PRESS OFFICE TRANSCRIPT MONDAY, 17 MARCH, 1980
PRIME MINISTER INTERVIEWED BY PETER HARVEY, CHANNEL NINE
CANBERRA Harvey It seems to a good many Australians, Prime minister, that the
climate of industrial unrest particularly* in key industriesis
getting worse all the time. Things aren't getting better.
You have criticised Neville Wran by saying that the State
Government, in his case, should have taken greater action. But
broadly, where are we going, and what can be done to prevent us
from going further down the path of industrial anarchy?
Prime Minister
Everyone talks of course, about a peaceful settlement of disputes.
They all talk about reconciliation and reason. That is very fine.
But if those qualities are going to prevail, you have got to have
parties on both sides of an industrial dispute prepared to be
reasonable, and as the Commonwealth believes, prepared to accept
that the normal laws of the country that apply to companies and
you, and everyone else as individuals, must also apply in relation
to trade unions. I made those comments about Mr. Wran because they
do have very specific powers in relation to energy shortages. They
could have used those powers. But even when they did have an
emergency distribution system, as it later appeared it was the
Transport Workers' Union that determined who, under that emergency
system, was to be allowed to get petrol. Now, that is not a
Government usin~ g its powers, using its authority, being prepared to
protect the people of New South Wales. One of the problems we
have quite plainly, is that when a dispute becomes of great and
national significance people automatically think that we, the
Commonwealth, have the power to resolve it or to handle the matter.
I think everyone knows-or most people who are in the industrial
environment-know that the Commonwealth power i's a limited one.
If the States will work in co-operation with us that is fine.
Over a year ago we established working parties, set-up by the
Premiers' Conference, to try and get more sense into the duality
of arrangements: the State's on the one hand, ours on another.
If that did happen, I believe we could handle difficult situations
much better. Mr. Wran proposed in the middle of the petrol tanker's
diLspute that there be a referendum to hand powers over to us.
But he knew quite well that a number of States would oppose that.
Therefore, the referendum may well not succeed. But-he also knew
that that could only be a long-term solution. He had powers, as
of then, or as of now, and was not willing to use them. You have
go~ t to have Governments prepared to be resolute.
If an employer has to stand up, he has got to be prepared to
do that, but I think Governments need to be prepared to back a
particular employer if they believe that a trade union is being
unreasonable and exerting an irresponsible and undemocratic power. / 2
-2
Harvey But when that criticism can also apply, as you have inferred,
to an employer as with the situation with AMOCO and Mr. Laidelywhat
do you say then?
Pr-ime Minist-er
I have no brief for what AMOCO appears to have done at. all. Because
it seems to me the reason seems to be something like this:
Mr. Laidely, as was his right, took out protection so that he could
still go on being delivered petrol, so that hi * s business could
continue. The argument, let us not forget, was over which member of
the State-registered Transport Workers' Union should do the job;
not over whether a non-unionist should do it, or whether a member
of some other union should do it; but over which particular member's
of a State-registered union. So the cause of the dispute, as I
believe, was the height of absurdity. But then Mr. Laidely goes
to the law, which has been deliberately placed there so that he
could be protected in these circumstances in relative terms a
smallish company, a smallish employer. Then, the company comes
to a view, under discussion involving the Arbitration Commission,
involving the Transport Workers' Union-: Mr. Laidely not being
present -comes to the view that if it refused to supply Mr. Laidely
there will be no reason for a ban by the Union, therefore, no cause
for Mr. Laidely's restrictive Trade Practices action, and therefore
no dispute. The only loser in all of that would appear to
be Mr. Laidely. But not only Mr. Laidely, because the community
has lost, as I believe, and lost very seriously. Because here we
have a large company, and hence a relatively powerful company,
virtually in cahoots with the union that caused the problem in
the first place: to settle the matter to their mutual agreement
and advantage, but at the expense of the little fellow. Now, that
is not a circumstance that the Government is prepared to stand by
and watch. I have called for a report involving the Ministers for
Business and Consumer Affairs, the Attorney-General, and Industrial
Relations. We will have tha~ t report and be examining the matter,
because we are immensely concerned that a law that we passed in
good faith, and will support in good faith, would to us, appear
to have been subverted. In the process what has happened is that
the little fellow has been grievously damaged.
