Contexts in which the phrase high court was used in the Senate during the 1970s

• I refer to the receipts taxes collected by the States and the recent partial invalidation by the full High Court of this form of tax when levied by the States. [More…]

• However, it needs to be made quite clear that the Commonwealth’s responsibility is not applicable to what happened when the States imposed the tax, the legality of which has been affected, in part if not in whole, by the High Court ruling. [More…]

• Following consideration of proposals presented by the National Capital Development Commission, Cabinet has approved the siting of the High Court and the National Art Gallery in the north-eastern sector of the parliamentary triangle, that is in the area between the Administrative Building and the lakeside. [More…]

• Preliminary planning will also proceed in respect of the High Court building. [More…]

• What progress is being made towards the establishment of the principal seat of the High Court in Canberra? [More…]

• Such a decision should be procurable without fuss and without undue cost within 6 or 9 months and it is a matter upon which, I would think, the High Court could give a decisive and simple answer. [More…]

• Would the Minister representing the Attorney-General be prepared to express an opinion, in the event of the Government’s off-shore legislation being agreed to by the Parliament, as to the reported contention of the South Australian Premier that it would take a decade or more of High Court cases before the validity or otherwise of legislation could be established? [More…]

• Cases originated in the following Registeries of the High Court: [More…]

• As the building appears to have adequate facilities for accommodating the High Court in Adelaide, will the Minister examine the possibility of acquiring this handsome building? [More…]

• I have no knowledge of the proposal to demolish the building which has been referred to, but J happily accept the honourable senator’s suggestion that it be examined with a view to ils possible use by the High Court. [More…]

• When is it envisaged that the High Court of Australia will be establishing its headquarters in Canberra. [More…]

• 1 ask the AttorneyGeneral whether, in view of the decision of the High Court in the concrete pipes case last Friday which held that Commonwealth power to control restrictive trade practices extends to intra-state agreements between companies but not to such restrictive trade agreements between individuals, will he consider the need for an amendment to the Australian Constitution to rectify such an anomalous situation and enable legislation against restrictive trade practices to have full impact over the whole of the economy? [More…]

• Following upon the decision of the High Court last Friday intensive consideration has been given by myself and advisers within my Department to its implications and the necessary action which the Government should take. [More…]

• As a result of that statement it .will become apparent (hat the Government will, as soon as it can, give proper consideration to the issues, that it will introduce legislation which will strengthen the Trade Practices Act as it stood before it was declared invalid last Friday and that in the meantime in order to meet the necessities which have been created by the High Court’s decision it will introduce holding legislation. [More…]

• I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether he can indicate what action is proposed to be taken by the Government in the light of the statements by the High Court on the scope of the Commonwealth’s power in relation to corporations which were made in the Court’s judgment invalidating part of the Trade Practices Act. [More…]

• I assure the honourable senator that the Commonwealth will consult the States with regard to any future legislation resulting from an exercise of the powers which the High Court has declared the Commonwealth has and may exercise. [More…]

• My question which relates to the recent High Court decision in the concrete pipes case is directed to the Attorney-General. [More…]

• I refer to the decision of the High Court earlier this year which invalidated orders made by various officers of State courts in the matrimonial causes jurisdiction and the announcement by the Attorney-General that the Commonwealth would introduce legislation designed to remedy the position. [More…]

• I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation: On what date was a writ in the name of the Australian National Airlines Commission issued out of the High Court of Australia claiming unspecified damages against the Commonwealth and Canadian Pacific Airlines Ltd? [More…]

• 1 mentioned in the report that this whole matter is the subject of a high Court case taken by the insurers of TransAustralia Airlines against the Commonwealth and Canadian Pacific Airlines Ltd. [More…]

• But if the effect of the High Court decision invalidating parts of the trade practices legislation is in some way to affect the repeal’ in 1965 so that the Australian Industries Preservation Act is restored, the purpose and effect of this subclause is quite conclusively to indicate that it is the intention of this legislation, as it was the intention of the 1965 legislation, to repeal the Australian Industries Preservation Act. [More…]

• If I understand the position correctly, the effect of that sub-clause is to repeal the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-1950 and that if we were to defeat that sub-clause the Australian Industries Preservation Act, which deals with this subject matter and which the High Court said would be valid, would remain in force. [More…]

• All I suggest is that for this quarter the Commissioner could only report that the High Court declared the Act invalid and that the processes of having the legislation passed through the Senate occupied the balance of the quarter. [More…]

• This question follows a question asked by Senator Webster on Tuesday of this week following the decision of the High Court which was delivered on Tuesday morning. [More…]

• As I understand the position, it involves an issue which has been canvassed often before the High Court of Australia as to the extent of the operations in respect of any particular legislative or Executive act under section 92 of the Constitution. [More…]

• What are the implications in respect to interstate trade generally, vis-a-vis section 92 of the Constitution, consequent on the High Court’s ruling which upheld Tasmanian State laws preventing the sale of cooking margarine which has been flavoured or coloured to resemble butter? [More…]

• Does the High Court’s ruling usher in a new concept in interstate trade generally? [More…]

• The question of what is the meaning of ‘industry’ or industrial’ has been considered on several occasions by the High Court. [More…]

• In that last-mentioned case the High Court held that firefighting was not an industry. [More…]

• Can the AttorneyGeneral say whether any citizens of South Australia have ever been appointed as judges of the High Court of Australia? [More…]

• If they have not, will the Attorney-General give serious consideration to the appoint.mentment of a South Australian to such a position in the knowledge that there are many in the legal profession who have distinguished themselves and who would servo on the High Court with distinction? [More…]

• High Court of Australia put this responsibility onto the Parliament. [More…]

• The High Court found that the Constitution did not allow it to make the decision and it placed the decision fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Parliament. [More…]

• Is the Attorney-General aware that on 22nd February 1973 the then Acting Prime Minister stated that the Commonwealth Government had decided not to seek leave to intervene in the High Court case involving the question of the constitutional validity of the Tasmanian tobacco tax. [More…]

• The second, of course, is the more recent judgment of the High Court of Australia in the Concrete pipes case in which the corporation power of the Commonwealth first came under some element of scrutiny and in which there were some intimations from the Court that there may be an extensive power that can be utilised by the Commonwealth. [More…]

• The Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) stated earlier today that the definition of prices would be a matter for determination by the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• How would this determination be made because my understanding is that there must always be provision for a challenge to the High Court? [More…]

• High Court Procedure Bill 1903, [More…]

• I regret that I have to inform the Senate of the death this morning of Mr Justice Walsh of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• has been enrolled as a legal practitioner of the High Court, or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory, for not less than five years, to be a Judge or Judges of the Supreme Court. [More…]

• Is it a fact that no South Australian has ever been appointed to the High Court? [More…]

• As there is currently a vacancy on the High Court bench, will he give serious consideration to the appointment of a South Australian to the High Court? [More…]

• Is it a fact that the Attorney-General is applying to the High Court of Australia this afternoon for an injunction? [More…]

• Is the reason for applying to the High Court to ensure that 6 senators are elected in Queensland at the next Senate election or to ensure that Senator Gair goes to Ireland as ambassador? [More…]

• I report to the Senate that the Clerk of the Senate has informed me that on 2 August 1974 he was served with a writ of summons and other documents in connection with an action in the High Court of Australia at the suit of Senator Sir Magnus Cormack and Senator Webster. [More…]

• writ of summons commands the Clerk of the Senate within 21 days to cause an appearance to be entered in the High Court. [More…]

• However, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Murphy, today is attending a memorial service for the late Honourable Sir Douglas Menzies, a justice of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• 1 1 Writ of Summons- High Court of AustraliaStatement by the President; [More…]

• I reiterate that it is the Government’s aim to make the High Court the final court of appeal in all litigation in Australia. [More…]

• I content myself with expressing the Government’s appreciation of the fact that the Opposition will not stand in the way of the passage of this Bill, which goes some of the way towards achieving the Government’s goal in respect of the High Court. [More…]

• I have received a further message notifying that His Excellency the Administrator, under section 74 of the Constitution, had reserved the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Bill 1975 for Her Majesty’s pleasure. [More…]

• I would suggest that also, apart from that, the fact that this is dealing with the situation of a member of the Australian Parliament makes it appropriate that it should go to a federal court, the High Court, the highest court in the land, to be dealt with. [More…]

• For these reasons also, I think it is appropriate that it should go to the High Court. [More…]

• What I said in my original speech was that there was an argument for its going to the High Court because it was, too, the Court of Disputed Returns. [More…]

• I rise only to refute the thoroughly unwarranted statement with which the Minister started to acknowledge my comment, that is to say, that I was outraged in relation to the Superior Court Bill at the idea of the High Court’s being relieved of trial jurisdiction. [More…]

• I can recall recently, when we were discussing the Superior Court Bill, his being outraged at the proposition that the High Court be relieved of some of its primary jurisdiction. [More…]

• Now he seems to be suggesting that original jurisdiction should not be conferred on the High Court. [More…]

• I suggest that the proposition advanced on this Bill that matters of importance such as this should be the consideration of the High Court is consistent with the view which this Government has always advanced, and I can see nothing that we have to explain in clause 5 of the Bill which provides that original jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court in suits under this Act and no other court has jurisdiction in such a suit. [More…]

• Matters of such fundamental importance as this belong to the High Court and to no other court. [More…]

• I understood that the policy of the Administration in the judicial section of this country was to relieve the High Court of matters of first instance. [More…]

• I realise that the High Court is the Court of Disputed Returns, but I do not think that an offence of this sort should warrant trial by a justice of the High Court, which would interrupt the appellate duties for which such judges should be reserved. [More…]

• I would have thought that it was wholly contrary to the outlook upon the jurisdiction that should be developed today for this original jurisdiction to be vested in the High Court. [More…]

• I would have thought that the High Court should be dispossessed of any trial functions, especially in a matter of this sort, where there are competent Supreme Courts which could be appropriately vested with the jurisdiction. [More…]

• A copy of the letter from the President of the Senate dated 24 April 1 975 to the Principal Registrar of the High Court of Australia and a copy of the accompanying documents. [More…]

• The letter from the Principal Registrar of the High Court of Australia dated 6 May 1 975 to the President of the Senate, accompanied by a copy of the notice of the sittings of the Court of Disputed Returns. [More…]

• In view of the tabling of correspondence between the President of the Senate and the High Court relating to Senator Webster and the actions already initiated by the Court, will the Leader of the Government inform the Senate of what action has been taken to set up the Judicial Committee of Inquiry as required by the Opposition ‘s amendment passed on 22 April? [More…]

• There is even the effrontery to give him the same status as a High Court Judge. [More…]

• I think the salary proposed to be paid to him is equivalent to that paid to a High Court judge. [More…]

• If the Opposition is thinking of challenging this Bill in the High Court it can do so but to be consistent it should have done so in respect of its own Act in 1 972. [More…]

• For the information of honourable senators, I lay on the table a letter dated 25 June 1975 from the Principal Registrar of the High Court of Australia forwarding a copy of the order made by the Court of Disputed Returns on 24 June 1 975 on the hearing of the questions referred to it by resolution of the Senate of 22 April 1975. [More…]

• 1 ) During the lifetime of the Trade Practices Act 1 965-7 1 and its predecessor Acts and the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1971, how many cases arising under the said Act were decided (a) by the High Court and with what result; (b) by the Australian Industrial Court and with what result; and (c) by the Tribunal and with what result. [More…]

• Of course, the question of the receipt of government money was the subject of inquiry recently by the High Court of Australia because there is a right to know where the money is. [More…]

• Following the decisions of the High Court in relation to federal authority in the off-shore areas, what is the present situation regarding State fishing laws? [More…]

• The whole question of the operation of laws beyond the limits of the States, including laws relating to offences at sea, is now under examination in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in the light of the decision of the High Court on 17 December 1975 upholding the validity of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act. [More…]

• The question of the limits within which a State Fisheries Act applies is at present being considered by the High Court. [More…]

• It would be extemely discourteous to the High Court for us to debate the matter at length. [More…]

• It is obvious that Senator Greenwood will enter into a lengthy debate on the matter and so generate further debate from this side of the chamber.It would he highly discourteous to the High Court if we were to carry out such a debate in this place tonight. [More…]

• Do Justices of the High Court travel economy class when on official business. [More…]

• The High Court said recently that milk can be sold interstate. [More…]

• The example that I am giving of course is that of the Australian National Gallery and the High Court building. [More…]

• Prior to that there was provision in its legal structure for appeals to our High Court and this, of course, lapsed on the Republic gaining its independence. [More…]

• The Bill gives effect to an agreement which has been made between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Nauru relating to appeals to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Indeed, it is rather significant that the new salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia at $52,500 is less than $2,000 more than the salary of the Chief Justice of New South Wales. [More…]

• It is an interesting one and can only add to the status and prestige of the High Court. [More…]

• -Senator Knight’s question arises out of the recent decision of the High Court in the case known as Mackellar ‘s case which held that the people of the Commonwealth referred to in section 24 of the Constitution are people of the States and do not include people of the territories and that for the purpose of the nexus provision, territory senators and members are to be disregarded. [More…]

• Following a recent decision of the High Court can the Minister say what consideration has been given to action to ensure that the people of the Australian territories will bo accorded recognition as citizens of the Commonwealth in every respect? [More…]

• I am given to understand, having read the judgment of the High Court, that that was an expression used by one of the learned judges in the judgment. [More…]

• I repeat what I said before as a socialist: I pay tribute to the progressives who have come onto our High Court. [More…]

• I understand that the document purports to be a judgment of a judge of the High Court, after an action was taken by a 1 6-year-old citizen of the Commonwealth against the Government for - [More…]

• It is before the High Court. [More…]

• -I advert briefly to a couple of other matters, in particular to division 170- High Court, subdivision 1 dealing with a payments in lieu of long leave and unremunerated periods of service to Sir Edward McTiernan on his retirement from the Court. [More…]

• He was not able to indicate to me then, nor has he been in touch with me to indicate since, when the High Court will be giving a decision. [More…]

• Following the AttorneyGeneral’s remarks in the Senate on 27 October that he would make sure that the Chief Justice is aware of the situation, I ask: Has he performed that undertaking and is he now in a position to say when the High Court judgment is likely to be handed down? [More…]

• 1199 concerning Fraser Island (Hansard, 6 September 1977, p. 619): (a) does the Minister’s reply conflict with the statement by the Chief Justice of Australia in the High Court on 25 November 1975 (pp. [More…]

• It may be that the honourable senator has not fully appreciated the subtlety of the language used by the members of the High Court during the course of argument in the Murphyores case. [More…]

• My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Construction concerns the construction of the new High Court building. [More…]

• I presume as the Bill does not specifically state that, that he is saying that under no circumstances would that right of entry be forcible entry on the decision of a Federal court and that pending an appeal to the High Court no such right of entry as defined in the clause we seek to amend would be permitted. [More…]

• High Court of Australia- Interior Design, Australian [More…]

• 1 ) Which consultancy firm was engaged to assist the Department in the interior design of the High Court of Australia? [More…]

• Were the design recommendations for the High Court building altered at any stage after their initial acceptance: if so: (a) at whose request; and (b) what is the extra cost involved in (i) altering the specifications provided by consultants and (ii) work carried out following the changed specifications? [More…]

• One is a High Court judge and the other is the judge selected to undertake an inquiry which found there was nothing wrong with the activities of the man whom the Government could not dismiss from Cabinet. [More…]

• Will the Attorney-General provide an extended table relating to cases heard by the High Court in each year from 1973 to 1977 and from 1 January to 23 November 1978, showing in each instance: (a) the name of the case; (b) when the appeal or application for a hearing by the High Court was lodged with the Registrar; (c) the date(s) on which the case was heard; (d) the names of the Justices participating; and (e) the date on which judgment was handed down. [More…]

• Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Nauru relating to Appeals to the High Court of Australia from the Supreme Court of Nauru (1976)- see Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976. [More…]

• Obviously this legislation is the subject of dispute and will be the subject of dispute at some time in the near future before the High Court. [More…]

• -I did ask the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) for some information on whether the toilets which were installed originally in the High Court building were removed and new toilets installed. [More…]

• The High Court of Australia has recently given a very informative judgment on how the discretion should be exercised. [More…]

• In view of the decision of the High Court invalidating the States receipts tax, will the Minister inform the Senate of the position of those people who have paid the tax? [More…]

• I go along with Dougherty when he said that there are more wigs in the Arbitration Commission than there are in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• In the last few weeks, after the High Court ruled unconstitutional a tax imposed by the States, the Government said - and I read it in the papers - that it would legislate to validate the tax. [More…]

• I ask: Is it the responsibility of the Government, the Parliament, or the National Capital Development Commission to decide where and when the National Art Gallery and the High Court shall be built in Canberra? [More…]

• The area of difficulty to which I have been referring is that the Commonwealth Navigation Act is one which has not fared very well at the hands of the High Court. [More…]

• The Navigation Act was first passed in 1912 and on 2 occasions shortly after it was passed significant parts of it were declared invalid by the High Court. [More…]

• Assuming that there is a legal definition but being very fearful about the High Court not being kind, as Senator Greenwood said, in relation to interpretations of the Navigation Act, I am wondering what will happen if the Minister serves a notice on the master of a vessel and the master defies the notice and decides to challenge it in the High Court. [More…]

• It will be bad luck for the Reef while the High Court is making a decision. [More…]

• This could be a subject of great argument before the High Court. [More…]

• The High Court suggested some 62 years ago that there was no power in the Commonwealth to legislate with respect to corporations of a trading and financial character. [More…]

• I appreciate that with the passage of the years the impression of a High Court decision has become hallowed into a precept which is almost unchallengeable. [More…]

• For my part I would have thought that an examination of the judgment of the High Court might suggest that the Commonwealth has a far greater power than has been hitherto supposed. [More…]

• When the Commonwealth Government makes an appointment to the High Court does a precedent exist that an appointee must assure the Government that he has no extensive share interests, or is it taken for granted that the person concerned will do the right thing? [More…]

• That legislation was finally rejected by the judges - to their eternal credit - of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Earlier this year the High Court of Australia ruled that certain States had no right to collect a form of turnover tax which they were collecting. [More…]

• The newspapers also said that the proposal was to be made retrospective to cover the period of time which elapsed between the decision of the High Court and the ability of the Commonwealth Government to collect the tax which was said to have been illegally imposed by the States. [More…]

• I stand to be corrected by my legal colleagues, but I think that the High Court has extended to wildlife the protection of section 92 of our Constitution. [More…]

• We accept the decisions of the judges of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• I am saying that in 1948 the High Court of Australia held invalid a Labor Party scheme that required the doctors to do things which I would have thought were far less onerous than adhering to a compulsory fee scale. [More…]

• The High Court held the medical scheme that the Labor Party then put up to be invalid because it involved some conscription of the doctors. [More…]

• Are we going to state a case for the High Court of Australia or are we going to have a sort of censor who will be required to look through everything and decide what goes a little too far and what is all right? [More…]

• What is the latest situation, so far as legal proceedings in the High Court are concerned, with respect to the short payment of duty on cigarettes, referred to in Senate Hansard of 20th August 1969, at page 175. [More…]

• Further, in December 1969. the High Court gave judgment in favour of the Commonwealth in proceedings taken against some companies and individuals involving both cigars and cigarettes for an amount of $1,000,200 and this amount was paid on 30 January 1970. [More…]

• No date has yet been fixed for the transfer of the principal seat of the High Court to Canberra. [More…]

• However, the attention of the honourable senator is drawn to the statement made by Senator Cotton on 13th May 1970 (see Hansard p. 1395) concerning the siting of the High Court building in Canberra andthetiming of its construction. [More…]

• Judges in the High Court of Australia give their reasons for their decisions. [More…]

• A lawyer might doubt how a challenge to an Act would fare in the High Court, but on a matter of legislation it is a discretionary power of enormous potential. [More…]

• The High Court commented on the unjust way in which a provision was being used against a citizen in New South Wales. [More…]

• In summary the High Court said that if the case ware to be decided according to the merits and any approach of honest dealing the decision would be against the Commissioner, but because of the protective provision it had to be decided in favour of the Commissioner. [More…]

• The purpose of the group of 5 Bills is to provide the legislative framework for the imposition by the Commonwealth, at the request of the States and for their benefit, of a duty on business receipts so as to achieve the general result that the States do not lose revenue as a consequence of the High Court decisions invalidating the receipts duty legislation of the States in its application to certain types of receipts. [More…]

• Accordingly, when the High Court decision in the Hamersley case cast doubts on the constitutional validity of the receipts duty legislation of the States in its application to certain types of receipts, the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) indicated last September that the Commonwealth would see that the States did not lose revenue in 1969-70 in the event that this doubt was confirmed. [More…]

• At a further Premiers Conference held on 26th February 1970 following the High Court decisions given on the previous day, the Premiers requested, and the Commonwealth agreed, that the Commonwealth legislation should have continuing operation beyond 30th June 1970. [More…]

• If the objection is not allowed, the taxpayer may request a hearing by a Taxation Board of Review and may appeal to the High Court from a decision of such a board as to any question of law involved. [More…]

• Has the Minister representing the Attorney-General noticed that 5 cases against Tasmanian fishermen for breaches of fishing regulations have been adjourned pending the hearing of a test case before the High Court in which the right of the Tasmanian Government to make regulations concerning off-shore administration is being challenged by the Tasmanian Fishermen’s Union? [More…]

• In view of the High Court’s decision invalidating the States’ receipt taxes, can the Treasurer inform the Senate of the position of those who have paid the tax. [More…]

• This case will possibly never go to the High Court for its determination as to which legal opinion is correct. [More…]

• Therefore, unless someone takes the question to the High Court of Australia for decision, the will of the Senate must prevail. [More…]

• I refer to the case of Smith v. McErlane, which was decided by the High Court in 1962. [More…]

• In that case the High Court ruled that this provision meant that for the purposes of assessing the man’s weekly pay at the time of his injury overtime had to be excluded, as did the provision, which was in the nature of an advantage, of weekly time off for which he could receive money. [More…]

• It was well recognised by the High Court in 1907 that the Governor of a State carrying out functions such as those which are conferred upon him by section 15 of the Constitution, acts as the constitutional head of the State and can act on the advice of his Ministers. [More…]

• The High Court of Australia has declared that the tax which was imposed by the States was unconstitutional. [More…]

• A number of people in the community, taking that view, have not paid the tax, especially since the decision of the High Court. [More…]

• They have said that they are entitled to rely upon the decision of the High Court, which said that they were not required to pay the tax, that what they were doing was lawful, that transactions could be entered into by these people on a certain basis and there was no taxation attaching to those transactions. [More…]

• It ought to be able to rely upon the Constitution and the decision of the High Court. [More…]

• The endeavour behind this legislation is to surmount the High Court decision of February that the taxes imposed by several State governments were excise duties and therefore invalid. [More…]

• We understand that the States requested the Commonwealth to levy this receipts tax because, following the Western Australian case that went to the High Court, it was found that the States did not have the constitutional authority to levy the tax. [More…]

• Ultimately this caught up with them and the High Court says they are out of bounds. [More…]

• 1 believe that that phase of the tax brought the adverse decision of the High Court against that State Government. [More…]

• Commonwealth is merely filling the vacuum caused by the High Court decision and is collecting on behalf of the States, lt has no alternative but to strike a uniform tax. [More…]

• As you are aware, this was subsequently found invalid by the High Court in the case of payments made for the sale of goods. [More…]

• I hope that the legislation will be defeated and that the States and the Commonwealth, separately or conjointly, will be required to give further consideration to the ways and means of obtaining the revenue lost as a result of the High Court decision. [More…]

• The first is that there was an unexpected judgment of the High Court which rendered invalid a State tax which, but for the invalidity, would have produced for the States some $50m for the year 1969-70. [More…]

• The judgment was unexpected because it was contrary to the line of decisions previously adopted by the High Court, particularly in regard to stamp tax on hire purchase transactions. [More…]

• In any event, on the 2 occasions when the High Court has delivered judgments it has been divided in the proportion of 4 judges to 3. [More…]

• As Senator Little well knows, the High Court ruled out those taxes which could be regarded as taxes on receipt of goods or on receipts deemed to be receipts of goods, because they were excise. [More…]

• Thai view had not commended itself to the High Court in regard to other transactions in times past. [More…]

• The third fact was that under the High Court’s judgment it was quite clear that the Commonwealth had the constitutional power to impose this taxation whereas the States had not. [More…]

• A further Premiers Conference was held following the High Court’s decision in the cases involving Industrial Acceptance Corporation Ltd and Chamberlin Industries Pty Ltd handed down on 20th February. [More…]

• Further, at the unanimous request of the State Governments, my Government will introduce legislation which will have the effect of enabling the States to receive the revenue from receipts duty which they would otherwise lose as a result of the High Court judgment of 19th February. [More…]

• If Senator Little, apart from being a financier, now regards himself as an eminent lawyer, let him challenge the decisions of the Privy Council and the High Court, lt is well accepted that a person cannot receive back moneys which he has paid to a State authority under invalid legislation, unless he has paid it involuntarily, which means that he has paid it under compulsion. [More…]

• This is where the States ultimately tripped up before the High Court. [More…]

• I was amazed that our legal eagle, Senator Greenwood, was not aware of the circumstances of the High Court judgment which invalidated some sections of the tax. [More…]

• The High Court ruled that it was not a receipts duty; that it was an excise duty on goods produced in Australia for sale within Australia. [More…]

• That being the High Court decision and this tax having grown illegally in this manner, the Prime Minister saw fit to say that legislation would be introduced. [More…]

• As the High Court said, the Commonwealth has the power to impose an excise, but the States are deliberately prevented from doing so. [More…]

• Yet, the Prime Minister and the Government of this country wish us, as representatives of the people who are paying the tax, to come along here and to agree to it because the Government has allowed the situation to develop to the stage where, as Senator Greenwood says, it is dishonest in that some people have paid the tax thinking that they ultimately will be liable to pay it in spite of the decision of the High Court. [More…]

• This has been underlined forcibly by the recent High Court judgment on receipt duties. [More…]

• I suggest that in the face of this evidence it is ridiculous to come here and suggest to us that there was an agreement as far back as November 1969 between the Commonwealth and the States that the Commonwealth would collect through the back door what the High Court had ruled the States could not collect through the front door. [More…]

• When the High Court has described at least 50% of this hotch-potch turnover tax as an excise tax, what right has the Commonwealth to call these measures receipts duty Bills? [More…]

• I feel thai I have made a case against this form of taxation and have shown that this Federal Parliament should never try to steal in through the back door a lax that has been denied by the High Court to the States, and then unjustly impose it upon the people of the Commonwealth. [More…]

• I recall the horror and astonishment of Government senators when they learned the real facts of the case and how the trade union involved itself in proceedings in the High Court in an endeavour to support awards of the Commission. [More…]

• a proceeding before the High Court - [More…]

• The amendment moved by the Opposition goes not only to the proceedings before the Court, the Commission or the Registrar but also to proceedings before the High Court itself. [More…]

• This is a very important matter because in its practical application the unions or for that matter the employers organisations often take to the High Court questions challenging the awards or orders of the Commission. [More…]

• Notwithstanding the endeavours to exclude appeals and reviews of such awards the High Court has held that section 75 of the Constitution permits an application to be made to the High Court for a prohibition or other prerogative writ of that nature to call into question the award on the basis that those judicial or administrative officers who make it are officers of the Commonwealth. [More…]

• The Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board applied to the High Court for an order of prohibition in respect of the award. [More…]

• The Tramway Association went into the High Court to defend the Commission’s decision. [More…]

• The employer’s organisation went to the High Court and the Tramway Association went in again to defend the Commission’s award. [More…]

• A third time the Commission made an award and a third time the employers went to the High Court and again the Tramway Association lost. [More…]

• On this occasion I think that a minority of the High Court took the view that it was in substance much the same thing. [More…]

• The employers went into the High Court again. [More…]

• The Tramway Association again went into the High Court to defend the award. [More…]

• I think that by a 3 to 2 majority the High Court upheld the Commission’s decision. [More…]

• The Commonwealth at no stage came in to the High Court to endeavour to uphold the Commission’s decision. [More…]

• I note that the Government assisted members of the Australian Democratic Labor Party when they appealed to the Court of Disputed Returns against the election of Senator McClelland to this chamber, but the Government did not see fit to assist the Tramway Association when it had to go to the High Court to defend the decision of those whom the Commonwealth itself has appointed to the Commission. [More…]

• For each of the years 1968 and 1969, what percentage of cases (a) before a single justice, and (b) in the Full Court, of the High Court of Australia, has originated in each of the Slates. [More…]

• asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice: (1)In each of the years 1968 and 1969, how many applications, in criminal matters, for leave or special leave to appeal, from each State or Territory, have been heard by the High Court of Australia, and how many were (a) granted and (b) refused. [More…]

• The petition is considered in the first instance by the Commissioner of Patents and, if a prima facie case is made out, is then referred to the High Court for its determination whether a compulsory licence should be granted. [More…]

• With these representations in mind, it is at present considering those provisions of the Act relatingto the original and appellate jurisdiction ofthe High Court, exclusive and invested jurisdiction and the removal of Causes from State Supreme Courts, found in Parts IV to VII of the Judiciary Act. [More…]

• Chief Justice of the High Court; [More…]

• The old case of Dignan, reported in 46 Commonwealth Law Reports, has, in the judgments at least of Mr Justice Dixon, as he then was before becoming Chief Justice of’ the High Court of Australia, and of Mr Justice Rich, passages that suggest that ceasing to have effect under the Acts Interpretation Act would have the same effect as formerly - I stress the word ‘formerly’ - the repeal of a statute would have had. [More…]

• The case was brought by the Commissioner before the Trade Practices Tribunal, and the practice was abandoned after an unsuccessful challenge in the High Court to the validity of the Tribunal. [More…]

• The Commonwealth has paid or contributed to the costs of a number of litigants in the High Court who were not agents or instrumentalities of the Commonwealth. [More…]

• Some time ago the States of Victoria and Western Australia essayed to secure additional revenue by the imposition of a tax which was subsequently held by the High Court to be beyond their constitutional power. [More…]

• The States collected it in good faith until the High Court declared that it was ultra vires their powers. [More…]

• Others, guided by the High Court, have just refused to pay. [More…]

• It is something which has developed over the years as a result of wartime exigencies, decisions of the High Court of Australia and ingenious and unintended applications of powers by the Commonwealth Government. [More…]

• The High Court of Australia has ruled against this tax being imposed by the States. [More…]

• The point I am making is that Senator Gair knows very well that the High Court has given its decision on this tax, namely, that it is an illegal tax. [More…]

• I suppose that one of the most effective testimonials that could be directed to the Committee was given at a public meeting held at the Sydney Town Hall at 8 p.m. on 27 August under the chairmanship of Sir Garfield Barwick, Chief Justice of the High Court and Chairman of the Australian Conservation Foundation. [More…]

• If the discretion is applied in such a way that a wealthy company is deprived of some entitlement, the company takes the matter to the High Court and sometimes as far as the Privy Council for a determination of the question in order to get justice under a particular Act. [More…]

• Both the States and the Commonwealth, by proceeding independently and expecting a legal challenge and decision in the High Court, were open to the risk that such claims as they made as to their powers would be wholly or partly rejected. [More…]

• It would be just as idle to suggest that if one were to say that a judgment of the High Court was dishonest, that would not be a reflection on the judges, but that it would be necessary to say that the judges were dishonest or that the court was dishonest in order to reflect upon them. [More…]

• The High Court has recently decided that the provisions of certain State acts, if passed later than when land in the State was acquired for Commonwealth purposes, do not apply in relation to that land. [More…]

• The Treasurer (Mr Bury) explained that this was being done at the request of the States, and for their benefit, the purpose being to ensure that the States did not lose revenue as a consequence of the High Court decisions which invalidated their own receipts duty legislation as it applied to certain types of receipt. [More…]

• The High Court of Australia has held that, as a matter of constitutional law, laws for the government of a territory can operate wherever territorially the authority of the Commonwealth runs. [More…]

• arose principally from a High Court judgment in the case of Esmonds Motors Pty Ltd v. Nixon. [More…]

• I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service: In view of the recent High Court decision that civilian fire fighters are not engaged in an industry and therefore do not come within the ambit of industrial legislation, will the Minister consider the introduction of amending legislation for the purpose of giving this section of workers the protection afforded to other workers in Australian industries? [More…]

• However, the Queensland Government felt some concern for the validity of legislation to give effect to this proposal in view of the judgment in O’sullivan v. Noarlunga Meat Pty Ltd, where the High Court held that State legislation requiring the licensing of premises used for processing meat for export was invalid. [More…]

• Senator Devitt offered the comment that the change is a consequence of the High Court judgment in the Esmonds Motors Case. [More…]

• It appealed unsuccessfully to the Supreme court and successfully to the High Court, not against the quantum of land rent but against the method of reappraisement. [More…]

• The High Court’s judgment in the Esmonds Motors case in no way influenced the Government’s decision. [More…]

• There was a High Court case recently - I think it was Esmonds’ case - of which I do nol know the details. [More…]

• Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware that on 9th October 1970 the High Court of Australia decided that civil brigade fire fighters are not employed - I quote - ‘in industry’? [More…]

• Is it a fact that the High Court decision in this matter precludes the right of the United Firefighters Union to federal registration? [More…]

• I find the decision of the High Court one of difficulty and perplexity. [More…]

• With that in mind, I have difficulty in envisaging that legislation of this Parliament could overcome the problem, because no Act of this Parliament can prevail against the Constitution as interpreted by the High Court. [More…]

• The crux of the matter really is that the High Court of Australia has held that, as a matter of constitutional law, the laws for the government of the Territory can operate wherever territorially the authority of the Commonwealth runs. [More…]

• The High Court looked at this question in the case of the Federal Capital Commission v. Lariston Building and Investment Co. Pty Ltd in 1929, when it held that regulations made by the Governor-General under this Ordinance, which were repugnant to a subsequent Act of the Parliament, were held to be void. [More…]

• This situation was confirmed by inquiries made under the direction of Sir Garfield Barwick, who was then the AttorneyGeneral and is now Chief Justice of the High Court. [More…]

• As honourable senators know, Sir Garfield Barwick went off to the High Court and became Chief Justice of Australia. [More…]

• Then, as was predicted by me in 1965, we saw the spectacle that one of these companies which was affected by the legislation commenced an action in the High Court. [More…]

• But as Senator Murphy’s speech recognised before lunch, when this profession grows in great numbers to serve the national capital with all the concentration of commerce which will develop and the courts which will be established, particularly after the High Court is established in Canberra, it would be unthinkable that the people on the roll of the Supreme Court here would not wish to specialise and to have specially recognised groups. [More…]

• Secondly, persons whose names are on the roll as barristers of the High Court or as barristers or solicitors or legal practitioners of a State or another Territory and who are of good fame and character may apply to be admitted to practise in the Australian Capital Territory. [More…]

• Ultimately, with the resort of the High Court of Australia to this place and a concentration of public attention on the operations of the law within this Territory, because it embraces the national capital, what happens here can very well stimulate what may happen uniformly throughout the nation. [More…]

• The Western Australian Government was challenged by Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd, and that challenge was upheld by the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• It goes back to a decision of the High Court in which it was found that it was possible to arrange for this type of thing only where the legislation was of a transitional character. [More…]

• Where it was not of a transitional character, on the interpretation of that High Court decision, it had to be done in another way. [More…]

• When the legislation was proved unconstitutional by the High Court, the Governmentfound it was unable to present its Bills in a form that was to the satisfaction of the Parliament. [More…]

• I would refer Senator Kennelly to section 72 of the Constitution under which High Court judges may be removed by the Parliament for misbehaviour. [More…]

• 1 am talking rather off the top of my head here, but if the Parliament - that is, we here and those in the other place - removes a High Court judge, as we can, for incapacity or misbehaviour, he has no right of appeal to anybody. [More…]

• The purpose of this Bill is to meetthe constitutional position disclosed by the decision of the High Court of Australia given last June in Worthing v. Rowell and Muston Pty Ltd and Others. [More…]

• A majority of 4 Justices to 3 in the High Court held that the State legislation did not operate in the Richmond Air Force base. [More…]

• The Attorney-General communicated with the AttorneysGeneral of the States immediately after the High Court decision. [More…]

• The law Ministers unanimously agreed that legislation should be introduced as quickly as possible to meet the position resulting from the High Court’s decision. [More…]

• The Bill before the Senate arises out of a the High Court decision in the Worthing case. [More…]

• The High Court gave a legal right by its decision to Mr Worthing and other people in the same position as he. [More…]

• It is well known that the Bill is to provide quickly a sewing up of the gap which has been created by the High Court decision. [More…]

• We are simply infusing Federal life into the statute which the High Court may have said ceased to be operative by virtue of State authority up to date. [More…]

• So I submit that it would be a ghastly consequence of the High Court decision if we created a gap of immunity from crime between the date of that decision and the dale of this enactment, however serious or insignificant a crime may be. [More…]

• Thirdly, will he assure the Senate that the case concerning the validity of the Trade Practices Act which is going on appeal to the High Court of Australia will be pursued with all expedition by the Government and not left, as have some other constitutional cases concerning important interests, to linger on? [More…]

• The Senate can be assured that the High Court case will proceed with due dispatch. [More…]

• In 1969 we had before this chamber the Judiciary Bill by which the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia was increased from 24.000 - a real bread-line salary - to $30,000. [More…]

• At that time the salary of a justice of the High Court was increased from $21,000 to $27,000 and. [More…]

• On 9th July 1970 2 writs were issued out of the High Court of Australia for the recovery of penalties in relation to part of the duty evaded. [More…]

• The actions are awaiting hearing by the High Court. [More…]

• I refer particularly to the words of Mr Latham who subsequently became a very distinguished Chief Justice of the High Court for about 17 years. [More…]

• Senator Murphy knows from his own experience in the High Court that it is quite customary on a hearing of an application for leave to appeal for the appeal itself to bc heard. [More…]

• How many decisions of boards of review were the subject of appeal to the High Court of Australia for the year ended 31st December 1970. [More…]

• Six appeals from Board of Review decisions were decided in the High Court during the year ended 31st December 1970. [More…]

• Will the AttorneyGeneral seek to influence judges of the High Court of Australia to hand down separate decisions or judgments in cases decided by the Court, thus permitting interested parties to be informed on the value and importance that each judge places on different facts and opinions given, and on case law in relation to previous decisions? [More…]

• It would be both improper and impertinent for me or for any Minister to seek to influence the judges of the High Court of Australia, or of any other court, on the methods by which they should express the reasons for their judgments. [More…]

• No date has yet been fixed for the transfer of the principal seat of the High Court to Canberra. [More…]

• The attention of the honourable senator is drawn to a statement made by Senator Cotton on 13th May 1970 (see Hansard, page 1395) concerning the siting of the High Court building in Canberra and the timing of its construction. [More…]

• Mr Justice Gibbs who served on the Supreme Court Bench of the ACT has moved to the High Court. [More…]

• If this were done we could have an appeal system within the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and cases would not have to go to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Litigants ought not to have to go to the highest court of this land, the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The problem of Sterling Nicholas Duty Free Pty Ltd has been dealt with by the High Court. [More…]

• If there is a Commonwealth obligation I suggest that the responsibility should be thrown on to the Commonwealth Government to take legal action through the High Court for a writ compelling the South Australian Government to honour its constitutional obligation. [More…]

• My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General i refers to a question that I asked concerning the possibility of accommodating the High Court in Adelaide in the historic and architecturally outstanding building occupied by Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd in King William Street. [More…]

• It was suggested that the ANZ Bank building in Adelaide would, if available, form suitable accommodation for the High Court in Adelaide. [More…]

• I referred that matter to the Attorney-General who has advised me that the Government has announced that the High Court will at some future time be transferred to Canberra for its permanent accommodation and that he does not consider it appropriate to contemplate the Adelaide building as accommodation for the High Court. [More…]

• The final accommodation of the High Court of Australia in Canberra must in turn bring with it the ancillary services and support that is required by the supreme court of the nation. [More…]

• It is realised that it is only a comparatively short time since the Senate held such an inquiry, but it is pointed out that the Senate inquiry did not investigate the many aspects of the land tenure system now needing examination as a result of the Government’s proposal to abandon the collection of ground rent and as a result of the decision of the High Court in the Esmonds Motors case. [More…]

• Most members of Parliament are probably unaware of, but should be informed of, the fact that despite the comments made by His Honour Sir Garfield Barwick, Chief Justice of The High Court of Australia, in the case, Esmonds Motors Pty Limited v the Commonwealth of Australia & Another, in the recent legislation no provision has been made to set up the independent valuing authority considered by His Honour to be desirable. [More…]

• It is realised that it is only a comparatively short time since the Senate held such an enquiry, but it is pointed out that the Senate Enquiry did not investigate the many aspects of the land tenure system now needing examination as a result of the Government’s proposal to abandon the collection of Ground Rent and as a result of the decision of the High Court in the Esmonds Motors case. [More…]

• It will be well remembered by many that the Suppression of Communism Act in South Africa, which has been responsible for the imprisonment and the suffering of many Democrats in that country, was based on the Communist Party Dissolution Act which was passed by the Australian Government in” 1950, only subsequently, to be repudiated by the High Court of Australia and by the people of Australia. [More…]

• The High Court of Australia gave a decision fairly recently, although I do not recall the year, in relation to a claim for workers compensation ‘ for an injury suffered on Commonwealth property near either the: Richmond or Williamtown aerodrome. [More…]

• The previous speaker referred to the doubt which had been cast by a High Court decision early last year on the applicability of State laws to Commonwealth premises. [More…]

• Even before the High Court of Australia the authorities seemed bent on hanging the person before the proceedings could be completed. [More…]

• Senator Murphy has made a suggestion about Constitution printings, having in mind that the Minister receives notices and decisions, particularly High Court decisions, which are of tremendous value. [More…]

• ls there not an early judgment of the High Court which provides that when a regulation which operates in a Territory is subsequently incorporated in an Act by Parliament then that regulation becomes null and void? [More…]

• If the Minister obtains a copy of that Act he will find listed a reference to a High Court case. [More…]

• High Court as meaning: to assail with offensively dishonouring or contemptuous speech or action; to treat with scornful abuse, or offensive disrespect; to offer indignity to; to affront; to outrage. [More…]

• I understand that some years ago the High Court decided that superannuation issues werenot matters for consideration and determination under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. [More…]

• As there is no provision in the States Grants Act 1970 to permit deductions to be made from the grants where a State, or its authorities, do not pay payroll tax, it is necessary to include such a provision in order to meet the possibility that the High Court will uphold the challenge by Victoria and South Australia to the constitutional validity of payroll tax in its application to State governments. [More…]

• In this regard I mention that, in the event of a High Court decision unfavourable to the Commonwealth, and the States, or some of them, deciding not to continue to pay pay-roll tax, the legislation would permit the Government to offset the loss of pay-roll tax revenue to the Commonwealth in future years by making a deduction to the base grants to which the financial assistance grants formula is applied. [More…]

• I am told that in the 1949 agreement with South Australia there was no commitment as to time, and the High Court so found by a unanimous decision [More…]

• how many appeals were heard by the High Court of Australia in respect of the State of New South Wales; [More…]

• The number of appeals heard by the High Court of Australia in respect of the State of New South Wales was as follows: [More…]

• I regret that this clause came into the Bill at any time because it seems to me that it was a case of trying to pressurise the High Court. [More…]

• The Premier of Victoria, allied with the Premier of South Australia, applied to the High Court to test the validity of payroll tax. [More…]

• The High Court has said that the Act as it stands is operative. [More…]

• It would have meant a great deal, no doubt, if the High Court had ruled in favour of the governments of Victoria and South Australia, the 2 governments that were contesting the validity of the Act. [More…]

• Some people had not paid under the Act when the High Court decided that the Commonwealth had the power. [More…]

• Of course, after the High Court’s decision of last week this question has now been put beyond any reasonable doubt. [More…]

• Regardless of what the High Court may have said, he claims that on no occasion has he ever agreed to pay the tax. [More…]

• Whilst I am prepared to admit that this may sound as though Victoria wants to have it both ways - coming and going - I think that if there were some doubt about the legal validity of the tax it is not only the right but also the duty of any sane Administration to have the matter put beyond doubt by a High Court challenge, and this has now been done. [More…]

• Sir Henry Bolte has made it clear that he has appropriated $9m for this purpose in his Appropriation Bill and, of course, will pay the tax now that the High Court has said that the tax has to be paid. [More…]

• Of course, the High Court of Australia subsequently has given a unanimous decision in favour of the Commonwealth. [More…]

• The Bill was drafted prior to a decision being given by the High Court. [More…]

• Looked at iu one way, the clause gives effect to the High Court’s Judgment, but I would not like to put that as an argument. [More…]

• The fact of the matter is that this Bill was drafted before the High Court gave its judgment. [More…]

• The High Court decided that the Commonwealth had the power to obtain from the States payroll tax. [More…]

• The High Court has laid down that the States must pay. [More…]

• In one way I regret the judgment of the High Court. [More…]

• The High Court - the principal court in the land, according to this Parliament - has said that the States, municipalities, all employers, semi-governmental instrumentalities, etc., have to pay this tax. [More…]

• The High Court confirmed the legality of the payroll tax. [More…]

• We are saying to the people of this nation that this provision is in the Bill because of happenings over which we had no control but over which another House did because it ran away after having passed a Bill’ while the matter of payroll tax was before the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Government supporters in another place or the Parliamentary Draftsman must have thought that the High Court would not decide as it did, otherwise this clause would not have been included. [More…]

• The Draftsman must have read the mind of the High Court the wrong way. [More…]

• Whilst there has been a High Court decision and certain statements have been made, the fact of the matter is that the provisions of clauses 5 and 6 apply to any State and every State. [More…]

• But the High Court was never asked to judge the moral background behind the levying of such a tax. [More…]

• No court has adjudicated on the morals and the principles behind the payroll tax but because we have a court decision which says it is legal for the Commonwealth to collect payroll tax everybody will go around and say: ‘Payroll tax is all right; the High Court has said that it is all right’. [More…]

• But all that the High Court has said is that it is all right for the Commonwealth to collect from the States. [More…]

• I do not need to refer to a High Court of judges to understand what I think about payroll tax and some of the other taxes. [More…]

• The Senate is only too well aware of the delays which took place before the introduction of the Trade Practices Bill and that the stronger proposals of Sir Garfield Barwick were shelved after he had left to take a seat on the High Court. [More…]

• Has the attention of the Leader of the Government been drawn to an article which appears on page 3 of this morning’s ‘Daily Telegraph’ in which Mr Les Irwin, a member of the other place, has criticised the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, has described members of the Committee as grand inquisitors and an amateur court, has advised stockbrokers to appeal to the High Court against a decision of the Committee and has advised Australian stockbrokers to defy a request of the Committee? [More…]

• One of the problems which has beset it for 5 years has been the uncertainty as to the constitutional position, and we hope that a great deal of clarity will come into the constitutional field when the High Court delivers its pending judgment - we hope in the very near future. [More…]

• That was a decision of the High Court and generally the purport of that decision has been regarded as overruling any previous dicta of the High Court ruling otherwise. [More…]

• That challenge was resolved in the High Court. [More…]

• In a case in which one of our colleagues figured very prominently, the High Court decided that trade unions had the right to pursue political purposes and to impose political levies on their members in order to pursue those political purposes. [More…]

• If one reads especially the passages at page 58 and 59 one sees that the High Court rejected the proposition that the trade union movement should not be permitted to pursue political purposes. [More…]

• It is an accepted role, it is a proper role and it is a lawful role, as has been declared by the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The High Court rejected the proposition that for trade unions to engage in these political activities was in some way illegal. [More…]

• To show how thoroughly biased and distorted is the argument which we have heard from Senator Murphy from the start I shall take time quietly to refer to the High Court decision to which the honourable senator made reference. [More…]

• The High Court held that it was lawful for the union to impose such a levy and that on non-payment the Hurseys ceased to hold membership. [More…]

• That was the cause of action which the High Court held to be valid, saying that the Hurseys had a cause of action for conspiracy based upon acts done pursuant to a combination to prevent them by unlawful means from presenting themselves for employment in stevedoring operations. [More…]

• It is a familiar spectacle to see the highest legal minds in the land - the judges of the High Court - divided 4 to 3 on matters of the utmost importance to the community - matters on which the layman might imagine that there could be such certainty that the judges would be unanimous. [More…]

• Because the supposed vacancy had arisen out of a general election, the ultimate wash-up was that both the Senate Standing Committee on Disputed Returns and Qualifications and ultimately the High Court held that there should be a general election and not an appointment under the provisions of the Constitution. [More…]

• I would have thought that where a senator’s constitutional right to sit in this chamber is conferred by the Constitution, the High Court is the appropriate body charged by the Constitution with the duties of interpretation. [More…]

• The Attorney-General said that if this matter were to be decided it should go to the High Court. [More…]

• It could well finish up in the High Court if the committee suggested by Senator Murphy, or any other committee or the Senate decided in that way. [More…]

• However, I hope that the Attorney-General is not suggesting that we should rush into the High Court on the meagre information we have. [More…]

• It was said the other day that if an appeal is made it should be to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• If there is a doubt, surely this is the time to remove that doubt, instead of waiting for some years to pass and for somebody to raise the question with the High Court. [More…]

• That is a decision of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The High Court, in the case of Coward and Stapleton, did not use the term ‘natural justice’, but it quashed the conviction of the person concerned. [More…]

• The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, and in such other federal courts as the Parliament creates, and in such other courts as it invests with federal jurisdiction. [More…]

• Nor it is, because no higher authority than the High Court of Australia has expressly said so, and has said so in a privileges case involving the House of Representatives. [More…]

• This matter went to the High Court after the decision of the House of Representatives in 1955 when Messrs Browne and Fitzpatrick had been found guilty of a breach of privileges and had been committed to prison. [More…]

• The argument had been addressed to the High Court that there was a judicial character in the decision of the [More…]

• Certainly there was in the imposition of a term of imprisonment, which was inconsistent with the Constitution of Australia which embodied the judicial power in the High Court and the courts which the Parliament created. [More…]

• The High Court said: [More…]

• The decision of the High Court continued: [More…]

• Consideration has been given to various courses of action which were open to the Government after the decision of the High Court last Friday. [More…]

• by leave - Mr President, last Friday the High Court of Australia gave its decision in the case of [More…]

• The High Court held important provisions of the Trade Practices Act to be invalid. [More…]

• I lake this opportunity to inform honourable senators of the principal conclusions reached by the High Court, to indicate the immediate implications of the decision and to outline the steps that the Government, as a matter of urgency, pro;poses to take to remedy the situation disclosed by the decision in regard to the operation of the Trade Practices Act. [More…]

• Honourable senators will doubtless have read in the press that the High Court held, by a majority of 5 to 2, that the Trade Practices Act did not validly require the registration of the agreement. [More…]

• In order to succeed, the Commonwealth had to get the High Court to overrule an earlier decision in the case of Huddart Parker v. Moorhead given in 1909 in relation to the Australian Industries Preservation Act. [More…]

• The High Court did overrule that decision and made it clear that the corporations power can be used to support legislation dealing with restrictive trade practices of corporations. [More…]

• A considerable amount of work and attention has been given to this objective, lt is apparent that as a result of the decision of the High Court, the scope of the Commonwealth power to strengthen the legislation has been widened. [More…]

• However, there are immediate consequences of the High Court’s decision which the Government cannot ignore. [More…]

• However, the Government, on the advice of the law officers, is proceeding upon the view that the parts of the Act dealing with resale price maintenance and overseas shipping are valid, and that the functions of the Commissioner of Trade Practices and of the Trade Practices Tribunal in relation to those provisions are not affected by the High Court’s decision. [More…]

• This holding legislation will be substantially the same as the existing Trade Practices Act save for the amendments required by a consideration of the constitutional defects attributed to it by the High Court’s judgment and the availability of the corporations power contained in section 51 (xx) of the Constitution. [More…]

• By relying on the corporations power alone the legislation will be able to avoid problems of the kind disclosed by the High Court’s judgment, and the drafting of a Bill will accordingly be facilitated. [More…]

• It does appear that the High Court is prepared to give the corporations power a reasonably wide meaning and that the power may support legislation that has hitherto been thought to be beyond Commonwealth power. [More…]

• by leave - The Opposition welcomes the statement of principle by the High Court, which has indicated that not only in the field of trade practices but also in many other fields the Commonwealth has the power to legislate directly to achieve changes in the operation of the economy. [More…]

• Although since the inception of the Constitution power has been granted to the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate with respect to trading and financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth, the decision of the High Court in 1909 had the practical effect of deterring the Commonwealth Parliament from legislating in that respect because of the belief that the legislative power was virtually useless. [More…]

• I think it is healthy for the community that the High Court has not only indicated the legislative power to deal with trade practices but also has incidentally said that the particular enactment is invalid for a drafting reason. [More…]

• He said also: lt does appear that the High Court is prepared to give the corporations power a reasonably wide meaning and that the power may support legislation that has hitherto been thought to be beyond Commonwealth power. [More…]

• lt is generally accepted that the decision of the High Court has removed the main doubt about the legal feasibility of establishing a Commonwealth securities and exchange commission. [More…]

• I have no doubt that the Committee was wise to await the judgment of the High Court in the concrete pipes case before reporting to the Senate. [More…]

• It is generally agreed that the main doubt about that legal feasibility has been removed by the decision of the High Court and I believe it would be in the national interest for the Committee to bring down a prompt report to the Senate, even if only of an interim nature, giving its recommendations on the desirability and feasibility of establishing a securities and exchange commission. [More…]

• We hope that the Government takes advantage of what has been said by the High Court to bring in measures relating to consumer protection, consumer credit and other spheres in which the public interest must be protected. [More…]

• by leave - This is, in a sense, an historic day following an equally historic judgment of the High Court. [More…]

• Firstly I should like to express my personal indebtedness to the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) for making his statement to the Senate on a complex matter in such lucid terms and in such a timely fashion, informing more particularly those who are not professionally equipped as to the basis and implications of the judgment of the High Court. [More…]

• Even those of us who may be professionally equipped found difficulty in assessing the real meaning of this very big, complex and weighty judgment of the High Court which has just been circulated to some honourable senators. [More…]

• But as we move further from the time of the actual setting down of the Constitution, and as there is a consistent and persistent refusal to re-look at the Constitution by way of referenda or constitutional amendment of some kind or another, more and more the area of power is moving from this Parliament into judicial tribunals, and it was left to the High Court to make this very big advance for Australia. [More…]

• I do not think it is a good thing that such powers should be left to reside in the High Court due to the failure of the other constitutional processes to operate and give viability to the Constitution. [More…]

• It fiddled around with them and finally was rebuffed in the High Court. [More…]

• Only last week the High Court of Australia threw out the Restrictive Trade Practices Act and told this Government what it could do if it had the will to do it Whether the Government will have the will to do it will be a matter for this Senate to examine at a later date. [More…]

• He has been a good citizen of this country and he has been guilty of no crime within the country, except that he has belonged to a political party and that is not a crime under our Constitution as has been decided by the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• I suppose it started in the first decade of the century when the High Court decided that a provision in the Constitution that the surplus revenue of the Commonwealth would be paid to the States did not prevent the Commonwealth from avoiding surplus revenue by simply passing into a trust account moneys which were not expended in a particular year. [More…]

• Notwithstanding the concern of the States at this developing situation the High Court, on the occasion on which resort has been made to it, has clearly indicated the constitutional validity of the Commonwealth’s superior position. [More…]

• When one considers that as a result of the receipts duty invalidation by the High Court approximately 18 months ago the Commonwealth Government has been forced to provide out of its own revenues an amount to meet what the States have lost, one has some sense of the amounts which are involved. [More…]

• It was the subject of heavy criticism, particularly from judges of the High Court in England who had to administer it. [More…]

• In this field the States have exercised the primary and inalienable responsibility, recognised ever since the Constitution was brought in by our High Court which will only in very special circumstances grant leave to appeal from decisions of State courts of criminal appeal. [More…]

• The legislation which is now before the Senate in the form of 3 Bills - the Pay-Roll Tax (Termination of Commonwealth Tax) Bill, the Pay-Roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Bill and the PayRoll Tax (Territories) Bill - has come into existence for the sole reason that the receipts duty which was invoked by the State governments in order to increase their revenue was declared invalid by the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• When the receipts duty was found, by a High Court decision, to be invalid, it was decided that one way of providing the States with an opportunity of gaining extra money would be to make the payroll tax available to the States for their operation. [More…]

• Indeed, it was that State which challenged its validity in the High Court quite recently. [More…]

• Of course, now he has increased the payroll tax as well, after failing in his challenge to the validity of the Commonwealth legislation in the High Court. [More…]

