The official IR reform thread! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter townie
- Start date
erawamai
Retired. Gone fishing.
I only know a little corporations law but I believe, since 2001, the states have referred their state power to make laws for the incorporation of companies to the Federal government under s51(xxxvii) of the constitution on the condition that the Commonwealth not use this referral to make laws for the regulation of industrial relations. This condition is found within the The corporations Agreement 2002 within clause 505(1).Generator said:
Previously the states had refused to give up their power to make laws for corporations and as such the corporation law existed on a co operative system whereby each state enacted the same legislation. However this just resulted in messy jurisdictional problems to do with cross vesting. In Re Wakin (1999) the High Court found that the cross vesting legislation (enacted by the states), in which certain corporation law matters could be heard in the Federal court rather than the State Supreme Courts, was unconstitional. This eventually resulted in the referral of the corporations power to the Commonwealth under s51(xxxvii) and the adoption of a uniform national Corporations law enacted by the commonwealth and not the States which has been up and running since 2001.
In 1989 the the Hawke Labor governments tried to take away the corporation law making powers from the states which had been given to the states based on older interpretations, of s51(xx) - the coroporations power. The NSW Liberal government challenged in the High Court and won in NSW v the Commowealth (1990)
I'm not really sure how the govrernment is attempting to legislate for IR. Whether they are forcing the states to refer their IR law making powers or not? If they are referring then all this corporations stuff may be relevant.
Last edited:
MoonlightSonata
Retired
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Messages
- 3,642
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
Been reading up for FedCon?
When the case begins, I will be reading the High Court transcript with great interest.
It should prove an interesting start for the new judge, Justice Crennan.
When the case begins, I will be reading the High Court transcript with great interest.
It should prove an interesting start for the new judge, Justice Crennan.
erawamai
Retired. Gone fishing.
That little speel is from the first few pages of Business Assoications not fed con. All this IR High Court business might provide an interesting context in which to study fed con and BA1.MoonlightSonata said:
Last edited:
MoonlightSonata
Retired
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Messages
- 3,642
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
Hmm I started reading my BA book - was going through partnership, but as you know I have had timetable woes and so I'm doing it second semester.
So I will have to be uninformed for a while
So I will have to be uninformed for a while
Historically, there is evidence of the high court permitting the use of the corporations power in the 1971 case of Concrete Pipes.
iamaware, if the content of Industrial Relations 1A was the same as when you did it, you may have heard about this case from your lecturer.
iamaware, if the content of Industrial Relations 1A was the same as when you did it, you may have heard about this case from your lecturer.
leetom
there's too many of them!
I wonder how a wave of productivity growth is supposed to materialise when 84% of businesses don't understand the reforms and more than half don't intend on altering their busniess operation anyway.Generator said:
leetom
there's too many of them!
But an increased pension is designed to cover the cost of more kids. If the cost of each child is the same then there shouldn't be any cash saved from having more than one child, as the pension income should be spent equally on the expenses of rearing each child.Generator said:
Workers on the minimum wage though who desire more children will be enticed to the pension, as the minimum wage doesn't take into account the amount of children a sole parent is currently raising.
The following concern the advertising campaign for the IR reform agenda -
PM was involved in ad campaign
$5000 fee to release IR details
PM was involved in ad campaign
$5000 fee to release IR details
No contract, no job, says Ballarat Uni
Keep in mind that the above is a result of the recent higher ed reform package (within this package additional federal funding was tied to particular employment arrangements), but it's still more than indicative of what the future may hold for those looking to bargain collectively.
leetom
there's too many of them!
That in itself is a repulsive feature of the Howard Government. Stripping university funding to unprecedented lows, then threatening to withhold what meagre funds are left unless the university conforms to WorkChoices ideology.Generator said:
That they are rejected nationwide and force has to be applied in order to get workers onto them, says alot about AWAs.
True, but I'm willing to take the union at its word. Besides, even if the AWA isn't as bad as is being suggested, it's still a slap in the face to those employees (both new and old) who would prefer to be covered by a collective agreement.
Unless otherwise noted, we tend to prefer responses that are a) somewhat expansive or b) capable of contributing to the debate in some way - the fact that one may like something means nothing to us, but we would be more than happy to be informed as to why one holds such an opinion. Of course, what we prefer doesn't count for muchgnrlies said:
.
Last edited: