Category Archives: Various

Items that were not given a category

Fear and caution on Facebook…

Hello Workers,

Ian Curr
You may get an invitation from Facebook with the WBT logo on it.

Despite the self serving ads by the Facebook team I can offer nothing but fear and caution about Facebook.

It is far too personal.

For  mine, the personal is not political.

Readers, exercise the utmost caution on Facebook.

If you do not wish to receive this type of email from Facebook in the future, please click here to unsubscribe.

in solidarity

Ian Curr
April 2010

Workers BushTelegraph going into recess till Invasion Day, 26 Jan 2009

workers-bushtelegraph-logoWorkers BushTelegraph is in recess from Human Rights Day 2008 (the rally and march is on Saturday 13 December 2008) till next year, perhaps Invasion Day on 26 January 2009, or later – March 2009 even. I am not sure.

If you have any more articles or missiles for 2008, please send them soon.

Thanks to all the contributors to Workers BushTelegraph in 2008. You are too numerous to name. This is because there have been over 1,000 comments posted on WBT since it started in July 2006. Thanks also to the people who have contributed to our feature articles — Ciaron O’Reilly, Jim Dowling & Anne Rampa, Humphrey McQueen and our eternal critic John Tracey. A special thanks to my partner who has put up with my long hours on the computer, day & night in 2008.

Finally a thanks to the LeftPress collective who have kept me grounded on our big project of the last 10 years – After the Waterfront – the workers are quiet.

Continue reading

Aboriginal Land Rights — short films

Gary Foley on Land Rights

YouTube – Alex Bond interviews Gary Foley. Continue reading

Celebration of the Life and Works of Palestinian Poet and Hero Mahmoud Darwish

Saturday, September 20, 12:00 P.M

Brisbane Square Library (central City) NQG Tiered Theatrette Auditorium

Brisbane Square – 266 George Street Continue reading

Human Trafficking in Australia


International Expert on Human Trafficking

Sister Pauline Coll to speak on:

Human Trafficking in Australia

Saturday, September 6th 11:30 – 1:00 pm

Meeting Room Ground Level, Brisbane City Library Continue reading

Get up: Save the Mary River!

Carry the

Climate Torch

Did you know the climate impact of Traveston Dam would =

73,000 new cars on the road every year?

We can’t let this happen!

Make a statement that can’t be ignored….

Join the Human Sign

on Dayman Beach !!

Fathers Day, Sunday, 7 Sep 08 Continue reading

Allende: 100 years – 1,000 dreams


And the Wankley Award goes to… Paul Sheehan

Jane Nethercote writes:

Sydney Morning Herald columnist Paul Sheehan had many things to say on Monday about the challenge of migration.

But the last paragraph — where he called some refugees “parasites” — stole the show.

Sure, the overall tone of his piece was alarmist. Eg. “Under the Rudd Government, Australia’s net immigration intake is now larger than Britain’s, even though it has almost three times the population of Australia.”

Continue reading






All colour, all races, all creeds

SATURDAY 9th. august

Orleigh park,

On the river at west end

8AM Continue reading

Cuban Trade Union representative in Brisbane


The Australia Cuba Friendship Society (Brisbane)
invites you to meet


Cuban Trade Union representative for Asia-Pacific
Gilda Chacon is visiting Brisbane at the invitation of the ETU.
Continue reading

Phil Monsour and Band — the empire’s new clothes

You are invited to the live video recording of Phil Monsour and his band performing songs from his new album the empire’s new clothes on the 23rd of August starting at 7pm at Ahimsa House in West End. The night will include a delicious Middle Eastern meal.

Continue reading

Poetry in Motion: Day of solidarity with Cuba

moncada barracks

Moncada Barracks in Havanna

Australia–Cuba Friendship Society (Brisbane) invites you to —

Celebrate the beginning of the Cuban Revolution — the 55th anniversary of the assault on the Moncada Barracks. Continue reading


Brisbane’s Radical Books

This gallery contains 11 photos.

Radical simply means ‘grasping things at the root. – Angela Davis “These students believe in democracy and most importantly they believe in the maximum participation for the individual. Believing that democracy is a continuous process that does not finish at … Continue reading

‘Our Rights at Work’ not dead, yet

Victorian Trade Hall Unions back CFMEU official, Noel Washington

The Victorian Trades Hall Council has called a meeting of delegates from all unions to discuss the union movement’s response to the anti-union Australian Building and Construction Commission, which is attempting to jail CFMEU official, Noel Washington.

The meeting will also discuss the ongoing ‘Your Rights at Work’ campaign. Continue reading

Who supports a market solution for Climate Change?

Prof Ross Garnaut told about 1000 people assembled in the Brisbane City Hall on 11 July 2008 that the ‘centrepiece of our [the federal government] response to climate change is an Emissions Trading Scheme [ETS]. See

Who supports a market solution for Climate Change? Where is the evidence that the market will be able to prevent the current overproduction of greenhouse gases?

This is question I should have asked at the public forum on “australia’s energy [r] evolution” at 6pm QUT Gardens Point on Wednesday 16 July 2008.

Continue reading


NAIDOC 2008 Events Continue reading

Venezuela solidarity

Eyewitness public forum
May Day in Cuba and Venezuela Continue reading

The Situation in Burma


Invites you to its Monthly Community Forum

Topic: The Situation in Burma

Guest Speaker: Dave Andrews

Date: Sunday 6th July 2008-07-01

Time: 7 pm sharp

Venue: Meeting Room, Garden City Library, Mt Gravatt

For more information contact Nora on 0422 349 786 or email at Continue reading

Spirit of Eureka


We pay tribute to Australia’s Indigenous people in recognition of their struggles since British colonization in 1788.

Our Vision:

The Spirit of Eureka Committee actively seeks to promote a vision and a pathway to a democratic and independent Australian republic which values all its citizens and is a fair and just society for all. Continue reading

Dawn to Dusk — Reminiscences of a Rebel

The wiles of Labour politicians – the futility of fearful and reactionary Labour leaders have been revealed in this record, and the lessons I and others so bitterly learned should preclude any further waste of time and enthusiasm in vainly endeavouring to make figs blossom and fruit on barren trees.
Ernie Lane in Dawn to Dusk

Continue reading

Talisman Saber 2008

Join us in two important PEACE events in the lead up to AUS – US War games Talisman Saber 2008…

Indigenous peace activists from Guam (Guahan) will be visiting Brisbane June 26-29, 2008. The Chamoru people have had their homeland annexed by the US and used as a major  strategic military post – with 1/3 or more of the land used by the US military. Now this is set to increase as community opposition to US bases in Japan and the Philippines has lead to US plans to seek other stations for its troops. The strengthening of China, in particular, and changes in the former USSR have lead the US to want to strengthen its position in the Pacific.

Guam and Australia play a major part in the US “strategic realignment.” Shoalwater Bay, near Rockhampton , hosts huge US war games (Operation Talisman Saber) every two years – and will be doing so again in 2009. Brisbane hosts US military visits including nuclear powered and nuclear capable war ships.

Dr. Lisa Natividad and Julian Aguon will be sharing their community’s story of struggle and striving for sovereignty and peace in the face of US occupation in a series of events.

Join us in making the links between Brisbane, Shoalwater, Guam and the Pacific!

June 26 (Thursday)2008  Welcome Dinner – Pot Luck

We will be also welcoming Auntie Olive Donald and Janette Yoi Yeh, Darumbal elders (Shoalwater Bay) at this event:

Please bring something to eat or drink or a song, poem, etc to share!

Time: 6pm

Place: St. Mary’s House (behind the church)

cnr Merivale and Peel Streets) South Brisbane

June 28 (Saturday) Community BBQ and Public Meeting

Time: 1pm BBQ (vegetarian & meat available) – all welcome

2pm Public Meeting: The hidden war in the Pacific – the Struggle of the indigenous people of Guam\

(Guahan) against US militarism… (and Australia’s role today!)


We need help with:

Drivers for our guests

Food for dinner and BBQ

Cooks for BBQ

BBQ for BBQ (that is the actual thing you cook on!)

Set up and tidy up of BBQ, Public Meeting and Dinner

Promotion: Media, Sending out info to Egroups, Postering – leafletting etc

Events supported by: Peace Convergence, Australian Anti-Bases campaign Coalition, Society of Friend (Quakers), Queensland Nuclear Free Alliance, Rally for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament

For more information – or to help out:

Queensland Nuclear Free Alliance – Peace Convergence

Robin 0411 118 737

Frameworks of Flesh — builders’ labourers battle for health and safety

The hope of the world

“The union movement is idealistic in its essential arts by widening the scope of benefits derived from its ever-expanding usefulness.

The betterment of the conditions of the workers has been brought about through organisation. A union constitutes a school for the working class, wherein they learn self-reliance, learn their rights, privileges, opportunities, as well as their possibilities.

The union instills thoughtfulness in its membership, and broadens the mental horizon, thereby bringing hope and cheer to the hopeless and cheerless.

