December 21, 2005 - 2:24PM
Other states are expected to follow the NSW government's formal High Court challenge to the federal government's controversial industrial relations changes.
NSW Industrial Relations Minister John Della Bosca and NSW Solicitor-General Michael Sexton, SC, formally filed a writ with the High Court registry in Sydney on Wednesday.
The move follows the passing of the federal Work Choices legislation earlier this month in which the government seeks to use a non-industrial relations section of the constitution - the corporation's power - to absorb state workers into the federal IR system.
This would effectively collapse state IR systems, which strongly differ from the conservative federal government's regime.
Mr Della Bosca said the NSW claim argued the federal government had exceeded its powers by using the corporations power.
"The government maintains its view that the workplace legislation is clearly an extension of the commonwealth's powers beyond what the constitution grants them," Mr Della Bosca said after filing the application.
"We believe that not only is the workplaces legislation a document that contains a formula for the families of Australia and the lifestyle of Australian employees to be eroded but, also, we believe the legislation is illegal."
Mr Della Bosca said his government was making the appeal on two grounds.
"The first one is that the original constitutional powers on IR were jointly held between the commonwealth and the state for very good reasons and we believe that should remain the case," he said.
"Secondly, the corporations power is not meant to allow the exploitation of individuals.
"It's there to protect individuals from corporations."
Mr Della Bosca said the financial cost of the case was small in comparison to the price of the proposed IR changes.
Federal Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews said the NSW government should embrace the reforms and save itself $40 million annually by referring its IR powers to the commonwealth.
"In fact, with the NSW budget being in the red by almost $1 billion, it would make economic sense for it to refer its powers so that the $40 million it spends on a rump IR system could be used for schools, hospitals or policing," Mr Andrews said.
"Similarly, Queensland ... could save itself $30 million annually, South Australia could save $16 million, Tasmania $2 million and Western Australia $15 million."
Mr Andrews repeated the commonwealth was confident of its legal position regarding the use of the corporations power.
"It has been used in relation to workplace relations legislation since 1993," he said.
"There are clear benefits in a system based on this power, which removes the need for interstate industrial disputes."
Federal Labor's IR spokesman Stephen Smith welcomed the NSW government's move against what he called extreme IR legislation.
"I expect other states will follow," he said in Perth.
"WA, for example, has indicated that in due course it will challenge and I expect that a formal announcement so far as WA is concerned is only a matter of days away.
"I welcome very much the fact that NSW has started its challenge against the government's extreme industrial relations legislation and I look forward to other states following."
Queensland IR Minister Tom Barton said his lawyers were still looking at the Work Choices legislation but an appeal was imminent.
"Queensland's legal team is fine-tuning our High Court challenge but it will centre on issues surrounding the constitution and states rights and the corporations power," he said.
High Court entrance
After months of threats from the states to take the  government of Australia to the  over its Work Choices Act, New South Wales has formally lodged a writ with the High Court. Other states have indicated that they will follow the New South Wales government's lead.

The 30-page Statement of Claim lodged by NSW Industrial Relations Minister John Della Bosca and Solicitor-General Michael Sexton claims that the Work Choices Act is unconstitutional as the act extends the commonwealth's powers beyond what the  has given them. The  government has argued that they have such powers under the corporations provision of the constitution. Mr Della Bosca argues that the corporations provision is there to protect individuals from corporations.

Mr Sexton said "The heart of the Commonwealth legislation is its reliance on the corporations power, and the question is whether that is valid in these circumstances. In other words, whether it's possible to legislate in effect about industrial relations simply because the employer is a trading or financial corporation".

The Howard government's plan effectively collapses the state's industrial relations systems, which differ greatly from the new system.