The Hon.
Nick Sherry, Senator for Tasmania
First Speech - 17/09/1990Mr Deputy President, I extend my congratulations on your election
to the position of Deputy President of the Senate; also, my congratulations to
Senator Sibraa on his election to the position of President. I also offer my congratulations
on the maiden speech of Senator Herron. I am not sure what it feels like to be
the first person to give a maiden speech but I certainly know what it feels like
to be the last. It is with a great mixture of humility and pride that I give
my first speech here today in the Senate. In particular, it is a great moment
for me to be representing my State, Tasmania, and also for me to be representing
my Party, the Australian Labor Party, yet again in government. The State of
Tasmania was discovered by the Dutch explorer Abel Tasman. He called the island
Van Diemen's Land. Then he sailed away and it was largely forgotten. The next
to visit Van Diemen's Land were the French explorers who left little but names
again, such as D'Entrecasteaux and Freycinet. Van Diemen's Land was a
lso
on the visiting list of the Americans and the Russians, but they were beaten by
the English, who, recognising Tasmania's geographical isolation, realised the
possibilities of a penal colony to end all penal colonies. Over the next 50 years
of first settlement, approximately 40 per cent of all the convicts that were sent
to Australia were sent to Tasmania. In touching on the theme of Tasmania's geographical
isolation, I would like to acknowledge and thank the Hawke Labor Government for
continuing to recognise the difficulties that the isolation has caused for our
State by ensuring that the freight equalisation scheme was retained in full and
unchanged in the recent Budget. Senator Newman-In real terms? Senator SHERRY-The
freight equalisation scheme is of great importance to our State. In answer to
the interjection, it was retained in real terms. I wish to draw the Senate's attention
to not just the disadvantages that are created by Tasmania being an island State,
but also the advantages. It is a State with a unique environment, a unique
history and a unique cultural background. It was that background that attracted
my parents to the State of Tasmania in the mid-1950s-my mother because she was
an English migrant who had originally settled in Sydney and found the climate
too hot to bear; my father because he wished to find a permanent position in radio
and ultimately as a television announcer.
My mother was of Scandinavian-Swiss
background. She was brought up in a fairly comfortable middle class family in
the outer suburbs of London. Her family were committed socialists. Her father
was an architect and a staunch pacifist who served four years in prison during
World War I because of his beliefs. My father, Ray, served in the other place
as the honourable member for Franklin from 1969 to 1975 and for a few short years
as the State member for the same seat. My father was born in Sydney, the son of
Spanish-Irish parents. He was born during the Great Depression. The Great Depression
was an era which caused enormous problems for most people in this country.
For my father it was a particularly difficult period because he was orphaned at
a very early age, his parents dying in a motor vehicle accident. My father's brothers
and sisters were fostered out and he was never to see them again. As an orphan
he had to struggle to feed himself and to educate himself, leaving school at the
age of 14. When my father talked about the years of the Great Depression-and he
very rarely talked about them-his comments were couched in terms of his determination
to ensure that such events never occurred again on the face of this planet.
As I mentioned earlier, it is with pride that I speak here today, but it is mixed
with sadness because my father, although he was aware that I was preselected for
what is regarded as a safe position on the Senate ticket, was not to see my election
to this place; he died late last year. I would like to acknowledge the role
that my wife, Helen, has played in supporting me through that partic
ularly
difficult period. I also acknowledge the support she has given me over the last
five years in the various roles I have played in the political and industrial
movement. Clearly, it was the influence of my family that originally led to
my interest in politics. I first stood for a political position at college in
year 12 when I was elected President of my college. It was a noteworthy election
for one primary reason-I was elected by 13 votes on Friday the 13th. Since that
day I have always considered 13 to be my lucky number. I went on to the University
of Tasmania, where I majored in political science and administration. I was Secretary
and Assistant Secretary of the Students Union. However, I was not noted for my
academic study. Like many students I found going through university without financial
support somewhat difficult. So at the end of my first year I obtained a full time
night shift job at Wrest Point Casino. During those four years my life was a whirl
of working at the casino by night, student politics by day and precious little
study in between.
My work at Wrest Point led to my activity in my trade union.
Appropriately, with a name such as Sherry, it was the Federated Liquor and Allied
Industries Employees Union of Australia. In that union I was elected as State
Secretary at the age of 23, after a four year struggle involving three ballots
and two Federal Court hearings. I then spent 10 years as State Secretary of that
union. During that time I was involved in the traditional industrial activities
that some would like us to be involved in and those on the other side would like
us not to be involved in, including a position as a Federal councillor of my union
and also as a national negotiator in a number of key industries in this country.
