What’s Left in Australia?

by Michele O'Neil

What am I doing agreeing to write an article about the future of the left in Australia? I find myself immediately captured by both the enormity and comic potential of a title – what’s left in Australia?

I am not an academic, a scholar, a writer, I am a unionist, an activist, a feminist. Already I am likely to have displayed some fundamental flaw in my Left credentials by my choice of labels and the order in which I have presented them.

I spend my days and nights immersed in clothing and footwear factories and textile mills, union and trades hall council meetings, negotiations, campaigns, redundancies, exploitation, fear, fury, resignation and moments of hope, spirit and strength. I am a practitioner, not a theorist, however I do rail against the weakness and conservatism of the Labor party, whilst skulking in its midst. I bemoan the union movement’s fragmentation, lack of militancy and industrial cowardice, whilst sitting on its executive bodies.

And here on May Day 2005, I am both marching and musing about the capacity of the left to stand up to the Howard government’s plan to decimate the Australian industrial relations system, reduce workers’ pay and conditions and constrain and criminalise the work of unions. So, the focus of this contribution to the question of the future of the left in Australia is to argue that the industrial left’s response to this conservative agenda is the critical test of our future.

Already the debate is taking form. Some argue that the smart and correct response to the IR changes is to batten down the hatches, protect our own in unionised workplaces, lock down union resources and assets, keep our heads low. Some add that we must also educate the rank and file, build delegate structures, create community alliances and expose to the public the injustice and unfairness of the government’s plan.

Where the debate sharpens is around the role of political protest and industrial action. In my view, effective opposition, and just as importantly, building a viable alternative political force, must involve action at every level, from the workplace to the streets and it must involve both the message and the mobilising.

The Howard government intends to both directly attack the wages and conditions of workers and the capacity of workers to organise collectively in trade unions. They dress up this plan under the guise of self evident truths – that a unitary system is better for the “economy”, “jobs”, “choice” and “freedom”; that workplaces are “overly regulated”; that unions are “third parties”; and that industrial laws are outdated and no longer fit “modern Australian workplaces”. In the process they demonise unions and union officials as “unscrupulous” out of control thugs.

In reality, the government’s plans will hit the lowest paid and most vulnerable workers hardest. They will disproportionately affect women, migrant and young workers. They will add to the exploitative effect of the huge increase in Australia of part time, casual and informal work. They will both restrict the capacity for workers to build collective strength through unions, and unions’ role in scrutinising and exposing exploitative and dangerous work practices. They will build on the existing legacy of this government of having conservatised the Australian Industrial Relations Commission by political appointments, and weakening its power by legislation.

Whilst we are still waiting to see the precise detail of all of the government’s plans, those already proposed or promoted include:

• use of the corporations power to create a single industrial relations system which will override existing state industrial laws which are currently more beneficial to workers than the equivalent federal provisions;


• remove the rights of workers in workplaces with less than 20 employees to claim unfair dismissal and redundancy entitlements, and to be covered by an award without the employer’s consent;


• the introduction of a minimum wage set by an “economically expert” body other than the Australian Industrial Relations Commission - a single rate which may or may not move on an annual basis and which does not automatically flow on to existing award rates;


• the encouragement, and in some cases compulsion, for employers to offer individual contracts in the form of Australian Workplace Agreements, including prohibiting employers and unions from agreeing not to use AWAs;


• enshrining in legislation the capacity for employers to use sham independent contracting arrangements to avoid their obligations to workers;


• Further stripping of Awards to remove or limit protections for workers such as long service leave, notice of termination, jury service, skill based classifications and pay, maximum and minimum hours for part time employees, accident make-up pay, bonuses, recording hours of work, allowances and the rights of unions to be involved in disputes unless expressly requested by a worker.


• Restricting union officials’ rights to enter workplaces, including requirements to specify the purpose of the visit and in the process disclosing the worker and their concern; limiting visits to recruit union members to twice a year and allowing employers to specify the room that workers’ can meet their union official and the route the union official must take to get there. Creating the potential for a union official who recruits a worker to the union whilst investigating a complaint to have their permit revoked for 5 years.


• Specific construction industry legislation providing for a building commissioner with extensive powers to investigate and prosecute, restrict industrial action, further limit union right of entry and increase access to civil damages against workers and unions.

What have been the responses so far?

The Federal ALP has been largely absent from the debate, with an occasional limp protest about the removal of “fairness” from the system and the need for an independent umpire. In contrast, some state Labor governments (with the exception of Victoria) have protested loudly, with the focus seemingly to be more about the take-over of their state industrial powers than the effect on workers.

