Workchoices and judicial activism in striking it down? Wouldn't that have been judicial conservatism, not activism?
The Federal Government should never have gotten the power over Industrial Relations. It mostly hinged on the definition of 'constitutional corporation' along with the ignoring of the head of power (xxxv) which is an explicit grant of power that limits a broad reading of constitutional corporation.
As the dissenting argument wrote in the decision to give the Federal Government the power of industrial relations it requires a very broad reading of the heads of power in isolation, ignoring the limits the constitution places on federal industrial relations, and the ignoring of several failed referendums to give the federal government this power.
The decision to give the federal government industrial relations was activism that was based on tenuous constitutional grounds. IMO it was a terrible and erronous decision.
Comments