• As legal proceedings were instituted on 13/9/71 in the High Court claiming damages against the Commonwealth arising out of the clearance and departure of the yacht I consider it would be quite inappropriate for me to comment. [More…]

• A decision of a Court on an appeal under this section is final and conclusive except so far as an appeal may be brought to the High Court by leave of the High Court’. [More…]

• Of course the final appeal to the High Court is left as is provided in the Act at the present time. [More…]

• My amendment extended the right of appeal up to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• According to the terms of my amendment of 1968, if any person is dissatisfied with the magistrate’s decision he can take the matter further - to a judge and even to the High Court. [More…]

• I take exception to the comment that going beyond the 1968 amendments to the Act is simply providing protection for the imposter in view of the fact that he can obtain a decision from the High Court. [More…]

• A right of appeal lies to the High Court and the amendment we propose does not take away that right. [More…]

• I rise to say a few words on this subject, not so much because I wish to support Senator Cant in his application to the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) to have this matter removed into the High Court for a determination of the legal problem that it presents - I agree entirely that it does raise in a very real way some of the grave constitutional problems that are facing the Federal and State governments in relation to the control of the seabed and all that that entails - but because I believe that this matter raises another problem altogether. [More…]

• Under the Judiciary Act a matter involving the Constitution or its interpretation may be removed into the High Court at the request of any of the parties or at the request of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth or of any of the Stales. [More…]

• There is also another provision in the Judiciary Act under which a question which involves the powers, inter se, of the Commonwealth and the States will automatically be referred to the High Court when that issue arises before the court which is hearing the matter. [More…]

• Finally, Mr President, 1 should inform the Senate that, arising from this accident, a civil action has been commenced in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• In this case the underwriters have exercised this privilege and, in the name of the Australian National Airlines Commission, they have issued out of the High Court of Australia a writ claiming unspecified damages against the Commonwealth and against Canadian Pacific Airlines Ltd. [More…]

• This Bill, which is for an Act to replace the Trade Practices Act 1965-1971, was foreshadowed in a statement I made to the Senate on 7th September 1971 following the decision of the High Court of Australia in the case of Strickland v. Rocla Concrete Pipes Limited and others, commonly referred to as the concrete pipes case. [More…]

• In my statement of 7 th September I pointed out that the High Court had held that, due to the way in which the Trade Practices Act sought to use all the constitutional powers believed to be available to sustain the legislation, it was open to legal objection. [More…]

• I also pointed out that the High Court had made it clear that the corporations power in section 51(xx) of the Constitution could be used to support legislation dealing with the restrictive trade practices of corporations and that the Government had accordingly decided that the immediate remedial legislation should be founded on that power alone. [More…]

• Although certain provisions of the Trade Practices Act dealing with resale price maintenance were subsequently declared to be valid by the Commonwealth Industrial Court there are substantial parts of the Act which have been rendered wholly inoperative by the High Court’s decision. [More…]

• It is clear from the High Court’s decision that there are large gaps in the effective operation of the Act. [More…]

• This has been done in order to avoid problems of the kind disclosed by the High Court and, by facilitating the drafting, to avoid undersirable delay in the introduction of the Bill. [More…]

• Mr Deputy President, as I have made clear, the present Bill is a holding measure to deal as a matter of urgency with the immediate effects of the High Court’s decision in the concrete pipes case. [More…]

• The purpose of this Bill is to rectify a situation under the Matrimonial Causes Act disclosed by 2 recent decisions of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• However, last December the High Court held, in the case of Kotsis v. Kotsis, that the Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales was not part of that Court but was merely an officer of it. [More…]

• The decision in Kotsis v. Kotsis was followed, in May of this year, by a further decision of the High Court in the case of Knight v. Knight, which related to the position of the Master of the Supreme Court of South Australia. [More…]

• The High Court held that the position of the Master of that Court was indistinguishable from that of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and that, accordingly, the Master lacked jurisdiction to make orders of the kind he had for some time been making. [More…]

• The High Court’s decision in Knight v. Knight also cast doubt on a South Australian practice in accordance with which persons appointed as commissioners of the Supreme Court - usually retired judges - have purported to exercise the jurisdiction of the Court in granting divorce decrees and making related orders. [More…]

• In the case of Knight v. Knight no order was actually made by a court officer, the matter having been raised for the High Court’s consideration by way of a case stated by a judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia. [More…]

• However, in the many cases to which the Bill will apply, it will provide for the rights of persons to be as it was intended that they should be when the purported orders were made and will place the persons affected in the same position as they believed themselves to be in before the High Court decisions which 1 have mentioned. [More…]

• Those regulations actually purported to confer jurisdiction on the High Court of Australia as the court of disputed returns for elections to that Board. [More…]

• Earlier this year the High Court held that the regulation was invalid. [More…]

• Perhaps it is fortunate that it did so because if the High Court were to be invoked as a court of disputed returns for elections such as this, the extreme burden of work which it already has would be increased very greatly. [More…]

• That the regulation making power did not extend to conferring such a jurisdiction on the High Court. [More…]

• In fact, it is alarming to contemplate that it would be thought that this Parliament, by a regulation making power of that general character, would intend, or be thought to intend, to confer power on the Executive lo confer such a jurisdiction on the High Court of Australia to act as a court of disputed returns in relation to a body such as this. [More…]

• I ask the Minister whether it might be possible for him to inform the Senate - not on this occasion but as soon as convenient - whether there are any other examples in relation to marketing or like boards in the primary production area, of similar purported jurisdiction being conferred upon the High Court of Australia or upon any other court. [More…]

• I ask the Attorney-General: Has the Commonwealth Government received a request from the British Government for the release of a High Court judge to be. [More…]

• It is not as wide as the power to make laws with respect to banking, to the incorporation of banks and to the issue of money - an area of legislative power which was canvassed in the High Court and in the Privy Council about 25 years ago. [More…]

• A Bill relating to new restrictive trade practices legislation to cope with the urgent situation that has arisen as a result of the High Court’s decision in the concrete pipes case awaits debate. [More…]

• This question is obviously designed to draw from me information which will have a bearing on a potential High Court case and I decline to be involved. [More…]

• In April of this year the High Court of Australia decided, in the case of Capital TV and Appliances Ltd v Falconer, that the Supreme Court of the Territory was not a Federal court, but a court of the Territory. [More…]

• The High Court’s decision has accordingly disclosed a need for the tenure of the Judges of the Territory Court to be provided for by statute and the present Bill makes such provision. [More…]

• The requirement of the Bill that judges retire at 70 years of age is subject to an exception in the case of a judge who held office on the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory on the date of the High Court’s decision in the Capital TV case. [More…]

• The need for amendment of the Act in relation to the tenure of office of judges was disclosed by the decision of the High Court in the case of Capital TV and Appliances Ltd v. Falconer. [More…]

• Senator Greenwood said that this Bill is being introduced to meet the constitutional requirements following the High Court judgment in the concrete pipes cases. [More…]

• The Government now is reacting to public pressure to block the loophole revealed by the recent High Court judgment. [More…]

• In the case of Australia Industries Preservation Act 1906, the Act foundered on the question of public interest, with the High Court and the Privy Council deciding in part in the Coal Vend case on lack of evidence of intent to cause public detriment within the meaning of the Act. [More…]

• As I said in the Senate on 7th September, after the historic High Court decision, the Court held that an enactment in the form of the Industries Preservation Act would have been and was within the scope of the Constitution. [More…]

• On this matter, Mr Connor, my colleague in the other place, has Observed that the portion of the old Trade Practices Act of undoubted constitutional validity - perhaps 1 should not say ‘of undoubted constitutional validity’ in view of the remarks of one of the learned judges of the High Court; I might observe that they were of generally undoubted constitutional validity - related to overseas shipping conferences and their agreements with Australian exporters. [More…]

• If the Government really wants to use the High Court decision to introduce legislation effectively to bar restrictive practices - to practise what it preaches by laying the groundwork for a free economy spurred by true competition - then the Attorney-General should study the legislation now before the Canadian House of Commons. [More…]

• The High Court has cleared the way and the Government can now elect to act in accordance with its expressed principle of free competition, or it can stand by as in the past and allow our community to suffer the unhindered forces of commercial iniquity. [More…]

• Obviously the High Court’s recent decision invalidated the Trade Practices Act and legislation of this type is necessary to enable the Commissioner of Trade Practices to carry on. [More…]

• I believe that it has reappeared so that this legislation may be easily distinguished from the Acts which have become invalid following the High Court’s recent decision. [More…]

• This Bill, as stated by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood) and as has been adverted to by other honourable senators, is merely a holding measure made necessary by the application of the High Court to the previous Act in which the High Court discovered constitutional informalities which make the passage of this Bill necessary. [More…]

• It is significant thai this is perhaps the first statute which has been expressly related to corporation power, more particularly in the light of its new interpretation or re-interpretation by the High Court. [More…]

• As a result of the concrete pipes case the judges of the High Court now say that the decision given in 1909 in respect of Commonwealth powers over trade and industry was wrong in several points. [More…]

• I am informed also that the power over shipping and the power over retail price maintenance are not in question as a result of the High Court decision. [More…]

• The reaction of the Government to the decision of the High Court in the concrete pipes case has to be looked at in my submission against the background of the main problem confronting this country at the present time. [More…]

• The Opposition does not suggest that between 7th September when the High Court gave its judgment in the concrete pipes case and today that the Government should have been able to produce a satisfactory Bill - to use the words of the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) - extending and strengthening the existing legislation. [More…]

• I submit for the consideration of the Senate that the decision of the High Court should not have taken the Government by surprise. [More…]

• I think it would be agreed among them that the decision of the High Court was expected by lawyers throughout the community who had had anything to do with constitutional problems over the years. [More…]

• We must recall that the Government launched the concrete pipes case in the High Court about a year ago. [More…]

• As I said at the outset, we agree that it has not been possible in the short time since the High Court gave its decision for the Government to come up with a properly formulated amendment of the Act. [More…]

• Of course this was before the High Court gave its decision. [More…]

• In other words the Attorney-General admits that no matter what became of the case before the High Court the Government was seized of the necessity of putting teeth into this toothless Act. [More…]

• We do not accept that the Government should have been starting from scratch on 3rd September, which is the day on which the High Court of Australia said that the Government had power under the corporations power of the Constitution to do what it formerly believe it did not have the power to do. [More…]

• The short reason for the legislation which is now before the Senate is the fact that the High Court of Australia in the concrete pipes case declared that the preexisting Trade Practices Act was invalid. [More…]

• The reasons for the High Court so declaring it to be invalid are not germane to the purposes of this legislation. [More…]

• It is sufficient to say that the nature of the High Court’s decision made it imperative that there be either wide ranging and comprehensive amendments to that legislation or a completely new Act. [More…]

• The real and essential difference is that this legislation proceeds upon the power which the High Court declared the Commonwealth Government had as a basis to sustain trade practices legislation, namely, the power to make laws with respect to trading and financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth and with respect to foreign corporations. [More…]

• I would emphasise that the Bill currently before the Senate is a holding or interim Bill designed simply to overcome the decision given by the High Court at the beginning of September which created a vacuum insofar as trade practices legislation is concerned. [More…]

• That appeal was heard in the High Court in February and March of this year. [More…]

• It was not until the beginning of September this year that the High Court gave its decision. [More…]

• At about the time that the High Court gave its decision there was a second case concerning pharmaceutical wholesalers which was currently before the Tribunal. [More…]

• It has not been able to proceed because of the High Court’s decision and because of the lack of effective substitute legislation. [More…]

• I can only reiterate that the Government is committed to strengthening its trade practices legislation, quite apart from having passed through the Parliament as quickly as possible this current Bill which is designed to overcome the recent High Court decision invalidating the pre-existing Act. [More…]

• If what the Attorney-General says is so, my feeling is that we ought to delete the clause from the Bill because the High Court has said that the Australian Industries Preservation Act is a valid Act, that it is within the scope of the constitutional power and that it is an Act that contained wise provisons that, in later times, seemed to have given some promise of protection to the public against various restrictive practices. [More…]

• The Attorney-General may elect, instead of proceeding by indictment for an offence against this section, to institute proceedings in the High Court by way of civil action for the recovery of the pecuniary penalties for the offence; in which case the action shall be tried before a Justice of that Court without a jury. [More…]

• Why destroy the prospect of having some proceedings instituted under an Act that the High Court said is all right? [More…]

• We know that whatever comes or goes with this new legislation it will be gummed up in the High Court for donkeys’ years. [More…]

• Afer all this time we have this certainty which I understand was the guts of the High Court decision: Whatever else was justifiable, the Australian Industries Preservation Act was justifiable under the corporations power. [More…]

• What is the desire to get rid of this fine old Act which the High Court has said is valid? [More…]

• It is 1971 and the High Court tells us that the Act is no good. [More…]

• The honourable senators in their wisdom ought to reflect upon the fact that the High Court has said that the Australian Industries Preservation Act is valid. [More…]

• In my opinion, and the opinion of the SolicitorGeneral as revealed in the statement made on 7th September, it is quite clear that the High Court’s decision is not to be taken as invalidating every section of the trade practices legislation. [More…]

• I would suggest that Senator Murphy’s opinion, in the light of the High Court’s decision and the uncertainty which must prevail as to just how much of !he legislation the High Court is to be taken as having said has no validity at all, is undesirable in the light of those criteria. [More…]

• Because this is a matter which has been in the existing legislation which has prevailed for the last 5 or 6 years and because this Bill is designed to be merely holding or interim legislation to validate that which the High Court declared invalid, I urge that that is adequate reason to accept this amending provision for the period over which it will operate. [More…]

• A person shall not be appointed as a presidential member unless he is or has been a barrister or solicitor of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory of not less than five years’ standing. [More…]

• a Judge of a Federal Court, not being the High Court or a court of a Territory of the Commonwealth not forming part of the Commonwealth; or [More…]

• This is a subject which has been raised as a matter of strict constitutional propriety before the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• In the Tasmanian Breweries Pty Ltd case the High Court determined, putting it shortly, that the Trade Practices Tribunal is not a court or that the members of the Trade Practices Tribunal are not exercising judicial power. [More…]

• The proposal of Senator Murphy does neither of those things and it perpetuates, I commend to Senator Byrne, the vice which the High Court found rendered the last legislation invalid. [More…]

• J thought I had clearly indicated what the Government is doing is simply re-enacting the provisions of the pre-existing trades practices legislation which had been declared invalid either in whole or in part by the High Court of Australia, except that some clauses are being altered to take account of the fact that it is corporations as distinct from persons which are now to be charged with offences. [More…]

• The short answer to his question is that from the Government’s viewpoint there have been no alterations of material substance to the provisions of this legislation other than those alterations which it has been necessary to make to justify the legislation under the corporations power which the High Court found the Commonwealth had. [More…]

• Of course, those provisions were not affected by the decision of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• They could not have been because they were enacted after the High Court had heard argument. [More…]

• Firstly, as I have reiterated many times, the Government regards this Bill as designed to validate what the High Court declared invalid. [More…]

• It is legislation designed to re-enact old provisions to validate legislation, in the light of the High Court’s decision. [More…]

• With the re-interpretation of the corporation power, as given by the High Court in the concrete pipes case decision, there is now possibly a vast constitutional field available to the Commonwealth Government which has not been explored. [More…]

• From talking to some lawyers in the chamber I know that there is a distinction between the House of Lords in England and the High Court in Australia as to what should be regarded as the criteria upon which exemplary damages are awarded. [More…]

• It is the Government’s legislation which was introduced in 1965 and which was declared invalid by the High Court only 2 months ago which is embodied in this legislation. [More…]

• The Bill which is before the Senate now is designed to replace in a constitutionally valid form the legislation which was declared invalid by the High Court. [More…]

• Basically the reasons for opposing the amendment are, as I reiterate, that this is legislation which the Government has brought forward as speedily as it could bring it forward to repair the vacuum which was created as a result of the High Court’s decision which invalidated the pre-existing Act. [More…]

• There was put into this legislation nothing which was not in the earlier legislation, except the transitional provisions which were necessary and the provisions which brought it under the corporations power of the Commonwealth, a power which the High Court declared that we had. [More…]

• I feel that because this is interim legislation designed to rectify as much as the Parliament can of what the High Court recently declared invalid we should proceed on the basis that the Government has initiated; that is to carry through legislation which in fact re-enacts validly the old legislation, and allow these other matters in respect of which there is merit to be considered in the course of review to which the Government is committed. [More…]

• The purpose of this Bill is to validate certain decrees which have been granted under the Matrimonial Causes Act in South Australia and New South Wales and certain other orders made by registrars and other court officials which have been placed in jeopardy by recent decisions of the High Court. [More…]

• Two High Court decisions have held invalid certain purported divorce decrees. [More…]

• Therefore it is of vital importance that as far as possible any doubts resulting from the High Court’s decision invalidating certain procedures should be determined forthwith. [More…]

• It has been clearly pointed out that this problem arose from two decisions of the High Court of Australia in which it held that the orders of officers of 2 State courts had been invalidly made. [More…]

• The effect of those decisions of the High Court has been to make invalid a great many of a vast number of orders which have been made over the last 10 years under the Matrimonial Causes Act because jurisdiction was wrongly exercised by certain officers of State courts. [More…]

• As I said, I support the Bill, but I support it because it seems to me that the decisions of the High Court have not only thrown into doubt but also would render completely null and void - if they ever came up in any court of review - a large number of orders on which people have relied, as the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) said in his second reading speech, in respect of a large number of questions which arise in the administration of the Matrimonial Causes Act. [More…]

• Obviously the fact that a large number of people have been affected as a result of the decisions of the High Court makes it imperative for this Parliament to validate the orders which have been made over a period of 10 years. [More…]

• It would be impossible to estimate exactly how many of the orders which have been made have been overturned as a result of the decisions of the High Court in the cases of Kotsis v. Kotsis and Knight v. Knight referred to by the AttorneyGeneral. [More…]

• The decisions of the High Court would not affect them. [More…]

• Of course, the High Court decided in the cases to which the Attorney-General referred that the registrar, master or official was not actually a part of the court itself. [More…]

• This measure is necessitated by the decisions of the High Court which have created problems in 2 States. [More…]

• I stress further that this legislation does not purport to validate decrees which the High Court has questioned or declared invalid. [More…]

• It is unquestioned, in my judgment, that the orders and the ancillary relief which is made in those States are in accordance with the judgment of the High Court. [More…]

• I think the basic point in reply to Senator Durack is that the parties to the litigation which occurs before the courts now know as a result of the decision of the High Court that if they seek to have ancillary relief recorded by a registrar or a master that relief will not be worth the expenditure of money which is required in obtaining it, because the High Court has indicated that there is no power in the registrars and the masters to accord that relief. [More…]

• Naturally it flows from that that the relevant decrees are now made in accordance with the decision of the High Court and in accordance with the Matrimonial Causes Act by the judges who, as the High Court said comprise the court. [More…]

• However, in the many cases to which the Bill will apply, it will provide for the rights of persons to be as it was intended that they should be when the purported orders were made and will place the persons affected in the same position as they believe themselves to be in before the High Court decisions which I have mentioned. [More…]

• In a recent case there were great difficulties in the face of a party which wanted to appeal to the High Court, and there are still grave difficulties. [More…]

• The position (pf judges has come under question due to a decision of the High Court in which their status as officers of a Federal court came under challenge. [More…]

• As Senator Murphy said, it is true that the primary purpose of these Bills is to overcome the uncertainty created by the decision of the High Court in the case of Capital TV and Appliances Ltd v. Falconer in which it was indicated that courts of the Territories are not Federal courts. [More…]

• No exception is provided in that legislation because the most recent appointment to the Northern Territories Supreme Court was made after the decision of the High Court in Capital TV and Appliances Ltd v Falconer. [More…]

• I refer to the situation of the High Court. [More…]

• There is no doubt that a lot of work is going to the High Court which should not go there at all. [More…]

• No-one will convince me that it is difficult to remove some of the work from the High Court. [More…]

• I know that it is said that everything is practically impossible to deal with, but some matters can be dealt with, one of which is the removal of some of the insubstantial work from the High Court. [More…]

• The reality is that an appeal can be brought from the judges of the Supreme Courts straight to the High Court, past even the intermediate courts of appeal. [More…]

• Any road accident case involving damages of more than $3,000 can be brought to the High Court and the High Court judges are forced to hear the case and to decide who is right or wrong on the appeal. [More…]

• His feeling, as well as mine, is that it is probable that the High Court does not have enough appeal jurisdiction in the criminal sphere. [More…]

• The High Court has to entertain them because they are appeals as of right. [More…]

• Surely the High Court should be relieved of some of this jurisdiction which is regarded, in almost anyone’s view, as being insubstantial. [More…]

• It is not proper that these matters should be cluttering up the work of the High Court. [More…]

• Who would oppose it if the Government introduced legislation to get these things out of the jurisdiction of the High Court and provided that they would have to go to some intermediate appellate court? [More…]

• It would relieve the High Court. [More…]

• Right now the High Court is cluttered up with all sorts of matters which it should not be hearing at all. [More…]

• As well as the terribly important cases that the High Court has to deal with, it also has to deal with cases which everybody knows should not be put before it. [More…]

• It could pass through this place and we could relieve the High Court of a lot of this work. [More…]

• There is no doubt that the High Court would welcome this as well. [More…]

• We do not want to bring the High Court into the arena of politics but I think it would be very pleased. [More…]

• Senator Murphy enlarged upon his theme and questioned whether some provision should be made, possibly on the lines of the alternatives I have canvassed, to alleviate some of the work of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The work before the High Court of Australia appears to have been the subject of a cyclical pattern in recent years. [More…]

• Several decades ago the bulk of the work of the Full Court of the High Court was to be found in New South Wales and Victoria. [More…]

• I say that without the benefit of any close examination of the figures but in the knowledge that the work of the High Court in Victoria has been invariably limited in the last 5 or 6 years and in the belief, as has been conveyed to me, that the work in Queensland has been developing over the years. [More…]

• The practitioners in Victoria have tremendous respect for and satisfaction with the Supreme Court of Victoria and that has limited the amount of appellate work which has gone to the High Court. [More…]

• I know that one problem is the original jurisdiction work of the High Court. [More…]

• I must say that the proposal to transfer some of the original jurisdiction work to the Supreme Courts of the States stands out as an alternative if, firstly, there is to be a relieving of the High Court of this work, and secondly, there is to be no intermediate court established to which this work could go. [More…]

• I must say in relation to my short tenure or office in this position that I feel I have cordial relations with the judges of the Territory courts with which I am most intimately concerned and I welcome the fact that there has been, apart from a desirable and necessary courtesy call, no occasion for consultation with the judges of the High Court. [More…]

• In the matter of allowances, the process of determination by the GovernorGeneral dates back as far as 1903 when determination by the Governor-General was incorporated in the Judiciary Bill for the travelling expenses of the justices oi ‘.he High Court. [More…]

• referred to a taxation board of review for review and decisions of a board which involve a question of law may be taken on appeal lo the High Court. [More…]

• Mr Messer wanted to take his case to the High Court of Australia but he found it impossible because of lack of finance, to do so. [More…]

• However, particularly following the High Court decision invalidating State receipts duties as they applied to certain types of transaction, it was clear that, notwithstanding these large increases in Commonwealth revenue assistance, it would be desirable for the States to have access to a new source of taxation to give them greater freedom and independence in revenue raising. [More…]

• TransAustralia Airlines has the right to operate on the interstate route: the High Court of Australia decided that in 1946. [More…]

• The present Bill, as I have indicated on previous occasions, is intended only as holding legislation to overcome the problems arising directly from the High Court’s decision in the concrete pipes case. [More…]

• Every time the salaries of High Court judges are increased every State court judge in Australia has his salary increased and increased handsomely. [More…]

• Finally, Mr President, I should inform the Senate that, arising from this accident, a civil action has been commenced in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• In this case the underwriters have exercised this privilege and, in the name of the Australian National Airlines Commission, they have issued out of the High Court of Australia a writ claiming unspecified damages against the Commonwealth and against Canadian Pacific Airlines Ltd. [More…]

• I do not think I have said anything which will prejudice in any way a judicial inquiry or High Court case. [More…]

• Two justices of the High Court in the case of Bridge v. The Queen (1964) -38 ALJR 280 drew attention to several factors which make the New South Wales position unsatisfactory. [More…]

• ls the AttorneyGeneral aware of the constitutional importance of a decision handed down this day in the High Court of Australia while sitting in Melbourne? [More…]

• The last alibi for this governmental indifference to the exploitation of the ordinary citizen disappeared when the High Court of Australia gave its recent famous decision in the concrete pipes case. [More…]

• It could well be that where there has been a vacuum of constitutional power in the past, such vacuum might now be filled by the decision in the concrete pipes case where the High Court suggested that perhaps the Commonwealth’s corporations power under the Constitution has never been fully explored, much less exploited. [More…]

• No doubt in due course the matter will be examined, but I am assured by my advisers from the Treasury that it is by no means clear to what extent the recent judgment of the High Court in the concrete pipes case has clarified Commonwealth constitutional powers to control financial corporations. [More…]

• The High Court, which was comprised of a very distinguished bench, in the case of John Fairfax and Sons v. McCrae, which is reported in 93 Commonwealth Law Reports, page 351, said that there must be shown a ‘real and definite tendency to prejudice’. [More…]

• According to an editorial in one of the newspapers that I read today, the dairy industry has again been set up as an Aunt Sally because of the High Court judgment in the margarine case in Tasmania. [More…]

• I was very pleased to note the decision of the High Court of Australia last Tuesday morning in the case of Mead v. Mowbray. [More…]

• Incredibly there emerged, not only out of the uniform taxing power of the defence power granted by the war but also a ruling of the High Court to the effect that the Commonwealth had parallel but not superior powers on taxes. [More…]

• The next thing that emerges, apart from the philosophy of this, is the question of the Constitution and the way in which the High Court has interpreted it. [More…]

• Let us bear in mind that no matter how we decide that that power should be divided by the High Court of the day can change the whole meaning of that structure, as has been shown and as will be shown. [More…]

• This was shown in the High Court’s decision on what was an excise. [More…]

• I should have thought that the High Court would have done belter to look at the English definition. [More…]

• Those powers include obviously the corporations power under the new doctrine enunciated by the High Court in the ‘Concrete Pipes case’. [More…]

• It has been deduced because of a certain High Court decision regarding concrete pipes that it may well be that the Commonwealth would have some power in regard to price control. [More…]

• I do not know whether Senator Lillico directed his remarks to the constitutional propriety of the reference of the matter to the committee, but, despite what may have been said about the power conferred on Parliament by the decision of the High Court in the concrete pipes case, I refer him to what was said by Mr Hughes, a distinguished lawyer and a man who was considered by the Government to be sufficiently equipped to hold the position of Attorney-General. [More…]

• One always speaks tentatively in the field of constitutional law, knowing that decisions in the High Court go sometimes <me way or another way on a very fine balance of numbers. [More…]

• It also has Senator Greenwood, the AttorneyGeneral, and Mr N. H. Bowen who is being spoken of in some quarters as a future High Court judge. [More…]

• We do not believe that the new interpretation of the High Court does confer this power on the Federal Parliament’? [More…]

• We all recall that in the last session of this Parliament the Trade Practices Bill came before this Senate again because of the action of the High Court in finding it invalid. [More…]

• Indeed, the situation of the High Court as a Court of Disputed Returns is questionable. [More…]

• That principle was decided by the High Court when an alteration was made to the jury system to allow majority verdicts of manslaughter as an alternative to murder. [More…]

• Mr President, I present the thirty-ninth report from the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, being a report upon certain regulations rendered invalid by a judgment of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• I have already raised in this chamber the issue in relation to a decision of the High Court of Australia in the case of Willocks and Anderson in which the High Court invalidated regulations which purported to confer jurisdiction upon the High Court to act as a court of disputed returns over the mere matter of a disputed election for the membership of the Apple and Pear Board, I think it was. [More…]

• The High Court, somewhat indignantly, pointed out that that regulation was beyond the regulation making power conferred by the enactment. [More…]

• The High Court had some strong words to say, as one sees if one reads the judgment, about the conferring of such jurisdiction upon the High Court, which has extremely high constitutional functions to carry out. [More…]

• If I may put it in my own words, the High Court was saying: Tt is just unthinkable that the Parliament, unless by the clearest words, could possibly intend to confer upon the High Court such a jurisdiction which would impede the carrying out by the High Court of its other high functions’. [More…]

• Honourable senators may be interested to learn that the Regulations and Ordinances Committee took up the matter and referred in its 39th report to the question of regulations rendered invalid by judgment of the High Court. [More…]

