It would take perhaps several hundred post to explain it all, that I think is not desirable.
As to the budget issue. The Framers of the Constitution held that the Federal government should only use monies for what it is entitled too, the rest (surplus) to be returned to the States. Well, that is where we have a problem because it is simply not returned to the States. The monies collected are wasted on things such as political advertising for WorkChoices, etc.
There is a lot more to this, but those who, as I did, research the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution would be aware that starving the States of funds unconstitutionally was never intended. Blaming then the states hardly is appropriate.
That is apart of what a State night do wrong in their own right.

Earlier, I forwarded another email to ACTU president Sharan Burrows reminding her to my 26-7-2005 email to John Howard of which she also was provided a copy with, which also included the following;

HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. SYMON.-
The relations between the parties are determined by the contract in the place where it occurs.
And
Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania).-
We have heard to-day something about the fixing of a rate of wage by the federal authority. That would be an absolute impossibility in the different states.
And
Mr. BARTON: If they arise in a particular State they must be determined by the laws of the place where the contract was made.
And
Mr. BARTON.-We do not propose to hand over contracts and civil rights to the Federation, and they are intimately allied to this question.
And
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-
The people of the various states make their own contracts amongst themselves, and if in course of their contractual relations disagreements arise, and the state chooses to legislate in respect of the subject-matter of them, it can do so.

Yet, the ACTU, Federal Government or the States nor argued this before the Court, “Why not?”, ought to be asked, as the so called WorkChoices legislation clearly is and remains unconstitutional!

The last post had

QUOTE
Yet, the ACTU, Federal Government or the States nor argued this before the Court, “Why not?”, ought to be asked, as the so called WorkChoices legislation clearly is and remains unconstitutional!
END QUOTE

That should be

Yet, the ACTU, Federal Government nor the States argued this before the Court, “Why not?”, ought to be asked, as the so called WorkChoices legislation clearly is and remains unconstitutional!

Do not my correspondece was dated 26-7-2005 before the WorkChoices legislation was put before the Parliament!

In any event, where the Federal Government concealed this from the Court then this constitute fraud, and any judgment being the product of fraud can be set aside!

http://familyguardian.tax-tactics.com/Subjects/LawAndGovt/ChallJurisdiction/AuthoritiesArticle/AuthOnJurisdiction.htm
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it

Good to see the thread still lives just a few thoughts pale ,have that cuppa before you post calm down think it out.
The laughter you hear is me! LABOR! that is how the party spells its name.
On the busses? the obscure reference has meaning only to you.
Meals on wheels?
Our new poster has an interesting view one I share.
unions a difference exists, daily I see proof.
A poor unfortunate casual worker who is a member of my union has a storey to tell.
Another union he NEVER joined NEVER filled in a membership form with, has billed him 2 years fees!
His boss paid one weeks casual stay away fees to another union for the 3 days he worked on a site!
Let me tell you I think they are grubs for such gangster tactics!
A DIFFERENCE EXISTS!
I have seen at least 300 such threatening letters in my work life from this mob,
A DIFFERENCE EXISTS do not brand us all!fairness is a two way thing.

Belly
Well it is really funny. Its not my fault if you dont know what I am talking about regarding On the Bus and meals on wheals Belly.

Why dont you watch Parliment on TV. I dont get to watch much of it because I am too busy but if its on I find its very funny.

Re On The bus- aparently it was decided that each bus driver would be given a day off to door knock and a back pack.

That ought to help the hot line for reporting sus people wondering around with back packs.
Come on Belly you have got to addmitt its funny as. Cant you just see it- A dad reports a sus parcel just ike on the TV add= The bomb squad are rushed in - only to find a labour back pack instead of a bomb.
Mind you I guess they both have the same results eventually.

So I buy a bus company and I am told I have to pay for a days wages for all my drivers to go door knocking.
My question to you is Belly. Why Should I?
Please answer my question- Why Should 'I ' be made to pay for somebody elses PR?
See thats is why I cracked up a few weeks ago when you mentioned Anzac Day.
Sure I know its a public holiday Belly because I have employed staff all my life.
Many of those staff never bothered to show up at the local march but i had to pay their days wages.
Now Belly let me ask you this- Have you ever? tried to work with Labour? On anything? I mean people like Jack Lake Gavern , Burnie . Kevin Rudd?
I have Belly so I speak from experience. They cant run a chook raffle. Kevin needs to work under Peter Beattie and be guided by him.

I used to hire and fire employees, and only once the union sought to make an issue out of it, when I sacked an employee, only to immediately withdraw when I exposed he had been stealing from his co-workers.
While others in management complained about problems with the union, I found no such problems. Basically the difference being that when I took action to sack a person the person concerned would be well aware on what grounds I did so as to heed of any union problems.
And, the workers knew I was fair, in particularly when I sacked my own wife for failing to work to required standards. (I had not hired her!)

I would arrange a pay-rise for a worker because I held the person deserved it, such as a 16 year old who just worked for us for 6 months, getting full adult wages because I held he was worth it. Despite having worked on the land, within 6 months he proved to be the best machine setter, by the training I had arranged for him better then any other setter!

Now, if you look after your workers then more then likely unions will stay clear from you! As I made clear to the workers, if you do not like to work, don’t bother coming in but don’t expect to get paid, as if you have a bad day you would affect other workers. The result was that the workers rather desired to come to work and performed better and this in the overall increased production.

In the different factories I found time and again that looking after the workers avoided union problems, and the workers themselves desired to keep the peace.

There are good unions and bad unions, the same as politicians, lawyers, judges, etc.
Lets therefore focus on the bad and not generalise they are all bad.

The fact that decades later some of my former workers still make known having enjoyed to work under me may indicate that with the right (management) attitude it can work!

So What. We had a court case because a silly lazy girl who thought she could sit on her bum and also steal didnt like being sacked.

They said she had to be given "three warnings." The case cost thousands.
The fact is a thief is a thief. Another fact! sunshine is a lazy no good bludger doenst tell me I HAVE to employ her.

As I said IT COST US THOUSANDS.
No B is going to FORCE me to keep a thief and "pay them" to steal from my family and other staff.!

Your post is all about how nice a bloke you are.
Well we are nice to all our staff too!
So what
Have you brought them cars just because you thought they had a rough start? We did.
Have you paid thier air fares back home overseas because their mother was ill and they could not afford it?

We did.

The bottom line is that is why John Howard got RID of unfair dismissal laws!
We are the victims of the unions stupid laws.
Another thing- I dont why you would be surprised at a young bloke off the land being a good worker.
What do you mean even though he had been working on the land.
Tell you what country kids run miles around city kids every time.
I found that comment rather insulting.
Country kids usually are brought up old school.
You dont work 9 to 5 in the bush mate- You just work daylight to dark.
Thats the only union we ever had.
I repeat the unfair dismissual laws had to go because they were destroying good companies.
I for one are happy they are gone.
Belly you say labour will win and JH cant possibly.
Yeh we all know James Packer is building Casinos in China and Rudds interests are in china also.
That does not make it ok.
Didnt think much of Kerry because of his involvement to cruelty of animals in live exports.
Still its awful to see this one do just what the old fella would hate.