A review of Brian Boyd's book, Inside the BLF, by John Tognolini and a reply by Boyd appeared in our January 29 and March 18 issues. DAVE KERIN, a BLF activist mentioned by both writers, comments on the debate.
Brian Boyd refers to John Tognolini's "going the player, not the ball", yet then states that the whole intention of his book was to focus upon Gallagher. Brian's defence, to continue the analogy, is that the player, in this case Gallagher, was doing the wrong thing behind play, and that unionists have the right to be informed.
Well, why were we not told all of this whilst it was happening? Why did not you and other people who were in the same party-based leadership of that union inform the rest of us that Gallagher was in fact corrupt and that we should not defend him?
Why did it take until March 11, 1992, for the admission from you as an active supporter of Gallagher then that it was "Gallagher's relationship with the traditional builders at the time, in working together to knock off Jack Mundey ... " which brought about the destruction of the NSW branch of the BLF in '74-'76?
Why were those in the union in Victoria who knew this and tried to inform members of it hounded, referred to as "white ants" and generally isolated by you and others of Gallagher's group? Then two decades later, when these people stand upon the same principles of unionism, rank and file control of decision making and accountability do they have to suffer your assessment that they are simply being used, worse that they know they are being used?
I would just say that Norm's past has caught up with him, and that although it's taken 20 years, because of his behaviour people will look freshly at the '70s — not for its own sake but with a view to learning from it.
Why in Inside the BLF is the role of Gallagher looked at and analysed without ever looking at why and how Norm had the degree of personal power which he was able to misuse in the first place? Who put Norm there and kept him there?
Do you take any ownership at all for things that Gallagher has done, Brian? Don't get me wrong: I have made decisions in the past, vis-a-vis my struggle for social justice, which I would prefer not to have made, too. But we've all got to start owning our decisions more, and not hiving them off onto others; otherwise we can never learn from mistakes we've made.
Witness this. In your book, Brian, you condemn Gallagher as corrupt, yet in your role as an officer of the Trades Hall Council, you have been prepared to legitimise the BWIU leadership. This is just what you did in '74-'76. You have allowed them to appear legitimate despite their use of police on a massive scale, their demand for the jailing of workers and their officials who would not go along with the BWIU, their organising of ticket checks by employers and police, and the use of organised thugs and scabbing outfits.
Can you explain any difference other than scale between the Gallagher of the '70s, the current BWIU leadership and, for that matter, Norm's current performance?
In the '70s on the floor of BLF meetings you defended Gallagher when you knew, if we're to go by your book, he was wrong. Now on the floor of Trades Hall Council you do not speak out for the rights of BLF members at every possible opportunity. During the dispute at 417 St Kilda Rd, for instance you referred to the BLF as interferers and "outsiders".
As to Gallagher being the one to "continually manipulate the tactics and strategies of the battle for his own ends": if people like you had not organised such a "closed shop" on power and decision making within the BLF, then maybe members would have had more truthful information upon which to base decisions.
We can't live life in fear of being part of other people's agendas, nor in fear of losing. We can only decide in our own minds what is right, do it, and take full ownership of the decision. Then we have to live with the consequences.
Surely the important lesson to come out of the continuing story of the BLF is the issue of rank and file control. Radicals have to find the appropriate means to educate towards, establish and maintain this control. And could I suggest that this end can be established through the means we use here and now; that issues of strategic, tactical, moral and ethical rectitude must be decided upon by each in league with all active members of any union; and that service as officials and administrators had to be a path which has its reward in the job itself, and not as a pathway to power.