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.