Archive for November, 2006
When Kirby and Callinan agree
Justice Michael Kirby is supposed to be the most liberal judge on the High Court of Australia. Justice Ian Callinan is, some would say, the most consistently conservative judge on the High Court of Australia. When they are the only two dissenters and are in agreement, you know that there is something wrong with the decision in question.
Australia has a federal structure of government. The Constitution of Australia sets out what are the grants of powers that are solely within the domain of the federal government, but does not explicitly spell out what powers are reserved for the States, if at all. Key High Court judgments in the past have interpreted the Constitution to say that, if the federal government chooses to legislate on a subject matter in such a way that would displace the State governments, it would be lawful as long as it is spelled out in clear and unambiguous language. (I am massively simplifying things here of course.)
The problem now is that the federal parliaments have successively, over the years, pushed at the boundaries of the scope of their power, culminating in the most recent decision, where the power to regulate corporations grants the federal government the power to legislate on anything that has a connection with corporations. (Again, massively simplifying the ratio of the judgment.)
Justice Callinan argues that this upsets the federal balance, and would render State parliaments impotent and useless. Justice Kirby asserts that previous attempts by the federal government to widen the scope of the corporations power through referendums have failed, and see no reason why the intent of the Australian people should be ignored. More importantly, throughout their judgments, Kirby J and Callinan J refer to each of their respective judgments in support and approval.
When you examine the the concurring aspects of their judgments, you will understand that there are very good reasons why such ideological opposites are driven to stand on common ground. They are both keenly aware of the dangers of centralised power, and appreciate that the framers of the Constitution never intended for the Commonwealth to possess such overarching power over the States.
*Media Articles*
High Court kills states’ IR hopes
P.P. McGuinness: Judges’ blow for socialism
*Wikipedia Summaries*
Constitution of Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Constitutional interpretation
Reserved State powers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Case in Question
New South Wales v Commonwealth (Workplace Relations Challenge) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New South Wales v Commonwealth of Australia; Western Australia v Commonwealth of Australia [2006] HCA 52 (14 November 2006)
From Catallaxy.
UMG Chairman/CEO is a repository of stupidity
The moron says here
Yesterday, Microsoft agreed to share revenue from Zune sales with record labels and artists. Forcing the issue was Universal Music Group, which at deadline is the only label named in the program. UMG refused to license its music to the Zune unless it could receive a percentage of each device sold, in addition to standard music licensing fees for downloads and subscriptions.
“These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it,” UMG chairman/CEO Doug Morris says. “So it’s time to get paid for it.”
Macheist!
I got a few invites, who wants some?