The union imbues its members with a longing for a better and brighter future by increasing wages and diminishing the hours of toil.

The union does antagonise, and strives to abolish many things that are, and advocates and tries to inaugurate changes which should, and will, be made in the future.

Increased wages mean increased opportunities to live a life in harmony with the high aims and aspirations of the union movement.

The union has made possible progress not only for the working people, but advancement in many other directions – morally, socially, and intellectually – and is traceable to the existence of the organisation of the workers.

The object and aims of the union movement and the realisation thereof have been the dream of the sages and seers, and the prophets of the past ages.

Every new demand for better physical protection of the workers ensures a great ideal development for a future generation.”

by B. A. (Ben) Mulvogue, Secretary, Builders’ Labourers’ Union (Victoria), Builders’ Labourers’ News, 24 December 1915.


Frameworks for Fear

— Chapter Four of ‘Frameworks of Flesh – builders’ labourers battle for health and safety

by Humphrey McQueen


Website: Click on Cover of Bookor go to

A building or construction worker was killed almost every week between 1996 and 2005. Since 1995, their death rate has fallen by a third but is still three times higher than the average across the economy. The industry also has the highest number of work-related injuries requiring hospitalisation.[1] “Unacceptable” was the word that Royal Commissioner Cole chose to describe this toll in 2003 when 41 building workers were killed.[2]

Firms of every size fail in their legal duty to ensure safe workplaces. In October 2000, a Leighton’s worker died, and three suffered serious injuries, from the collapse of 70-tonne concrete bridge beam. In convicting the corporation, judge Gebhardt accused it of “gross shoddiness” and condemned its failure to mention the incident in its annual report.[3] In 2004, a crane operator with Baulderstone-Hornibrook died because its managers failed to allow for the effects of the weather. Meanwhile, the performances of a trio of smaller operators represented the harms inflicted every day. In May 2002, two labourers were removing a section of the roof at Kew Secondary College when one fell three metres to the concrete floor; the site manager told the second man to keep going. On 23 March 2003, a 66-year-old labourer died after falling through a hole in a roof he had been removing; WorkCover detailed five breaches of the regulations. In the third case, a Bendigo scaffolding contractor began a demolition in October 2004 but kept its harnesses and other safety gear back at headquarters.[4]

Battling such violence has been hobbled by Cole’s 2003 Report, followed by the Building and Construction Industry Improvement (BCII) Act of 2005, the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) and the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner (OFSC). The partisanship of this quartet is illustrated by bans on union-run safety courses, the bar against job delegates being safety officers, limits on right-of-entry and by a distortion of “ingrained culture”. The lop-sidedness infects the OFSC through its reliance on market forces and “risk management”. The Cole Commission demonstrated its myopia by not detecting a trade in certificates of competence. These matters supply the substance of this chapter.

Presumptions of guilt

Crane Economics SBris 1 From mid-2001, the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry repackaged the accusation that labourers threw themselves off buildings to get compensation.[5] This time, employers and their agents twisted the charge to allege that unions provoked disputes over safety to win industrial demands, such as Enterprise Bargaining Agreements (EBAs). According to Commissioner Cole, this “widespread exploitation” of bosses had trivialised safety. In truth, workers on EBAs were half as likely to be injured as those outside them. Pressing for an EBA was, therefore, itself a safety measure.[6]

Cole peddled his line about the unions’ misuse of OHS after being stung by complaints that he was ignoring the bosses’ law-breaking when they put workers’ lives at risk. He assured grieving families of what a soft-hearted judge he had always been.[7] His Final Report returned to his initial prejudices by pretending that only one of the 88 “types of inappropriate conduct which exist throughout the building and construction industry” involved “employers[’] failing to observe proper Occupational and Health procedures.” His eight other mentions of health and safety attacked the unions for being too vigilant.[8] In addition, he papered over the tardiness of his Commission’s concern for safety by announcing that there was “no more important subject.”[9] If so, why had his staff not subjected OHS to the same scrutiny as other aspects of the industry? Cole allocated only one volume out of twenty-three to Occupational Health and Safety, with glimpses in the volumes for each State.[10] He excused this imbalance on the ground that his brief had been to expose “to the public gaze aspects of practices in the industry not previously publicly known.”[11] Hence, he had to concentrate on coercion by unions and improper payments to their officials. How was it that such allegations were not “publicly known”? Had Cole never heard of the de-registrations of 1974 and 1986, the Joint Victorian and Commonwealth Royal Commission into Gallagher, and the 1991-2 Gyles Royal Commission in NSW?

Cole’s comment that workplace injury and disease were already well known is all too true. That knowledge had been available before the first British laws attempted to limit such hazards in 1802. What is less well known to the public is the refusal of employers to obey that legislation and the failure of the legal system to treat its violation as criminal.

Cole had also to explain why he did not expose to “public gaze” a single case of corruption on the part of union officials. He said that he had sealed that evidence in a “Secret Volume” to preserve the officials’ rights to fair trials. Despite the ferocity of the government’s assault on the construction unions, no charge has been laid on the basis of Cole’s material. Meanwhile, that evidence has justified attacks on the building unions, without identifying one official as a possible crook. [As Royal Commissioner into kickbacks by the Australian Wheat Board to the Iraqi regime, Cole again upheld the presumption of innocence for the Coalition government, since his Report named names only from within the AWB.[12]]


Cranes and their union The Cole Report supplied the template for the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) to operate as a roving Royal Commission against building workers.[13] The Federal government gave the ABCC powers which Australians associate with political police. Labourers who stick up for each others’ safety are treated like terrorists, to be interrogated for up to 4.5 hours a day, with no right to silence; should they refuse to appear or to answer, they face a mandatory six-month jail sentence. Despite rhetoric about mateship, the Coalition government insisted that unionists dob each other in. Their lawyers must be approved by the ABCC, and are also subject to investigation. Until the proceedings are concluded, workers face six months in gaol for discussing the cross-examination even with family members. These powers apply to passers-by, not just to militants so that the ABCC interrogated a Melbourne academic about some argy-bargy he had observed.[14] In 2008, Victorian organiser, Noel Washington, refused to cooperate when the construction police demanded information about a picnic which the union held off-site and outside working hours. He faces six months in prison.

ALP leaders are threatening to maintain this anti-labour regime, contrary to Party policy. In 2007, as an earnest of this goodwill towards Messrs Construction Capital, opposition leader K. Rudd initiated the expulsion of the assistant-secretary of the WA Construction Division, Joe McDonald, from the ALP because he had called a boss a “fucking thieving parasite dog”. A few weeks later, on 5 July, concrete work collapsed on that site. Which event was the more violent and intimidating: foul language or a falling section? Not a word of criticism came from ALP leaders against the firm in charge of that life-threatening incident, not even after a panel from the Safety Institute of Australia (WA) specified 57 other OHS failures.[15] Instead, Rudd buckled to a Liberal Party internet campaign by sealing McDonald’s expulsion from the ALP the day after the court acquitted him of trespass. His hanging offence had been to assure reporters that, unlike that “burnt-out dictator”, John Howard, “I’ll be back” to organise against “getting robbed by unscrupulous bosses”. K. Rudd found these words “incendiary”, with no place in “a more modern industrial relations system.”[16] He again pledged the ALP to maintain a system condemned by the International Labour Organisation. Gillard could turn the police-state powers of her Australian Building and Construction Commission against the bosses for their culture of crime and neglect.[17]

The harrowing of labourers by the Cole Royal Commission and by the construction police is normal for capitalist justice and parliamentary politics. The continuing assault is not a sign of creeping fascism but expresses the class nature of bourgeois democracy and law, as documented throughout this study, and conceptualised in the concluding chapter, “Killing no murder”.


Of the 47 orders that the ABCC issued during 2005-06, four out of five were against unionists. The ABCC even took on workers over a 20-minute stoppage in April 2006 to collect money for the family of a dead workmate.[18] Next year, 47 of the 52 to be questioned were unionists.[19] The ABCC used its powers against bosses where they did the decent thing. For example, it prosecuted Multiplex for paying wages when unionists stopped work over “deaths in industry”. The ABCC went after Multiplex although it had been the first major construction company to gain OHS certification in Victoria.[20] Similarly, the ABCC belittled a Perth woman who had been awarded Safety Representative of the year.[21]

The ABCC justified its moves against unionists on the grounds that those proceedings “served the public interest by bringing about cultural change in the building and construction industry.”[22] That claim was true in so far as the Construction Division of the CFMEU in Victoria no longer walked off, with no loss of pay, for a day after a fatality. Given the rarity of OHS prosecutions, this direct action had offered a deterrent which was immediate and hit employers where it hurt. In stamping out the “deaths-in-industry” stoppages, the ABCC boasted that it had saved millions in productivity but said narry a word about saving a single live.[23]

That the ABCC Annual Reports have not mentioned on-site safety is inevitable since the regulations gave the Commission no procedures with which to enforce the relevant sections of Code or Guidelines. The ABCC does not pursue contractors on whose sites workers are being harmed. Instead, after injuries to two Sydney workers, the Construction police went after the unions’ right-of-entry permits.[24]

Rights of entry

The Building and Construction Industry Improvement (BCII) Act of 2005 entitled union officials to two site-visits a year, a restriction backed by K. Rudd.[25] That constraint endangers the workers’ health and safety, and those of the public. Collecting evidence is also allowed, but limited. Without photographs, shonky scaffolding is harder to document. Officials need a permit to enter a worksite, which is denied to anyone convicted under any workplace law. One ground for exclusion is the use of a right-of-entry permit gained for OHS to deal with other problems. Yet, it is commonplace for an employer who defies OHS regulations to underpay, so that an OHS complaint will expose a nest of offences. In short, the ABCC encourages offenders with a bad safety record to deny entry to an official who has been convicted of protecting entitlements along with upholding OHS regulations.[26] The Federal government underwrote this bias when, in 2005, it allocated $21.7m. over three years to the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner (OFSC), compared with nearly five times as much to the ABCC.

Although an instant walk-off is the most effective way to improve health and safety, the organiser who gains entry can get action only after time-consuming procedures. In 1999-2000, Victorian WorkCover Authority had demonstrated the necessity for swift action when it stopped nearly 1,400 building sites or practices as “immediate risks”.[27] Despite those results, the Victorian ALP’s Amendments in 2,004 were as restrictive as the Howard’s government’s BCII. A union in that State has to apply to a magistrate for an entry permit and to specify the problem in advance; the official is not allowed to look into other violations found in the course of that inspection.[28] The ABCC justifies its limitations on the right-of-entry because of what it calls the “ingrained culture” of building workers and their unions.

When I hear the word “Culture”

The ABCC has centered its civil penalty proceedings “on recurring issues in the building industry, such as coercion, strike pay and unlawful industrial action.” [29] This catalogue ignores the prevalence of underpayments, the failure to pay at all, [30] the coercion of workers into hazardous behaviour, and the employers’ defiance of health and safety laws. None of those offences is part of the Cole-ABCC’s “ingrained culture”.[31] Nor does it include collusive tendering, despite Leighton’s CEO, Wal King, justifying his companies’ use of false invoices to conceal price-fixing as “the culture … and custom that had been longstanding in the industry that had been handed on for years.”[32] So had his excuse. In 1911, the NSW MBA had justified its members’ involvement in illegal commissions by saying they “should be openly recognised” as “universal and worldwide”.[33] Notwithstanding a 1994 NSW government report’s branding King and Leightons as “not of good repute, having regard to character, honesty and integrity.”[34] these findings, he and his corporations are permitted to dominate the construction sector and to call in the ABCC to combat the unions’ ingrained culture of safety.

The Commissioner’s trivialisation of the ingrained culture of employer irresponsibility becomes apparent by inserting “OHS” wherever he had written “industrial” or “criminal” in this extract from the Summary of his Royal Commission Report:

There is widespread disrespect for, disregard of and breach of the [OHS] law in the building and construction industry. The criminal, industrial and civil [and OHS] law is breached with impunity.

The culture in the industry is that the criminal [and OHS] law does not apply because industrial circumstances are involved. The attitude is that the applicability of industrial [and OHS] law is optional because there is no body whose function it is to enforce it, or which has the will, capacity and resources to do so….

There are four principles which should drive cultural change:

(a) the boundary between lawful and unlawful industrial [and OHS] activity must be clearly delineated;

(b) unlawful conduct [around OHS] must attract serious consequences so that the rule of law may be re-established;

(c) those who, by unlawful [OHS] conduct or practices cause other participants in the industry loss should bear the cost of the losses they cause; and

(d) there should be an independent monitoring and prosecuting authority in the industry to monitor conduct, and uphold the rule of law [on OHS].[35]

Cole’s Report failed to make recommendations of this stringency for OHS – despite his admission that no issue was “more important.”[36]

In boasting that the ABCC has encouraged sub-contractors to assert their rights, [37] its Chairman, John Lloyd, ignored how those rights become a licence to violate OHS requirements and not to pay entitlements.[38] Although Chairman Lloyd came from National Crime Authority, he found no evidence of underpayment of superannuation contributions in his first Report and, by 2006-07, had uncovered only two cases.[39] Meanwhile, the Tax Office had retrieved $93m. from 234 offenders.[40] If this disparity is not a sign of incompetence, is it evidence that, contrary to Lloyd’s protestations of impartiality, “the ABCC concentrates on a particular category of industry participant for attention”?[41]

The ABCC is also silent on the culture of other law enforcement agencies. Ever since the convicts, Australian police forces have benefited from their “ingrained culture” coercion and corruption. That “course of conduct” was rampant in the Victorian and West Australian police during the years of Cole, and while the ABCC recruited from those services.

The Safety and Compensation Council came up with its own twist on “culture” to explain why building workers were to blame for their higher-than-average rates of injury, In deciding that three features put these workers at risk: their nomadic habits, a blokey outlook and youthfulness, the Council overlooked that employers prize those characteristics among their labouring force because they facilitate speed-ups.[42] That contractors have always been on the look out for young blokes who accept risks also escaped the notice of the Brisbane-based consultancy, Onetest. This firm produces “psychometric assessments” of a million employees a year to help managers identify the attitudes of applicants towards risk. Onetest does not rank employers to let wage-earners decide whether it is safe to work for them.[43] Nor do calls for genetic tests in the workplace extend to determining the suitability of bosses.[44] Like Cole, the ABCC and the Safety and Compensation Council, Onetest cannot understand that “culture” is determined by the struggle between classes.

Networks of mass distraction

The demonising of the “culture” of building workers is but one strand in the ideology of capitalism spread by the commercial mass media – or Admass. Those conduits are not the servants of big business. They are big business. As such, they dare not remind workers that their labour is the source of somebody else’s profit. Still less do documentaries or dramas connect that exploitation with workplace assaults on body and mind. Instead, unions appear in the news when their members withdraw their labour or are caught scamming the compensation system.[45] What passes for news is underwritten by the stories told in the entertainment programs on television – “the triv”.[46]

By side-lining the work that unionists perform every hour of day, Admass makes the “ingrained culture” as defined by the Construction police seem natural. To reinforce its version, the ABCC practices trial-by-media in passing to television networks the videos that its inspectors take of unionists going toe-to-toe with bosses. Those grabs are screened without the build-up of feelings fueled by underpayment and OHS violations.

On screen, workplace injuries are silenced along with the contribution that human labour makes to wealth. That absence is remarkable. After all, dramas on the triv are a mish-mash of crime, medicine and law enforcement. The intersection of those three concerns is also the stuff of OHS and compensation. WorkSafe Annual Reports offer a starting place to script Bones of Building, a series where Dr Bone is an OHS inspector within the construction industry. This scenario suggests a Logie-winning formula – until the exploitation of labour is remembered.

A series such as GP individualised the causes of injury to workers who presented at the surgery, never sheeting blame home to systemic cost-cutting. Should workplace injuries appear in a story, they are caused by “rotten apples” among the otherwise honest employers – or are just bad luck. Another index of this slant is that the triv’s storylines revel in the sex lives of on-screen police, gangsters, surgeons, soldiers, nurses and solicitors. Yet those characters rarely suffer from workplace injuries and diseases. More triv detectives get shot in the line of duty, than are cursed with lower-back pain from stake-outs.

One duty of Admass is to divert attention from the miseries of employment, as the Managing Director of the Nine Network appreciated in 1970:

The man who comes home from the Ford production line, or from driving a cab through our chaotic traffic, or indeed from conferences at the advertising agency, is, more often than not, wrecked from a hard day. He wants to get a drink in his hand, have a talk with the wife, enjoy a feed and relax. And four out of five men relax with the tele – and that’s quite right.[47]

The triv offers workers a warm-bath after their being exhausted by the job, supplying a soporific, not a stimulus to thoughtful activism.

Aggregate capital needs Admass to do more than distract wage-slaves from their workaday blues. After individual capitals have extracted their pounds of flesh at work, they compete to get that wage back by exciting the viewer to spend. The networks are not in business to remind viewers of what they have endured to gain their spending power,[48] anymore than they alert workers to how much pain they will have to bear in keeping up their mortgage and credit-card repayments.

Although Admass distraction distorts the significance of workplace relationships, its outpourings are less effective at shaping attitudes than is one’s own job. The $237m. that the Coalition spent promoting WorkChoices could not erase the understanding that workers had gained from their experiences of employment in a market regulated by and for corporates. Activity conditions our thoughts far more than amusements or propaganda can determine our experience. That we become what we do is confirmed by the culture of work inside the Cole Commission and at the ABCC.

***** Chambers

How different might Cole’s Report have read had he held the hearings on the 30th floor of a construction site, four floors from a lavatory or taps, surrounded by concrete pours, or while dodging the rain? The editor of the National Safety Council’s monthly magazine drew attention to the significance of location in the divide within the “culture” of OHS:

There are two OHS worlds: that of the executive and that of the at-risk worker. And rarely do the two worlds really meet – let alone merge into one world.

