Judy Jackson, Tasmania's Attorney General, has announced that Tasmania will join New South Wales and Western Australia in challenging the constitutionality of the Howard Government's IR laws. I think this a good thing. Anything that can stall the rampant anti-federalism emanating from Canberra is a positive. The States need to be more diverse and heterogeneous in their economic policies. Canberra dictating from afar is not a good thing.

I could not find any statement directly by Judy Jackson. So I am dependent on the ABC political feed and the Mercury internet site for any scrap of news on the issue . Note to Judy Jackson; you can speak to me, and anyone else directly by either posting it on the MHA website, a personal website, or a blog. Coverage by both the ABC and Mercury is pretty poor. I couldn't find anything in the Examiner's website . Which is even worse in terms of usability than the Mercury's. Tasmania's politicians and news outlets need to become more internet friendly.

From the Mercury article ;

Ms Jackson said the reforms would create uncertainty and insecurity and "will guarantee that workers will be exposed to bullying, coercion and harassment".

Women in the workforce would be especially vulnerable, Ms Jackson said.

She said the laws would remove all protection against unfair dismissal for most women in Tasmania and there would no longer be any compensation for redundancy for most women workers.

She said new state laws -- to take effect from February 1 -- would, in part, help to protect existing conditions of employment for many.

Nothing there about the IR laws being illegal and unconstitutional federal encroachment on state rights and responsibilities. I presume the law case is not about whether Tasmania or the Federal government can be "fairer".

Rene Hidding, Opposition leader in Tasmania offered;

"The state Liberal team fully support the Howard Government workplace relations reforms to provide higher wages, more jobs and a stronger economy and the Lennon Labor Government needs to stop scaremongering on this issue."

Anti-federalism and unitary government was never a Liberal platform. Since Gorton embraced the federal system as the sole authority for policy making, and the states simply being to disburse the funds in support of federal policy, the Liberal Party has become anti-federalist.

All the major parties in Australia are hostile to federalism, Liberal, Labor, Greens and Democrats - all see the states as being dissolved and there being no government between the federal and local council level. In reality the thin levels of government are supposed to be the federal and local levels with the state government carrying the most responsibility and weight of governance.

The federal and local levels of government are supposed to be focused on specific areas and problems of governance. If it does not have international significance, then the federal government should not be involved. For instance, foreign policy, international relations, defence, inter-state tariffs etc are natural federal responsibilities. Education, Health, and Industrial Relations are not.

Guy Barnett is quoted as saying;

This political stunt by the Tasmanian Government and other Labor state governments is doomed to fail, because they know that where there is a conflict between state law and federal law the federal law will prevail.

They are deliberately wasting taxpayers' money for purely political reasons.

Barnett is right. One of the most anti-federalist institutions in our country is the High Court of Australia. The Australian Constitution is a static document, almost impervious to change. Referendum's fail as a matter of course against it. Lionel Murphy changed the High Court from one of strict legalism, to one which saw the constitution as a living breathing document that could be moulded by Judicial decisions. Not the will of the people through referendums, but by High Court interpretations. Murphy wrote;

The Australian constitution does not express all that is intended by it: much of the greatest importance is implied. Some implications arise from consideration of the text: others arise from the nature of the society that operates the constitution.

Why don't we just admit the truth. The "Bearded Men" did a half-arsed job with the Constitution such that it is a pre-enlightenment view of government. Further, they made it so hard to change by referendum that politicians and judges run an end-game around it with implied intentions and meanings. This largely goes without approval of the people and ends up with a massive collapse of power to the centre - in this case Canberra. Australia was founded on federalism and the heterogeneous protections that gives from tyranny, political entropy and unitary outcomes.

Tasmanian Senator Guy Barnett had a few things to say on citizen initiated referendums and fixed terms between elections.

From the hansard on citizen initiated referenda;

It is my view that there is merit in considering citizen initiated referendums here in Australia. Yes, we do live in a parliamentary democracy, and MPs are there to make decisions for and on behalf of the people. Nevertheless, people are important, and it is up to them to make the decisions. If they can meet a threshold test in terms of citizen initiated referendums then surely it is proper and appropriate to listen to the people and hear their views.

The argument Barnett used was that when Parliament was so split on an issue that there was no clear majority that having a citizen initiated referenda on it would give greater legitimacy to such issues.

I would support citizen initiated referenda mainly for the reason of mob-wisdom, but with the mob tempered by a super-majority in Parliament; i.e. the CIR could not be put on a ballot unless 2/3rds of parliament agreed to it. That would keep the nutty minority stuff out while allowing strong CIR to get through on its merits with broad consensus. I would also make CIR statutory only, no constitutional amendments can come through CIR.

Barnett also commented on fixed terms for the Australian Parliament;

but would like to conclude by saying that in the US they do have fixed term elections: every two years for the House of Representatives, every four years for the President and governors, and every six years for the US senators. They are fixed, so they are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

In Australia, because the average election is held every 2.5 years -- if you look at the average since Federation -- I support the merit of considering a three-year fixed term for the House of Representatives and a six-year term for the Senate. I find it very hard to support the merit of an eight-year Senate term.

Nevertheless I do support, if at all possible, a four-year House of Representatives term, but, in this instance, if it requires an eight-year term for the Senate, that is something that I could not support.

I agree. I think fixed terms between elections is important as the Executive getting to pick the date of the election is to high an incumbent advantage. It may make double-dissolutions more important, most governments have kept double-dissolution legislation up their sleeves if they have wanted to force an election, but even so, fixed terms would allow all parties to electioneer with a firm date in mind rather than the opposition and minor parties being caught off balance with the incumbent calling an early election when it is to their advantage.

A good speech from Guy Barnett.