Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. T.G. Roberts:
That this Council condemns the Federal Liberal Government and
the National Farmers Federation for their provocative approach to waterfront
reforms in Australia, in particularó
1.their support for current and past serving members of the Australian
Defence Forces to participate in an ill fated overseas strike breaking
training exercise; and
2.their support for the conspiracy entered into between Patrick
Stevedores and a National Farmers Federation front company to establish
a union busting stevedoring company at Webb Dock, Victoria,
and calls on the Federal Government and the National Farmers Federation
to recognise that just and fairly negotiated settlements between management,
unions and the workers involved can achieve more in terms of productivity
and improved labour relations, as witnessed by the achievements at the
port of Adelaide, than the use of the jackboot.
(Continued from 18 March. Page 546.)
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I support the motion and note a similar
motion on the Notice Paper, although I will not speak to both of them.
I intend to speak to the sentiment contained within these two motions.
I believe that the Federal Government, in its handling of the waterfront,
has been unnecessarily provocative and divisive. In fact, the divisive
line that the Government has chosen to take on a range of issues has been
partly responsible for the genie that has been let out of the bag in Queensland
at this stage, as the Government has sought to take some genuine problems,
then to exaggerate them, multiply by 10 and multiply again. And it has
done it all for very base political purposes.
There is no question that the Australian waterfront was below
average, below world's best practice, nor that there was a need for improvement.
But when we have debates, one needs some perspective. My understanding
is that the cost of productivity increases that we can reasonably expect
to achieve are about .1 per cent of total cost of imports. I know that
.1 per cent can still matter, but it is important that there be some perspective.
It is worth noting that in bulk container terminals Australia is at or
near world's best practice already, and most of Australia's important income
earning exports, until relatively recently (and this will continue for
some years), agriculture and mineral exports, have been going through those
bulk terminals that are at world's best practice.
So far as there are difficulties, it has been happening more
in the container terminals, and even then it has been somewhat uneven in
that Burnie, Adelaide and Townsville have been achieving what could be
described as high levels of productivity compared with some of the other
ports. But I do not think that an argument is helpedóalthough Governments
seem to specialise in thisóby the gross exaggeration of what the Government
is seeking to do. It is certainly not helped by the level of divisiveness
that the Government sought to introduce. It was both the political reasons
of the Government itself and the internal politics of the Liberal Party
and, perhaps, at least one aspiring Leader of the Liberal Partyónow expiring,
but he was aspiringóthat largely drove the course that was being taken.
How remarkably hypocritical it was to attack the MUA and its
practices which, as I have said already, were not good, but not at the
same time ask questions about the practices of the employers. We have in
Australia what is essentially a duopoly. In fact, many ports are a monopoly,
a single company or, as I said, sometimes two and rarely any more, carving
up the industry between them. So far as there have been any deals on the
waterfront, they have been as much of the making of P&O and Patrick
as they have of the MUA. The Government was taking on the union and seeking
to destroy it totally whilst giving a free ride to the other half of the
equation, the monopolists and duopolists P&O and Patrick. The absolute
hypocrisy of the Government in not tackling the employers needs to be exposed.
It also needs to be recognised that in many cases the reason
for the lack of competitiveness was not the workers themselves but the
infrastructure within the ports, and there is a great deal of doubt about
whether or not sufficient investment was going into many of the ports.
It does not matter how efficient your workplace practices are: if you do
not have the best equipment and best practices more generally, then you
cannot compete at the same level.
However, the Government persistently oversimplified the arguments and
it did so for its own purposes.
It is worth noting that in South Australia where Sealand operatesóand
I think it is the only capital city where Sealand operatesóit was achieving
very high productivity and that high productivity in South Australia probably
reflects on the fact that the Government had spent some money on the port
and also that this company had adopted different approaches with their
workers, that it had sought to work cooperatively with them to improve
work rates, which it managed to achieve. Again, that reflects positively
on Sealand and negatively on both P&O and Patrick. Just for the record,
as I understand it, P&O Australia has 37.3 per cent of the total market;
Patrick has 33.3 per cent; and BHP Stevedores, largely handling its own
product, has 15 per cent. One can see fairly quickly that that does not
leave much for anyone else and again I suggest that it has been the practices
within those companies as much as it has been the practices of the workers
on the waterfront that have caused a significant problem.
It was always my intention only to speak briefly to this motion.
It is a matter which is largely covered within the Federal arena. However,
it has an impact in South Australia and therefore we were certainly wanting
to make a contribution. What comes of the current agreement will be interesting
to see. I cannot help but believe that one of the reasons the agreement
was struck was not only because the MUA had won in the courts but because
there was a great deal of fear about what else might happen in the courts
in terms of potential conspiracy attempts to subvert the law of Australia
by some people in the political arena, in particular linked with the Government.
One cannot help but think that that focused their thinking towards the
end finally to resolve the process. It appears at this stage at least that
there has been a good outcome for Australia not just in terms of productivity
in the ports but importantly a recognition that not only can the Government
argue that people have a right not to be a member of the union but just
as importantly people have the right to be a member of the union.
That is something we entrenched in the workplace laws in South
Australia; that is, employers should have no power to prevent people from
becoming members of the unions. That is precisely what Patrick was trying
to do and what the Federal Government was assisting it in doing and that
is not a good thing for the long term health of the Australian workplace.
With those words, I support the motion and also indicate support for a
later motion in the same subject area.
|
|