ABSTRACT
The paths away from conciliation and arbitration of industrial relations matters in Australia and New Zealand are now well established. Yet the paths adopted are quite different. In this chapter we explore how these two countries moved away from common systems. For most of the twentieth century Australia and New Zealand were internationally known for their unique national industrial relations system of compulsory state arbitration (Bray and Walsh 1998). The myriad of changes that occurred in both the political and economic arenas in the late 1980s and early 1990s had a profound impact upon the nature of conciliation and arbitration in both countries. This chapter will explore the key elements that have allowed these changes to alter dramatically the nature of industrial relations in both countries. First, the historical foundations of industrial relations in both Australia and New Zealand will be examined. Second, the key legislation that underpins the nature of each system will be analysed, with an emphasis upon the role of the constitution as a method of enshrining the principles of conciliation and arbitration. Third, the key institutions that govern industrial relations in Australia and New Zealand will be considered in the light of their ability to influence the interpretation and direction of conciliation and arbitration. Fourth, the role of the key actors in the process will be analysed, including the important role that the states in Australia have played in defining the path of collective bargaining. Finally, trends and developments in Australia and New Zealand will be considered in light of the similarities and differences between each country’s distinctive path from conciliation and arbitration, and their implications for the future.
