Primarily the workers were fighting for a union agreement which included a decent pay rise, job security and improvements to health and safety – particularly they wanted an end to the constant bullying and harassment that takes place on a daily basis.

In the end they won a union agreement which included a 4% pay rise each year for the next 2 years, the right of casuals to be made permanent after 6 months, site rates for contractors, increased redundancy compensation and improved rights for union delegates. Hopefully this last condition will assist in organising on the job to improve health and safety.

Many members of the Socialist Party attended the picket regularly and were particularly impressed by the resolve of the mainly migrant workforce. For many of the workers it was a case of ‘win this dispute or lose your job’. The Baiada workers have clearly set an example of the type of boldness that the entire trade union movement needs to adopt.

Unfortunately the boldness shown by the workers was not always matched by the leaders of the National Union of Workers (NUW) – the union that covers the poultry industry. It must be said that due to their political weaknesses, the leaders of the NUW made a number of strategic mistakes which only served to prolong the strike unnecessarily.

From the point of view of strengthening the union in the shop, and in the industry, it is important to try and keep strikes as short as possible. When workers are able win while loosing the least amount of money possible it gives them confidence to continue the struggle once they are back on the job. This has to be a primary consideration for any organiser worth their salt.

Disappointingly this did not seem to be at the top of the NUW leader’s minds. Rather they seemed to mistake the strike for a protest or a media stunt. For example on the first night of the dispute the workers mood was extremely militant with the main chant being “nothing in, nothing out”. There was a clear determination to shut down the plant completely in order to put maximum pressure on the boss.

Despite the chants the NUW organiser did a deal with the boss late at night to let 15 trucks out of the plant. The meeting that was conducted to discuss this matter was a farce and ignored the long held labour movement tradition of democratic discussion and a vote on all major decisions.

In the end the decision to let the trucks out was undemocratically pushed through to the utter dismay of the members – some were even in tears.

The workers understood that refusing to let the trucks out gave them an important bargaining chip. Some said openly that by letting the trucks out the union organisers had set the strike back days. When questioned about this tactic by a member of the Socialist Party, the NUW organiser responded by saying “It doesn’t even matter, the media is not here anymore.” (!)

Many members complained throughout the dispute that they were frustrated at the lack of regular meetings and report backs from the union leaders. Many members were also frustrated about the fact that the union seemed to have no real strategy to stop the company doing production and distribution from other sites.

It was clear that the company was using a cold storage facility around the corner to store and distribute stock. Initially there were plans to organise a ‘community’ solidarity picket at the facility but the NUW leaders called the action off on no less than four occasions. The solidarity picket was subsequently replaced by a community BBQ.

Community BBQs are good for building support for strikes, but are no replacement for hitting the boss at the point of production. The main power that workers have as an exploited class is to withdraw their labour. Usually the boss will respond to a strike by trying to replace the workforce or by moving production elsewhere. In both cases it is necessary to respond with direct action.

The question of finances was also very important to the strikers. All of the workers were very low paid and struggle to make ends meet even when they are working. While the union was paying them $20 per day in strike pay there was desperate need to raise more funds in order to keep the workers going. Raising money for a strike fund is directly related to raising the morale of the workers.

For reasons only known to them, the NUW leaders did very little to raise money from their members or from the broader labour movement. No meetings were organised in any neighbouring shops, no speaking tours, no site levies and no serious requests for funds were made to other unions. Rather the organisers suggested that the workers sign forms so that they could dip into their superannuation funds during the dispute!

In the end the workers rejected the advice of the NUW and refused to use their retirement funds for financial support, instead questioning why the NUW wasn’t raising money from the broader labour movement. One worker asked why was it that the NUW could afford to give millions of dollars to the ALP but only $20 a day to struggling members?

This point is especially important as the NUW leaders often claim that they are hampered from organising effective action because of the restrictive IR laws. The obvious contradiction is that these laws were put in place by the ALP, the same party that the union is affiliated to and that most of the leaders belong to!

The act of going out to raise money for a group of striking workers is a political one. It trains not only the striking workers but also other workers in the methods of labour movement solidarity. It also points the struggle in an outwards direction therefore spreading the support base of the strike.

While a thin layer of officials from other unions and a layer of left wing activists did attend the picket there was no real attempt to get rank and file workers from the NUW or other unions along. Even when the police violently attacked the picket late one night, seriously injuring one member, nothing was done to step up the action. It was at this stage that the NUW should have called upon Trades Hall to organise a cross union mass rally against the police attack.

