Pacific Currents in the Tasman: Comparative and Transnational Perspectives on New Zealand Labour History

The Labour History journal recently revised its editorial policy. Greg Patmore, the editor, makes clear that the 'primary focus of the journal remains Australasia'. However articles are now welcomed that 'engage in international debates in labour historiography and theory; innovative articles on labour and social history in other countries and regions; and comparative and transnational perspectives on Australian labour and social history'.1 These changes are made, we are told, in the wake of labour historians' increasing internationalism. The editorial board would have revised its policy in February 2004 fully cognisant of the difficulties involved in transnational history.2 Historians from smaller countries, such as New Zealand, have had difficulty making an impact on larger historiographies and will welcome the development. Of course Australian historians have sometimes felt the same in regard to the United States.3 The new policy will hopefully promote internationalism. The new policy occurs in the wake of increasing interest in Australasian comparative history.4 A group of New Zealanders has been largely responsible for a developing stream of New Zealand and Australian comparative work from the 1980s, most recently by Philippa Mein Smith and James Bennett.5 Similarly New Zealand and Australian comparative labour history has been growing apace too.6 Eric Fry's edited collection, Common Cause, published in 1986 marks the beginning of a sustained trend.7 However the work that is emerging is not particularly self-reflective. There have been several conferences on New Zealand and United States comparisons which considered the issues involved in more depth: one in 1988; and another more specifically on New Zealand and North American comparative labour history in 2001. The latter, in particular, aired issues involved in a wider comparative and regional history in the way that comparative Australasian labour history has not. In this commentary I discuss some issues of comparative history from a New Zealand point of view.8