Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935052

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-238139

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 2

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XI Seiten, Seiten 570-1100

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part IV. The federations and the union // Chapter II. The commonwealth of Australia

Collection:: Economics Books

cHAP. 11] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 849 tories and Shops Act, 1905, an award in Queensland under the Wages Board Act, 1908, and the Factories and Shops Act, 1909, and an award in South Australia under the Factories Act, 1907. It was proposed by the Court to fix the minimum rate of wages at a higher rate than any of the minimum rates fixed by the States Wages Boards, and to make different provisions as to apprentices and aged, slow, or infirm workers, while the proposed award contained no provisions as to ‘ improvers’, to whom, under the States Wages Boards awards. wages might be paid below the minimum rate. i The case was heard by the full Court, and there was a difference of opinion, the Chief Justice, Barton and O’Connor JJ. taking one view, and Isaacs and Higgins JJ. taking the opposite view on the question of principle. The Chief Justice! reiterated the views which he had ex- pressed in the Woodworkers’ case. He held that the power of the Parliament under s. 51 (xxxv) of the Constitution to make laws with respect to conciliation and arbitration for the settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one state was subject to the rule that any invasion by the Commonwealth of the sphere of the domestic concerns of the ktates appertaining to trade and commerce was for- bidden except in so far as the invasion was authorized by some power conferred in express terms or by necessary implication. The term arbitration denoted a judicial tri- bunal, and although the functions of the tribunal differed from those of ordinary tribunals in as much as they were not limited to determining existing cases, but extended to prescribing conditions to be observed in future contracts, nevertheless, the tribunal was no less a tribunal, and it was an essential part of the creation of a tribunal that it should be obliged to decide in accordance with law. The tribunal had the power to order anything which the parties could lawfully agree to do, but could not order the parties to take any step which was not legal. It was argued in favour of the power of the Federal Court that if the 110 C. L. R. 266, at pp. 278 seq. 2709

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation