1210 ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATION [PART V
exceed the amount provided for by the Australian Arbitration
award. The Court did not express any opinion as to
whether this would be legal or not. In the case of the
Commonwealth of Australia it has been recognized that
this is a great difficulty, and it is attempted to dispose of it
by a section which reads as follows :—
(1) No provision in any agreement, whether made in or
out of Australia, shall be taken to limit or prejudice the
rights of any seaman under this part of this Act.
(2) Where, by reason of a seaman’s being entitled to
a higher rate of wages while the ship on which he serves is
engaged in the coasting trade—
(a) any deduction is made from his wages earned out of
Australia ; or
(b) he is paid a lesser rate of wages outside Australia than
is usual in voyages of a similar nature,—it shall be deemed
that the seaman is not paid wages in accordance with this
part of this Act while the ship is so engaged in the coasting
‘rade.
Exactly to what extent this section will be upheld in the
Courts it is difficult to say. The analogy of the Peninsular
and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v. Kingston has
been quoted by the Government of the Commonwealth as
justifying legislation of this character. The cases are
analogous, but not precisely the same, and it is uncertain to
what extent the Privy Council would follow their previous
judgement if the matter came before them in a concrete
instance.
The practical difficulty involved is the danger of the
coasting trade of any Colony being appropriated by ships,
the seamen on which are paid less wages than those which are
paid in the coasting trade of the Dominion in question. But
it would seem possible by agreement, at any rate between
two such neighbouring Dominions as the Commonwealth
and New Zealand, to obviate legislative interference with the
ships of either Dominion.
It does not appear probable that the extension of the
powers of Dominion Legislatures would by any means result
[1903] A. C, 471.
