Editors --- "Stickybeak: Interview with Tony Cooke" [2000] AltLawJl 35; (2000) 25(2) Alternative Law Journal 88

• STICKY BEAK
• An irregular column of profiles
• Interview with Tony Cooke

STICKY BEAK
An irregular column of profiles

Interview with Tony Cooke

Tony Cooke is the Secretary of the Trades and Labour Council of Western Australia (TLC).

Tony Cooke began his working life in the prison service, where his involvement with the Australian Social Wel­ fare Union eventually led to a position at the TLC as a workers compensation advocate and claims manager. After travelling overseas to attain his Masters in Social Policy, Tony returned to the TLC in 1986 and has been there ever since. His term as Secretary expires in September.

His father, Eric Edgar Cooke, was convicted of murder in 1963. In 1964 he was the last man to be hanged in Western Australia. Before his death he confessed to two murders for which other men had been convicted. Despite his confession those men, Darryl Beamish and John Button, were unsuccessful in their appeals against conviction and served full sentences for murder and manslaughter respectively.

Here Tony Cooke shares his views on governmental organisation, unions and the death penalty.

Danielle Davies

Danielle Davies is a Perth lawyer.

Q: What are the aims of the TLC?

The primary objectives of the TLC, apart from reacting to government policy and government action, is to further the interest of working men and women in terms of wages and conditions. But it has quite a broad social agenda as well.

Q: I was surprised when I rang the TLC and you answered the phone. Is that standard TLC policy?

No that is not standard union policy, that is a personal policy. I am much more accessible to people than any other TLC secretary has ever been. It makes it more demanding in many ways. It makes it very demanding. But it is also more rewarding and worth­ while in terms of getting direct feed­ back and getting in touch with the issues much more readily. It is very easy to become cloistered and to be­ come part of the hierarchy, which is the way that some people choose to defend themselves. I think that people can tend to push away issues and insulate them­ selves from the demands of the job.

Q: I guess some politicians could learn from that answer?

I think that a feature of a decent representative government is flexibility and openness that comes from being able to communicate readily with the people who selected you to represent them. I think it works both ways. It needs confidence both ways. I think that is one of the things that we sadly lack. We do not have that confidence. There is a lot of convenient victim behaviour that goes on. People just say 'the government is not good enough.'

Q: Is there anything that politicians could learn from the union movement in that regard?

The union movement is based on the concept of people participating and un­ fortunately I do not think Australians have any cultural history of participating in their government, except in a very passive way. Unless government meets their needs then government is not good and I think that is a very selfish attitude. So I do not make any excuses for people who sit back and just wonder why the government isn't doing some­ thing.

Q: So how could government be more accessible?

I think that depends very much on the nature of the people selected into government to fill certain positions. Unfortunately, I do not think that you can prescribe it but I wish there was some way that you could. It is very much to do with human nature.

Q: What about changes to the political structure?

There would need to be a change in the way in which government is organised in Australia. That was my hope for the referendum process, that there was at least some prospect of further reform.

One of the reforms that is very much needed is to the relationship between Federal and State government. It is ridiculous that people in Kununurra (far north Western Australia) have to relate to Perth as their State capital. It seems to me that to achieve representative government we should basically be doing away with State governments and looking at much more well organised regional governments where people have geographical and demographic alliances that can be dealt with in the form of government. That would be a big step forward.

But now, with what has happened with the referendum, that is something that won't be seen in my lifetime and probably not in my kids' lifetime. I mean re-organisation of the government to actually align the form of government with where people live and how they live, because where people live and how they live makes a difference to how they can participate. The structure that you put in place in the Perth metro area would be very different from Kununurra.

Q: Does the constitutional convention offer any sort of model?

I think the constitutional convention was a worthy first try and the more people do it then the more they get used to it. I am not cynical about the process at all. I actually think the money spent on it was worthwhile. If you did it on a rotational basis once every couple of years I think people would actually grow around it and that would be good. But I think similar types of forums need to be created to talk about all sorts of is­ sues, take for example crime and punishment.