It was not just my union activity and industrial activity that led to my interest
in politics. Over the last 10 years I have also been deeply involved in the hospitality
industry in a number of areas, including a position on the board of manageme
nt of the college of hospitality in Tasmania, as a member of the Employment and
Skills Formation Council, as a nominee of the Australian Council of Trade Unions,
and also involved in various training organisations, including the tourism hospitality
training committee in my State. But it was in representing individual workers
and protecting them against exploitation that added to and confirmed my belief
that in our society individuals need protection, where appropriate, from those
who have greater economic circumstances. In addition to my family background
and my industrial involvement, I have been provided with inspiration by a number
of individuals in the political labour movement. I do not wish to comment on all
of them, but I simply mention one who has been particularly important to me, and
that is the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Clem Attlee. He led the
British Labour Party for 20 years, and was Prime Minister for 6 years. He was
a person not renowned for his great oratory but certainly was renowned for
his discipline and his commitment to the labour and socialist cause.
Clem
Attlee also led a government that could, quite rightly, be termed to have carried
out the most revolutionary changes in any society in economic and in social terms
in any democracy in this century. There were such changes as the National Health
Act, the Education Act, the nationalisation of a number of key industries and,
above all, the recognition that the United Kingdom was no longer a world power
and the recognition that there was a need to reside peacefully over the conversion
of an empire to a commonwealth of nations. Many of the changes that occurred at
that time would not be relevant in today's society. But Clem Attlee and his approach
to British society and to the British Labour Party provided an inspiration to
me. On my election to the Senate I take the place of Ray Devlin. At this point
I acknowledge the work that Ray did on behalf of Tasmania, particularly those
people on the north-western coast of Tasmania.
The election as a senator
is slightly less vigorous than some of the previous elections I have been through.
I have been a candidate not only in union ballots but also for the the State seat
of Franklin. The only noteworthy event to me in the Federal election was being
attacked by a dog and having it reported in the media under the headline, `Dog
takes a nip of Sherry'. There are two primary principles in the Labor movement
that I believe in very strongly and I believe separate us on this side of the
chamber from those on the other side of the chamber. The first is the Labor Party's
absolute commitment to democracy. Shortly I will come to some examples to dampen
the horrified looks of some members opposite. The other principle that I strongly
adhere to is the Labor movement's determination to protect those in less fortunate
economic circumstances in our society. In terms of the Labor movement's commitment
to democracy, I refer to a couple of examples. The first is the recent events
that
have occurred in Tasmania. As many would be aware, last year the previous
State Liberal Gray Government called an early election. Its members discovered
that 17 is not bigger than 18. But they would not give up office. They were determined
to press on and demanded another election, having just lost one. This sort
of behaviour totally discredits our democratic system. Gray is still at it: he
is still trying to have another election, calling on the Tasmanian upper House
to reject Supply, not on the basis that there has been any economic incompetence
or indeed any corruption-in fact, if one looks at the economic incompetence one
sees that it lies with the previous State Liberal Government and if one looks
at corruption one only needs to see that one of Tasmania's leading media magnates
is resident in Risdon prison-but on the basis that a school is being closed or
that a hospital is being closed. That is supposed to provide the reason for a
fresh election. The other example I wish to draw to the attention of
the chamber relates to the events of November 1975. We all know what 11 November
was traditionally remembered for prior to 1975. The only comment I make is that
on that day I swore that I would never forget.
In terms of the economic advancement
of individuals in our society, the Labor Party ensures that, at the appropriate
time and in the appropriate way, the individuals in our society are protected
from those in stronger economic circumstances. It is the Labor Party that, where
appropriate, uses the State to protect individuals in our society. I wish to give
an example of where I believe it is appropriate that that is carried out-in the
area of industrial relations. I note with interest that many of the first
speeches of Opposition senators and honourable members in the other place were
devoted to industrial relations. They talked of freeing the labour market of rigidities
and restrictions. They talked of individual employers having the ability to negotiate
freely with individual employees, onerou
s restrictions imposed by awards
being removed, and no interference from third parties such as unions and industrial
commissions. They said that, if this happened and individuals had the right to
sit down and negotiate with employers on an equal footing, it would lead to a
boost in productivity and everyone would be happy. That is far from the truth.
In reality, if we examine the bargaining power in any system such as that, we
see that it is the employer who is in the dominant position. I draw the attention
of honourable senators to an example in the hospitality industry. Imagine an employer
having the right to negotiate with individual employees, one by one. The proprietor,
flanked by his legal advisers, would call in the individual workers and engage
in this process of collective bargaining. I submit that we know what the outcome
would be. The employer would submit to the workers, `If you don't cop $6 or $7
an hour, you don't have a job; take it or leave it'. That is the sort of equity
that the Liberal
and National parties are arguing for in their industrial
relations changes. A range of problems is facing this country: the balance
of payments; public sector infrastructure, including railroads and ports; severe
regional unemployment in many areas; the distribution of wealth and the environment.
I wish to touch on a number of problems associated with education and training.
At present there are two stark ways in which we can improve the economic circumstances
of this country: one is to decrease wages and decrease conditions in order to
be more productive and the other is to increase the education and skill levels
of our workers in order to increase productivity and output. I much prefer the
latter. However, there are in this country a significant number of problems
in attaining that improvement. If we are to be a clever country, greater investment
in training and skill formation is required. At present our investment in that
area is mediocre by Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development st
andards. I draw the attention of the chamber to the Minimum Training Guarantee
Act which was enacted earlier this year as an example of a way in which this can
be encouraged. It is in the area of skill formation and training, the less glamorous
side, if you like, of the education debate to which I wish to draw attention.
In this country millions of people are locked out of the education and skill
formation structure. They are locked out because the training system in this country
is not coherent, it is not portable and it is not interrelated. Some of the problems
include a lack of appropriate formal training in many industries and a lack of
access to training including the problems of funding, functional illiteracy and
the apprenticeship scheme. I still find it incredible that one of the major
props for our training structure is the trade system-a trade system that is a
thousand years old and in many ways acts as an impediment to training in that
it restricts, by virtue of age, people being able to ob
tain apprenticeships.
It also, I suggest, has acted strongly as a disincentive to females obtaining
access to the trades system. The example I have given in the trade area suggests
that the structure of training itself does not provide sufficient flexibility
for persons to enter and continue in training throughout their working lives.
Training should be delivered in a more modular form so that, if they wish and
depending on their age and their attitude, persons can add to their training for
the whole of their working lives. Training in this country is not sufficiently
integrated. If people move across an industry or within an industry, there should
be a logical career path for them to follow. Training is not properly accredited
in many industries-a theme I will come to a little later. The quality of trainers
in many areas is very poor. Overall, training should be linked to satisfactory
career paths for individuals and also to wages and skill levels. I mentioned
earlier the problem of private provid
ers of training. Recently electors have
drawn my attention to a number of problems. Those problems concern the quality
of training offered by private providers. In my State of Tasmania-and I am sure
in many other areas of Australia-there are many private courses being promoted
by various organisations. Two within the hospitality industry have been drawn
to my attention. The providers of these private training courses talk about giving
diploma and certificate courses. They advertise the places at which these courses
are taught, such as Wrest Point. They give government registration numbers and
talk in fairly glowing terms about the future for people who undertake these courses.
The two particular courses I am talking about were drawn to my attention by a
number of electors. On checking into these hospitality training courses, I found
that neither had any formal registration and that the providers had sought registration
but had been rejected. The Government registration number in the advertisement
was not a
registration number of the training course but the membership number
of their employer association. The private providers claimed to give diplomas
and certificates. That is totally misleading. If those courses are not accredited,
the title `Diploma' or `Certificate' means absolutely nothing. The content of
the courses on evaluation is not in accord with recently established national
standards in the hospitality industry. Heavy promotion is given to the venue.
People who read the advertisements in the case of Wrest Point, which I have mentioned,
will see that it seems to indicate that Wrest Point is delivering the course.
On checking, the general manager of that establishment found to his horror that
his establishment had been booked by this training company not on the basis that
training courses were to be provided but on the basis that the training company
was having a function there. Individuals pay quite a deal of money for the
privilege of attending these courses. In this case, the individual who
came
to me had to pay $200 and, on attending the course, was asked to pay further money
for materials. When the examination was conducted at the end of the course, the
training providers and the supervisors left the room. So everyone cheated and
everyone got an A plus. Having completed this examination in which everyone obtained
an A plus, the participants were urged to go into the work force and work for
nothing to gain experience-in fact, urging individuals to breach the industrial
law. I suppose to add insult to injury from the point of view of being a Tasmanian,
on investigating and making my phone calls, which were quite difficult to make,
I found the courses are based in Sydney. It is that area of private providers
of training in which there is very little regulation or control. It is an area
that I believe needs a great deal of research and one which I have referred to
the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, of which
I am a member. The challenge that this country fa
ces, particularly in
the economic sphere, is a very difficult one. The future economy of the world
in the 1990s and well into the next century will be dominated by the Asia-Pacific
region, of which we are a part. It will also be dominated by the north Atlantic
countries as a co-dominion. We are part of the international economic system;
there is no way of avoiding that. The challenge for the Labor Party will be to
ensure that we can successfully compete against that economic system. The challenge
for the Labor Party will be to ensure that for the people of Australia this is
carried out in terms of our social justice and equity goals. The challenge for
me as a senator for Tasmania will be to ensure that those goals are carried out.
That is a challenge that I intend to meet.
| 
