: I think that question means to me that "When do you think the Web will become more important than TV?" Maybe I could answer that by saying: When the Web becomes TV. Or when the TV becomes the Web.
Peter:And the way we are going, that could be longer rather than sooner.
Mark: That's right. And that issue of convergence is a whole debate on its own. Whether the Web and TV will merge. Putting on my futurologists hat, I don't think they will ever truly merge into one entity, but I think there will just be a strong overlap between the two. We will have TV broadcasts over the Web, and we will have Web TV as an application for you to view on your TV, but there will still be TV channels doing current affairs and there will be debates every Federal election on TV. You probably will be able to view on the Web, which would be a good thing, because then you could get live, direct user feedback on the debate.
I don't know if I should be revealing this in an interview - but one of my little pet ideas for a Web election campaign is to run the worm on a Website that hijacks a debate broadcast, so that whilst the TV networks would like to ban the worm, there is nothing to stop anyone setting up a Website, running in parallel with a debate that runs the worm on its site. That is a great technology that the TV hasn't got, because you can get instant viewer feedback.
Peter: I think the data casters would argue the fact that it has got to be sooner rather than later - the convergence of the technologies. I essentially think that there is going to be 2 different markets anyway. The TV will always be around - some more interactive version. There are a lot of people who just don't want to take it on. There are still people who listen to radio and read newspapers, no matter what we think.
Mark McGrath is the union projects manager of Social Change Online. Peter Ross provides IT services to MEAA and the NSW Labor Council.
Costa's Angels (l-r) Mary Yaager, Patricia Fernadez, Richard Brennan (aka Bosley), Rita Malia, Nancy Searle |
Led by Labor Council's safety watchdog Mary Yaager, the group have been the movement's chief advocates in the specialist working parties that have spent the past two weeks dissecting the Della Bosca package.
They include Trish Fernandez from the Meatworkers, Rita Malia from the CFMEU, the NSW Police Association's Nancy Searle and Joan Lemere from the NSW Teachers Federation. We asked them for their impressions of the negotiations.
***********************************
Patricia Fernandez represents workers in an industry with the highest assident rates - and highest compensation premiums.
"My background with workers compensation has been dealing with our members in the meat industry, who have been injured at work, and under the current Act have received benefits and have also been stuffed around by the system," she says.
"So from our point of view, we agreed that the current Act had to be amended, although we wouldn't go anywhere near saying that what the Government put before us would be of any way acceptable to us.
As for the consultation process, Fernandez says its been "a huge eye opener." "I have never spent so much time on a campaign with the same group of people. I was just saying I've developed a co-dependent relationship with workers compensation.
"We are such a diverse group. You've got Left, Extreme Left, Centre and Ultra Right, and we have been able to sit down together and reach so much common ground about all the issues."
Nancy Searle from the NSW Police Association says the talks with the government have been making some progress - particularly with the assessment guidelines that will define a person's injury.
"We have had a bit of success in actually having the government agree that they won't be introduced until there is agreement and guidelines are developed within Australia, which is good," Nancy says.
"This essentially means that the way things are at the moment including the cut off stage for psychological injuries which would be better for our members."
And what has she learnt from being involved in the talks? "I've learned about factions, and that can be pretty scary. And I think I have learned more than I already knew - never to trust politicians."
Rita Mallia from the CFMEU has been involved in workers comp for the past five years and says the Della Bosca package, as presented to parliament, was the most Draconian changes she'd ever come across.
While she says the process has been frustrating at times, it has been a worthwhile experience.
"I have got to know my union comrades better than I have ever known them before, and it has been just an incredible learning curve."
As for the negotiations, she is waiting to pass judgment. "On the part of the Government it is a little bit hard to tell at this stage.
"They are making the right signals as far as listening to us, but I guess the proof will be in the next few days, as to whether or not they are in fact taking our ideas and our objections on board."
As for the irrepressible Yaags, the main impact of the talks has been a cut to just one trip to the hairdressers every week. That and forming a close working relationship with the employers, lawyers and doctors.
"I think one of the lessons to emerge in this process is that you have to involve the stakeholders of the Scheme in change, rather than imposing it from on high.
"The Advisory Council that involved unions and employers had been making real progress - the scheme was improving.
"The negotiation process has shown that the trade unions are prepared for reform - we want to work with the government. It's just that our bottom line has to be protecting our members."
Disclaimers
Judicial Officers are fond of disclaimers when addressing public forums. Given the public controversy currently raging about the Carr Government's proposal to reform both the workers compensation legislation and common law claims for industrial accidents, prudence demands that I should make my position very clear about the opinions I am about to express.
Firstly I want to emphasise that, except where questions of the independence of the judiciary are concerned, it is not the business of judges to be expressing opinions about the merits of Government policy. It is the function of Government to develop and enact laws that control our workers compensation schemes and modify the common law regarding actions against negligent employers. It would, in my view, be inappropriate for a member of the judiciary to enter the political arena in a partisan manner to debate the policy issues underlying the present debate.
The role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the laws Parliament enacts, as well as to develop the common law.
I propose, therefore, to restrict my comments to an expression of views upon the nature and effect of the Bill before Parliament, aspects of it that touch upon judicial independence, and the effect the proposed scheme might have on compensation litigation as we now know it.
My second disclaimer concerns the views I am about to express that might go to the interpretation of the Bill.
Since becoming a judge I have had the privilege, along with fellow judges, of reading and writing learned papers interpreting new amendments to workers compensation law. I refer in particular to papers on ss9A, 11A and 52A I believe it is true to say that while all the papers were learned and full of insight few of them gave precisely the same interpretation eventually arrived at by the Court of Appeal and the High Court. Indeed, it is not uncommon for the judges who had authored such papers, upon listening to argument and further researching the law, to themselves arrive at a different interpretation of the section when they eventually came to determining a test case.
Nevertheless, it is always necessary to make a start in coming to grips with new laws, and it is useful to test one's opinions against those expressed by fellow legal practitioners.
1 Introduction
On 27 March 2001 the Minister for Industrial Relations, John Della Bosca, introduced into the Legislative Council the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill. That bill had its second reading on 29 March 2001.
Debate was consequently suspended after the Premier agreed with the NSW Labor Council to delay its passage to 29 May, while negotiations were held.
It is fair to observe that the Bill has created uproar in the trade union movement and the medical and legal professions. Widespread industrial action is currently underway and worse threatened. It has been very well received by most Chambers of Commerce and Employers Association. The Opposition continues to keep its powder dry.
2. The Policy
The Evidence Act permits our courts, in interpreting statutes, to take a purposive approach, and refer to Parliamentary Debates and other material - such as White Papers - to assist them understand the intention of the legislature.
Mr Della Bosca in his speeches to the Parliament, and in his white paper entitled "Simpler Fairer Faster - a better approach to Workers Compensation in NSW", explained that the amendments were necessary because the WorkCover Scheme had "blown out" by some $2.2 billion over the past six months.
He identified three major causes of the "blow out", viz
1. Lodgement of common law claims had increased by 30 per cent, adding $360 million;
2. The current economic downturn had reduced WorkCover's investments returns by a further $120 million;
3. Employers failure to pay their premiums had caused the fund to haemorrhage by another $20 million.
None of these financial problems appear to have much to do with workers compensation, but Mr Della Bosca explained that the reforms were also necessary for the following reasons:
1. NSW has a much higher rate of defended workers compensation claims than the rest of Australia.
2. Workers compensation claims in NSW are being managed badly by the insurers employed by WorkCover. In addition to the high incidence of defended claims, there is poor co-ordination between claims managers and rehabilitation services leading to workers staying off work longer, so adding to the cost of benefits;
3. There is an increased trend in the incidence of serious work injuries, which is having a serious financial impact on the viability of the scheme because such injuries constitute 80 per cent of the total costs of the scheme.
4. The legislation administered by WorkCover is far too complex and is part of the problem contributing to unnecessary disputation;
5. Legal costs are far too high. Mr Della Bosca's opinion is that they constitute 17 per cent of the total costs of the scheme.
3. The Proposed Scheme
This paper will deal only with the broad structure of the scheme. Time does not permit, nor - given the fluidity of the political process - is there much point at this stage, getting involved with the devils in the detail. I will therefore adopt a broad-brush approach to the operational features of the scheme and its potential impact upon my audience and their client.
I also propose to make some remarks about judicial independence.
4. The Big Picture
4.1 The Process of Determination
In a nutshell, the major institutional change is to eliminate judges, to the greatest extent possible, from the process of determination of workers compensation cases and, to a lesser but still significant extent, from common law suits for negligence against employers.
The judges will be replaced by a body called the Claims Assessment Service. That will be comprised of public servants whose functions will be mainly administrative, but also quasi judicial in nature.
Appeals on questions of fact and law are prohibited. Parties denied natural justice will have access to the Supreme or District Courts. The Claims Assessment Service, if it is minded, will have access to judges of the Compensation Court to give advisory opinions on complex questions of law.
For centuries, the British legal system, with its adherence to the rule of law and the doctrine of separation of powers, has protected our citizen's rights by entrusting the process of their determination to an independent judiciary. That independence is protected by our Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers from abuse by the executive arm of Government. It is not as if the rights I am discussing today can be said to be trivial or naturally susceptible to bureaucratic administrative processes. As Mr Della Bosca pointed out to the Parliament, 80 per cent of the cost of the scheme the Claims Assessment Service will be dealing with involves very serious injury to workers. We are talking here about brain damage, quadriplegia and paraplegia, mental illness and loss of limbs, eyesight, hearing and sexual function. In the past, many of those claims have been serious enough for legislatures to entrust their common law determination to Supreme Court judges, and the determination of their workers compensation rights to judges of the Compensation Court.
The proposal now is to remove the determination of such rights from the judicial arm of Government and give them to a Director of the Claims Assessment Service, appointed by the Minister for Industrial Relations, pursuant to the provisions of the Public Sector Management Act 1988.
