Friday 24th April 1998

This on-line paper is now archived for perpetuity in the National Library of Australia

---

Subscriber's password check (have your subscription number handy)
Subscribers get free access to the monthly "The Strategy" on-line from April 1998.

Recent stories exclusive to  (how to) subscribe/rs of the Australian National News of the Day:

Maritime Union of Australia win in the Federal Court 22nd April
Just who is behind the dock war? 19th April
One Nation Birthday Party on Pauline Hanson's farm 10th-12th April
One Nation state and federal candidates meet in Toowoomba 4th -5th April
Hindmarsh Island Bridge case thrown out by High Court 2nd April
The Hindmarsh Island Bridge farce revealed 31st March
UN agrees to make our fresh water a "global commodity".... beware farmers - your fresh water dam WILL cost you! 28th March
Courier Mail's national affairs reporter Peter Charlton attacks MAI concerns and breaches ethics guidelines 28th March
The US Government's global "Cablesplice" project, fact or fantasy? 26th March

Current topical links (available to all readers):
[Links to the MAI]
[Queensland One Nation State Election website] [One Nation Federal Web Site]
Archive of weekly features (available to all readers):
[The Canberra Column] [Economic Rationalism]

Today's Headlines
an Aussie's viewpoint on Australia's first daily Internet newspaper.
Since October 1995

The full bench of the Federal Court reinstate the MUA workers

"Just as it is not unknown in human affairs for a noble objective to be pursued by ignoble means, so it sometimes happens that desirable ends are pursued by unlawful means,"
Murray Wilcox, presiding Judge Federal Court.

The High Court has prevented 1,400 Patrick Stevedores workers from being reinstated, despite the company losing an appeal against an earlier decision. The waterfront war will today move to Australia's highest court after Justice Hayne of the High Court froze the reinstatement of the workers.

Earlier, the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) claimed victory in the waterfront dispute, after Patrick Stevedores failed to win an appeal against an order to reinstate the workers.

The Full Bench of the Federal Court in Melbourne had upheld an earlier decision by Justice Tony North on Tuesday.

After four hours of deliberations involving three judges, it was evident Justice North's earlier decision was upheld, Justice Murray Wilcox quickly declaring it "free of appellable error." In giving his reasons for dismissing Patrick's appeal Justice Wilcox on behalf of two other judges said the Federal Court had the power to make the original orders. Wilcox said, "We have read and carefully considered the whole of Justice North's reasons for judgement and we find them free from appealable error."

Government reaction

Workplace Relations Minister Peter Reith says it is still unclear if MUA members will go back to work. Mr Reith says the real trial is yet to come.

But inside, Mr Reith was questioning whether the wharfies would soon be back at work. "I can only say that the administrator has been in contact with the Government to express his concerns about how he can make the court's decision work," Mr Reith said. "From the Government's point of view, the umpire has ruled on their decision for the time being, people should observe the decision and similarly the union should also observe the other decisions and other injunctions of the supreme courts in the states." Mr Reith says he will not compromise on waterfront reform. He says today's ruling was only about an appeal and there has been no decision yet on the substantive claims. Mr Reith has confirmed the Government will not fund redundancy for MUA workers if they lose their jobs because Patrick cannot afford to keep them on.

"The secretary of my department wrote to the administrator today and pointed out that we have a clear position," he said. "And that is that we will support redundancies provided they are within a process of industry restructuring, so this country can at long last have a competitive waterfront."

Unions jubilant

MUA national president Jim Donovan told workers and supporters at Sydney's Darling Harbour he welcomes the next legal challenge from Patrick.

"When it gets to the trial, you are going to be astounded at what these people did just to get what [Peter] Reith wanted from day one - a non-union labour [workforce] on the waterfront," he said. "Well, he hasn't succeeded and will he succeed in the future?" Mr Donovan asked the crowd.

The president of the ACTU, Jenny George, says the case was fought hard not just for the 1,400 sacked MUA workers, but for every worker in Australia.

The MUA secretary John Coombs described the Federal Court's decision as "another very successful day for us in this campaign to reinstate the workers to their rightful workplace".

"If these people, if these rogues could get away with their corporate scam, then no worker was safe," Ms George said. "I appeal to the Prime Minister of the nation, you must dissociate yourself from the corporate transactions and the play that's been going on ...."

