Issuu

O o

arm

ISSN 0159-8236

R .F .X . CONNOR M E M O R IA L LECTURE 1980

o o o

Australian Trade Unionism: Past, Present and Future

R.J. Hawke

U N IV E R S IT Y OF W O LLONGO NG H IS T O R Y SO C IETY

* «5>

49; 43* -S3’

PREVIOUS R.F.X. CONNOR M EM ORIAL LECTURES

1979 Hon. E.G. W hitlam , A .C . Q.C., The Connor Legacy

University o f Wollongong H istory Society - W ollongong, N.S.W.: University o f Wollongong. Annual ISSN 0159-8236 Available from The Secretary, University o f W ollongong H istory Society, P.O. Box 1144, Wollongong. N.S.W. 2500 I H istory - Periodicals I University o f W ollongong H istory Society. II T itle : The R .F.X Connor Memorial Lecture

R .F.X . CONNOR M E M O R IA L LECTURE 1980

A U S T R A L IA N T R A D E U N IO N IS M : PAST, PRESENT A N D FU TU R E

Delivered by R.J. H AW K E , President o f the Australian Council o f Trade Unions

Union Hall, U niversity o f Wollongong 26 August, 1980

U N IV E R S IT Y OF W O LLO NG O N G H IS TO R Y SOCIETY 1981

The University o f Wollongong H istory Society established the R.F.X. Connor Memorial Lecture Series as a trib u te to his representation o f W oll足 ongong in local, State and Federal politics from 1938 to 1977 and to his personal c o n trib u tio n to the debate on Australia's natural resources. As Minister fo r Minerals and Energy C onnor expressed firm views on the ow ner足 ship and control o f those resources: "T h ro u g h o u t my two-and-a-half years as a M inister o f the Crown I have stood in the path o f those who w ould have grabbed the mineral resources o f Australia. I have no apologies whatever fo r w hat I have done. It has been done in good faith. It has been done in honesty. I flin g in the face o f the little men o f the Opposition the words o f an old Australian poem. 'Give me men to match my m ountains, Give me men to match my plains. Men w ith freedom in th e ir vision, And creation in th e ir b ra in s !" Each Lecture provides a platform fo r the expression o f personal views w ith in the theme o f the Lecture Series.

THE SECOND R.F.X. CONNOR M E M O R IA L LECTURE ********** I am indeed honoured to have been invited to deliver the second Rex C onnor Memorial Lecture. Rex C onnor was one o f a distressingly rare breed. He was an Australian w ith a vision fo r his co u n try's fu tu re . It was one o f Rex C onnor's close friends who, I believe, said, 'C onnor is an Australian firs t and everything else second'. It is claimed th a t his great grandfather firs t settled in Wollongong in 1836 and th a t Rex him self was born on Australia Day 1907. He certainly was A ustralian. N ot only in his love o f the hard physical clashes o f Rugby League but, as I th in k we still like to th in k o f Australians, also in his indpendence o f m ind. I cannot do better in this respect than quote his own words in defending his visionary proposals before an O pposition th a t represented the pow erful forces p itte d aginst him as M inister fo r Minerals and Energy. He said, 'Th ro u g ho u t my tw o and a half years as a M inister o f the Crown I have stood in the path o f those who w ould have grabbed the mineral resources o f Australia. I have no apologies whatever fo r w hat I have done. It has been done in good fa ith . It has been done in honesty. I flin g in the face o f the little men o f the O pposition the words o f an old Australian poem: "Give me men to match my m ountains, Give me men to match my plains. Men w ith freedom in th e ir vision, And creation in th e ir b ra in s'". It was inevitable that Rex Connor w ould take an active part in the Australian Labor Party. His grandfather I understand was a fo unding member o f the Party. Rex Connor saw the Labor Party as providing the potential to im ple足 ment not only his own vision but indeed the aspirations o f the mass o f the Australian w orking people. In those circumstances it w ould seem to me entirely appropriate th a t in the lecture to n ig h t I should lo o k w ith you at the struggle, the histo ry, the present circumstances and the contem porary vision o f the movement w hich gave b irth to th a t Australian Labor Party. I refer, o f course, to the Australian trade union movement. And I th in k it is approp足 riate, by way o f in tro d u c tio n to w hat I have to say in th in k in g o f Rex Connor and the trade union movement, to quote b rie fly to you a couple o f sentences from George Bernard Shaw's w o rk 'Man and Superman w hich to me seem particularly apt to Rex Connor and to the trade union movement. Shaw said, 'The reasonable man adapts him self to the w o rld , the unreasonable man persists in tryin g to adapt the w orld to him self, therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man'. I th in k in a sense th a t sums up Rex Connor and in a sense it sums up w hat I conceive o f as the Australian trade union move足 ment: the unpreparedness to accept things as they are.

