It is my opinion that the new conservative Government first had to get rid of the CES before it could change I.R. Presently the CES has a watchdog role over the Labour Market, ensuring that shonky employment practices are not allowed to occur. When the CES is gone there will be no-one left who can adequately monitor a variety of employers. The new system of Employment Assistance encourages shonky employers to ask recruits to sign bad contracts that will disadvantage them. In the new system the employment agency gets paid for any job. Why not have legislation that states only jobs that provide award coverage, or pass the no disadvantage test should be advertised and receive the fee.
John Kotlash
[Belconnen CES CPSU delegate]
The unemployed
After the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) collaborated with the then Federal Labor Government to implement a cruel "Activity Test" to cut tens of thousands of jobless off the dole, though they refused no jobs, it is interesting to hear the CPSU calling for support from the "community" against Howard decimating the jobs of its members.
The "Activity Test" was brought in specifically to force the jobless to do the Government funded Working Nation "Labour Market Programs" that didn't increase the number of jobs available — but mainly got the jobless off the dole long enough so were no longer counted as long term jobless when they got back on it.
We highlighted this fact on Channel 9's A Current Affair late last year — while they were looking for some jobless to crucify as "dole bludgers". It's nice to see the Green Left paper at last acknowledges that rort by the Keating government. Perhaps it can also stop claiming that Howard's nasty abolition of the Earnings Credit Scheme on the dole (that we campaigned so long to bring in) means that the jobless can no longer earn $60 a fortnight before their dole is reduced.
Little chance of getting accuracy from the Murdoch press though, which still refers to the Activity Test as a "work test" — although the jobless aren't being cut off the dole for refusing to work.
We advise all jobless to secretly tape all job interviews and even contacts with employers during casual work as their only defence against the many less honest employers who are happy to have them cut off the dole.
R. Cody
Unemployed People's Embassy
Sydney
[Abridged.]
Funding cuts
On the night of 1000 cuts, Budget night, the razor could easily have become a magic wand which with one stroke, applied with feeling and understanding, would make all the other cuts unnecessary.
Interest escaped!
Cut the interest bill and avoid all the pain.
The Commonwealth Budget outlay for interest on public debt in 1994-95 was $8005 million. Taxpayers are paying full commercial interest on public debt, whereas the same amount of capital funding could readily be provided by our own central bank, the Reserve Bank of Australia, at one percent maximum or even at no interest at all. The potential saving would be conservatively $7 billion — enough to eliminate all the cuts, save jobs and pain, and leave a healthy surplus to create some more jobs.
Note that it is the sovereign right of the government (Constitution #51) to participate in creative banking for the benefit of the people and that such "sovereignty loans" have been used to finance capital works like the Commonwealth Railway from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta in 1913. Every successive government under prime ministers from John Curtin to Malcolm Fraser has used sovereignty loans, so why not John Howard?
Anthony Furniss
Manly NSW
[Abridged.]
CPSU strategy
In his attempt to portray the International Socialist Organisation as sectarian at the recent CPSU mass meetings (GLW 18 September), Dick Nichols neglected to mention the substance of our disagreement with the National Challenge motion.
The principal argument of CPSU leaders like Wendy Caird is that union members are unable to stop Howard's attacks by our own industrial action. Therefore we must focus our efforts on Senate politicians.
The officials see serious industrial action as a threat to our respectability, which will scare the Senate parties off. Caird's talk of a "community campaign" is also directed at influencing politicians.
If the left wants to convince unionists of the need for a sustained industrial campaign, we have to take on these arguments. Instead, the motion from Challenge fed into them, arguing for a strike to win a tougher stand from the Senate. It was left to the ISO to take a clear stand against the officials' parliamentary illusions.
Despite our differences, we have consistently worked with the rest of the left. Dick himself saw me helping two comrades tidy up the wording of the Challenge motion — after I had made it clear to those comrades that the ISO would dissent from the motion.
At the Sydney mass meeting, we spoke in support of the Challenge motion (having explained in speaking to the ISO motion what the problem with the Senate was), and argued against the officials for the right of a member of the Democratic Socialist Party to use the stage microphone, rather than the floor.
In a fine display of left unity, she promptly used it to denounce the ISO from the stage. And Green Left Weekly has the cheek to lecture us about sectarianism!
Robert Stainsby
International Socialist Organisation
Sydney
Solidarity and sectarianism
The name International Socialist Organisation would indicate a certain depth of understanding of the international political situation. This though does not seem to be the case, if their understanding of the situation in Indonesia is any indication.
On reading the Socialist Worker (9 August), the lack of research that the article contained was obvious. The article blatantly ignored the role that the PRD is playing in the struggle against Suharto. While the article calls for support for Muchtar Pakpahan, it fails to mention the jailed PRD activists.
Rather than attempting to understand the political situation ISO attempts to dictate from afar what they see as the "way for the mass of people to defend their interests".
When questioned as to whether the ISO would be raising money for the PRD defence campaign the response was that they didn't know enough about it. One would imagine that for "international socialists" being informed about such a campaign would be of utmost priority.
Perhaps a subscription to Green Left is in order!
Kathy Newnam
Resistance
Brisbane
Howard's hypocrisy
The Prime Minister's comment, in relation to his meeting with the Dalai Lama, that "Upholding of the principles that this country is built on is always more important than the possibility of some transient commercial difficulties", reeks of hypocrisy.
Who was the PM we saw grovelling to the Indonesian dictator, President Suharto, putting trade matters ahead of any discussion of Human Rights abuses? Suharto's record includes ongoing executions of "dissidents" (supporters of Indonesian democracy); the invasion of East Timor and genocide of 200,000 East Timorese (one third of the population); and outlawing any worker organisation except one that is government-backed.
The Australian Government actually supports the Suharto Government — with joint military exercises, training of Indonesian military personnel (even though we don't have enough money for Aboriginals, higher education or health services), and weapon sales. Suharto, who acknowledges ordering mass killings, is described by Howard as a "sensitive leader".
So John Howard has "bravely" chosen to meet with the Dalai Lama. However, he continually distances himself from Tibetan independence and self-determination. Better he should meet with a leader, whose religion has served to oppress Tibetan people in a different way to the oppression from Beijing, than actually recognise the Tibetan people's right to freedom from any oppression.
Australian governments, Liberal and Labor, have consistently put the sanctity of the market before the sanctity of human life.
Paul Benedek
Sydney
[Abridged.]
Richard Neville
I've been a supporter of Green Left since its beginnings at the '89 Socialist Scholars Conference. I'm an avid fan of Phil Shannon's reviews. But I'll be damned if I'm going to agree with his review of Richard Neville's latest book (GLW #247). Where's your sense of humour, Phil? And where is your usual attention to detail? I read Neville's Out of my mind in the sense in which it was meant to be read: as fun, as play-power, as Marxism's-liberation-in-abundance, as the possible future for all women/mankind. Not as a puritan tract!
Phil's facts are often wrong. For example, Neville came back to Australia in the mid-'70s, not 1980. Phil could have made more telling criticism with facts against Neville, instead of resorting to dogma. Why — for example — did Neville never go to Portugal during the Carnation Revolution? Surely this is the most devastating criticism of all against Neville!?
He continues to ignore East Timor — one of the world's greatest genocides on our doorstep.
Chris Beale
Sydney
Activists' Awards
I was disturbed to discover that the so-called Activists' Awards (are these an annual event?) will be held here in Melbourne this October 10.
From a Marxist point of view, the conferring of such awards is utterly repugnant. The "who" judges "whom" according to "what" reeks of bourgeois elitism. An artificial hierarchy that in no way whatsoever reflects the reality of everyday activists.
For everyday activists the praxis is their reward. If not the outcome as well. It is not something they do because it is cute. It is something they do because it is who they are. The Activists' Awards reduce this struggle to the capitalist confection of the beauty pageant: purely cosmetic. Meanwhile, back in the real world ...
Steafan Kilkeary
Footscray VIC
Green strategy
Cam Walker's comment article "Where to for the greens?" (GLW #248) is a welcome breath of fresh air in an often stagnant movement.
Unfortunately, his comment that peak groups could find a niche in "supporting and training" new grassroots groups does not appear to be eventuating. The Wilderness Society have abandoned their lobbying positions in Canberra as he says — but they have not abandoned the lobbying approach.
Their new focus (according to a recent public meeting held here in Hobart) is to lobby companies. They no longer threaten withdrawal of electoral support, but boycotts. This requires a more active (and seemingly more radical, grassroots) approach — but it still relies on small groups of activists and lobbyists to do all the thinking while the vast bulk of the environment movement remain relatively passive consumers/voters.
Earlier this year I was part of an attempt to set up a group called the Tasmanian Forest Alliance. TWS initiated useful discussions on direct actions, media work and boycott campaigns, but for activity only proposed a TWS fundraiser. The lack of an independent course of action was the major reason for the group's demise, and for all their educative discussions, TWS did not help give it this course.
For the movement to progress, we cannot treat supporters as mere "lobby fodder" any more. The green movement needs to organise its support base into action, and Cam's suggestion of supporting trade union actions is one good example of how we can make a start.
Ben Courtice
Hobart