The High Court will rule today on the consitutionality of the federal government's IR legislation http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1786896.htm and I have misgivings about the long-term effect of their likely ruling.

We'll know what the ruling is later today, but all the indications are that it will go in the government's favour. Even the "progressive" judges like Michael Kirby have been making supportive noises.

My concern is that a favourable judgement for the government will remove the checks and balances originally inherent in the constitution and further undermine the federal system. A federation of states allows for experimentation across the nation in each state, and so reduces the risk of the whole country adopting a less than optimal policy.

I'm also unconvinced that the government's IR legislation actually delivers tangible benefits. I'm all in favour of more flexible labour markets, but in most industries and workplaces that was coming, or here, under the old regime. For the businesses that I run the only tangible difference the Andrews changes made were that we had to get employees to sign-on and off every day - a change that is now being abandoned.

The Coalition government is centralist when it sees an opportunity to force its agenda on the states. This is all well and good when it is the right agenda, but in breaching the old constitutional balance Howard is setting-up a situation where a succeeding Labor government will have the tools to remake Australia in its own image, unless Howard intends to be there forever of course.

The people who have formulated and defended these laws are not affected by them. Australians will give Howard the kicking he so richly deserves when they have the voices heard at the next election.

I've just skimmed parts of the judgement. How ironic that the Capital "C" Conservative on the bench, Ian Callinan was one of the two judges in the dissenting minority. The other was Michael Kirby. I haven't tried to read Kirby's judgement yet, but Callinan appears to be in-tune with my concerns that these laws interfere with the disposition of powers between the Commonwealth and the States as envisaged in the constitution. You can read the judgement (all 500+ pages of it) at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2006/52.html.

I have just listened to the Telstra AGM and every time a question was asked about Telstra's social obligation to be a decent employer or provide technical training and employment for Australian youth the chairman's response was that Telstra was responsible to its shareholders and questions about Telstra's corporate behaviour towards training, employment and network coverage should be directed to the government. Questions regarding Telstra's continued participation telecommunications research were ignored as the board pins its hopes on "transitioning" the corporation into a seller of "next G" mobile phones.

"Next G" mobile phones offer expensive functionality of video conferencing, internet access, film access at rates that are beyond the budget of the adult australians living on or below the median income of $26,000.

We have a government that has a hands off approach to corporate governance side by side with newly privatised government departments who display the social conscience of the 1880's American railway barons.

God help Australian workers because their elected government has forsaken them. We are going to be like New Zealand, whose greatest export is its people. In fact, in Victoria many families with 25+ year old graduates boast about how well their children are doing working overseas in London, Toronto, Tokyo etc. The real question is will these graduates be able to return to Australia to work and raise their children?

I think it is quite legitimate for a person or a company to look after their own interests - that seems quite natural to me. However as I asserted in the Economic Anarchy thread unrestrained self-interest results in a radically polarized society which is bad for everyone.

It is the job of administration to 'govern' these self-interested forces and ensure that the society produces a certain commonality of wealth rather than an indulgent wealth at one end of the scale and a real-life poverty at the other end - that may be why it was originally called the 'Commonwealth Government'.

For the government to abdicate its role and rely on companies to look after the common good would be like the police relying on Organized Crime to look after welfare. If the members of the Commonwealth government are not looking after the nation's people what are they doing - maybe simply fattening their own share portfolios. I think we need a separation analogous to the separation of church and state in a separation between commerce and state.