Changing government essential but not alone sufficient

By Maree O’Halloran

A change of government is an essential first step to shaping a fairer, more cohesive and tolerant Australian society.

Prime Minister John Howard and his fellow Coalition parliamentarians have chosen not to govern for all Australians, instead they have governed for big business, the wealthy and the already-privileged.

As teachers in the public education system we know that the common good is a real and important concept. It can be given sustenance by a government prepared to engage in transformative politics. Public education is so vital to society because it holds the potential to transform the lives of individuals, the capacity of communities and the nature of our society. The employment relationship and the treatment of people in the workplace similarly shape the character and nature of the society in which we live. Federal Labor has not grasped the opportunity to transform the way we are governed and forge a new compact with the Australian people about the nature of society. In many areas Labor's policies have converged with the Coalition's. Indeed Labor has made a virtue of fiscal conservatism. Nevertheless, there are still enough significant policy differences between the major parties with respect to industrial relations, education, global warming and the war on Iraq to hold out hope for different policy directions. Federation must also be vigilant to ensure that vestiges, or perhaps substantial elements, of John Howard's ideology do not continue unchallenged in the event of a Labor victory.

One aspect of that vigilance is to recognise the crucial role of the Senate in this election. The Greens' policies about public education, industrial relations and global warming are longstanding and strongly held. They deserve our support.

This month marks the centenary of the 1907 Harvester judgment in which Justice Higgins determined the Sunshine Harvester company had to pay its workers a "fair and reasonable wage defined as enough to support a wife and three children in frugal comfort". This modest decision was a landmark because it curtailed "freedom of contract" and managerial prerogative (at that time virtually unfettered). During the case Justice Higgins said "freedom of contract can sometimes resemble the contract between the wolf and the lamb". WorkChoices is radical and extreme but it is not the future. It draws on and seeks to return us to the 19th century concept of "freedom of contract" and the commodification of labour.

In the Harvester case the factory manager was asked why one carpenter was paid more than the others. He said: "He performed superior work [and besides] he was rather nice looking." One hundred years later we hear sad echoes of that evidence in the numerous cases of young and vulnerable workers hurt by WorkChoices. The union movement's campaign to defeat WorkChoices demonstrates the important role of unions in our society. To a greater or lesser extent that campaign has forced all political parties to be accountable to the people for their policies about people's rights at work.

Just as WorkChoices epitomises the ideology of the Coalition, so too does its fail to recognise and fund public education as a national priority. Confronted with Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) figures demonstrating that Australia had the 3rd lowest proportion of expenditure on education from public sources of the OECD nations, the Prime Minister denied the validity of the data. It must be noted that this expenditure also includes the public money sent to private schools.

The OECD figures are a damning indictment on the Federal Government which must bear primary responsibility. (The state governments have also contributed to under-funding which is recognised in the Australian Education Union's $2.9 billion per annum claim.) The Federal Government's final education salvo in the election campaign contained no additional funding. Instead it promised a non-means tested tax rebate which extends to private school fees. The Independent Schools Council warmly welcomes the promise. Public school parents condemned the policy as "radical change" towards the privatisation of the education system (Terry Aulich, Australian Council for State School Organisations). Federation believes the policy is aimed squarely at undermining public education.

Labor, on the other hand, has promised additional targeted funding to education. In the area of public schools, additional funding is likely to be distributed in proportion to the enrolments in the public and private sectors respectively. Most of the Labor Party funding initiatives are welcome but relatively small when placed in the context of a $2.9 billion per annum funding short-fall in public schools. In the TAFE area the Labor Party's strong opposition to the wasteful duplication of Australian Technical Colleges has been very welcome. Labor's announcement on November 14 promising to fund an additional 450,000 skilled training places over the next four years is important and should benefit students and the economy. It is highly likely that those training places will be in TAFE. Federation, however, condemns the contestable nature of this funding.

On behalf of the Federation, I would like to thank all members who have been involved in public education and rights at work activities. The work undertaken by Aboriginal members on the "Voting is Deadly" campaign has been an important contribution to the overall union campaign. Through union involvement we strengthen our democracy and fight for the common good. Who wouldn't be proud?

Maree O'Halloran is the President

A change of government is essential

Federation's key messages for the election

For further information

November 2007 contents