The Director, in turn, will have powers to appoint more public servants to fulfil roles required by the Act. The Director will also have power, if so inclined, to appoint a class of Commissioner who s368 of the Bill asserts "is not a public servant", in that Part 2 of the Public Sector Management Act does not apply. However, the Commissioner will hold office for a three-year term, and his or her salary and conditions are determined by the Minister. I should comment here that the Principal Commissioner and other Commissioners are to be appointed by the Director, and will be public servants.
The Government's primary objective is to control the costs of the scheme. Giving public servants - who are subject to the Executive's direction and control - power over the determination process is obviously going to provide a mechanism whereby the quantum of compensation claims and common law verdicts can be easily contained according to political necessity. Unfortunately, such a process will have little to do with the rule of law.
One only has to look at the recent motor vehicle legislation to see the potential for control. My understanding is that the 10 per cent threshold and cost penalties alone in that legislation have virtually eliminated hearings of cases.
Obviously, the new structure will greatly assist to achieve the Government's purpose. The question I pose is whether it is constitutionally appropriate. For example, there is no doubt that a Government concerned about rising crime rates could achieve close to 100 per cent conviction rate if the DPP were to be stripped of his independence, judges, juries and magistrates removed from administering the Crimes Act and the police left to determine the guilt or innocence of suspects. Some countries have such a system. We, however, pride ourselves in a democratic tradition with checks and balances on unrestrained executive power. The citizens of NSW are entitled to wonder whether the curtailment of the rights of workers injured in industrial accidents will be just the first step in a series of cut-cutting measures that will see a range of other legal rights similarly curtailed and left for determination by public servants.
4.2 The New Boys on the Block
The proposed scheme sees three groups of bureaucrats dealing with the administration of claims:
A. claims conciliators and assessors;
B. medical assessors;
C. commissioners
A. Conciliators and Assessors
The tactical approach in the new Bill (like the motor vehicle scheme) is to avoid hearings. In this respect, the Director and his team of conciliators will have enhanced powers, designed to bring about settlements of claims prior to hearing. I propose to speak about the details of those powers later but they go to restricting the scope of the case that the parties can present to prove or disprove the claim, and imposing a system which, for lack of a better term, I will describe as pre-trial assessment. They subject the parties to the threat of draconian cost penalties if the settlement is refused and a much larger verdict is not secured than that originally assessed.
B. Medical Assessors
A wide range of the functions currently undertaken by judges will be given to medical assessors appointed by the Director.
Section 314 lists the matters that medical assessors will determine as:
� Reasonable necessity for medical treatment (i.e. s60 cases).
� Whether incapacity is the result of the injury. In other words, causation.
� Whether an injury is stable and permanent.
� The percentage loss or impairment.
� Whether a worker is totally or partially incapacitated for work and the degree of any partial incapacity.
� The suitability of the worker for other work.
� Section 68A cases, or the contribution made to any loss or impairment by a pre-existing condition or abnormality.
� Assessments of thresholds.
� The percentage loss of hearing.
� Section 9A: whether employment is a significant contributing factor.
� Any medical question referred by the Director.
The certificates of medical assessors are to provide reasons and are conclusive, subject only to review by the Principal Medical Assessor.
The medical assessors are to be constrained in carrying out these tasks in the following manner:
� They must apply the American AMA Guidelines Fourth Edition (I will comment later on these guidelines.
� In assessing losses and impairments they cannot take into consideration psychological injuries.
� All losses and impairments resulting from the same injury must be assessed as a whole.
� No assessments to be made until the injury has stabilised.
C. Commissioners
Commissioners will be appointed by the Director to determine disputed workers compensation and common law claims.
They will sit informally and the rules of evidence will not apply. They will be restricted in their determination as follows:
� They will be bound by the medical assessors' certificates determining crucial issues such as causation, continuing injuries, the quantums of impairments and loses, pre-existing conditions, thresholds, capacity for work and ability to work.
� They will be restricted in the evidence they are allowed to take into consideration by the amending Bill that Robert Taylor will be discussing later.
� They will be restricted by amendments to s65, 66 and 67 in Sch 3 to the Act, which:
� excludes psychological injuries;
� imposes formulae for entitlements weighted by seriousness of the injury.
Taking a leg injury as an example:
1. If the medical assessor finds a 10 per cent loss then the assessment will be 10 x $750 or $7,500.
2. If the loss is between 10 and 20 per cent, the formulae is $7,500 = [(D - 10) x
$1,500], which would produce, for a 20 per cent loss, $7,500 = [10 x 1,500] or $22,500.
3. If the loss is between 20 and 30 per cent, the formula is $22,500 + [(D - 20) x $2,500] which for 30 per cent loss would produce $47,500.
4. If the loss is between 30 per cent and 66 per cent, the formula is $47,500 + {(D - 30) x $3,500], which for a 60 per cent loss would produce $66,000.
5. Thereafter the maximum of $173,500 applies.
The 10% threshold on s67 claims continues but it is now to be 10 per cent of the whole body, which is a vastly higher threshold.
If the motor vehicle claims record is any indicator, s67 awards will be a rare event.
In common law damages claims, Commissioners will be prohibited from awarding damages for either economic loss or non-economic loss unless the worker's impairment has reached 25 per cent of the whole body (after first reducing any whole of the body losses by pre-existing conditions or abnormalities).
The Commissioner will be bound by the medical assessor's certificate on the issues. Again it is hard to imagine workers obtaining damages unless their injury was of the most serious kind. It is unlikely that there will be any litigated cases for common law damages if the Bill passes because, for the few who manage to attain the threshold, the costs penalties are likely to be too horrific to risk running the case.
4.3 Special Features of Note
There are some aspects of the Bill that are guaranteed to raise the hackles, upon which I should comment.
4.3.1 Discrimination
Psychological injury plays a major role in our present workers compensation and common law schemes. There is a wide range of illnesses where somatized pain has an impact upon lump sum compensation claims, eg:
(a) Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which is common amongst Police Officers, Ambulance Officers, Bank Tellers, Nurses and Doctors, faced with life threatening situations.
(b) Schizophrenia can be triggered by work trauma. More often it is aggravated by such trauma.
(c ) Organic brain damage syndrome affects motor functions and cognitive functions of workers suffering serious head injuries.
(d) Stress related anxiety and depression affects a wide range of workers.
(e) Pain syndromes are another form of psychological injury that affect workers involved in highly repetitive or heavy work.
Losses and impairments caused by psychological injury will no longer be compensable.
4.3.2 Use of the American AMA Guidelines 4th Edition
I appreciate that the Bill contemplates that WorkCover will eventually develop its own Guidelines, and that Mr Della Bosca has recently stated he intends to "customise" the American Guidelines in any event.
However, the comments I wish to make are still pertinent.
In the first place the American Guidelines were not developed for workers compensation cases, and actually disclaim the validity of their application in that context.
The guidelines developed by American doctors and are a subjective statistical construct that have but passing relevance to assessments under Australian common law, or workers compensation law.
Australian courts have always been reluctant to apply such models, preferring to assess compensation on a case-by-case basis. One of the obvious reasons for this is that they do not take pain into consideration in assessing the impairment. Pain, or fear of pain, can play a major role in the loss of efficiency of a limb or impairment of the spine. Failure to take pain into consideration could well result in greatly reduced assessments.
Mind you, the current workers compensation laws, that require comparison with a most extreme case, present plenty of contentious problems in themselves. For example, some neurosurgeons imagine a most extreme case of brain damages is a baby born without a brain who lives but momentarily. Others believe a most extreme case is a coma victim. Some orthopaedic specialists will not give a 50 per cent loss of efficient use of leg, although all that is left is a small stub, arguing that a prosthesis can be fitted. Some workers are declared legally blind but claim they can see well enough to watch television or drive.
There is no doubt that a home grown set of guidelines is long overdue. It will need to be a lot better than the American version if it is to receive widespread support in Australia, however.
4.3.3 The Thresholds
The new thresholds have caused a great deal of acrimonious debate, particularly in the light of claims that the legislation is fairer and no workers will be worse off. That statement is in the genre of "no child will live in poverty". I say that because the thresholds, which are now to be based on whole of the body assessments, as opposed to the assessment of the particular parts of the body, have lifted the bar much higher.
The requirement that previous injuries and pre-existing conditions are also to be deducted may mean that some very serious injuries might not reach the threshold. For example, a paraplegic with a pre-existing degenerate spinal condition may require a very large deduction to be made under s319 of the new Bill.
5 Costs in Common Law Cases
Section 282 requires that employers against whom a claim for compensation is made must, within one month of the injury stabilising, make a reasonable offer of settlement or dispute liability. Similar provisions apply to common law damages cases, except the offer must remain on the table for two months.
Commissioners will then assess the damages claim but the assessment is not binding. If the assessment is not accepted, the worker has the right to proceed to have the claim heard by a court.
Commissioners are given wide powers to determine costs.
In common law cases where the workers has refused the Commissioner's assessment, costs will only be awarded against the employer if the ultimate verdict exceeds the amount by 20 per cent, or $200,000.
6. Costs in Workers Compensation
If a Commissioner is satisfied that any costs were unreasonably incurred, no order will be made.
Failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer means the costs were not reasonably incurred. Similarly, failure to provide particulars can incur cost penalties.
7. Review of Decisions
No appeals from Commissioners as to fact, or upon questions of law, are to lie to any court.
The only access to courts will be:
(a) In very serious common law injuries, where a Commissioner can refer the case directly to a court for hearing;
(b) In common law cases after the Commissioner's assessment has been made;
(c) To either the Supreme or District Court where a breach of natural justice has occurred.
There is no appeal from medical assessments, but if the Principal Medical Officer is so disposed, a "peer group review" of the assessment can be ordered.
8. Commutations
Commutations will no longer be subjected to judicial approval and will now proceed by a system of registration of agreements. The Director can refuse to register an agreement if he believes the worker did not receive proper legal advice. However, if the Director is concerned about an agreement, he can have it reviewed by a Commissioner.
