THE PRESS SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1987. Labour and the F.O.L.

Press, 21 February 1987, Page 20

THE PRESS SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1987. Labour and the F.O.L.

The Labour Government is unlikely to regard formal support from the Federation of Labour as crucial to its prospects in the General Election later this year. The Labour Party might well look more attractive in the eyes of many New Zealanders if its traditional, formal associations with the F.O.L. were not as conspicuous as in the past. Although the party may not deliberately seek such a change, it can probably live with it so long as the party can show broadly that it has not abandoned the people who are at the heart of the Labour movement. The labour market is a crucial area of the economy where regulations and controls' remain. The F.O.L. may claim to be dissatisfied with the Labour Relations Bill that is expected to be passed before the election. Employers are even less happy. On balance, the federation and the unions it represents have probably survived deregulation better than almost any other sector. The union movement’s monopoly on the supply of labour remains in force in many industries, with little sign that proposed changes in the law will make much difference.

The federation has a point in the strong disapproval of the Government registered by its president, Mr Knox, this week. More than 80,000 New Zealanders are unemployed, many of them people whom the federation would claim are under its protection. Not for the first time, Mr Knox has threatened that the F.O.L. will withdraw support from the Government. Not for the first time he will surely hesitate, or be restrained by his colleagues. Beyond the Labour Party, where

would the F.O.L. find a home that would enable its voice to be heard effectively in politics?

Leftward splits in the labour movement in New Zealand have a record of failure during nearly 50 years since John A. Lee broke with the Government of Michael Joseph Savage. They have fared no better in Australia. Under a system of compulsory unionism, the F.O.L. can feel no assurance that it speaks for the majority of its members, especially on political matters. It is safe to assume that a hostile F.O.L. leadership would not cost Labour an election that will be fought on a variety of matters. This possible assumption is one that must cause the F.O.L. leaders to tread a careful path with the Parliamentarians of the party; Some union members have had a rough time under the Government’s policies; many have fared quite well. In spite of some setbacks, the Government will endeavour to persuade the whole electorate that better times will be the fruit of some cold winters. More than this, the Government, like any party, must continue to show that it is not the representative of any special interest group. Even the Labour Party is too diverse to permit this.

Mr Knox certainly has some reasons for his complaint, his problem is that he cannot be assured of the political favour he seeks. The party will never lightly dispense with the backing of the F.O.L. The federation’s cooperation is too useful. Even so, the Government would lose more electoral support if it back-tracked on its policies now.