Victorian Trades Hall Council. The voice of Victorian workers since 1856.

• Inside Trades Hall
•  > Secretary's Report
•  > 2007 Archives

Union Defence Campaign of 2004-2007

The seriousness that the Australian trade union movement takes the imposition of harsh IR laws, picks a good starting point at 1969 – the gaoling of tramways union Secretary, Clarrie O’Shea for defying the anti-union “penal powers” of the time.

The resultant national strike and the huge protest marches were a watershed in the nation’s labour history, but also reflective of the traditions of that history that began back in the 1890’s.

The taking on of the penal provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act had begun in the 1950’s, but culminated in the dramatic gaoling of O’Shea.  The early release of O’Shea from goal saw the penal powers neutralised.

The timing was also instrumental in liberating organised labour via their trade unions, in increasing workers’ participation in the high water mark of the anti- Vietnam War campaign, with the three mass mobilisations of the moratoria in 1970 and 1971.  Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War formally ended the following year.

The conservative forces revisited the penal nature of Industrial relations with the Fraser government in the late 1970’s.  Besides the insidious use of the Trades Practices Act, the Industrial Relations Bureau (IRB) was also created during that period, as a body aimed at monitoring and acting against certain industrial behaviour.

As over the previous decades, the thrust of these laws remained squarely aimed at the more militant sections of the trade union movement.

Howard wasted little time carrying out his historical mission.  In his class view valuable time had been lost in the 80’s and early 90’s.  His global imperial mentors – Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher, had long ago had ‘their fun’ chopping into organised labour.  Howard wanted to catch up.  The Workplace Relations Act of 1996 had already been secretly drafted and prepared – before the election result was declared.

The ACTU and States’ Trades and Labour Councils called for a mass mobilisation in Canberra in the winter of '96.

The Victorian trade union movement had been in the streets since October 1992 over the Liberal/NP Kennett government’s IR onslaught, on a state basis.

November 10, 1992 saw 100,000+ in Bourke Street.  In 1993 two mobilisations of 80-100,000 occurred and in 1994 in April – 40,000+ turned up.

By 1995 Kennett had been returned to government and the VTHC and its affiliates had a bit of a “stitch”.

Howard’s 1996 election and his IR legislation changed all that.

The 1996 Canberra rally saw a national covergence of big numbers.  But the trade union movement’s hand was really forced two years later. The 1998 Waterfront/MUA dispute became a classic test of wills, like 1969.

Even though the WR Act 1996 was the most comprehensive package of IR laws since federation, it was still based on the same premise as previous decades - attack and neutralise the militant sections of the labour movement and the rest will be theoretically put in their place.

1998 saw major mass protests in Melbourne and elsewhere in support of the MUA.

The 1998 attempt to smash the MUA essentially failed because it triggered another level and quality of mass mobilisation.  It taught discipline, sustainability and how unions needed to be more confident in dealing with their natural allies in the wider community.

In the lead up to the 2001 Federal election, Australia witnessed the scandalous collapse of Ansett airlines.

There are many aspects to this particular political/industrial/social story.  But you can’t go past Howard and Costello’s cynical manipulations surrounding the protection and distribution of the airline workers’ entitlements worth millions of dollars.

It was a drawn out ugly affair with hopes raised and dashed.  How dare these relatively moderate workers rely on the union movement to represent them, was a thought constantly in Howard’s mind.

People, who normally didn’t march behind union banners, did.

They would pay the price (the Howard way) and they did pay.  The flow of entitlements took years and were never fully passed on.  Howard went on to win, with the help of some shifty underhanded stunts, the 2001 Federal election.

From an unexpected perspective this dispute empowered Howard for his biggest anti-union campaign of all.  It taught him he could take on all working people, militant or not. 

Fast forward to October 2004. 

John Howard’s winning control of both houses of the Federal parliament was a shock in the 2004 election.

He wasted no time in moving up on IR ‘reform’ once again, even though the issue received little or no coverage at all in the election campaign.  Interest rates, interest rates were the catch cry. 

The best conservative lawyers in the nation stepped up to draft the most comprehensive anti-union, anti-worker legislative package ever devised – ‘Work Choices’. The Building Industry Improvement Act and the Independent Contractors Act were added to the mix.

WorkChoices didn’t single out the usual industries and unions that had a history of militant union activity.

All workers, all unions were hit between the eyes. 

Once again, John Howard’s anti-worker crusade galvanised the collective trade union movement.  The ACTU and the States’ Trades and Labour Councils went on the mass mobilisation front foot.

The March 2005 ACTU Executive called for mass national protests for the 30 June 2005. 

The mobilisations were a great success across the country.  Melbourne alone filled Swanston Street with 150,000.

On the basis of this another mass mobilisation was called for 15 November 2005.  It broke all records and according to the Melbourne Age, the Melbourne rally was the biggest ever in the city’s history  topping 210,000 plus.

By the March 2006 ACTU executive some were arguing for a change of pace – but another mobilisation was agreed to for the 28 June 2006 – again the national turnout was very respectable with Melbourneturning out over 100,000.

At the subsequent July 2006 ACTU executive, Combet strongly lobbied for “a different look”.  He wanted the MCG filled to coincide with the only Sky Channel timeslot available for a national broadcast, 9.00 am!

November 30th 2006 was again a great national turn out.  The MCG was not filled (55%) but the broadcast and the national turnouts for it showed the fight against WorkChoices was alive and well.  Many industries closed or partially closed.

In 2007 unions were strongly encouraged to identify their various memberships living in each marginal electorate and to lobby directly, or allow them to be lobbied, in terms of ‘your rights at work’ and the upcoming Federal election vote.

By now Howard knew the ‘your rights at work’ and anti-AWA’s campaign was hitting home.  The extent of the mobilisations and the ACTU TV ads have him on the back foot.

He has struggled hard and used all the levers at his disposal to neutralise the debate on his draconian IR laws and turn it on his head.

Mass mobilisations are a tradition of the labour movement that have continued successfully right up to this current term of the federal parliament.

Such stop work, protest action is common in many parts of the world.  It is linked directly into the only real power workers have is the ability to withdraw their labour, often strategically.

It is yet to be seen whether the size, frequency and timing of the recent mass mobilisations since the last federal election will be seen as a key ingredient in the ending of Howard’s 11 year conservative rule.  It is hoped this is the case.