Since the Australian union movement’s representational peak in the mid 1970s, the industrial, economic and political landscape has considerably changed While the election of the Hawke Government in 1983 provided much cause for optimism among the union movement, the experience of the 1980s decade has proven to be cathartic. This paper examines the union movement’s response to the changes of 1980s; examines the development of the Accord and details the ongoing implementation of strategies for its restructuring.

This analysis examines the impact of the Australian Council of Trade Unions’ (ACTU) application to the 1994 National Wage Case, on economic indicators such as employment, inflation, business investment, gross domestic product, interest rates and the current account balance by using the well respected econometric model devised by Mr Chris Murphy. The economic impact is assessed by inputting specific shocks to the Murphy Model along the lines of the wage increases proposed by the ACTU.

This paper examines the differences in outcomes between arbitrated wages increases and wage movements consistent with market conditions. Given the likely detrimental effect of wage increases sanctioned by tribunals, particularly on unemployment, there are a number of policy implications. These policy implications will also be examined.

Australia, and before Federation, the colonies, have long histories of tariff protection. However, by the end of this century tariffs for imports of most commodities will have been lowered to negligible levels. This paper briefly examines the history of the tariff and the changing structure of assistance to manufacturing in the 1980s and 1990s. As the tariff has been dismantled, a variety of alternative measures have been implemented. Thus, while the ‘old’ protectionism of tariffs on imports has been discredited, a ‘new’ form of protectionism — much to do with providing assistance for exports — has arisen to at least partially take its place. The protective effects of many of these measures is far less apparent and possibly more deleterious than the tariffs they replace.

In a recent paper in this Review, Rimmer and Watts (1994) are critical of our attempt to relate trade union activity to the only data on workplace productivity generated by the Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey [AWIRS], Crockett, Dawkins and Mulvey (1993). Their criticism is based on the fact that the data on productivity were gathered by asking managers to rank the productivity of their workplace relative to other workplaces in the industry on a five point scale ranging from ‘a lot higher’ through ‘average’ to ‘a lot lower’.

At issue in this debate is whether the relative productivity question in the Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey (AWIRS) can give reliable data for the dependant variable in Crockett, Dawkins and Mulvey’s equations. We claim it cannot; they claim it can.

Their Comment suggests the argument turns on four points:

1. (i) Does the distribution of responses suggest effects which might pollute the data?

2. (ii) Did the ‘subjective’ nature of the productivity estimates leave scope for ‘error’?

3. (iii) Are the likely statistical effects of this ‘error’ important?

4. (iv) Do independent and informed authorities support their judgement that the data is useable?