Harvey On the other issue that is causing concern, on the wool, aren't
you the Federal Government in danger of causing damage to that
situation by jumping in before the Commission has had a chance to
finalise its-hearings?
Prime Minister
We need to remember that the Full Bench of the Commission made a
judgement, now many, many weeks ago. What has happened since is
because the union, Storemen and Packers, has refused to accept that
judgement. Again, defiance of the law, defiance of the processes
of arbitration. What then do you do? The dispute has gone on for
several weeks. There have been no normally rostered sales since
before Christmas. The whole trade is disrupted. As a result of a
breakdown in meetings in the middle of last week between the partiesthe
brokers and the Storemen and Packers' Union and the ACTU we
-3
Prime Minister ( continued)
decided that we should have a meeting with all the brokers and
the growers' representatives in Canberra. We came out of that
with a joint plan of action: all -the parties supporting each
oft the actions -that are proposed. Our use of export controls was
in fact proposed to us by other parties. They wanted that to back
uip the actions that they would be taking to give strength and
validity to those particular actions. We pointed out the
consequences to the industry of accepting that particular proposition.
After examination, discussion, we decided that we should. So,
in a sense, it is not the Government arbitrarilly coming in and
saying ' this is going to happen; export controls to take over the
industry'. We are responding in a very real way to an industry
request which wants to act in a unified way, in a concerted way,
t~ o overcome industrial blackmail by the Storemen and Packers' Union.
Harvey But how do you do that Prime Minister? How is that achieved, by
t~ aking over the industry?
Prime Minister
Taking over is really the wrong term. It gives us power to exercise
controls over the export of wool. As a consequence of our
decision to do that, by acceptance of the proposition, the dismissal
notices have been sent out to Storemen and Packers in other centres,
because there was probably no way of this dispute being resolved,
while Melbourne and Sydney were blockaded and other centres were
technically working: technically working, but not in a way that
was really getting wool moving, normal sales undertaken. -Because
sales have virtually ceased. Therefore, the dispute was, in effect,
holding up the whole industry. Since the blockade of Melbourne
and Sydney was holding up the whole industry, it was logical that the
consequences of that hold-up should be felt by'a11 the industry;
not leaving the situation where people working in the centres
other than Melbourne and Sydney., could go on working
subsidising those who-were on strike.-
Harvey The subsidy presumably stops, although the Union will have some
sort of funds, money, to be able to continue. But what happens then
-to the industry. I guess my question is: aren't we in danger of
cutting off the nose of the wool industry to spite its face?
Prime Minister
. I do not think so. In a matter of this kind, if you are going to
-get to a reasonable solution of it, you have got to prepared to
match strength with strength. That is not seeking confrontation;
that is not wanting confrontation. Nobody can accuse the Government
-of that. It is that people have been on strike for many, many weeks.
They have been preventing the normal business being undertaken; who
refused to accept a Full Bench decision. They have been confronting / 4
4
Prime Minister ( continued)
the other people in this industry and indeed, the whole Australian
community. It is time that there was a greater degree of commonsense
; nd sanity. It is time that people recognise that we do have
an Arbitration system that is worthwhile. It is the impartial
third person, the umpire, and its verdict ought to be accepted,
even if you do not like them, they ought to be accepted. Employers
are bound by law to accept it. But some trade unions think that they
can just go on regardless. Now, the Government will be certainly
exerting all its authority to see that the integrity of the
Arbitration Commission is maintained, to see that it is upheld.
In doing that, you also need a determination by the employers, a
determination by the industry. Last Friday showed plainly in the
wool industry that these two things are there.
000---