Water Wars heat up in Australia
Pastor Dale Morgan
Water Wars heat up in Australia*
July 25, 2007 11:21am
Article from: AAP
THE Commonwealth is not guaranteed success in overriding Victoria's
refusal to sign up to the $10 billion Murray-Darling water plan, a
constitutional law expert says.
Professor George Williams of the University of NSW said the matter was
likely to end up in the High Court.
"(The Commonwealth is on) shaky ground because the powers that they've
got are an awkward fit for what they're seeking to do. They've already
referred to a wetlands and biodiversity treaty but they're already
saying it doesn't enable them to do everything they'd like to do," he
said on ABC radio.
The concept of states' rights was merely a political slogan, Prof
Williams said.
"There's nothing in the constitution that specifically protects the
rights of the states," he said.
The Commonwealth had powers to pass a new law overriding the states in a
number of areas, including trade and commerce and external affairs.
But anyone could take an action to the High Court if they believed a
commonwealth law was unconstitutional.
"If Victoria doesn't, it's quite possible a farmer or someone else might
take a challenge," Prof Williams said.
Under section 51 of the Constitution, the Commonwealth can exercise 40
different powers.
Prime Minister John Howard's move to enact his plan for commonwealth
control of the water in the Murray-Darling basin might seek to rely on
the external affairs power, that enables the Commonwealth to pass laws
to implement treaties.
The interstate trade and commerce power might also be used to justify
commonwealth legislation, because trade from the Murray-Darling flowed
across several state borders.
Mr Howard had used similar constitutional powers to implement the
WorkChoices legislation, using the corporations power.
"I think in this case the Commonwealth is on weaker ground," Prof
Williams said.