STANLEY BRUCE'S GREAT INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BLUNDER

 

The Howard government and its conservative backers are preparing with considerable fanfare for an assault on the trade unions through so-called reform of the industrial relations system after Howard gets control of the Senate on June 31.

This raises the issue of how the reactionary proposals of the Liberals can be defeated, as the labour movement faces these attacks in a rather defensive situation.

People who think there will be a massive groundswell of immediate industrial rebellion against these proposals are deluding themselves. The labour movement at the moment is rather battered and dispirited.

The traditional socialist slogans of mobilization are still necessary and appropriate, but it's extremely important to conduct a rapid educational program in the labour movement about the dangers of the conservative industrial proposals and about historical precedents.

A campaign for a militant industrial response has to be combined with exploring all the legal possibilities for defeating the Liberal offensive. Rhetoric about industrial mobilisation, on its own, won't get very far.

It's also necessary to construct the broadest united front, including the bureaucracies in the labour movement, whose interests are threatened to some extent, and state Labor governments, whose traditional prerogatives are threatened.

The Liberals have a tall order before them, legally. They're talking about using aspects of corporations law to grab control of state industrial systems, forcing most industrial matters into the federal sphere and then abolishing most of the functions of the state systems.

Legally, that is a high-risk strategy. Even the current conservative-dominated High Court is likely to reject such proposals if they're strenuously opposed by the states.

A big danger in this situation is left talk by sections of the union bureaucracy and state Labor governments about handing over the state systems to the federal government on traditional Labor centralist grounds.

Such moves should be strenuously resisted. The striking thing about the Liberals' proposals is that they are an extraordinary rerun of the policies of the Bruce-Page conservative government in 1926 and 1928-29, which were defeated firstly in a referendum in 1926 and finally by the electoral defeat of the Bruce-Page government in 1929.

In some ways the social circumstances of the late 1920s were similar to now. The labour movement was in a relatively defensive situation and the economy was in a relative boom.

The political situation in the labour movement was quite similar too, with Matt Charlton, the federal parliamentary leader, supporting the transfer of industrial powers to the federal sphere, rather like Gough Whitlam did more recently.

The major difference is that in the late 1920s there was quite a bit of conflict on the conservative side about the proposals, with the turbulent figure of Billy Hughes opposing Bruce every inch of the way. There doesn't seem to be the same scale of dissent on the conservative side in current conditions.

The most recent example of successful industrial resistance to conservative attack is the struggle of the Maritime Union a few years ago. That was a classic agitation combining industrial militancy, community mobilisation and the intelligent exploitation of every legal mechanism, which largely contributed to achieving the desired outcome: the preservation of the MUA.

In Jack Lang's useful memoir, The Great Bust, which was largely ghost-written by Norm Macauley, there is a useful account of the Bruce-Page government's failed attempt to do what the Howard government is hoping to do. The two relevant chapters are available below to assist the beginnings of a discussion, which will have to take place pretty fast if the next few months are to be used to prepare for mobilisation.

Imagine a referendum in which every political leader in the Commonwealth was rejected in his own sphere of influence. That was what happened in Australia on September 4th, 1926. No one escaped the axe. It was a referendum to hand over industrial powers to the Commonwealth, and to provide limited powers over trusts and combines. Prime Minister Bruce sponsored the proposal. He was not only defeated throughout Australia but in his own state of Victoria as well. The federal leader of the Labor opposition, Matt Charlton, supported Bruce. He also had his advice rejected throughout the Commonwealth and couldn't even carry his own electorate of Hunter.

As Premier of New South Wales I advocated a no vote. But this state voted yes. T.R. Bavin, who was leader of the Nationalist opposition, also advocated a no vote, but his state electorate of Gordon gave an emphatic yes vote. Mick Bruxner, Dave Drummond, Frank Chaffey and other prominent members of the state opposition, were against increased federal powers and met the same fate.

E.G. Theodore was premier of Queensland, and also was on the no side, only to have his state vote yes. Scullin, Latham, W.M. Hughes, Frank Brennan and Dr Maloney were all on the losing side.

If anyone wants to study the referendum device to prove just how unpredictable public opinion can be, and how difficult it is to carry a referendum, this vote provides a classic study. I have opposed every referendum since the first conscription referendum. Although the Labor platform provided for unification, I was always a federalist. I believed that the sovereign states had very real functions. The Commonwealth was always trying to filch them.

The state of New South Wales was always in the vanguard of social reform. We were many steps ahead of the other states. Many of the referenda were inspired by the hope of taking over control of our affairs, in order to deprive the people of this state of hard-won gains. ............