Michael Sexton from NSW has kicked off in the six day test match between the All-States and the Feds that began in Canberra today. The PSA is talking up the All-States’ book, as is Qld IR Minister Barton. Also from the sidelines, Bomber Beazer hopes the referees will adjudicate fairly, but has raised the spectre of further mean and tricky moves from the opposing captain of rodent-like appearance, even in the event of a famous All-States’ victory. It’s very early days, of course, but go the All-States; go you good things!
Update: Rodent-appointed Referee Haynes has shown early signs of getting stroppy with the All-States team, provoking dark off-field rumblings from Coaches Beattie and Carpenter.
On the teev tonight Justice Michael Kirby was quoted as saying that if the federalistas won, it wouldn’t be the first time they carved out powers at the expense of the states. It’s going to be one helluva stoush.
The Federalista How(ard)itzer comes in a seemingly innocuous part of the Constitution:
Mmmm, hey what about all those islands excised from the mainland! I can see it now, “Melville-Cayman Islands Corporation–Cheap Company rego–Apply within–Christopher Skase Proprietor.” (Nah, that was for migration.)
The Question in a Nutshell: to what extent is federalista corporation power allowed to interfere with State powers under the Oz constitutional?
OK, I dont pretend to know what will happen, but its worth knowing the following (someone who is actually a lawyer, or just generally better informed, might care to add/ delete)
* “formed within the limits …” has always been taken by the court to mean that ‘formation’ of companies is a state issue. ie already happened by the time the Cth gets power over it.
* But, this lead to all sorts of problems over the years, hence the states referred the powers in 2000 (ish) to the Cth.
* However, when they did so, they explcitly excluded from the conferral of powers Cth powers over IR (and anythign else that 4 states objected to)
*On the other hand, the Court could find sufficient power under 51(xx) anyway – making the reservation irrelevant.
So what’s the game plan? NSW get’s the ball rolling with one style of attack and other states to follow with different objections? Thus keeping the match going till the next election? Or does everyone think that there will be just one case?
Right on the money Lefty E–I didn’t know that definition of “formed within the limits” [of Ratty's hubris] but found it in a summary of cases at hand.
Mick, they’ll all join together because if they don’t, the first one who loses queers the pitch for all the others, ie the 2nd party following will not normally be given leave to appeal a first decision unless on different and significant grounds to the first, so it’s all one big All States and 101 Ors v Federalistas. and throw all the mud in one big heave but spread over a period which could take a year, but that’s guessing.
My comrade-in-stoush Jason seems to have inside information from the mouths of lawyers.
I don’t pretend to understanding or sympathy, myself, though I tend to agree with him that this isn’t just a battle of State-vs-Commonwealth but a real fight about what power the Commonwealth Government should have with workers and bosses making other Agreements under other jurisdictions.
I think it’s clear enough by now that Mr Kemp’s pronouncements on matters legal have no more credence than my cat’s (sorry, Francesca).
Mr Rob’s pronouncements always being, of course, on a non-ideological, unbiassed basis.
Hope you don’t have stairs Rob. That sort of talk could have a pussy cat twining herself around your ankles at the top of the stairs and then walking nonchalantly past you lying in a heap at the bottom of the stairs.