The Federal government-despite the continued economic upturn-is in crisis. Opinion polls have them roughly 5% behind Labor. All States bar two are Labor-run, and in SA and WA the Labor Opposition is ahead in the polls. Whereas capitalist governments like Tony Blair's in Britain or Labor State Government's in NSW and Victoria marry economic rationalism with a more liberal attitude to social issues, the Federal Government don't have this modern image. This is best seen in the outrageous, racist comments on the stolen generation. The backbench unease is a reflection of the views of the more forward looking layers of the ruling class, who think reactionary attitudes on such issues provoke unnecessary opposition from the population, especially youth.

The vocal opposition to the full privatisation of Telstra by Queensland National MP Bob Katter shows the growing opposition to neo-liberalism in rural Australia. Katter is a right-wing populist who may still create a new far Right party. While Beazley's Labor Opposition is more progressive on social issues, on the economic questions it openly or covertly agrees with the Government. The unofficial coalition in support of economic rationalism creates a big vacuum in Australian politics. The cynicism, anger and frustration of rural Australia and the workers and youth in the city will be tapped by something and someone.

Right wing populists will arise again, despite the current crisis of Hansonism. The progressive unions have to be pro-active. We need a new democratic workers' party to be created. The nexus between the unions and Labor is disastrous. If the millions donated to the ALP by unions was diverted into a new party it would have more resources to begin with than did One Nation in 1996. The Socialist Party would support such a party and argue within it for socialist policies.

Today, April 6th, upwards of 300 Victorian CFMEU delegates packed into their Orr Street hall and passed a "Compact" settlement of the campaign for a pay rise and shorter working week. The deal has been already been signed by FEDFA and the CFMEU (construction and general division) and Multiplex. Bovis, Walter Construction and Probuild will sign soon and it is expected that the agreement will gradually break the resistance of the remaining MBA-organised smaller builders and sub-contractors. The deal now goes to a mass meeting of members for a final endorsement where opposition is to be expected.

On the one hand the deal is better than anything achieved by the union branches interstate. We get a 15% pay rise over 3 three as in NSW, but we also get 9 "Productivity Leisure Days (PLDs)" off next year, 9 in 2002, and 13 in 2003.

Any reduction of the working week is welcome in an industry where 70-hour weeks occur and deaths and injuries are so high. Yet so much was given away in return for these well-named "PLDs". 3 of next years 9 PLDs are to be taken during the Xmas shutdown! Effectively just replacing annual leave with PLDs. In six of next year's 12 months workers will enjoy only one RDO or PLD. It's a long way from a 9-day fortnight. PLDs can be shifted around to suit the boss-except PLDs taken during the Xmas shutdown.

Going home at 35 degrees is spelt out clearly for the first time, which is a step forward. Yet the Compact allows for work to continue after 35 degrees to complete a "task or activity". The Saturday roster can apply during hot days during the week. All this is to be negotiated on a site-by-site basis. This is OK if you are on a big job with a good steward and militant workers, but out in the sticks the boss will call the shots. There is talk of reintroducing trowel boxes, which will lead to the laying off of many plasterers and increase injuries. There is to be single-time only for "housekeeping". This will hurt the already exploited labour hire workers. Often then are sent to a job to do "housekeeping". Now they loose their penalties for this work. Site allowances on the big jobs will be capped. Refurbishment jobs in the city will have a $2.30 site allowance cap. Last week on my job (a city refurbishment) we won a $2.80 site allowance. I'm only happy this Compact wasn't implemented last month!

There is no specific overtime cap. Again this is to be sorted out on a "site-by-site" basis. Sections of the leadership have criticised the ETU and Plumbers, but at least they have a 10 hour and 8 hour overtime limit. There is to be no more substitution of public holidays that land on a weekend. There will be no compensation for CityLink tolls, which affect many workers. The divisor for wages for this "36 hour week" remains 38 hours, which equals a pay cut.

The claim for an Incolink increase has been lost; the only rise will be CPI. Start and finish times "will be clarified to enable later starts in winter and earlier starts during some months of summer and during expected periods of inclement weather." When the boss expects a 35-degree day, does that mean we have to leave for work at 3am? The Compact states "(this) is the full and final settlement of all claims in relation to a 36 hour week/9 day fortnight or shorter hours in any other form than agreed in this compact". There is no time limit for this "full settlement of all claims".

