Editorial: Mediation is not always an answer

Mediate, said the Prime Minister in response to the continuing rows over the loading of logs at South Island ports. Mediation seems to be a cure-all in the mind of this Government. It is a central feature of its Employment Relations Act. The mediation service of the Labour Department has been given a more formal and active role in conflict resolution. If that fails, the new Employment Relations Authority is supposed to investigate the dispute and possibly order more mediation. And so it goes on - to the Employment Court.

Mediation can be useful in disputes of all kinds where both sides want to come to a working arrangement and cannot agree on the terms. But mediation is of little use, and may well be detrimental, when fundamental principles are in conflict. If somebody puts a gun to your head and demands your money, mediation is not likely to produce mutual satisfaction. If he settles for half of your money, you may be relieved to lose less than you feared but you are unlikely to feel content with the transaction. He, on the other hand, may be well satisfied, and encouraged by the availability of mediation to use that method of raising finance again.

There are some fundamental principles at stake in the conflict at ports such as Nelson where this week watersiders employed by a local stevedoring company were picketing and harassing the employees of a Tauranga-based company contracted by Carter Holt Harvey to load logs onto its ships.

One side believes that security lies in protecting local jobs by physically preventing competition if necessary. The other side is no less interested in security (who isn't?) but believes that it lies in being prepared to bid for work with better techniques and capable of producing more value for money.

As in industrial disputes of old, this one has thrown up its share of red herrings. The Waterfront Workers Union says the dispute is about "casualisation" of work. But it is hard to see how that is so, because the union's preferred local firms also hire mostly as and when needed. Nelson's Stevedoring Services, for example, employs only 15 of its 60 watersiders on a full-time basis. "Casual" employment has been characteristic of the waterfront since time immemorial and there have been always plenty of applicants for it.

If waterfront work is ever to settle into a conventional form, it would probably require a rationalisation of the number of ports in the country and that remains unlikely for as long as they continue predominantly in public ownership. The ports are the point at which the domestic economy meets the competitive world and one or the other has to adapt. This dispute is a classic conflict between the principles of protection that once ruled the economy and those that have ruled it more recently. It is hard to see how mediation can find a middle ground.

Mediation is unlikely to achieve anything except a temporary respite from incidents that both Carter Holt Harvey and the Government would rather avoid. Neither is really a party to the dispute between stevedoring companies but there is a risk that the Government and the company will try to restore peace rather than resolve the important issue at stake.

Any compromise that does not require watersiders to match the best practice that competition can offer would only invite more tension. The company knows that. The Government has given no view on the direction that mediation should take, although Labour Minister Margaret Wilson has made it known her sympathies are with the union.

There are times to sit down and mediate and there are times to stand up and provide leadership. The Government needs to demonstrate that competitiveness, not protection, still rules.