This fact struck me when I spent a week in Melbourne recently observing activities sponsored by Victorian WorkCover Authority for its Health and Safety Week.

The existence of the two worlds occurred to me on one of the days in particular. In the morning, I attended an OHS briefing for CEOs at the Sofitel Hotel. Later the same morning, I went out to the Dallas Brooks Hall to an OHS Refresher Course for safety officers, jointly organised by WorkCover and unions.

The contrast between the two events could not have been more striking.

At the CEO breakfast, pressed linen table cloths, sparkling glassware, business suits, and polite speeches were the order of the day. At the safety officer course, by contrast, polystyrene cups, paddle-pop sticks, and no-nonsense talk were the go. Superficial differences, you might say, but they pointed to a fundamental rift which exists in the OHS world.

But how might interaction be achieved?

Well … the best – perhaps the only – way would be for companies to introduce a policy of exchange between management and at-risk working roles. In companies game enough – or wise enough, I would say – to take such a radical policy on board, executives would spend two weeks a year doing a hands-on job at their company. They would not therefore just talk about “walking the talk” but walk the walk, so to speak. They would do 12-hour shifts in full PPE (where it is used) and have their job performances monitored as if they were real workers in the job they elected to take on. They would also have to deal with management and other hands-on workers over safety issues.[49]

Far from adopting this suggestion, the ABCC preserved its impartiality by commissioning a lavish suite in which to interrogate labourers.[50] In somewhat less plush surrounds, though perched on ergonomic chairs in air-conditioned courtrooms, industrial magistrates are in danger of slicing a finger on a sheet of paper as they decide whether a stoppage was justified by “a reasonable concern by the employees about an imminent safety risk.”[51]

Remoteness from the hazards of building work contributed to making the first Progress Report from the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner into a monument to bureaucratic blather, meriting a prize for the largest number of weasel words per page in any public document. When the Commissioner was not “championing a cooperate approach”, he was “identifying and sharing best practice and facilitating shared responsibility for improvement through consultation, collaboration and communication.” Needless to say, that gentleman saw his job as an “audit to improve, not inspecting to enforce.” [52] As an apt aid to artful alliteration, the Report was transparent about its priority of putting words above action. The OFSC’s second Report for 2006-7 confirmed its preference for rhetoric over substance by acknowledging little improvement in safety on sites while boasting that a “key achievement” had been the completion of an internal review.[53]

Market forces

Failure by the OFSC to improve safety did not shake its faith in market forces as the cure for OHS violations. The OFSC took over this solution from Cole who had supposed that contractors could be made to behave “by harnessing the competitive force in the industry to work for OHS.” To make “competitive force” work its wonders, Cole deemed government intervention essential, thereby puncturing his own faith in the market’s ability to correct itself. He accepted “the effect that the fiercely competitive nature of the industry” had in undermining health and safety.[54] During his discussions with industry participants, he discovered that employers operate on very small profit margins. This originates at the top level, where head contractors tender on the basis of small profit margins or, often, at cost … As a result, for a head contractor to ensure profit at the end of a project, considerable pressure is often applied by the head contractor with the aim of reducing the costing provided by tendering sub-contractors. The same process is then replicated down the chain of sub-sub-contractors.[55]

Cole learnt that cutting back on health and safety was a way for employers to squeeze in under their tender prices. To stay in business, firms accepted contracts on which they knew they were going to lose money on “suicide bids”, which could turn murderous for the workers.[56] What Cole could not admit is that market failure is not an exception to be corrected but, rather, is how capital succeeds at expanding. Had Cole been in earnest, he should have recommended matching the clients’ penalties on the contractors for running late with fines on both sets of capitalists whenever the rate of injury on a project exceeded that for the whole economy.

To correct the market, the OFSC planned to accredit construction companies before they could bid for larger government contracts. The Office weighted its criteria for accreditation towards a corporation’s demonstrating that it had an OHS plan. This enthusiasm for documentation overlooked the finding by the Royal Commission into the ESSO explosion at Longford that its safety manuals had been so elaborate as to be “repetitive, circular” and “impenetrable”.[57] In another case, a firm submitted “a model safety plan that it had put into operation at the time” of an employee’s death in 1996. “Model” on this occasion did not mean that it worked. Had it done so, the worker would not have been killed. Instead, “model” meant that the firm had ticked all the boxes on a form so as to look good in court.[58]

Enthusiasm for market forces led the OFSC to disparage the evidence of harms from compensation payouts as “lag indicators”. Instead, its Commissioner found merit in “Positive Performance Indicators” (PPIs).[59] “Lag” sounds down-beat compared with “positive performance”. The difference is that PPIs are promises and paperwork whereas lag indicators record actual injuries. The weakness in relying on compensation statistics is not that they lag behind the assaults, but that the authorities so rarely use those numbers to prosecute. Moreover, the PPIs consist of audits, meetings, safety inspections, the fraction of staff being trained and the hazards identified. The sole practical element in an OFSC audit was the rectification of hazards, although the Commission undermined that step since improvements were to accord with “an appropriate risk-management approach.”[60]

Risky assessments

At the same time as the OFSC embraced risk management, researchers reported it “plagued by bureaucracy, token compliance and time-consuming procedures.”[61] In addition, by focusing on major hazards, risk management ignores two founts of injury and disease. First, the recurrence of low-risk problems is a warning of the prospect of a major incident since sloppiness on small matters points to carelessness on catastrophes. Secondly, many disablements derive from the repetition of non-life-threatening risks as is shown by 40% of injuries coming from strains and sprains and the 70% of construction workers who retire with hearing impairments.[62]

When firms are not busy managing the risk of getting caught, they manage the risk of spending too much on safety. Companies buy software packages to administer safety, not to achieve it. NSW WorkSafe complained in 2001 that contractors had welcomed “risk management” as a justification for doing no more than deal with safety problems as they arose. This “perversion was broadly recognised as an industry practice.”[63] The safety manager for John Holland suspected that plenty of employers looked on a Job Safety Analysis as “some mechanical steps that have to be done because the law says so and we know we won’t really follow it anyway.”[64] A safety consultant criticised the risk-based approach because he had met so many employers “who are not acting responsibly.” Even for the rest, he feared that

the risk assessment approach would work if there was a decent inspectorate in place, but under the present system, companies can do the wrong thing for 20 years and not get caught if they are “lucky” enough not to have an incident.[65]

No government has ever appointed enough risk assessors, and those who were at the workface had no statutory requirement to be trained or qualified.[66] Where tests existed for on competency, the market supplied fake certificates.

Lottery “Tickets”

The blindness of the Cole Commission to the irresponsibility of bosses was spotlighted by its failure to uncover the “vibrant market for false certificates of competency” around Sydney throughout the hearings. NSW public servants sold 4,000 fraudulent credentials for working with hoists, front-end loaders and explosive tools, or in dogging, rigging and scaffolding. The NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) documented these malpractices. Not a trace of either scam surfaced in the Cole proceedings. Yet his Commission had $66m. to chase up allegations against union officials for its secret volume. Semi-literate non-English-speaking labourers knew what was going down. Silks on $1,500 a day with police powers did not.

Employees, the self-employed and employers had differing reasons for buying these tickets and assessments. Their justifications underline why neither market forces nor the good will of employers will hold down rates of death and injury in the construction sector.

Employees: Some workers bought the fake documents on the oldest of grounds – to put food on their tables. A labourer who paid $1,000 to get certificates for carpentry, dogging, forklift and hoist confessed: “I wasn’t sure whether to do it because I knew I was wrong. I have a young family to think about and extra money would help a lot.”[67] In several cases, the workers who bought the Tickets were experienced and competent for the skills covered by the fake documents. They had been doing those tasks for years but had difficulty in explaining how to do so on an exam paper. Some held Permits to perform the work for which they bought Tickets. One WorkSafe inspector excused his corruption:

These guys are working 30, 40 levels above the ground. They make one mistake and it’s the last one they make. I consider them to be adequate in their duties. That’s the wrong way round, sure, but I still consider them safe. At least they won’t die.[68]

In other cases, the workers who paid for fake qualifications put at risk their own lives, those of their fellow workers and of passers-by.

Self-employed: Tickets were useful to so-called independents since the more skills for which those “self-employed” held a licence, the better chance they had of being hired, and the more they expected to earn. A larger fraction of these workers were called upon to perform work for which they had neither training, certification nor experience, making them a danger to everyone, as one more instance of the threats posed by sub-sub-contracting outside EBAs.[69]

Employers: Employers bought tickets for their employees in order to switch them from one “trade” or “skill” to another and thus save on time costs. The owner of a bricklaying concern explained the benefits to his business from buying fake certificates:

For example, an employee having a dogging licence enables him to work with the crane crew and, if required, to undo the brick cage without having to wait for a dogman. Another example would be having someone with a forklift licence moving a pallet of bricks from one area to another without having to wait for a forklift driver. From a contractual responsibility, 99 percent of these tasks is the responsibility of the principal contractor. However, it costs money and time to wait for the builder to obligate his contractual duties and carry out these tasks.[70]

This admission illustrates one more way in which the force of the market threatens safety in the drive to reduce time-costs.

