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 855 was no inconsistency so far between the proposed award and any state law up to the present moment, and that the language of the Victorian Act No. 2241 was insufficient to annihilate the federal power. Higgins J.! reiterated the view which he had laid down in the Federated Saw Mill Employés case. It was clearly the Intention of the Federal Parliament that the order of the Court should override any State Wages Board determination, and the only question was whether that intention as ex- pressed in ss. xxxv of the Federal Act was ultra vires. If the Court had not that power it could not effectively settle disputes. The Arbitration Court of New South Wales had held that bootmakers were entitled to a minimum wage of 9s. a day, but could not award more than 8s. as Melbourne manufacturers were only required to give 8s. Or again, in one case employees were willing to have a dispute settled on the basis of ordinary pay on Sundays if forty-eight hours in the week were not exceeded, but the Victoria Wages Board determination required that time and a half must be paid for Sunday work. It appeared to him clear that a federal award overrode any state law under clause v of the Constitu- tion Act. It was true that an award was not an Act, but the Act plps the award was a law just as in the case of Powell v. Apollo Candle Company? He pointed out that it was admitted that a Wages Board determination was a law of the state, and he could see no conceivable distinction between it and the determination of the Arbitration Court. He thought, too, the same result might follow under s. 2 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, for the Constitution gave power to establish a Court of Arbitration, and the award was an order or regulation made under the authority of the Con- stitution Act, which was an Imperial Act. It was true that arbitration connoted subjection to the existing laws, but only to such laws as bound the arbitrators, —to laws which created them, not to state laws which had nothing to do with them. In the Alabama Arbitration the arbitrators expressly held that it was no answer on the part ' 10 C. L. R. 266, at pp. 331 seq. ? 10 App. Cas. 282.

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