Q: Are you suggesting some sort of forum or council, where majority rules?

That's where we have to do a lot of work. I do not think that we have the right definition of democracy if we take a majoritarian view. We have to acknowledge the fact that there is diversity and difference in the community and diversity of experience and difference of culture. Most obviously, Aboriginal people, are a graphic example of this in our com­ munity. But we have a majoritarian view that just smothers all.

On the theme of participatory democracy, 28 April is the International Day of Mourning for the Sick and Injured Worker and this year's event focuses on young workers in a participatory democracy. We actually believe that one of the great difficulties for young workers comes from their relative status and lack of recognition. We see that rights of participation have a fundamental linkage with people's experience in the workplace, particularly on issues of health and safety. They do not get enough respect to be trained adequately, they get the shit jobs and then wind up getting them­ selves injured or exposed to hazards as a consequence. We actually think that democracy makes a huge difference, not a majoritarian view; it is actually about respecting the rights of minorities. We think that is what participatory democracy is about, and we are looking to it in canvassing solutions to a whole range of problems, including basic things like health and safety.

^{Q: Returning to the law and order de}bate, how do you see that in terms of peoples participation in government?

The law and order debate has really be­ come an expression of this rampant individualism; the job of society is to suit my needs. I have a right to a say on every­ thing. No, you do not. I mean that is why we came together as a society. If we want to hit each other over the head be­ cause we are bigger and stronger than the next person then piss off and be a hermit. Go bush. But if you are going to be part of the community you have to put aside some of those prejudices in order to get on and to draw the benefits that you get from living in the community.

Q: How can we make it a more sensible debate?

I do not think we can. It should not be a debate. I don't think there is any merit or benefit in making it a debate. If you encourage people to be so insular and self obsessed as they seem to be in that sort of debate then I don't think you are going to get any result. I think it brings out the worst in people.

But it is an important expression of the way people feel about the community in which they live and I respect that. I don't think you deny the emotion. You cannot afford to condemn people. Take One Nation, that was a genuine expression of concern. I mean I didn't like it and I didn't like One Nation, but there was no way that I could come out and be part of trying to suppress it because they were people with anxieties and they were expressing them and people were responding. They did respond - 12% of the first preferences in Canning (a suburban Perth electorate) went to One Nation. People had issues that they felt were not being addressed by the principal parties. There were a lot of people in the union movement who wanted me to go out and openly condemn them. But some of the expressions and arguments against One Nation were as bad as One Nation it­ self. Why shouldn't a fish and chip shop owner aspire to be Prime Minister? I mean, I can remember a time when train drivers like Ben Chifley aspired to be just that. Why should the fact that you have got red hair or that you are a woman or that you might speak plainly or not have excellent elocution make any difference? It was in­ credibly classist, sexist, it was terrible - the response to her. The response was as bad as she was. These people - were well-educated, politically conscious people coming out with this tripe.

Q: Turning to the death penalty, it is obviously something that you feel pretty strongly about. Was it a difficult decision to speak publicly about it?

I think that it is my obligation to do so. You do not sit back when you have a set of experiences that might be relevant to the debate. You do not hide from it. It is something that I have lived with for a long, long time so it is part of my personality and it is not something that I hide from. I am obliged to challenge people with these experiences and say don't forget what happened to Darryl Beamish in 1959 [he was convicted of an offence for which Eric Edgar Cooke later confessed]. Don't forget how close he went to swinging. Now do you want that on your conscience? If you are going to generate this sort of debate when will you be satisfied? Will you be happy when the death penalty is re-instituted? Look at the experience in the United States. It is extraordinary the number of people who have been ac­ quitted off death row and have actually been found not guilty of any offence. There are enough Hurricane Carters in the world where their skin colour determines the outcome.

_{STICKY BEAK}

Tony Cooke