Are we not allowed to fight for a 9-day fortnight ever again? While we have to cut our cloth, the Compact allows companies "additional flexibilities under the terms of their Certified Agreements". It's one rule for us, another for the bosses. Some delegates voted for this Compact because they thought it was good and this is how some union leaders sold it. This is nonsense. Other delegates and officials argued to grudgingly accept the deal warts and all as the best possible deal in the circumstances. It's one thing to vote for a deal as the best you can get at the time after a hard battle. But this campaign has been too soft on the bosses: One big rally (even then only the CBD and St Kilda Rd were involved). No overtime ban or even an overtime cap.

We don't look serious when we call for a 36-hour week, while we're working 56+ hours on some jobs during an industrial campaign. The levy collection was patchy.

No wonder some delegates thought, "well with this leadership it's probably suicide to vote the Compact down and force them into a new battle. Their heart wouldn't be in it and it would be a dog's breakfast." I didn't vote for the deal, but like a few others I didn't vote against it either. What's more important is to open up a discussion inside our two unions about the state of the leadership and the quality of the delegate structure.

We will always get a second-rate deal if we run a campaign that doesn't go in hard enough.

SP: When did you believe the breakdown occurred? Is it redeemable?

PH: All sides embraced the fudge of an Agreement and sold it to their own supporters in opposite terms: unionists as securing the link with Britain, nationalists as a step to a united Ireland. It is a form of institutionalised sectarianism with its provision that the government must always be a coalition of unionists and nationalists.

SP: The media (in Australia) portrayed the IRA as walking away over the disarmament question, was it that simple?

PH: No. The leadership of the republican movement is clearly firmly committed to the peace process. For them a return to armed struggle is not an option and they have no concept of any alternative form of struggle.

SP: What is the next move?

PH: Pressure is being put on both the republican and unionist leadership to move towards each other on this question. This could mean a statement from the IRA that 'the war is over', perhaps a clear commitment to get rid of weapons - presented as part of an overall 'demilitarisation' package. Trimble would then be pressed to let Sinn Fein back into government prior to actual decommissioning. Some other way out may arise in negotiations. If not, it is difficult to see how the Good Friday Agreement can survive.

SP: If you could have your way, what would you like to see happen in the next year?

PH: Although the Agreement is not a solution it would be preferable, from a working class point of view, to have the Assembly back. It's better than the alternative of a return to conflict. If the Assembly was restored and was to last for a longer period the real anti working class nature of the main parties would be more clearly exposed. This in turn could lay the basis for a class politics to develop. As for the peace process itself the lesson of the recent failures is that we need a real peace process, built from the bottom up, based on the unity of working class people through trade union and community organisations; and not a peace process built from the top down, based on sectarian politicians agreeing how working class people should be kept divided. There are many issues that could provoke class movements. The Harland and Wolff shipyard is facing closure. The textile industry is in severe crisis with massive job losses. The Socialist Party have been campaigning for a year on the issue of low pay and we are getting a huge response. We have been 'naming and shaming' low pay employers and are holding a demonstration on the issue in April. Our demand for a minimum wage of £5 now has cut right across the sectarian divide. There is anger over such issues but it has not yet taken the form of a search for a political alternative. Elections are likely next year and we will be pressing for some initiative by working class organisations to try and ensure that there is a challenge to the sectarian and right wing parties.

SP: In retrospect, was the peace agreement a 'pipe dream' considering current conditions in your country?

PH: The peace process came out of the huge mobilisations by working class people who repeatedly answered sectarian atrocities by pouring onto the streets demanding a halt to the killings. The problem was that this movement was leaderless and the initiative each time was handed over to the politicians. The result was an Agreement which solves nothing in the long term. There is no answer to the fundamentally divided attitudes of working class people to the national question on the basis of capitalism. A capitalist united Ireland is unacceptable to Protestants. On the other hand the status quo cannot be made permanently acceptable to the catholic working class. Only a socialist solution can win the support of both sections of the working class. This means opposition to both states in Ireland and a struggle for a socialist society. A socialist Ireland, linked in a free and voluntary federation, to a socialist Scotland, England and Wales, and achieved with the consent of both communities in the north, would at at last lay the national question to rest. A real peace process will have to move in this direction if it is to bring about a lasting settlement.

SP: What is the mood among the community?

PH: There is no general support for the idea of a return to war at the moment. There are dissidents among the paramilitary groups on both sides who would like to start up some form of military campaigns but they are a minority. The troubles began in earnest when the youth turned en masse to paramilitary methods. There is no sign of this happening at present. However if there is a prolonged impasse, or a complete breakdown of the peace process, this could change. There are many charged issues - parades for example - that could reignite sectarian anger and trigger new attacks. The working class needs to be alert to this danger and be prepared to return to the streets to oppose any return to the paramilitary campaigns of the past.

In 1986 the Equal Opportunities for Women Act was passed but today statistics continue to show that, on average, women still earn less money than men, have less choices about where to work and are employed in traditionally under-valued jobs such as the service, hospitality and 'caring' industries and assembly line work. The ridiculous argument that women are taking men's jobs is the same as saying that migrants are to blame for loss of jobs - both are just an excuse for the inadequacy of the bosses' system to provide jobs for all.

Even if women get into positions of power, conditions do not necessarily improve. Women like Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Amanda Vanstone and Bronwyn Bishop just support their own class and have done less than nothing to improve the lot of working class women - they only help the rich get richer. The myth that women can't do the same jobs as men because of the lack of physical strength was seen not to be true during both world wars as women were used in every major industry. The attitude of the bosses and governments to providing decent childcare soon changed when they needed women workers to keep the war materials and profits flowing.

Women still had to fight for decent conditions and equal pay. The industrial power of women in 1941 meant that bosses were forced by a two-week strike in the textile industry to improve women's wages to 64% of average male wages. By the end of the war in 1945 women were earning 75% of a man's wage. But as men came back from the war the bosses and governments changed their tune and childcare was taken away. Suddenly women were told to go home and have babies in the "populate or perish" campaigns. In the 1940s and 1950s Aboriginal people became active in struggle and led several strikes on stations to get wages. They were forced to work for no pay! Today Aboriginal women continue to be the most disadvantaged group in society.

Women are still limited in their educational choices and job options for many reasons including society's expectations of what is 'suitable' work or careers for women. The Howard government's ruthless attacks on slashing benefits has further cut back on the limited choices women may have had in the past. The cost of course fees and not being able to afford childcare further stifles their choices. For single mothers on pensions the impossibility of making ends meet while trying to study is a real barrier.

Employers won't change their attitudes to women unless they are forced. It suits big business to have women workers hired on a casual or part-time basis thereby allowing them to provide lesser conditions (benefits, no holiday pay, sick pay, maternity leave provisions) and so make more profits. Whilst the increased casualisation of the workforce over the past decade has meant many more males are now employed on a casual basis than previously, women still make up the majority of casual workers.

For migrant women the choice of jobs is even more limited. Major cuts to education have meant that previously underfunded language courses hav been whittled back to virtually nothing. This lack of educational opportunities has further disadvantaged many migrant women who already make up higher unemployment and underemployment rates than other women.

The main reason that women give for having to do part time or casual work is 'family commitments'. When men are asked why they work part time the main reason is to 'accommodate further study time'. If lone mothers don't have a choice to return to work it means they are trapped in poverty. Single mothers have the highest rate of unemployment nationally. Women have to balance work commitments with home responsibilities. The unpaid housework that most women do means that their whole lives are spent doing 'work' of one kind or another. As history shows, the only way to affect change is to fight for it.

Women should join their appropriate union and take an active role in their workplace. It's much harder to fight alone against the bosses. Being in a union means that groups of workers can organise much more effectively to fight for better conditions. In order to facilitate the maximum involvement of women in the union movement, union meetings outside work hours need to have creche facilities and safe transport provided.

While legislation is important, it is the continued pressure from women and men organised and fighting together that will have the most effect on wages, jobs and conditions. Unless discrimination against oppressed groups by bosses is stopped, the only victors will be the employers.