|
|
|
The Changing Role of the State: Regulating Work in Australia and New Zealand 1788–2007
Gordon Anderson and Michael Quinlan*
The state has played a conspicuous role in the history of labour in Australia and New Zealand both as a focus for struggles and where the labour movement achieved a degree of influence that garnered the interest of progressives in other countries. The state is a complex institution and its relationship to labour has been equally complex, especially when the differential impacts on particular groups, such as women, are considered. This article traces state regulation of work arrangements (broadly defined) in both countries over the period of European presence. Although there are significant similarities, a number of differences are identified. We also indicate how recent research and debate on the historiography of the state can provide new insights.
|
|
|
| |
|
The Historiography of the State and Labour | |
| The state occupies a central position in the history of labour in both Australia and New Zealand. Perhaps for this very reason it has often been treated incidentally in comparative labour histories of the two countries,1 although this is less true of those studies focusing on the experience of women workers.2 A comprehensive examination of the relationship of the state to the labour movement is no small undertaking because it must consider not only a complex array of laws but also the broader sphere of politics and policy-making, government departments and enforcement agencies (inspectorates and the police), courts and tribunals, as well as the impacts and responses of different groups of workers, including women, indigenous workers and those from minority groups. |
1
|
|
Over the past two decades Australian and New Zealand labour historians have provided new insights into state/labour relations in number of areas, providing a basis for more informed comparisons. This includes studies of the experiences of women and indigenous workers under the arbitration system, struggles to improve occupational health and safety (OHS) laws and the industrial strategies of employers.3 Further, Martin and Patmore have undertaken major studies of government departments responsible for administering labour laws in New Zealand and industrial tribunal chiefs in New South Wales, respectively.4 To this we can add a rich, though far from exhaustive, analysis of arbitral records.5 The relationship of particular communities to the state has also attracted attention. While there is an expanding literature on struggles over OHS and workers' compensation in both countries, detailed examinations of legislative developments and patterns of enforcement in these areas remain rare.6 As we indicate below, even where court and other records do not survive, it is possible to construct databases that provide insights into the relationship between labour and the state. |
. . . |
There are about 11292 more words in this article.
Please log in (or, if you are not yet an
authorized user, please go to the
User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
|
