Labour Law Reform in Australia: A New Zealand Perspective
It seems that both proponents and critics of the Australian government’s
plans are of the view that the Work Choices reforms will lead Australian
workplace relations and labour market conditions towards those of New
Zealand. However, a review of the current labour laws in New
Zealand suggests that that view is a little outdated when considered
alongside Work Choices legislation.
New Zealand has experienced a roller-coaster of legislative labour
law reform since the early 1990s, following the introduction of the Employment
Contracts Act 1991 (ECA). Although this writer does not
agree with one commentator’s description of the ECA as “… an
extreme, ideologically driven, pro-employer measure that made no attempt
to balance employer-employee interests in the employment relationship”,
the ECA certainly aimed to create an efficient labour market, while
providing for freedom of choice in each workplace.
A change of government led to the enactment of the Employment
Relations Act 2000 (ERA). While it can be said that that
both the ERA and its predecessor, the ECA, display a move away from
central Government involvement in bargaining outcomes and wage fixing,
the ERA has been interpreted by many employers as a pro-union measure. The
essence of the ERA may be seen as three interrelated collective rights
of employees:
- The right to associate with other employees to enable the formation
of employees’ organisations to address the “inherent
inequality of bargaining power”;
- The right to bargain collectively with employers; and
- The right to take direct action in the course of collective bargaining.
Aside from obvious similarities between the ERA and Work Choices,
such as the shift to a single national industrial system (although
limited to corporations only with Work Choices) and an emphasis on
alternative dispute resolution, other elements of Work Choices reform
are poles apart from New Zealand’s current employment law framework. For
example, in New Zealand all employees are able to commence unjustified
dismissal claims and employers are unable to terminate their employment
without just cause and in the absence of procedural fairness. In
New Zealand union groups are currently threatening nationwide industrial
action in response to a bill that would allow employers and employees
to terminate the employment relationship on a no-fault basis within
the first three months of employment. That bill is unlikely to
be passed.
New Zealand employers and employees have experienced the far-reaching
legislative reform that their Australian counterparts are currently
facing. Provided the legislators recognise that employment involves
two parties, that both have interests that may differ from time to
time and more importantly that the interests of both sides require
legal protection, reform is not necessarily a bad thing.
For more information, please contact:
Erin Davies
Partner
t: +64 9 979 2177
m: +64 29 622 2300
e: Erin Davies
Last updated: 22 June 2006
This article is intended to be brief in nature and should be used for information only. It should not be relied on as legal advice. |
