Policing of Industrial Action in Australia

Authors Avatar

Emily Greco

19882785

CJC2001

Throughout history, protests in Australian have been controlled in many different ways by respective police forces. History suggests that the police in industrial disputes in Australia are not politically neutral and consistently take the side of the employer and the government. This will be critically accessed and examples will be looked at to support the fact that while traditionally police have taken the side of employers in today’s modern world the police are acting more and more as neutral bodies in industrial disputes by keeping the peace. First, the Clunes riot will be looked at in which we will see an obvious side with the employer also seen in the 1928 waterfront dispute, which will follow. The APPM dispute will then be looked at followed by the 1998 waterfront dispute and it will be seen that policing of industrial disorder has in fact changed and policed are acting more as neutral peacekeepers.

The role the police in controlling unlawful behaivour on a picket line has never has been clearly defined. For the same reason, which makes courts reluctant to interfere with industrial disputes the police, have been reluctant to appear to be siding with one side or the other even in circumstances of clearly unlawful behaivour. (Willis 2000:133) In December 1873 however, armed police intervened in an industrial dispute at Lothair Mine Clunes to assist in breaking the strike. The miners had gone on strike for improved wages and working conditions. All work at the mine had stopped for fourteen weeks and the mine directors too action to break the strike by introducing Chinese labour. On December 9, five coaches loaded with Chinese miners traveled from Ballarat to Clunes with an escort of sixteen armed police (Haldane 1995:76). The convoy was met by two thousand protestors who had “erected barricades and armed themselves with brickbats”. What followed was an assault on many of the Chinese strikebreakers and a number of police officers. (Haldane 1995:76)

 

It was later argued by the Ballarat courier (cited in Baker 1999C:5) that the Lothair directors alone should have been responsible for conveying the Chinese and should not have involved the police. According to the Ballarat Courier, Chief Commissioner Standish of the Melbourne Club was too close with the Government and the directors of company, which resulted in the use of police for the Lothair mines needs. (Ballarat Courier cited in Baker 1999C:5)

The Herald (cited in Baker 2001A:28) claimed, “The duty of police is to preserve the peace and not to provoke a breach of it”. However, the police at Clunes “no only escorted the foreigners but sought to force a way for them”. The Herald argued police as spectators “are instructed under no circumstances whatsoever to appear as partisans in strikes and are told not to interfere on one side or the other until a breach of the peace is committed.” (Baker 2001A:28) In the Clunes strikes, this was definitely not the case.

The Herald (cited in Baker 2001A:28) maintains that the “great mistake” of the police was they “took the law into their own hands and sought to force the men off the road” and the police should merely have used the law to punish those offenders who had placed an obstruction on the public highway.

Join now!

 As it can be seen in the Clunes case, the police were not politically neutral and did take the side of the employer and government. This was a result of the police commissioner rumored to be in cohorts with the government and the Lothian mines themselves.

An instance similar to that of the Clunes strikes was the 1928 wharf disputes. In 1928, an award was imposed by the government favourable to the industrial policy of the Federal Government but not to the workers consequently the Waterside Workers' Federation (WWF) rejected it. By 11 September, ninety ships around the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay