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

• Inside Trades Hall
•  > Secretary's Report
•  > 2009 Archives

ALP National Conference - The Struggle for a Working People's Agenda

10 August 2009
Brian Boyd VTHC Secretary

Between 30/31 July and 1^st August in Sydney, the Australian Labor Party conducted its first national Conference since the 2007 Federal election.

As with the last such Conference (July/August 2007), there was a tense struggle to win useful industrial, social and political elements within the wider policy framework that go to improving the ability of working people to achieve better living standards.

Prior to the Conference, major employer organisations lobbied hard for their issues they wished the Rudd/Gillard government to follow. More worrying, many ALP MP’s pre-Conference worked to play down expectations, now that they were in office.

Back in April the ACTU Congress called for a further IR reform package for the government’s next term of office; an OHS national harmonisation process that didn’t have workers in any State or Territory worse off and an end to the ABCC’s coercive powers.

ALP affiliated unions were to promote these aims at the ALP National Conference.

The ALP National Office told the media that the Conference would be “a no-frills affair”, unlike the 2007 pre-election extravaganza.

Well, the backdrop to the sparse stage setting did indeed have no big, bright statements nor was there any uplifting pop music. However, there was the bold claim by Prime Minister Rudd and Deputy Prime Minister Gillard that WorkChoices “had been abolished” and all Australian workers would now be “treated fairly”.

The facts demonstrate these claims are just not true and that’s why the ACTU Congress created its list of “unfinished business”.

Key elements of WorkChoices have been carried over into the Fair Work Act. In addition, construction workers and their unions are not treated fairly or equally under the new IR laws. Draconian ABCC coercive powers remain in place. All of this offends ILO conventions to which the federal government is a signatory. And the OHS harmonisation process is currently flawed.

The revamped ALP Policy Platform produced from the Conference contains the following from Chapter 1 (which was moved and seconded by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister):

· “Labor believes in fairness at work as a fundamental Australian value…

· Fairness at work includes the right to bargain collectively for decent wages and conditions”.

· “Labor is committed to a just and tolerant society which firstly protects the rights and freedoms of all people in Australia. Labor supports the rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international treaties to which Australia is a signatory.”

Where are construction workers being treated fairly? Where are the breaches of ILO conventions being reversed?

The OHS and ABCC issues were hived off from the Platform debate via separate resolution. The factional labourist “managers” of the Conference left the processes of its deliberations vague. Besides amendments to the key business of the Conference – the creation of the new ALP Policy Platform, there was the ‘allowing’ of resolutions on the sensitive issues.

Issues dealt with via resolution are only ‘advisory’. This is in contrast to the ingredients of the Platform which are more ‘binding’. The continuation of ABCC-style coercive powers, the need for further IR reforms in the 2^nd term and concerns over OHS national harmonisation were ‘run’ by the Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard for her “tick-off” the night before. Any sign of a debate around these important trade union concerns was pre-determined. Concessions were wrung out of the unions for “acceptable compromises”, but it was always the one-way compromise route - in favour of the government!

Some union delegates when getting up to speak on parts of the platform, thanked a respective federal Minister for allowing their amendment to go through! Is this a good sign of a robust, healthy, democratic party?

Many in the ALP hierarchy seem to think that absorbing Howard style policy and law is a better strategy than re-emphasising the Labor movement’s historical philosophy.

The Liberal Party has never has such qualms. Even since their significant defeat in 2007, key players in the conservative ranks continue to proclaim the rejected legacy of the Howard years and work for it to be resurrected.

In November/December 2008 the ABC TV showed a four part documentary on “The Howard Years”. More recently, SBS TV has broadcast a three part documentary series called “Liberal Rule” – July / August 09. And only recently 28/7/9 Tony Abbott launched his book “Battlelines”. An autobiography by John Howard is due by years end.

From the mouths of people like Howard, Costello, Tony “Mad Monk” Abbott, Reith and Downer we have seen the reiteration of their ‘born-to-rule’ mentality. There is no backing down on their hard core conservative agenda.

They openly express their pride in taking on and trying to smash the nation’s trade union movement. They don’t resile from how they mistreated our indigenous citizens, tried to rewrite Australian history or ran down the nation’s health system. They want to win the next federal election and reimpose their arch-conservatism on Australian society. In their arrogant mindset, they were only thrown out of office because the population didn’t understand their vision – not because they were wrong!

The suppression of unions is particularly gloated upon by Howard, Reith and Abbott. They claim their 12 years of such activity has changed Australian workplaces and cannot be redressed.

It is a vicious, class-warfare claim. The current ALP government is not obliged to ‘absorb’ this view in any form.

Yet the Fair Work Act and the Building Industry legislation does concede political and industrial territory to the Liberal Party view of the world.