On?

The Australian trade union movement started very soon after the establish m ent o f the colonies which subsequently became this c o u n try. I w ill not take you through th a t history from the very beginning b u t I w ould remind you th a t as the 19th century progressed the colonies witnessed a very rem ark able grow th in the organisation o f trade unions in both the blue and the w hite collar areas. That movement was not one which sim ply was atomised into individual unions; from a very early stage individual unionists and individual unions recognised the need to come together w ith in the colonies themselves and in inter-colonial organisations. Indeed, the year 1879 saw the firs t o f the intercolonial trade union congresses and at our congress o f the ACTU last year we colebrated the centenary o f th a t firs t intercolonial congress. By any standards the 1890s were a turning p o in t fo r the trade union movement and it was a period o f critical significance in relation to th a t issue which I am concerned w ith talking about to n ig h t. That is, the relationship between the trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party. In the 1890s massive strikes and confontations in the m aritim e, coal and shearing industries almost brought the trade union movement to its knees. The very question o f its v ia b ility was an issue. And as the trade union move ment emerged from th a t massive c o n fro n ta tio n there was a fa irly general realisation th a t there was a need fo r the trade union movement to have direct representation in the colonial legislatures and at the firs t attem pt in New South Wales, after the establishment o f the Australian Labor Party by the trade union movement, some 35 men were elected to th a t colonial legislature. It was clear th a t in this co u n try, not then one nation, a decisive step had been taken in terms o f the future dire ctio n , the future activities o f the trade union m ovem ent o f this co u n try. I do n o t intend, nor is there tim e to ta lk about all the struggles o f th a t trade union m ovem ent in the past o r o f all the major aspects o f its relations w ith the Australian Labor Party. I do w ant, however, p articularly fo r the purposes o f coming to the present and fo r looking to the future to refer to some aspects o f the struggles o f the Australian trade union m ovem ent in the past which I th in k have a very direct and significant relevance fo r the present. O f course, one o f the early struggles o f the Australian trade union move m ent was the struggle fo r reduced hours and you are n o t unacquainted w ith the fa ct th a t th a t is something o f an issue at the mom ent. I th in k it is part icula rly im p o rta n t to remember in th a t con te xt, therefore, that one o f the proudest achievements o f the Australian trade union movement was that w hich came to pass in the year 1856, because in th a t year the eight hour day was won by the building unions, chiefly in Melbourne. The issue o f hours remained a central issue fo r the trade union movement fo r the rest o f the nineteenth century and indeed through the earlier years o f this century. The Full Bench o f the A rb itra tio n C ourt came to award the 44 hour week in 1927 and soon a fte r th a t tim e, particularly w ith the onset o f the Great Depression, the new and fo und lin g ACTU specifically to o k up the question o f hours and moved its policies towards the attainm ent o f a 40 hour week and specific ally form ulated that claim in 1936.