The ACTU have taken some time to develop a campaign entitled “Your Rights at Work – Worth Fighting For”. The campaign objectives are to:

• “oppose the laws;


• achieve fair and decent employment rights, minimum wages and employment conditions;


• protect and build union organisation for the long term; and


• build community and political support for union goals “.

The strategy to achieve these objectives focuses on a comprehensive communications campaign, including a multi-million dollar media campaign. The initial emphasis is on informing union members and the public of the government’s agenda; the development of union and community alliances; targeting government MPs and backbenchers and working with state and territory ALP governments. The notable absence in the above strategy is an industrial campaign. It is essential to inform and educate both our members and the broader community, to build strong community alliances and to lobby politicians.

However, as a union movement, our history should have taught us that change has come about through exercising our collective power. The union movement is the largest membership based organisation in the country, but we seem to be falling victim to believing our own bad press. An effective campaign must include mobilising the largest number and diversity of people in opposition to these attacks. A campaign’s objective cannot just be to inform and educate. What is the purpose of information if it does not lead to action? The action that workers and their unions can take is both political and industrial.

An example, but by no means the sole point of this argument, is the decision by the Victorian Trades Hall Council, unanimously endorsed by all its affiliates, to stop work and rally on 30 June 2005, the day before the government takes control of the senate. This activity was publicly dismissed by the ACTU leadership before the call by Victoria for a national stoppage was discussed by the ACTU campaign committee, established by the ACTU executive to coordinate the campaign on behalf of affiliates. This response immediately followed a combined union delegates meeting in Victoria where over 1000 union delegates unanimously endorsed the action and called on other states to support it.

The timidity of the national response seems to flow partly from a reluctance to be seen to be defending our unions as institutions, as if they are somehow separate from defending workers and their rights and partly through fear of our own force.

This is not an argument against changing the image and public perception of unions, but it is an argument that the change must diversify and add depth and colour not fade us to a dim, blurred and hard to define body.

Those workers who are not only members but are the most active and passionate union supporters are those that “get” the power of the body. We need to expose that the government’s attack on unions is because we are good at what we do. We deliver in the midst of a biased inequitable system a better deal for workers. And of course we not only get workers a better deal we politicise and mobilise and create an alternative political framework and force.

No wonder John Howard doesn’t like us. Sounding moderate, reasonable, fair and decent is not going to change his mind.

Isn’t the challenge really about how we move the debate onto our turf? To present a meaningful, powerful, attractive alternative, to tell our stories of the power of the collective, to not fall for the trap of portraying workers as victims, to create a unifying narrative that creates focus and direction. Activism depends on caring about and believing in the collective, beyond the individual.

This challenge takes us beyond our existing membership, both to unorganised workers and progressive groups within the broader community. Having a strong response will attract more workers to join unions. Unorganised workers need to believe that what matters to them, is of concern to, and can be effected by unions.

Our industrial campaign can encompass action by workers in their own section or department or workplace to place demands and seek guarantees from employers about their own terms and conditions and rights to collective representation. But it must also include a willingness to take action; to exercise collective power when these demands are not met.

Our history shows that the most effective campaigns are ones that provide opportunities for diverse action and a range of responses. We need to start from where people are.

For some joining or admitting union membership is militant and courageous action, for others it encompasses holding a workplace meeting, or expressing a collective demand, or taking industrial action in support of that demand. For the thousand Victorian union delegates, it included endorsing a stoppage and rally for the 30th June and a commitment to go back to their workplaces and mobilise other rank and file workers.

Our campaign needs to also link workers beyond the doorstep of their own factory or office or site or school or hospital.

Coalition building cannot be based on our need for friends when we are under attack. It is about reciprocal solidarity, having the capacity to ignite the fire without building the camp fire every time. These relationships need to find the areas of commonality and agreement but respect the differences and recognise the strengths that diversity brings.

Union organised public protest and industrial action needs to be undertaken in a smart, disciplined and media savvy way - we can learn from our mistakes, without being forever fearful of taking action again.

The industrial left’s response to the conservative agenda is a critical test of the future of the left in Australia.

We can seize the opportunity to reinvigorate outmoded processes and structures, reach a new constituency and build powerful, broad coalitions as a force for change, or we can keep our heads below the line of fire and inform ourselves into oblivion.

*Michele O’neilis Victorian State Secretary of the he Textile Clothing & Footwear Union of Australia (TCFUA)