These new proposed IR laws are only a ploy by a - as many have said - lying, deceitful, mean spirited divisive liberal party, led by a politician who has all the above mentioned traits in abundance.These IR laws are first to knobble the power base of the labour party. Then secondly to assist the liberal power base and their contributors or donors. numbat

I am amazed that anyone can pretend that High Court decisions are based on anything other than politics. Anyone who studies the interpretation of section 41 of the Constitution can have no doubt that the judges will not let any argument impede their instructions to expand federal power by any means possible. Is it any wonder that the people, over the last 104 years, have consistently vetoed any referendum that would expand politician's power? Why is it so hard for politicians to realise that what the people want is for politicians NOT TO HAVE POWER. As a result, any attempt to discuss this question is futile.

That is also why many people treasure that wonderful day, the 11th November 1975, when the Prime Minister was wiped like a dirty rag by Her Majesty's representative. They rendered their verdict several weeks later.

One must remember when discussing the current High Court that all (or almost all) of the justices have been appointed during the Howard government's term in office an so are more likely to support the government than not. Whilst they are not forced to follow the government's position, a majority of the High Court is conservative and thus likely to support conservative legislation.

This aside, the High Court is the single most influential force in removing state powers and handing these to the federal government. See the following cases for evidence of the High Court passing power to the Feds:
The Engineers Case (1920)
First Uniform Tax Case (1942)
Second Uniform Tax Case (1957)
State Banking (1947)
Concrete Pipes Case (1971)
Cole vs Whitfield (1988)
Payroll Tax Case (1971)
Tobacco Tax Case(1997)
Hindmarsh (1998)

Thus the High Court, contrary to the idea that it would oppose the IR reforms, is more likely, based on history and basic obervations, to support the reforms.

Mr Williams,

The proposed National IR package; 'WorkChoices' appears to be partly or wholly reliant upon Pidoto v Victoria (1943) and the principle enunciated recently, that it is possible to achieve indirectly, that which cannot be acheived directly (CFMEU, Gleeson CJ). This principle, supported by Pidoto would supposedly be capable of providing support to such a radical change to both the Industrial landscape, and the federal balance.

If this was true, then the major case supporting the principle that the Constitution predicates the continued existance of the States, as independent, governing entities (Melbourne Corp.), could be overruled. This is because, as the case name suggests, the plaintiff was at all material times a Corporation, which being a bank, would demionstrably fulfill the requirements for having a trading or financial character.

Unfortunately for the Commonwealth, this is not in fact true (Bourke v State Bank of NSW (1991)). In fact in a unanimous joint judgment the Mason court approved the decision of Dixon CJ in A-G (Cth) v Schmidt (1961) (also see Fairfax v Federal Commissioner of Taxation; Strickland v Rocla Concrete Pipes; Victorian Workcover Authority v Andres [2005] FCA 94 (17 Feb)), that it is in fact in accordance with the best rules of interpretation that, inter alia, one may not acheive indirectly, that which one cannot acheive directly.

The other major support for the proposed laws is the verdict in Pidoto, where it was held that the Parliament could enact regulations affecting de facto Constitutional amendment. This would suggest that if this verdict is to maintain any standing as a precedent, it must surely be for nothing more than the extraordinary excess attributable to the defence power in time of war, it most certainly is not capable of providing the level of support and precedent attributed to it.

Therefore, the proposed laws, purport to overturn an established interpretative principle, stated first by Dixon CJ (Schmidt), then approved by the entire Mason court (Bourke), on the basis of a contradictory suggestion by the current Cheif Justice (ironically, a fan of strict legalism), supported only by the bizzare verdict in Pidoto