Transfield – again All three reasons for going after fake Tickets collided when Transfield bought certificates for some of its employees. Transfield’s addiction to violating OHS regulations across its 50 years was outlined in the previous chapter.[71] Even Cole found fault with Transfield’s safety record on the Melbourne CityLink.[72] In a move typical of those violations, the managers on Sydney’s Northside Tunnel hired inexperienced and untrained people to replace battlers for safety. Transfield attempted this switch-over just as the project was coming to its end, with the rush to finish on time and within budget. If attention to safety slowed the operation, Transfield stood to lose money.

In the days before the ABCC, Transfield could not get away with sacking union activists just because they were insisting on a safe workplace. The firm had to get around the custom that the order of dismissal be in accord with the number of Tickets that the workers held. The chairman of the On-the-Job Safety Committee told the ICAC:

We had quite a number of competent people that didn’t hold legitimate tickets but had been driving machines for years on permits. A change in middle-management superintendent took place where a lot of unskilled people were brought on board and [to replace] the people that were potentially creating industrial problems as regards the way the job had been driven.

Hence, the Transfield managers purchased phony Tickets for the newcomers to justify employing them in place of the activists. In response, the Safety Committee chairman bought himself an Excavator’s Ticket to hold onto his place. When the job ended, he suffered the consequences of being “deemed too safe”, as he told the ICAC: “The last two and a half years I have been out of work … because of some of the issues that I used to raise, and I believe that’s filtered through to the tunneling industry.”[73] Had the ABCC existed when this worker was battling for safety, and would have gone after him. As it was, Transfield escaped prosecution, while he suffered the maximum penalty for a worker – the loss of his livelihood.

Although Cole’s terms of reference allowed his Commission to pursue the trade in fake Tickets, his presumption of guilt by the workers because of their “ingrained culture” served as an insurance policy against a repetition of the derailing of the Royal Commissions into the Painters and Dockers and into the Building Productivity. The state had set up those investigations to cripple unions only to expose the big end of town through its bottom-of-the-harbour tax evasions and collusive tendering. If industrial action by unionists is criminal, why are the violations of OHS by employers not treated as real crimes?

[1] National Safety (NS), February 2006, p. 20; Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner (OFSC), Progress (sic) Report, 2005-6, p. 8; Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry (RC), Final Report, Canberra, 2003, volume 6, pp. 136-41, 145 and 157.

[2] RC, Final Report, volume 1, p. 39; NS, July 2007, p. 6, November 2007, p. 6; RC, Workplace Health and Safety in the Building and Construction Industry, Canberra, 2002, Discussion Paper 7, p. 27.

[3] Age, 28 May 2004, p. 3.

[4] Prosecutions: a summary of prosecutions brought by the Victorian WorkCover Authority, VWA, Melbourne, 2005, pp. 5, 7, 10, 11 and 23.

[5] Victoria, Parliamentary Debates, v. 92, 18 October 1899, pp. 1968-74.

[6] RC, Final Report, vol. 6, pp. 106-7; Greg Foley, “Construction industry occupational health safety performance overview, Australia 1992-93”, Journal of Occupational Health and Safety ANZ, (JOH&S ANZ), 13 (1), February 1997, p. 81.

[7] RC, Final Report, vol. 14, pp. 63-64; vol. 6, chapter 3.

[8] RC, Final Report, vol. 1, pp. 6-10.

[9] RC, Final Report, vol. 6, p. 5.

[10] RC, Final Report, vol. 14, pp. 63-64.

[11] RC, Final Report, vol. 6, p. 6.

[12] Caroline Overington, Kickback: inside the Australian Wheat Board Scandal, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, 2007, pp. 250-1.

[13] Liz Ross, “Building Unions and Government ‘Reform’: The Challenge for Unions”, Journal of Australian Political Economy, 56, December 2005, pp. 172-85.

[14] Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), 15 December 2007, p. 1.

[15] Contractor, September 2007, p. 2.

[16] West Australian, 26 October, p. 9, 27 October, p. 7 and 29 October 2007, p. 1; would Pastor Bonhoeffer have approved of his epigone’s denial of due process?

[17] Advertiser, 14 April 2008, p. 10.

[18] Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC), Annual Report, 2005-6, p. 53.

[19] ABCC, Annual Report, pp. 52-3; Annual Report, 2006-7, p. 24.

[20] NSCA’s Australian Safety, November 2000, p. 55; ABCC, Annual Report, 2005-6, p. 51; see also Annual Report, 2006-07, p. 41.

[21] for a free download, and

[22] ABCC, Annual Report, 2006-7, p. 41.

[23] ABCC, Annual Report, 2005-06, pp. 50-51.

[24] ABCC, Annual Report, 2005-6, pp. 50-51; Annual Report, 2006-7, p. 41.

[25] NS, October 2007, p. 6.

[26] NS, May 2006, pp. 24-26; October 2007, p. 6.

[27] NSCA’s Australian Safety, November 2000, p. 54.

[28] Peter Rozen, “Significant Change or Merely Fine-Tuning? The Occupational Health and Safety Act, 2004 (Vic)”, Australian Journal of Labour Law (AJLL), 18 (1), April 2005, pp. 84-86; cf W. J. Ford, “Being There: Changing Union Rights of Entry Under Federal Industrial Law”, AJLL, 13 (1), June 2000, pp. 1-27.

[29] ABCC, Annual Report, 2005-06, p. 32; for Cole’s version of “Cultural Change” see Final Report, volume 11.

[30] Peter Meritz, “Paradise Postponed: a history of attempts to ensure payment in the building and construction industry in New South Wales”, Building and Construction Law (BCL), 18 (3), June 2002, pp. 169-79, and Keith Redenbach, “Getting paid in the Construction Industry”, BCL, 23 (2), April 2007, pp. 92-110; cf. Claire Mayhew, Michael Quinlan and Laura Bennett, Effects of subcontracting on occupational health and safety, Studies in Australian Industrial Relations, UNSW, Kensington, 1996, pp. 123-6.

[31] RC, Final Report, volume 11, “Achieving Cultural Change”.

[32] NSW Casino Control Authority, Report of Public Inquiry, 1994, p. 32; for Leighton’s collusive tendering see Report of NSW Royal Commission on Building Productivity, NSW, Parliamentary Papers, Second Session, 1992-93, vol. XXII, Paper 273, pp. 99 and 130.

[33] NSW Master Builders’ Association, Annual Report, 1911, no pagination; Report of the Royal Commission of inquiry into certain matters relating to the Department of Public Works, NSW, Parliamentary Papers, 1911, volume 1, pp. 681-926.

[34] NSW Casino Control Authority, Report, 1994, p. 32.

[35] Rewrite of passage from RC, Final Report, vol. 1, p. 155.

[36] RC, Final Report, vol. 6, p. 5; vol. 1, p. 41.

[37] ABCC, Annual Report, 2005-06, p. 6.

[38] RC, Final Report, vol. 8, pp. 111-217 on Phoenix companies, and vol. 9, pp. 27-31, on superannuation, and pp. 255-63 for non-compliance with compensation premiums.

[39] ABCC, Annual Report, 2006-7, p. 30.

[40] SMH, 22 September 2007, p. 11.

[41] ABCC, Annual Report, 2005-06, p. 8.

[42] NS, August 2005, p. 21.

[43] NS, October 2007, pp. 35-37; “Editorial”, NSCA Australian Safety, October 2000, p. 4.

[44] Margaret Otlowski, “Employers’ use of genetic test information: is there a need for regulation”, ALJJ, 15 (1), May 2002, pp. 1-39.

[45] Donald E. Stewart, “Families and Television: content analysis”, Media Information Australia, 1983, pp. 198 and 204; Rob Crane, “Trade Union Advertising Campaigns: A Case Study”, Journal of Industrial Relations, 28 (2), June 1986, pp. 252-53n.; P. Bell et al., “Headlining risk: an analysis of occupational health and safety in the Australian press”, JOH&S ANZ, 7 (4), August 1991, pp. 273-80; International Labor and Working Class History, 59, Spring 2001, Special Issue on “Workers and Film: as subject and Audience”.

[46] George Turner’s term for television throughout The Sea and Summer, Faber, London, 1987.

[47] B&T, Advertising, Marketing and Media Weekly, 27 August 1970, p. 18.

[48] Michael A. Lebowitz, “Capital and the production of needs”, Science and Society, 41 (4), Winter 1977-78, pp. 430-47; Dallas Smythe, “Communications: Blindspot of Western Marxism”, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1 (3), Fall 1977, pp. 1-28; Humphrey McQueen, The Essence of Capitalism, Sceptre, Sydney, 2001, chapter 14.

[49] NSCA’s Australian Safety, July 2000, p. 4.

[50] ABCC, Annual Report, 2005-06, p. 27.

[51] ABCC, Annual Report, 2005-6, p. 54.