Two

In 1936 the ACTU pointed o u t th a t shortening hours was the only logical way o f b a ttlin g unem ploym ent; it pointed o u t th a t w orkers should receive, in the form o f increased leisure, a share in the benefits o f technical progress and mechanisation and that the o n ly method by w hich the ouput o f mass prod uction can be sold is by an increased purchasing power. The 40 hour week was won in 1947 after a struggle and public campaign w hich joined together three issues which, I suggest, are every b it as topical and relevant today as they were more than 40 years ago. They were: th a t shorter hours is a logical response to high unem ploym ent, th a t workers should share in the benefits o f technological change and that an increase in p ro d u ctivity requires th a t workers have an adequate purchasing power. It to o k the trade union movement an enorm ously long period to achieve 40 hours as a general standard across the board and the situation w ith which the trade union m ovem ent was confronted in th a t period leading up to 1947 was no d iffe re n t from th a t which confronted the trade union movement in recent tim es and still confronts it today. There are always those people w ho believe th a t the situation as it is is perfect, should n o t be changed and has some w eight or a u th o rity o f divine decree. Those people w ho th in k like th a t should be reminded th a t up u n til 1819 when the w o rk in g hours o f young persons under the age o f 16 in Britain were firs t lim ited to 12 hours per day, excluding meals, there were people w ho like them accepted the status quo, and indeed defended it. Resistance at th a t tim e was so strong th a t children in te xtile factories to o k another 14 years to w in a 12 hour day. It wasn't u n til 1844 th a t women in Great Britain were granted the 12 hour day. In try in g to encapsulate this constancy o f conservatism and the consistent d iffic u ltie s o f those who w ould understand the present and try to chart the course fo r the future, I can do no better than read to you w hat I believe is one o f the most percipient passages th a t has ever been penned by any A rb itra tio n C ourt bench in the long and at times proud history o f that in s titu tio n . I quote from the Full Bench decision o f the 1947 judgem ent w hich established the standard o f the 40 hour week, and I ask you to th in k how relevant it is to so many o f the things th a t you w ill have been reading in the press o f recent times. This is w hat the Full Bench o f the A rb itra tio n C ourt said in 1947 in reducing the standard hours from 44 to 40: 'The pursuit o f leisure by the workers o f the w o rld has persisted through history fo r many centuries. But leisure did not become realisable u n til man was able to add to the labour o f his hands and his animals the forces o f nature. In the past it was enjoyed by the few who were able to comm and the labour o f others, w hether as slaves o r feudal serfs. Capitalism, replacing earlier social orders ushered in the machine age and made it possible to extend the boon o f increased leisure - freedom fro m the grind o f u nre m ittin g labour-to the many. From the early beginnings o f this system workers sought this leisure and have slow ly won

Three

it. One hundred years ago in England a ten-hours day or a sixtyhours week was enacted. In Australia ninety years ago an eighthour day or a forty-e ig h t hour week was achieved in lim ited cases. Twenty years ago this c o u rt awarded a fo rty -fo u r hours week. There is no reason to assume th a t the capacity o f industry has ended at fo rty -fo u r hours........ It has been the historic role o f employers to oppose the w orkers' claims fo r increased leisure. They have, as is well know n, oppos足 ed in Parliament and elsewhere every step in this direction and this case is no exception. The arguments have n o t much changed in a hundred years. The employers have feared such changes as a threat to profits, an added obstacle to production, a lim ita tio n upon industrial expansion, and a threat to internal and international trade re足 lations. Steadily, firs t in one co u n try then in another, this opposition has been overcome u n til great in stitu tio n s like the International Labour Organisation in the international arena, this co u rt in this country, and the legislatures both here and elsewhere have declared fo r the desirability o f added leisure'. The Full Bench concluded by saying th a t 'history has invariably proved the forebodings o f employers to be unfounded'. Now th a t was said in 1947 and I w ould suggest, as I have been try in g over recent times to convey to employers and governments, th a t history did not stand still in 1947, and it's certainly n o t going to stand still fo r us now in 1980 just because we at this p o in t in tim e happen to be part o f it. It is certainly n o t going to stand still to suit the perceived political advantage o f Malcolm Fraser. The fact is that the 33 years since 1947, when the 40 hour standard was established, have witnessed a more dram atic change in technology and a more dynam ic m anifestation o f the intrinsic capacity o f the genius o f men and women to improve the way in w hich they produce goods and services, than at any other tim e in the w hole o f recorded human history. These dram atic changes in the way in w hich we produce things, in w hich we produce services, has already in this co u n try been reflected in the fact th a t, in many im portant sectors o f the Australian economy, standard hours are significantly less than 40. They are already 35 hours in coal, in the oil industry, on the w a te rfro n t and in the container industry. They are already significantly less than 40 in other strategic areas o f the economy including to an increasing extent the power-generating industry in this country. A nd it is n o t merely an exercise in absurdity but it is a cynical exercise in p o litica l m anipulation fo r Mr. Fraser o r any other politician to try and suggest th a t those forces w hich have produced the changes in the way in w hich we produce goods and services, forces w hich have already brought the benefit o f increased leisure to something like 40% o f the Australian w o rkin g population w hich enjoys standards o f b etter than 40 hours, are going to stop now. Four