If we stand by and let the police, egged on by the State government, bash workers who are fighting against super-exploitation it will only encourage other employers to follow suit in future disputes.

While the Baiada workers set a marvellous example in this dispute, they were somewhat setback by the political weaknesses of the NUW leaders. A key lesson to be taken from this strike is that as well as struggling against their employers, workers need to struggle to bring their trade unions under rank and file control.

The Baiada workers had a plethora of ideas about how to win this strike. If they had been able to execute those ideas more effectively it is clear that the strike could have been shorter and more could have been won.

The important thing is that we use this dispute as a stepping stone. We need to learn the lessons to ensure that in future disputes the positive aspects are built upon and the negative aspects are not repeated.

This dispute has set a new bar at the Baiada plant. The challenge now is to strengthen the rank and file leadership on the site to ensure that the agreement is properly enforced. Further, we need to spread the type of militant determination seen from the Baiada workers throughout the rest of the poultry industry. Workers in every industry and in every workplace should take inspiration from this brave stand.

Since the end of the war in 2009 President Mahinda Rajapaksa has moved towards creating a dictatorial regime. Repression has in many ways been increased and the police and military play a key role in the running of the country.

As preparations were being made on October 7 the police visited the Congress venue and questioned whether the USP had permission to hold the meeting. They said that the meeting would be deemed illegal given that Council elections were also being held in many parts of the country on October 8.

Despite this intimidation the meeting went ahead with delegates travelling from right across the island. Many delegates travelled by bus for more than 10 hours.

Most significantly a number of members attended from the Tamil areas in the north and the Muslim region in the east. A large delegation of tea plantation workers was also present from the hill country. Delegates were present from all the major towns and cities, including the branches within Colombo itself.

The Congress started with a minute of silence to remember the comrades who have lost their lives fighting for socialism – a stark reminder that politics in Sri Lanka can often be a life and death matter.

After welcoming members of the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) in India, Malaysia, Britain and Australia the first session began with USP General Secretary, Siritunga Jayasuriya, leading off a discussion on the current political situation.

While it appears as if the Rajapaksa regime is infallible, under the surface there are several contradictive processes taking place. The government boasts of 8% economic growth yet the vast majority of ordinary people see none of the benefits of this.

The minimum monthly wage for a public sector worker is a mere 11,730 Rupees ($107 AUD) yet the average family needs 42,224 Rupees ($377 AUD) in order to live. The cost of living is very high with some basic necessities like fuel selling at similar prices in advanced countries.

Never before has racism taken such a prominent role in the politics of Sri Lanka. Since the military defeat of the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam), Mahinda Rajapaksa has presented himself as the sole inheritor of the war victory. He claims to be the hero of the Sinhala-Buddhist masses.

As the USP predicted, the government’s victory over the LTTE has not gone any way towards solving the Tamil national question. Rather, the Rajapaksa regime has moved to establish military rule in the north and removed democratic rights for people across the whole country.

Journalists, trade unionists, genuine socialists and all those who speak up against the government are branded as traitors. Tamil people are now not only refused their own homeland but they are forced to live under constant military harassment. One comrade from Jaffna said that many people feel that they can only open their mouths for two reasons – to eat and to drink.

Thousands of displaced people still reside in camps and such was the devastation of the war that it is estimated that there are now more than 53,000 widows in the north of the country.

Clearly the government is taking advantage of the war victory in order to further the aims of their big business allies. While the excuse of the threat of terrorism is given, the crack down on democratic rights is clearly aimed at all working people – especially those who dare to struggle for a better standard of living. Only a few months ago a worker was shot by a police officer while protesting against attacks to the pension scheme.

In many ways the JVP (People’s Liberation Front) helped the government create this situation. For years they have pushed anti-Tamil racism and they played a key role in bringing Mahinda Rajapaksa to power.

Unfortunately for them Rajapaksa has not allowed them to take any credit for the defeat of the LTTE. They have suffered a number of electoral set backs and this has created deep splits within the party.

The point was made that you reap what you sow. In the case of the JVP they are now paying the price for their consistent opportunism and their disgraceful position on the national question.

It is clear that a huge political vacuum exists in Sri Lanka. Despite their rhetoric, all of the major parties represent the interests of the rich and powerful. There is a desperate need for a mass party that stands for a genuine socialist alternative and a party that represents all poor and working class people regardless of their nationality. This is the task the USP has set for itself.