[52] OFSC, Progress Report, 2005-6, pp. 11 and 24.

[53] OFSC, Progress Report, 2006-7, p. 13.

[54] RC, Final Report, v. 1, p. 45; vol. 6, pp. 40-44.

[55] RC, Discussion Paper 7, 2002, p. 27.

[56] RC, Final Report, vol. 6, pp. 40-42.

[57] NSCA Australian Safety, August 1999, p. 6; see also Andrew Hopkins, Lessons from Longford: the Esso gas plant explosion, CCH Australia, North Ryde, 2001, pp. 83-84.

[58] NSCA Australian Safety, November 2000, p. 57.

[59] OFSC, Progress Report, 2005-6, pp. 8 and 27; A. Costigan and D. Gardner, “Measuring performance in OHS: an investigation into the use of positive performance indicators”, JOH&S ANZ, 16 (1), February 2000, pp. 55-64; R. Mitchell, “Development of PPIs to monitor OHS performance in the Australian construction industry”, JOH&S ANZ, 16 (4), August 2000, pp. 325-31; Hopkins, Lessons from Longford, p. 71.

[60] OFSC, Report, 2005-6, p. 27.

[61] NS, December 2006, p. 21.

[62] JOH&S ANZ, 16 (6), June 2000, p. 512; Greg Foley, “National workers’ compensation-based data”, JOH&S ANZ, 13 (3), June 1997, p. 279; R. Trethewy et al., “Improved hazard identification for contractors”, JOH&S ANZ, 16 (6), December 2000, pp. 507-20.

[63] RC, Discussion Paper 7, 2002, p. 28.

[64] NS, July 2007, p. 26.

[65] Australian Safety News, February 1999, p. 50.

[66] Liz Bluff and Richard Johnstone, “The relationship between ‘reasonably practicable’ and risk-management regulation”, AJLL, 18 (3), November 2005, pp. 197-239.

[67] Report on investigation into safety certification and the operations of the WorkCover NSW Licensing Unit, ICAC, Sydney, 2005, p. 25.

[68] ICAC, Report, 2005, p. 31.

[69] Humphrey McQueen. “Making capital tick”, Overland, 170, Autumn 2003, pp. 92-101.

[70] ICAC, Report, 2005, p. 20.

[71] Gianfranco Cresciani, Transfield The First Fifty Years, ABC Books, Sydney, 2006, pp. 114, 161-2, and 170.

[72] RC, Final Report, 2003, vol. 15, pp. 30-36.

[73] Report on investigation into safety certification and training in the NSW construction industry, ICAC, Sydney, 2004, p. 38.

Labor follows Adam Smith

Emerson defines Labor for new era

Lenore Taylor, National correspondent | June 13, 2008

RUDD Government frontbencher Craig Emerson has sought to define modern Labor as a party of “market democrats” who believe in smaller government, less middle-class welfare and free markets as the best way to deliver a fair society.

Dr Emerson outlined to the Sydney Institute last night his ideas for a “unifying political philosophy” for Labor, in the tradition of former British prime minister Tony Blair’s “third way”, which Dr Emerson claimed was a rebadged version of the Hawke and Keating government traditions.

“In this political philosophy, the role of policy-makers is to allow the market to create prosperity and out of that prosperity to expand opportunity, not the welfare state,” Dr Emerson said.

This philosophy would mean winding back “the relentless expansion of the welfare state, where higher taxes are used to support revenue for recycling, often to the same people, in return for political support” – a hallmark of the Howard government years, Dr Emerson said.

He pointed to decisions in the May budget to means-test the baby bonus and family tax benefit B as evidence of Labor’s bona fides, but told The Australian he was not suggesting that other government payments should be wound back.

“I am simply putting the philosophical position that people are better off keeping their money rather than paying higher taxes and having it recycled back to them in the form of government payments,” Dr Emerson said.

His vision would mean the Government only offered financial support to business for doing things that had a wider community benefit.

“That is why governments offer subsidies or tax breaks for private sector research and development … but care needs to be taken … poorly designed tax concessions may be little more than a gift to business if they simply reward research that would have been undertaken anyway,” he said.

Asked about suggestions by Toyota, later retracted, that the company would have invested in an Australian assembly line for the hybrid Camry even without $70million in state and federal government support, Dr Emerson said the green car fund grant to Toyota was exactly what he believed government should be doing, because it tackled the wider community benefit of reducing climate change.

Dr Emerson, who is Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, envisages a modernised role for the trade union movement.

“Seeking to use industrial muscle to gain pay rises in excess of productivity growth is inflationary and ultimately self-defeating,” he maintained.

He said modern unions had to offer members advice on tax, education, insurance, financial planning and even personal counselling services, and had to represent members on a collective and individual basis.

Running a prosperous economy in this way meant governments had the resources to provide true equality of opportunity, particularly though increased spending on education, Dr Emerson said.

Refugee Week


imageA refugee week public forum

Tuesday,  June 17   6-8 pm

BMW Edge – Federation Square

Hosted by Tracee Hutchinson- broadcast journalist


Julian Burnside QC – prominent human rights lawyer

Michael Foster– Director of the International Refugee Law Research program  University of Melbourne

Paris Aristotle – Director of the Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture

Special performance by musician Jali Buba Kuyateh

Organised by Multicultural Arts Victoria, Refugee Action Collective, Hotham Mission and Refugee Council of Australia.

Enquiries:   0409 252673


The Refugee Council of Australia invites you to the launch of

Refugee Week 2008: A Place to Call Home

In conjunction with the much anticipated:

made in australia

An Exhibition about Power, Complacency and Consequence

by Viv Méhes

16 June 2008, 6.15pm

The Foyer, 1 Spring St, Melbourne


Mr James Merlino,

Minister Assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs

Stories by Arnold Zable

Music by Mesopotamia

For more information about the Launch see invite attached or contact Annette McKail, Refugee Council of Australia on 9348 2245

or email

For more information about Refugee Week visit

For more information about made in australia visit

Support the People of Zimbabwe

Dear Friends,

Please find attached information on a march for

Zimbabwe this Sunday 8th June.

We will be sending photos and info on this

march to the opposition in Zimbabwe .

These actions are greatly appreciated and help to lift morale of those opposing the deadly tyranny of the Mugabe regime.

So do put an hour aside on Sunday.

It will have an impact. See you then!

Mitch Thompson

PS bring an appropriate placard !





All colour, all races, all creeds



Respect & self discipline





We are forming a men’s group to run a “men’s shed” program for men from the southside area we will be doing men’s activities and community activities.





Allan Lui – 3257 1433

Sam Watson 0401227443


Sadr bloc demands pact referendum

Tens of thousands of al-Sadr supporters rallied against the proposed security deal on Friday [AFP]

Supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr, the Iraqi Shia leader, have demanded that the government hold a public referendum on a long-term security agreement with the US.

Politicians have until July to finalise a pact to keep US soldiers in Iraq after the current UN mandate expires at the end of the year.

Senior al-Sadr bloc members, including Falah Hassan Shanshal and Maha Adel, met in Baghdad on Saturday and issued a statement calling on the Iraqi government to stop negotiations with the US and to hold a public referendum on the issue.

Al-Sadr supporters say they “absolutely reject” the agreement and have urged Iraqis to continue peaceful demonstrations against it.

Friday protests

Tens of thousands of Iraqis rallied against the deal on Friday.

Most of the protesters appeared to be followers of al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army fought American and Iraqi troops in Baghdad’s Sadr City district until a ceasefire agreement was signed earlier this month.

Al-Sadr has called for weekly protests in addition to the referendum against the security pact.

In recent days the Association of Muslim Scholars, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, one of Iraq’s most powerful Shia politicians, and Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a Shia spiritual leader, have all raised concerns about the proposed security deal.

The developments come as Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a former prime minister, launches a new political party, National Reform.

The party will take part in the next provincial elections under a separate list from the Dawa party, al-Jaafari said on Saturday.

US-Iraqi ties

George Bush, the US president, and Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, signed a statement last December on the future of US-Iraqi relations.

Iraqi and US officials began negotiations in March on a blueprint for the long-term security agreement, and a second deal, to establish the legal basis for US troops to remain in the country after a UN mandate runs out.

In Video

David Satterfield, US state department adviser

Samir al-Sumaidaie, Iraqi envoy to US

Widespread opposition to the deal, however, has raised doubts that the deadline will be met.

Many Iraqis say Americans are seeking permanent bases in Iraq.

US officials have declined to comment on the talks until the draft is completed.

Meanwhile, the US military said a soldier died on Friday in a non-combat related incident.

The brings to 21 the total number of Americans killed in Iraq this month.

Sadr men stopped

Against this backdrop of fresh tensions, Nassar al-Rubaie, the leader of al-Sadr’s bloc in the Iraqi parliament, was stopped on Saturday at a police checkpoint outside Diwaniya, south of Baghdad.

The six-car convoy, which was en route from Basra to the city of Najaf, was held up without reason for nearly two hours, al-Rubaie told the Associated Press news agency.