• That is the High Court decision - . [More…]

• In that respect I remind the Senate that 31) or 40 years ago the High Court of Australia decided that under our Constitution the State teaching services were not of the nature of industrial services and therefore their disputes were nol. [More…]

• The matter dragged through the court, from the Supreme Court to the High Court of Australia, and was finally withdrawn upon the ABC making a handsome cash settlement and giving a written apology. [More…]

• Whether there is now some validity in the argument that States and parts of States cannot be given preferential treatment because of section 99 of the Constitution I do not know but 1 have been told that the decision of 1945 has complete validity and would withstand a challenge in the High Court. [More…]

• to an international convention and the exercise of its external affairs power is something which the High Court has not yet decided. [More…]

• Until the High Court gives a judgment there is no surety as to the extent of the external affairs power. [More…]

• The State wanted to appeal to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• A day or two ago I noticed a Press report that the Privy Council had given leave to hear an appeal from the High Court of Australia on a State tax matter. [More…]

• Except for the office of President, for appointment to which legal qualifications will be required, it will be possible, on the Bill becoming law, to appoint as a Deputy President a person who is or has been a barrister or solicitor of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth of not less than 5 years’ standing; has had experience at a high level in industry, commerce, industrial relations or the service of a government or an authority of a government; or has, not less than 5 years previously, obtained a degree of a university or an educational qualification of a similar standard, after studies in the field of law, economics or industrial relations or some other field of study considered by the Governor-General to have substantial relevance to the duties of a deputy president. [More…]

• The Senate will also recall that following the enactment of the resale price maintenance provisions, the High Court gave its decision in the case which has come to be known as the concrete pipes case. [More…]

• By that decision the High Court held substantial portions of the 1965 legislation to be invalid, but in so doing the High Court made it clear that the Commonwealth Parliament had adequate power under the so called corporations power of the Constitution to legislate with respect to restrictive trade practices and monopolies, in so far as corporations are involved. [More…]

• And, it was in pursuance of the guidance thus given by the High Court with respect to the corporations power that the legislation presently operating, that is, the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1971, was drafted. [More…]

• He will find that in that case the High Court - in particular, Mr Justice Fullagar, with whom the Chief Justice and Mr Justice Kitto concurred - set out in the most clear and definite terms that the trade unions which were registered organisations under this Act were, by the very section to which I have referred, made corporations under Federal law. [More…]

• Let me quote several lines from the judgment of the High Court which referred to that provision. [More…]

• The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to amendments to the income tax law made necessary by decisions of the High Court. [More…]

• Unfortunately, as the High Court has pointed out, those amendments left a real gap which has been used to obtain the same kind of unintended tax advantages for private companies as were available before the amendments were made. [More…]

• One type of scheme was dealt with by the High Court in the case of Casuarina Pty Ltd and ruled legally effective. [More…]

• I have read some of the passages of the great judgments of the High Court which affect this matter. [More…]

• May I take the trouble, because the matter on which we are differing here regarding the very fundamental of the nature of the trade unions which are registered organisations under the Act is so important, to read from the judgment of the High Court in the famous case of Williams and Hursey, one of the great cases in industrial law, well known, because of the facts of the case, at least to the members of this Senate, lt is reported in 33 Australian Law Journal Reports and also in the Commonwealth Law Reports. [More…]

• The judgment of the High Court to which I have just referred is written in the practice book. [More…]

• Material has been put to the Attorney-General to show that for 68 years, I think - certainly for 64 years, since the decision of the High Court in the famous Jumbunna case - everyone acquainted with organisations registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act has been aware that they are corporations. [More…]

• The High Court will be here. [More…]

• If a man says: ‘I shall practise only as a barrister in the High Court’, he confines his practice to that area, but from the Government’s point of view in making the law and providing the ordinance under which the legal obligations are imposed, as between the profession and the public, the situation will be that the man who is admitted to practice can accept work in the whole field of legal practice, either as a barrister or as a solicitor or as a barrister and solicitor. [More…]

• It would seem to us that no judge of what is a court of limited jurisdiction and not the High Court of Australia should be able to make decisions without some form of appeal existing against such decisions. [More…]

• For example, payment of dues has been construed by the High Court in one famous case as remaining liable to pay the dues. [More…]

• The enormous history behind this matter is well known to many honourable senators and was set out at some length in the great judgment of the High Court of Australia in the case of Williams v. Hursey. [More…]

• I think it has been made to be defective in some significant respects - by the decisions of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The High Court has put what seems to be a very artificial meaning on the word industry’. [More…]

• This legislation is designed to overcome in areas where undoubtedly the Commonwealth has plenary power the particular problems which have been raised by 2 particular High Court decisions on the meaning of the word ‘industry’. [More…]

• Mr Justice Jenkyn listened to cases in the new Family Division of the High Court of Justice and he discussed the operation of the new Act with the President of the Family Division and his brother judges and also the Registrar of the Court. [More…]

• It is with very great regret that I have to inform the Senate of the death on 7th July last of Sir Owen Dixon, a former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, at the age of 86 years. [More…]

• In 1926 he became Acting Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria and in 1929 he was appointed as a Justice of the High Court. [More…]

• He was Chief Justice of the High Court from 1952 until his retirement in 1964. [More…]

• He was a member of the High Court of Australia for 35 years until his retirement in 1964. [More…]

• His pre-eminent positron was illustrated by the words of his successor, Sir Garfield Barwick, in a tribute paid in the High Court in Melbourne on 25th July. [More…]

• He was always courteous not only to lawyers but also to litigants who sometimes appeared in person before the High Court. [More…]

• 1 trust that the portrait of Sir Owen which hangs in one of the lobbies of this Parliament the only portrait I can recall hanging in these halls of a Justice of the High Court who was not at some time a member of this Parliament - will be transferred to a more public position so that those who see it and who may not know may ask who this man was. [More…]

• He was at no time a member of this Parliament, but he was a great Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia in which is reposed the judicial power which the Constitution establishes. [More…]

• His work as a member of the High Court over a period of some 35 years, for 12 of which he was Chief Justice, has left an indelible impact on the development of Australian constitutional law. [More…]

• He was, as Sir Garfield Barwick said on the occasion of the High Court’s tribute to his memory, the most outstanding lawyer this country has produced and one of the greatest judges to sit upon a bench in Australia. [More…]

• He performed many duties in the service of his country but, above all else, it was in his work as a member of the High Court that he will always be remembered with the highest esteem and with great affection. [More…]

• On the occasion when he was sworn in as Chief Justice he said that the function of the High Court in constitutional matters was to interpret a constitutional description of power or restraint upon power and to determine whether a given measure falls on one side of a line or on the other. [More…]

• It is with the memory of a character exalted and revered in the highest degree that every honourable senator in this place pays tribute to the late great Chief Justice of our High Court. [More…]

• It is a pity that recently in Tasmania we have seen the actions of a State member of Parliament who has been attempting to get on the bandwagon of publicity by talking about High Court action against the Australian National Line. [More…]

• In the light of the Government’s review of restricted trade practices, is it a fact that, in accordance with judgments recently handed down by the High Court of Australia, the Minister is exercising good sense in endeavouring to resolve in practical terms the problem, which has been amplified by 21/2 years of argument and litigation, concerning the monopoly surrounding duty free trading on and off Australia’s air terminals. [More…]

• Since the High Court judgment mentioned in the question, the Department of Customs and Excise has been examining arrangements to resolve the problem referred to by the honourable senator. [More…]

• There is not at present any vacancy on the High Court bench but I would assure the honourable senator that when vacancies do arise the Government gives very serious consideration to those members of the legal profession who are eligible for appointment. [More…]

• I think it is a fact that no citizen of South Australia has been appointed as a member of the High Court bench, and I think that applies also in the case of 2 other States. [More…]

• But that is not to say that if there are living in those States in the future persons of the standard and with the qualities which are needed for appointment to the High Court, they may not expect in due course to be appointed. [More…]

• I am in the fortunate position of having studied that section for days when arguing the Hursey case before the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The question of a reduction of the voting age from 21 years to 18 years has been considered in parliaments, in legal circles, within political parties, by sociologists and psychologists, as well as by the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The recent case before the High Court of Australia made it clear that the constitutional provisions leave it in the hands of this Parliament to provide, for the 18-year- olds, if they are to be provided for. [More…]

• The High Court held that even if the States gave their 18-year-old citizens the right to vote this did not automatically allow them to have a vote in Federal elections, because the constitutional guarantee of Federal voting Tights for those who bad State voting rights applied only to those whom the Constitution described as adult persons who, in the understanding of 1901, were persons of 21 years or more. [More…]

• The High Court also made it clear that it was open to this Parliament to choose to give the vote to 18-year-olds. [More…]

• Various, judgments of the High Court have made that crystal clear. [More…]

• The Government has considered the course of appeal to the High Court. [More…]

• It is generally accepted that the decision of the High Court has removed the main doubt about the legal feasibility of establishing a Commonwealth securities and exchange commission. [More…]

• 1 have no doubt that the Committee was wise to await the judgment of the High Court in the concrete pipes case before reporting to the Senate. [More…]

• It is generally agreed that the main doubt about the feasibility has been removed by the decision of the High Court and I believe it would be in the national interest for the Committee to bring down a prompt report to the Senate, even if only of an interim nature, giving its recommendations on the desirability and feasibility of establishing a securities and exchange commission. [More…]

• For anyone to think that, because a judgment of the High Court is given one day, the next day a committee can prepare an instant report covering all these matters is ludicrous. [More…]

• This is an approach which commended itself to the Senate with regard to all the matrimonial causes orders made in South Australia and New South Wales as a result of the decisions of the High Court some time ago. [More…]

• Of course, it is conceivable that the Supreme Court’s judgment, if it were to be challenged in the High Court, might be upset, but that would take time; and the important thing is for the Government to act responsibly and promptly, because 1 think that the promptness of the reaction is a measure of the responsibility and the way in which one views the situation. [More…]

• I can recall many cases of conviction under a law as a result of which a penalty was paid and then, when someone had the initiative to appeal to the High Court, the High Court ruled that the law was invalid and quashed the conviction. [More…]

• The Senate will recall that in 1968 a gentleman by the name of Noel Edward Taylor, who was then serving a sentence in the Goulburn Gaol, applied to the High Court of Australia for a writ of habeas corpus. [More…]

• The High Court agreed with him. [More…]

• That principle is enshrined in a series of cases that have been decided in our High Court. [More…]

• But perhaps the clearest statement of this principle is to be found in Kidmans’ case, decided by the High Court, in which this expression of opinion is given by Mr Justice Higgins: [More…]

• As a result of 2 decisions of the High Court of Australia last year it appeared that if not all, at least a great many of such orders were invalid. [More…]

• Many people would have been put in gaol for non-compliance with such orders, all of which had been found to be invalid by the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Only recently the High Court of Australia unanimously decided that in terms of section 41 of the Constitution an adult person meant a person of not less than 21 years of age. [More…]

• While it has clearly emerged that the franchise age question is legislative rather than judicial, it is necessary nevertheless to study closely the High Court judgment. [More…]

• The challenge to the High Court of Australia was left almost to be used as a quasi-electoral issue. [More…]

• I suppose it must have been terribly disappointing to the Labor Party that the High Court sat so early and ruled so decisively. [More…]

• Has it not been quite definitely established that zone allowances introduced in 1945 have withstood a High Court test as to validity and has the constitutionality of such allowances been put beyond question? [More…]

• It is a fact that the High Court at some stage was asked to hear argument and did hear argument as to the validity of those provisions and I think a perusal of that High Court judgment would indicate that the assumption which the honourable senator has made in his question may or may not be borne out. [More…]

• If he examines the High Court judgment in the case of Clyne v. The Commissioner of Taxation he will find an answer to his question. [More…]

• Since then, however, we have under the Trade Practices Act 1965 and under the present Act, which was passed following the High Court’s decision in the concrete pipes case, steadily increased our knowledge and understanding of the agreements and practices being observed or followed. [More…]

• The clause has been drafted witu close regard to the views expressed by the High Court in the concrete pipes case. [More…]

• But the High Court decision highlights the responsibility of Parliament to make a decision in this matter. [More…]

• The High Court expressed the view that it was not its prerogative to interpret the Constitution but that the Parliament, being the supreme body in a democracy, should grasp this problem and deal with it. [More…]

• I seem to recall that about February or March of this year publicity was given to a decision by the Federal Executive of the Australian Labor Party that the question of whether the under 2 1 -year-olds should receive a vote would be tested in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Yet it was not until July of this year that those High Court proceedings were instituted. [More…]

• The point I make is that the Labor Party, as the course which the High Court ultimately decided was appropriate for any change in the voting age, could have introduced this legislation at any time this year. [More…]

• The term adult’ has been conclusively determined by the High Court to mean those persons of 21 years and over. [More…]

• Much the same proposition was indicated in the recent decision of the High Court when this question of the interpretation of the Constitution and, in particular, the meaning of the word ‘adult’ was canvassed. [More…]

• That was Sir Garfield Barwick in the High Court decision given recently in King v. Jones. [More…]

• In view of yesterday’s High Court ruling that Miss Lodge, a working single mother, was not entitled to deduct the cost of her child’s day nursery fees for taxation purposes, will the Government urgently consider introducing legislation to allow such expenses as a taxation deduction? [More…]

• A High Court decision was given yesterday. [More…]

• Next, there was a cloud in that the High Court had made a restrictive interpretation of the constitutional powers of this Parliament which had given rise to doubts as to whether effective action could be taken by the Parliament. [More…]

• The 23 years - or, if we like to give the best to the Government, the time since the decision of the High Court last year in the concrete pipes case - was not enough, it seems, to allow the Government to bring in some kind of reasonable legislation and have it passed through the Parliament. [More…]

• I hope that that Act, which has been held to be valid by the High Court of Australia in the concrete pipes case, will provide a suitable basis for dealing with the problems of monopolies in this community. [More…]

• The idea of establishing a Commonwealth Superior Court developed out of the need to ensure that the High Court of Australia should be readily available to carry out its major responsibilities under the Constitution - namely, the responsibilities of interpreting the Constitution and of exercising appellate jurisdiction as a court of appeal from State courts and Federal courts created by the Parliament. [More…]

• The Constitution also vests certain original jurisdiction in the High Court and empowers the Parliament to invest the Court with original jurisdiction in certain further matters. [More…]

• The volume of work in the original jurisdiction of the High Court had increased to a degree that, by 1967, made it desirable to make other provision, to the extent permitted by the Constitution, in regard to that work. [More…]

• The original jurisdiction presently exercisable by the High Court continues to be extensive. [More…]

• At present, the High Court is managing to attend to all its work with commendable expedition. [More…]

• Wilh the full support of the Chief Justice, the Government has decided that it should follow the alternative course, which is available under the Constitution, of investing State Supreme Courts and the Supreme Courts of the mainland Territories with original jurisdiction in certain additional federal matters in respect of which the High Court now exercises original jurisdiction. [More…]

• The Government now proposes to remove from the High Court the original jurisdiction it now has in respect of industrial property and taxation matters and to vest it exclusively in the Supreme Courts of the States and of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. [More…]

• In respect of appeals from the Commissioner of Taxation, the Supreme Courts of the States already have a concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court. [More…]

• The Government has considered the possible disadvantage of some lack of uniformity resulting from the decisions of separate Supreme Courts, lt recognises that a consequence is that there could be some increase in appeals to the full High Court, at least in the early years. [More…]

• High Court. [More…]

• the High Court in its appellant jurisdiction has jurisdiction, I think under the Judiciary Act, to hear appeals in matters involving property of the value of $1,500. [More…]

• As of right the High Court has jurisdiction to hear such appeals from the State courts. [More…]

• Yes, that may be so, but the point J am making is that in matters involving persons convicted of murder in a State court, for example, an appeal to the High Court lies by special leave; it does not lie as of right. [More…]

• Perhaps the idea was to relieve the High Court from a multitude of appeals lying as of right in these matters. [More…]

• In view of the tendency to abolish capital punishment or not to carry such decrees into execution, I think that emphasis should now be given to this matter, and that the jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard should be reviewed. [More…]

• How many, persons are serving as Principal or District Registrars, Deputy Registrars, Marshal or Deputy-Marshal of the High Court, and how many in each category are women. [More…]

• There are a Principal Registrar, a Deputy Registrar, a Marshal, 6 District Registrars and 7 Deputies of the Marshal of the High Court, all of whom are men. [More…]

• The Principal Registrar, the Deputy Registrar and the District Registrars at the District Registries of the High Court in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory are officers of the Commonwealth Public Service. [More…]

• I ask the AttorneyGeneral a further question which is related to the question asked earlier by Senator Rae as to whether he was consulted by the Acting Prime Minister before the Acting Prime Minister stated that the Commonwealth would not intervene before the High Court in regard to the Tasmanian tobacco tax case? [More…]

• Later Sir Isaac Isaacs, Chief Justice of the High Court- argued that the result of these amendments was not an absolute prohibition for altering boundaries except with the consent of the electors. [More…]

• Is the Attorney-General awus that on 22nd February 1913 the then Acting Prime Minister stated that the Commonwealth Government had decided not to seek leave to intervene in the High Court case involving the question of the constitutional validity of the Tasmanian tobacco tax? [More…]

• Is the Attorney-General aware that on 22nd February 1973 the then Acting Prime Minister stated that the Commonwealth Government had decided not to seek leave to intervene in the High Court case involving the question of the constitutional validity of the Tasmanian tobacco case. [More…]

• whatever attitude or action contemplated or taken by the Commonwealth Government would have to follow (he judgment of the High Court’? [More…]

• The Government has decided to intervene in the sense that the Attorney-General has decided that there should be an intervention in the High Court on behalf of the Australian Government. [More…]

• I do not think it is proper for me to say here and now in the Senate, especially in some capsulated way, what sub missions the Australian Government proposes to make in the course of a case before the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• It so happens that we have the word of no less an authority than the High Court of Australia on this very question in a recent case that came before the Court early in 1972. [More…]

• The High Court, which is the highest tribunal in this land, gave this judgment in regard to claims for preference. [More…]

• In all of these matters the High Court held that to grant preference to unionists over nonunionists did not amount to compulsory unionism but was preference permitted by the Conciliation and Arbitration Act within the jurisdiction of the Commission and unobjectionable constitutionally. [More…]

• Honourable senators opposite are in conflict with common sense and with the High Court. [More…]

• He said that after the High Court case the Government would decide what it would do. [More…]

• The franchise age question came before the High Court of Australia last year. [More…]

• The High Court decided that under the terms of section 41, adult person’ meant a person not less than 21 years of age. [More…]

• However, it was made clear by the High Court that the way was open for Parliament to extend the vote to 18, 19 and 20-year-old citizens by legislative action. [More…]

• The chief law officer of Australia must have been familiar with the decision of the High Court in the case of Znaty v. The Minister of State for Immigration and Another (1972 Argus Law Reports page 545). [More…]

• Indeed, since the decisions of the High Court and Privy Council in the Boilermakers’ case it is difficult to imagine how any court exercising the judical power of the Commonwealth under chapter III of the Constitution could have conferred upon it any jurisdiction to conduct an inquisition. [More…]

• page 410) the High Court said of the regulationmaking power conferred by a statute: [More…]

• I am speaking only of the rules which apply in my State of Tasmania and the High Court. [More…]

• I do not think that anybody on our side quarrels with the quantum that is to be paid to the Chief Justice of the High Court and the others in judicial offices or to the Permanent Heads of departments. [More…]

• His great ambition was to enter the Senate, float through gently and quietly, except for some nights when the moon was full and then get into the High Court. [More…]

• Why did he not answer the charge that there is a clear and recent High Court case which establishes the fact that immigration authorities in Australia do not have to deport a man to the country of his origin. [More…]

• Senator Murphy has pointed out the incompetence, the inability or the refusal of the Attorney-General to see - because of a judgment of the High Court - that it was not necessary to deport this man to his country of origin. [More…]

• On the judgment of the High Court the Department of Immigration could deport him to any country which would have him. [More…]

• Reference has been made to the individual in Adelaide who made application to the High Court seeking a ruling that the South Australian Government should carry out the death sentence imposed on him by the Supreme Court of South Australia. [More…]

• That in the opinion of the Senate a board of inquiry consisting of 3 High Court or Supreme Court justices should be established by the Government to inquire into and report upon - [More…]

• It refers to questions asked earlier this session about the Tasmanian tobacco tax case which is before the High Court. [More…]

• The latter part of the question refers to the expedition with which cases in the High Court are dealt. [More…]

• As the honourable senator would know, the High Court conducts its affairs in its own way. [More…]

• Thai, in the opinion of the Senate, a board of inquiry consisting of 3 High Court or Supreme Court Justices should be established by the Government to inquire into and report upon - (a) whether terrorist organisations exist in Australia and, if so, their size, objectives and methods, and whether any of them have a connection with a foreign power or its Australian Embassy or consulate; [More…]

• In the words of the motion the Opposition wants: a board of inquiry consisting of 3 High Court or Supreme Court justices should be established by the Government to inquire into and report upon - [More…]

• I do not know whether Senator Greenwood was properly reported to the effect that he said that he wanted to prosecute or take some other form of action in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• We have heard from the responsible Opposition throughout this week that, among other things, there are problems such as inflation that we should be discussing in this chamber, but the Opposition has taken time off from doing so to discuss a proposition as meaningless as this - that in the opinion of the Senate a board of inquiry consisting of 3 High Court or Supreme Court justices should be established by the Government to inquire into and report upon certain things. [More…]

• If an inquiry were in fact set up - if this country decided that it could afford to waste the time of 3 High Court judges for 3 months, 6 months or 12 months - into what would those learned gentlemen be inquiring? [More…]

• We have been asked by Senator Little and other honourable senators on the Opposition side of the chamber to waste the time of 3 High Court judges for an unlimited period by asking them to establish whether something that ASIO is totally satisfield exists does in fact exist. [More…]

• What I am suggesting is that this has been proved beyond doubt, beyond argument, and so the first section of the motion - the suggestion that we should waste the time of 3 High Court judges to decide whether terrorists organisations exist in Australia - is something which can be laughed out of Court. [More…]

• A few of them can destroy a great number of lives and cause a great amount of misery, and to have an inquiry by 3 High Court judges who would spend a year or 18 months to find out whether there are 200 or 2,000 of them is a luxury that this country cannot afford. [More…]

• The next thing that these 3 High Court judges are asked to inquire into is the objectives of these terrorists. [More…]

• We do not need High Court judges to tell us about them. [More…]

• The purpose of the Australian Government is to make the High Court of Australia the final court of appeal for Australia in all matters. [More…]

• In introducing the Bill for that Act the then Attorney-General said that the Parliament was being asked to take an historic first step towards the establishment of the High Court as the final court of appeal for Australia. [More…]

• He said that the Bill was a tribute to, and that it would still further enhance, the standing and prestige of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The discussions that I had in London last week and the action that I am now outlining to the House are a logical, further and final step in the process of making the High Court of Australia Australia’s final appeal court. [More…]

• The Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 abolished appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council in all constitutional, federal and territory matters. [More…]

• As a result of the Act of 1968 appeals now lie to the Privy Council only in respect of decisions of the High Court given on appeal from a State supreme court in a State matter and in respect of decisions of State supreme courts in State matters. [More…]

• On such questions , an appeal may be brought to the Privy Council only if the High Court itself certifies that the question is one which ought to be determined by the Privy Council. [More…]

• No certificate has been given by the High Court since 1912. [More…]

• In 1968 the Australian Labor Party moved an amendment, which was not accepted, that would have made final the decision of the High Court given on appeal from a State supreme court in a State matter. [More…]

• It would be incongruous in the extreme if for some States the High Court were to be the final court of appeal in State matters and if for other States it were to be the Privy Council. [More…]

• There would still be the exceptionally expensive and lenghty process of successive appeals to the Full Court or Court of Appeal of a State, the High Court of Australia and the Judicial Commit tee of the British Privy Council. [More…]

• The result would then be that the High Court of Australia would be, as it should be, the final court of appeal for Australia in all matters. [More…]

• The policy of the Australian Government is that the High Court should be constituted as the final court of appeal for all Australian cases and that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council be constituted by its Australian members sitting in Australia until appeals to it from State courts are abolished. [More…]

• Section 30lempowers the Attorney-General to order the deportation of any person not born in Australia who is a member of a body of persons declared by the High Court or the Supreme Court of a State to be an unlawful association. [More…]

• This is a little bit of evidence from Garfield Barwick as he then was, Minister for External Affairs, who is now Sir Garfield Barwick, Chief Justice of the High Court. [More…]

• Furthermore, it does not cover assistance where such a union member is required to defend in the High Court a decision given in his favour by the Industrial Court. [More…]

• A similar provision in the Bill prohibits the granting of costs in the High Court in appeals coming before it from judgments, orders or sentences made by the Industrial Court or another Court under this Act or in proceedings in respect of an award. [More…]

• That is theopinion of a learned judge of the High Court of Ireland. [More…]

• I have referred to the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review, the philosophy of the Australian Labor Party, the expert and learned legal opinion of the High Court of Ireland and that of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. [More…]

• Also, they have been recommended to the Parliament indirectly by decisions of the High Court of Ireland and the, Supreme Court of the United States of America to which I made reference. [More…]

• Senator McAuliffe reminds me that there were threats of High Court action. [More…]

• If the Professor’s evidence is taken as fact, will he seek an appeal to the High Court of Australia to have an injunction obtained to prohibit X-rays of individuals in Australia? [More…]

• As for the rest of the question as to whether we should appeal to the High Court about banning people doing something in pursuance of their health, I do not think that that requires an answer. [More…]

• If such a redistribution is not carried out, any party can make application to the High Court of Australia stating that Western Australia is not properly represented in the Parliament in accordance with the Act or the Constitution. [More…]

• Possibly the High Court would then order - there is precedent for this - the appointment of an additional representative by means of an election involving the whole State. [More…]

• Based upon that advice from the Judicial Committee, I suspect that the States will proceed to the High Court of Australia for a judgment on the matter. [More…]

• If, as a result of the Privy Council’s advice, the States decide to proceed to the High Court for a determination of this matter, it could be 12 or 18 months before the question of sovereignty over off-shore areas is determined in Australia. [More…]

• The Commonwealth could then have appealed to the High Court. [More…]

• During the hearings of the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources, I think, it was pointed out that there was a case in Western Australia some time ago - and Senator Durack would know of it - in which the State of Western Australia was defeated and it proposed to appeal to the High Court to settle the question whether it had rights in this area. [More…]

• However, Western Australia was persuaded by the other States not to proceed with that appeal because the other States knew that if that appeal went to the High Court the weakness of their position would be exposed. [More…]

• All you will do is bring to a head the dispute and the High Court will settle that dispute. [More…]

• The High Court will determine this dispute after hearing arguments. [More…]

• One cannot accept the Bonser v. La Macchia case as the determining factor although it does give some indication of the views of 2 of the justices of the High Court. [More…]

• The only way we shall achieve real settlement of this question is to pass this legislation and to allow the States to proceed, if they think their case is strong enough, to the High Court, and let the High Court determine who has authority in this area. [More…]

• I urge the Senate not to do that because even after the Parliament has passed the legislation the States will have to determine whether or not they want to appeal to the High Court. [More…]

• It is my opinion - and 1 stress that this is not the opinion of my Party - that the States will not proceed to the High Court on this legislation. [More…]

• • They have everything to lose and nothing to gain by proceeding to the High Court on this legislation. [More…]

• The High Court of Australia is not in a position to make declaratory judgments and the States have taken this matter to the Privy Council for an advisory or declaratory opinion. [More…]

• Senator Cant said that what could then happen is that if that advisory opinion is given and legislation is enacted in terms of it or in defiance of it a case could be brought in the High Court of Australia as a litigation at law. [More…]

• It occurs to me that somebody may consider that the Privy Council in banco, instead of referring the matter to a judicial committee comprised of distinguished legal members of the Privy Council in Great Britain, might well refer it to a board of the Privy Council constituted by the judges of the High Court of Australia, all of whom are Privy Councillors. [More…]

• So in fact this opinion would then be given by those who constitute the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Senator Cant pointed out that if an advisory opinion were given by the Privy Council it may be only a prelude to litigation subsequently brought before the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Therefore I am suggesting that this may be a device which would enable the matter initially to come before the High Court of Australia, the judges of it not sitting as a High Court but sitting as a constituted Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. [More…]

• The distinguished members of the High Court could constitute that board. [More…]

