Peter Boyle
Since August 9, PM John Howard's Liberal-National Coalition government has had a majority in both houses of federal parliament. It is the first time since 1981 that a federal government has enjoyed this luxury. It's doom and gloom time, right? Well, not quite.
On the third day of the new Senate, the Coalition lost effective control for three hours when absent Coalition senators allowed Greens Senator Bob Brown to win leave to move a motion demanding that the environment minister explain his denial in the Federal Court that global warming exists, is made worse by burning coal, or impacts on Australia's natural environment.
The Coalition survived the ensuing division by 33 votes to 31. Then Senator Julian McGauran, the National's whip, gave the finger to the non-government senators in full view of the public gallery. McGauran was later reprimanded by the president of the Senate.
This little incident illustrated how cockiness can easily tempt the government into political over-reach in a situation where â on global warming as on the new free market industrial relation "reforms", Telstra privatisation, uranium mining and troops in Iraq â its policies are rejected by a large majority of the population.
Remember how cocky Treasurer Peter Costello has been about IR "reform". He's boasted that he'd like to see unfair dismissal laws abolished for all workers. Employer groups chorused with their dream that all workers may one day be on individual contracts.
But the newly-elected Queensland National Senator Barnaby Joyce has declared that he hasn't made up his mind about supporting Howard's IR laws. Howard's demand for party unity, and a reported collaring from the Coalition Senate whip Bill Heffernan, has left Joyce unrepentant. That's the Coalition's Senate majority of one put into question.
The media pundits say Howard's "plan B" is to rely on Family First Senator Steve Fielding to make up for any crossing of the floor by Joyce. But Fielding declared in his first speech to the Senate on August 11: "... There seems to be a growing concern that many Australians are there to serve the market rather than the market being a tool to serve them, especially families and small businesses. There is no doubt where Family First and I stand on this battle, and I have no doubt where most Australians would line up."
Fielding, an staunch evangelical Christian, concluded: "Surely it is time to replace our obsession with the market. Let us imagine an Australia where we put the family first. Imagine if families had genuine choice about how they structured their paid work and family life. Imagine if workers could be parents first and workers second. Imagine if workers could feel secure in their jobs and did not have to bargain for basic wages and conditions... Imagine a culture where the first question we always ask is: 'What's best for our families? What's best for our kids?' Ultimately, that is what is best for this great nation of Australia."
That is not just Fielding's "family first" ideology speaking; it is the facts.
The Howard government's research, through the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and the Employment Advocate, shows that:
ú Working parents have less time for family life because they are working longer hours;
ú Penalty rates were lost in more than half (54%) of individual contracts;
ú Annual leave was lost in more than one in three (34%) individual contracts; and
ú Sick leave was traded away in more than one in four (28%) individual contracts.
ú One in three (32%) people on individual contracts are working more hours than they did two years prior;
ú Less than one in 12 (8%) of all individual contracts provide paid maternity leave;
ú Only one in 20 (5%) of all individual contracts provide paid paternity leave; and
ú One in 25 (4%) of all individual contracts provide unpaid "purchased" leave, such as extra leave during school holidays.
Individual contracts are clearly hostile to family life and they will only get worse when the government abolishes the "no disadvantage test" that benchmarks them against awards.
Shifting debate
The public debate about Howard's IR attack has come a long way in the last month. From a few mutterings about state rights and possible constitutional challenges, it is now shifting to a debate about the core principle behind Howard's IR reform: the idea that wages and conditions should be "negotiated" between the individual worker and the boss, free from "interference" from trade unions, industrial awards or legislation like the unfair dismissal laws.
"Look, the issue here is, do we really think that someone working at the checkout of Coles or Woolworths think they can bargain with their boss about paid holidays or meal breaks? I don't think so", Fielding said in an interview with ABC Radio. He was voicing widespread public cynicism about Howard's line that workers would gain under such a system.
The debate has shifted this way because the trade union movement, urged on by the rank and file, their delegates and militant union leaders, has begun to mobilise on a scale not seen for many years.
The 350,000 workers who marched and rallied on June 30 and July 1 and the 50,000 who took part in a protest picnic in Sydney on August 7 have left their mark on Australian politics. But the job is far from over; even bigger mobilisations, involving industrial action, will be required to inflict a significant defeat on the government.
The stronger these mobilisations, the shakier Howard's Senate majority will be. The mass protests reach into electoral constituencies dominated by the Nationals. How many farming families have to supplement their farm income with wages earned in a supermarket or other workplace? And how many farmers have also felt the unequal power of Coles or Woolworths as monopoly retailers of their produce?
If Howard does muster the numbers to get his IR laws through, you can be certain that the High Court challenges that will likely ensue will end up with judgements influenced, to no small degree, by the people power that has been mounted in the streets and workplaces. That is one lesson from the huge union and community solidarity actions with the Maritime Union of Australia when their members were attacked by Patrick Stevedore's balaclava-wearing thugs in 1998.
If Howard gets his laws and the courts back him up, strong union and community resistance to the victimisation of any worker under the unjust laws could render them a paper win for the government and its big business mates.
People power doesn't only work in countries in the midst of revolutionary crises; its impact can be felt in a country like Australia today. But, of course, every little victory for people power brings closer the day when the same people could begin to challenge the right of the corporate rich to run the country.
From Green Left Weekly, August 17, 2005.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.