NEW ZEALAND LESSONS FOR AUSTRALIAN WORKPLACE REFORM: A CRITIQUE OF 151 ACADEMICS
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.049 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".