9. What does all this mean for the Legal Profession?
One of the purposes of the Bill is to reduce legal costs. I have not gone into the Commissioner's powers to control costs at any length, sweeping though they may be. The principal problem for the profession with the Bill is, of course, the limited work it will generate. A greatly reduced number of litigated cases means greatly reduced costs.
So far as common law is concerned, given the 25 per cent whole of the body threshold, it is reasonable to predict that litigated common law industrial accident cases will be rarer than litigated motor vehicle cases - perhaps rarer than hens' teeth.
Even the gung-ho litigation lawyer will think three times about questioning a Commissioner's assessment, given the horrendous cost penalties. Obviously, the administrative work for solicitors in putting a case together for assessment will still produce an income and Mr Della Bosca talks in his speech about a legal aid scheme.
The role of barristers would appear to be close to extinct, being limited to cases deemed by Commissioners to be very serious, or those run by intrepid lawyers prepared to lose all.
So far as workers compensation is concerned, it is hard to find many issues that will need to be heard by a Commissioner.
My experience is that most cases for lump sum compensation are litigated about:
� quantum of s66 assessments, including applications under s22 and s68A;
� causation;
� injury
All those questions will be decided by medical assessors and will not be open to litigation.
Occasionally the Compensation Court litigates "worker", "employment", or "journey", and those determinations will fall to the Commissioner.
Similarly, the occasional familial dispute about apportionment of death claims will need to be determined by a Commissioner.
When it comes to weekly benefits, the key issues of continuing injury, capacity to work, and ability to earn are now to be decided by medical assessors.
The Commissioner's role will be confined to determining disputes about comparable employees, availability of overtime, and the exercise of discretion to reduce make-up pay.
Again there will be plenty of office work for solicitors, but the role of barristers will be greatly reduced.
Having said all that, it also needs to be said that the indicators are that the Bill is unlikely to proceed through the Parliament in its current form. We will await the outcome with interest.
This speech was presented at a Continuing Legal education Conference in Sydney this week
HT Lee |
***************
Captain Plunkett's revelation in the SBS Dateline program on Wednesday 9 May further confirms the involvement of the Indonesian military (TNI) in the 1999 violence. The program also confirms the Australian intelligence agencies were aware of the extend of the TNI's involvement as far back as 1998.
The intelligence reports were passed on to the Government but it failed to act on it. Foreign Minister Downer instead chose to believe the assurances given by his Jakarta counter part Ali Alatas that the 'rogue elements' would be pulled into line and the TNI and Indonesian police (BRIMOB) would be able to provide the security for the UN mission conducting the popular consultation.
Had the Australian Government from the very beginning took a tougher stand with Jakarta and not swallowed the rogue element myth, the violence that took place in East Timor in 1999 could have been avoided.
Anyone who was in East Timor in 1999 prior to the 30 August ballot would dispute the rogue element line. There were ample evidence pointing to the involvement of the TNI in organising and orchestrating the militia violence. I arrived in Dili the day before the ballot and it did not take me long to come to the conclusion the TNI was running the show--even blind Fredy could see it.
Not only did the Government not acted on the intelligence reports, it failed to pass the reports on to the UN mission and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) who served as members of the UN Civpol all over East Timor, thereby putting them in unnecessary danger.
Captain Plunkett claimed Australian military intelligence had evidence of the TNI/militia links and more importantly their plans to begin the systematic destruction of East Timor and the execution of independence supporters should the ballot goes against Jakarta. This would mean those independence supporters sheltering in the Polri Headquarters in Maliana would be in grave danger. However, this information was not passed on to the UN mission in Maliana.
The UN mission in Maliana was evacuated on 3 September to Dili. The Civpol officers and UN staff initially refused to leave when they were ordered by Dili to do so. They all signed a petition stating they will not leave without the local UN staff and their families.
When Dili agreed to their demand they took all the local staff and their families who wanted to go with them. Had they been given the information those sheltering in the Polri HQ were in grave danger, Civpol officers would have taken other measures to stay behind and prevent the massacre--after the UN left Maliana, the militias were allowed to enter the Polri HQ and massacre at least 47 pro-independence supporters.
The UN mission in Maliana was opened on 26 June 1999 and it was apparent from the beginning it was going to encounter serious problems. According to Civpol officers: 'There were collusive arrangements between the TNI, police and the militia in relation to militia activities.'
There were many incidences in Maliana--all well documented by Civpol, with daily despatches going back to Dili on the helicopters.
While the Australian intelligence agencies were gathering their information mainly through ears dropping in Shoal Bay, Civpol officers were on the ground gathering the intelligence information not only in Maliana but also all over East Timor. These reports were despatched to Dili daily. They all have the same message--the TNI was responsible and behind the militia violence.
However, the reports were sanitised and watered down by the people who received them in Dili. According to a Civpol officer: 'It appears to us the full and frank assessments we forwarded with recommendations to Dili were not being received in the spirit which they were intended.'
The altering of the reports were witnessed by two Austrian Civpol officers in Dili. When they asked why the reports were rewritten, they were told by a very senior AFP officer who was perceived to be very close to the Howard Government, the reports were written by officers whose first language were not English--those reports were in fact written by AFP Civpol officers!
Towards the end of the mission, besides despatching their reports to Dili, Civpol officers were also making their reports to Dili on the open satellite phones--knowing fully well the Australian intelligence would be listening to their conversations.
The reports gathered by Civpol on the ground and despatched to Dili, had they not been vetted and altered, would have given added weight to the intelligence reports gathered by the Australian intelligence agencies showing the extend of the TNI's involvement with the militias. By sanitising Civpol's reports, the true picture of the extend of the TNI's involvement in adding and abiding the militias was covered up.
According to former AFP officer Wayne Sievers who was also in East Timor, the tragedy of East Timor's 1999 independence vote has it's origins in the 'special relationship with Indonesia' pushed by the 'Jakarta lobby' of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs.
'The Howard government knew senior echelons of the Indonesian military and government were organising, training, funding and directing the murderous militias, even before we were send in in June to East Timor. However, Howard chooses to ignore the Australian intelligence reports so as not to offend Jakarta until it was too late.'
This view is shared by the intelligence community who are angry their reports and accurate assessments and predictions were ignored by the Howard Government--giving the impression they were not doing their job when in actual fact they were.
When I put this scenario to a serving intelligence officer recently: 'Canberra was given all the information but because of political expediency and the Jakarta lobby, Canberra failed to put pressure on Jakarta until it was too late.'
His reply was, 'I can't comment on that but you are on the right track there.'
The influence of the Jakarta lobby is not confined to Foreign Minister Downer and the Howard Government. It had its origin with the Labor Government when Garath Evans was the Foreign Minister.
Commenting on the Dateline program, Justice John Dowd, the President of the Australian Section of the International Commission of Jurist said:
'Clearly the defence forces during the period immediately after the referendum, acquired a lot of information about where the bodies were buried and some of the atrocities that occurred.'
According to Justice Dowd, the Australian Government is very pro Jakarta and will not do anything to offend them.
'However, we are entitle to know what happened to the people of East Timor and the East Timorese are also entitled to know what happened. It won't come out unless there is an international tribunal that exposes this information for the war crimes that had occurred.'
Commenting on the withholding of vital intelligence information and the altering of Civpol's reports Justice Dowd said:
'We need to know what information was provided. We clearly withheld information in 1975.
'We need to know that all information was given. I was there on the day of the referendum. I knew what was going to happen because I could see what the militias were doing. I make sure I got most of my people out on 31 August, the day after the ballot.
'I am not satisfied the UN was appropriately briefed by what we knew and our defence people clearly knew what was going on.'
There are many unanswered questions in this shameful episode--questions such as the following needed to be answered:
� Why were vital information gathered by the Australian intelligence agencies not acted on and why were the information withheld from the UN and Civpol?
� Why were Civpol's reports sanitised and watered down and who gave the orders to do so?
� The UN in Dili knew Civpol officers in Maliana were prepared to stay behind and put their lives on the line in order to protect the local UN staff and their families. Why then were the Civpol officers not given the intelligence information the independence supporters seeking shelter in the Polri HQ were in grave danger?
Because of political and diplomatic expediency, the Howard Government continued to play the rogue element charade with Jakarta until it was too late.
As a result of that, hundreds if not thousands of East Timorese were killed in the violence that took place before and immediately following the 30 August ballot. More than 200,000 East Timorese were herded and forced under gunpoint onto ships and trucks to West Timor and other islands in the archipelago--at least 100,000 are still in refugee camps in West Timor, living under squalid conditions.
We owe it to the East Timorese for the truth to come out.
We also owe it to the unarmed AFP officers who all severed with distinction there. They were not given proper briefing before they were send in and when they were there vital intelligence information were not passed on to them.
They went through a very traumatic experience there and many of them are still trying to come to terms with their experience in East Timor.
We cannot and should not wait for 30 years for the truth to come out. The Howard Government must act now and release all information in regards to East Timor. The Labor Opposition must also agree to do so.
|
*****************
The week that has just passed was, in many respects, Labor's week in the Centenary of Federation celebrations. John Howard was still smarting as I listened to ABC Radio this morning, contrasting Ben Chifley's sincere but misguided vision of 'the light on the hill' with Kim Beazley's belief in nothing in particular. Perhaps we shouldn't have expected the Prime Minister to suspend his political point-scoring while the ALP, albeit ever so briefly, rained on what he undoubtedly hoped would be his parade.
Labor has been celebrating the Centenary of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, which first met on 8 May 1901, in a stuffy room in the basement of Victoria's Parliament House in Spring Street. This commemoration coincides with the Centenary of the opening of the first Federal Parliament in that city's Exhibition Building.
