At last. George has something other than a Bill of Rights to talk about. Yesterday he was described in the media as an aspiring ALP candidate. His ALP mates in state governments brought this on themselves. They challenged the IR laws in the High Court, and now taxpayers have to pay millions for their silliness, including the Federal Government’s costs. Brilliant move from the duds to the left.

George seems to have forgotten, too, that Hawke did something similar with the Franklin dam proposal, and Keating with Mabo. No complaints there, George?

George believes that the decision would have “shocked the framers of our 1901 constitution”. That’s his opinion. Other opinions suggest
that the founding fathers would have done without the states if they knew what was going to happen, and is happening now, with the states and their incompetent administrators.

With the exception of WA, the states are economic basket cases, whereas the Federal Government has managed the economy extremely well. More power to the Feds, and out with the states. We have too many politicians.

While I'm a 'Johnny man' and proud of it, I think that whenever the High Court interprets the constitution at least some objectivity should be applied to critiques of the decision. In this case the corporations power has been interpreted by the majority in a far more general and potent manner than previously interpreted. Kirby J was correct when he noted that the the majority was in fact passing judgment on more than just 'Work Choices'.

I doubt that those who wrote the constitution would support the decision of the majority in this instance. But I also doubt they would have ever expected corporations to play such a role in society nor would they have envisaged that a federal opposition and state governments could be so incompetent, sleazy and impotent. The ALP is an embarrasment at all levels, and the reason the general public is not taking more notice of the High Court is because it is quite happy to see johnny running the show.

No the states still have rights the rights to do the right thing

but dont worry when kimmy gets in

he will start his own agenda not the peoples on federalism

he has already discussed this so watch out

Spare me the Applause for the Feds Leigh;

The point the author tried to make - notwithstanding his political aspirations - is pretty consistent with that of most constitutional lawyers and academic - and spare me thesneer at the concpet of academics - I can see your lip curling from here!

Even that old curmudgeon John Stone is of the view it has opened the door to increased pwer to the feds at the expense of the states - if governments have access to power they will use it simple as that.

The fact that we are over governed is of no relevance in the context that you put it - the potential for increased cetralisation of control - is the greater form of over governance - even if the states withered on the vine - the scope this decision gives to a government of any persuasion - should lead most right thinking people to the liquor cabinet.

Long gone are the days when a government has been scared of the people - this decision just re-inforces the notion that the people with good reason now need to be scared of the government.

And enough with the Feds and their economic competance - they are simply riding on the wave of the resource boom - I expect them to be beached fairly soon

Don’t get all excited by the notion that the states are some sort of sentinel protecting workers from a rampaging federal government. Hands up all those who can remember Bob Carr taking the knife to workers’ compensation legislation which reduced the payout available to injured workers. And what theatre it was to see some of the unions join the ALP in this latest action in the high court. Surely we must be approaching the last day when the lion shall lie down with the lamb.

The states should be declared insolvent and tossed into the dustbin. They have now exceeded their use by date.

Goodbye to States Rights.
As a person who did not celebrate the Centenary of Federation,I am
not confident in this arguement that the Howard Government is to blame for the Social and Political mess that our Federation has brought on the Australian Public.
When each state built a train line out of the State Capital on different gauges.We were doomed by the Federation of States self interest.
The West Australian Government is investing every possible dollar it can out of the Mining Boom,into Perth infarstructure.
The South Australia Government is taxing people four hundred kilometres from the River Murray the "River Murray Levy".
Mount Gambier 18 kilometres from Victoria is being robbed by the Adelaide based state governmnet.
Mount Gambier the second largest city in South Australia receives very little State assistance ,yet gets more Federal Funding.
The Roads for Recovery scheme has helped many communities,who if they waited for their State Government would still be driving along pot holded roads.
I would always stand up for the rights of workers but to blaim the 1901 Constitution or the Howard Government is somewhat of a long bow.
It is time to "Scrap the States" and look to regional Governments and a strong Federal Government as happens in "Mother England."

As Howard didn't have the guts to promote the IR laws BEFORE the last election, the people of Australia haven't had the chance to voice their opinion, yet

SneekePete, your expression - long gone are the days when governments were scared of the people - is similar to what was said by the Nazi Party, when even before the beginning of WW2, when putting Gypsies and Homosexuals in gas-ovens, they had right-wing Bishops telling their congregations not to worry, because if you believe in the spirit these unfortunates will be born again as better people.

No fear of the people there, but a frightening respect for government from the populace.

Methinks the real trouble with most of our OLO rightwingers is either a poor knowledge of history, or a belief that such a knowledge is not needed in a coming Brave New World sounding so much like the neo-con slogan as the year 2000 drew near - all about Unipolar US of A and the American 21st Century.

It also included regime change for Iraq, which John Howard and his party followers faithfully believed in, otherwise they would never have followed GWB into his preemptive illegal Iraq adventure.

Further, going by the sorry mess Iraq is in now, with suggestions that we might have to beg Syria and Iran of former Axis of Evil fame to come and give a hand.

