Gordon Campbell on National’s industrial relations policy
Image - Lyndon Hood
*****
The surprising thing about the National Party’s industrial relations policy is not that it’s only a bare outline – these
days, even a one page summary of anything that National plans to do in government counts as a revelation. Nor is it
surprising that its critics in government and trade unions have treated the proposals as Genghis Khan pillaging his way
through the nation’s work sites.
No, the more surprising thing is that the policy is so blandly moderate, and hedged with conditions. Behind closed
doors, the group that will be most genuinely upset is bound to be the feisty division of the Employers and Manufacturers
Association led by Alisdair Thompson. Yesterday, this Auckland-based organisation took the strange step of running in
Wellington’s Dominion-Post newspaper a large, screaming attack ad on Trevor Mallard – “Its unfair, its wrong, its
discriminatory, it must be stopped ! “ - that was targeted at some fairly mundane measures that Mallard is shepherding
through Parliament. Mallard’s measures are meant to ensure that Kiwisaver contributions are retained for retirement
purposes, and not cashed up. No big deal. Yet this OTT ad ran on the same day that National released their moderate
industrial relations policy. Weird.
What National is proposing is a far cry from re-erecting the Employment Contracts Act. Yes, it does contain the 90 day
probationary period without personal grievance safeguards, but this is hedged with conditions – only in firms with fewer
than 20 people, and all the good faith, sick leave, holiday, health and safety provisions will still apply.
Mediation will be available in disputes, and the same employee will not be able to be fired and re-hired every 90 days.
Conclusion : there’s a discernible difference with Labour here, but not excessively beyond the current probationary
measures in the Employment Relations Act. This provision won’t satisfy the ideologues on the right. ‘Boldness” will be
demanded !
What else? Under a National government unions will need the employer’s consent to have access to workplaces. Yet this
barrier to union activity is hedged with the condition that the employer cannot ‘unreasonably’ – whatever that means –
block that access. The other expected ideological rider, that workers being able to bargain collectively without joining
a union is also included.
Oddly, there are also a set of quite legalistic measures proposed as well. The resources of the Mediation Service will
be boosted, and an earlier role of the Employment Court is envisaged, with wider and more extensive natural justice
procedures to be granted to the Employment Relations Authority. Currently this is more of an investigative body but it
would be steered, under National, towards acting “ more judicially.”
Amusingly, the attack on this aspect of National’s policy has been led by the National Distribution Union – but n order
to protect small employers, who form such an important part of National’s support base. The NDU have a point. More
litigation ? A more costly legal framework ? Its hard to see how that squares with these measures, which seem likely to
create a goldmine for lawyers, and would turn the Authority into a quasi-judicial body. Hard to see how all that really
helps out small employers – or does much for the credibility of a National Party that has otherwise made a fetish out of
its devotion to cutting the compliance costs for business.
Beyond that little sideshow, the main provisions that affect workers relate to the ability to cash out the fourth week
of annual leave. This, the policy says, “Can be only at the employee's request, and cannot be raised in negotiations for
an agreement. “ Again, while in reality this could devolve into an employee being pressured, the option of a cash out is
preferable to the outright abolition of this right, which a more obviously doctrinaire National government could have
chosen to put out there. Even on the vexed issue – for employers – of the Holidays Act, the policy offers a working
party, not an outright solution.
In private, trade unions will probably be thinking they can live with such an array of policies. As I say, the Auckland
EMA branch will huff and puff – just as they did when they came out a few weeks ago and slagged National for not making
the 90 day probationary period extend for six months. The signs are, they will be ignored. National’s policy after all,
also advocates a closer working relationship between Business New Zealand and the CTU – and that in itself, underlines
the fact that the moderate line coming out of Business NZ is more in tune with what a John Key-led government has in
mind. There is a widening gulf now between Business NZ and the Auckland EMA.
What wider significance does all this have for the election campaign ? Well, industrial relations – like welfare – is
usually a litmus policy area, and a realm where a party plays out its core identity. What it could signal – and
obviously this is sheer speculation - is that a National government may not have a hidden extremist agenda in mind, so
much as centre-right moderation, with a few ideological trimmings.
Like Labour has done, National could well disappoint its more radical supporters by doing less in government than it
seems empowered to do. The value of being in power will be cumulative and spread over several terms, rather than
revolutionary. Since MMP is a system that punishes extremism, revolutionary governments in New Zealand will now always
run the serious risk under MMP of being one term affairs, or of quickly making themselves highly dependent on small
party support
That’s not to say there isn’t a difference between Labour and National governments – but that their style of government
may hold more similarities than differences, with only occasional concessions made to identity politics. John Key for
Helen Clark, Bill English for Michael Cullen… they could prove more interchangeable than we think. The outcome will
really hinge on whether Key - or more to the point, English - is of a mind to resist for tactical reasons, the ageing
ideologues ( the Deanes, the Kerrs etc) waiting in the wings.
ENDS