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. IT] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 851 Court, which attempted to provide that the determination of a special Board on the Court of Industrial Appeal of Victoria should be the final authority as to conditions of labour. He considered, however, that this enactment did not attain the effect at which it aimed, for the legislation could only affect powers over which the Victoria Legislature had legislative authority, and in any case the words of the section left open the whole field of agreement with which in his opinion the field of arbitration was coterminous, and as that field was by the Constitution left open to the arbitrament of the Federal Court, no statute of a state could effectually close it ‘n the face of the Court. Barton J.! who had not taken part through illness in the decision of the Woodworkers’ case, accepted the view of the majority of the Court. He recognized the supremacy of the legislation of the Commonwealth where the Common- wealth and the state had equal powers of legislation, but he pointed out that the Constitution was a federal one and that the principle had been accepted that it must not be inter- preted so as to enable the Commonwealth to interfere with matters which were intended to be reserved to the state, as In the case of the field of industrial matters according to the rulings in the case of Huddart Parker & Company Proprie- lary Lid. v. Moorehead? and the Union Label case? Applying these principles to the subject-matter in dispute he held that the range of the Court’s authority was co-extensive with the Powers of the parties to settle their dispute without it, but the Court could not make for them an agreement in face of the mandate of positive law. The Commonwealth could not legislate directly to interfere with industrial conditions, and it could not do so indirectly by creating an Arbitration Court. The decisions of the Court of Arbitration were judicial, not legislative acts, and therefore did not override state laws. Like the Chief Justice, he could not accept the argument that because there was discontent in two states the Court could disregard the laws of both. Again, like the Chief Justice, he thought that, on the principle which he laid ' 10 C. L. R. 266, at pp. 289 seq. * 8C. L.R. 330. ?6C. L. R. 469, Ta

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