The formation of the first Federal Labor Caucus in 1901 was the result of several decades of experimentation by Australian trade unions with various forms of political activity. Previously, unions had organised protest meetings, sent delegations to ministers, lobbied parliamentarians and occasionally even offered formal or informal support to parliamentary candidates from their own ranks. The best known of these was Charles Jardine Don, a Melbourne stonemason, who was elected to the Victorian Legislative Assembly in 1859. Don claimed that he 'punched blue-stone by day and squatters by night', but he instead gained a reputation for sleeping in the chamber during the evening sittings of parliament.
So the idea of forming a parliamentary labour party did not happen overnight, even if its appearance on the late colonial scene did seem rather sudden and spectacular to many contemporaries. By the time of Federation, there were parliamentary labour parties in four colonies: New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia. Each was completely autonomous: only the most informal connections bound them. All were, to some extent, a product of the defeat of the unions in the maritime strike of 1890, which convinced many unionists that they needed to use more vigorous methods of influencing the political process than those they had employed previously. All sought to 'make an unmake social conditions' -- as George Black, a New South Wales Labor parliamentarian, had so memorably defined Labor's mission.
Yet they had not all been equally successful in this endeavour. In New South Wales, where Labor exploded on to the political scene in 1891 by winning 35 seats and the balance of power, the party quickly split over the issue of tariff protection. During the 1890s, however, NSW Labor was able to trade support in return for concessions and thus helped achieve some significant legislative reform. In Victoria, Labor acted as a kind of left-wing of the Liberal Party and in that role exercised some influence over the legislative program of various governments. The party in South Australia had been a supporter of the reformist regime of Charles Cameron Kingston, while in Queensland, Labor found itself a small and somewhat politically impotent minority in a parliament dominated by men hostile to its policies.
By the time of Federation, the labour parties had already introduced into Australian politics a new understanding of democracy, in which the caucus had a central role to play. The basic idea was that working-class electors were not only to have an opportunity to select candidates prior to elections and vote for Labor candidates at election time, but also a hand in making party policy between elections. Labor parliamentarians would be securely under the control of an extra-parliamentary organisation representative of the labour movement. Parliamentarians were to be delegates rather than representatives; their role was to act in accordance with the instructions given them by their masters, the party rank-and-file and the union movement. They would vote in accordance with the party platform and, on every question, as a majority of caucus decided. Laborites were importing into politics ideas of working-class solidarity associated with the union movement.
From a twenty-first century perspective, it's difficult to appreciate just how radical some of these ideas were at the time. In the politics of those days, parliamentarians were more commonly perceived as representatives who, once elected, should exercise their personal judgment when deciding how to vote. A wise politician would be mindful of what his constituency had to say, but he should not be dictated to. A statement by New South Wales Labor politician W.J. Ferguson gives a good indication of how Labor challenged this idea. 'The man who considered himself in advance of the people', said Ferguson, 'had his proper place outside the House as a propagandist agent. But in Parliament he should represent the opinions of the majority which elected him ... If a man was out of line with the majority, let him educate that majority to his own opinions, but let him not pretend to represent those with whom he was out of accord'.
This attitude to political representation attracted much criticism from those outside the movement, and from some within it. Labor politicians who, once elected, suddenly found the idea of accountability to an outside body onerous, now claimed that the enforcement of a pledge would produce 'a conscienceless and unprincipled party' -- as one of the earliest of Labor 'rats', Joseph Cook, once remarked.
The reality, of course, is that there has often been a large gap between Labor's theory of democracy and the actual behaviour of the Federal Caucus. Yet the theory remains a crucial reference point for everyone involved in the party, a code that cannot be transgressed without arousing the most intense passions among party members. Much else for which the true believers stood in 1901 is gone: but the ideal of labour democracy -- and, one would like to think, at least a modicum of its practice -- remains.
Frank Bongiorno is a contributor to John Faulkner and Stuart Macintyre (eds.), True Believers: The Story of the Parliamentary Labor Party, published by Allen & Unwin, and just launched in Melbourne. He does not benefit financially from sales of the book.
by Tony Maher and Bill Shorten
|
The unions representing thousands of BHP workers are asking shareholders to make a positive difference to the company's future by voting "No" to the Billiton merger at next week's Extraordinary General Meeting. Many BHP employees are shareholders themselves, either directly or through their superannuation funds. We respect the right of all shareholders to make their own decision according to individual circumstances. But there are far too many unanswered questions about the Billiton merger, raising serious concerns that it will serve the long-term interests of neither workers nor shareholders. The BHP Board's response to these legitimate concerns - which is essentially to "just trust us" - is simply not good enough. The people of Newcastle and the Hunter region know this only too well.
The united BHP unions know from recent experience that poor decisions are inevitably paid for by the workforce as much as by shareholders. The various mistakes made by the BHP Board of Directors in the last decade have cost its workforce dearly in terms of cost-cutting, retrenchments and work speed-ups in order to make up for losses sustained elsewhere.
BHP and Billiton have not made available any independent report on the proposed merger. Until 4 May the BHP Board had not disclosed even the most basic assumptions used in valuing the merger, such as expected commodity prices and exchange rates. In response to a query from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Board finally released these basic assumptions. But it is still a long way short of full disclosure.
For most investors it is impossible to adequately evaluate the benefits of the merger in the absence of more detailed information. The Board of BHP has made mistakes in the past which have cost shareholders and workers dearly. It is not good practice to present the largest deal in the company's history to shareholders without the best possible disclosure.
The need for transparency is emphasised by widespread concerns that BHP's assets may have been undervalued the relative to those of Billiton in the merger proposal. Some financial commentators have noted that the net effect of BHP's chosen commodity and currency price assumptions is that BHP is probably worth A$10 to A$15 billion less than it would be under today's actual commodity prices. This would mean varying the merger terms to split the respective values of the companies from 58:42 to a more accurate 65:35.
Placing a value on assets held over the long term is a difficult task, and it is prudent to use conservative assumptions. This should apply to a qualitative assessment of the Billiton assets, many of which are in African and South American countries with a higher risk profile. Further, many of Billiton's assets have been recently acquired so it is by no means certain that the assets are high quality and well-managed. Some of Billiton's assets also include companies and sites that were shed by BHP in the last few years (eg GEMCO and TEMCO in Australia) while others have been sold by Rio Tinto in the last year (eg coal assets in strife-torn Colombia).
Negative shareholder reaction to the merger has also developed in Britain, particularly to the multi-million dollar share incentives being offered to executives in the event of the merger going ahead. Two of Billiton's major shareholder groups have attacked the plan, with the Association of British Insurers saying the company's action breached "prevailing best practice". And PIRC, the corporate governance consultancy which advises investors with more than �300 billion of assets, is urging shareholders to abstain on the merger vote as the best way of protesting the share scheme.
It is of great concern that Billiton shareholders are being asked to approve a massive bonus package for top Billiton management as part of the merger proposal that they must vote on. Billiton shareholders are not being given the opportunity to vote on the remuneration package separately in accordance with established principles of good corporate governance.
Even worse, the merger proposal states that there will be a "liquidated damages" fee of $US100 million should the shareholders of either company fail to endorse the proposal. No breakdown of these damages has been given. BHP shareholders are effectively being told: "you must vote for this or else the company will incur damages of $US100 million; a penalty your Board has voluntarily accepted as a term of the merger proposal". Shareholders are being denied full freedom of choice in deciding whether to support the plan.
Notwithstanding this "poison pill" shareholders should still vote "No" because of all the other unanswered questions surrounding the plan.
If the merger proposal is voted down, the BHP Board will retain the right and the opportunity to pursue further merger and acquisition proposals as it sees fit. These could include a revised proposal with respect to Billiton. BHP shareholders have nothing to lose by insisting on a more cautious approach.
Bill Shorten is the National Secretary-Elect of the Australian Workers Union (AWU).
Tony Maher is the General President of the Mining and Energy Division of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU).
**************************
The Letter
Dear BHP shareholder,
BHP Ltd Extraordinary General Meeting 18 May 2001:
Vote NO to merger with Billiton plc
In our opinion the terms of the proposed merger between BHP Ltd and Billiton plc are not in the best interests of BHP shareholders or its workforce and therefore we are requesting that all BHP shareholders exercise their right to vote NO at the Extraordinary General Meeting on 18 May in Melbourne.
If you are voting by proxy, please complete and file your proxy form by 9.30am Wednesday 16 May.
Please read the following information before you exercise your vote.
Why are Unions involved?
The first and most obvious question for some shareholders is why Unions are taking a position on the merger proposal. The answer is simple. Firstly, BHP's workforce is a major stakeholder in the company. Tens of thousands of Australians and New Zealanders - mostly union members - have laboured in BHP over the decades. These workers built the company and are entitled to know that any merger decisions are soundly-based, in our interests and that of the nation as a whole. Good business decisions enhance our security of employment. Poor decisions are inevitably paid for by the workforce as much as by shareholders. In the last decade BHP workers have endured cost-cutting, retrenchments and work speed-ups to make up for losses sustained elsewhere.
Secondly, many union members employed by BHP are shareholders in the company directly or via their savings in superannuation schemes and other investment vehicles. We are concerned that the merger proposal represents poor value for these investments in both the short and longer term.
No independent report on the proposal has been released
"The absence of an independent report is a disgrace" - Tim Treadgold, Business Review Weekly, 4 May 2001, page 12
The Board of BHP Ltd has not made available to shareholders and the investing public any independent report on the merger proposal. Until 4 May the Board had not disclosed even the most basic assumptions used in valuing the merger, such as expected commodity prices and exchange rates. In response to a query from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Board did finally release these basic assumptions. However, the information falls far short of an independent report.
It is certainly true that neither BHP nor Billiton are required by law to present an independent report on the merger. But their decision not to do so makes it impossible for all but the most astute investor to adequately evaluate the benefits of the merger in the absence of such information. The message from the Board to shareholders is "just trust us". We do not think that is good enough. The Board of BHP has made many mistakes in the past which have cost shareholders and workers dearly. This is the largest deal in the company's history and shareholders should have every opportunity to properly make an assessment before they are asked to vote. We say that this is simply not possible without the full and fair disclosure, especially when there are questions regarding the Board's accountability for the outcomes of the merger in the medium term (see below).
BHP assets have been undervalued relative to those of Billiton
"However, the net effect of BHP's chosen commodity and currency price assumptions is that BHP is probably worth A$10 to A$15 billion less than it would be if today's actual commodity prices had been used to set the merger terms.
The BHP Billiton merger terms split the respective values of the two companies 58:42. A more accurate reflection of the two companies' relative values would have been 65:35. BHP shareholders aren't as happens in some foreign takeovers selling the farm. They're giving it away" - Ivor Ries, The Australian Financial Review, 5 May 2001, page 14
Placing a value on assets held over the long term is a difficult task, and it is prudent to use conservative assumptions. On that basis it is arguable that the long run value of BHP assets should be based on worse commodity prices and exchange rates than it is currently receiving. However, such conservatism should also apply to a qualitative assessment of the Billiton assets. In view of the fact that significant assets of Billiton are in African and South American countries with a higher risk profile this does not appear to be reflected in their valuation. In addition to which, many of Billiton's assets are relatively recently acquired (eg the major Rio Algom purchase was completed only in the second half of 2000) which should make any estimation as to whether the assets are high quality at least uncertain. It is yet to be established whether those assets are well managed. Some of Billiton's assets include companies that BHP elected to get out of in the last few years (eg GEMCO and TEMCO in Australia) and others that have been sold by Rio Tinto in the last year (eg coal assets in strife-torn Colombia).
The merger proposal from the Board concedes that a premium is being paid for the merger with Billiton but a takeover of Billiton is not occurring, and in fact it is senior Billiton management who will be in charge of the merged entity in as little as two years. We do not consider any premium to be justifiable and therefore do not believe that BHP shareholders are not being given fair value for their stake in the merged entity.
The merger proposal is earnings dilutive for BHP shareholders in the short term
". . . a fund manager with Zurich Scudder Investments, Mr Nick Raffan, said it was difficult to justify BHP's assertion that the deal was earnings-positive in the first year. `Most people's models say it's not accretive until 2003.'" - Stewart Oldfield and Bill Pheasant, The Australian Financial Review, 5 May 2001, page 3
The problem discussed above of a low long term valuation for the BHP assets is further compounded by a poor prognosis for earnings in the short term. Billiton is a debt-laden company that does not have the strong cash flow of BHP. Therefore until (and if) synergies arise from the merger, the impact must dilute BHP's own earnings. This cannot be in shareholders' interests unless there are other benefits that outweigh the adverse impact on earnings.
BHP shares may trade at a discount to Billiton shares after the merger
"And the irony in all this is that BHP Billiton Ltd (the Australian company) will have the same weighting in the All Ordinaries index as is now held by BHP. Similarly BHP Billiton plc will have the same weighting on the UK's FT index. So the market capitalisations of the two listed companies that make up BHP Billiton will not be enhanced and therefore no more attractive to index investors." - Elizabeth Knight, The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 May, page 23
A major driver for the merger is that BHP Billiton will be "re-rated" by major institutional investors overseas, providing a major and permanent jump in the share price. But the fundamentals are that the majority of BHP's shares will continue to trade on the Australian Stock Exchange, whilst those of Billiton will trade on the London Stock Exchange - and therefore be much closer to the very large institutional investors that are sought by the BHP. It is unlikely that BHP Billiton Ltd shares will become part of any "Top 100" index in the UK or USA and so will not necessarily attract large overseas investors any more than they do now. On the other hand, investors in BHP Billiton plc, the British company, will be investing in a FTSE Top 100 company and will be gaining exposure to a large company with immense Australian assets in doing so. There is a very real possibility that the London-based shares of the merged company will trade at a premium to the Australian-based shares. It is difficult to see how the Australian-based shareholders can get the capital gains from a re-rating. Presumably the expected benefit to flow to shareholders from a merger would be the capital gain on share prices. In the absence of this we fail to see what benefit Australian shareholders will receive.
Bonuses for top management not able to be voted on separately
"Negative shareholder reaction to the merger also continued in Britain. Two of Billiton's major shareholder groups joined the attack on the move by the company to trigger its �48 million share incentive scheme following the merger. The Association of British Insurers said the company's action breached "prevailing best practice". And PIRC, the corporate governance consultancy which advises investors with more than �300 billion of assets, is urging shareholders to abstain on the merger vote as the best way of protesting the share scheme." Sandra O'Malley "BHP adds more details on Billiton deal but it may not be enough", Australian Associated Press, 4 May
"The most recent target for investors' anger is the �50 million reward being paid to Billiton executives after the company's merger with BHP, and Billiton's refusal to put the pay bonanza to a shareholder vote. Billiton has "bundled" into a single resolution the vote to approve the merger with BHP and the vote to approve changes to the executive incentive scheme, which will see Mr Gilbertson alone receive �6.5 million worth of shares and cash." Lenore Taylor and Stewart Oldfield, The Australian Financial Review, 7 May, page 1
"But shed no tears for Mr Anderson. He stands to pocket an extra $3.2 million "golden handshake" on his departure, topped off with $13.6 million worth of free shares, and options to buy another million shares at bargain prices." John Phaceas, The Australian, 19 April, page 23
It is of great concern that Billiton shareholders are being asked to approve a massive bonus package for top Billiton management as part of the merger proposal that they must vote on. Billiton shareholders are not being given the opportunity to vote on the remuneration package separately in accordance with established principles of good corporate governance. This particular concern can be shared by Billiton and BHP shareholders alike. Billiton shareholders stand to get a far better deal out of the merger than BHP shareholders but if they are tempted by the merger they have to accept the "pay bonanza" as part of the deal.
The issue must be of concern to BHP shareholders because the costs will be borne by the merged entity. Brian Gilbertson will become CEO of the merged company within 2 years --what prospect will there be of BHP Billiton shareholders in the future being given full and proper opportunity to approve or endorse the remuneration packages of directors and management?
Board accountability for medium term outcomes not adequate
"And those who can see no merit in the merger reckon it is little more than Anderson's early exit strategy - a claim that he is quick to deny." Elizabeth Knight, The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 May, page 23
The implicit proposal from the Board that shareholders simply trust the Board's judgement on this matter is flawed by the likely difficulty of the Board being held to account if the merged company fails to deliver as promised. It is a feature of the proposal that the current CEO, Mr Paul Anderson, will retire early and return to the USA in 2002 -- a substantially wealthier man than when he arrived.
Mr Brian Gilbertson, currently CEO and Chairman of Billiton plc will become CEO of the merged company on Mr Anderson's departure. Mr Mick Davis, currently Executive Director, Finance of Billiton will become Chief Development Officer and, being based officially in London, will be the day-to-day public face of the company to major overseas investors.
There is speculation that current Billiton directors are set to become Nos. 1 and 2 of the merged company within 2 years. While that may be good for Billiton shareholders, BHP shareholders are being told that the principal people they will have to hold to account for the outcomes of the merger, be they good or bad, are people they have not yet met. Moreover, they are people who will already be massively wealthy winners as a result of the special rewards for them that have been bundled into the merger proposal. Shareholders will not be fully able to "hold to account" the Board that is presenting the merger to them.
What about the "poison pill": the US$100 million damages fee?
The merger proposal states that there will be a `liquidated damages' fee of US$100 million should the shareholders of either company fail to endorse the proposal. No breakdown of such damages has been given. It is possible that the sum would be a disincentive to other companies that may have considered an alternative offer to BHP shareholders.
It is highly unsatisfactory that BHP shareholders have been presented with a proposal that says in effect: "you must vote for this or else the company will incur damages of US$100 million; a penalty your Board has voluntarily accepted as a term of the merger proposal". It is unsatisfactory because BHP shareholders are being denied full freedom of choice in deciding whether to support the merger based on the merits of the merger alone.
US$100 million damages is a high price to pay for voting against the merger. However, it is a tiny fraction of the market capitalisation of BHP Ltd. And it is also small compared to the substantial write-downs of poor performing assets that shareholders have had to endure in recent years. The issue to bear in mind is that the potential losses to BHP shareholders from an overly generous merger with Billiton are far higher.
What happens if the merger is voted down?
In the event that the merger fails the BHP Board will retain the right and the opportunity to pursue further merger and aquisition proposals as it sees fit. These could include a revised proposal with respect to Billiton plc. However, the message from shareholders should be:
� BHP must not be undervalued in any merger proposal
� There should be no premium paid by BHP in a merger unless that premium is paid for effective control of the target by BHP.
� Shareholders should have full information presented to them so they can make an informed decision on any merger proposal. "Just trust us" from the Board of Directors is not good enough.
� Top management and Directors' pay and bonuses should be subject to shareholder approval - not bundled with other proposals in a manner that undermines shareholders' rights in what is a critical area of corporate governance.
***
Please vote!
Your vote CAN make a difference. The merger proposal requires changes to BHP Ltd's constitution and this requires special resolutions with 75% of the votes cast to pass. Therefore the merger will not go ahead if there is significant opposition from shareholders ie. over 25%.
WE RECOMMEND YOU VOTE NO TO ALL12 RESOLUTIONS. Only Resolutions 2, 3 and 11 are special resolutions requiring a 75% majority, but all the remainder (eg appointment of Billiton directors to the BHP Board) are of no value if the merger itself is not approved. Therefore you should vote NO to all twelve.
This urgent request is sponsored by: the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the Australian Workers Union, the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union, the Construction, Forestry, Mining & Energy Union, the Maritime Union of Australia and the New Zealand Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union.
Follow the BHP Campaign
http://www.cfmeu.asn.au/mining-energy/bhp
|
The heading for the topic of this session is predictions and premonitions which puts one rather in the position of a soothsayer. So you'll forgive me if this speech is not as specific as I might ordinarily give to a group of lawyers but rather is conceptional and in some places general. However, I think this is the nature of pretending to be a psychic. Individual Agreements and the Problems with AWA's The issues surrounding individual contracts are complex. Particularly when one views this from the point of view of whether or not an individual arrangement has any place in the employment relationship which is the way somebody from my constituency would view the topic. In answering that question it is very clear that there is a place for individual arrangements in the employment relationship. A gun lawyer who is working for a law firm is not going to want her pay and conditions determined by some collective arrangement which applies equal pay to all lawyers in her law firm or indeed her industry. Similarly a great footballer who scores all the tries or kicks all the goals is not going to want to be paid the same as everybody else on the team. In these situations individual arrangements have their place. In attempting to describe this kind situation we are really looking at one where people have the ability to compete in the labour market on commercial terms. That is, they have enough bargaining power that they can negotiate with their employer on something like equal terms. But does this describe the whole workplace and does this describe the position of every employee within the workplace ? Obviously it does not. If you compare that situation with one of miners in the Pilbara working for BHP (and if there is anyone from BHP in this audience you are going to enjoy my speech) these miners clearly have no bargaining power. They are workers who are working next to somebody who is doing a very similar job to them. There is obviously an ability to differentiate the performance of their work from the person next to them but not to the same degree as the lawyer or the footballer. They are working in the context of an unemployment rate, which is at least large enough that if they refuse the terms and conditions being offered by their employer there might be 10 or 20 other people who would accept those terms and conditions. By and large they are earning a base rate of something in the order of $50,000 a year and attempting to negotiate individually with a legal entity which has a revenue of $21billion a year. So what we have are two very different situations in the workplace. One where some employees do have bargaining power with their employer, but another where there is absolutely no bargaining power whatsoever. One needs to consider that background when trying to assess the place of individual arrangements in the employment relationship. Now I want to consider the operation of Australian Workplace Agreements (AWA's). And I am going to be telling you that we believe AWA's are bad law. But rather than just chant you a slogan I want to try and articulate why we regard AWA's as bad law. AWA's are not the only form of individual arrangement within the employment relationship. It is quite possible, indeed common, to have a common law individual agreement which forms a contract of employment. It is worth comparing these two forms of individual arrangements. A common law individual agreement must sit completely above whatever is the existing industrial instrument regulating a particular workplace. That is, there cannot be single term in the common law individual arrangement which falls below any of the terms of the latest industrial instrument in the workplace. AWA's on the other hand in order to be registered need simply pass a no disadvantage test, which is not measured against the existing industrial instrument regulating the workplace but rather against the award. Nowadays awards are on average in terms of pay 15% below existing agreements. And in passing the no disadvantage test not every term and condition need be above that of the award but simply all the terms and conditions considered as a whole must be roughly equivalent to the award. This means that many award conditions can be undermined by AWA's. Even then this is not strictly the final test because AWA's which fail the no disadvantage test can still be registered if it is in the public interest to do so. This means that in workplaces where there are collective agreements in place the no disadvantage test can still be passed by an AWA which may nevertheless give rise to extreme disadvantage to the employees concerned. Common law individual agreements clearly work for the situation we first described. The gun lawyer or the excellent footballer can quite happily have their contract of employment embodied in a common law individual arrangement. Even in the second situation a common law individual agreement can be used to individualise the workplace and renumerate an employee who has performed excellently. This is often quoted as the reason for needing to have a system of individual agreements. But if these needs can be addressed through common law individual arrangements what can possibly be the purpose of an Australian Workplace Agreement? Given the fact that AWA's have their place in the agreement hierarchy, that is they can operate to the exclusion of collective agreements in certain circumstances, and given that the no disadvantage test which they need to satisfy is such that they can undermine the existing collective structures, I put it to you that the real reason for AWA's is not only to individualise the workplace but in fact to undermine collective structures. Indeed they are there to be used by employers to exploit the very fact that they are negotiating with people that have no bargaining power. AWA's were very much invented for the second group of people - those who have no bargaining power. It is also significant in my view that AWA's form part of a legislative scheme. That is, they are removed from the common law and doctrines relating to unconscionability and inequality of bargaining power simply do not apply to them. If we couple all of this with the fact that in Australia there are no collective bargaining rights we have a cocktail which can give rise to the situation that occurred at BHP's operations in the Pilbara. In that case almost the entire workforce came together under the banner of their respective unions and approached BHP and indicated that they wanted to negotiate a union collective agreement as they had done 3 or 4 times before. But BHP, quite lawfully, was able to completely ignore that request and say that as interesting as it is that people want to negotiate a collective agreement BHP itself had no such interest. It was then able, having ignored that approach, to go and approach workers individually and seek to have them sign individual agreements. At this point I want to take a rest from AWA's and talk to you about chicken catchers or in fact chicken farmers in a very different situation and in a different state namely NSW. Now there are only a few major chicken producers of which Steggles is one. In NSW there are many small chicken farmers. The chicken farmers together approached the ACCC and sought an authorisation to come together and negotiate on block with the chicken producers for the sale of their produce. This would ordinarily be collusive conduct and a breach of the Trade Practices Act. However, the ACCC examined the situation and agreed that is was unfair and unrealistic to expect each of the individual chicken farmers to negotiate with major companies of the likes of Steggles on anything like equal terms. And so they authorised the conduct of negotiating as a block in order to obtain a fair price for their product with the likes of Steggles. To my mind this is astonishing. Because what it represents in the commercial context is a right to collectively bargain. Commercial law provides for bargaining rights. It contains within it notions of fairness and equality of bargaining power. The common law in the context of contractual negotiations also has doctrines of unconscionability and equality of bargaining power. When you think that these laws have such notions it leads me to make this claim that the Australian Workplace Agreement legislation unlike any other law in the land places one party totally at the mercy of another. You just need to think about the comparisons. When an employee is asked to sign an AWA often the context is one where if he does not sign it his wages and conditions will be frozen indefinitely and in some circumstances his entire employment is dependant upon signing the AWA. Now imagine person A entering a contract with person B and person A says to person B: "I happen to be friends with your boss and if you don't sign this contract I'm going to have your wages and conditions frozen indefinitely or worse still you'll lose your job"; and person B then says: "well if that's the case I'm going to sign this agreement". How is that agreement not void for duress ? It has to be. And yet AWA's signed in these circumstances are quite lawful. And granted that as individuals we often deal in our every day contractual negotiations with large companies; we buy a car from a big car company, or we buy a can of Coke from Coca Cola, or we enter into a mortgage with a big bank. But in each of these situations we are able to shop around. And in even the most significant of these contracts - which would probably be entering into a mortgage that absorbs 40% of our income - none of these contracts is as significant as the contract of employment which delivers 100% of our income. And so we have a situation where the single most important contract that anyone will ever sign is governed by a set of laws which does not contain any notions of equality of bargaining power or fairness. And so I will repeat the claim: there is no other law in the land which places one party so much at the mercy of another as the legislative scheme of Australian Workplace Agreements. And in its present form I would even elevate the issue to being a human rights issue. Combined with there being no rights for the collective bargaining in Australia our legislation is very clearly in breach of our obligations as a country under the International Labor Organisation conventions. And so I don't put this as a socialistic or ultra left view, in fact I'd put it in the context of Australia being a modern civilised market economy and as such we should not allow this kind of law to be on our legal books. Predictions About the Future Now at this point I have been rather indulgent. Because I have been asked to talk to you about the future and in fact all I've been doing is standing on a soap box and telling you about the present. However, I simply can't help myself when given this topic to tell people about the evils of individual contracts. But I will get off my soap box and start talking to you about what the future might look like. Now I need you just to remember a little bit of your fifth form maths because I'm going to throw at you a few figures. This year we will have a federal election. Labor is probably going to win it. Let me just take you through that a little bit. Labor needs about 7 seats in order to win government. If the Queensland election were replicated in a federal context then upwards of 10 seats would be won in Queensland alone. On current polling it is expected that 3 or 4 seats will be picked up by Labor in West Australia and South Australia. On current polling 9 or 10 seats are expected to be picked up in Victoria but I think a more realistic estimate there is 4 or 5 seats. So just amongst those states alone you have twice the number of seats required in order for Labor to win government and we haven't even considered NSW which many regard as the place where Labor is best positioned to gain seats and is of course the largest state. So it's on that basis that I say that Labor is likely to win the election. Having said that there are nine months to go until the election and a week in politics is a long time. I would have said with a much greater degree of certainty that Jeff Kennett was going to win the 1999 State election in Victoria. So anything could happen. But let me make this assessment: I think the chances of Labor winning the next election are about 80%. If the Liberals win the next election then AWA's will clearly stay. However, if the Labor party wins the next election then our next port of call is the House of Representatives. It is the policy of the Australian Labor Party to abolish AWA's. This was adopted at its National Conference last year in Hobart. So we can say with certainty that if Labor wins the next election then a bill will pass the House of Representatives seeking the abolition of AWA's. The next place we go to then is the Senate. The Senate will have a balance of power which will contain a number of parties of which the Democrats will be one. The other parties might include One Nation, the Greens and a range of independents. Of all those parties in the Senate the one in which we would feel least confidence about its attitude to AWA's is the Democrats. So we need to try and peer inside the Democrats to assess their view on AWA's. At this point I apologise to any Democrats in the room because I have to say that having dealt with them over the last year they're a very weird mob indeed. They have very different views on almost every issue. Andrew Murray, the current Industrial Relations spokesperson, favours the retention of AWA's. Other Democrats do not. So really it's anyone's guess as to what the Democrats attitude would be to AWA's. But there has been a significant event in that party's history in the last month, namely the ascent to the leadership of Natasha Stott Despoja. And to the extent that this represents a mood within the Democrats to move away from supporting policies of the Coalition, which I think it does, then I hold some hope that the Democrats might have a favourable position on AWA's. Taking all of this into account it leads me to this assessment: that there is a 62.5% chance that a bill abolishing Australian Workplace Agreements would obtain passage through the Senate. Now you're asking why 62.5%? Well obviously because I have confidence - in fact to three significant figures - of my predictive ability about the numbers and attitudes in the future Senate. But coincidentally when you multiply 62.5% with the chances of Labor getting up in the next election, being 80%, it means that the overall chances of the abolition of AWA's after the next election is exactly 50/50. Now at this point you should be getting a bit sceptical because when ever I ask somebody about the chances of one thing or another occurring and I get the response "well it's about 50/50" I look that person straight in the eye and say "what you're really telling me is that you have absolutely no idea". Well what I'm telling you is that the chances that Australian Workplace Agreements will be abolished after the next election are exactly 50/50. Premonitions About the Future Obviously there is a lot more to it than simply the abolishment of a legislated scheme of individual contracts. So I want to talk a little bit about how the future might look if the ACTU were lords of the universe. And I hasten to add that we are not. The Federal Labor party does not come to the ACTU and seek instructions about labour law . . . which is a bit of a bummer really. And, I also need to say that the ACTU's policy on these issues is that AWA's should be abolished and that the bargaining system should contain collective bargaining rights. Now at this point the appropriate thing is probably for me to simply sit down as this is the official policy of the ACTU. But that alone is not particularly edifying and so I do want to go into a little more detail. But we are now moving into the realms of the musings of Richard Marles and not much else. As I have described AWA's then from the point of view of trying to rectify the issue there are basically three problems;
by The Chaser
|
The new policy of "strategic stupidity" will see the President confusing the Chinese into submission by releasing several contrary statements a day regarding the status of Taiwan.
Bush started the day by being the first President to state that the United States would use military force to protect Taiwan. After engaging in a discussion with his foreign policy experts, during which the words "World War Three" and "fucking idiot" were explored, Bush decided to change this policy.
In new attempts to confuse the Chinese government, Bush released several other policies suggesting at different times that the US would not use force to defend Taiwan, that the US would actually help China invade Taiwan, that the US didn't know where Taiwan was and that the US thought Taiwan was a form of martial art.
Bush will also attempt to pacify China by claiming that the sale of billions of dollars worth of weapons to Taiwan is 'only fair after we gave you that spyplane'
|
****************
Well what an ending. Colby in a final act of complete stupidity, and against all the narcissistic rules of the game, votes for Tina instead of Keith at the final tribal council letting her become competitive and ultimately take the million dollars because there was some dumb pact with her. Unbelievable!
There is no loyalty in this game and the fact that Colby can continue go on TV and smile and say she deserves it is beyond my grasp. Please bring back Richard. And what is with Tina's I'll pay off my home loan, my friend's home loan and set up a charity? Charity my arse!
So what were the ultimate highlights in a show that was, in itself, my weekly viewing highlight? (Well, OK Buffy and the West Wing are still up there). How can we go past that intimate human moment when Colby's mother became the surrogate mother for the final three Survivors? I'm still pretty sure I saw Keith go the grope on her though!
Or was it when "The Man" (Michael Skupin) finally realised the wilderness was the place to let out that basic human of human needs - to slaughter - than the full thrust of the ram of computer programming and ended up in a parallel Lord of the Flies universe mallei with a small pig. The haunting shrill of "Kill the pig" "Kill the pig" can still be heard echoing across neighbourhoods across the world. It was good to see at least one survivor, Kimmi the vegetarian, of course, morally well there had to be at least one person outraged at the death of a the feral, environment destroying pest. And that is why she lost. Oh to have seen Alicia take the knife to Kimmi, now that would have been reality TV!
Just on this point, can't the People for the Ethical Treatment for Animals see the irony in being more worried about a pig than a huge media conglomerate sticking a bunch of humans in the bush and starving them for TV?
And what about the wonton destruction of the Great Barrier reef by Colby? So he took some coral to buy off his teammates in order to neck Jerri. Would we have had it any other way? No!! If its good enough for an oil tanker than its good enough for our Texan Ranger.
And who will forget the beef jerk incident when Jerri had Kel removed because he was suspected to have a hidden stash. Didn't anyone else see the subtle parallels to The Fugitive? Devilishly clever. Poor Kel still hasn't forgotten as was evidenced on the final program.
As for Jerri "lets get our gear off for money" remained still the bitch to the end, even after the show finished and we love her for it. All good shows need someone to hate and what does cares, she's going to make shit loads out of the whole process with or without her clothes on.
Then there was that touching and revealing moment in the reunion episode where Deb bares her all and emotionally reflects on how the media torn her apart once she was voted off the show only to leave her with a loss of self confidence. Wa, wa, wa, you put yourself up for ridicule than that's what you get. Der! It would have been a different story had she won the million dollars.
Then good old Amber who followed Jerri around like a puppy with a lobotomy, appears not to be as dim as she was portrayed. It turns out that she was the winner of the Deans merit award 5, yes 5 semesters in a row at college. Yet despite this she is still keen to continue to follow in Jerri's footsteps and get her gear off for Playboy aaaaah, she won't be the pin up for the Christian Coalition like her fellow competitor Elisabeth.
Liz, Beth oh how we could go on. This tennis shoe designer, not as glamorous as the media tweaked shoe designer status she was given through out the show, is not going to get her gear off, no! She'll be doing the right thing and marry her all American College quarterback boyfriend of four years. Undoubtedly Rodger will be there. Did anyone else find this relationship a little strange, even bordering on the Taxidriversish?
Well that's it for another series I have to rate this one as much harder than the first in relation to the environment and the availability of food. However, it was unfortunately less Machiavellian than the first series with an inevitability about who would be the last three survivors, which at different times took some of the excitement away from the machinations of the show. Both shows had different things to offer, lets hope Survivor III will bring the best of the previous episodes together.
That's it Survivorets until we meet again in the jungles or savannas of Africa.
Websites
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor2/
www.suvivorsucks.com
|
In early April 2001, midway in its second term of office, the Carr Labor Government was in trouble from the union movement, the medical and legal professions over its attempt to remove workers compensation entitlements by stealth. Large and vocal inner city communities in ALP electorates were protesting school closures, the selling off of yet more public land and at the same time wondering just what constitutes a "non-negotiable consultation".
After six years in power, the Carr Labor Government had major problems.
Could its formidable media machine and parliamentary dominance divert attention from these problems?
Why not a story of western Sydney public high school violence? And at the same time dress it up with a lecture on the dangers of adolescent depression and a few praiseworthy words on the school's handling of the matter.
This seems to be the context for a parliamentary performance of the most sordid and inhumane variety. What transpired was not some unfortunate off the cuff comment or trap set by a tricky journalist. A ministerial statement in the parliament is a rare event. The media had been briefed to expect something sensational and according to media reports advised to have their Columbine High School tapes ready.
On April 10 the Minister spoke from a prepared text.
The statement showed contempt for the public education system -- its students, teachers and communities. Trinity Grammar's real violence and abuse was the subject of no such statement.
The Minister manufactured an incident of school violence. He was naive to suggest the media would not identify the school.
What gave the story its sensationalism was found to be untrue. To give additional force to the story, the Government media machine provided further false embellishments via background briefings on the existence of a gun. The welfare of a public school student, the reputation of his family, the efforts of the school principal and staff in building a strong school community were sacrificed -- for an evening news headline. And the media did provide the traditional school violence headlines that evening.
Did the Minister not think the student would find out that he was the subject of the headlines? This constitutes psychological abuse -- a clear offence under the Government's own child protection legislation. What would happen to a teacher if they had gone to the local newspaper with such a story about one of their students?
And then there were the attempts at a cover up -- to blame the police, the Department and to further invade the student's privacy by reading out selected diary extracts.
The hard politicking of the bear pit of the NSW Parliament is the opposite of the compassion and energy that goes into school pastoral care programs. The two worlds are incompatible. Teaching is hard enough and real incidents of violence can be hard enough to handle without the overwhelming pressure of the media and political machinations. The staff deserve apologies for what has happened.
The public of NSW still does not have all the answers to why this happened and therefore how all this can be prevented from ever happening again. Federation is consequently supporting any investigations by the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Privacy Commission.
Federation is calling on the Government to publicly outline to the teachers and community of NSW what measures it will take to ensure that incidents of this type will not happen again.
Teachers can have no confidence in a Minister who would stoop so low. The Minister deserves to go.
Public Education and the Media
The media, in particular the Telegraph, have been relentless in pursuing the Minister over his untruths. This has not always been the case. Their sensationalism continues, however, with "massacre boy" headlines.
During the salaries dispute, spin doctors easily discarded the facts in the pursuit of the tabloid headline and the upper hand. The media spin had the Federation having to sign certain documents before salaries negotiations could begin. Advertisements presented teachers as greedy and our claim was manipulated to bankrupt NSW if agreed to. The infamous "new award" was first revealed at a media conference. There was no concern for the impact on public education at a time of increasing competition with private education. There was no concern for public education teachers.
The media grab is too often the substitute for an informed education debate. And on funding, school principals know all about the front page stories that totally misrepresented their bank accounts. And it's not just happened once.
In the days preceding Public Education Day, Departmental officers were around the state talking up public education. From an examination of Media Monitors, the Minister was talking up the declining number of males in primary schools -- an issue but bit of a diversion from the heavy debate of school funding and the role of the public education system.
The Government's media strategies must be wholly consistent with its responsibility to public education.
Aquilina must go
|
DID anyone else read the back page of Wednesday's Tele and think - hmmm, wonder what's really going on here?
The sometimes hard-hitting tabloid ran the story of NRL coach Tim Sheens turning in his warrant, allegedly just for a week, under the headline - "STRESSED OUT - Why doctors advised Cowboys coach Tim Sheens to step down."
The article was co-authored by Peter Frilingos, the man responsible for a sporting back-flip, with pike, after his employers explained to him just what they really thought about Super League.
Backed by a full inside page detailing the stresses on rugby league coaches it made it clear, presumably for the benefit of other news organisations, that health problems had forced the coach to move out of home and go to ground.
Sheens' wife fronted to talk of stress, strain and chest pains.
Some facts that weren't given prominence in the article about the "three-time premiership winning coach" included the following ...
� Sheens had been a key advocate for News Ltd-driven Super League, otherwise known as the Coaches Superannuation Scheme.
� While the game's credibility nose-dived he profited handsomely, possibly to the tune of millions, although his club kept losing.
� Under his leadership, North Queensland had something approaching a vice-like grip on the competition's wooden spoon.
� Rumours about his future at Townsville have circulated widely and publicly for years
� News Ltd are in the process of resuming ownership of the franchise
� Sheens' position is further complicated by his being, apparently, a shareholder in the Cowboys operation
The News Ltd tabloid's sympathetic handling of the Sheens situation was somewhat uncharacteristic but this columnist is certainly in no position to suggest it was either soft or inaccurate.
That, though, is hardly relevant. The point is that the credibility of News' Sydney flagship is listing badly because, almost daily, it faces gigantic conflicts of interest, at least on its sports pages.
Were we reading the views of an activist organisation beholden to Tim Sheens; the positioning of an employer preparing to cut ties with a high-profile employee or, just maybe, something in the same ballpark as the truth?
Who knows? Certainly not the majority of Tele readers.
And their fears could only be fanned by putting down the paper and switching across to Fox.
There they could watch a scrum of former footy players, turned presenters/commentators - Andrew Ettingshausen, Laurie Daley et all, whose major qualifications seem to have been that they went out on limbs to spin for News' vision and the and vastly-inflated pay packets that went with it.
Switch on the radio and hear NRL boss Malcolm Noad, a former union player who doubles as a News Ltd's executive, laying down rugby league policy and describing the game he himself played as "the enemy."
You might even catch up with Mal Meninga, another outspoken Super League champion, who took over the coaching reins at News-aligned Canberra without any discernible experience, on hanging up his boots.
The experiment has not been a happy one and it would not surprise if a sympathetic "scoop" announcing Big Mal's departure was just around the corner.
It's like one giant mystery in which every person and each appointment may be tainted by favours owed or backs that need scratching.
It's not good for league supporters but it's even worse for a community entitled to ask whether or not a major news source has become motivated by considerations other than truth and fair comment.
Oh and, just for the record - sheen - according to the Australian Concise Oxford means, amongst other things, "gloss. on surface".
|
****************
Australian Exceptionalism: The role of Trade Unions in the Emergence of Enterprise Bargaining by Chris Briggs
The shift to enterprise bargaining in Australia in 1990-91 was to a large extent forced on the AIRC by the ACTU. The ACTU was concerned about the erosion of union solidarity under the centralized system and wanted to assert their authority as against that the AIRC. By doing this, however, the union movement created a vacuum as they did not develop an alternative wage fixing system that would protect all. This was the space that the Business Council of Australia rushed into with its low-cost flexibility plan. The BCA model has dominated ever since.
(Journal of Industrial Relations; vol, 43, no. 1, March 2001)
Recent Trends in Pay Equity: Beyond the Aggregate Statistics by Gillian Whitehouse
The earnings gap between men and women has remained comparatively stable at an aggregate level over the 1990s in Australia. Whitehouse goes deeper than the aggregate data to show that wage dispersion is on the increase and argues that the current labour market environment does not allow the issue of pay equity to be addressed effectively.
(Journal of Industrial Relations; vol, 43, no. 1, March 2001)
Scope of Collective and Individual Bargaining in Australia
AN overview of bargaining in Australia.. Over 32,000 of the almost 47,000 collective agreements registered in Australia up to September 2000 were federal agreements, representing 79% of all award based employees there. 80% of award based employees in WA are covered by some form of collective or individual agreement. In Tasmania the figure is 69%, Qld 56%, NSW 46% and SA 42%.
As at September 2000, 129,565 AWAs were approved covering 2,551 employers. Total use of AWAs covered 1.6% of the workforce.
Average wage movements for workers covered by different forms of regulation range from executive pay rises averaging 4.5% for 2000 to safety net increases for the lowest earners of as low as 1.5%. Union based certified agreements delivered better outcomes for workers than non-union agreements.
A comparison of AWAs, non-union agreements and union agreements shows union agreements delivering 3.9% wage increases, non-union agreements 3.1% and AWAs 2.5%.
(ADAM Report no. 28, March 2001)
Innovative Clauses in Recent Enterprise Agreements
There has been some movement in recent times for a greater linking of workers' pay to skill and competency [despite the insistence by the Federal govt on youth wages regardless of skill]
A recent agreement in the timber industry for example, recognizes explicitly the competency based approach and the discrimination inherent in age based wages.
Incentive schemes also feature in new clauses. In the plastics industry a clause has been introduced based on measuring performance and paying an incentive for performance based on reducing the number of labour hours needed to complete a job.
Leave arrangements have also begun to shift away from standardized measures to tailored arrangements. In the automotive industry an arrangement has been developed where leave loading will be an incentive based on years of service provided that annual leave is kept current and is taken within 6 months of it falling due. The loading ranges from the standard 17.5% for one years service to 40% for service of 4 years and more.
Parental leave in the public sector has seen some change with a 12 week paid leaver for women and 1 weeks paid leave for men. Adoption leave incorporating a 6 week paid leave component is also covered.
Flexibility is a buzz word and flexible shift work arrangements are increasing. Some innovations look at how workers are compensated for increased flexibility. In the mining industry, for example, a clause in one agreement says "an employee required to change shifts for at least 3 consecutive working days shall be paid overtime rates for the first shift so worked.
Employee assistance schemes have rarely been in agreements but this report details various types of clauses in this area giving employees time to attend counseling and rehabilitation and also a role for unions in the process.
AN agreement in the hospitality sector contains a clause aimed at limiting the outsourcing of jobs.
(ADAM Report no. 28, March 2001)
Payment in Lieu of Notice - should super be included? by Pamela McAlister
The standard legal view used to be that payments to terminated workers nee not include superannuation. This was based on the calculation of what would have been directly favourable to the employee had the employment arrangement continued. Some recent decisions have cast doubt on this with a concept of "total employment cost" emerging.
The Workplace Relations Act provides that an employer must include superannuation payments in minimum notice payments. Employers have been able to exclude superannuation from any additional notice payments above these minimums. However, with the Total Employment Costs concept, employers may have to base additional notice payments on the whole package including superannuation. They should remit the superannuation to the employees super fund.
(CCH Australian Industrial Law Update; newsletter 4, April 2001)
Change in Status May Attract New Probation Period
Although there may be little change in an employee's duties, the employment conditions under a full-time contract are clearly different to the arrangements in place when the employee is engaged as a casual. Therefore, permanent employment entered into by an employee may be considered as new employment in accordance with a new contract and subject to a period of probation that is determined in advance of the new contract. In Wilkinson v Skippers Aviation Pty Ltd, Print PR903635, (30 April 2001), the Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission confirmed that a pilot who was made permanent subject to a new probation period was accordingly excluded from the operation of the termination of employment provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.
http://www.workplaceinfo.com.au
Home Alone - Who's Protecting the Homeworker?
The definitions of employee and workplace are crucial in establishing the jurisdiction of legislation for certain forms of home-based work. Michael Quinlan and Claire Mayhew have done extensive research on the OHS problems of precarious employment and they predict that taxpayers will have a "heavy burden of support for the work-related chronic injuries and diseases of the rapidly growing precarious workforce that are without the normal protections of workers compensation. This article covers the popularity of home based work and looks at the positives and negatives for the employee and the hidden costs that can become part of it The Productivity Commission estimated in 1995 that costs of work related injuries were 30% borne by the worker, 30% by the employer and 40% by taxpayers. Quinlan and Mayhew have found that many home workers are excluded from compo cover and the costs are then more externalized to the social security system and Medicare. Quinlan and Mayhew recommend more homeworker specific OHS guidance.
(Workplace Intelligence; April 2001)
The American CEO of the once Big Australian will pocket an estimated $17 million if the merger deal goes ahead. So while most institutional investors, sensible financial analysts and all workers are alarmed at the prospect of an Australian icon being swallowed by a South African company listed on the London stock exchange, the man in the drivers' seat thinks it's makes perfect sense. Sorry, that should be cents.
Anderson took BHP over three years ago and quickly transformed it from a corporate leader of the Australian economy, to another sleazy multinational chasing a bigger slice of the global action. Over the past three years we have witnessed nothing short of the Bastardisation of BHP. Anderson has overseen the closure of the Newcastle steel works, moved to push Iron Ore workers at Pilbara onto individual contracts, launched an aggressive assault on Queensland and Illawarra coal-miners, including canceling of enterprise agreements and increased the use of foreign-flagged ships of convenience to ship his steel offshore..
In doing so, he's joined other international pariahs like Rio Tino of imposing a purist HR agenda of divide and conquer. This week's united actions by unionized labour to oppose the Biliton merger shows at this, at least, he has not succeeded.
Questions over the Biliton deal are many: from why a strong Australian company needs to be playing "a testosterone" game of global domination, to the future of BHP's petroleum interests on the North-West Shelf to the growing suspicion that BHP is being swallowed by the Yaapies, rather than the reverse - as Anderson has been attempting to spin.
Perhaps the most intriguing question relates to Anderson's own personal stake in the merger. Based on publicly available information we know that the Billiton deal will deliver Anderson $3.2 million golden handshake to leave the job a year before his five year contract expires. It has been estimated the deal will also improve his personal share options package by $7-8 million. Add his $7 million per annum salary and Anderson has 17 million reasons to see the deal through.
In his time in Australia, Anderson has pursued the Americanisation of the BHP corporate philosophy to the detriments of communities all over the nation. Now he's skipping town with maximum benefit, leaving nothing but the memory of another snake-oil salesmen. That and the salutary lesson that when you globalise your management, the rest will surely follow.
© 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/95/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 |