As the first day of the Congress drew to a close, reports of violence surrounding the Council election in Colombo came in. It turned out to be a violent intra ruling-party clash that killed three people and left more than a dozen wounded. As a result the police declared a curfew in part of the city.

Despite the difficulties with travel and the uneasy mood that swept the city it was decided that the Congress should go ahead as planned the next day.

While the first day of the Congress helped the delegates understand the main political issues in Sri Lanka, the second day focused on building the party within this context.

Despite the difficult circumstances in Sri Lanka the USP has been involved in all the major struggles that have taken place in the last few years. From trade union battles to campaigns for democratic rights, the USP has often played an important role. The organisation is also renowned for its long-term, consistent position in defence of the rights of Tamil people.

The point was made that unlike most other parties in Sri Lanka the USP Congress is a genuinely democratic affair. More than just listening to the speeches of a few leaders, this Congress was a forum where all members were able to participate in the discussions and the decision making process.

It was reported that two new branches have been established this year and two cadre schools were held. Two new booklets are being produced and will be published before the end of the year.

The USP also produces two newspapers, one in Sinhala and one in Tamil. This is something the USP is very proud of given that most other parties have closed their papers in recent years. The USP papers are now the only left papers in the country that are sold regularly on the street corners, at the factory gates and on the plantations.

USP National Treasurer Dhammika De Silva delivered a finance report making the point that no other party in Sri Lanka is so open about their finances. Despite the fact that fundraising is very hard in the underdeveloped world, the vast bulk of the money that the USP raises comes from members and supporters within Sri Lanka itself.

It was also announced that by the end of 2011 the USP will own its party headquarters outright. This comes after a year’s long fundraising campaign.

Central Committee member Srinath Perera made a financial appeal to the delegates. He said that while people join other parties in order to receive something, people join the USP so that they can contribute to the struggle for socialism. In order to wage a successful campaign we first and foremost need the right ideas but we also need organisation. Finances are the sinews of the class war.

Despite the poverty conditions faced by many members more than 34,000 Rupees was donated to the party building fund. A number of pledges are still to come in.

Twelve people were elected to the new Central Committee (CC) along with three District Secretaries. The CC pledged to meet monthly to provide political leadership to the party until the next Congress.

Despite the difficult conditions faced in Sri Lanka, a definite sense of confidence was present at the conclusion of the Congress. One delegate commented that he was now armed with the ideas to go back to his area and step up the struggle. While Rajapaksa may seem unassailable at the moment, he will not be immune from the convulsions sweeping the world as a result of the ongoing economic crisis.

It was clear that the USP has influence in Sri Lankan society far greater than its size. While all the other left groups have made serious mistakes and either retreated from the struggle, or are now collaborating with the class enemy, the banner of the USP is spotless.

The challenge ahead is for the party to fill out its ranks with the workers and youth who will inevitably come into conflict with the Rajapaksa regime in the coming years. This Congress was important as it laid down the political and ideological foundations on which a successful struggle can be built.

The issue of live animal exports has come to the fore in recent months ever since the ABC’s ‘Four Corners’ program exposed examples of animal cruelty in Indonesian abattoirs. Graphic footage of cattle being kicked, whipped and beaten prior to slaughter has angered many people. This led to the Federal Government putting a temporary ban on live cattle exports.

Millions of animals are exported live on ships from Australia every year. Tens of thousands do not survive the weeks long journey while those that do often end up in places where they are killed in inhumane ways. If disease doesn’t kill them they face the likelihood of having their throats cut while still conscious.

Live cattle exports are worth an estimated $300 million a year in Australia. The industry is mostly dominated by huge multinational companies who have no interest in anything other than increasing their profits.

While wages for meat industry workers in Australia are low, wages paid to workers in places like Indonesia are a pittance. The reason the big live stock companies export animals is because it is much cheaper to process them off-shore. At the same time they cut costs because animal welfare laws and health and safety standards are much less stringent in under developed countries.

From an animal welfare point of view it is clear that the transportation of live cattle and sheep should be kept to a minimum. The slaughtering should be done in the most humane way possible and once the meat has been processed it should be either frozen or vacuum sealed for transport.

The Socialist Party supports the banning of live exports but adds that this on its own will not solve the problems in the industry. As long as food production is controlled by big business they will continue to prioritise profits over animal welfare and workers wages and conditions.