Comment was made during the ALP National Conference debate at one stage that the incoming Rudd government back in 2007 didn’t have “a night of the long knives” That is Kevin Rudd didn’t get rid of senior public servants planted there by Howard, who “enthusiastically” carried out his policies.

Howard of course did have a clean out of public servants in 1996 when he won office.

But not doing what Howard did the Rudd government was praised as it should he was “committed” to an “independent” public service.

Surely this is an oxymoron. Many of the Howard ‘villains’ are still in place and are, not providing fearless, non-biased advice. We only have to look at the recent activities of Godwin Grech, This senior public servant came out of the Oz Car affair as a close “confidant” to the liberals and a “long time mole”! And no one should forget how senior public servants protected Howard and co during the AWB Iraq wheat scandal and the Children Overboard Affair.

In a similar vein, a union report to Conference about Australia Post’s ongoing IR activities highlighted that there was a long way to go in terms of improving how postal workers were treated. Use of part-time workers is on the increase, right of entry of union officials remains severely restricted and the break-up of work centres is ongoing, causing a dramatic lowering of camaraderie across the large workforce.

Then another speaker congratulated Minister Conroy for supporting the Platform retaining that Australia Post remain in public hands. Fair enough as a philosophical point. But it is the same Minister allowing Australia Post to keep acting like a WorkChoices - type corporate giant.

On Friday 31 July 2009 the ALP National Conference addressed the top three issues facing the trade union movement – the ongoing ABCC-style coercive powers, the need for more IR reforms in the second term and achieving the best national OHS laws, via harmonisation.

The results in terms of policy outcomes fell far short of the ACTU Congress deliberations.

· ABCC coercive powers against building workers will continue on, even though the Conference voted that such powers were offensive and had to go!

· The need to improve and free up collective bargaining rights and how unions go about representing workers was briefly discussed but no commitment to new IR laws was achieved. An omnibus ‘block’ of amendments outline ongoing issues needing addressing, but no timeline was locked in or fought for.

· The aim to make sure the OHS national harmonisation process creates the best set of laws won recognition but outstanding union concerns would be dealt with by the federal government convening a forum between itself, State Governments and the union movement. No guarantees on a positive result was put in place.

Amazingly a key factional leader, who was one of the architects of these unsatisfactory results, criticised the regular use of “weasel words” at such Conferences that cover up practical, realistic outcomes!

And when the main speakers pushed for the ending of the ABCC - style regime in the building industry and pointed out that the best OHS legal regime was essentially to end the rise of death and injury in the country’s workplaces, they received rousing cheers and clapping.

Yet this Conference wide support was never translated into binding policy on the federal government. In contrast many other important social and political issues were readily adopted without interference. The behind the scenes interference in the key items of the union movement agenda was palpable and over the top.

It got worse. Crumbs off the table were lapped up as significant victories. For example, a resolution that says the ACTU will be in future invited to sit on government boards and committees went through comfortably. Passionate speeches pushed that under an ALP federal government, unions should be at the table when Tax law or national Infrastructure needs were being examined, not just the Employer Associations. Fair enough. But where is the critical analysis of why these snubs occurred in the first place. There is a cringe mentality within elements of the union movement when it comes to dealing with the ALP in government. Instead there should be not only self-respect when interacting with an ALP government on behalf of workers, but it should be conducted in terms of a robust, independent, industrial wing standing up for what matters.

The struggle to win pragmatic respect for the union movement from the ALP government is a constant . It needs to be pursued consciously.

The “unfinished business” of the YR@W agenda from the ACTU Congress was not prosecuted with vigour by key union representatives at the ALP National Conference.

The ACTU Secretary was invited to address conference specifically. He didn’t use the opportunity to articulate in detail the “unfinished business” log of claims. He expressed only a general hope that things would improve over time!

During a lunch time rally of mainly construction workers, the ACTU tried to focus on the general issue of: “Jobs and rights for working Australians”.

A video on past campaigning was shown, that included former ACTU leader Greg Combet, now a Federal MP. He was booed. When the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister were named they were booed too.

ACTU leaders told the protesters that the ABCC and the coercive laws had to go. But Jeff Lawrence didn’t specify that when he addressed the ALP Conference.

Of course, unions have to go out there and organise. We don’t expect the government to do our job in any shape or form.

But it is cute for some to say its up to unions when the government has left key parts of draconian Howard’s IR legacy in place – such as restrictions on right of entry, restrictions on industrial action, restrictions on both the actual bargaining process and what can be bargained about. This is constantly underpinned by the ‘big lie’ that WorkChoices has been “abolished”, when it hasn’t.

There is no argument that it’s better to have Labor in government than the conservatives. But that general view shouldn’t be an excuse to wear a Labor government continuing on with Liberal - type policies.

The Labourist element within the industrial wing hinders the independent, vibrant voice of the union movement. Labourism needs to be managed more. It needs to be contextualised so that the objective rights of workers are not subjugated to the subjective, endless compromises of when the ALP is in power.