The question is simply one o f the way in w hich we extend th a t benefit through the w orkforce. We have adopted the position in the ACTU th a t in fact we should attem pt to negotiate w ith those areas o f the economy which have a greater capacity to pass on the benefits o f th e ir increased p ro d u ct iv ity , in part, by way o f increased leisure to th e ir w orkers. We w ill in the weeks and months ahead plan to achieve in an o rd e rly, constructive and cooperative way th a t im provem ent in standards fo r the w o rkin g people o f this c o u n try . We hope to see the inevitable happen by way o f consensus, by way o f cooperation, by way o f negotiation. We are c o m m itte d to th a t method. As I say, th a t standard, th a t im provem ent, w ill inevitably come. There is no thin g surer and if the forces o f governm ent o r employers or o f other in stitu tio n s do not see the virtue o f cooperation, o f constructive negotiation, then in certain areas they w ill increase the lik e lih o o d o f the inevitable occurr ing in other less desirable ways. I w an t to make the p o in t in taling about th is whole issue o f increased leisure that, insofar as the Australian trade union movement has been con cerned w ith the bringing in to being o f p o litic a l democracy and the intrusion o f the trade union movement in to the p o litic a l processes o f democracy, it has also been increasingly concerned w ith try in g to extend the concepts o f democracy beyond political boundaries and in to the economic and indust rial arenas w hich affect the wefare o f the people th a t they represent. It is in th a t very real sense that this struggle fo r im proved co nditions o f em ploym ent in terms o f hours o f w o rk has been involved, because there has been this c o n tinu ing attem pt to give back to people w ho are employed in industry a greater period o f th e ir life, o f th e ir w aking hours, in respect o f w hich they are autonom ous. Now, if you look again at the struggle o f the trade union movement through tim e one o f the basic issues has been the question o f the necessity fo r the trade union movement to defend itse lf against the attacks o f govern ments w hich have sought to intervene by way o f legislation to attack the very foundational principles o f trade unionism . Right fro m the foundation o f the A C TU in 1927 this was an issue. In 1927 a conservative NationalC ountry Party coalition government led by Prime M inister Bruce introduced a series o f measures designed to prevent strikes. It amended the Crimes A c t and the A rb itra tio n A c t to define illegal strikes and it provided fo r secret ballots o f members before strike action could be taken. A t th a t period, more than 50 years ago, the trade union movem ent and the Labor Party opposed and fought those oppressive measures on the ground th a t employees were then, as to a very considerable e xte n t they still are, in a weaker bargain ing position than employers and th a t the right to strike was an essential last resort fo r trade unionists. It was argued then, as correctly as it is today, th a t penal provisions, w hether they be in the A rb itra tio n A c t itse lf or w hether they be in the Crimes A ct or in any form , are more like ly to provoke industrial c o n fro n t ation than to resolve it. Then, as now, the reasons fo r the in tro d u ctio n

Five

of that penal legislation were essentially tw o -fo ld : firs t, to try to elim inate o r dim inish the fundamental and cherished rights o f a free trade union movement and, second, to seek to divert a tte n tio n away from the inadequac ies and shortcomings o f government towards a scapegoat trade union move m ent. Such legislation is intended to provoke th a t kind o f con fro n ta tio n which conservative governments believe may stim ulate a measure o f public support fo r them fro m any inconvenience w hich members o f the public may have to endure as a result o f the trade union movement taking action to defend its rights. Now let us look at how in fact th a t has happened in recent times, how the history o f this co u n try in this respect has had an almost inevitable con tin u ity about it under conservative governments. In the five years the Fraser government has been in power we have seen this attem pt to divert attention from its inadequacies by continual attacks upon the trade union movement through more punitive legislation. It has been done in respect o f the Con c ilia tio n and A rb itra tio n A c t itself where there have been successive amend ments to impose fu rth e r restrictions upon the trade union movement and, indeed, to impose fu rth e r restrictions upon the capacity o f members o f the C onciliation and A rb itra tio n Commission to go about the procedures o f neg o tia tio n and o f con cilia tio n w ith parties in dispute. Perhpas the most blatant example o f this attem pt to increase the range o f penalties upon the trade unions has been the creation o f the Industrial Relations Bureau. That body is one which is not only rejected in concept and in practice by the trade unions but w hich is equally anathema to the organised em ploy ers o f this coun try w ho have joined w ith the trade union movement in seek ing to have the Bureau abolitished. It is seen by those dire ctly involved as being an in s titu tio n more like ly to provoke industrial confrontations and disputes than to resolve them. The governm ent is n o t content w ith lim itin g itself to increasing the range o f penal provisions w ith in the C onciliation and A rb itra tio n A c t but has utilised quite im properly the provisions o f the Trade Practices A ct, w hich should be concerned w ith try in g to create greater freedom o f com p e titio n between businesses, to impose greater restrictions upon the trade union movement. In regard to its own employees the Commonwealth government has perhaps been more severe than it has anywhere else. The Commonwealth Employees (Redeploym ent and Retirem ent) A ct o f 1979 allows fo r w hat is euphem istically referred to as 'management in itia te d retirem ent' to deplete the public service at a faster rate than natural wastage w ould otherwise bring about. There is one other particular peice o f legislation w hich, in the c o n te xt we are ta lking about (that is, the c o n te x t o f a free trade union movement operating in a free society to tr y and protect and advance the interests o f ordinary w orking people), has not yet received the degree o f attention and condem nation w hich it deserves. And th a t is the Commonwealth Employees E m ploym ent Provisions A ct o f 1977, the CEEP A ct.