• In that case we would have a decision made by the High Court of Australia, the members of which would be sitting as a Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. [More…]

• Then there would really be no point in bringing the matter again before the High Court because the judges who had sat on the Privy Council would constitute the High Court. [More…]

• A quick conclusion could be reached if a vote were taken and the proposition put to the High Court for a legal decision. [More…]

• 1 think many honourable senators will agree that the matter will finish in the High Court. [More…]

• Irrespective of whether the path suggested by Senator Cant or Senator Byrne, or some other path is taken, the High Court will be asked to decide this matter. [More…]

• I would like to put to the Opposition the importance of making a decision to be followed by a legal interpretation, not by the Privy Council, but within our own land by the High Court itself. [More…]

• I should also say that section 30l creates a power which the Attorney-General may exercise to deport any person who is declared to be a member of an unlawful organisation by the High Court of Australia or the Supreme Court of a State on an application by the Attorney-General - an application which he may make by use of the averment provisions. [More…]

• That method of stating the law was substantially upheld by the High Court, and it is proposed to pursue those lines. [More…]

• In essence, the approach which was taken was one of having a modernised version of the Australian Industries Preservation Act which had been held by the High Court of Australia to be valid. [More…]

• As Mr Gorton said in the debate on this Bill in the other place, nobody suggests that merely by passing this Bill all of this doubt will be dissipated, but at least it will open the matter up for challenge in the place that even Senator Durack suggests is the appropriate tribunal to decide these matters, namely, the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• If anybody wants to challenge it let it be challenged in the High Court and not go traipsing off to another country and demeaning the sovereignty of Australians by asking a court in another country to give some sort of a ruling on the matter. [More…]

• But the Commonwealth now says that it will create a situation where the States will be forced to go to the High Court to establish the rights which the States at the moment clearly believe they already have. [More…]

• It is only the Commonwealth which says that there, is a case that should be argued before the High Court and that because certain powers have already been ceded to the Commonwealth it should have still more powers. [More…]

• That case is answered by the Government saying: ‘We will take the matter to the High Court, and we will get it decided’. [More…]

• But should it go to the High Court when there is such complete unanimity among the States that this power resides properly in them, has done so since the beginning of Australia as we know it today, has never resided in the Commonwealth in any shape or form and that the Commonwealth has exceeded its powers by endeavouring to legislate in the Commonwealth Parliament for the Commonwealth to have power which the States say that it does not have? [More…]

• If this debate is adjourned, the Senate will be attempting to sit as a High Court and to determine the question of sovereignty over the continental shelf. [More…]

• It is not in the national interest ultimately for questions of constitutional authority where uncertainty exists to be put aside - in fact to the exclusion of the High Court which in the constitutional framework is charged wilh their determination and, in effect, as the Committee has indicated, to the exclusion of effective Parliamentary decision. [More…]

• So that Committee, a most able Committee representative of all sections of the Senate, found that that type of legislation denies true ministerial responsibility and excludes from the Constitution the proper resolution of constitutional powers by the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• If it consisted only of the declaration of sovereignty over the continental shelf in Part I so as to give a basis on which to approach the High Court for a declaration by judgment as to whether that authority was constitutionally valid, I would say that that would be a proper thing to do. [More…]

• If there is need to resolve any difference between the States and the Commonwealth as to the delimitation of any power which one claims and the other denies, the High Court, in its independence, integrity and world status on the experience of the last 73 years, was established for that very purpose. [More…]

• High Court in about April; and I will be surprised if the final decision is not given by July. [More…]

• The High Court is infinitely more practical in the dispatch of decisions resolving disputed issues than is either House of this Parliament. [More…]

• Then, having the expressed will of the Parliament, let the States argue their contention before the constitutional tribunal, the High Court. [More…]

• Existing legislation has consistently been drafted on the basis that the external Territories are not part of the Commonwealth of Australia, but some judicial pronouncements in the High Court have thrown doubt on the correctness of that assumption. [More…]

• This Bill proposes amendments to the appeals provisions of the income tax law to transfer to the State Supreme Courts the jurisdiction of single justices of the High Court in income tax appeals. [More…]

• There is a pressing need to relieve the High Court, so far as possible, of the single justice work. [More…]

• Some of this work derives directly from the Constitution and cannot be removed from the jurisdiction of the High Court. [More…]

• By far the greater volume of work presented in the single justice jurisdiction of the High Court consists of income tax appeals, either appeals brought directly from a commissioner’s decision or from a decision of a board of review. [More…]

• Under the Income Tax Assessment Act a taxpayer, if dissatisfied with a decision of the Commissioner, may request a reference of the matter to a board of review or to the High Court or to the Supreme Court of a State as an appeal. [More…]

• Similarly, where the present law allows the Commissioner or a taxpayer to appeal to the High Court from a decision of a board of review involving a question of law, it is proposed that the right of appeal shall lie to a single judge of a State Supreme Court and, ultimately, to the Superior Court. [More…]

• References by a board of review to the High Court on a question of law arising before the board, will, in future, be to a single judge of a State Supreme Court, again in the interim period. [More…]

• The amendments provide that where a taxpayer has gone to a board of review and on appeal to a State Supreme Court, or where a board has referred a question of law to a Supreme Court, the matter may, with the leave of the High Court, be taken on appeal to the full High Court. [More…]

• Where a taxpayer requests the Commissioner to treat his objection as an appeal and the matter is, under the proposed amendments, decided by a State Supreme Court, the present law gives the taxpayer or the Commissioner the right of appeal - without leave - to the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction. [More…]

• Principally, these will permit the High Court to remit to a Supreme Court any of the single justice income tax matters which have come to it under the present law. [More…]

• No doubt this was the reason for the work being concentrated in the High Court. [More…]

• It being overloaded now, the obvious solution is to have it in another federal tribunal, but until a suitable tribunal is made available it is thought necessary to relieve the High Court of this work by sending it, in the first instance, to the State Supreme Courts. [More…]

• To show how clearly those who conceived the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission regarded that as a vital provision of the Bill I’ will quote what was said by Mr Justice Higgins in .the High Court in 1917. [More…]

• Now, as the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) pointed out when replying to the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) in the other place, there is a case before the High Court of Australia over this matter. [More…]

• We also want to ensure that the land is bought now at a reasonable price and that we do not see a repetition of what happened in Canberra where the Commonwealth did not act in time and as a consequence of a case presently before the High Court of Australia it seems as though it will be up for a sum of $35m whereas if the land had been acquired at the right time it would have cost the Commonwealth about only$1m. [More…]

• 3) reveal that this Bill provides that income tax appeals, now falling within the single justice jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia only, will come within the jurisdiction of the State Supreme Courts. [More…]

• The existing provisions have always given a right of appeal to a Board of Review on the one hand or to the High Court of Australia or to the Supreme Court on the other. [More…]

• Practice over the years has shown that if a person chooses to go to the court, he will go to the High Court and not to the Supreme Court. [More…]

• The reasons given in this Bill for conferring the right of appeal on the Supreme Court and excluding the High Court is that it will relieve the pressure, of work on the High Court. [More…]

• Unquestionably, there has been pressure of work on the High Court as a result of income tax appeals but it seems to have fluctuated on a basis which is not readily ascertainable. [More…]

• High Court should be in a position at the pinnacle of our judicial system, able to concentrate on its work of being the ultimate appellate court and also on its work of interpreting the Constitution. [More…]

• I would visualise that throughout Australia we should have one system of courts, with the High Court at the apex. [More…]

• 3) carries through the statement which was made by the previous Government on 27 October last year which indicated the abandonment of the earlier concept of a Federal superior court and a preference for concentrating all the legal work in the existing State supreme courts with, of course, the High Court as the ultimate court of appeal. [More…]

• It also ensures that if there is an appeal from a Board of Review, it will go to a Supreme Court and then, ultimately, if a further appeal is desired, to the High Court. [More…]

• It will provide readier and quicker access to litigants compelled to go before a Supreme Court and not wait for the sittings of the High Court in one of the major State capitals. [More…]

• As to what was put by Senator Greenwood, I would say that it has been firmly stated by the Government that the relief to the High Court of Australia by directing the appeals to the Supreme Courts of the States is intended only as a temporary measure. [More…]

• That is one of the reasons why the High Court was a proper tribunal to hear these matters. [More…]

• The Prime Minister made this clear on 31 May in his second reading speech on the Privy Council Appeals Abolition Bill 1973 and the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Bill 1973, in another place. [More…]

• They did not have these inquiries by regulation vested in the High Court. [More…]

• It has been held otherwise for the purpose of the High Court jurisdiction in section 75 and elsewhere and there is quite a division of opinion with regard to this matter. [More…]

• I refer to the decision of the High Court of Australia on Monday last affirming the right of persons resident in this country to enjoy the post and telegraphic services of this country and not to have them withdrawn or terminated by arbitrary political direction. [More…]

• Why does the Government not accept the decision of the High Court as according with what Australians regard as fair and right? [More…]

• What the High Court of Australia said was a judgment on the question of power. [More…]

• Indeed, since the word ‘prices’ can be construed in such a variety of ways what, in fact, the Government is leading us to is an endless litigation in the High Court, an activity which it states in the second reading speech with regard to the use of corporation power, it deplores. [More…]

• If the Government does not do so, all falls to the ground when the Government argues that what it wants is to keep itself out of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• In the concrete pipes case the High Court of Australia recently appears to have reversed and invalidated the doctrine established in 1909 in the Huddart Parker case . [More…]

• The present situation is an intolerable one, where certain sovereign States claim the right to prevent Australia’s own High Court from adjudicating in Australia on an issue of sovereignty which is the sole concern of the Australian people and their nation. [More…]

• Ultimately, if this referendum should be carried, it will be for the High Court to determine what is covered by the word price’. [More…]

• 1 suggest that if one examines one of the High Court cases which dealt with price control legislation of the Labor Government in the 1940s, one finds that it is a very vicious type of profit control. [More…]

• The meaning of the word prices’, if it comes into the Constitution by reason of the decision of the people following the vote of the Senate today, will be a matter in the ultimate for determination by the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The Senate is aware of the great discussion which took place following which the High Court extended the meaning of those words ‘and other like services’ to include radio broadcasting. [More…]

• Later the High Court extended the meaning of those words to cover television. [More…]

• The High Court’s extension of its interpretation made it unnecessary for that to be done. [More…]

• I would think that the arguments to the people ought to be addressed to the necessity of enabling this Parliament to have the plain power to cover at least the price of goods, almost certainly the price of land, and perhaps, if the High Court agrees, the price of services- I would think of some services- and probably not any power over the other matters referred to. [More…]

• It seems to me to be a very cumbersome procedure to have to rely upon the High Court of Australia to give the Government a definition of the word prices’. [More…]

• But as I indicated before and as has been said over the years, the extent of that power will be what the High Court says. [More…]

• The constitutional power of the Australian Parliament to enact legislation such as that contained in the Bill was clarified by the very important decision of the High Court in what is known as the Concrete Pipes Case. [More…]

• (South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs)- by leave- As honourable sei senators : s aware, Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness Prince Philip will receive the Presiding Officers of Parliament, the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Ministers of State, the Opposition leaders and their wives at Government House at 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 17 October. [More…]

• The High Court has adverted to it in the case of Barrett v. Opitz, which was decided a long time ago, and again about 3 years ago. [More…]

• This term seems to be a more satisfactory term than ‘Chief Justice of the High Court’. [More…]

• He is now Chief Justice of the High Court. [More…]

• In 1 962 the then AttorneyGeneral, now the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick, evidently was commissioned by the coalition Government to prepare a Trade Practices Bill and subsequently a Bill was introduced in 1 965. [More…]

• After one test of it in the High Court of Australia it was found to be so unmanageable that not a single case was brought before the courts or any tribunal after the Vend case in 1915. [More…]

• I hope that instead of hearing speeches a second time, honourable senators will do as the High Court Judges do and say: ‘I am for the plaintiff and I hand down my reasons. ‘ [More…]

• Subsequently, the very fact that he wanted to submit such legislation caused him to be kicked upstairs into the High Court. [More…]

• In the absence of any decision by that authority which, under the Australian Constitution, has the exclusive right to determine vexing and disputed questions of constitutional law, namely the High Court, it was very difficult to determine which of the 2 authorities had the appropriate jurisdiction. [More…]

• The simple fact is it would deny any right of appeal to the High Court on any union amalgamation question. [More…]

• We believe that there should be at least a right of appeal to the High Court or, putting it more accurately, that the right to go to the High Court to ask the High Court whether it will entertain one’s appeal should not be prohibited. [More…]

• The effect of our opposition, if acceded to, will be simply that as the position exists at present the High Court will have a descretion as to whether it will grant leave to appeal and we think that in this area that is sufficient safegard. [More…]

• The Opposition’s attitude to this would continue the present anomalous situation in which decisions of the Commonwealth Industrial Court on inquiries into amalgamation ballots would be appealable to the High Court while decisions of the Commonwealth Industrial Court on registration and deregistration of organisations under Part VIII of the Act, which also involve questions of property and assets, and decisions on inquiries into irregularities in union elections under Part IX of the Act would not be appealable. [More…]

• The decisions of the Industrial Court in both of these matters are, I think Senator Greenwood would agree, concerned mostly with questions of fact; they are not high questions of law which should engage the attention of the High Court. [More…]

• The meaning of just terms’ has been interpretated by the High Court from time to time. [More…]

• I also understand that the criteria, as set out in section 25 of the principal Act, have been held by the High Court to provide ibr just terms. [More…]

• Our argument is that if this provision were written into the Act to apply to the States as well as to the Territories it could well be that the High Court would say that the provisions now promoted in the present Bill do not provide for just terms and would rule them to be ultra vires. [More…]

• I also understand that one person who had his land acquired could not come to terms with the Government as to what ought to be a just price between them, and he issued a writ out of the High Court for the determination of what ought to be his compensation. [More…]

• I understand further that the reason why the claim has not been settled is not that the person whose land was compulsorily acquired has been dilatory but because the High Court, due to the work load and the list before it, has not heard the claim. [More…]

• Again I understand that that section has been held by the High Court to provide for payment on just terms. [More…]

• It has been held in the High Court in the case of Teori Tau v Commonwealth that the power of resumption by the Commonwealth does not stem from section 51 and the appropriate placitum under that section but from section 122 of the Constitution. [More…]

• Yet we have been told indirectly that there is a claim before the High Court for $35m on the part of somebody who is said to be a land development company. [More…]

• However, I am informed that there is already a High Court decision on this in the Tau case in New Guinea in which it was held that in making laws for the acquisition of property in the Territory the Government is not limited to making laws which provide just terms. [More…]

• Senator Wright again seems to be disagreeing with the High Court but that is the decision that has been made. [More…]

• It is not an issue which has been canvassed in any definite way by the High Court which is charged with the responsibility of making a decision in this area. [More…]

• The question of where sovereignty lies is to be determined in this country by the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Apparently in the intervening months, according to the second reading speech in this place, the matter has been resolved in favour of the Commonwealth without the High Court having to make a decision. [More…]

• One of the other problems which I believe is quite a serious problem- I do not want to labour it because I think it is a difficult legal problemconcerns a section of the Constitution which has not been tested to any extent before the High Court. [More…]

• The High Court in a judgment issued earlier this year referred to the very great importance of the laws protecting the territorial waters of Australia and the necessity which had been found by most countries to apply penalties such as forfeiture in order to insist upon their sovereignty. [More…]

• The issue of who has sovereign jurisdiction in this area will not be resolved in this Parliament; it will be resolved only by the assertion of the power by the Parliament and, if someone is sufficiently interested to challenge that assertion, by the High Court. [More…]

• The High Court is the protector of the Constitution of Australia. [More…]

• But if I speak to some other legal people they will tell me that the question has not been resolved and that the High Court has not enunciated a decision with respect to the external affairs power generally. [More…]

• If it can be sustained, then let them sustain it in the High Court. [More…]

• Let us pass this legislation and let the States challenge it in the High Court. [More…]

• The only way that I can see its being resolved is by the High Court. [More…]

• This matter will not get to the High Court unless this Parliament passes a measure and lets someone challenge it. [More…]

• The onus is on those who say that the legislation setting up the Pipeline Authority is invalid to prove their points, and they prove them by going to the High Court. [More…]

• The High Court is the protector of the Constitution, and no one else. [More…]

• The legal men can have opinions as to whether it is valid but only the Justices of the High Court will say whether it is. [More…]

• We cannot find out whether it will be in one place unless we assert the authority in this Parliament and have it challenged in the High Court so that that Court may rule on it. [More…]

• It is well known to everyone here, I think, that in a case in the High Court against a fisherman who operated off the coast of New South Wales- the La Macchia case, if I might refer to it as such- a former Federal Attorney-General and now Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick, concluded that the Commonwealth had sovereign jurisdiction from the low-water mark. [More…]

• Let us get it on the statute books and let the States challenge and let the High Court decide the issue for us. [More…]

• The constitutional power of the Australian Parliament to enact legislation such as that contained in the Bill was clarified by the very important decision of the High Court in what is known as the Concrete Pipes Case. [More…]

• A similar course was taken in regard to the former Chief Justice of the High Court, the late Sir Owen Dixon, if my recollection of the answer I sent is correct. [More…]

• It is designed to ensure that cases can be brought before the High Court in relation to matters arising in the electoral provisions of State or Australian law. [More…]

• The way in which this is done is to include a new section of the Constitution that will permit an elector of the Commonwealth to bring a relevant matter before the High Court, and an elector in a State to raise a matter relating to that State. [More…]

• If we are to have literal High Court interpretations of mandates, such as we had from Senator Carrick today and the other day- if we are to have misrepresentation of what I said in the second reading debate, which I shall also demonstrate to Senator Carrick and the Senate- it is necessary that we examine the plain meaning of the paragraph which Senator Carrick read to the Senate only after his memory was jolted by a telegram. [More…]

• The overwhelming majority of the Australian people support justice for independent schools but there is a small minority who do not and that minority has threatened action in the High Court to seek a ban on justice for independent schools. [More…]

• There is a series of High Court interpretations of this action which makes it clear beyond peradventure that the Australian Government is entitled to attach whatever conditions it thinks fit to grants under section 96. [More…]

• For example, the salaries of High Court justices have been established and adjusted by a Bill debated in both Houses. [More…]

• As honourable senators will know, the Full High Court recently decided in the Esquire Nominees case that particular arrangements involving dividends that had their origin in Australia were effective to give the dividends the legal character of income with a source on the Island. [More…]

• This amendment is to apply for the 1972-73 and subsequent income years and was foreshadowed in a statement made by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) on 28 June 1973 following the decision of the Full High Court in the Stocks and Holdings (Constructors) Pty Ltd case. [More…]

• In the course of my remarks in the Senate on 30 May I emphasised the policy of the Liberal Party which has been maintained for several years and to which I fully subscribe, namely, that this question is so vital to the maintenance of our federal structure of government and so vital to the State parliaments and the State governments that it presents a question which should not be solved solely by the Australian Parliament or solely by the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• If this Bill in its present form and with its present intentions is passed and upheld by the High Court it would mean that this Parliament would be virtually the sole legislative authority over all of this area, in the same way that it is the sole legislative authority for the Australian territories. [More…]

• It may well be that the High Court will not concede that. [More…]

• I know that the argument put forward is that we as a Parliament are simply asserting this claim so that the High Court of Australia can resolve this knotty legal problem which people believe has been worrying Australian governments for so many years. [More…]

• It is naive to believe that merely by passing this Bill we will get a decision from the High Court which will solve the problem. [More…]

• The fact is that it will probably take some years and some number of cases in the High Court fully to resolve the actual ambit of this legislation and decide the actual constitutional position. [More…]

• In any other spheres of constitutional interpretation where new areas of power are being tested in the High Court, years and years of litigation have been involved. [More…]

• I hazard a prediction that we have only had the first of many High Court cases in order to fathom the limits of that power. [More…]

• If senators believe that by passing this Act and sending the matter to the High Court the problem can be solved in one case I believe that senators are flying in the face of all the constitutional legal experience that we have had over 70 years. [More…]

• What is the position going to be in relation to all these matters if a Bill such as this is passed and the High Court of Australia, in one fell swoop came to a decision that from now on the virtually exclusive sovereignty beyond the low water mark was in the hands of the Australian Parliament? [More…]

• But if he seeks to have that power in regard to mining, the Parliament could have that power in regard to anything else if, of course, the High Court upheld the legislation. [More…]

• What I am saying is that I am opposed to this sort of problem being resolved by litigation in the High Court. [More…]

• The Government does not need this sort of legislation to get a case before the High Court because before very much longer there probably will be a case before the High Court in regard to the Pipeline Authority Act. [More…]

• The honourable senator spoke of the High Court and said that it probably would take some years to fully resolve the ambit of this legislation. [More…]

• But what is more negative than his approach, which is to hand the matter over to the High Court for determination one way or another? [More…]

• Again the future will be very clouded by any decision of the High Court of this country. [More…]

• There is a minority view in the High Court that for the purpose of that section territorial limits begin at low water mark. [More…]

• That means that the Committee found an outfit where the Minister had no proper responsibility, where the High Court had no place and there was an exclusion of effective parliamentary decision in the matter because that legislation could be neither varied, repealed nor amended without the consent of all 7 Parliaments. [More…]

• So, for my part, the only arguable question is whether the Commonwealth can exercise jurisdiction by virtue of its original power in accordance with the minority judgment of the High Court in the case of Bonser and La Macchia. [More…]

• I think that there is a very respectable view to justify that power and, insofar as it is in doubt, the proper authority to determine it is the High Court, Therefore, I shall vote for the second reading of the Bill to give enactment to Parts I and II. [More…]

• It has not been contravened at all; if it was, these people who talk about concentration of power and arbitrary power would have an action in the High Court within 5 minutes. [More…]

• For a proper appreciation of the political implications of the proposals for amendment in this Bill it is important to remember the wide scope of interpretation which has already been given to this section by the High Court. [More…]

• The Honourable Sir John A. Nimmo, Chief Justice of the High Court of Fiji. [More…]

• For example, the Judiciary Act states that the High Court shall consist of no more than 7 judges. [More…]

• Whilst there are constitutional problems at the moment, I would hope that we can look to the day when we will have the one system of courts with the High Court as the apex and that there will be no Commonwealth system of courts existing alongside the State Supreme Courts. [More…]

• But since that Bill has become law and probably will be the subject of a High Court challenge as to who has authority over which particular parts of the off-shore seabed, we have to look at these Bills in connection with the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill. [More…]

• This will overcome any future difficulties, depending upon a possible High Court ruling on the actual areas of jurisdiction which may be given when the position is challenged, as I understand is sure to be the case. [More…]

• The Attorney-General will recall that some 60 years ago both the High Court and the Privy Council entertained much argument in a case in which the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth was the active participant and in which it was sought to justify the act of a royal commission in this country which had wide powers that could have enabled it to move into virtually any and every area throughout Australia. [More…]

• The proceedings of the Commission are not judicial proceedings but witnesses are declared to be subject to the same liabilities as witnesses in proceedings in the High Court. [More…]

• They are held not only by the High Court and the supreme courts, the Federal courts, the district courts and the courts of quarter sessions but by magistrates and a whole host of bodies throughout the country. [More…]

• Could the AttorneyGeneral have his Department look at Mr Ratten ‘s case and, if there seems to be any reasonable doubt existing after an extensive examination, is there any way in which the AttorneyGeneral could facilitate an appeal to the High Court? [More…]

• The Constitution established the High Court of Australia, and it empowered Parliament both to create other federal courts and to invest the courts of the States with federal jurisdiction. [More…]

• The proposal for the Superior Court was originally put forward by the present Chief Justice of Australia when he was Attorney-General and the justification for setting up the Court rested largely on the need to relieve the High Court of most of its single justice original jurisdiction. [More…]

• The High Court would thus concentrate on its task of interpreting the Constitution and acting as the ultimate Court of Appeal within Australia. [More…]

• There were then substantial arrears of work in the High Court, but this has been remedied. [More…]

• I have already indicated my own view that the justification for establishing the Superior Court does not rest entirely on the circumstantial foundation of the work load on the High Court at any particular time. [More…]

• The High Court will be left free to continue its great work as a constitutional and appeals court. [More…]

• There would be no appeal to the High Court from the decisions of the Superior Court in those matters in which there is now no appeal to the High Court from the Industrial Court. [More…]

• This means that the Court would have jurisdiction in matters in which the Constitution itself confers jurisdiction on the High Court, or provides that jurisdiction may be conferred on the High Court by laws made by this Parliament. [More…]

• It is proposed that the new Court would take over the original jurisdiction now exercised by the High Court under laws made by the Parliament, except for some few cases where, in the nature of the jurisdiction, it seems appropriate to continue to be exercised by the High Court. [More…]

• For example, it is not proposed that the jurisdiction of the High Court as a Court of Disputed Returns under the Electoral Act should be transferred to the Superior Court. [More…]

• It is not, of course, constitutionally possible to divest the High Court of the jurisdiction conferred on it directly by the Constitution. [More…]

• In such matters, the Superior Court would exercise a jurisdiction concurrent with that of the High Court, but it may be expected that, for the greater part, actions would be instituted in the Superior Court rather than in the High Court. [More…]

• With the proposal that the High Court should sit only in Canberra, its exercise of original jurisdiction in all but the most important matters will become relatively inaccessible to litigants residing in the States. [More…]

• The relationship between the Superior Court and the High Court would have been dealt with by amending the Judiciary Act. [More…]

• Questions of appeals from the Superior Court to the High Court and to the High Court from State Courts in cases where an appeal would he to the Superior Court are also dealt with in the Bill. [More…]

• Under the 1968 Bill an appeal would have lain directly from a single judge of the Superior Court to the High Court. [More…]

• The present Bill also provides for an appeal from the Full Court of the Superior Court to the High Court, but only by leave of the High Court or of the Full Court of the Superior Court. [More…]

• I am confident that the Court will achieve considerable stature, and will be second only to the High Court as the interpreter of federal law in Australia. [More…]

• By inquiry and administration it was beginning to take effect when the High Court, in a technical decision, somewhat left it with only one arm. [More…]

• If this proposal is adopted by the people that game will be over and the oversight of these constitutional alterations will be taken by the High Court. [More…]

• There are effective remedies in the measure in order to enable the High Court to see that no government of any political colour in the future will be entitled to and able to engage in any gerrymander. [More…]

• All that the Government is doing is endeavouring to enable the people of Australia at the next Senate election to have a say also on whether they want to alter their own Constitution to provide for democratic elections to be overseen in the ultimate by the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• I refer to the recent appointment to a vacancy on the High Court of Australia of the President of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. [More…]

• None have been appointed to the High Court. [More…]

• I ask: Does the Attorney-General consider it to be desirable, after 74 years of federation, that the High Court continues to be virtually a preserve of the New South Wales and Victorian Bars? [More…]

• -That is a difficult question to answer, because I do not think that the High Court should be regarded as a preserve of any kind of Bar at all. [More…]

• He was then appointed by the Whitlam Government to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• It is unfortunate that other States, particularly Western Australia, have not had the satisfaction of having a judge appointed to the High Court. [More…]

• I noticed that Her Majesty the Queen said in her Speech that on the advice of her advisers in Westminster and Canberra she had decided to refer the appeal by the governments of Tasmania and Queensland to the High Court of Australia and not to the Privy Council as was the practice in the past. [More…]

• I anticipate that there will be a Senate election before 30 June, with the date depending on whether one relies on the judgment of Mr Whitlam, Q.C., or that of the High Court. [More…]

• The expression requires consideration so that the position of this House will be made clear to those who have responsibility for the subsequent constitutional processes so that they may know whether to act with or without reference to the High Court. [More…]

• Likewise to give a jurisdiction of the High Court by this amendment is to give to the High Court that which the High Court already possesses. [More…]

• This matter would be determined, under the provisions of this measure, by the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• In other words, every electoral law which is passed by the State is not to be finally determined by the people or the Parliament of that State but will come under the scrutiny of a few judges of the High Court who will determine whether it fits the requirement and the straight-jacket of this Bill in aspects that are included here as basic requirements. [More…]

• It will not be the people of the State or their parliamentary representatives who decide it; it will be decided by a few judges of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• States have always been uncertain as to whether one decision of the High Court will necessarily be the decision of the High Court at some later time. [More…]

• Section 92 imposes restrictions on the Commonwealth and the States, as the High Court currently interprets that section. [More…]

• Let the lawyers argue and let them get into litigation in the High Court. [More…]

