From the ABC

High Court dismisses workplace law challenge
The High Court has dismissed the challenge to the Federal Government's workplace relations laws.

The states and the unions challenged the validity of the new laws, saying they were unconstitutional because they were set up under the corporations power in the Constitution.

However the High Court has found the laws are valid, and that it was appropriate for the Government to base its new laws on the corporations power.

The court also rejected the challenges to particular sections of the Act.

Two of the seven judges, Micheal Kirby and Ian Callinan, dissented from the majority.

The chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout, says the High Court's decision provides companies with more stability.

"For national companies operating across state borders this will be a very important decision because they will have a consistent approach to their workplace regulation," she said.

"For companies seeking to invest in Australia this will be a very welcome signal because they will have a known system of workplace regulation across borders, so it does provide that clarity it does provide that single point of reference."

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's Peter Anderson says it is a nation-building decision.

"For our economy it means that the Commonwealth Parliament has sufficient constitutional powers not just to create a national industrial relations system but also to ensure that there is management of our national economy where law and regulation is needed," he said.

Federal Human Services Minister Joe Hockey says Australians just want to move on.

"The campaign led by the state Labor governments and the trade union movement has failed," he said.

Unions
But Bill Shorten from the Australian Workers Union says the fight is far from over.

"What the High Court has confirmed is that the only way to change these unfair laws will be at the next election and by re-electing state Labor governments, because on a 5-2 decision the High Court's said that the Government can make these unfair laws," he said.

"I'd say the legal door is closed, despite strong dissenting judgements from two High Court judges.

"I think that as one famous person once said, this is not the end, it's just the end of the beginning and it makes the state elections in Victoria and New South Wales very important."

Unions New South Wales secretary John Robertson who took part in the challenge says it is a disappointing result.

"There is nothing stopping this Government from going even further with these laws and now it is clear we have to get rid of this Government to get rid of these laws," he said.

State govts
The New South Wales Government denies it was badly advised that it could win the case saying the issues had major implications for the workforce and had to be challenged.

Industrial Relations Minister John Della Bosca says despite the loss it was a closely run case.

"Two of the judges including one of the judges appointed by the Howard Government have found in our favour and the court took six months to find they could uphold the WorkChoices laws," he said.

While the Government will have to pay a share of the Commonwealth's legal costs as well as its own, Premier Morris Iemma says it was not a waste of money.

"It's never that when you're fighting to protect workers' jobs, their pay packets and to ease the financial pressure on their families," he said.

Queensland's Industrial Relations Minister John Mickel says he is disappointed by the decision.

"Thank goodness two judges at least saw the merits of our case," he said.

"Nevertheless the rights of appeal now from the states legally are now exhausted. I think the way for the workforce to go now is a political one, and that political choice lies at the next federal election."

Western Australia's Minister for Employment Protection, John Bowler, says the High Court ruling is morally wrong.

"People in Perth who are living there with the mortgage must worry that you only have to look at the boss the wrong way and you're out the door without a reason and that's no way to live in our society and look, you know, the laws now may be legal but they're not morally right," he said.

A letter in the SMH...
I write to correct misleading assertions made in A.J. Ashenden's letter (December 27). Contrary to the claims, the fact is that leave on public holidays is protected under the new workplace laws. Any employer who refuses to accept an employee's reasonable grounds for declining to work, such as family responsibilities, faces a penalty of up to $33,000. All allegations about breaches of this employee right should be reported to the Office of Workplace Services on 1300724200.

Kevin Andrews Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra

A letter at YD
I write to correct misleading assertions made in Kevin Andrews — Minister for Pharaohs and Slaves Floggations—' letter (SMH December 29). Contrary to his claims, the fact is that leave on public holidays is not protected if you have signed a contract that does not have such leave allowed for. "Reasonable" grounds for declining to work are obviously open to debate. Breaches of slave flogging relations should be reported to the Office of Father Christmas, in writing.

Gustashian Leonisky, Shadowy Minister for Enlightenment and ...