Final word from the administrator of the insolvent Patrick companies, Peter Brook, through which the MUA workers are contracted, "Notwithstanding the orders that have been granted, at the moment it is unlikely that we will immediately recommence trading until we have come to a conclusion and an arrangement with the appropriate parties to make sure that our concerns are covered."

Personally I find the whole issue smells as high a kite. I have said time and again that I do not support the thuggery that is associated with the MUA and the fringe groups in the Australian Labor Party. Having said that there is a legal game being played out in the courts now where workers (irrespective of their link to a union or not) are being shown how far an employer can go to enforce unjust employment decisions.

With the involvement of the multinational Franklins group in the background behind this war the following issues need to be considered:

• The MAI will further enforce unfair practices on employees.
• No employee can, in his own right, afford to fight an employer all the way up to the High Court.
• The use of company structures (by making them insolvent) to avoid paying superannuation, and leave payments to dismissed staff is a disturbing misuse of corporate law where the holding company continues to trade after the move.
• The involvement of the government for political gain is a blatant misuse of power.

You say:

Subject: Its just not cricket.

The first test has been washed out.

Reith and Corrigan, openers for the series, showed good form early on but were out "caught behind" by the experiencd wicket keeping of Coombs.

This led to an expected middle order collapse by the inexperienced coalition team.

Early decisions had been a bit suspect but the Third Umpire clearly showed that the Openers must walk. Rain slowed play late in the day.

A party was held at the Webb dock to celebrate the efforts of the 4 pace bowlers in the Union side.

Both Reith and Corrigan may miss the next match due to their off field antics of trying to save face at the after game press interview.

The Government may start the next test with the test spinner Costello.

Ron from Swansea

Subject: Comments on Australian News of the Day

Dear Sir

A fair and just decision handed down by the Full Bench. After this decision, Reith and Corrigan still went on about Waterfront Reform while everyone else with a sane mind applauded the Courts for getting the legal issues right.

The only Lib happy at the moment would be Costello. He has a lot to gain now that Dumb and Dumber are wiping egg off their faces.

Seriously though, it is now time for Reith to resign. He has let down his own party, he got it wrong and jumped into bed with the people who brought you "Bottom of the Harbour Tax Dodges" and more importantly, he let down the Australian tax-paying workers who belong to Trade Unions.

With "bumbling ninnies" like Johnny and Pete on one side and Kimmy and Cheryl on the other, I can't see much competition for Pauline Hanson.

Hanson has picked up a lot of support from people let down by the National Party, but it would be wise if she could also see that the blue-collar worker is looking for someone other than Labour. Don't forget Pauline, Trade Unionists are Australians too.

S.E. Wagger

Subject: Comments on Australian News of the Day

Re Howard opening 2000 Olympics

Dear Sir,

jh seems to have overlooked the fact, that to open the Games, he will have to be PM.

Regards T.Benge

Subject: Oz dock strike: High(est) Court prevents IMMEDIATE reinstatement

The Oz Maritime Union is winning legal battles, but not yet with finality. After 1400 wharfies were fired, and a (State of Victoria ?) court prohibits picketing within 200 metres of the dock gate, a Federal Judge grants an order for reinstatement This was not done after trial, but seems to have been in the nature of a preliminary decision - based on claims of conspiracy and other malarky on the part of the employers, the federal government and who else? The employer appealed to the full bench, which has just declared the appealed decision to be within the first judge's power and to be not appealable on grounds of judicial error.

Now the High Court has taken over examine the question of appealability.

As I read things, there can still be a trial on the conspiracy questions. Preserving jobs is within the judicial power because the judges are ruling that there is a "genuine" chance the charges of conspiracy etc will stick when/if they come to trial.

Boy - it's amazing how fast the Oz courts can jump- the High(est?) Court gets into bizness tomorrow.

MichaelP

Subject: Statement from Te Kotahitanga Hikoi (March to Wellington)

Te Kotahitanga Hikoi
The Unity Of One Nation

MAI: Multilateral Agreement on Investment a government round-table rip-off Foreign Ownership - (who will own you?)

• What is in it for you?
• How does it affect your spending?
• How does it affect your tamariki/children?
• The political and wealthy few are making the rules to control everyone's life (no exceptions). These few only care about money, possessions and what they can control. The ultimate control-people.

MAI and the PUBLIC

• MAI has been developed without any consultation with the public.
• MAI will open up Aotearoa to foreign companies like never before.
• MAI will stop Local Bodies who want to protect local jobs, awarding contracts to local companies rather than to foreign companies.
• MAI will let foreign companies block "community loans and grants" by arguing that the government is giving community groups an unfair advantage.
• MAI will take away our property rights, our contract rights; even our intellectual property rights.

MAI and the NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT

• The NZ Government has committed itself to a global free trade system.
• Privatisation of government services is part of that.
• The sale of State Owned Enterprises is part of that.
• Signing up to GATT is part of that commitment.
• Settling Maori grievances with obscene speed is also part of that commitment.
• MAI is the final step in that process.
• The NZ Government has been secretly negotiating MAI with 28 other countries, since 1995.
• The NZ Government hopes to sign up to MAI by May 1998.
• MAI is the process by which the NZ Government, having sold everything else off already, will now sell its very own sovereignty.
• Under MAI, if a foreign company thinks that a NZ law limits their ability to invest as it wants to, the foreign company can sue the government in a special International Tribunal, BUT the government cannot sue the company !!
• MAI will give this International Tribunal greater power over NZ policy than the NZ Government
• itself.
• Once signed, we are locked into MAI for 20 years, during which time foreign companies can rape the country. If an intelligent government tried to get us out of it, they would get sued.
• MAI will open up all government agencies which have been recently privatised, like electricity companies, health authorities, local government agencies and water companies, for foreign investment and control.

MAI and the MA0RI

• MAI was developed without consultation with Maori, the indigenous people of Aotearoa
• MAI does not recognise the rights of Maori, or the Crown's obligation to honour the Treaty of
• Waitangi.
• MAI means that foreign companies can challenge any laws or regulations that have been passed or might be passed to protect Maori interests.
• MAI will turn Maori cultural and intellectual property rights into an "investment right".
• MAI will put special Maori treasures such as flora, fauna, traditional medicines, and human and animal genetic materials, onto the open market.
• MAI makes no allowances for Maori rights to broadcasting, language, education, health care, spiritual and cultural practices or anything else that we might consider important.
• MAI means more foreign investment, which in turn will make us even more exposed to economic problems offshore - such as the current Asian crisis.
• Although Aotearoa's financial, communications, media and transport infrastructure was built primarily on the basis of resources stolen from Maori, most of it is now largely in transnational hands. MAI will put whatever is left, on the block for the highest bidder.
• In the NZ economy, Maori have traditionally been the worst treated of all employees. MAI will allow foreign companies to set even harsher working and wage conditions.
• Maori have always fought for the preservation of the natural world. MAI will over-ride hard won environmental protections.

MAI and the TREATY of WAITANGI

• The Treaty of Waitangi was signed on 6 Feb 1840.
• The Treaty gave the Crown the right to govern.
• In return, the Treaty charged the Crown with guaranteeing Maori their sovereign authority over their fisheries, their forestry, their lands and other treasures, such as intellectual property rights.
• MAI does not recognise the Crown's Treaty obligations.
• MAI requires the NZ Government to settle all Treaty grievances with haste, so that when foreign investors come charging in under MAI, there will be nothing left to stop them getting control of Aotearoa's resources.
• Maori refusal to participate in the Crown's Treaty Settlement Process, is a major obstacle to the imposition of MAI.
• The Treaty is a guideline on how we should live as two nations in one country.
• The Treaty must continue to protect future Maori generations, and guide Aotearoa's future as well.

The TREATY of WAITANGI - PROTECTS US ALL

• MAI will put whatever is left, on the block for the highest bidder.
• Maori, unions, environmental groups, and people who care for the future of this country, will not be able to take cases against foreign companies under MAI.
• The Treaty should be used as a guideline on how we should live as one nation in one country.
• The Treaty will continue to protect the future of both Maori and Pakeha generations and be a guide to Aotearoa's future.
• The Treaty is a major obstacle to MAI: "a thorn in their side".

Rose Raharuhi, New Zealand

Personal trivia, from the global office:

Another perfect day in paradise.

Have a good one.

Return to Australian National News of the Day

#

See GLOBE International for other world news.