The only way to really address animal welfare, and to ensure food is produced for need and not profits, is to bring the big food, live stock and agriculture companies into public ownership. On the basis of public ownership, and democratic control, a sustainable plan for food production and distribution could be implemented therefore cutting across animal cruelty and ensuring affordable food for all.

On top of the sackings Thiess has said it will also implement changes to working conditions. They plan to move the electricians from the current four-day-on four-day-off roster back to the traditional 56 hour week.

Thiess claim that this is all to “increase productivity” but clearly they are trying to provoke a dispute with the union. The Desalination Plant project is already months behind schedule. This is mostly due to management incompetence, design problems and bad weather.

The company is trying to build up a case as to why they will not be able to meet the deadline. They want someone to blame when the project ends up in court. Their contract states that they face fines of $1.8 million for every day beyond the deadline of June 30, 2012.

Correctly the ETU has not taken the bait. The union is exhausting all legal options while fighting the sackings on the job. While it may be necessary at some stage, a strike would be deemed illegal and incur millions of dollars in fines. It is preferable at this stage to implement go slows and bans on overtime.

Workers on site report that many parts of the project are a health and safety nightmare. Now is the time to be going over every single health and safety issue with a fine tooth comb. Workers should be exercising their rights: If it is unsafe, stop work.

At the same time it is clear that Thiess’ strategy is to pick the unions off one by one. Recently the CFMEU was attacked via the sacking of a delegate, now it is the ETU. The metal trades and plumbers will be next in line.

Unfortunately the close collaboration between the construction unions has been set back in recent years. Starting with this job we need to see the return of joint delegates and OH&S committees. We can not allow Thiess or any other employer to divide and conquer the unions in order to undermine hard won gains.

The big construction bosses see this site as a testing ground. The project will not give them the financial returns they had hoped for so they are keen to use it to try and break the strength of the unions. They plan to use every legal option at their disposal including Labor’s Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC).

A strong message needs to be sent to Thiess and every construction company in Australia. If these workers are sacked we need to see solidarity action on every job where Thiess is present. The fight on the Desalination Plant also needs to be linked to the fight against the tools the bosses are using – Labor’s anti-union laws.

This battle should not be confined to the Desalination Plant alone. This is not just an attack on 160 sparkies, it’s an attack on all workers.

Clearly Gillard is having trouble selling the carbon tax to ordinary people. While many people want to see action on climate change, most see no need for the costs to be passed on to them. Tony Abbott has made a lot of mileage out of the fact that this tax will cost people more while doing next to nothing to reduce emissions.

The latest poll figures show that Gillard has used the little remaining political capital she had on this do-nothing measure. The Labor Government is now living a very fragile existence. Usually governments try to keep a bit of meat on their bones in order to be able to starve off any unwanted or unforseen problems.

Gillard’s eroded popularity now means that any number of issues could inflict a crisis on the government. There are numerous domestic issues that could flare up at any time. The carbon tax is far from settled while tensions around the asylum seeker issue are rising thanks to the policy of mandatory detention and the signing of the Malaysia deal.

Within Australia’s two-speed economy there are very high levels of casualisation, underemployment and personal debt. The possibility of the property bubble bursting continues to worry the capitalists.

Perhaps the biggest concerns for Gillard and her big business allies however are in the international arena. Emerging threats to the Chinese economy sit side by side with the European and US debt problems.

Any number of domestic or international issues could put untold pressure on this already weak government. If an election was held tomorrow it would probably result in the Liberal-National Coalition winning in a landslide.

The coming to power of a conservative government coupled with a worsening economic situation would be seen by the ruling class as a green light to move forward with deeper cuts and attacks on the working class. With all the underlying problems, the establishment would be immediately pushing for European style austerity measures in an attempt to shore up their own interests.

While it is possible for this weak government to limp along for a little while longer it is also possible that events could take a sharp turn sooner rather than later. While Australia has escaped the worst for now, a serious crisis is on the horizon.

The workers movement needs to be on top of these events in order to respond accordingly and protect our hard won living standards.

The Greens have played a crucial role in the House of Representatives since last year’s election. Their support for Labor helps Gillard maintain her minority government. If either the Greens, or one of the Independents, withdrew their support for Labor the government would fall in an instant.

But what can we expect from the Greens now that they effectively hold the balance of power in both houses? Leaving aside the fact that the government and opposition agree on the vast majority of legislation, the comments of Greens leader Bob Brown point towards business as usual.

