From Industrial Relations to Personal Relations:
The Coercion of Society
The End of Provincialism?
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
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
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).
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
- Bork, Robert, The Tempting of America :The Political
Seduction of the Law, Sinclair---Stevenson, Great
- 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,
- McCallum, R C, Pittard, M J & Smith, G F, Australian
Labour Law, Cases And Materials, 2nd edition Butterworths
- H R Nicholls Society, Arbitration In Contempt,
- 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,
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
- Wolfsohn, H (1966) The Ideology Makers in Australian
Politics : A Reader, H. Mayer (Editor).Cheshire,
- 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
The Weekend Australian , November 1994
"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,
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,
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
5 Eg Senator Rod Kemp (1994). This Society heard
an important paper on the ILO by Colin Howard at its
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