Howard wins IR High Court challenge

Test of Canberra's power

The High Court has found in favour of the Federal Government's Industrial Relations Laws rejecting State claims the laws are unconstitutional

States and unions had asked the court to rule the new national industrial relations laws invalid, because they were set up under the corporations power in the Constitution.

The High Court by a 5-2 majority dismissed the challenge.

Two dissenting judgments came from Justices Michael Kirby and Susan Crennan.

In a short statement to the court, Justice Kirby said Work Choices should be declared completely invalid.

The States argued the Constitution restricts the Commonwealth powers over industrial relations to disputes across state borders.

"This removes the one potential cloud over the legislation and it means that Australia at long last, in 2006, has a national system of industrial relations laws,'' Mr Howard told reporters in Sydney.

"It's not the intention of the government to interpret this decision as some kind of carte blanche for some massive expansion of commonwealth power,'' Mr Howard said.

Constitutional lawyer George Williams said the decision was a major development in the legal interpretation of the constitution.

"It's now possible for the Commonwealth to regulate almost all of the aspects of corporations in our society," Mr Williams told ABC Radio.

"You can also imagine that corporations often run schools, corporations run hospitals, corporations run the media and this decision is a broad decision in supporting the Commonwealth that it can regulate corporations in their business activities."

The dissenting judges argued the legislation was beyond what the founding fathers had considered.

"Truly this reveals the apogee of federal constitutional power and a profound weakness in the legal checks and balances which the founders sought to provide to the Australian Commonwealth," Justice Kirby said.

Justice Callinan said upholding the legislation would have far-reaching consequences for the future integrity of the federation.

"The act in its present form is well beyond, and in contradiction of, what was intended and expressed in the constitution by the founders,'' he said.