Six

The CEEP A ct has attracted action in the international sphere which should bring shame to any A ustralian concerned w ith the good reputation o f this co u n try. This A c t sought to give the Commonwealth government greater disciplinary powers over its own employees than were available to any private em ployer in respect o f the capacity to stand down employees, public employees, affected by an industrial dispute elsewhere in the public service. It was so obnoxious in its intervention in to the rights o f free trade unionism th a t it was taken by the trade union movement o f this co u n try to the International Labour Organisation (ILO ). The ILO , the on ly international organisation to survive from the establish ment o f the League o f Nations in 1919, has had a continuous history from th a t tim e. One o f the reasons w hy it has had a continuous history and re mains one o f the central instrum ents o f the to ta l United Nations apparatus is because it is uniquely a tri-p a rtite organisation; th a t is, all nations o f the w o rld , all central em ployer organisations o f those nations and the central trade union movements o f the countries o f the w o rld , are represented in that body. It has as one o f its centrally fu n c tio n in g mechanisms the Freedom o f Association Com m ittee and th a t Freedom o f Association Committee is, like the ILO , composed in a tri-p a rtite way o f representatives o f governments, employers and trade unions. The purpose o f th a t Com m ittee is to m o n ito r and police whether the basic conventions o f the ILO concerning freedom o f association are being observed in member countries. I can ssure you th a t I speak w ith a consider able degree o f au th o rity about this because I have been a member o f the governing body, the ILO , since 1972. N orm ally, the Freedom o f Association Com m ittee is concerned w ith the dictatorships o f South America, and like countries, w hich have a fa irly consistent record o f acting against the con ventions o f the ILO concerning freedom o f association. Therefore, I suggest it is a m atter o f considerable shame th a t the Freedom o f Association Comm ittee was called upon to deal w ith the Fraser Government's CEEP Act. The C om m ittee, a to ta lly independent, tri-p a rtite com m ittee found the legislation so repugnant in terms o f those conventions under which they operated and w hich constituted the charter o f the Freedom o f Association C om m ittee, th a t it said in its report th a t the legislation was inimical to good industrial relations in the C om m onwealth Public Service and called upon the Fraser governm ent n o t to proclaim it. For every concerned Australian it should be a m atter o f shame th a t A ustralia should fin d its e lf in company w ith the m ilita ry despotisms and feudal dictatorships w hich norm ally occupy the tim e o f th a t Com m ittee. Indeed, u n til such tim e as we have a government which is going to perceive o f its d u ty in regard to legislation as being one o f try in g to create an environm ent not o f c o n fro n ta tio n but o f consultation we w ill be in a position where we are lik e ly to be attracting that sort o f condem nation in the international bodies to w hich we belong.

