Abstract:
The Australian Government's newly-introduced Work Choices Act represents
one of the most far-reaching changes to Australian workplace legislation since
Federation. A major detailed critique of the Act-or Bill as it was at that
stage-was that which was endorsed by 151 Academics (2005). This influential
document, which was a submission to a Senate Enquiry into the Bill. raised many
concerns about the then-proposed legislation. One of the concerns was related to
New Zealand. It suggested that New Zealand's Employment Contracts Act
1991-a precursor and template for Australia's Work Choices Act-produced
income inequality, a lower full-time participation rate, lower real wages, flatter
productivity and a "diaspora of a quarter of its population ", It will be shown
that these claims are in the main, not supported by the available evidence.
Moreover, additional evidence in relation to inflation, real GDP growth, the
unemployment rate and employment growth paint a much more positive, or at
least nuanced, picture of New Zealand's experience in relation to the
Employment Contracts Act.
