Contesting truth and trust

Cogent, persuasive arguments have always been a great strength of Federation, writes MAREE O'HALLORAN.

Truth, integrity and trust are important values for union members and integral to the continued strength of Federation. Never are they so important as when we are engaged, as now, in a battle of ideas with the Federal Government about the future and the fabric of our society. Convincing our members of the cause and arming them with cogent, persuasive arguments has always been a great strength of Federation. We can reach every school, TAFE college, student and public school parent in the state. Each public education community is a natural constituency in which to develop support and action.

The Federal Government and its strategists know that to undermine a union like Federation requires more than retrograde legislative change and potential financial penalties. They aim to damage the meeting of minds and trust established between rank and file members and the union leadership.

John Howard is the Prime Minister who has managed to divorce truth and trust in the public domain. His government has been one besieged with allegations of lies, most notably the "children overboard" lie about asylum seekers in the lead up to the 2001 federal election. Nevertheless, John Howard has no compunction in calling on the Australian electorate to trust him. With Senate control from July 1, the Prime Minister's hubris and determination to smash the union movement will ultimately result in a massive breach of the electorate's trust. Containing the damage he may wreak in the interim and ensuring that the Opposition, the Greens and the Democrats present strong, well argued, alternative industrial relations policies to the electorate is the union movement's task.

During this campaign we can expect to see the Prime Minister's attack-Ministers (Brendan Nelson, Kevin Andrews and Gary Hardgrave) pumping out bursts of misinformation to feed the media cycle which can be as short as four hours. This will be coupled with accusations that union leaders are not trustworthy or are "lying". The most recent example is a media release dated June 20 from the Federal Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews about the ACTU's advertising campaign. The release ends with: "No Australian worker can trust the word of the ACTU when it comes to explaining the Government's workplace relations reforms."

He couldn't be more wrong. The union movement is well served by its current leaders ACTU President Sharan Burrow, ACTU Secretary Greg Combet and Unions NSW Secretary John Robertson. They are archetypal, modern day unionists representing our passion, intelligence and compassion. Of course, the Federal Government seeks to destroy our trust in such people and we must be vigilant to ensure our position is not undermined.

It is interesting to note that, again on June 20, 2005, Kevin Andrews was asked the following question in Parliament about the television advertisements put to air by the ACTU:

"Does the Minister guarantee that under the Government's proposed industrial relations changes, no individual Australian employee will be treated in the way depicted in the ACTU's advertisements?"

No guarantee was given.

TAFE members, who are at the forefront of the Federal Government's attacks, have been told by Minister Hardgrave that the Government's move to introduce individual workplace agreement had the potential to provide pay rises up to 100 percent. (Border Mail, June 7)

The Federal Government has not released the draft legislation for its new industrial relations laws and may not do so until a couple of days before it enters Parliament. This delay is intended to place the union movement on the back foot. Most of the mooted industrial relations changes were not introduced to the electorate in the lead up to the 2004 federal election and hence we are left to speculate from a series of speeches made by Federal Ministers and the Prime Minister about the details.

In the short time available to us before the Bill enters Parliament we must provide as much accurate information as possible to create the sense of urgency required to carry us through this campaign. At the same time we must ensure that we do not succumb to any level of hyperbole which would lead to a breach of trust with our membership. The mere imposition of any law will not necessarily change teachers' salaries and working conditions. That ultimately depends on the employers' actions and the union's strength. However, the legislation can create a framework that provides more power to employers and renders individual employees vulnerable. In the event that our employer, this State Government and its successors, chose to make use of such power, we would be at risk.

At a meeting of the ACTU on June 2, Greg Combet said that Australia would now be the only developed country in which, for four million people employed in businesses of less than 100 employees, it would be lawful for an employer to present demands for reduced conditions to be expressed in an individual statutory contract (AWA) under the threat of dismissal. It will also be lawful to carry out that threat. In the event that school principals or School Councils were made the employer by legislation, then teachers could find themselves in exactly the situation Combet describes. Our ideological battle is primarily with the Federal Government. However, in the battle of ideas the State Government's managerialism and opportunism often create serious difficulties and impediments for us. The Auditor General's Report in August 2004 identified a $115 million maintenance backlog which has been ignored by the State Government. However, the Auditor General's call for mass test data to be reported school by school in a way that will inevitably cause "league" tables has been adopted. Using the Federal Government's objectionable funding conditions as a shield, the State Government now seeks to force changes on annual school reports. The State Minister said on June 7 that the new reports will "in many cases exceed" the Commonwealth's aims.

The profession's confidence in the State Minister, Carmel Tebbutt, has been sapped by her cowardly response to the Daily Telegraph about a lesson which meets the anti homophobia component of the PDHPE syllabus.

It has been further eroded by the abuse of the Department's Aboriginal Education Review by officials attempting to establish "self managed schools" (euphemistically called community schools) where there are high Aboriginal student populations. At a time when the Federal Government has abolished the Aboriginal Student Support and Awareness Program (ASSPA) and hurt such schools, we expect more of the State Government. The political announcement about "community schools" can be salvaged along the Priority Action Schools model. However, when will funding be available to achieve equal outcomes for Aboriginal students across the state in 10 years as promised by (then Education Minister) Dr Refshauge? Aboriginal students don't have time for such duplicity from government(s).

IR proposals are 'blackmail', rally hears

Minister interferes with school curriculum

Historic joint action

July 1 Sky Channel - Unions in solidarity

Casual and temporary teachers urged to attend Sky Channel meetings

Orwellian language

The clock is ticking

Unionists educate workers on IR threat

What is Unions NSW?

DET tries to impose annual school report changes

For further information

June 2005 contents