From Industrial Relations to Personal Relations:
The Coercion of Society

The End of Provincialism?

Bill Kerley

Introduction

The Industrial Relations Reform Act has been called the most radical change in industrial relations since the establishment of the system in 1904.1

Certainly the IR Reform Act has many complex and far reaching effects on bargaining, the right to strike and the functions of industrial awards and enterprise agreements.

However, I believe that the combined effects of the new termination of employment provisions and the already existing provisions of the IR Act regulating awards and conditions present a formidable attempt to transform social relations in ways that were never envisaged under the original head of Commonwealth power, the conciliation and arbitration power.

Today I shall discuss the operation of the termination of employment provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1988, (the IR Act) which are designed to prevent discrimination at the point of termination. (Part V1 A (Minimum Entitlements of Employees) Division 3, Termination of Employment and took effect from 30 March 1994.

I will then comment on possible responses to the legislation, with particular reference to anti-discrimination, and finally chance my arm by being a bit provocative about the social and cultural attitudes that have made such intrusive legislation possible.

Part 1 The Legislation

International law dominates this area.

(Part V1 A (Minimum Entitlements of Employees) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1988, deals with the imposition on employers of obligations relating to minimum wages, equal pay, termination of employment, parental leave and leave to care for immediate family.

S 170AA provides that Division 1 of Part V1 A (Minimum Wages) gives effect to the Minimum Wages Convention, the full title of which is, you will be interested to know, the Convention Concerning Minimum Wage Fixing with Special Reference to Developing Countries, which puts Australia in some strange company.

Division 3 of Part V1 A concerns Termination of Employment.

The object of Division 3 is to give effect to the 1982 ILO Termination of Employment Convention and Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1982.

Paragraph 170CA(2) informs us also that without limiting the above object, the references in paragraph 170DF(1)(f) to sexual preference, age and physical and mental disability have been included in order to give effect to, or further effect to, the Convention concerning Discrimination in respect of Employment and Occupation, which is also set out in a schedule to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act 1986, and to give effect to the Recommendation on Discrimination (Employment and Occupation), 1958 ILO Recommendation 111. Provisions in this Division also give effect, or further effect, to the Family Responsibilities Convention, and the Workers With Family Responsibilities Recommendation, 1981 as set out in a schedule to the IR Act.

The grounds on which an employer is proscribed from terminating employment are set out in subsection 170DF(1). They include a number of matters such as temporary absence, union membership or non-membership, (which is thrown out as a bone to opponents of compulsory unionism).

Paragraph 170DF(1)(f) proscribes an employer terminating an employee for reasons of:

race, colour, sex, sexual preference, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin.

A rather omnibus provision. It raises serious questions about the relationship between these provisions and the plethora of other federal and state anti-discrimination law. There is also the uncertainty over whether international case law pertaining to decisions based on these conventions will be relied on by our Courts. Has this been considered and debated extensively? I think not.

There is considerable doubt whether the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, (the Commission), will be willing, or have the capacity, to give guidance on these issues, and the extent of that guidance.2

The provisions here are related to other measures to enforce non-discrimination. For instance, Section 93 of the IR Act requires the Commission, in carrying out its functions under the Act, to "take account" of the principles embodied in the Racial Discrimination Act, 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and Disability Discrimination Act 1992, acts "relating to discrimination in relation to employment".

Section 93 in effect warns the Commission not to make discriminatory award provisions and to encourage the parties to proceedings before it to take account of equal opportunity principles.

S 93 A requires the Commission in the exercise of its functions to take account of the principles embodied in the ILO's Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention 1981 (No 156)---especially those relating to preventing discrimination against workers with family responsibilities and "helping workers to reconcile their employment and family responsibilities".

The Commission is required to refuse to certify an agreement or endorse an enterprise flexibility agreement which contains provisions which discriminate on grounds of "race, colour, sex, sexual preference, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin" (SS 170MD(5), 170ND(10)).

Furthermore, it is required by S 113(2A) to take the necessary action to remove any discrimination in an award which has been referred to it under S 50 A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), and which the Commission considers to be discriminatory. It is also required to remove any discriminatory provisions it may identify in the course of its periodic review of awards under S 150 A.