• One result of that conferring of exclusive power on the Commonwealth is illustrated in the well known case of Worthing v. Rowell and Muston Pty Ltd, which was heard in the High Court in 1 970. [More…]

• It was held by the High Court that the scaffolding and lifts safety regulations which had been introduced by the New South Wales Government did not apply to the Richmond Air base. [More…]

• As Senator James McClelland would say: ‘Ah, here we have an excellent example of where there would be a transfer of powers to State parliaments because’- and he quoted the High Court decisions on the matter- ‘this has been a problem in respect of which the High Court has held that State parliaments cannot legislate in respect of Commonwealth property such as an Air Force base, a post office or a telephone booth.’ [More…]

• True enough, the decison of the High Court was to that effect, but it caused an extraordinary state of affairs. [More…]

• It is hoped by some State governments, I think, or by some State Ministers or Premiers, that there may be a transfer of the excise power or some of that power back to State parliaments to enable them to raise revenue by means of taxes, which the High Court on its past record would almost inevitably declare to be excise. [More…]

• High Court and people are confidently predicting that the decision will go in the Commonwealth’s favour. [More…]

• But the preliminary that ought to be stated with regard to this Bill is that in the early 1960s, when litigation was very voluminous and a great burden of litigation was listed before the High Court of Australia, a means was sought of relieving that Court of its large lists that were piling up and being delayed. [More…]

• The Attorney-General of the day, Sir Garfield Barwick, after some discussion with the profession evolved the idea of creating yet another Federal court designed to attract jurisdiction in some of the matters that went to the High Court and so relieve the High Court of its undue burden of work. [More…]

• He went on to say that the only real reason that could be referred to was the overload of work in the High Court. [More…]

• The succeeding decade has seen a reduction in the load of the High Court. [More…]

• a ) vested in or exercisable by the High Court or a Justice of that Court under any Act, or under regulations under any Act, other than an Act excluded by subsection (4), . [More…]

• There is an attempt to vest the jurisdiction of the High Court, other than in regard to the Acts mentioned in sub-clause 4, in this new creation, the Superior Court. [More…]

• The clause provides that on or after a day to be fixed by proclamation, the Superior Courts shall have all the jurisdiction that is, under a taxation act, exercisable by the High Court or the supreme court of a State or Territory. [More…]

• It is also provided that proceedings under the taxation act shall not be instituted in the High Court or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory. [More…]

• Here we have transferred to the new Court the jurisdiction of existing Federal courts and existing Federal jurisdiction now belonging to the High Court and the State Supreme Courts in the one instance vested in the High Court, as I conceive it, by the Constitution, and vested in the other courts by virtue of provisions of the Constitution under Federal laws. [More…]

• On the other hand, we will have a system or a hierarchy of Federal courts briefly as follows: By virtue of the Constitution we have a Federal supreme court called the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• So we have the High Court and the Federal courts created by this Parliament, and this Bill seeks to give birth to one Federal court which will have very wide jurisdiction. [More…]

• Federal jurisdiction belongs to the High Court and to Federal courts exercising Federal jurisdiction by virtue of Acts of this Parliament. [More…]

• The Constitution, having established that division between the 2 classes of courts, Federal and State, then provides imperatively in section 75 that in certain matters the High Court shall have original jurisdiction. [More…]

• The Bill before us prescribes in the first chunk of jurisdiction that is to go to the new creation 5 separate descriptions which it will be found are already vested by the Constitution as original jurisdiction in the High Court. [More…]

• As I understand it, that jurisdiction of the High Court in those matters is inalienable and subject to no exception. [More…]

• (h) and (i) of clause 19 of the Bill transcribe matters in the same terms of description as expressed in section 76 of the Constitution under which jurisdiction is not imperatively conferred upon the High Court, but under that section the Parliament has powers to make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the High Court in any matter: [More…]

• Under section 75 jurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution upon the High Court. [More…]

• how much of the proceeding is a matter over which the High Court has jurisdiction. [More…]

• These provisions in truth sacrifice the interests of the litigant to the desire of the framers of the Constitution to preserve to the High Court the power of giving constitutional rulings and making constitutional precedents. [More…]

• It will be noticed that no attempt is made here to reduce or restrict the right of appeal from a Supreme Court of a State to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• They understand fairly readily the right of appeal from the intermediate courts to the supreme courts and from the supreme courts to the High Court. [More…]

• Another very eminent judge of the High Court, Sir Victor Windeyer, is on record as being completely outspoken on this matter. [More…]

• It must add to all sorts of appeals and all sorts of High Court actions to determine the validity or otherwise of a particular decision. [More…]

• If I am right in suggesting that implication, it is an unwarranted implication because, after all, there is one ultimate court of appeal in Australia, and that is the High Court. [More…]

• Indeed, the Federal Parliament has determined what shall be the practice and procedure of the High Court when, sitting in trial jurisdiction, it moves from State to State. [More…]

• It is also said, in justification of this Bill, that the High Court will be able to concentrate on its task of interpreting the Constitution and of acting as the ultimate court of appeal. [More…]

• A superior court will relieve the High Court of much of its original or trial jurisdiction. [More…]

• Now there are no substantial problems with the High Court work load, and this is conceded by Senator Murphy in his second reading speech. [More…]

• I think there is always advantage in High Court judges having some opportunity to engage in trial work, which they do in a limited way through the original jurisdiction at present. [More…]

• One acknowledges the overall appellate jurisdiction of the High Court and the problems which that creates in a well settled hierarchy through each of the States, but the problems would be multiplied and the difficulties would be enhanced if we were to have a series of Federal courts as well as the existing State structures. [More…]

• The way in which we will achieve that goal is not by setting up 2 structures of courts, which is involved in the current proposal, but by ensuring that the existing structure through the States supreme courts up to the High Court is maintained. [More…]

• It is important to observe that the Constitution provides in almost identical terms for the vesting of jurisdiction in the High Court. [More…]

• The vesting of such jurisdiction in the superior court is not expected to raise any more problems than have been raised in the High Court. [More…]

• It is all very well to go back to what Sir Owen Dixon said and say that terrible problems will be met because someone wants to sue the Commonwealth in the High Court or to resolve some question relating to a matter affecting consuls. [More…]

• Whether it was determined in the superior court or in the High Court, the problem would be the same in either area. [More…]

• It is clear that if the jurisdiction is vested in the Superior Court the High Court will be relieved to a very great extent of the burden of jurisdiction which it has and it will be able to address itself to the more important aspects of jurisdiction- the cases which have a considerable constitutional content. [More…]

• Without going into figures, I have noted, for example, that the time between the hearing of cases by the High Court and judgment being given is in some cases extraordinarily long. [More…]

• I do not want to be in the position of being critical of the High Court, but even in the short time that I have been Attorney-General I have had to deal with complaints by citizens about the delay in the rendering of judgments. [More…]

• He goes on to say that the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) has said that if the High Court of Australia upholds the Commonwealth ‘s right to legislate over off-shore areas he will probably introduce legislation to give stronger control to the Commonwealth over oil and gas exploration. [More…]

• I know it has been said that I have a great deal of capacity, but the High Court normally finishes its day at 4.15 p.m. [More…]

• I would find it difficult to get from here to the High Court this afternoon to make that application or any kind of application. [More…]

• The commencement provisions of the previous Bill were drafted on the basis that the validity of certain provisions of the Act- maintenance, custody and property disputes in nondivorce situations- would be tested in the High Court before those provisions were brought into operation. [More…]

• That, pursuant to section 203 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1973, the following question be referred to the High Court of Australia sitting as the Court of Disputed - Returns, namely: Whether, and if so when, a vacancy has happened in the Senate in the representation of Queensland in connection with the place of Vincent Clair Gair. [More…]

• In the case of R. v. The Governor of South Australia in 1907 and reported in 4 Commonwealth Law Reports, page 1497, the High Court refused to determine whether a senator had been validly appointed under section 15 of the Constitution because this was, amongst other things, a question respecting a vacancy within the meaning of section 47. [More…]

• Arising out of that case the Australian Parliament, in the exercise of its power under section 5 1 (xxxvi), passed a special Act to otherwise provide for such questions to be referred to the High Court of Australia sitting as a Court of Disputed Returns. [More…]

• Following its enactment the High Court, in the case of Vardon v. O’Loghlin, reported in 1907, 5 Commonwealth Law Reports, page 201, determined the question arising in the Governor of South Australia case. [More…]

• The present provisions for referring such questions to the High Court sitting as a Court of Disputed Returns are to be found in section 203 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-73. [More…]

• The answers to those questions in the Government’s view are clear, but if there is a dispute about them quite obviously, on the view taken by one of my distinguished predecessors as Attorney-General, the correct and only way in which the questions respecting the vacancy can be resolved is by the Senate referring them to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• I would have thought that where a Senator’s constitutional right to sit in this chamber is conferred by the Constitution, the High Court is the appropriate body charged by the Constitution with the duties of interpretation, lt would be an unreal situation if this Parliament or any one House of the Parliament were to decide whether or not a senator had the qualifications to remain in this chamber. [More…]

• Section 184 refers to the High Court as the Court of Disputed Returns, and there are provisions about petitions and so on, what the powers of the Court would be, inquiries by the Court, certain matters of illegal practices and so on. [More…]

• We will not have this determined by the body which Parliament has contemplated should determine it’- that is no minor judicial body, but the High Court of Australia ‘We will not even send it to, say, our own Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications. [More…]

• What warrant, what justification, would you, Mr President, have for not saying that this question should be referred to the High Court of Australia? [More…]

• -Mr Mason, who I understand is now a distinguished judge of the High Court. [More…]

• What will the Senate do if this matter is not referred to the High Court and then, as was alleged this morning, Senator and/or Mr and/or the honourable Vincent Clair Gair decides that he no longer desires to reside in Dublin and he walks through that door at 2 p.m. next Monday and takes his seat somewhere on the Opposition benches? [More…]

• What will be his position if this matter has been referred to the High Court? [More…]

• Do we say: ‘Senator Gair, you can sit there while the High Court ruminates’, or do we say: ‘Senator Gair, you may not come inside’. [More…]

• In old fashioned English terms it is part of the High Court of Parliament. [More…]

• It is proposed to refer this matter to the High Court, but what do we do if that rotund figure should walk through the door when the Senate meets on Monday? [More…]

• But the Attorney-General knew or he ought to have known that he was permitting to sit in this chamber a person whom he now alleges- and wishes the High Court to rule- had no right to sit here. [More…]

• That is why this whole exercise of the Government to have the matter sent off to the High Court is nothing but a smoke screen to cover up its political ineptitude, to attempt to have the facts swept under the carpet, to have the political consequences of this very smart trick that did not come off buried under some formal legal process. [More…]

• They take refuge in the High Court. [More…]

• High Court; it is accountable to this Parliament of Australia. [More…]

• They are trying to take away our capacity to bring them to account by taking the matter off to the High Court. [More…]

• But whatever else honourable senators in this place have to decide, they have to decide between 2 simple propositions, either the one of Senator Murphy’s, which is a proposition to sweep this whole nagging question under the carpet, sweep it off to the High Court where it will get lost, or the one to have enough courage to take it on and deal with it as senators. [More…]

• I do not know in what courts Senator Withers spent his time before he came to this place or since he has been in this place, but he has certainly given the Senate a curious notion of what goes on in the High Court. [More…]

• Is Senator Withers seriously suggesting that the facts will not get a proper airing or will not be properly examined in the High Court or will not get just as accurate, detailed and microscopic an examination as has been sought to have them given in this place? [More…]

• If the honourable senator would refer to the various powers which the High Court may exercise in considering any of these applications- I omitted to refer to the most important one of all- he will see that section 206 states: [More…]

• If Senator Withers seriously believes that if and when this matter gets to the High Court, which is an open court, the facts will not be properly examined by the Court, I suggest that he should have a look at section 189 which is specifically invoked by section 206 that I have just read. [More…]

• In other words, the facts will be submitted to an even closer scrutiny in the High Court than they would get in this Parliament. [More…]

• The other provisions make it quite clear that the suggestion by Senator Withers of a sweeping of the facts under the rug, in what can be termed only as a gesture of contempt of the High Court, is a travesty of what would go on in the High Court. [More…]

• Which, for the purposes of this section, is defined in this Act as being the High Court - [More…]

• 1 heard one or two interjections suggesting, in a further slur upon the High Court, that somehow or other the judgment of this Court could not be trusted because, as one interjector asked: Who appointed the members of the High Court? [More…]

• With 2 exceptions, the 7 members of the High Court were appointed by our opponents. [More…]

• I am certain that one would never hear from Senator Wright, for example, any suggestion that we would get from the High Court anything but an impartial decision. [More…]

• It will have become perfectly clear to honourable senators that Senator Greenwood will be involved in a lot of word swallowing if he is to oppose this motion because, as Senator Murphy made perfectly clear, in a contribution to a debate in this place in August 1971 Senator Greenwood wenton record as saying that the appropriate place to have a matter of the type that we are discussing today resolved is the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• I would have thought that where a senator’s constitutional right to sit in this chamber is conferred by the Constitution, the High Court is the appropriate body charged by the Constitution with the duties of interpretation. [More…]

• It appears in many other sections of the Constitution as well as section 47.I have looked through the books in an attempt to find in the decided cases some words from the High Court to define what is meant by ‘Until the Parliament otherwise provides’. [More…]

• The Senate may not decide the matter itself when there is a procedure under section 203 to go to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• It can, if it likes, with the use of numbers, decide that it will not take this procedure of referring the matter to the High Court. [More…]

• Anybody who is interested, as I have said, may be represented before the High Court at the hearing. [More…]

• Is that really what the Leader of the Opposition sees as the function of the High Court of Australia? [More…]

• The other matter may go to the High Court but the matter of Senator Murphy’s conduct is a matter which has to be considered by the appropriate tribunal. [More…]

• If that is so, what is the purpose of taking a case to the High Court when the relevant Minister who has the right of issuing the document appointing Senator Gair says that Senator Gair was appointed by him yesterday as Ambassador-Designate and not as an Ambassador. [More…]

• Fancy the High Court being asked to listen to that kind of tommy rot. [More…]

• The final thing I say is that this matter will not be settled here or in the High Court. [More…]

• The Government then put up a proposition that this question should be determined by the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• But what does the Opposition say about the High Court of Australia? [More…]

• Surely members of the Opposition would regard the High Court of Australia as the proper authority to determine whether they as laymen are correct or whether the General Counsel to the Attorney-General is correct. [More…]

• If the Government sends this matter to the High Court it will be placing the matter in the hands of people who should be and I believe are without any doubt completely unbiased. [More…]

• As to when his pay begins, I now leave it in the hands of the Senate or the High Court to tell me. [More…]

• But then Senator Murphy, realising the weakness of his situation, comes in here with a motion that the question clearly entertained by the Government should be submitted to the High Court under section 1 56 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. [More…]

• Section 203 states that any question respecting the qualifications of a senator or respecting a vacancy in either House may be referred by resolution to the High Court as a Court of Disputed Returns. [More…]

• Section 203 provides that any question respecting a vacancy may be referred to the High Court. [More…]

• This is a clear and specific direction that any question as to a disputed election has to go before the High Court. [More…]

• It is that the question be referred to the High Court of Australia sitting as a Court of Disputed Returns, as to whether, and if so when, a vacancy has happened in the Senate in the representation of Queensland in connection with the place of Vincent Clair Gair. [More…]

• I think that it is worth repeating the attitude of Senator Greenwood, as stated on 24 August 1971, when he was Attorney-General: 1 would have thought that where a Senator’s constitutional right to sit in this chamber is conferred by the Constitution, the High Court is the appropriate body charged by the Constitution with the duties of interpretation. [More…]

• I think that it is a logical proposition that this matter be taken away from the heat of political argument in the Senate and properly investigated by the High Court. [More…]

• All of these descriptions of the events leading up to this debate are highly accusative and would much more properly be dealt with by the High Court of Australia sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. [More…]

• I would like this matter to go to the High Court. [More…]

• All of these accusations of corruption and crime and all the other things can be brought out in the High Court. [More…]

• I would like to see them come out in the High Court. [More…]

• I think that if a document like this were placed before the High Court it would be interpreted in its proper perspective. [More…]

• Why should that document not go before the High Court or the Court of Disputed Returns? [More…]

• Senator Gair almost certainly would have to give evidence before the High Court but he cannot come to the Senate to give the facts. [More…]

• I support the proposition that this question be referred to the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. [More…]

• After you had made your statement, Sir, in opening debate on it the Government moved that under section 203 of the Electoral Act the matter be referred to the Court of Disputed Returns which, in the Commonwealth jurisdiction, is the High Court. [More…]

• Senator Murphy has proposed that the matter as to the vacancy should be determined by the High Court sitting as a court of disputed returns. [More…]

• The section of the Constitution uses the permissive word ‘may’, and on any interpretation of that word, on the authorities in the High Court and elsewhere, that permissive or facultative term is one that must be given its ordinary meaning unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary. [More…]

• The Senate has the power under section 47 of the Constitution either to make the decision whether it will sit in judgment itself on the question of a vacancy or whether in a particular case it will pass that judgment over to the High Court sitting as a court of disputed returns. [More…]

• The distinguished authors are R. D. Lumb, barrister and solicitor of the High Court of Australia, Reader in Law, University of Queensland, and K. W. Ryan, barrister-at-law, University of Queensland. [More…]

• This court shall be either the High Court, or the Supreme Court of the State (in which the election is held) if the matter is referred to it by the High Court. [More…]

• But who ever heard in any previous case- I hope that the Government tries to prove this in the High Court- of it being even possible to make such an appointment before acceptance had been received from the country to which the person involved was to be appointed. [More…]

• Now that they are confronted with the legal situation and with the Government’s proposition to regularise the departure of Senator Gair from this chamberthat is, by referring the question to the High Court for consideration- all sorts of unpalatable suggestions have been made. [More…]

• That is why the Government ‘s proposition to put this question to the High Court ought to be supported. [More…]

• I am not anticipating any High Court decision because I do not believe that a High Court decision will be made. [More…]

• We are talking about a question here which ought to be resolved in the High Court. [More…]

• It may not need to be resolved in the High Court because something else may happen. [More…]

• He will vote for a proposition that this matter be not referred to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• He said that if this matter were sent to the High Court it would simply sweep it under the carpet. [More…]

• But he did say some rather extraordinary things about the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• One would think that the High Court sitting as a court of disputed returns, with the most distinguished gentlemen on it, was some kind of a trumped up body, notwithstanding that most of the appointments were made by the honourable senator’s own administration or its predecessors. [More…]

• Let us send the case to the High Court of Australia and get its decision. [More…]

• The Opposition is not prepared to have the legal position, which the Government puts forward as its view, determined by the High Court. [More…]

• Here is a question which certainly ought to go to the High Court. [More…]

• After the President put down his statement the Government came in with a straightforward, logical and appropriate motion to refer the question to the High Court of Australia sitting as the court of disputed returns in order to determine the question. [More…]

• The Opposition is not dealing straightforwardly with a Government motion which seeks to refer the question and get a determination by the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Because the President put the matter before the Senate and the Government having put the documents before the Senate, the Government asked the Senate to refer the question to the High Court and it declined to do so. [More…]

• There is a proceeding before the High Court, brought by a citizen of Queensland, to have a resolution of this matter by the High Court. [More…]

• The matter may be litigated in the High Court, although it is possible that the events which we are assuming will happen will make that no longer an issue. [More…]

• Richard O’Connor, who was the first leader of the Senate and a High Court judge has a suburb named after him, but I do not think there is an electorate named after him. [More…]

• When I turn to the Judicial Retiring Allowances Act I find that a judge of the High Court is not entitled automatically, when he ceases to be a judge, to a pension of 60 per cent of his salary for life. [More…]

• In 1959 the Constitutional Review Committee referred to the enormous costs involved in High Court litigation arising from problems associated with sections of the Constitution which were considered appropriate in 1 90 1 but which are no longer appropriate in 1974. [More…]

• In the High Court of Ireland, the judgment of Mr Justice Budd in the case of O ‘Donovan v. the Attorney-General in February 1961 stated: [More…]

• I appreciate that the general purport of the Constitution is to confer upon the High Court of Australia the power to make decisions as to whether or not laws passed by this Parliament are or are not constitutionally valid. [More…]

• I would anticipate, although one could appreciate arguments which could be advanced, that the power of the High Court to pass judgment upon the validity of this measure could be questioned. [More…]

• Of course, if the question does arise that is for the High Court to decide. [More…]

• I do no more than advance the type of argument which, without elaboration or without that type of consideration which those who might have to argue before the High Court would give to it, may be able to be raised. [More…]

• I ask the Minister to verify that fact and then to tell me whether he does not consider that his contention that forfeiture of the office had occurred on 2 1 March is of such importance, inconsistent as it is with the payment to which I have referred, as to bring the matter before the High Court for judicial decision? [More…]

• -As to the last part of the question, I think there was some endeavour by a Queensland citizen to bring the case before the High Court. [More…]

• But that is not a matter for the Senate; it is a matter for the High Court of Australia when interested persons will undoubtedly challenge the legislation if it should be carried. [More…]

• Whether it is constitutionally legal to hold more than one joint sitting on more than one Bill is something that the High Court may determine in the future. [More…]

• I have known the High Court of Australia to reserve its judgment on simple matters for 15 months. [More…]

• The matter came before the High Court, I think in the last few days of the last Parliament. [More…]

• -Senator Sir Magnus Cormack very wisely observed that the High Court may have some residual role. [More…]

• It is not for me to debate what the High Court may or may not say as to its residual role. [More…]

• The wisdom of Senator Sir Magnus Cormack ‘s remarks may be judged by this fact: The amendment seeks not to suggest that the High Court may have some residual role but, wrongly, unconstitutionally and with some impropriety, that the Senate should embark upon a function and a role that is not its. [More…]

• If honourable senators opposite, those who advise them or others outside wish to go to the High Court, that is their right and their privilege. [More…]

• The Governor-General at that time, Mr President, was an eminent former learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The Senate is not the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• If there is a question of law to be determined- there has been some talk of litigation; one may say even some threat of litigation; one may say a warning of litigation; one may say that we were told that there would be litigation- the appropriate body to determine that issue at the appropriate time is the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• For example, I wonder whether the decision of the High Court of Australia on these particular words was presented to the GovernorGeneral or whether any consideration has been given by the Government’s advisers to the words which the High Court used. [More…]

• But the issue which was before the High Court was whether there had been a rejection or a failure to pass on 2 occasions by the Legislative Council a Bill for the abolition of the Legislative Council, so that on the rejection or failure to pass the right to submit the issue to a referendum arose. [More…]

• The High Court closely examined what had happened. [More…]

• It indicated that in the view of the High Court there had been a rejection by the Legislative Council of that Bill. [More…]

• The High Court stated: [More…]

• The Attorney-General was at great pains to take note of Senator Sir Magnus Cormack ‘s intervention that there was a residual power in the High Court. [More…]

• If indeed upon some subsequent occasion you want, as an interested person, to refer it to the High Court, that is that’. [More…]

• Is it good enough for the Attorney-General to say in effect: You do not need this and if you think 1 am wrong, take it to the High Court’? [More…]

• It is the job of the Attorney-General to see that justice is done at all levels, not to stack up litigation for some contest at some future time in the High Court. [More…]

• I can recall the controversy that arose about a case in Papua New Guinea, I think- not in Australia- which reached the High Court of Australia and in which there had been an interpretation of an interpretation. [More…]

• He is reported in the ‘Advertiser’ of 5 July of this year as saying that South Australia will challenge the validity of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act in the High Court. [More…]

• Mr Dunstan said South Australia would be in an impossible situation unless the position, regarding the internal waters of the State in the gulfs and adjacent to Kangaroo Island and the atypical position of South Australia’s letters patent founding the province and declaring the territory of the State, were put to the High Court. [More…]

• South Australia had suggested to the Commonwealth Government that it should invite the States to join in a test case in the High Court, which could be done co-operatively, but it- the Commonwealth Government- has refused the suggestion ‘, he said. [More…]

• If there is some dissension as to whether the Bill is constitutional, I hope that the High Court will fix up that dispute. [More…]

• The most desirable way in which it could be resolved was for the Commonwealth Government to make that claim and for the matter then to be resolved by the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• By the attitude that we adopted officially last year to the question we made it easy for the Government to have the matter resolved by the High Court. [More…]

• No further progress can be made in this matter until this very difficult legal and constitutional question is resolved by the High Court of Australiathe question which we facilitated, by vote in the Senate last year, being put to the High Court. [More…]

• Since then the State of Queensland and I think a number of other States- I think somebody drew to my attention only the other day the fact that South Australia can be included in this category- have all joined in proceedings in the High Court of Australia to have determined the claim contained in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act. [More…]

• Presumably, within the next few months the High Court of Australia will hear the case and in due course give its judgment. [More…]

• Then the matter of whether the Commonwealth has the power over the area, whether the States have the power over the area or who has control over what areas will be resolved by the High Court judgment. [More…]

• But until that High Court judgment is obtained it is quite a futile exercise for the Commonwealth Parliament to be making any legislation in the area. [More…]

• We take the same view that if the Commonwealth establishes in the High Court the broad sovereignty over these areas, nevertheless although that would no doubt give the Commonwealth Parliament a power to legislate in these areas, whether it be in regard to mining or otherwise I will deal with some other aspects of that in a minute- we believe that it would be proper for mining laws in regard to the seabed to be passed essentially by the State parliaments. [More…]

• Having regard to what Justices of the High Court have saidand all witnesses who gave evidence on this aspect generally concurred- it would appear that the Commonwealth has the constitutional power to legislate under its external affairs power to give effect to international obligations. [More…]

• High Court the right of the Commonwealth to control all submerged lands around this continent. [More…]

• The Opposition was in accord with the report of the Senate Select Committee on Off-Shore Petroleum Resources in respect of a challenge to the High Court. [More…]

• The Labor Premier of South Australia, Mr Dunstan, disliked what the Australian Government had done and probably felt that the South Australian senators should at least have stood up for their State when the matter was before the Senate by saying that a challenge should be made in the High Court so that the matter could be resolved before this Government was allowed to bring in legislation which declared exclusive right over all off-shore mineral resources. [More…]

• We did so because we recognised that if the States were to take the Commonwealth legislation to the High Court as the Commonwealth Government anticipated they would, it would provide the forum where the matter could be decided and indicate where the sovereignty of the States ended and where the sovereignty of the Commonwealth began. [More…]

• I have heard that it is anticipated that the matter will come before the High Court as contested litigation within the next 6 months. [More…]

• When the matter comes before the High Court it is to be hoped that the High Court will be able to resolve the question in a way that answers that which has been a bugbear in this country ever since the issue arose some 13 or 14 years ago. [More…]

• I do not believe that either the Commonwealth or the States, irrespective of what the answer of the High Court might be, would have the ability or the complete control of all the relevant circumstances to impose a mining code or a set of rules without regard to the opinions and approaches and attitudes of the other party to the CommonwealthState compact. [More…]

• Irrespective of what is the outcome of the current High Court litigation, still the problem will not be solved until the States and the Commonwealth sit down around the table and work out their common program. [More…]

• I also understand, or I think I understand, that if the High Court challenge by the States to the Submerged Lands Bill does not succeed the Commonwealth will find itself in possession of a huge amount of submerged land for which it will have responsibility of management in relation to minerals and mineral exploration. [More…]

• Certainly the law is being challenged in the High Court. [More…]

• I cannot say specifically that the Commonwealth would do this or would do that in the event of the High Court making a decision in its favour. [More…]

• The High Court must first make its determination. [More…]

• Wright tells us, as if there were no other evidence presented, that it is ridiculous to pay the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia $45,000 per annum, which possibly is not as high as the salary paid to the pilot of a Boeing 747 jet aircraft. [More…]

• Who can put a work value on the ability of a judge of the High Court, as compared with that of a pilot? [More…]

• For example, I have heard that that old fashioned description of Parliament as ‘that high court of the realm’ is no longer valid. [More…]

• But in fact the people regard the Parliament as the high court of the realm and they know instinctively that in the final analysis all power and all authority within the Constitution is derived from the Parliament. [More…]

• The constitutional power of the Australian Parliament to enact legislation such as that contained in the Bill was clarified by the very important decision of the High Court in what is known as the Concrete Pipes Case. [More…]

• The new court is to replace two of the existing Federal courts, that is, the Australian Industrial Court and the Federal Court of Bankruptcy, and to take over some of the jurisdiction now exercised under laws made by this Parliament by the High Court and State Supreme Courts. [More…]

