Finally, someone in this country that gets it.

Finally, someone in this country that gets it. For some sad reason, the only person in parliament who has even hinted at this idea is Barnaby Joyce and even he abandoned that line of argument to a 'worker's rights' focus. (Although to be fair I know, the Finance Minister had his reservations as well, to what extent I am not really sure)

I'm stuck in a horrid position with this policy, viewing this from a federalist perspective I dislike this policy, from a market reformer perspective I am disappointed that we did not take this opportunity to at least become on par with our neighbour New Zealand. However, just looking at the basic ideas which govern this debate, Labour Market Liberalism vs. Labour Market Socialism, I have to support this policy. For this policy is representative of ideas, which are not even included in it's text, this policy has become a symbol of our faith in Free Markets.

Given all this, if this policy were to be defeated in the High Court, it would give the Unions and Labor a huge win and will set back the cause for reform a generation or two (like in France).

So as you can see, Howard and Andrews have created a policy that has seen me enter an impossible contradiction. If we were to scrap it now, it would be very dangerous, if we are to keep it, it will be very dangerous.

DLC, what are the 'new ideas' that this legislation is representative of; America's?? Also, it may be true that governments have put their faith in free markets but I think it's fair to say that most people within our communities here in Australia feel they are living in anxious times economically,(especially with the introduction of Work Choices) and have very little faith in markets that are pointed only to the almighty dollar and are ignorant of our relationships with one another.

If the constitutional challenge by the states in opposition to Andrews using the corporations clause to overide state jurisdictions fails, we will see first hand the beginings of the desintegration of our political system, all at the expense of democracy - that vitally important tool which has the potential to bring into fruition changes within our society that work for the people and not the mnoey makers.

I agree federalism does allow the people to express their different policy preferences. Another benefit is that it puts policy making and policy makers closer to the people, to whom they are accountable, than a unitary system does.

The real challenge, I think, is to preserve these benefits while addressing the disbenefits of our system which has 3 layersof government, not 2. These disbenefits include:
1 Cost - we have more politicians and greater parliamentary costs per head of population than most other democracies

2 Accountability - despite the distribution of power and decision making under federalism, we still suffer a lack of accountability from our representatives. Politicians campaign on one or 2 key policies but choose to implement anything which is in their formal platforms which can be poorly defined and/or not debated in an election

3 Duplication and lack of integration - the 3 levels of government do not integrate their policy making efficient and effectively and at times duplicate services. Recently my local mayor claimed that we had no indoor basketball/netball facilities unitl I pointed out the local high school did.

I favour amalgamation of local govenment areas into Regional Councils which could be based on current electoral boundaries. The State representative of each Region could also be the Mayor of each Region Council. This would reduce the number of politicians and promote accountability and integration, at least between regional and state government.

I'd also like to see citizen sponsored bills or referenda at all levels to add further teeth to accountablility.

MichaelT

It really does not matter what industrial laws we have, because they have not been enforced for at least a decade.

The examples I have seen:

Employers not paying overtime rates, only offering the casual rate. Casuals not being paid a minimum 4 hour shift. (This is an industry covered by an award).

Company structures where almost all staff are "contractors" no tax paid, no super paid, no holiday pay.

Today a friend who erects scaffolding told me he hurt his back at work. The hospital gave him work cover forms, when he showed them to "The Boss" he was told I don't want to know about those.

On further questioning this company is paying its staff cash, no super, no tax, no workers compensation insurance. (compnay has operated for 8 years this way.)

Lets get real Govt legislation on industrial relations is irrelevant for most small employers and employees accept it because they need the money.

Whilst I certainly don't like the bureaucracy in this country, I am certainly not in support of greater concentration and centralisation of power in this country.

I do favour the idea of market liberalism. However, it's worth noting that whilst some people may be all for Howard and friends to ram through their agenda at the expense of the Labor states, it's not inconceivable that one day the reverse may happen and then such people will whine like stuck pigs about their sense of powerlessness.

I can't help notice the irony of a supposedly "liberal" party hell bent on market reform being so determined to obtain more power for itself.

On a related issue, one of the concerning features of the High Court case is that the referral of State IR powers was the subject of 4 separate referendums between 1914 and 1946, and was rejected by Australian voters each time. Unless I missed something this has only come up in the course of the case.

I realise that there will be some legal logic which says this is different but I cannot help but think that this is the executive arm of government asking the judicial arm to effectively subvert the will of the people.

There are numerous examples, many in recent years, where Federal and State Governments have sought to reach agreement on contentious issues, eg, water, competition, defamation etc. It was always open to the Feds to seek agreement with the States on a national system, I recall Andrew Murray suggesting as much and that the benfits of a unitary system would significantly outweigh any of the ideological clap trap in Work Choices. Of course that would involve compromise.

The reality is this is a hostile take over of State powers which the High Court should reject if for no other reason than the people have decided this topic 4 times. Maybe they should suggest another referendum ?