Brown has been at pains to reassure the establishment that the Greens will be “responsible” representatives in the parliament. Brown recently said the Greens will be “a secure rock of stability” in the new Senate.

Unfortunately when Brown talks about stability he is not talking decent wages, affordable housing or access to services for ordinary people. Rather he is talking about the stability of the capitalist system – the system that puts profits before people and the environment.

The Greens have agreed to oppose any parliamentary no-confidence motions and vote for Labor’s budgets – even if they contain deep cuts to spending. We have seen a taste of this in Tasmania where the Greens are in coalition with the ALP at a state level. The recent Tasmanian budget slashes $1.4 billion from the public sector over the next four years and scraps 1700 public sector jobs.

It is not ruled out that at some time in the future the Greens end up in a similar position to the Liberal Democrats in Britain, where that party is helping to implement some of the harshest austerity measures ever seen.

Even on climate change the Greens have been ineffectual. The proposed carbon tax operates firmly within the confines of the market system and will do next to nothing to reduce emissions. The big polluters are set to pass on any costs to ordinary people.

The carbon tax is a step towards an emissions trading system which will create yet another market – this time for big business to profit from trading in pollution permits.

The real role that the Greens are playing is providing Labor with a left cover for their right-wing policies. The only strategy they have for effecting ‘change’ is to win more seats in parliament. Unfortunately this purely electoral approach means they are limited by the framework of the capitalist system.

The system is set up to benefit the needs of big business. This means that, whether they like it or not, the Greens will always be forced to bend to the needs of the profiteers. Under pressure, and particularly in times of economic crisis, they will find themselves implementing the opposite of what they claim to stand for.

While many hundreds of thousands of people voted for the Greens hoping to see progressive change, unfortunately the best on offer will be a few comments in the media. To effect real change requires a strategy to challenge the profit system. The Greens on the other hand are hell bent on doing all they can to prop it up.

In several polls 80-90% of people have said that they feel the budget will not leave them better off. The only people set to gain are the super rich. Consequently Labor has plunged in the polls with Julia Gillard recording her worst figures since she took over from Kevin Rudd a year ago.

Against the backdrop of a world in economic turmoil the mantra from the ALP has been ‘bring the budget back to surplus by 2012-13’. The surplus was wiped out in the aftermath of the financial crash as Rudd moved to bail out the system through a raft of stimulus measures. Now a total of $22 billion worth of cuts has been proposed with ordinary people expected to foot the bill.

Amongst other things, benefits will be cut for sole parents with teenage children as well as young job seekers. Some groups of single parents can expect a $56 per week reduction in their payments while those under 21 and unemployed will have their payments cut by $43 per week. Income management will be extended to more Indigenous communities while paid paternity leave will be delayed by at least another six months.

There will also be an increase in the ‘public service efficiency dividend’ over the next two years. This is basically code for cuts and forcing public sector workers to work longer and harder for less. It is estimated that 1,200 public sector jobs will be lost which will impact on the quality of and access to public services.

The government claims that this was a ‘tough love’ budget but that the cuts are targeted at those who can afford to pay. Their stated aim of slashing “middle class welfare” is nothing more than a policy of divide and rule. The government hopes to drive a wedge between low paid workers and those who are a bit better off. Once they introduce cuts to the childcare rebate and family tax benefits for relatively high paid workers they will be looking to extend them down the line.

In reality, no cuts to welfare or public services are required. Wealth is in abundance in Australia, it’s just that it is concentrated in the hands of a tiny few. Gillard’s decision to scrap Rudd’s modest proposal for a mining super profits tax and replace it with a watered down version has lost the Treasury $60 billion in revenue over 10 years. Imagine what could be done if the mining giants were in public hands and all the profits were directed back into areas like health, education and services.

Mining is in fact the only part of the economy that is doing well. Manufacturing, retail, education, and the service sectors are all either flat or in decline. The only reason that the mining sector is still powering along is because it is being propped up by huge demand from China.

The government has pinned all its hopes on Chinese growth continuing unabated but unfortunately there are a number of things that could go wrong for China and therefore throw Swan’s budget into disarray.

Demand for raw materials in China for example is largely thanks to speculation in the property market and a resulting construction boom. China’s property bubble is unsustainable and will inevitably burst. When it does it will send commodity prices tumbling and impact badly on Australian government revenue. Flow on effects will be felt in the Australian housing sector and by Australia banks.

