How can Work Choices be constitutionally valid when the Court that has sanctioned it is only a tool of the party in power?

Because Work Choices appears to have replaced the Arbitration Court, the endeavour simply seems to make sure the Howard government rules the roost against the unions or holds the big end of the stick.

It is certainly the present pitstock economics with massive demands for labour that has caused the workforce to forget about the protection that their great great grandkids might need in the future when the glitzy pitstocks run out?

Cheers BB, WA

Our Constitution has a fatal defect, which is that the Commonwealth government appoints the judges. Just look at some of the asinine decisions that have been handed down recently. For example, look at the electoral act. The Court has decided that, contrary to the wording of the constitution, which gives the federal parliament plenary power to decide electoral qualifications, the government cannot disenfranchise electors who have been sentenced to less than three years in prison. They can disenfranchise everyone under 18 years of age, and persons sentenced to more than three years in prison, but not the others. What balderdash! How can anyone justify this bilge? The whole court system has been brought into total contempt, not just by this, but similar decisions. Several years ago the court discovered implied provisions in the constitution that have never been approved by the people, just by the court. What a joke!

I continue to be amazed under these circumstances why people continue to campaign for a republic. They obviously do not appreciate the contempt the people have for the political class, and how they love to see them dismissed, particularly by Her Majesty's representative. The easiest way for them to achieve their republic, under current conditions, would be for the High Court to find that current provisions relating to the Queen are temporary provisions, and that there are implied provisions providing for a President elected by two thirds of Federal Parliament. This would make any vote by the people otiose.

This lawyer's article is typical of the irrelevant rhetoric they spruke. The following comment is also in error,

Our Constitution has a fatal defect, which is that the Commonwealth government appoints the judges.

Chapter 111 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia provides
Sec 72. The Justices of the High Court and of the other courts created by the Parliament—
(i.) Shall be appointed by the Governor-General in Council:

The High Court Act describes them as JUSTICES. That means that they are not appointed as JUDGES.
The oath they swear in accordance with the Schedule sec 11 refers to the OFFICE of a JUSTICE.

I do swear that I will bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law, that I will well and truly serve Her in the Office of Chief Justice [or Justice] of the High Court of Australia - etc.

The Family Law Act describes its referees as JUDGES but Justice Burr of the Family Court in Adelaide on the 6 Sept 2007 made the statement that the Family court DOES NOT HAVE a SEAL of the Family Court of Australia even though the Family Court web site displays one and the reasons why its use is no longer required for particular documents or process.

The High Court of Australia does have a statutory seal of the Court but they refuse to use it on process issued from the Registry of the Court in accordance with the rules and the Act.
Now this is a dispute resolution process provided by the Commonwealth Parliament described as a COURT but it does NOT have JUDGES appointed, only JUSTICES.

The Family Court of Australia created under the Family Law Act has individuals swearing their oath of office,
I do swear that I will well and truly serve in the office of Judge of the Family Court of Australia- etc.

Constitution
Number of judges. 79. The federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such number of judges as the Parliament prescribes.

WHAT DO THESE JUSTICES ACTUALLY DO ?

Young Dan,

You are splitting hairs a bit when you mentioned the method of appointment of High Court Justices.

As you said, The formal appointment is made by the Governor-General in Council, which is the Governor-General acting on the advice of the Federal Executive Council. As all the members of the Federal Executive Council are members of the federal government of the day, it seems fair to me to say that effectively the justices are appointed by the federal government. State governments don't get a look in, except as a courtesy by the federal attorney-general, and so it is not much of a surprise that justices favour the continual extension of federal power, contrary to the will of the people expressed at referendum after referendum.

During the last third of the 19th century, in the United States "Corporations confronted the law at every turn," according to Harvard law professor Lawrence M. Friedman. "They hired lawyers and created whole law firms. They bought and sold governments." Courts began creating legal doctrines to protect corporations and corporate property, subverting charter law and constitutional amendments.
These judges gave certain corporations, such as railroad, mining and manufacturing companies, the power of eminent domain -- the right to take private property with minimal compensation to be determined by the courts.
Workers, the courts also ruled, were responsible for causing their own injuries on the job. This came to be called the "assumption of risk."
Judges created the "right to contract" doctrine, which stipulates that the government cannot interfere with an individual's "freedom" to negotiate with a virtually immortal, omnipotent and inanimate corporation, for wages and working conditions.
Judges also established the "managerial prerogative" and "business judgment" doctrines, giving corporations legal justification to arrest workers' civil rights at factory gates and to blockade democracy at boardroom doors.
The biggest blow to citizen constitutional authority came in 1886. The US Supreme Court ruled that a private corporation was a "natural person" under the US Constitution, sheltered by the 14th Amendment, which requires due process in the criminal prosecution of "persons." There was no history, logic or reason given to support that view.
Within just a few decades, appointed judges had redefined the "common good" to mean the corporate use of humans and the Earth for maximum production and profit -- no matter what was manufactured, who was hurt or what was destroyed.
John Ward
20 Grosse Road
Gordon
Tasmania
7150
03 62921211

The corporations power can and should be used by our elected Australian Government to establish one set of laws for all Australians.

The High Court made the right situation for our time.

Federation is not working well at all with its state and territory parliaments engaged in endless blaming each other and shifting costs at every opportunity. We deserve much better than that from our system of government.

The massive inefficiency of having 9 separate civil services often working on incompatible policy and laws comes with a price tag of tens of millions each year. The sooner states are abolished by use of the corporations power, the better governance will be in our country.

Local government should be the delivery end of public service where local needs are identified and priorities set under national laws and performance standards.