July 2000 Volume 81 Number 7 "serving the protectors"
Straight to the Point
By Trevor Haskell  PASA Executive Committee Member

Proportional Representation

The development of the Police Association as an effective and strong union has not occurred by accident. Kevin Lawton put up some ideas (Police Journal, May 2000) about further changing the structure of PASA, and what he refers to as proportional representation.

I have been active in the association for a relatively short 10 years. When I joined the committee in 1990 the winds of change had already begun. The policing industry has been well grounded in the notion of collectivism. This is evident in the number of schemes (the support funds) that were developed pre police superannuation to assist those who suffered health and injury problems. These still exist today and provide a safety net for members.

The association’s membership base is strong (98 - 99 per cent of the workforce), our voting numbers for committee elections are very high, union surveys are well supported, mass meetings and actions have high support, and a committed and active group of delegates and branch officials work effectively at the local level.

The association has not been a static organization. It has changed in accord with industrial and workplace change. The notion of giving delegates the power to control, overturn and direct the committee was the subject of some debate. “Dangerous stuff,” it was argued by some. Then came the present branch system - one that was advocated by the then industrial officer, Chris Kennedy, who was well versed in union structure and ideology. The system continues to be modified through identified need. As an organizational structure it is one that works.

The current structure provides for non-factionalism. All committee members, paid and honorary, are elected by vote of the whole membership. Everyone gets an equal vote to elect them. Everyone can stand for any committee position from their first day of joining to their last. It is a model that has no bias other than the numbers of members that may exist in a particular work type. That is to say there are more uniform than non-uniform; more city than country. The current committee is presently made up of all non-commissioned officer ranks, both genders, uniform and non-uniform, operational and non-operational, city and country and even an “odd bod” from Welfare. The committee reflects the diversity of the membership.

The strength around the committee table is that each topic is argued on its merits. The debates are sometimes fierce, and when special information is required it is obtained. There are no oracles who know it all: by sharing, listening and debating we develop more informed positions but may still disagree. Each votes as to his or her own view. Many of us have changed our views after hearing debate. There is rarely any sense of us-and-them around the table. Each is there on his or her own merits and united for the good of all. No one is directed by backroom deals or ideology, nor controlled from elsewhere.

We, the committee and delegates, have designed many camels - things that were not conventional, new, made of bits from others; inventive and imaginative but things that worked; strategies that were well-formed and then through efforts of the staff, committee, delegates and branches enacted with strength and unity.

The notion of proportional representation is based on a system whereby the number of seats won is in proportion to the overall percentage of votes obtained; it is designed to ensure party politics thrives. People vote for blocks or groups rather than individuals. What Lawton appears to be advocating is factionalism. It comes from a viewpoint that says different work areas have different needs and can only be served by that specific, local group. This is very much aligned to the argument of Australian workplace agreements - the Peter Reith model for attempting to destroy unions by the destruction of the collective. The model sits very well in a perfect world where all are informed, active and equal participants in the workplace and society - and no power imbalance exists.

Lawton rightly mentions that the model is used by some political parties and structures to demonstrate his view of the factionalized system. Indeed, the Labor, Liberal and National parties use such a system. They are very clear examples of how grassroots people have a theoretical control over the election of their local area representatives. In effect, they have little or no control. The structures are about obtaining and maintaining control and power as ends in themselves. Clearly, these organizations - as regularly demonstrated in the press - are classic examples of how nepotism, patronage and stacking the vote work in such a model. Other unions also use similar models. Get a handful of people to a meeting and you, too, can become the endorsed member. This is not necessarily a healthy democracy.

The USA police unions have been limited by such models. In one police service there may be a number of unions because they have factionalized themselves into special interest groups: patrol vs investigation vs non-operational vs sergeants vs lieutenants vs managers vs country vs north and south. They are learning, becoming more united and merging.

Such a model would also mean that, if you move your SAPOL non-union position, you may have to forfeit your committee position as you no longer work in that electoral group. This happens with the current delegates system and is one reason for constant changes of conference and workplace delegates. Should I have to resign my elected union committee position just because I get a SAPOL transfer? Given the Commissioner’s power of transfer, this would take us back to early association days when some members of the committee were transferred to the country to preclude them from union participation.

It is good to have debates about the structure of the union. It will be interesting at the October conference to again discuss and debate what is and isn’t working. Lawton rightly identified the positives of the current structure. Re-engineering for the sake of it reminds me of another organization with which I deal.

We need to be realistic in reviewing ourselves. The achievements of the ’90s were quite significant. We need to ensure the unity continues into the new decade. Unity, not factionalism, is the way forward.

I pondered long about some of Lawton’s assertions. My initial reading of his letter quite annoyed me, particularly the judgement:

I suspect that it would be those who are motivated by self interest who would be the greatest opponents to this proposal.

The notion that someone puts a proposal up for debate and then judges anyone who disagrees with them as being self-interested is fascinating, perhaps founded in some old managerial school. By inference this dismisses contrary views, but more than that, it presumes a right to judge others.

However, make no mistake - my interest in the association is borne out of self-interest. I am in the union to protect my interests. I choose to be active in the union to help continue those processes that have protected and assisted the collective. I and others who have nominated for the committee have chosen to put ourselves up to scrutiny of the whole membership. No small or large group alliances. The views, thoughts and biases I carry are my own. How compatible or not they are with members wants and needs determines how they vote.

I get great positives about being on the committee. It is personally stimulating; it provides me an opportunity to be an active part of a very successful organization; it allows me wider interaction with members (particularly delegates), which I enjoy; it has challenged and taught me. I recommend to all those with time and energy to spare to consider standing for committee - they will not be bored.

The need to make judgements and label others is what isolated, controlling people and managers make their lives around. In my years in Welfare and on the committee, I have seen that inclusive people, delegates and managers do not need to make such judgements because they can debate and discuss the points of their argument and welcome alternative opinion. They can discuss behaviour and ideas without judging the person. They encourage a sharing, a collaboration with a wide group. They are wiser for their acceptance of or listening to diverse and sometimes divergent views.

Our judgements of others say much, but of whom?

PASAweb   Index & Search   Top of Page   Comments   Email to Editor

The Police Journal Online is an official publication of the Police Association of South Australia and is published monthly. Editors of kindred publications can seek permission from the Editor to re-publish any Police Journal Online article. Copyright 1999  The Police Association of South Australia sustance