The Official Organ of LaborNET
click here to view the latest edition of Workers Online
The Official Organ of LaborNET
Free home delivery
August 2005   

Interview: On Holiday
Historian Richard White looks back on the Aussie vacation - and finds a way of life is under threat.,

Unions: One Day Longer
Nathan Brown travels to the Boeing picket line and find a group of workers with a steely determination to stick together.

Industrial: Never Mind the Bollocks
Jim Marr plays the Howard Government's industrial relations spin job on its merits.

Politics: Spun Out
Canberra’s latest campaign underlines the need for controls over government advertising, according to Graeme Orr and Joo-Cheong Tham

Economics: If the Grog Don't Get You ....
Evan Jones explains how the way we purchase alcolohol reflects the type of economy we live in.

History: Taking a Stand
Neale Towart looks at two books that chronicle how to build community support against social injustice.

International: The Split
Amanda Tattersal outsider's account of an insider's shake-out at the AFL-CIO Convention 2005

Legal: Pushing the Friendship
George Williams argues that the federal government’s constitutional powers are not sufficient to enact a comprehensive national industrial relations scheme

Poetry: Simple Subtractions
The latest blitz of taxpayer-funded advertising has revealed a crisis of arithmetic in government ranks has moved resident bard David Peetz to prose.

Review: Sydney Trashed
Sydney band SC Trash are on a mission to give new life to folk and country music – and the politics of common sense. Nathan Brown had a beer with them


The Westie Wing
Our favourite MP, Ian West, goes away for a couple of weeks and look what happens…

The Soapbox
The Last Weekend
Unions NSW secretary John Robertson's speech to the Last Weekend - how the Howard government laws will undermine the Ausrtalian way of life.

The Locker Room
A Concept Is Born
In which Phil Doyle helps the proponents of the vision thing across the road.

Workers Blood For Oil
A new book by Abdullah Muhsin and Alan Johnson lifts the lid on the bloody reality of US backed democracy for Iraq's trade unions

London Post
During his recent stay in London IEU industrial officer John Shapiro was living only a few hundred metres from the site of one of the bomb blasts.


Iemma’s Dilemmas
The past fortnight has seen the sort of upheaval in NSW that reminds us all that politics is a very tenuous game with few certainties and even fewer rules.


 Carmen's Boss No Fun Guy

 Discriminating Centrelink on Charges

 Uproar Over Holiday Plans

 Do The Bus Stop

 Taxpayers to Fund Advertising Orgy

 Get Up Stands Up

 Andrews Provokes Showdown

 Thousands in Super Rort

 Constituents Don’t Trust Andrews

 Skill Shortage Fabricated

 Yanks Short Change Tradesmen

 Howard Steamroller Hits Building Sites

 CFMEU Bans Ferguson

 Activists Whats On!

 Back To The Past
 AFL-CIO Not The Only War
 Be Afraid
 Frame Up
 We Love Morris
 ANew Development
 A Readers Suggestion
About Workers Online
Latest Issue
Print Latest Issue
Previous Issues
Advanced Search

other LaborNET sites

Labor Council of NSW
Vic Trades Hall Council
IT Workers Alliance
Unions on LaborNET
Evatt Foundation

Labor for Refugees



Pushing the Friendship

George Williams argues that the federal government’s constitutional powers are not sufficient to enact a comprehensive national industrial relations scheme

The main impediment to achieving a national industrial relations scheme has been a political one. While this may disappear when the government gains control of the Senate from 1 July, a key problem remains.

It is whether the Commonwealth has the power under the Australian Constitution to enact such a law. The federal parliament can pass laws in the 40 different areas listed in s 51 of the Constitution, however, it does not have a general power over 'workplace relations'. The closest the section comes is the power in s 51(35) over '[C]onciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State'.

To pass a national law the Commonwealth will need to be creative and to compromise on coverage. It is likely to turn to its power in s 51(20) to make laws with respect to '[F]oreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth'. The Commonwealth might rely on this power to set out the conditions of employees working for every constitutional corporation in Australia.

In combination with its other powers, such as its power over the territories and interstate trade and commerce, as well as the referral of power over industrial matters by Victoria, this could allow the Commonwealth to enact a scheme that might extend to 85 per cent or more of the workforce.

Where a state law also sought to cover these employees, it would be overridden. Section 109 of the Constitution states that '[W]hen a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid'. This can be done expressly.

A potential problem for the Commonwealth is that the extent of the corporations' power is unclear. There are two important limitations on the scope of the power.

First, it is addressed only to corporations (and thus not to partnerships, sole traders and the like), and even then it is addressed only to certain types of corporations (that is, foreign, trading and financial corporations). High Court decisions mean that most corporations will fall into these categories (R v Federal Court of Australia; Ex parte WA National Football League (1979) 143 CLR 190; State Superannuation Board of Victoria v Trade Practices Commission (1982) 150 CLR 282). On the other hand, some corporations clearly will not, such as Australian corporations that do not have substantial trading or financial activities.

People who might escape the federal net and thus remain under state law would be those working for partnerships, sole traderships and other unincorporated associations that operate within the limits of one state. In addition, the constitutional immunity of each of the states from some Commonwealth laws would also mean that the federal scheme would not apply to some, especially senior, members of the state's public service.