Seven

Now, in having pointed to some o f the issues w hich have concerned the trade union movement in a continuing sense (that is, hours o f w o rk, the movem ent tow ard increased leisure and the co n tin u in g struggle o f the trade union movement against conservative governm ent w hich have tried to legis late to restrict the rights o f a free trade union movem ent), I w ant to suggest w hat I see as some o f the issues w hich w ill occupy the tim e and attention o f the ACTU into the 1980s and beyond. The issues I propose to examine w ill no t constitute the entire agenda o f the A ustralian trade union movement. Rather, they w ill be amongst the most im p o rta n t o f the items w hich w ill constitu te that agenda fo r the future. They have a com m on thread w hich is th a t it is the function o f the trade union movement, and has historically been so in Australia, to concern itse lf n o t only w ith fostering democratic p a rticipation in the political arena but also in the industrial and economic arenas. It is in th a t context th a t I th in k these w ill be some o f the im p o rta n t issues in the future. First, there is no do u b t that the question o f industrial democracy w ill be an issue o f considerable importance in the 1980s. Ten years ago people w ould have believed th a t the issue o f industrial democracy w ould have been a larger issue than in fact it has turned o u t to be. Now, th a t is not because it diminished in importance during the seventies. But it is unquestionable th a t from the mid-1970s a range o f d iffic u ltie s have almost fu lly occupied the trade union movement in a defensive p o sitio n: try in g to maintain stand ards in the field o f wages and conditions o f e m ploym ent and try in g to pro te ct itse lf against attacks in the legislative fie ld . In th a t changed economic environm ent there has not been the same degree o f o p p o rtu n ity th a t existed at the beginning o f the seventies to pursue the question o f industrial dem ocracy. But I have no doubt th a t in the 1980s it w ill be pursued w ith consider ably greater vigour because it represents a logical extension o f all that the trade union movement has been about in try in g to bring democracy to workers. There is no reason at all w hy workers in the w orkplace should n o t have the rig h t to a greater part in the process o f decision-m aking w hich determines the co n te xt under which they are going to spend so much o f th e ir lives. The ACTU has n o t attem pted to lay dow n an overall b lu e p rin t w hich says that this shall be the way in w hich you achieve fo r individuals a greater o p p o rt u n ity and capacity fo r self-expression in the w orkplace. Given the d iffe re n t processes o f historical evolution in d iffe re n t sectors o f industry and enter prises d iffe re n t forms o f w orker p a rticip a tio n , o f industrial democracy, w ill be appropriate in one place rather than another. We do, however, believe as a fundam ental pricniple th a t there should be a move towards a greater degree o f participatio n . Indeed, in some areas where previously there had been strong opposition to this movement there can be seen on the part o f em ployers benefit in a relaxation o f w hat had previously been an intransig ent opposition.

Eight

In the area o f Commonwealth e m ploym ent there occurred in the latter part o f the seventies tw o Telecom disputes (the firs t o f w hich cost Telecom something in the order o f $20 m illio n in lost revenue) in w hich the issue was the rig h t o f managment unilaterally to impose new methods o f w o rk, w ith new technology, upon th e ir employees. In th a t dispute, from a position where a conservative government sought to present th a t dispute as some anarchical atte m pt by workers to impose th e ir w ill upon management, the Australian com m un ity came to understand th a t it is the right o f workers to have some say in the management o f th e ir affairs, p articularly in a s it uation where th e ir livelihood or th e ir method o f w o rkin g was like ly to be affected by the in tro d u c tio n o f new technology. Indeed, in th a t industry it is significant to p o in t out th a t once we won th a t dispute a situation emerg ed where the proposals o f the trade union as to ways o f bringing about new w orking methods, as opposed to the proposals o f management, were (and still are) co n jo in tly tested through tim e. Over a period there w ill be the opp o rtu n ity to see w hether the concepts and ideas o f w orkers and th e ir union as to how best to develop the application o f new technology may n o t be better than th a t proposed by management. It is inevitable, in my judgement, th a t as we move in to the 1980s this concept o f expanding the frontiers o f democracy beyond the p o litica l bound aries in to the boundaries o f the w orkplace w ill become more and more an industrial issue. If we were to meet in a decade fro m now we w ould be w it ness to the fact th a t there w ould have been a fa irly considerable extension o f the practices o f industrial democracy th ro u g h o u t Australia. That leads logically to the second issue: the in tro d u c tio n o f new tech nology and there is no do u b t th a t there is going to be an increasing involve m ent o f the trade union movement in this area o f concern. The issue, o f course, has been highlighted by the bringing dow n just recently o f the Myers Report. The trade union movement has had a m ixed reaction to th a t report. I believe th a t the right way o f describing the Myers R eport is in the welltrie d way o f saying that it is like the curate's egg: it is good in parts and it is certainly bad in parts. The part which I believe is good in the Myers Report and w hich I th in k w ill be taken up by the trade union movement is th a t part w hich stresses that there should be an a tte m p t, preferably by test case, to establish standards in regard to the rights o f workers affected by the possible in tro d u c tio n o f new technology. There should be an assumpt ion by governm ent o f the creation o f a social safety net to ensure th a t w o rk ers in em ploym ent are not le ft as a residual o f the im plem entation o f new technology. Insofar as new technology is introduced on the grounds th a t it is fo r the benefit o f society as a whole the concept should be translated into reality so th a t the com m unity accepts the responsibility, w ith the employers, o f ensuring the provision n o t only fo r financial support b u t also fo r the tra in ing and retraining o f those who can be affected by these changes.