Maybe our Liberals may later need a hand also - especially with using Fascistic politics of which they have not a clue only recently happened with Hitler.

Talking of lessons of history, we are reminded of Winston Churchill who said that he preferred his generals to have an adequate knowledge of history for successful campaigns

Maybe Mr Howard should look at history as Churchill suggested, rather than like a 19th century colonial statesman, some who might have had the look but were not much liked by the natives.

This decision of the High Court was not unexpected, and simply highlights a defect in the constitution that has existed since 1901 - which is that justices of the High Court are appointed by the Commonwealth Government alone. As a result, only Justices that favour an expansion of Commonwealth power get appointed. The centralisation of Federal power has been pushed by all federal politicians, as all politicians always seem to want more power. One side-effect of this attitude of the court is that when the people are asked in a referendum to expand federal power they ALWAYS vote NO, and the court then usually proceeds to interpret the constitution to achieve the objective rejected by the people. The only exception I can think of is when the people rejected the idea of a republic. I am surprised that Keating did not ask the High Court to rule that certain sections of the Constitution that mention the Queen were temporary provisions, and that there were implied clauses providing for a President elected by a two-thirds majority of Parliament. The more you look at the whole field you can only say:

What a joke.

John Howard said;

"It's not the intention of the government to interpret this decision as some kind of carte blanche for some massive expansion of Commonwealth power," he said. "I have no desire to take over the role of the states."

John Howard also said;

"I can guarantee we're not going to have $100,000 university degree courses." John Howard, interview with Neil Mitchell on Radio 3AW, 15 October 1999

and...

"John Howard: "No, there's no way that a GSTwill ever be part of our policy."
Journalist: "Never ever?"
John Howard: "Never ever. It's dead. It was killed by the voters in the last election".
John Howard, interview, Tweed Heads Civic Centre, 2 May 1995

the pearl...

"The Australian Government knows that Iraq still has chemical and biological weapons and that Iraq wants to develop nuclear weapons."
John Howard, Speech to Parliament before the war in Iraq, 4 February 2003

HERE WE GO AGAIN!

Very good points aspro and rainier.
As these laws are very large changes to australias IR laws, why were we the voters not informed prior to the election. At the next election do we have to guess what litte john is up to by the non political adds?
States are very relevent in this rather large country. There is very little political debate in Australia to begin with, why reduce it even further.

The High Court decision voted 5-2 that The Rodent has the power to pass this legislation, it is not a recomendation of it simply the acknowledgement of the authority.

Grossly unfair and bad laws have always been opposed by Australians, the Vietnam policy for example when Dr.Jim Cairns led 100,000 people down Bourke Street in protest, this will repaet itself in 2 weeks when Australian working people show the rodent what they think of his Workchoices law.

PM Ben Chiffley is renowned for the saying "the hip pocket nerve" when this nerve is hit, Australians respond, as they will on the 30th Jimmy Barnes will entertain a packed MCG and the rest of Australia's working poor will march to show the rodent what to expect at next years Federal election, those workers who still possess a backbone will be there en mass, along with some of us whose lives have been destroyed by the workplace treatment we have recieved.

The high courts decision may be for the best- after long term ALP governments in all the states all we have is unresolved problems. We're running out of water, no faith in our hospitals and premiers who have told more lies in the last week than JH has told in 3 terms. Who are the real rodents?

If I was a betting man I would bet the government will be returned at the next election by an increased majority in parliament. Why? Not because all Australians agree with Work Choices but because John Howard had signalled it was going to happen long before the previous election and everybody knew that's what he stood for. Thats the thing about Johnny- you know what you're getting.

Perhaps if the far left and union leaders in this country could for one second get past calling JH names like 'rodent' and start coming up with real sollutions the real workers of this country (not the union standover merchants) would return to the ALP. Blue collar workers are now, as evidenced in many polls, the real backbone of the government-not because of apathy but because they see what the ALP has been reduced to and are embarrassed about it. I also am guessing that they are sick of being patronised by the left in this country.

wre,

The term "rodent" actually was coined by Howard's own Parliamentary colleagues and accidentally publicly exposed by George Brandis.

It's common knowledge that he is referred to as "the rodent" and "the Prime Miniature" among the Libs, just as the name "Verandah Sandstone" describes one of his well-known Senators.

He is tolerated by his colleagues because he's been a winner but not many actually like him personally.

The context was that he was a "lying rodent" that would have to get bailed out once again for a faux pas, but Brandis gallantly tried to change it to a term of affection suggesting that he "gnaws away" at matters.

Yeah, sure.

Leigh,I read with interest your comments but I can't agree.You said Liberals are good at managing money,how do you explain the deficit which grows by the month?WA were working in the black after paying off their debt,now with all the infrastructer happening I would like to see the true figures .I would really like to know how you believe the Howard government have helped the states.I know our states health system for one is in crisis along with many other areas,yet it continually gets worse.I have seen how the Liberal government take,but I'm at a loss to see where they have given back.If the States wanted a Liberal government running them, the People would have elected them.Have a look at the laws introduced by Mr Howard it's more like a dictatorship.