“We call upon the government to stop the harassment faced by the Sadrists every day and we demand that those responsible for this be tried,” al-Rubaie said.

Asaad Ali, a Diwaniya police colonel, said al-Rubaie’s armed guards had been stopped because police were under orders not to allow armed men into the city.

But he said a patrol was sent to escort the convoy on its way out of the province to Najaf.

Kouchner’s visit

In another development, Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, arrived in the southern city of Nasiriya on Saturday for his second visit to Iraq in less than a year.

“This visit … is a message of peace and co-operation and a chance to discuss any future French contribution to rebuilding Iraq,” he said.

Kouchner, who is in Iraq for two days, held talks with Abel Abdul-Mahdi, the French-educated vice-president, and Aziz Kadhim Alwan, the provincial governor.

Kouchner is also due to inaugurate two new French consulates in Arbil in northern Iraq and Basra in the south.

France, which takes over the EU’s rotating presidency in July, has said it will lead a drive for greater EU involvement in rebuilding Iraq and has offered to host reconciliation talks.


The Stop the War collective is a group of people who regularly meet in the interests of organising against the war on Iraq. Members of Stop the War do not support ideas or comments that are in anyway sexist, racist or homophobic, and ACTIVELY seeks to create an organising space that is easy to participate in for all people who oppose the war on Iraq.

Union Alert

This is a round-up of recent union disputes from the local press and other sources.

While the prospect for worker organisation is limited, however, out of the contradiction of master and servant (boss/worker) comes conflict.

When workers take action to advance their own interests, there is an opportunity to link with other workers engaged in similar industrial disputes.

We argue that as the political nature of workers’ struggle emerges there is a need for new structures or organisation to take workers out of the bureaucratic framework that confines unions today.

A new possibility may be realised — workers’ political organisation.

From After the Waterfront – the workers are quiet ,
Chapter 5: Arise ye workers from ye slumbers — New direction for unions

Teachers Alliance
“New Pay Deal Great or Very Bad?! On Friday, May 2, Teachers Alliance
Councillors voted against calling off the stopwork action and agreeing
to the pay deal …”


VOTE NO to the Proposed EBA

“19 May 2008 … 1. …”
13% over 4 years not 3
clip_image002 “Teachers Alliance No change to conditions –
not good enough. Two key campaign demands were encapsulated in our
campaign slogans …”

Qantas managers step in for striking engineers
Sydney Morning Herald – Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
“I don’t call anyone a strike-breaker … the union has every right to call a strike. “We have every right to resist it and every right to use everything

Qantas won’t bow to striking engineers
Sydney Morning Herald – Sydney,New South Wales,Australia
Previous reports that Qantas would bring overseas workers back to Australia in a strike-breaking arrangement would be a “provocation to fair dinkum working

Qantas pleased engineers’ industrial action cancelled
ABC Online – Australia
Both the union and the company appeared deadlocked this morning, with Mr Dixon saying a 5 per cent rise sought by engineers would be too costly.

Boeing strike flies into its third week
The Age – Melbourne,Victoria,Australia
But union officials said that while Australians voted against WorkChoices at last year’s federal election, the legal framework was largely intact.

Qantas baggage staff may continue strike
The Age – Melbourne,Victoria,Australia
The action is linked to workers’ concerns about staffing levels, rosters and old and badly maintained equipment, Transport Workers Union (TWU) federal

Labor maintains spirit of AWAs
The Canberra Times – Canberra,Australian Capital Territory,Australia
Labor also proposes limiting union access to workplaces, limiting the right to strike, the introduction of flexibility arrangements in awards, and allowing

Australian PM marks first 100 days as Murdoch demands “stiff dose
World Socialist Web Site – Oak Park,MI,USA
But the “sacrifices” were extracted from the working class by force, with the trade union bureaucrats acting as industrial policemen, suppressing and

Our Rights at Work Need Fighting For

by Rob Durbridge

It is common ground on all sides of politics that the union campaign against Work Choices played a big part in the defeat of the Howard Government. But the Rudd Government has no intention of returning the favour by restoring the pre-Howard industrial relations system. This is not to underestimate the significance of the abolition of AWAs and the crisis this has caused in the Coalition after it followed extreme anti-union policies promoted by the Right over many years. But it is clear that the campaign to restore rights at work will not occur under the first Rudd government.

Politics and class power are always at the core of industrial relations policy, perhaps more so than in any other area. The Coalition under Howard failed to win public support for a reactionary policy to eliminate unions and the arbitration system, both institutions providing workers with rights and means to enforce them. Now, like the Blair Government, the ALP views unions as legitimate players but as just one player among many; there is little acceptance of the role of the ALP as a partner, political advocate or representative of working people.

Contrast this to the traditional ALP view that unions provide a necessary balance to the power of the employer in the workplace and society, and that the arbitration system exists to give unions rights to represent and organise workers and to make awards to protect rights and standards.

The new government is demonstrably spooked by the media campaign against union influence, but more than that, unions seem to be expected to leave industrial relations to the politicians and confine their activities to the workplace. Contrast Barack Obama’s words in his book “The Audacity of Hope” that he doesn’t feel corrupted that he owes a debt to health care workers and teachers. “I got into politics to fight for these folks, and I’m glad a union is around to remind me of their struggles.” Statements like that would require a “chat” in the ALP leaders’ office today!

Modern Labor seems to regard unions as organisations to be consulted, but not as a partner. Four business groups and the ACTU meet with government in the National Workplace Relations Consultative Council, an initiative of Peter Reith. Despite ACTU attempts to revive the Accord-era Australian Labor Advisory Committee (ALAC) which involved direct meetings between the ACTU and Ministers, this appears to be sidelined or dead. Compared to the Accord era, widely criticised as causing union decline, unions will be more remote from government than they were at that time. This could be a good thing for the union movement if it has the capacity to pursue its objectives and to win gains for members.

The ‘Policy Implementation Plan’ on IR

When the ALP released its Policy Implementation Plan (PIP) in August 2007, it was a signal to business, especially the mining industry, that the ALP was henceforth to take a New Labour approach as in the UK, not that traditionally taken by the ALP or its policies. The PIP

was not the product of an agreement with the ACTU or major unions, neither was it discussed by the ALP Conference. At the time the ACTU Secretary Jeff Lawrence told unions there was ‘no deal, public or private’ about its content.

Ending AWAs and restoring bargaining rights are tremendously important but the political shift the PIP makes away from the ALP’s Conference policy “Forward With Fairness” has profound consequences. As politics it was brilliant. It created a crisis for the Coalition which remains to this day. Allowing the Transition Bill to pass without opposition from the Coalition is a political coup for Minister Gillard which challenges the very identity of the Coalition. The irony is that when Prime Minister Rudd asks, “What does the Coalition stand for?” the question challenges his government as well.

It seems that the Rudd-Gillard team concluded that to win they would need to assure employers that they would have industrial relations policies acceptable to global corporations and which would pose no threat to investment and profits. The total package of measures to be introduced through the Transition Act, National Employment Standards and the substantive Act contain elements of the systems in the US, UK and Europe. It is a policy acceptable to the global market, not the system which distinguished Australian industrial relations for a century.

Rudd and Gillard prior to the election talked about the difficulty of defeating incumbents to justify policy retreats. Now they repeat a mantra of ‘political realities,’ and ‘we cannot recreate the past,’ to justify the shift. Thus far in the early days the strategy has been politically triumphant. Just how it will unfold as unions face the fact that restrictions on bargaining and campaigning, including to the right to strike, remain in place will be interesting. Unlike the U.S., bipartisan politics will not sit as easily in Australia where unions take working class culture and interests more seriously.

How should unions build the campaign for rights at work?

As ever, workplace organisation and campaigning will be decisive. The first priority is to understand the ALP policy. Unions and their members showed rare unity and co-ordination in the campaign to defeat Work Choices. Now we need to assert our rights at work in the development of the new industrial relations system. If the new system does not meet the need for balance, independence and justice in its dealings then it will be rejected and discredited. Rights to organise effectively, to bargain, to make collective agreements, to take industrial action and to have access to an independent tribunal are as strongly held by workers in Australia as they are around the world. If they are not achieved under the first Rudd Government the union movement must pursue them while ensuring that the government is returned. Without a strong union movement not only workers rights are under threat but wider social justice and democracy will also be at risk.

In reforming the industrial relations system Minister Julia Gillard provides clear priorities…to ensure that productivity is enhanced and inflation is controlled while giving unions the ability to bargain collectively above a safety net of national employment standards and modern awards. While this sounds familiar territory, the realities are somewhat different and often hidden in jurisdictional and legislative technicalities. It’s important that the political and industrial essence of this is understood because the changes are coming thick and fast.

The National Employment Standards (NES) were open for submissions until April 4. But some of the National Employment Standards are not standards nor do we know how they will be enforced. A standard requires transparency and measurability. But the Flexible Work NES deliberately does not define the ‘business grounds’ on which an employer can ‘reasonably’ refuse an application for fear of limiting the employers’ options! Neither does it provide recourse in the event of unreasonable refusal. What is the point of a standard if it does not give rise to an entitlement or a right?

