Right Of Reply On The 50:50 Proposition

Speech

Transcript - ALP Special National Conference, Canberra - 5 October 2002

E & OE – PROOF ONLY

Thanks, Greg.

I was an official of a union for 20 years. I led the Storemen and Packers Union and I led the ACTU. In that time, I was down at the yards, too, at fiveo'clock in the morning. I was even down at Transport Worker yards because, at one point in that career, we were seeking to amalgamate with that union.

So I know what matters to those members. But I'll tell you what – in all of those 20 years that I was involved in campaigns in improving the working lot and the working lives of people, not once did I have to rely on 60:40 from State Conferences to deliver me the outcome, because what delivered it was the troops themselves, the troops believing in themselves and knowing that they had a Labor Party prepared to back them.

Now, I heard Joe de Bruyn before in terms of saying, talking about the Ansett workers losing their entitlements. The Government's collected a tax, and workers still haven't got their entitlements back in full. The Government promised to claw in the executive salaries that had been overpaid to them, and they haven't done it. Seven million dollars went out the door with Ansett, and this Government's not done a thing.

He also talked about the problems with casual work and said that paid maternity leave would be delivered as a result of the efforts of the trade union movement. That's true, but I tell you what – it will not be delivered under the John Howard Government unless we put the pressure on, but it will be delivered under a Crean Labor Government, and that's what should matter to your members.

And this is why, delegates, it's all very well to get up here and talk about the proportions, and we've had some pretty interesting debates about the significance of those proportions and the history of it. But I ask those union officials to ask themselves this: are they going to be better off with another three years of Howard? Are they going to be able to fend against the anti-union attack? And why don't they get behind the commitment that we're making in terms of all of these issues? Now I know they are, but don't come along in this debate and say that what this issue is about is diminishing their influence. Don't insult us on that.

It's true your voting proportions at State Conferences in four of the States will be diminished. But I've heard the argument about Jim Bacon – and he is a great Premier, and he has had two magnificent victories, and he was a union official, and he can get elected as Premier of his State – but I tell you what, he's got a 50:50 Conference. And so have four of the State and Territories of the eight that we've got.

It's true that there's no magic about it, but what's important to rank-and-file people, what's important to the broader community is that, as strong as our relationship is with the trade union movement – and people expect it, because we are a Labor Party – they also expect us to be representing others in the community, and we must.

We must be a broader based party. We must also understand that the issues that were important to unions when I was a union official are different today than they were then. That's why we do have to move with the times. And we have to recognise that we have to build the breadth of the coalition.

Now there have been people, in the context of this review, who have argued that we should sever the ties completely with the trade union movement. I don't agree. The Labor Party wouldn't be a Labor Party without the trade union movement, and that I am firmly committed to.

But look at the track record. Look at my involvement in terms of improving the lot of working people. Look at what's been delivered through the campaigns, both in an individual union through an ACTU role and since I've been in the Parliament. I don't know any issue that we didn't develop that affected working people's lives where we didn't have the consultation with the trade union movement.

We didn't always agree; we won't always agree. But we had the consultation, we had the involvement, we had the commitment – not because there was 60:40 at the Conference. I didn't say I was going to have discussions with the trade union movement because they had 60percent at Conference or 50per cent at Conference. I have discussions with the trade union movement because they represent working people, twomillion of them.

Now that might be dismissed as irrelevant by Howard and co., but not by me. And I'll tell you what the other thing is in terms of what the trade union movement is involved in – retirement incomes - six million members now in retirement-income funds.

What's the basis of those funds? The union membership list. So for those who argue that the trade union movement is less relevant, have a look at who it represents in terms of retirement incomes, and have a look at who the only party is that's ever delivered advances in retirement incomes for the whole of the workforce, not just narrow interests in the workforce.

The Labor Party is the only party that will represent working people. It will do it whether you've got 60:40; it'll do it whether you've got 50:50. I'll do it whether you've got 10per cent versus 90, because I believe in you. I believe in you, because you represent your members. You represent working people. The Labor Party was formed to represent working people, and it will continue to represent them.

But if we're to lift our primary vote, we simply have to attract more people. And the simple proposition is this: invite them in in an equal partnership. What's wrong with an equal partnership? Why do people resist it? Why do they have problems with it? This is fundamental to our future. I say it's fundamental to our future. I believe it's fundamental to the future, otherwise I wouldn't be arguing so strongly and passionately. Otherwise I wouldn't be having arguments with people who still are friends of mine despite the fact that we have differences on this point of view.

The fact of the matter is, we as a Labor Party will continue to represent working people – but we've got to do more. Just representing working people hasn't been enough for the last three elections, and if you want to win, if you want to turn back that anti-working agenda, that anti-union agenda that Howard and Abbott go on with – and I say to Joe again, don't talk to me about Tony Abbott attacking us because of our trade union links after this vote, he's been doing it for six years, Joe, seven years. So has John Howard.

What we've got to do is to resolve here today, lay the basis for our victory in two years time, lay the basis by being a more open and more inclusive party. Not forgetting our past, but not living in our past – and recognising that the relationship with the trade union movement is about agendas, it's about objectives, it's about issues – not proportions at Conference.

I urge delegates to support this resolution. It's important for our future. It's important for the laying of the base for the next Labor Government.

(ends)