THE PRESS FRIDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1985. Industrial relations debate

Press, 20 December 1985, Page 16

THE PRESS FRIDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1985. Industrial relations debate

The Government’s attempt to stimulate informed discussion on industrial relations is welcomed in a country not noted for its industrial harmony. The Green Paper produced this week — “Industrial Relations: A Framework for Review” — invites submissions on 44 questions. In a second volume, extensive background information is provided on the operations of industrial relations in New Zealand.

The Minister of Labour, Mr Rodger, has asked for submissions by April 30, 1986. After that, a summary of submissions will be made public, along with a Government statement on major policy changes in industrial law. There is no assurance that any changes to the law can be made by late 1986 when the next round of award negotiations will begin. The intention is admirable. Almost immediately, practical difficulties assert themselves. For instance, the two volumes of the Green Paper set limits to the debate; for example, the question of voluntary unionism is largely excluded. Few matters are as sensitive as industrial relations and the language of the discussions can itself be a cause for disagreement. The introduction to the Green Paper says, for instance, that “workers (and their unions) give emphasis to the notion of fairness,” and that this is reflected in a concern that “fair and proper relationships are established between workers doing different jobs.” Few might agree about the meaning of the words “fair” and “proper” when applied to particular cases. Those whose business is industrial relations have learned to live with the minefield of language. The community at large, however, is likely to be equally troubled by the sheer complexity of industrial arrangements as they stand today in New Zealand. Defining its questions takes the Green Paper more than 40 pages in its first volume. The explanation and background in volume II takes more than 360 pages. In itself, this is an indication of one of the principal needs of reform in industrial relations: matters need to be simplified to clear away the accretions of 100 years, to find a clearer set of principles and, perhaps, a new fundamental law. This is one of the Minister’s intentions. No obvious indication has been given of the direction that such changes might take.

Comments so far from the Federation of Labour and the Employers’ Federation suggest that such changes as the chief parties might want are likely to be mutually irreconcilable. The end of the whole exercise is likely to be a tinkering with the law, to make concessions to Labour Party policy and to the desires of Labour’s industrial supporters. Agreement on wider changes is most unlikely to be achieved from those principally concerned. Changes might be imposed by law, but the history of industrial relations in New Zealand demonstrates that, in this field at least, law that lacks general agreement can be almost impossible to enforce. Matters of vital concern to New Zealand, with implications for the country’s well-being that go well beyond industrial relations, come within the scope of the discussion. The Green Paper remarks: “The core of the industrial relations system is its feature of awards with blanket coverage. The most basic issue to be addressed in examining the system is the question of whether to retain the national award system.” Behind this seemingly simple statement are matters of pressing concern to the well-being of the economy, to the survival of industries and jobs, and to New Zealand’s export performance. The Green Paper poses the related questions: “Should the award system continue to be a central feature of wage fixing? If hot, what (if anything) should replace it as a mechanism for fixing minimum standards?” And, “Should second tier agreements be complete codes of employment which replace awards? If so, should employers be required to provide unions with information on ability to pay?” To pose the questions is to acknowledge that the country and its work force are not necessarily being best served by the traditional and fairly rigid system of national awards. To raise such matters as minimum rates of pay for jobs, relativities between jobs, or the need for local variations in rates of pay is to acknowledge the need for more flexible arrangements. How those arrangements might be introduced and made to work is the most crucial question to be addressed in the next few months. The onus now is on the parties directly affected to argue their cases to the Government and the community.