A loyal class-war warrior

A YOUNG union leader is chief defender of the mining tax.

The national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Paul Howes, is supporting the super profits tax with an ad campaign. Picture: Gary Ramage

THE Secretary of the Australian Workers' Union, Paul Howes, has taken the lead role in the labour movement's campaign in support of the government's new so-called super profits tax on mining companies.

This week he launched a series of advertisements targeting big mining companies, and their bosses in particular, for profiteering from the mining boom but not putting their fair share back into the community.

While Howes has denied it, the ads resemble class warfare. He seems to have made the calculation that the best chance of Labor retaining government, and thereby his union retaining influence over the government, is to make a populist pitch rather than argue the case for the new super profits tax as having true reforming credentials.

This will be a disappointment to many who have seen Howes as someone prepared to articulate well thought-out stands on particular issues.

Treasurer Wayne Swan is part of the AWU family, and is one of the big influences on the union's campaign in support of the mining tax. Senior Labor sources say that Howes has little time for Kevin Rudd personally, but Howes will defend Swan to the hilt.

When you talk to people about Howes, one thing most agree on is that both his finest quality and biggest failing is his loyalty to mates.

The broader issue at stake is whether the union movement of today understands the lessons of reforms from the Bob Hawke and Paul Keating eras, and, indeed, the John Howard era.

Keating always said that growing the pie was more important than how it is cut up.

If the super profits tax does what a growing number of industry experts are suggesting - reduces investment in the industry - it will do the opposite of what Keating always argued for.

Howes started out in left-wing politics as a Trotskyist, but soon decided that socialism wasn't for him.

He had core beliefs that led him to the Labor Right, where has always been seen as more the intellectual brainchild of a Hawke or a Keating than a Gough Whitlam, whom Rudd is accused of channeling (but without the convictions).

The greatness of the Hawke and Keating years was the way both men and their union counterparts, Bill Kelty in particular, stared down those in the labour movement who wanted to use class warfare to achieve reform-stifling workplace protections and archaic preservations of economic settings.

Hawke and Keating floated the dollar, deregulated the workforce and reduced tariffs, fielding more criticisms from within the labour movement than outside it.

Howes would argue that because Hawke introduced the petroleum rent resource tax on offshore mining, the moves to put a similar tax on the wider mining sector is in line with the thinking of Hawke and Keating.

But Rudd's new tax is very different. It kicks in at a lower rate, just above the government's bond rate.

Contrary to some of the rhetoric senior Labor ministers have been espousing of late, the petroleum rent tax excluded most of the northwest shelf from the tax and that region has been the highest growth area of offshore mining over the past 25 years.

There is a sense that while Howes might have talked himself into the new super profits tax being a good idea, good for his members and in keeping with the approach of the last Labor government, in reality he has come out too hard and damaged himself, if not in the eyes of those directly around him, then with those sections of the community he has spent many years trying to impress.

This might not hurt the up and coming union official in the short-term, as senior Labor strategists breathe a sigh of relief.

Howes is defending rather than attacking government policy in the lead-up to the election.

However, in the longer term his words and endorsements in this debate have tied him directly to a policy that might not survive the increased scrutiny of the economic modelling it is likely to receive.

Normally seen by many in the Labor Party as too close to sections of the business community, Howes has received significant criticism from sections of that same business community for the advertising campaign and what they now see as the likelihood that he will be a leading figure arguing the case for the government's tax between now and the next election.

Howes made a name for himself as a union official prepared to stand up to the Labor government on a host of issues, not always issues that his members would necessarily agree with him on.

He led the charge within the union movement of condemning the government for its toughening up of refugee policies, suggesting the essence of Labor's philosophical positioning should be a more humanitarian position on people fleeing distress.

While he ultimately supported the introduction of an emissions trading scheme, he only did so after furious lobbying to have energy intensive industries such as those that his members work in either excluded from the ETS calculations or given significant industry assistance packages, which they ultimately were (one of the reasons the Greens can't accept the policy).

Perhaps the most controversial position Howes has taken, one that puts him at odds with the Labor government, is his staunch support for nuclear energy in this country.

He has spoken on the issue in a number of public forums, and received front-page newspaper coverage for the stance, including in The Australian.

Rudd has ruled out a national debate on the subject, yet for years Howes has spearheaded a one-man debate within the labour movement.

And he doesn't look likely to put the issue to rest in the near future, even if he has moderated some of his language on the subject in what is an election year.

It is this track record of frank and fearless criticism of government policy when he sees fit, coupled with his perceived closeness to the business community, that took so many commentators off guard when he launched his full frontal defence of the government's super profits mining tax policy last week.

There is little doubt that the AWU's positioning in the debate would play out well among its blue-collar members (it is the largest blue-collar union in the country with about 130,000 members).

But whether the rabble rousing is actually in their best interests is another matter entirely.

The paraphernalia being produced by the AWU is a sign of how heated this debate is likely to get in coming weeks and months as the election approaches.

A brochure that went to AWU members last week carried the opening line: "Labor is going to make sure that all Australians share in the resources boom not just New York and London suits".

It carries all the connotations of wealthy business elites, foreign owned companies and class warfare at its best.

If he weren't already secure in his re-election at the next round of union elections inside the AWU you can bet Howes now is.

But for Howes his leadership of the AWU is likely to be just the first step in what many expect will be a career in politics.

While Howes left school at 15, and by his own admission had no fixed address for some time, as he attempted to cobble together a living, he is self-educated in political history and political philosophy and his political opponents would do well not to underestimate him.

At 28, he is the youngest person to become secretary of the AWU, having taken over the post after Bill Shorten entered parliament. Howes had been Shorten's deputy, but was still initially considered an outsider to secure the secretary's position.

One close friend of Howes is former head of Western Mining Co and one-time member of the Reserve Bank Board, Hugh Morgan. They have always kept their friendship relatively private.

While Morgan is "disappointed" with Howes's stance on the new tax, and "couldn't disagree more" about it, he also notes that "he is undoubtedly one of the prospective senior leadership people in this country and his maturity belies his age".

"But I think he has miscued on this and I would have preferred if the adverts weren't so personalised".

In the AWU television ads the heads of BHP and Rio Tinto are both named with pictures, as is Liberal Party donor, mining magnate Clive Palmer.

It would seem that the Labor government is becoming increasingly focused of matters of so-called fairness instead of genuine economic reform to stimulate economic growth.

That Howes has been brought into such a position shows that at least in the here-and-now of an election year he has decided to play to his members instead of what might be in their best interests.

And for a union movement struggling to retain members as more and more people move into contracting roles, the Howes approach isn't likely to see the AWU develop a broader base than what it currently has.