Even if China was able to avoid a slowdown the budget will only just register a surplus of 1% of GDP by 2012-13. With Europe unable to solve the sovereign debt crisis and the US and Japan bogged down with economic dilemmas of their own, any number of things could impact on the Australian economy and force the government to push ahead with even deeper spending cuts.

This budget should act as a warning to the labour movement. When Australia’s economic luck runs out ordinary people will be faced with major attacks on our living conditions. We need to be prepared.

Socialist Party members were part of a much larger group who organised a counter-demonstration to stop the ADL from marching through the city and to ensure minority groups were not targeted by this group of misfits.

If we allow groups like the ADL to organise on our streets it will only encourage more division in society and open the way for more violent attacks against migrants. The ADL claim that they should have the right to free speech but in reality they only want to use free speech to undermine the rights of others. This is unacceptable.

The ADL claim they are only against Islamic extremism and the introduction of Sharia law in Australia but their behaviour at the rally proved that they are against Muslim people and non-Caucasian people as a whole. Similarly the EDL in Britain has been known to attack people from a range of different ethnic backgrounds.

While the ADL are still small, and the majority of people would find their views repulsive, there is danger that they can grow against the backdrop of the consistent undermining of peoples living standards.

Many workers have legitimate concerns about the lack of jobs, the lack of affordable housing and the lack of decent services. The ADL want to play on people’s insecurities in order to build support for their racist ideas. But the question is who is really responsible for these problems in society?

It is not Muslims who have been going around sacking people and reducing working hours. It is not Sharia law that is forcing house prices up and it is not Islamic leaders who proposed a budget last month with $22 billion of cuts! The culprits in every case are big business profiteers and the governments that represent them.

We need to argue that people should focus on fighting these frontline attacks rather than false arguments about things like the introduction of Sharia law. Ordinary people from different backgrounds have more in common with each other than they do with those who keep our wages low, our rents high and our services under funded.

Groups like the ADL actually carry out the leg work for the rich and powerful. Their aim is to get us fighting amongst ourselves so that we don’t unite to fight against their system of inequality. We need to patiently explain who is responsible for society’s problems and point the way forward towards solutions which unite all working class people. If this is not done some sections of the working class can be drawn to racist ideas.

This situation points to the need for a skilful approach when taking on groups like the ADL. A good example of how to take up workers who are confused by this issue was shown by a rank and file Socialist Party member on the May 15 demo.

This member spoke to a small group of women who had come along to support the ADL rally. They were visibly upset and told him that they didn’t understand why people were yelling and calling them racist. One woman said that she was not racist and was just against extremism and Sharia law.

Our member explained that Sharia law was not on the agenda in Australia and that the ADL were clearly against Muslim people as a whole. He gave her a copy of the leaflet that we had produced for the day while explaining to her that it was not Muslims who were creating the insecurity that exists in society.

The women asked a few more questions and thanked the Socialist Party member for explaining things to her so clearly. They said they didn’t know much about the ADL and hadn’t ever heard an explanation of the issues like the one we were putting forward. They had only come to the rally out of desperation. This is understandable given the fact that there is no major force in society which is offering a real political alternative to groups like the ADL or the major capitalist parties.

The women then asked if they could buy a copy of The Socialist newspaper before leaving the rally and going home.

This interaction shows that while some workers can be drawn to racist ideas, they can also be won to a class based solution if the approach is correct and a political alternative is offered. If this is what one Socialist Party member can do imagine what a new workers party could do if it had the active support of left wing unions and progressive community groups across the country.

Baillieu claims the proposal, for 940 Protective Services Officers (PSO) to patrol train stations after dark, is aimed at addressing safety and anti-social behaviour on the transport system. The guards will reportedly be granted police-like powers to apprehend and arrest people.

This plan should be opposed in the first instance because there has not been any increase in crime in many areas. Police figures show that in 2009 at 116 out of 200 train stations there were actually no assaults recorded at all. The facts are that people are more likely to be assaulted at a pub or at home than at a train station.

Safety concerns have also been raised about the dangers of poorly trained guards carrying firearms. At the moment the proposal is that the PSOs will only be required to complete an eight week course – about a third of the training that police officers receive.

Already, over the past three decades, Victoria has had more fatal police shootings than any other state. Many put this down to poor training and bad tactics when dealing with tense situations. This problem will only be magnified with the introduction of more guns and inexperienced guards.