Nine

It is quite obvious th a t in the 1980s the question o f new technology, it's im pact, the way in which the trade union movem ent and workers should be involved, both directly w ith employers and via governm ent and the A rb it ration Commission in its in tro d u c tio n , w ill be an industrial issue. In the Telecom dispute it became an issue o f significant im portance, not just to the unio n itself but to the whole com m unity. If, therefore, government and employers do not take a cooperative approach along the lines th a t basically are recommended by the Myers Report the c o m m u n ity is lik e ly to be con fro n te d w ith th a t sort o f situation again. The th ird issue which I believe is going to be o f very considerable im p o rt ance is the question o f superannuation. This issue w hich bridges the period between em ploym ent and retirem ent is one in w hich the trade union move m ent is going to become increasingly involved. Let me make it clear th a t the trade union movement, through the A C TU , supports the in tro d u ctio n o f a national superannuation scheme w hich is portable and w hich provides protectio n against in fla tio n . On this issue I believe union a c tiv ity w ill increase and it w ill aim to achieve basically five things: extend superannuation cover age, improve existing benefits, increase p o rta b ility , elim inate discrim ination against blue-collar workers and female employees, and ensure employee involvem ent in the determ ination o f benefits and the investment o f funds. However much some vested interests may wish to fulm inate against the trade union movem ent becoming involved in this area, it is as certain as night fo llo w s day th a t that w ill become a pro m in e n t feature o f the industrial relations landscape in the 1980s. F in a lly, in respect o f those issues w hich I th in k w ill be o f importance in the period ahead, the whole question o f women in the w orkforce w ill grow in im portance. We in the trade union m ovem ent have been in some respects lamentably slow to understand the significance o f the increasing im portance o f women in our economic and social life. We have though, in recent years, come to understand th a t im portance w ith initiatives having been taken in respect o f equal pay, and the application fo r m aternity leave w hich was argued w ith such force and effectiveness and success by Jan Marsh in 1979. I believe th a t you w ill see an increasing concentration by the trade union m ovem ent upon issues such as child care, perm anent part-tim e e m p lo y ment, parental leave, and leave related to the illness o f children and o f the em ployee. A ll o f these issues, w hich should and must be undertaken by a m ovem ent concerned to look after the interests o f a w o rkfo rce which is o f the order o f 40% female in its com position, w ill go on in importance in the 1980s. N ow , I w ant to bring all these things together by way o f addressing m yself to w hat still to my surprise emerges as an issue o f public debate in this c o u n try . You w till hear, day by day, from conservative politicians, e d ito ria l ists, and so on the fantasy th a t in respect o f the trade union movement there is some mystical dividing line on one side o f w hich is the thing called

Ten

real industrial issues and on the other side o f that non-industrial issues. Only on the side o f the line on which fall industrial issues, w hich are very specific足 ally lim ite d and defined to things like wages and hours o f w o rk, is it conceded as being appropriate fo r the trade union m ovem ent to concern itself. I w ant to make it quite clear th a t as far as the Australian trade union movement is concerned, as I come to the stage when I leave it in a form al sense w ith in a m onth o r so, th a t the one thing, perhaps above all else, o f which I am proud is th a t in the period o f the 1970s the reality in Australia has been th a t we have tended to wipe th a t line out. We accept and act upon the basis th a t the trade union movement has a legitim ate concern in any areas w hich involve the welfare o f the w o rkin g people o f this country and those dependent upon them. We have a responsibility to use our accumulated and cohesive strength in a way w hich w ill n o t only assist those w ho are directly in our ranks b u t also to assist those w ho are less fortunate and less privileged than ourselves and less able to look after th e ir own interests. That is the philosophy which d ire c tly underlies the involvem ent o f the ACTU and its branch in Western Australian in the current dispute in the north-west o f th a t state, the Noonkanbah dispute. We regard it as absolutely appropriate, and we make no apologies fo r it, th a t if we have the power as a trade union movement to assist an under-privileged group whose rights are being tram pled upon by a government in th a t state, th a t we should use our strength to pro te ct th e ir interests. I am proud to say that in respect o f th a t dispute th a t the trade union m ovem ent have done the job th a t the Federal Government ought to have done. It is remarkeable in this case that there has been a profound silence from Mr. Fraser and the Federal Govern足 ment. While Sir Charles C ourt has gone to the bo tto m o f the barrel in his attack on the trade union movement fo r fru stra tin g his para-m ilitary oper足 ation in th a t state, Mr. Fraser and the Federal Government have n o t been heard to criticise the use o f trade union strength in this case, w hich has stopped the actual d rillin g there. This is so because on this occasion it is convenient th a t we should do the jo b w hich he is afraid to undertake be足 cause he is afraid to take on Sir Charles C ourt. I use that as an example that we in the trade union movement are n o t prepared to accept the a rtificia l dividing line th a t those conservative forces generally in this country w ould seek to impose upon us. This brings me to the final p o in t th a t I w a n t to make to you, and th a t I call the paradox o f Poland. Does it come as any surprise that you have not heard any criticism by any forces in this co u n try opposed to the trade union movement or to the Labor Party, o f w hat is happening in Poland today in relation to the strike action by Polish w orkers. N ot only have you heard no word o f criticism from any conservative leader in this co u n try or from the editorialists but rather what, o f course, you should hear - praise fo r w hat is happening in Poland. It is perfectly appropriate, they perceive, th a t the workers o f Poland should be exercising th e ir industrial strength to extend