Previously the parliament had tried to quarantine awards and agreements from the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). Now it has not only removed the exclusion, but it has made the IR Act and the Commission a major enforcer of those Acts through its powers to make reinstatement or damages orders.

I should also note that Division 2 of Part VI A enables an employee, a relevant trade union, or the Sex Discrimination Commissioner (S 170BD) to apply to the Industrial Relations Commission for an order to ensure that "for employees covered by the orders, there will be equal remuneration for work of equal value" (S 170BC(1)).

This is one of the "safety net" provisions which were introduced in response to the perceived inadequacies of the Victorian Employee Relations Act 1992. It also derives its constitutional validity from the external affairs power in S 51(xxix) of the Constitution, on the basis that the Act is implementing the "anti-discrimination conventions" (as defined in S 4(1) of the Act) together with ILO Recommendations Nos 90 and 111 (S 170BA).


Enterprise Bargaining

The rules of the Commission are soon to be amended to provide that applications for the certification of an agreement, or to approve the implementation of an enterprise flexibility agreement, must state the number of employees who are covered by the agreement, and the number of those employees who are women, young persons, or persons whose first language is not English. This is to "assist in monitoring the gender impact of enterprise bargaining".

A data base on certified agreements and enterprise flexibility agreements has also been established and the Commission will report publicly on the results on a quarterly basis.

The review of awards under S 150A will provide a further opportunity for the Commission to make public comment on discrimination and pay issues.

Employers continue to be very critical. All the major representative bodies in the small to medium size business sector told the Minister for Small Business, Senator Schacht, recently that the termination provisions in the new Act are of major concern to their members.

In response to such pressures the government did legislate in the Industrial Relations Amendment Act (No 2) 1994 to amend part V1 A Division 3 so that non-award covered employees earning over $60,000 per year were excluded from the coverage of the termination of employment law to provide that the onus of proof is not borne by the employer in all matters, and to award compensation where the court thinks reinstatement is "impracticable".


Related Human Rights Legislation

There is a belief that because equal opportunity statutes exist in each state and have done so for some time without dire consequences, along with already existing federal EEO and Affirmative Action legislation, there is no reason to fear the further extension and elaboration of anti-discrimination measures into the mainstream industrial relations scene and the IR Act itself.

Such a belief is misconceived.

The inclusion of these provisions directly in the federal industrial law system greatly extends their influence and authority because the whole system of work is affected by being dragged into industrial disputes before the AIRC, rather than just being in an argument with the anti-discrimination bodies.

The reality is that powerful interests in the union movement and the ACTU are likely to take increased interest in employers in major fights over discrimination issues. Even BHP has not done very well in defending charges of discriminatory employment practices in the past.

Usually greater costs are associated in defending such difficult termination matters, and most importantly there is a sort of exponential effect involved. There are so many other agencies that have a piece of the action, because anti-discrimination powers are so widely shared, that a much more elaborate and entrenched set of interests with highly emotive agendas are involved.

And the law continues to widen the net.

For example, under 1992 amendments to the federal Sex Discrimination Act, new awards and industrial agreements are no longer exempted from that Act's prohibition against discrimination, and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has just done a study which not surprisingly finds that hundreds of industrial awards are in breach of anti-discrimination provisions, and these are awards, imagine the award free sectors.3

This report will influence the Commission's deliberations and so on and so on infinitum.

Part 2 The Use of International Law

The enlarged ambit of the external affairs power developed through a range of High Court decisions, has become familiar to us. As you will be aware the High Court has held that the external affairs power comprehends any matter which is the subject of a treaty or other international instrument to which Australia is a party, or even any matter which is of international concern, whether or not that matter otherwise falls within the Commonwealth's powers.4

Prior to 1993 the external affairs power had been used to enact anti-discrimination laws that applied inter alia to acts done in relation to employment.

However it is only with the Industrial Relations Reform Act that the extensive use of international instruments relating to social affairs and human rights have directly entered the industrial relations scene although they have been in the background for quite some time.

Important criticisms have been made of the general application of United Nations standards, including ILO Conventions and Recommendations by a number of members of this Society and politicians.5

It is important to recall that even the Hancock Report had warned against the use of the external affairs powers in industrial relations. The Hancock report stated that to use the power would be fraught with risks of uncertainty and instability because of the disharmony between the Commonwealth and the States that would be likely to develop.6

As some writers have pointed out, the ILO process is corrupt and manipulated by those in the position to manipulate it either for or against those subject to a complaint about their labour standards.

Not that this is always a bad thing for Australia, and what a paradox that well placed Australians at the ILO were so important in defending Australia's position when Australia was the subject of a freedom of association complaint by the International Airline Pilot's Association in 1989.

I am sure we are all grateful for their efforts

But the power of international agencies is very great, and even the Thatcher government went to extraordinary diplomatic lengths to try to prevent being censured by the ILO in regard to one major case where it had banned union membership at a high level government security installation and had been taken to the ILO and the European Court over it.

The crucial fact about the use of the ILO Conventions and recommendations is that they will be used for political reasons whenever convenient. After years of running an industrial relations system that enforced compulsory arbitration, and consequently clearly breached ILO Convention No 98, Freedom To Organise and Right to Bargain Collectively, the government announced that it was paramount to legislate to repeal S 45D and E of the Trade Practices Act, because the ILO Committee of Experts had found that the law was inconsistent with freedom of association and the right to strike.7

Continuing the spirit of consultation and co-operation, Senator Cook took action to ensure Australia ratified the Termination of Employment Convention, No 158, without the full agreement of all States.

Part 3 The Effect of the Anti-Discrimination Measures on the Labour Market

The inflexibilities in the labour market that will result from the new provisions and the serious deficiencies in the IR Reform Act have been comprehensively described by commentators, a number of whom are here today8 and have much greater wisdom on this.

I will make only a few points.

First a wages break out would mean employers in some sectors, mainly manufacturing, will need to reduce their labour force. The anti-discrimination provisions are designed to make it as difficult as possible to reduce labour. In the blue collar work-force, where new arrivals in Australia are always heavily represented, employers or their representative organisations will be involved in extensive payouts and litigation as unions threaten action on the basis of the new provisions.

Secondly, this is a new field in which to gain leverage. It is so easy to drum up a case of discrimination to trot out before the Commission. Think of the increased power of officials to investigate, interrogate and gather evidence of politically incorrect statements or attitudes on the part of management, and to state a relationship between such statements and labour turnover.

The inefficiencies and unfairness of the present system will be felt by minority groups.

Where a part of the workface is less in demand (because of lower skills, less enthusiasm, or because employers or other workers do not want to work with them), an artificially imposed wage rate, such as that now imposed by the award system, will increase the unemployment rate of such groups more than the general rate of unemployment. This is because, when faced with a surplus of applicants for jobs, those applicants considered less employable or desirable will be most rejected and unsuccessful in gaining jobs.

Experience indicates that groups less in demand for various reasons, can be employed as much as other workers if the price they can be employed at reflects their productivity.9 The government has created the problem, through minimum wage laws, and is now attempting through these and a range of other provisions in the IR Act and related Acts, to correct it.

If we had a freer labour market I believe we would be closer to a situation where work relations were conducted more clearly on the basis of employees' skills and abilities to contribute to particular work tasks. More informal labour markets involving contractual obligations are usually characterised by high involvement of ethnic minorities, in my experience anyway.

Sometimes those skills and abilities will be derived specifically from an employee's background and will be valued for that reason. Employers who choose not to employ members of particular racial or ethnic groups presumably do so because they believe the costs to them, physic or otherwise, outweigh the benefits.

Other employers who choose to use that labour, and often bringing out and providing scope for the abilities of such employees, would be able to obtain much more benefit, have more productive and happier employees, thereby demonstrating the potential of employing members of such groups. But this depends on a much freer market operating.

But providing a complaints based legal framework, controlled by unions of predominantly Anglo-Irish and Scottish officials and government investigatory bodies to examine employment and impose penalties, is not going to improve the labour market outcome for Australia's new arrivals.

Concerning the investigation of complaints, I note the unfortunate situation Ms Quentin Bryce, the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner, found herself in recently. After being accused of acting in a discriminatory way herself, in relation to the investigation of a complaint, Ms Bryce recently told a reporter that she felt isolated, that her senior colleagues like Dr Brian Burdekin were distant, and she "felt there was a lack of support from where she might have expected it".10

  • She was exonerated from any wrongdoing but investigations by her agency have unfairly, or for trivial reasons, put many others under much greater pressure.

Senator Julian McGauran said in a Press Release on 25 August 1994, stress leave for APS staff now amounted to over $24 million in the last two years. He thought that, despite the economic recovery in the economy and better working conditions, the APS staff seem to "have become emotionally frail in the face of low level workplace issues ".

These "low level workplace problems" have included large doses of concerns over being subject to claims of being discriminatory or sexist, or racist. The extensive public service regulations under the Public Service Act, proscribing discrimination have been a major cause of unhappiness, stress and poor work relations in the APS. These regulations are exactly the same as those now in the Industrial Relations Act.

The effect was always going to be probably worse in the public service but we are likely to see an increasing trend to workplace injury and stress in the private sector.

Lastly I should mention the obvious, the enormous increase in bureaucratic complexity when imposing from above attempts to control who is employed. The Supported Wage System is an example. In this system a disabled person is assessed against the minimum classification standards in the relevant award in the industry he/she wishes to be employed in, and then can be employed at a pro rata award wage rate, but receives a supplement from the federal government to supplement the wage up to full award rates. Employers receive payments for employing the worker of $1000 per placement.

The idea at least is an advance in that it recognises that rates of pay should be more closely related to individual capacities.

The complexity of the process is mind boggling. The system is locked into the IR framework and all agreements have to be registered with the Industrial Registrar who will refer the agreement to the relevant union if the union was not already a party to the wage assessment that needed to be done.

What happened to privacy in regard to one's wage and work. Apparently the disabled aren't entitled to it.

The Supported Wages System is complex, union controlled, rigid and combined with the usual disadvantages of a dependency on government subsidies, has combined every conceivable disadvantage into such a scheme. Why is it there? So the government is seen to be responding to lobby groups in the ways that such groups demand, through the award system.

There has got to be better ways to get the disabled into jobs. How is it best done?

We must show where a freer, more open system, which values people as individuals and not as categories or subsidised labour units, will have the flexibility and imagination to create work and opportunities for the disabled.

Part 4 Confronting the Legislation

A. Demand Accountability and Explanation

The anti-discrimination provisions will only be sustained by their vagueness and high sounding nature grounded in seemingly universal human rights principles. But if forced to face the consequences of them in individual cases, enthusiasm is likely to decline. Although there will always be people with certain views, it is likely that many claims of discrimination will be so palpably untrue or frivolous that social policy is of great significance.

The myth of the true believers carries with it the negatives of a dislike of free markets and the notion that Australians who employ others, ie the "non true believers", are untrustworthy unless regulated closely in their social and industrial relationships.

The government's social policy framework is greatly assisted by the attack on economics and economic thinking at every opportunity by academics.

The story is familiar to you. The economic rationalists do not care about people, even the bureaucracy is concerned only about economic outcomes, with the Liberals completely beyond the pale (ie the Pusey thesis).11

One example is as follows:

Prof James Walter (School of Humanities, Griffith University), in a prestigious address at Parliament House, Canberra in the Parliamentary Lecture Series in September this year said:

"the preoccupation with the economic above all other things has made it more and more difficult to talk about what is purely political".

He believes that in Australia there is no interest in social ideas, but only cold hard economic rationalism and a neglect of social values or debate about social principles.

But of course overseas there is a healthy debate and a clear shift away from the dreaded free market and keen pursuit of economic goals alone. He sees this shift even in conservative circles, and in this regard he cites "Reinventing Civil Society" from the Institute of Economic Affairs in England as evidence of the shift in thinking.

He thinks there is no politician in Australia who is capable of conceiving social policy, because political thinking has been lost in the dominance of economic rationalism in the 1980s.

He goes on

"neither Costello or Downer offer better hope despite both professing an attachment to softer liberalism---the sort of liberalism that will attend to people's needs as well as to market demands."

He of course sees no relationship between the satisfaction of needs and market forces. Professor Walter is concerned about the failure of politics, and at least here I agree with him. But the failure of the politics he conceives of is a politics of greater regulation and social control. The failure of the politics I am talking about is the failure to confront the theories of social control that dominate social policy.