The major parties claim that crime and anti-social behaviour is the biggest problem facing ordinary people. We need to ask if this is really the case or if there are more fundamental problems that affect society. Also what are the root causes of crime and what is the best way to undermine anti-social behaviour?

The major parties often focus on law and order in an attempt to divert attention away from bigger issues that people face. Anti-social behaviour is linked to poverty and social deprivation. Studies have shown that the biggest factors likely to trigger violence and criminal activity are prolonged economic hardship, stress, school exclusion and drug or alcohol abuse.

Clearly by creating real jobs on decent wages, and investing in health, education and social services, crime and anti-social behaviour could be drastically undermined. Instead of spending an estimated $200 million on PSOs the money should be used to reintroduce costumer service staff at all train stations. At the same time if the public transport system was brought back into public ownership, and under community control, we could begin the process of expanding the system and making it free. More trains on the tracks would greatly reduce commuter stress.

Armed guards will not stop anti-social behaviour on train stations. When coupled with an underfunded public transport system and a worsening economic situation they will only aggravate the social divisions that exist.

Ultimately the best way to improve public safety is to break from the dog eat dog system of capitalism and to start putting people’s needs before profits. On this basis we could carry out the measures necessary to improve people’s living standards across the board.

Julia Gillard is pushing to introduce a levy and budget cuts in order to raise $1.8 billion to help pay for the reconstruction, while Tony Abbott wants a full $2 billion worth of budget cuts instead. Either way once again ordinary people will end up footing the bill.

It is certainly the mood of all working people that the government should intervene with financial aid to victims of these disasters. However, it is not the case that the only way to fund this relief is through taxing ordinary people or cutting funding to public services.

Last month, mining giant BHP Billiton announced they made a record $10.5 billion in the last six months – the biggest ever half-year result in Australian history. On the same day Treasury announced that Labor’s backdown on the proposed Mining Super Profits Tax will lose $60 billion in potential government revenue over the next decade!

Clearly $60 billion would go a long way, not only in reconstructing disaster areas, but implementing proper safeguards across the whole country to minimise the impact of natural disasters in the future.

Alongside these proposed cuts to government spending in 2011 will be a slowing economy. It is estimated that Queensland’s coal and agricultural exports alone have collapsed by $7 billion. Even the Treasurer Wayne Swan has said that the economy is likely to shrink in the first quarter of 2011 for the first time since the global financial crisis.

Consumers have also been very cautious with their spending of late with retail trade and building activity at their lowest levels since 2008. When all these issues are looked at together it is not ruled out that Australia is on the verge of entering a technical recession.

Unfortunately it is not just domestic pressures that pose dangers to the Australian economy. Australia has a two speed economy where the larger states of New South Wales and Victoria are sitting in the slow lane and the mining states of Queensland and Western Australia are the main drivers of growth.

Australia is unique in the sense that it is heavily dependant on exporting raw materials to China and other Asian markets. While this has helped Australia avoid the worst of the world economic downturn up to now, it also makes the economy very exposed to any slowdown in Chinese growth.

Some commentators are suggesting that the rate of growth has already begun to slow and that official figures are inflated. While China’s economy has grown by around 10% for more than a decade, given the low base from which it is starting and the uneven development of the country, a drop to 5% growth would feel like a recession in real terms.

The social implications of this, in a country where almost half the population lives on less than $2 a day, would be widespread. Already the mass of workers and the poor in China are suffering with inflation currently hovering around 5% and rising. Food prices alone went up 8% last month.

But one member of China’s central bank monetary policy committee told reporters recently that the “biggest danger” in China is real estate prices. China’s property market is dangerously overheated with residential properties in many major cities being sold at values that exceed 20 times disposable income. The central government has made numerous attempts to stop further speculation but these have been largely unsuccessful.

As the Sydney Morning Herald correspondent in China, John Garnaut, said “Nobody knows for how long the deep structural problems in the Chinese economy can persist before the costs come home to roost”.

China is currently wrought by a number of economic and social contradictions and there is the potential for a sharp economic setback in the short to medium term. If this was the case commodity producers in Australia would be hit hard and the flow on effects to the rest of the economy would be severe.

Australia will not be insulated from world economic crisis forever. Workers and young people need to prepare for the likelihood of a downturn. At the same time we need to build a political and economic alternative to the broken system of capitalism.