Second, there is an unresolved division of opinion in the High Court as to which activities of the listed corporations can be regulated. Two possible views, a narrow and a broad view, border the possible scope of the power:

• Narrow View: The clue is in the categories of corporations specified as being within power: 'foreign corporations', and Australian-based 'trading' or 'financial' corporations. Thus the aspects or activities that the Commonwealth can regulate must have something to do with the characteristic that brings corporations within Commonwealth power. This would mean, for example, that only the trading activities of a trading corporation could be regulated and not any of the other activities of the corporation (such as the relationship between the corporation and its employees where this lies outside of its trading activities).

• Broad View: There are no limits at all. Provided a corporation has the characteristics that bring it within s 51(20), any aspect or activity of that corporation can be regulated by the Commonwealth (including the relationship of a constitutional corporation with its employees).

A majority of the High Court has gone beyond the narrow view but has yet to accept the broad view of the power. In Commonwealth v Tasmania (Tasmanian Dam Case) (1983) 158 CLR 1, a majority of the Court held that s 51(20) at least enables the Commonwealth to regulate the activities of trading corporations undertaken for the purposes of the trading activities of that corporation.

Under this approach, it is likely that the Commonwealth can regulate some aspects of employment within a constitutional corporation (the degree is unclear) on the basis that such employment is for the purpose of the trading activities of the corporation. While the reasoning might extend to the regulation of all actions of all of the employees of a constitutional corporation (each employee being taken on for the purpose of the trading activities of the corporation), it is unclear whether the High Court would interpret the power to extend that far. The answer will depend on the detail of the new law.

A more recent High Court decision on the power, Re Dingjan; Ex parte Wagner (1995) 183 CLR 323, also falls short of the broad view. The lowest common position of Chief Justice Mason and Justices Deane, Gaudron, and McHugh was that `'the power conferred by s 51(20) extends, at the very least, to the business functions and activities of constitutional corporations and to their business relationships'.

This issue was again raised in the High Court in Victoria v Commonwealth (Industrial Relations Act Case) (1996) 187 CLR 416, a challenge to changes brought about to the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) by the Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993 (Cth) and the Industrial Relations Amendment Act (No 2) 1994 (Cth). Although three States instituted proceedings to challenge the validity of the new legislation, only Western Australia challenged those provisions that primarily relied on s 51(xx); and at the hearing that challenge was abandoned. As was stated in that case at 188: 'Subject to one possible exception [as to 'secondary boycotts'], it was conceded in argument by Western Australia . . . that the Parliament has power to legislate as to the industrial rights and obligations of constitutional corporations . . . and their employees'. Accordingly, the validity of such legislation was 'not in issue'.

Uncertainly about the scope of the corporations power means that it cannot be said with confidence that a law that sought to regulate the full range of industrial matters that can arise between employers and employees would be a valid enactment under the power.

This uncertainty is magnified by the fact that any determination would be made by a High Court composed entirely of judges who did not sit on the decision in Re Dingjan; Ex parte Wagner (Justice McHugh retires on 1 November 2005). Moreover, most of the current members of the Court have not even delivered judgments that enable an assessment of their likely approach to the power. Resolution of the scope of the power remains very much open.

There are significant limitations upon the scope of the Commonwealth's corporations power, as well as continuing uncertainty as to its ambit. In these circumstances, it would be brave assessment to state with any confidence that a national industrial relations scheme passed under this power would be held valid by a majority of the High Court.

My view is that the power, including in combination with other powers (such as its powers over territories and interstate trade and commerce), is not sufficient to enact a comprehensive national industrial relations scheme. At the very least, such a power will not be able to extend to industrial matters arising out of some businesses, such as partnerships, that trade within the confines of one State.

Of course, if the federal law were carefully drafted to fall within the narrowest accepted scope of the power, it would likely be valid. However, if the law were drafted in this way it would not extend to many of the matters that would be expected to fall within a comprehensive national law on the subject.

A salutary example is the attempt by the Commonwealth to enact a single national corporations law (the Corporations Act 1989 (Cth)) under its corporations power. At the time, it was widely believed that the law would be held valid by the High Court, and the Commonwealth passed the Act without support from the States in the form of a co-operative scheme or a referral of power.

In 1990, the issue was resolved in a way that reasserted limits on Commonwealth power. In New South Wales v Commonwealth (Incorporation Case) (1990) 169 CLR 482, the High Court held by 6 to 1 that the corporations power does not enable the Commonwealth to regulate the incorporation of companies. The decision meant that the Common¬wealth could not, by itself, establish a national corporations regime, but could only do so in co-operation with the States. Today, such co-operation provides the foundation for Australia's national corporations law. It provides a better model for moving forward in this area. •

George Williams is Anthony Mason professor and director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law at the University of New South Wales.

This paper was delivered to the Fair Go or Anything Goes? conference in Sydney


email workers to a friend printer-friendly version latest breaking news from labornet

Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue

© 1999-2002 Workers Online
Workers Online is a resource for the Labour movement
provided by the Labor Council of NSW
Last Modified: 15 Nov 2005

Powered by APT Solutions
Labor Council of NSW Workers Online