The social control in the IR Reform Act and other social legislation, is apparently not in Professor Walter's view about politics or ideas, but just what?

Such thinking is dangerous because it totally misleads about the extent of the control of social affairs that we are subject to at work.

It is necessary to rekindle public and political interest in social ideas and by defending the rights of ordinary people to conduct their working lives without the sanctions enforced by centralised rules that place impossible burdens on them to act in ideal ways.

Incidentally, I cannot leave the subject of Professor Walter's talk without sharing with you the following exchange that occurred at question time during this lecture:

A questioner: "I have noticed---just as a general member of the public and a former public servant--- that where there has been a university person, suddenly the level of incisive thinking in the debate has risen markedly ... I wonder if university people such as yourself have considered popularising some of your ideas?

Prof Walters: "I think that is a fair comment".


B. The End of Provincialism?

There is another myth in a constant state of re-enforcement. That is the myth making associated with Australia's status as a so-called provincial society.

But to the liberal left, and I believe to others as well, being provincial has had a connotation of inferiority.


Developing the Myth

This fear of provincialism is a long running concern from both left and right in Australian intellectual life, and has been expressed in much of Australian literature and history from different political perspectives.

While writers like A A Phillips, John Pringle, Vincent Buckley and others decried Australia's mediocrity, and the real or alleged philistine standards of the Australian working and lower middle classes, at the same time conservative opinion leaders were also censorious of Australian ways and cringed to British taste and standards (Hugo Wolfsohn, The Ideology Makers 1966).

A new generation of scholars began work in the sixties to demolish our thriving social democracy by decrying Australian provincialism in architecture (Boyd, The Australian Ugliness) political ideas, (McQueen and many others), and cultural life.

Thus Barry Humphries played to full houses consisting of the conservative middle classes as well as their labour voting sons and daughters.

The genuinely new and innovative was neglected in cultural life by both left and right elites and the more damaging the critique of Australian society, the higher on a pedestal the writer was raised.

Intellectuals continue the myth of Australian provincialism in its new forms.

I earlier cited Professor Walter on the necessity to look overseas for political ideas. In 1988 in a book he co-edited with Brian Head he wrote that Australians have always meekly accepted the views of critics that intellectual standards are set and innovations occur elsewhere.12 (Well if so perhaps he believes it himself and says so in his addresses).

On the fear of provincialism, it was instructive that of all the things that could have been said about the work of the great Karl Popper at the time of his death one parliamentarian (perhaps the only one who paid tribute to him in the parliament), chose to speak of Popper's concern about provincialism.

Barry Jones' tribute included a reference to Popper's alleged concern with provincialism and his recognition that it is necessary "to look beyond what is done at home".

Indeed Popper wrote of far more important things including his demolition of closed systems of thought, but in this country his reference to provincialism resonates with opinion leaders.


The Myth becomes the reality?

Of course we can take different views on whether Australians have indeed suffered from a fear of provincialism, or suffered from a cultural cringe.

Whether there really was such a cringe is a very complex problem, and I pay tribute to the late Leonard Hume's brilliant rebuttal to the cringe theorists, and his explanation for what he sees as the invention of the myth, published in 1993 by CIS.

Indeed, as Hume said, the cultural cringe may have been invented to serve political ends but Professor Walter and other intellectuals, and policy makers continue to give it potency through the willingness to accept the imposition of international law to regulate and control social behaviour on the basis not of our own traditions, but on overseas models of cultural standards and behaviour.

We have had the myth of the true believers come to fruition with Labour's 1993 election victory.

Now we have the myth of the cultural cringe and the eternally provincial society made real by the wholesale imposition of international human rights and labour law instruments, simply introduced directly into our labour law and social policy bringing with it the corpus of law, definition and interpretation in other places by international jurists and international bureaucrats.

I believe human rights law imposed on such a basis cannot lead to real rights based on mutual respect for difference, an appreciation of different skills or outlooks or a genuine understanding of the needs of others. It leads to stereotyped thinking about people in categories, and the application of irrelevant solutions adopted from elsewhere.

Only home grown solutions work, as Roger Kerr of the NZ Business Roundtable indicated in his Tasman Institute address recently in Melbourne. New Zealand's success in improving the lives of all its people including minority groups, was a result of their own thinking and experience about what worked and what didn't and by studying what was happening in Australia and elsewhere, not by introducing a new set of international law in the name of human rights.