One ‘standard’ entitles workers to information about the industrial relations system in general. At best the NES represents a missed opportunity to truly provide a set of minimum standards for all Australian workers, at worst it makes a mockery of the government’s intention to return employment rights removed by ‘Work Choices.’

Flexibility Clauses: Individual Contracts under Common Law

While the ALP has called an end to new AWAs, allowing Transitional Employment Agreements above a safety net to continue until 2013, the pressure for individual employment contracts continues. Owing to pressure from the mining industry, individual common law contracts will be encouraged by requiring all awards and agreements to contain ‘flexibility’ clauses for majority and individual agreements which vary the collective instrument.

Flexibility agreements will be underpinned by a ‘no-disadvantage to the employee’ requirement, but studies of these requirements do not inspire confidence and to be effective require the maintenance of relevant employment standards in awards. At present there are no proposals on the table for the variation of Modern Awards which are created by a request from the Minister. Unless Modern Awards and the National Employment Standards can be varied to improve relevant standards the union bargaining sector will be surrounded non-union employment areas where minimum standards will sink relatively, putting pressure on the organised sector.

Making and maintaining awards at relevant standards is critical. John Buchanan, Director of the Workplace Research Centre at Sydney University told the Senate Inquiry into the Bill,

When you are talking about award modernisation you should be looking at instituting a process that can allow the awards to maintain their relevance to a constantly changing setting. When you read the bill you get a very strong impression that award modernisation is going to be finished by 31 December 2009. I think that is an erroneous way of thinking about the process. What you want to set in train is a process whereby the awards can be streamlined and also a process by which they can be adapted to a rapidly changing labour market.’

‘Modern Awards’

Employers are particularly fighting any return of the conciliation and arbitration system which prevailed in the 20th century and which gave Australian employees more rights and equity than in most comparable countries. That’s why the system became a target for the HR Nicholls society and its ilk. Industrial awards which were made in settlement of industrial disputes gave unions a role as parties which will not be recreated in the new system. In the new system ‘Modern Awards’ will be created and administered by a tribunal established under the Corporations Power of the Constitution, (s xx).

As Professor Ron McCallum has argued, the implications of this are far reaching and that “laws based upon the corporations power (alone) will be centred around corporations to the detriment of flesh and blood persons who interact with corporations.” If allowed to prevail exclusively, employment law based on the Corporations Power, will henceforth revolve around the rights, obligations and interests of corporations rather than the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes involving unions and employers as parties. The motives of employers in wanting to exclude the dispute settlement power S51 (xxxv) is transparent in the light of that view.

In finding the Work Choices laws unconstitutional in his dissenting judgement in the states’ challenge case, Justice Kirby in the High Court said of the conciliation and arbitration power:

The applicable grant of power imported a safeguard, restriction or qualification protective of all those involved in collective industrial bargaining: employer and worker alike. It provided an ultimate constitutional guarantee of fairness and reasonableness in the operation of the federal law with respect to industrial disputes, including for the economically weak and vulnerable. It afforded machinery that was specific to the concerns of the parties, relatively decentralised in operation and focused on the public interest in a way that laws with respect to constitutional corporations made in the Federal Parliament need not be. These values profoundly influenced the nature and aspirations of Australian society, deriving as they did from a deep-seated constitutional prescription. They should not be swept aside lightly by this Court. Doing so would renounce an important part of the nation’s institutional history and the egalitarian and idealistic values that such history has reinforced in the field of industrial disputes and employment standards because of the constitutional prescription. (p 207 of the High Court judgement in Work Choices, November 2006.)

The Federal ALP appears determined to enact the substantive reform bill on the basis of the Corporations Power…whether exclusively or not remains to be seen, but the ‘applicable grant of power’ to which Justice Kirby refers is evidently to be sidelined.

‘Corporations’ was also the power which the High Court found could give the Work Choices laws supremacy over state industrial authorities in the corporate sector. Unless Fair Work Australia is established under legislation which gives it independence and the capacity to determine disputes on the basis of merit it will be a political construct which will be short-lived in the future should the Federal government change. The Federal government should base the new laws on comprehensive powers which will ensure that ILO conventions are reflected and which ensure and independent tribunal to deal with disputes by conciliation and arbitration.

The conciliation and arbitration system which was introduced in 1904 and lasted until the end of the century was a product of Labor policy and the need to regulate employment in the interests of society. It was an ‘historic compromise’ in which unions were subjected to laws requiring rules of behaviour in return for a place in the system to ensure equitable and fair standards of employment. The system was not perfect and always operated in tandem with the labour market and the determination and campaigning of the parties to disputes. Unions could win new standards and conditions; employers could win where unions were reliant on the system rather than rank and file action.

But the new ALP policy means that unions will not regain the capacity to organise which they had pre-Howard. Union right of entry to workplaces will still be restricted and restrictions on industrial action will remain. In the building and construction industry draconian laws remain until 2010 and may be continued longer. Industry-wide campaigns remain a key target for employers in drafting the new laws…unions are expected to bargain individually with multiple employers who work together against unions through industry associations. The ALP has promised to ensure that bargaining will not occur across industries. But industry campaigns have been a key organising principle of union since day one; restrictions on industrial action and the content of agreements are designed to limit union organising.

Whether the ‘national system’ which the Rudd-Gillard government wants to create will go beyond the private sector depends on agreement with state governments. This looks difficult as the Federal Minister resists any agreement on referral of state powers as recommended by Professor George Williams in a report to the NSW government. Should referral occur on a general basis, as happened in Victoria, the state systems of industrial relations will be abolished. A number of state industrial systems currently provide rights to workers and unions which are superior to those proposed for the national system, so difficult negotiations or a stand-off are likely.

published in the
journal Australian Options no 53 2008.

Subs are $20 per year.PO Box 431 SA 5034.

Union Report from Fremantle

Joe’s back in the spotlight

Joe McDonald storming building siteMeeting in Fremantle of unionists went well. Ten people there. I’ll be able to tell you more when I get a chance to look at my notes.

Essentially, the focus should be on the ABCC and explaining why this is a civil rights issue to the wider community i.e. it’s rather secret police powers.

I don’t see how Labor is going to be axing the ABCC until 2010 and in fact, they’ve increased its budget…see the recent budget statement.

Julia Gillard is responsible for appointing the head of the ABCC; but appointments are for five years and the last appointment was in 2005.

So, you’ve got a Howard cronie in there, policing workers with an increased budget.

We need to put public pressure on MPs, asking them how they stand on the abuses of power exercised by the ABCC, then publicise their answers or non answers vis a vis support for the ABCC.

FW from the ETU spoke of how much more difficult it is now dealing with employers.

Seems that they’re playing by the rules more than before…kind of ‘work to rule’ in reverse, causing union delegates lots of lost time.

The employing class has also been coming up with some sneaky ways of reformulating ‘work choices’ by having workers sign something called, “green…blah, blah” agreements.

Once signed, this keeps union organizers legally out of the work place.

More later…


Joe’s back in the spotlight
Article from: AAP Billy Rule
May 17, 2008 05:00pm,21598,23715245-5017005,00.html

THIS is the footage Joe McDonald wants people to see as proof he is still at large.

And to match the pictures of him illegally storming a Perth building site, the renegade unionist also verbals the Labor Government, accusing Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard of selling out the unions to win power.

He then baits the Prime Minister by saying:

“I don’t even think about him, but he must go to bed thinking about me sometimes.”

The defiant footage of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union assistant secretary will be screened tonight on 60 Minutes in an interview with former The Sunday Times columnist Liam Bartlett .

But The Sunday Times can reveal that Mr McDonald may be in more trouble, because the builder he berates, Gerry Hanssen, has lodged a complaint of trespass against Mr McDonald and his union colleagues to the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

Mr McDonald lost his state and federal permits several years ago for inappropriate behaviour, which included bullying and aggression. His actions gained further notoriety last year after video footage surfaced of him calling a builder a “thieving, parasite dog”.

The ABCC wants him banned for a further three years and tonight’s images on Channel 9 are sure to draw more anger from the powerful industry watchdog.

When asked about his tactics of storming building sites, Mr McDonald said

“bad laws should be broken”. “I’m definitely not going to hang my head in shame and if the biggest crime I commit is to walk through the gates of a building site to better the lot of the people I represent I’m going to continue to do it,” he said. But some of his most vitriolic comments are aimed at the Federal Government and his expulsion from the Labor Party by Mr Rudd.

When asked if he thinks Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard have sold him out, he replies:

“Absolutely, absolutely. “They would have done anything to get where they are and … I mean the magnitude of the treachery still stuns me.”

60 Minutes executive producer Hamish Thompson believes viewers will be split when it comes to judging Mr McDonald’s motives.

“The opinions of people in here who have seen the screenings so far have been split 50-50,” he said. “Some have said `he may be a ratbag, but good on him … at least he’s standing up for workers’.”