Eleven

the concepts o f democracy and freedom in to th a t co u n try , in to th e ir w o rk place, and indeed, into the very concept o f there being in th a t co u n try such a th in g as a recognisable free trade union movement. It is right, according to the Frasers', the Sir Charles C ourts', and the editorialists th a t workers in th a t sort o f environm ent should be exercising the rig h t to strike, to bring about a freer society. Do you not see the paradox o f Poland? Conservatives believe it is right that industrial strength should be used in Poland to bring about greater freedom in th a t co u n try , greater rights fo r individuals, to have such a th in g as a free trade union movement. They applaud the workers o f Poland in th e ir struggle to have a freely operating trade union movement and the right to extend th a t freedom to encom pass the o p p o rtu n ity o f bringing about oth e r and greater freedoms fo r w o rk ers in th a t country. But is it n o t the height o f paradox th a t if they applaud, as they should, w hat is happening there, th a t in a so-called free co u n try these very same people who applaud the creation o f a free trade union movement w ith the right to strike in a com m unist c o u n try , w ould seek day after day by legislative action, and in other senses to deprive the trade union movement in a democracy o f the same rights? How can Australian conservatives at one and the same tim e applaud w hat is happening in Poland and enact legislation in this c o u n try, in a democracy, to lim it the right to strike and, in fact, to take it away? There is no more pathetic paradox than the paradox o f Poland as far as these conservatives are concerned. A t the same tim e as they applaud the invocation o f the right to strike and the creation o f a free trade union movement w ith the right to strike in Poland, they w ould seek to ju s tify in a democracy the bringing in o f legislation so p itifu l in concept, so outrageous by way o f its infringem ent, on the right to strike in this co u n try, th a t the International Labour Organ isation, as I pointed out to you, has condemned it, and has put us in the ranks o f those dictatorships and feudal despotisms o f South America. In conclusion, in honouring the mem ory o f Rex Connor, the essential message that I have been try in g to put to you is th a t he saw the Labor move m ent both industrially and p o litic a lly as an instrum ent not fo r creating pow er fo r union organisations as such, b u t as an instrum ent concerned w ith the enhancement o f the happincess o f individuals and which sought to release as far as possible the intrinsic capacity o f individuals to create th e ir ow n happiness. Over and above all o f th e ir o th e r objectives th a t is u ltim a te ly w hat trade unions and the Labor Party are about. We in the trade union m ovem ent should conceive o f ourselves as having th a t objective, as that being our principal raison d'etre. We should w o rk hard fo r it here and we should give encouragement to our brothers and our sisters, whether they be in another part o f Australia or in Poland or wherever they be, who are seeking to ensure the maintenance or the creation o f a free trade union movement, because a free trade union movement, as Rex Connor under stood, was an essential element o f a free society. If you haven't got a free trade union movement, one which has the right, i f necessary, to w ith d ra w its labour, then you have not got a free society. Twelve

I conclude by expressing the view th a t we w ill best honour the memory o f Rex C onnor if, in our respective ways, we do all th a t we can in this country to ensure th a t a free trade union movement does exist, and that it has the right and the o p p o rtu n ity not only to protect the interests o f people in this coun try but, as I have already indicated, the o p p o rtu n ity o f giving its en足 couragement to its brothers and sisters wherever they may be in the w orld w ho seek fo r themselves that same legitim ate right.

Thirteen