Resist these myths because the PM's intuitive understanding of their potency has allowed him to calculate that Australians will welcome the huge corpus of international labour and human rights law that now dominates our law.

And to compensate the political and labour elite for having to live in our provincial society, we have delivered our social policy and labour laws into the hands of the ILO.

A republic created on such a basis could not be an Australian republic, but a new province for the ILO.

But provincialism has been a terror to so many Australians of all political views.

On our narrow and rocky road to the republic of Australia, the government and our intellectual leaders want to use internationalism to conquer our provincialism.

To conquer it with a vengeance.


Bibliography


Books

Bork, Robert, The Tempting of America :The Political Seduction of the Law, Sinclair---Stevenson, Great Britain, 1990.
Carny, S, Labour In Accord,: Politics and Industrial Relations Under The Hawke Government, Sun Books,1988.
Creighton, B and Stewart, A, Labour Law : An Introduction 2nd Edition, Federation Press 1994.
Garvey, G (1994b) The Market For Employment, Centre for Independent Studies, 1994
Macken, J, Australian Industrial Laws: The Constitutional Basis, 2nd edition, The Law Book Company, Sydney, 1980.
McCallum, R C, Pittard, M J & Smith, G F, Australian Labour Law, Cases And Materials, 2nd edition Butterworths Sydney 1990.
H R Nicholls Society, Arbitration In Contempt, Melbourne, 1986
Norington, B, Sky Pirates: The Pilots' Strike That Grounded Australia, ABC Books, NSW, 1990.
Thomas Sowell (1994), Race and Culture ; A World View, Basic Books, 1994,


Articles

Garvey, G (1994a) 'Why Labour Is No Different', Agenda, Volume 1 no 15-13.
Senator Rod Kemp,(1994), International Tribunals and the Attack on Australian Democracy, Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of Samuel Griffith Society; see also Bulletin 11/10.94 'UN Rules, OK')
Sloan, J (1994) An Economist's Guide to the Industrial Relations Reform Act, Agenda, Volume 1 no 1 13-25.
Wolfsohn, H (1966) The Ideology Makers in Australian Politics : A Reader, H. Mayer (Editor).Cheshire, Melbourne.
Professor James Walter, (1994) "What has happened To Political Ideas" Papers on Parliament No 23, Parliaments and Constitutions Under Scrutiny, September 1994, Department of the Senate, Parliament House, Canberra.
Business Review Weekly Article by Nick Way, February 28 1994, IRC Told To Tackle A Delicate Task, The Weekend Australian , November 1994


Reports

"Recent Developments in Regulation and its Review" Industry Commission 1993
Hancock, 1985, Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, Report of the Committee of Review, 3 vols, vol 2 p 350 ,1985
Sex Discrimination In Queensland Awards : A Review, AGPS. 1994


Notes:

1 For instance by Adrian Morris Partner, Blake Dawson Waldron at a Seminar on the new legislation April 1994, Canberra

2 Concern about this has been widely raised since the Act was passed. (See for example Business Review Weekly article, 28 February 1994, IRC Told To Tackle A Delicate Task)

3 Sex Discrimination In Queensland Awards : A Review, AGPS. 1994.

4 Koorwarta v Bjelke-Peterson (1982) 153 168; Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1; Richardson v Forestry Commission of Tasmania (1988) 164 CLR 261; Polyukhovich v Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501.

5 Eg Senator Rod Kemp (1994). This Society heard an important paper on the ILO by Colin Howard at its 1994 AGM.

6 Hancock Report 1985 vol 2 page 350.

7 Senator Cook, Minister for Industrial Relations Press Release 19 August 1993.

8 Sloan, 1994, Garvey, 1994.

9 See Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture : A World View, Basic Books, 1994, pp 94-5.

10 (Weekend Australian November 19-20).

11 His Book Economic Rationalism in Canberra has reached icon status amongst the left.

12 Head H & Walter J Eds (1988) Intellectual Movements and Australian Society, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1, 2, viii, cited in Hume L J, Another Look At the Cultural Cringe, CIS Occasional papers 45, 1993.

Why HR Nicholls?

More...