• A considerable range of Federal matters is now dealt with by the High Court and by the other Federal courts. [More…]

• Some Federal jurisdiction, such as appeals from the Commissioner of Patents and the Registrar of Trade Marks and the revocation of patents, is vested exclusively in the High Court. [More…]

• The High Court has made it clear that in investing State courts with federal jurisdiction, the Parliament must take those courts as it finds them. [More…]

• in reply-In replying briefly to Senator Marriott I wish to say that this motion has been framed in such a way because, as the honourable senator would know, certain proceedings are going on at present or are about to commence in the High Court of Australia concerning whether there should or should not be or can or cannot be a joint sitting of both Houses of the Parliament next week. [More…]

• Having taken the proposal for the Joint Sitting once to the High Court, it has even said it is going to take it there again and so deny the people their democratic rights. [More…]

• A further attempt was made in the past few days in the High Court of Australia to prevent the enactment of this Bill, along with the other 5 Bills, into law. [More…]

• I well recall Senator Wright saying so well in the debate on that occasion: If the Government would use the argument of stalling and obstructionism in the case of a committee which was to report in a fortnight, how would it describe seven High Court judges, in touch with one another, deliberating on one occasion for 15 months in order to reach a determination? [More…]

• We believe that the consistency of our record is well before the people and that when the Government lays before the High Court the arguments on constitutionality the High Court will be interested in reading the document as a whole. [More…]

• No doubt these will be tested in the High Court at the appropriate time. [More…]

• Probably the most historic change in the Constitution was that which occurred when the High Court ruled that there could be uniform taxation. [More…]

• When the amendment to the Constitution was passed, the High Court of Australia held that the requirement by the then Labor Government with regard to pharmaceutical benefits was an infringement of the provision of the Constitution relating to civil conscription. [More…]

• If that were upheld by the High Court as an infringement of the Constitution with regard to civil conscription, can members imagine what the High Court of Australia may say not so long ahead with regard to sessional doctors who, under the Hayden health scheme, will be required to deal with government in the way in which this form-filling-in government always requires? [More…]

• I wonder at the constitutional opportunities in the future for our High Court to deal with the implementation of the scheme as we are seeing it unfolding in this place. [More…]

• There has been litigation before the High Court. [More…]

• -This Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill will receive the support of this Joint Sitting and of the nation despite pending High Court litigation initiated by the supporters of vested interests who sit opposite. [More…]

• It will again be opposed in the High Court. [More…]

• He is used to taking matters to the High Court. [More…]

• He has said that if this Bill is carried at this Joint Sitting he will take it to the High Court, although he was unsuccessful in his previous application a few days ago. [More…]

• -Of course, he got involved in this High Court case because he was trying to dodge taxation. [More…]

• But this Bill, if it passes this Joint Sitting and the High Court, will give a government instrumentality enormous powers possessed by no other instrumentality, public or private. [More…]

• As to the principle of the Bill, the Liberal and Country Parties resurrected this area of principle from the moribund state, as it was referred to by Senator Everett yesterday, in which it had been left since the decision of the High Court in 1915. [More…]

• A brewery within the confines of Tasmania was alleged to be monopolising trade against Carlton and United Breweries Ltd. Of course, due to the comparative lack of purposeful matters to be considered, that was a test case in order to have constitutional questions determined in the High Court. [More…]

• And fortunately for the common sense of the country, the High Court said ‘Get on with the business of dealing with trading corporations. [More…]

• The High Court has applied that test to a contract tainted with illegality in the case of Thomas Brown and Sons Ltd v. Dean, which is reported in 1963 Argus Law Reports at page 378. [More…]

• Senator Wright, with his extraordinary memory, will conjure up in a moment the many cases which have come before the High Court of Australia and in which it has been held that a State Act fell because it was in conflict with a Federal regulation. [More…]

• I do not for one moment doubt that Senator Murphy himself must have some cause to wonder what the High Court would do with it. [More…]

• If it did, they would be able to go ad lib to the High Court and other Federal courts at great expense. [More…]

• Immediately this comes up against a Sale of Goods Act a constitutional question arises and for as long as the long pocket of Coles will last in the taking of appeals to the High Court it will be able to litigate such a fellow out of any access to justice. [More…]

• The Attorney-General will be familiar with the case of Rejfek and McElroy which is a decision within the last 10 years in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• It was a decision- the reference is in the Argus Law Reports of 1966, page 270- in which the full court of the High Court of Australia consisting of the Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick, Mr Justice Kitto, Mr Justice Taylor, Mr Justice Menzies and Mr Justice Windeyer delivered a unanimous judgment. [More…]

• The High Court said that in a civil action that standard was not the applicable standard. [More…]

• Senator Greenwood instanced a High Court case, but that is quite distinguishable. [More…]

• Nevertheless, the High Court will presumably keep the Minister in line if he transgresses the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth in these matters. [More…]

• That portion of the judgment of Sir Frederick Jordan has been referred to in decisions of the High Court, and in particular in James v. Robinson (1963), with approval, and is, I believe, the law applying in Australia. [More…]

• Is he also aware that the union subsequently has resolved to intimidate 6 building companies, which are currently in proceedings before the High Court of Australia, by means of bans and guerrilla-like stoppages, as the resolution of the Builders Labourers Federation communicated to the company has stated? [More…]

• Is he also aware that the intimidation has been successful and that the building companies are withdrawing from the High Court action? [More…]

• The Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggests that there has been intimidation in respect of proceedings in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• May I say this: proceedings were taken in the High Court of Australia by very large companies which have an organisation to look after their affairs. [More…]

• I have no doubt that if there had been some contempt of court the High Court would not accept it and the employers’ organisations which were concerned would take action. [More…]

• My question is directed to the Attorney-General and refers to an answer which he gave Senator Greenwood earlier today in respect of apparently successful intimidation by the Australian Builders Labourers Federation of some building contractors who had taken proceedings in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Currently there is a case involving this matter before the High Court. [More…]

• -Has the AttorneyGeneral read the newspaper account or otherwise been informed of the resolution passed yesterday by mass meetings of members of the Australian Builders Labourers Federation stating: ‘If the High Court decision goes against us we will carry out a campaign of guerilla action to compel the employers to negotiate with the Federation’? [More…]

• Thirdly, it is clearly the means whereby Tasmania was able to escape from the Grants Commission system to which it had been tied for some 41 years and, so far as smokers in Tasmania were concerned, it was the means whereby they did not, following the judgment of the High Court of Australia early this year, have to continue to pay the tax which had been imposed despite the opinion of the High Court. [More…]

• The third thing I mention simply for the sake of completeness but make no comment on is that the arrangement made between the Australian and Tasmanian Governments which has resulted in this legislation enabled the Tasmanian Government to put in mothballs the somewhat ill-fated tobacco tax legislation which caused so much controversy, at least after the High Court decision was given in February or March this year. [More…]

• -Is the AttorneyGeneral aware that, notwithstanding the current High Court challenge to the validity of the legislation which establishes the Petroleum and Minerals Authority, the Authority is proposing to expend the sum of $50m in this current year? [More…]

• If someone wishes to stop the operation of that legislation, it is open to him to see whether he can get an injunction against the operation of the legislation pending any determination by the High Court. [More…]

• It may be that in 2 years’ time Senator Greenwood can come back to this chamber and say: ‘Look, that legislation has now been to the High Court and the doubt which I expressed in the debate on the legislation as to its constitutional validity has now been resolved against the position adopted by the Labor Party’. [More…]

• But, of course, he will have that pleasure only if the legislation is given the opportunity of being tested in the High Court. [More…]

• My only reason for speaking was to encourage Senator Greenwood to convey that benign smile which he gave us in the Senate into constructive channels in urging on his State colleagues the necessity to complement this legislation as quickly as possible and, if necessary, to enable the High Court to deal with the legislation. [More…]

• The combination of the interpretation of section (5)1 (xxxv) and the decision of the High Court in the Jumbunna case in 1 909 sustained all organisations of a Federal character. [More…]

• It is a bold step and one in which Mr Justice Sweeney may well be right in saying that he believes the Commonwealth has that power, but it is clearly an area in which doubt does exist and will exist until at some time in the future the High Court is called upon to make some adjudication. [More…]

• I have not much doubt that if any attempt were made in certain union areas to exercise that power the validity of the section of the Bill which gives to the Commission that power would be taken fairly quickly to the High Court. [More…]

• But is that a reason why we should do nothing until the High Court does something? [More…]

• He said that no doubt there will be some uncertainty about the constitutionality of this solution until the High Court passes on the matter. [More…]

• He must know that the High Court does not pass on these matters in a vacuum. [More…]

• It does not seem to me to be a bad starting point to push this case up to the High Court which perhaps will let us know whether it stands up. [More…]

• Probably any advice which any government received as to whether or not the Commonwealth had the power to enact this legislation is advice which would have some element of uncertainty about it until such time as the High Court was called upon to adjudicate. [More…]

• There is a relationship of scale with the site of the proposed High Court building as the Parliament building is slightly elevated above that site. [More…]

• What I am putting is that the parliament building should relate to the High Court building and to the other government buildings in a proper way and not in a way which symbolises perhaps the aspirations of Mussolini rather than the aspirations of Gough Whitlam or Bill Snedden. [More…]

• So far as the standard of proof of adultery is concerned Briginshaw’s case- which perhaps is the most well known- and a number of other subsequent cases laid down that the standard, so the High Court determined, was to be that of the ordinary civil jurisdiction but subject to the rule of prudence, that a court should act with caution before finding such a ground established. [More…]

• But neither the House of Lords on appeal nor the High Court of Australia, in a case that went to that court, was willing to accept Lord Denning ‘s principle. [More…]

• I hope that the Government will look to the fact that local facilities are much more accessible to people than a room tucked away in the High Court in the middle of Melbourne. [More…]

• Is the AttorneyGeneral aware of the fact that it does not appear that the High Court will be commencing to hear the question to determine the ownership of the continental shelf and the sea bed until early next year and that it may well be this time next year before any resolution of the question of sovereignty is made? [More…]

• In view of the severe effect that this uncertainty and the policy of the Minister for Minerals and Energy is having on the program of oil exploration, will the Government agree to carry on the permits under the existing legislation, or can the Attorney-General in any way expedite the High Court hearing and the resolution of the matter? [More…]

• The fact is that there is a challenge to the legislation in the High Court. [More…]

• The Government is, of course, in the hands of the High Court of Australia as to when the matters will be heard and when any judgments will be given. [More…]

• There have been, of course, the efforts- I would regard them as strained attempts- to invoke a Commonwealth power to justify legislation where on the face of it there is no Commonwealth power, but that is a matter of by-passing the Constitution for which ultimately the High Court of Australia is the guardian. [More…]

• The question of the interpretation of the Constitution as to what revenue or moneys should be considered as falling in the category ‘ for the ordinary annual services of the Government’ has since Federation been regarded not as a matter for the Government’s interpretation or for that of the High Court but rather as a matter to be decided by the Parliament. [More…]

• It is a matter that has bedevilled the Senate from 1901 onwards, including several references in the High Court to the meaning of those words. [More…]

• I refer to the answer he gave to a question I asked yesterday concerning the delay which seems to be occurring in the High Court of Australia, particularly in its consideration of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act and other major constitutional Acts that are being challenged in that Court. [More…]

• Can any further appeal be made to the High Court to hear these cases at an earlier stage or can action be taken to increase the size of the Court or something of that sort? [More…]

• As I indicated yesterday, the 6 State governments and the Australian Government joined in the approach to the High Court of Australia seeking to have the seas and submerged lands legislation question determined expeditiously. [More…]

• We are also involved in three other elements of the Constitution because, constitutionally, applications can be changed by the judicial judgment of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The Constitution charges the High Court with that authority. [More…]

• I do not know how this problem can be resolved if the Senate is of the opinion that such a court should be established, but I urge the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) to consider the problems with which the Commonwealth Government was faced after the High Court decisions of Knight v. Knight and Kotzis v. Kotzis in 1970, because the result of those High Court decisions was that awards of maintenance and awards of custody made by commissioners of Supreme Courts who had been unconstitutionally invested with a jurisdiction which the High Court declared they did not have, were orders and awards without any valid operation. [More…]

• If in some way this issue as to whether there is constitutional power can be raised for consideration before it is acted upon- supposing that the clauses go through- I think that a lot of the problems in the future can be resolved, because it would be absolutely disastrous to have a family court established as a Commonwealth court of record in which the decisions made by that court were not sustained by the High Court. [More…]

• We ought to have one in Australia which is consonant with our constitutional obligations and divisions of power as determined by the High Court. [More…]

• It could be some 20, 30 or 50 extra judges of the Commonwealth arena all appointed for life, and if ultimately they should be given some powers which are not judicial powers- this is an aesthetic problem which the High Court has dealt with over the years- then we are creating enormous problems in this country. [More…]

• Now that the Authority has been established the Minister says that the Government is unable to get on with the job because of challenges in the High Court of Australia to the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill, which claims sovereignty by the Commonwealth over the continental shelf, and also to the Petroleum and Minerals Authority itself. [More…]

• Is it saying, as it said and did in relation to Ampol Petroleum Ltd, that a State government is not entitled to exercise its legal rights and should not be exercising them, should not be appealing to the High Court and challenging legislation which it believes is not constitutionally valid? [More…]

• As I have said, there is every reason why the Government, and the Minister for Minerals and Energy in particular, should agree to the renewal of these permits and then, whatever the outcome of the litigation in the High Court, the respective rights of the Commonwealth Government and the State governments can be adjusted between themselves. [More…]

• I mentioned last week in questions to Senator Murphy that the High Court appears to be delaying the hearing of these cases. [More…]

• There seems to be no indication that the High Court is likely to commence hearing them until next year. [More…]

• That is absurd because there is no reason agreements should not be made between the governments to enable this work to be done and the respective rights of the State Government and the Commonwealth Government can then be resolved in the High Court in due course. [More…]

• It is quite ridiculous to say that none of this work can go on until the High Court resolves the legal issues of who has the actual sovereignty over the off-shore areas. [More…]

• Legislation in respect of this Act was introduced in October of 1971 in an endeavour to overcome the effects of 2 High Court decisions. [More…]

• For those who have any familiarity with this section of law or can remember the legislation, the High Court decisions were Knight v. Knight and Kotis v. Kotis. [More…]

• The essential core of the difficulty in the 2 decisions of Knight v. Knight and Kotsis v. Kotsis was that decisions had been made by a commissioner of the court or a registrar of the court and the High Court had held that those 2 officers did not have the power to make the decrees. [More…]

• It has been adverted to by the High Court. [More…]

• What the High Court has said in these areas ought not to be ignored. [More…]

• The High Court, within the last 15 years, has had occasion- I think this was the only occasion the High Court has looked at these powers- to decide, to determine or to say something as to what is the ambit of those powers. [More…]

• I think it ought to be recalled that in one of those cases, the State of Victoria v. the Commonwealth, as to the meaning of the Commonwealth’s power to make laws with respect to marriage, the High Court divided four to three on, I think, two or three of the fundamental questions. [More…]

• I only ask the Senate to bear in mind that if 7 judges of the High Court would divide in that proportion on that issue we have some idea of the niceties of interpretation which are involved and the limit which must be imposed upon the Commonwealth power as to marriage. [More…]

• I suggest that there is very little reason for thinking that these powers will be denied by application to the High Court, and we should not fear to tread in the directions in which this Bill is pointed and in which common family law should prevail. [More…]

• Senator Greenwood pointed out that in a previous enactment an error was made, according to the High Court. [More…]

• But I do not know what legal opinions they had, how they overcame the problems which are quite apparent in the decisions of the High Court and on what assumptions they proceeded. [More…]

• Certainly the view that the Commonwealth has not exhausted its constitutional power in this area finds support from the High Court. [More…]

• In the Marriage Act case in which the High Court considered questions involving the extent of the marriage power Justice Taylor was inclined to give a wide interpretation to the term “marriage’, as was Justice Menzies who said: ‘The power must extend to the mutual rights and the obligations of spouses unless it be that State laws could deprive that marriage, according to Commonwealth law, of any legal significance except for Commonwealth purposes. [More…]

• If it is a question of jurisdiction it could be dealt with and, if necessary, taken to a High Court if in some of these marginal areas about which he speaks some difficulties arise. [More…]

• I said then, and I think it is indisputable, that judges of a Commonwealth court, be it a Superior Court, be it the High Court, be it the Industrial Court or be it a Family Court, are appointed for life. [More…]

• As I indicated in my answer to the first question, I was relying on my recollection and, as I indicated when answering the second question, I was not to be seen as in any way whatever expressing criticism of the High Court. [More…]

• It has since been drawn to my attention that the answers read together may suggest that the High Court was asked to fix a date for the hearing of the litigation this year. [More…]

• There will be a right of appeal to the High Court on any question of law involved in a decision of a board of review. [More…]

• There are currently 7 judges of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• he is or has been a Judge of another court created by the Parliament or of a court of a State or has been enrolled as a legal practitioner of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory for not less than 5 years; and [More…]

• A judge shall, before proceeding to discharge the duties of his office, take, before the Chief Justice or a Justice of the High Court of Australia or a Judge of the Family Court or of another court created by the Parliament, an oath or affirmation in the following form: [More…]

• Subject to this and any other Act, the Family Court has the same power to punish contempts of its power and authority as is possessed by the High Court in respect of contempts of the High Court. [More…]

• In so far as the provisions applicable in accordance with sub-section ( 1 ) are insufficient, the Rules of the High Court, as in force for the time being, apply, mutatis mutandis, so far as they are capable of application and subject to any directions of the Court or a Judge, to the practice and procedure of the Court. [More…]

• In so far as the provisions applicable in accordance with sub-section ( 1 ) are insufficient, the Rules of the High Court, as in force for the time being, apply, mutatis mutandis, so far as they are capable of application and subject to any directions of the Court or a Judge, to the practice and procedure of the Court. [More…]

• I do not think the High Court is suitable in any way to do this and I do not think that these matters should be dealt with by Full Courts comprised only within each State of Family Court judges within that State. [More…]

• The amendment to section 154 is designed to remedy a deficiency revealed by a recent High Court decision. [More…]

• As I indicated in my answer to the first question, 1 was relying on my recollection and, as I indicated when answering the second question, I was not to be seen in any way whatever as expressing criticism ofthe High Court. [More…]

• It has since been drawn to my attention that the answers read together may suggest that the High Court was asked to fix a date for the hearing of the litigation this year. [More…]

• I am not familiar with the cases which may have been heard in the High Court of Australia in the last year or two. [More…]

• But I would have thought that, even if in the last 1 2 months or 2 years there has been some High Court decision which says that the principles relating to the ground of desertion now apply to the ground of separation, there is sufficient reason in the origin of this practice for it not to be regarded as being obligatory upon the Senate to make that the law for the future. [More…]

• I interpolate that that is not the Common Law position, and indeed the issue of whether or not that is the law is one in which the High Court has decided precisely the opposite in its only decision on this question in Main v. Main under the Western Australian legislation and therefore that particular assertion is wrong. [More…]

• I think it is relevant because it takes into account, first of all, the High Court of Australia and then the Court of Appeal in England. [More…]

• Notwithstanding anything contained in the Judiciary Act 1903-1973, an appeal does not lie to the High Court, except by special leave ofthe High Court, from a judgment, decree or order of the Supreme Court of a State given or made under this Act, whether in the exercise of original or appellate jurisdiction [More…]

• Notwithstanding anything contained in the Judiciary Act 1903-1973, an appeal doth not lie to the High Court from a judgment, decree or order of a court exercising jurisdiction under this Act, whether original or appellate, except- [More…]

• by special leave ofthe High Court; or [More…]

• Insert the following new clause: 17c A Judge shall, before proceeding to discharge the duties of his office, take, before the Chief Justice or a Justice of the High Court of Australia or a Judge of the Family Court or of another court created by the Parliament, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form in the Schedule to the Constitution and also an oath or affirmation in the following form- [More…]

• A judge shall, before proceeding to discharge the duties of his office, take, before the Chief Justice or a Justice of the High Court of Australia or a Judge of the Family Court or of another court created by the Parliament, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form in the schedule to the Constitution and also an oath or affirmation in the following form: [More…]

• I have been reminded that the Justices of the High Court of Australia do not have to say anything about the ‘heirs and successors according to law’- it is just not in their oath. [More…]

• It is not for me to say it adopted the points system, but I assure the honourable senator that if it does not accept the points system I will take action under section 85 to suspend or revoke the licence and then we will have it tested in the High Court or wherever it might be. [More…]

• There will be a right of appeal to the High Court on any question of law involved in a decision of a board of review. [More…]

• Section 64 of the Act provides that the Australian High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from all judgments, decrees, orders and sentences of a Full Court of the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea. [More…]

• The remaining paragraphs relate to judges of the Supreme Court; the preservation of proceedings commenced in that Court before transfer; preservation of rules of court; preservation of certain rights of appeal to the High Court and the preservation of warrants given by the Governor-General under Section 73 (2) in respect of persons sentenced to death. [More…]

• Equally I say as a personal view that the corporation power as decided by the High Court some 2 years ago undoubtedly gives to the Commonwealth Government the power to control prices and indeed wages in regard to corporations and if I am right- I believe a search ofthe Attorney-General’s records will show that a former Solicitor-General has held that view- the Commonwealth Government has the power today to act on prices and wages in corporations and does not need any referendum and does not need any reference of power. [More…]

• As honourable senators know, at the moment foundations and all sorts of things have been started on the High Court building. [More…]

• -The Parliamentary Counsel and the NCDC assure me this amendment will get them out of their problems and that it will allow the High Court and the associated works for which contracts have been let and which are in being to be proceeded with but in future any other proposal will have to come back to the Parliament. [More…]

• Can Senator Withers or Senator Poyser tell us what other buildings, apart from the High Court, have reached the documentation stage? [More…]

• I was assured by the Chairman of the National Capital Development Commission- I take his word for it- that clause 5 applies only to the High Court. [More…]

• As I understand Mr Powell, at present the only building affected is the High Court building. [More…]

• The building of the National Gallery has commenced and the building of the High Court will commence in February. [More…]

• I should think that would keep many silks and many High Court judges busy for many years. [More…]

• It seeks power over coastal areas and no doubt the High Court will have a lot to say about that. [More…]

• The sovereignty over that area is to be determined by the High Court of Australia, hopefully within the next 12 months. [More…]

• In the opinion of the Opposition, if a national park was located within the boundaries of a State- there may well be a Commonwealth national park created in a State- and the Commonwealth Government permitted mining to take place in such a national park, the proper mining laws to apply would be the laws of the State, in the same way as this Parliament applied State laws to Commonwealth places a few years ago when the High Court held that State laws did not apply of their own force. [More…]

• If we are to amend the Bill here in order to omit something which may be invalid- if that is the reason for doing it- then we are usurping the function of the High Court and there is no real need to go into the matter here. [More…]

• The Victorian legislation which will be to a large extent duplicated by this legislation- indeed, it may even be superseded, but ultimately that is for the High Court to decide- indicates that there is an Environment Protection Authority and an Environment Appeals Board which can examine whether projects in Victoria are consistent with what is required for the protection of the environment. [More…]

• I notice also that there are provisions contained in this Bill which give to the commissioners the protection or immunities of a High Court judge without imposing upon them the obligations of judicial office. [More…]

• Prior to that we had the Joint Sitting case in the High Court. [More…]

• I ought to have been at a ceremony in the High Court for the late Sir Douglas Menzies but I thought that honourable senators opposite might have some questions to address to me so I stayed here yet the Deputy Leader of the Opposition chose not to address questions to me. [More…]

• I inform the Senate of the following changes which have been made in the Ministry following the appointment of the Honourable L. K. Murphy, Q.C, as a Justice of the High Court: Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Agriculture, Senator the Honourable K. S. Wriedt; Attorney- General and Minister for Customs and Excise, the Honourable Kep Enderby; Minister for Manufacturing Industry, Senator the Honourable Jim McClelland. [More…]

• I refer to the challenge in the High Court to the validity of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Act, which I understand is to be heard shortly, and the appointment to that Court of the former Attorney-General, the then Senator Murphy. [More…]

• In these circumstances I ask: Will the Government instruct its counsel appearing before the High Court in this case to raise objections or to support any objections which may be raised regarding the propriety of Mr Murphy sitting as a judge on the hearing of that challenge? [More…]

• Sir Garfield Barwick, the Chief Justice of the High Court, also sat and adjudicated on matters which had been considered in this Parliament when he was Attorney-General. [More…]

• -Did Lionel Keith Murphy consult his one million electors and ask their permission to go to the High Court? [More…]

• -He was elected to the Senate, but he was chosen by the Government to accept a judicial post and he accepted that judicial post, as other members of the present High Court of Australia did. [More…]

• There is a destruction of confidence and I do not believe that that sort of confidence has been helped in any way by the addition to the High Court by this Government of Mr Murphy, for in doing this has the Government not in fact sent one of its members not only to the High Court but to the High Court to sit in judgment over problems of legislation which he has virtually fostered and promoted in the Government? [More…]

• In this he is supported by Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick who himself was a distinguished practitioner of the political arts, who went on to high office in the High Court and who has said on more than one occasion that political experience, far from disqualifying a lawyer from the exercise of his judicial functions, adds spice and flavour to his consideration of the problems that come before him. [More…]

• The fact that he has been in the hurly burly of politics will in no way diminish his capacity to fulfil his role in the way that I believe most of the learned judges of the High Court have fulfilled their duties. [More…]

• Mr Acting Deputy President, various Acts passed through this Parliament are now residing in the High Court of Australia under challenge by the States of Australia because those Acts were devised by the Commonwealth Government to circumvent what have been the accepted and traditional roles of State Governments in the exercise of their elected responsibilities. [More…]

• The other aspect of Senator Scott’s speech to which I wish to refer- I do not believe that a person of the lustre of ex-Senator Murphy should be permitted to be reviled in this way- was the snide manner in which he attacked the propriety of the appointment of ex-Senator Murphy and his suitability to be appointed to the Bench of the High Court. [More…]

• I should like to refer on this issue to what was said by the present Leader of the Opposition, Mr Snedden, when he was AttorneyGeneral in 1 964 on the occasion of the swearingin of the present Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick. [More…]

• The present Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick, in a tribute to the late Sir John Latham who died on the 25 July 1964, referred to the very extensive political career of Sir John Latham, who as honourable senators know was appointed directly from Attorney-Generalship of the Commonwealth by the Government of which he was a member to the Chief Justiceship ofthe High Court in 1935. [More…]

• If there was that gap before his appointment to the High Court- I did not think there was- it makes no difference whatsoever to the point that was made by Mr Snedden in 1964 and by Sir Garfield Barwick in 1965. [More…]

• The point is that the High Court of Australia has been studded with persons who have moved directly from high political office to the Bench of that court. [More…]

• To my mind that argument ignores the fact that the courts are interpreting matters, so far as the High Court is concerned, of extreme constitutional and social concern. [More…]

• 1 never had the privilege of appearing against former Senator Murphy or with him, but when his career at the Bar is examined it would, I believe be fair to say that few judges who have been appointed to the High Court during the period of three-quarters of a century have had anything like the breadth of experience at the Bar that former Senator Murphy has had. [More…]

• I must conclude, but before doing so I wish to refer to some of the personal qualities of the former Senator Murphy which in my judgment will make him an adornment to the High Court Bench. [More…]

• It is sad that the Party of Sir Robert Menzies which in 1 95 1 , defeated on the Communist Party Dissolution Bill by the decision of the High Court, took appropriate steps constitutionallysteps which a Party in that position should take- and sought a referendum to obtain power in connection with that issue. [More…]

• When one comes to the question of the appointment to the High Court which has been made, again a political element enters into that. [More…]

• It has been said in the course of this debate and by Mr Lewis, the New South Wales Premier, that perhaps the action was justified because Lionel Murphy who was appointed from this place to the High Court was not, as Mr Lewis put it, of sufficient juristic ability to be appointed to such an office. [More…]

• This is the first time in the history of the political appointment of a High Court judge that such appointment has become in debate the subject of criticism by honourable senators opposite. [More…]

• Sir Magnus, I said in connection with a High Court appointment. [More…]

• But the point I simply make, in case Sir Magnus is correct, is that this is the first time since the appointment of Dr Evatt to the High Court in the early 1 930s that a political appointment from this side of Parliament has been the subject of criticism here by honourable senators opposite. [More…]

• That in itself is a qualification for a High Court appointment, quite apart from Senator Murphy’s distinguished career as a lawyer and advocate. [More…]

• I think it is most important that that should be said in this chamber when one considers his appointment to the High Court. [More…]

• But if I go further and say that it would be fair in political discussion for people to be anxious as to the purpose of the appointment- that the Attorney-General who promoted certain constitutional claims which are being contested by the States should be translated from the AttorneyGeneralship to the High Court for the purpose of giving weight in the adjudication o.” [More…]

• If an appointment to the High Court is for the purpose of giving strength to a judicial position by the participation of an Attorney-General who has already advised on highly important constitutional matters- I do not say that is the position, I previously referred to it by way of explanationif the nominee of a political party was on other than political grounds completely unacceptable to the big majority of the members of the State Houses, if a member of a political party had changed his political allegiance during his membership of the Senate or if he were a sole independent person in the Senate who had no right to have any political succession attributed to him, the practice is ill defined and demands the judgment of those responsible for its application. [More…]

• I do not want to talk for more than a few sentences o’n the propriety of the appointment of Mr Justice Murphy to the High Court. [More…]

• He raised the question of the propriety of Mr Justice Murphy’s appointment to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• During this debate or any other debate, including debates on any matters which will come before the High Court, there has not been any reference by Labor senators to the previous political background of Sir Garfield Barwick. [More…]

• Once we commence the course advocated by Mr Lewis and by Senator Scott of attempting to discredit people who have been appointed to a court, whether it is the High Court or any other court, we undermine that loyalty to those who interpret the laws of this country about which people such as Senator Wright have boasted in the past. [More…]

• The Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Douglas McClelland) was the first to raise the probity of so-called political appointments to the High Court. [More…]

• He was elected to the Senate, but he was chosen by the Government to accept a judicial post and he accepted that judicial post, as other members of the present High Court of Australia did. [More…]

• He accused Opposition senators of posturing and then entered into a discussion of a particular appointment to the High Court by accusing the Opposition of being the first to raise it. [More…]

• That has been a particularly serious factor for the States because not only by this arrangement of uniform taxation had they been excluded from imposing income tax- of course, that is not only personal income tax but also company tax- but also by the Constitution they have been precluded at all times from raising tax in the nature of excise, the definition of which the High Court has interpreted quite widely. [More…]

• But any effort of that sort on the pan of the States may run the risk of being struck down by the High Court. [More…]

• There is an opening, but what 1 am saying is that the States have not been prepared to experiment with these types of taxes because they have had so many failures when cases have been taken to the High Court over the years. [More…]

• This situation gives the States no rights of their own in the total revenues which are raised in Australia, despite the fact that the States have been excluded in one case by the Constitution and in another case by policies of the Government and decisions of the High Court from the 2 major sources of public revenue and the 2 sources which would provide the greatest form of growth in public revenue. [More…]

• Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to statements claiming that the appointment of former Senator Murphy to the High Court has not created a casual vacancy in the proper sense of the word but rather a political vacancy which should be filled by a political appointment? [More…]

• In 1900 John Quick and Robert Garran- later Sir John Quick and Sir Robert Garran- who were the first, and who are among the most distinguished, commentators on the Constitution, described the High Court of Australia as ‘the crown and apex, not only of the judicial system of the Commonwealth, but of the judicial systems of the States as well. ‘ [More…]

• It is true that, for reasons peculiar to the circumstances of the time, the Constitution did not initially and automatically close off the avenue of appeals from Australian Courts, including the High Court, to Her Majesty in Council. [More…]

• But the Constitution gave the plainest of indications that the High Court was expected to become the final court of appeal from all Australian courts in all Australian matters. [More…]

• In 1968, this Parliament passed an act which was supported by the Australian Labor Party and which was described by its sponsor as an historic step towards the establishment of the High Court as the final court of appeal for Australia. [More…]

• Appeals from the High Court in constitutional and other federal matters have been abolished. [More…]

• Appeals from the High Court involving the so-called inter se questions cannot be brought to the Privy Council without a certificate of the High Court, and no certificate has been granted since 1912. [More…]

• Now, almost 75 years from the enactment of the Constitution, Parliament is being asked to take the 2 remaining steps needed to make the High Court of Australia the final court of appeal for Australia in Australian matters. [More…]

• One Bill-the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Bill- takes to its logical conclusion, in so far as appeals from the High Court are concerned, the legislation passed in 1968. [More…]

• The effect of the Bill is to preclude appeals from the High Court in matters of a wholly state character. [More…]

• The Government of the time did not accept the amendment- not because it did not agree with it but because, as I apprehend, it considered that there might be some litigants from some States who might want to avoid the High Court and take appeals direct to the Privy Council. [More…]

• I want honourable senators to understand that this Bill, like the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Bill, is a Bill devoted to making the High Court Australia’s final court of appeal. [More…]

• Any dispute between the Federal Government and a State government or any dispute between any of the State governments has to go to the High Court. [More…]

• It cannot go beyond the High Court unless it involves an inter se question and even then only with a certificate of the High Court. [More…]

• There are those who apparently will resort to all kinds of devices to by-pass the High Court. [More…]

• The High Court of Australia is no ordinary court. [More…]

• From the beginning- that is to say, by force of the Constitution itself- the High Court was given jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from the Supreme Courts of the States. [More…]

• The High Court was not confined, as is the Supreme Court of the United States of America, to federal or constitutional cases. [More…]

• Time and time again the quality of the justices of the High Court and the excellence of their legal learning have been extolled by English-speaking lawyersindeed, by members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. [More…]

• I put Australian lawyers, as epitomised for instance in the judges of the High Court, as second to none and I mean this meed of praise in absolute terms, that is, making no allowance whatever for the relative size in the populations of the countries concerned. [More…]

• Today, the High Court of Australia has a reputation as one of the great common law courts of the world and I should like, on this occasion, to pay a tribute to the leader of it who brought it to that high pinnacle of fame and who is still with us, Sir Owen Dixon. [More…]

• His judgments in the High Court came to be very widely esteemed throughout the English-speaking world. [More…]

• Sir Henry Bolte, when Premier of Victoria, gave as his reason for wanting to retain appeals to the Privy Council that Victoria was not satisfied with the High Court. [More…]

• It apparently annoyed him that the High Court intervened the day before Robert Peter Tait was to be executed in 1 96 1 and granted a stay of execution and that as a consequence the Victorian Government had to commute Tait’s sentence of death to life imprisonment. [More…]

• The actions of the Queensland Premier in repeatedly asking the British Government to seek advisory opinions from the Privy Council indicate only too clearly his desire to avoid the High Court. [More…]

• Nothing more clearly underlines his lack of respect for the High Court. [More…]

• Thirteen of the thirtyone justices who have served on the High Court were appointed from State Supreme Courts. [More…]

• The Privy Council Appeals Abolition Bill will have the effect of abolishing appeals from Australian courts, including courts of a State, other than the High Court. [More…]

• The Bill will also exclude approaches being made for advisory opinions of the Privy Council under legislation of the early 19th century- the Judicial Committee Act 1 833- to which certain State governments have endeavoured to have resort, as a means of bypassing the High Court, over the past three years. [More…]

• Bill in the High Court. [More…]

• It is necessary to get rid of the procedures for obtaining advisory opinions from the Privy Council because of the way in which certain States have endeavoured to use those procedures in order to by-pass, or to embarrass, the High Court. [More…]

• Now, these were questions that were certain to come before the High Court- and in fact are presently awaiting determination by the High Court. [More…]

• Moreover, they were inter se questions on which no appeal could be made to the Privy Council from the High Court without the High Court’s approval. [More…]

• An advisory opinion from the Privy Council could not have precluded litigation before the High Court. [More…]

• Any advisory opinion from the Privy Council which might have been at variance with the decision of the High Court one assumes could not have prevailed against the decision, the judgment of the High Court. [More…]

• This was not a question where governments alone would be concerned because matters concerning rights to the seabed so far have come to the High Court for decisiondecisions have been given- not at the instance of the Federal Government or of any State government, but at the instance of private citizens. [More…]

• Even if governments had agreed to request the British Government to recommend to the Queen of Britain that she seek an advisory opinion from the British Privy Council, it would not have precluded litigation before the High Court and an advisory opinion from the Privy Council would not have prevailed against a judgment of the High Court. [More…]

• The right honourable gentleman perceived immediately that the Tasmanian proposal involved the by-passing of the High Court and he indicated the proposal had no support from his Government. [More…]

• The appropriate tribunal to determine those questions was the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The Australian Government has challenged the validity of the proposed reference in the High Court. [More…]

• The High Court must not be by-passed. [More…]

• The Prime Minister has since had discussions with the United Kingdom Prime Minister and it has been decided that the best course to resolve these issues is to reintroduce the Bill, and to give every opportunity for questions as to its validity to be raised in the High Court of Australia, in accordance with proper constitutional processes. [More…]

• Mr President, I have spent some time in describing the events of the past 3 years because I believe it is important that all honourable senators should be aware of the devices that have been resorted to by some States to avoid the High Court-in 1972, in 1973, in 1974-and of the distortions of the Australian Government’s proposals. [More…]

• Our concern is that this Parliament should do everything in its power to complete the process of making the High Court of Australia Australia’s final court of appeal from all Australian courts. [More…]

• All I say to the Minister for Foreign Affairs is that he will not be able to find the refuge of another former Minister who did not answer questions; he is not qualified to go to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The High Court of Australia has made it clear on a number of occasions that the ability of the Commonwealth to impose limitations on the States by the use of section 96 is virtually unfettered. [More…]

• The State of Victoria challenged the validity of that condition and the High Court dismissed the challenge. [More…]

• That argument was simply rejected by the High Court. [More…]

• The first is that the Opposition accepts the general principle that the High Court ought to be the final court of appeal in Australia. [More…]

• The Opposition’s general attitude is that on those matters which are within the federal power and which are matters of federal jurisdiction we should look to the High Court, as a court composed of Australians and existing within Australia, as the final body to which legal matters should be taken. [More…]

• Whilst some of those matters do go to the Privy Council from the High Court, most of them ordinarily would go from the State Supreme Courts. [More…]

• As I have suggested, if the Opposition’s view is to prevail, we would like to see the High Court of Australia as the final court of appeal in Australia. [More…]

• From my researches, I think there have been some 20 appeals in the last four or five years from either the High Court or the State Supreme Courts which did not encompass federal matters or matters which were not part of federal jurisdiction. [More…]

• Of course, those appeals may go from the decisions of State Supreme Courts or from the High Court, and it is the function of this Bill to deal with the appeals from the Supreme Courts. [More…]

• Under the Constitution, the High Court is the sole voice in deteriming whether matters which affect the relations of the State and the Commonwealth inter se may be taken to the Privy Council and it is generally thought that the High Court, in the reasonings which it has used in recent years, would not grant the certificate which would enable that matter to be taken to the Privy Council. [More…]

• The then Opposition Party introduced a Bill in 1968 which sought to limit effectively the right of appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council and the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, spoke on that measure in the House of Representatives. [More…]

• I think that that second role is appropriate to the High Court and to no one else. [More…]

• He said in his second reading speech that if the question of the legislative competence of the Parliament to deal with this matter had to be determined, then it was appropriately a matter to be dealt with by the High Court and the Government was prepared for that to happen. [More…]

• There are potentially grave difficulties of confusing interpretations between the Privy Council and the High Court of Australia on a variety of issues which may go either to the High Court or to the Privy Council. [More…]

• The suggestion that appeals should continue to go to the Privy Council is in some way a reflection on the High Court of Australia, although I know that Senator Greenwood, for one, would not intend it to be so regarded. [More…]

• To say at this stage that we are still not prepared to leave appeals in the hands of the High Court for reasons which date back to 1900, and in 1900 were foreseen by Deakin as sources of possible problems in the future, is in effect to reflect adversely on that Court as a national institution. [More…]

• That leaves the question of the High Court itself and the view which is put forward that somehow this legislation is an infringement of State rights. [More…]

• If the British connection was the important factor the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Bill would also have been opposed. [More…]

• The fundamental issue that arises in this debate is simply whether the Opposition is sincere in opposing this Bill but, as I understand it, agreeing to the next Bill which will abolish appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council, or whether the Opposition is simply using these 2 pieces of legislation, particularly this one, as a vehicle for a political attack upon the Government. [More…]

• The Opposition cannot have it both ways so far as the intrinsic merits of this legislation are concerned because the Opposition has said in another place, and again tonight, that it considers that the High Court should be the final court of appeal within Australia. [More…]

• If the Bill is constitutionally invalid- in other words, if there has been an invasion of a legal right- then it achieves nothing because one does not doubt that action would be taken by at least the State of Queensland and probably other States to challenge the validity of it in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• I would have thought that if the Opposition was sincere in saying that appeals to the Privy Council ought to be abolished, that the High Court ought to be the final court of appeal within Australia, then it would have supported this Bill albeit expressing whatever reservations it might have as to its constitutional validity. [More…]

• As I have said before, if this legislation transcends constitutional power it will be struck down by the High Court in the proper and normal way. [More…]

• The first was that there should be no appeal from a decision of the High Court on a matter involving the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth, and those of any State or States without the certificate of the High Court. [More…]

• The second manner in which limitation was imposed was the provision in the final paragraph of section 74 that Parliament could make laws limiting the matters in which special leave of appeal from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council could be asked pursuant to the exercise of the royal prerogative. [More…]

• The High Court took a significant step, I think it was in 1 943, when it decided that it would not be bound by decisions of the Privy Council. [More…]

• Since 1942 when the Statute of Westminster was adopted and other developments by the High Court a situation has been reached where the High Court is regarded throughout the common law world as one of the most competent courts that any common law system has ever known. [More…]

• One should perhaps add, in view of contemporary criticism: Despite the fact that 6 Attorneys-General have been appointed to the High Court from the Australian Parliament. [More…]

• It went through the full range of the Tasmanian Supreme Court and eventually reached the High Court where learned judgments were delivered which indicated very clearly the measure of liability of the Hydro-Electric Commission. [More…]

• Fortunately, wiser counsel prevailed when there was a change of government and the Hydro-Electric Commission was persuaded to put its very big file away, pay the damages, read the High Court’s judgment again if it was in doubt as to what the measure of its liability generally was, and get on with the business of generating hydro-electric power. [More…]

• But since Senator Missen interjects with a somewhat emotive reference to convicted murderers I would answer him by saying that his own Party agrees that the High Court of Australia should be the final court of appeal in all cases, be they murder cases or otherwise, so what is the relevance of the interjection? [More…]

• With those guidelines, sincere people desiring to expose but not to expand the true constitutional limits would say: ‘When Federation was established we established a High Court and a federal judiciary’, which in relation to the next Bill to be debated by the Senate I shall try to demonstrate that the Government is seeking to confuse and condemn the country by exploitation ‘but in the State sphere we maintained the Supreme Courts, the State judiciaries, the State Constitutions, the State powers and the State laws’. [More…]

• The point is that we would be trespassing upon the State jurisdiction if we were to put forward a request and consent in the name of the Commonwealth Parliament on a matter which is peculiarly within the State jurisdiction, but it is entirely within our right to put forward a request and consent to abolish an appeal absolutely from the High Court or the Federal judiciary because that is our responsibility and within our sphere. [More…]

• He started off by saying that the Opposition accepts the general principle that the High Court should be the final court of appeal in Australia. [More…]

• This sits oddly with his alleged reverence to the standing of the High Court. [More…]

• If there is some doubt as to the constitutional power of the Australian Parliament to pass this legislation and if Senator Greenwood holds the High Court in such reverence, why is he so reluctant to allow the High Court to decide this matter? [More…]

• The fact of the matter is that some of the State governments are attempting to bypass the High Court which Senator Greenwood constantly claims to hold in such reverence. [More…]

• I suggest that this is an insult to the High Court. [More…]

• What the Bill does is to make the High Court in all respects the final court of appeal for the whole of Australia and of all Australians. [More…]

• On the one hand, he says that the Opposition agrees that the High Court should be the final court of appeal of Australia and, on the other hand, he wants to leave certain appeals to continue to lie to the Privy Council, despite his disclaimer to that effect. [More…]

• For instance, what does Senator Greenwood say about the attempts by Tasmania and Queensland to bypass the High Court? [More…]

• The Tasmanian and Queensland governments have tried to do so in connection with claims to the seabed, a matter which will now come before the High Court next month. [More…]

• The best argument is that the status of the High Court is a matter of concern to the Australian Government and the Parliament. [More…]

• Does anybody here suggest that there should be an appeal from the High Court of Australia to the International Court? [More…]

• Although I find I am spending a great part of my life in answering letters from various vexed veterans, 1 have no control over these tribunals any more than the Attorney-General would have control over the determinations of the High Court. [More…]

• The Bill we have before us today is a much smaller Bill and it deals with appeals which go from the High Court to the Privy Council. [More…]

• Putting it shortly, the Commonwealth Parliament has the power to limit the matters in respect of which an appeal lies from decisions of the High Court to the Privy Council. [More…]

• It ensured that it would be impossible for appeals to be taken from the High Court to the Privy Council in matters which originated in the High Court, which originated in any Federal court or which originated in a territory court. [More…]

• In short, appeals from the High Court on decisions which had any Federal content whatsoever were barred. [More…]

• Of course, there are some appeals which still can be taken from the High Court. [More…]

• At the present time when there are appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council in matters which have no Federal component there are practical difficulties or anomalies because there can be an issue which involves matters of interpretation of Federal law as well as matters which contain no Federal aspect. [More…]

• There is no question whatever that the passage of this Bill will remove those doubts by excluding altogether appeals in those matters from the High Court to the Privy Council. [More…]

• There will be a stream of authority which flows through from the Supreme Court to the Privy Council and a stream of authority which flows through from the Supreme Court to the High Court. [More…]

• Whether in the new circumstances, the High Court will regard the Privy Council’s decisions in those matters as having imperative authority is a question which undoubtedly the High Court will have to resolve in the future. [More…]

• I think that the High Court ought ultimately to be able to make the decision. [More…]

• Undoubtedly the High Court will make the decision. [More…]

• But there will be a period of time, as there must be, in which litigants and interested persons will sense that there is a problem as to whether the decision of the Privy Council or of the High Court will prevail in an area where there are conflicting decisions. [More…]

• I have mentioned that there will be the anomaly that appeals from the High Court in matters which have no Federal component will be limited; yet an appeal may go directly from the State courts in these same matters to the Privy Council. [More…]

• As I have said, the present Bill removed the right of appeal in all existing nonfederal matters which may be taken from the High Court to the Privy Council. [More…]

• It enacts that the only appeals which hereafter may be taken are appeals from decisions given by the High Court in proceedings which commenced before the date of the Act. [More…]

• That has the effect of ensuring, over a passage of years, that there will be, in effect, no appeals available from decisions of the High Court. [More…]

• If this Bill becomes law the only appeals from the High Court which may thereafter be taken to the Privy Council are those appeals which are from decisions made before this Bill became law. [More…]

• Secondly, there are the inter se questions as to the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and the States which the High Court may certify as properly appealable to the Privy Council. [More…]

• This is a quesion upon which the High Court is given a discretion by the Constitution, and it cannot be removed. [More…]

• I think on the only occasion in the last 50 years in which a request has been made to the High Court, it declined to give such a certificate. [More…]

• I think it is generally accepted that the High Court is unlikely to accede to any submission that a certificate be granted. [More…]

• It is a fine legal point and it may be that the High Court would have to resolve on that question at some stage in the future. [More…]

• But I think those who want to argue the point have their right to do so and it is for the High Court to make the decision in the future. [More…]

• Firstly, the High Court was given general jurisdiction to entertain appeals from all Australian courts, irrespective or whether they were [More…]

• State or Federal, and having an appellate jurisdiction in respect of the jurisdiction of the State courts gives the High Court ample opportunity to supervise and co-ordinate the development of the law which operates in State courts on State matters. [More…]

• Therefore, the High Court of Australia was able to co-ordinate the administration of justice and the State courts were enabled to take their part in each field, both in their original State jurisdiction and in the invested Federal jurisdiction. [More…]

• In respect of the original jurisdiction, the Bill proposes to gather in various powers of administration of the law that are now occupied by the High Court and also by the State courts, particularly in relation to taxation matters. [More…]

• We are accustomed now in this Parliament and elsewhere to acclaim with honour Chief Justice Dixon of the High Court whenever his name is mentioned. [More…]

• I want now to make reference to the statement that His Honour made on taking his oath of office as Chief Justice of the High Court. [More…]

• There Mr Owen Dixon, Q.C., as he then was, had occasion to comment upon the method by which the original jurisdiction was vested in the High Court and the terms that were used to express it. [More…]

• However effectual such provisions may be for ensuring that the High Court retains an almost exclusive authority to declare the meaning and effect of the Constitution, no one can fail to see that this is done at the expense of rendering almost futile and impossible the practical administration of justice for the purpose of adjusting the real controversies between subject and subject or redressing real grievances which a subject may have against the Crown. [More…]

• The Bill provides for the establishment of a Superior Court of Australia, a Superior Court of record beneath the High Court of Australia but exercising with that court the jurisdiction which the Constitution describes as the judicial power of the Commonwealth. [More…]

• Section 7 1 of the Constitution recognises that Commonwealth judicial power would be exercised in 3 streams of jurisdiction: Firstly, the High Court of Australia; secondly such other Federal courts as the Parliament created; and thirdly such other courts as it invests with Federal jurisdiction. [More…]

• Section 75 and 76 of the Constitution went on to provide that the High Court should have or should be capable of being invested by the Parliament with jurisdiction in all the matters which are now set out in clause 19 of the Bill before the Senate as the subject of the original jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Australia. [More…]

• Defining the jurisdiction of any federal court other than the High Court: [More…]

• It ought to be a corollary of that situation that the Australian Parliament should pass legislation, as this Bill seeks to do, establishing a national judicial system, which Senator Greenwood was espousing before the suspension of the sitting for lunch, which would be, of course, beneath the High Court but would embrace existing federal judicial institutions which will administer those national laws. [More…]

• The High Court, the Industrial Court and the Bankruptcy Court have, I suggest, been shining examples of what a court should properly be. [More…]

• We have the Federal Court of Bankruptcy, the Industrial Court, the Family Court- established under the Family Law Bill as this Senate agreed to it; it is not law yet- 6 separate State supreme courts, the supreme courts of the 2 Territories and a host of courts too numerous to count, such as courts of summary jurisdiction which exercise judicial powers under laws passed by the Australian Parliament, and courts which have to be taken, according to a decision of the High Court, as they are found for the purpose of the exercise by them of Federal jurisdiction. [More…]

• The courts do not project any national judicial image and the situation is that, except for the Federal courts, namely the High Court, the Bankruptcy Court and the Industrial Court, we still have a 19th century colonial type basis for determining judicial matters arising under Federal law. [More…]

• Fourthly, it paves the way for the development at a level underneath the High Court of a body or system of settled law which is peculiarly national in its basic character because such a system of law stems from the interpretation and the application of individual statutes passed by this Parliament. [More…]

• It takes away in some respects jurisdiction from the High Court, a Court which for very many years has been acknowledged to be grossly overburdened. [More…]

• It gets rid of a multiplicity of State and Territory courts which exist at the moment and it coheres these in one court beneath the High Court, divided if necessary into 6 divisions. [More…]

• The Bill also contains provisions to transfer existing jurisdiction from existing courts- for example, from State Supreme Courts and from the High Court, from the Supreme Courts of the Territories, from the Federal Bankruptcy Court and from the Australian Industrial Court. [More…]

• In other words, in those days the use of the State courts was seen as a means of maintaining a simple court system handling both Federal and State law with the High Court acting as the supreme court of Australia. [More…]

• At the top of the hierarchy is the High Court exercising its original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction from State and Commonwealth courts. [More…]

• The growth in Federal litigation has been such as to impose an increasing burden on the High Court. [More…]

• The result of that growth has been that, unless the number of High Court justices is increased, there is a serious risk that the volume of work in the original jurisdiction of the High Court will inhibit the Court’s capacity to fulfil its principal role as an arbiter of constitutional questions and as the nation’s ultimate appellate court. [More…]

• Apart from the creation of two Federal courts of limited specialised jurisdiction, namely the Commonwealth Industrial Court and the Federal Bankruptcy Court, the High Court in its original jurisdiction and the various State courts exercising Federal jurisdiction have dealt with all matters arising under the Constitution and Federal statutes. [More…]

• With the full support of the Chief Justice, the Government has decided that it should follow the alternative course, which is available under the Constitution, of investing State Supreme Courts and the Supreme Courts of the mainland Territories with original jurisdiction in certain additional federal matters in respect of which the High Court now exercises original jurisdiction. [More…]

• The second consideration is that the establishment of the Superior Court would relieve the High Court of Australia of the more burdensome aspects of some of its original jurisdiction in matters that can be dealt with appropriately by a court of the kind envisaged. [More…]

• That would have the consequence, it is put, of speeding up the work of the High Court and enabling it to concentrate on its essential function in a growing and increasingly complex society as custodian of the Constitution and as the highest appellate court in the land. [More…]

• Insofar as litigants before the High Court of Australia are concerned, it is not a speedy court in dealing with litigation. [More…]

• It is not a speedy court in giving judgments after matters have been argued before it, and there can be great inconvenience caused to litigants and great costs incurred as a result of the delays which are apparent in the High Court at the moment. [More…]

• The fourth of these major reasons of principle to which I have referred is the one mentioned by Senator Button namely, the suggestion that there is such a High Court backlog of work that this new Court is needed. [More…]

• The State courts, apart from the High Court which is primarily an appeal court for all the State Supreme Courts, have been dispensers of justice for 70 years since Federation. [More…]

• The reference there is to the Chief Justice of the High Court - the Government has decided that it should follow the alternative course, which is available under the Constitution, of investing State Supreme Courts and the Supreme Courts of the mainland Territories with original jurisdiction in certain additional Federal matters in respect of which the High Court now exercises original jurisdiction. [More…]

• Back in the time when the proposition of a Superior Court was dear to the hearts of Liberal lawyers- do not forget that it originated from them- the most obviously persuasive reason which they had was that the High Court was overloaded with the work in its original jurisdiction, that a backlog was developing and that the Court’s reputation for promptness and the Court’s preoccupation with its great task of interpreting the Constitution was in some way downgraded by its concern with what were thought to be lesser matters- taxation matters, matters involving patents and that sort of thing. [More…]

• It was thought that to have the High Court free of this work would make it a better, less overloaded and more efficient court. [More…]

• When the Liberal lawyers changed their minds it was because they thought they had come up with a simpler and better solution, and that was to divest the High Court of much of its lesser work, its original jurisdiction work, especially tax work. [More…]

• As the letter from Sir Garfield Barwick shows, he believed that this was a solution and that the High Court would not be overloaded and therefore there was no need to introduce the concept of a Superior Court. [More…]

• But, as introduced by the then Senator Murphy, there were other reasons given for the desirability of a superior court than the reason of easing the burden of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The ultimate court of appeal is the High Court. [More…]

• There will have to be a court before the High Court to deal with matters in the way that the Industrial Court does today, quite artificially in the light of its name and function, in regard to matters relating to the Broadcasting and Television Act or the Trade Practices Act. [More…]

• There is a growing body of Federal law in this country and I believe it is desirable that there should be a court throughout the country short of the High Court which will administer and interpret this law in a uniform manner rather than have it divided by having jurisdiction vested in State courts all over the country coming up with confusing, conflicting and perhaps contradictory interpretations of that law. [More…]

• It was not just a matter of relieving the pressure on the High Court. [More…]

• That issue is to be resolved, as indeed such issues can only be resolved ultimately under our federal system, by the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• What will be done in regard to the continental shelf and the areas that lie below low water mark around the whole of the Australian coastline and what laws will be applied are matters which will undoubtedly exercise great concern and give cause for a great deal of thought and debate once the High Court of Australia has determined this question of sovereignty. [More…]

• We find it extraordinary that the Government should be pressing on with this exercise of sovereign power, namely, to establish a mining code for the continental shelf at this time when the High Court of Australia has not yet determined the issue of sovereignty. [More…]

• These powers cannot be exercised by the Government until the High Court determines that the Commonwealth Government has the sovereignty and the power to exercise the powers that are contained in this Bill. [More…]

• We have even reached the stage where the permits or rights that have been given by previous Federal and State governments under the Petroleum and Submerged Lands Act are now put in doubt because the Minister is taking the attitude that he will not consent to a renewal of these permits until after the High Court makes its decision on the claim of sovereignty. [More…]

• There is no reason in the world why the renewal of permits which people are entitled to have under existing legislation of this Parliament should be delayed in this way because of the claim to sovereignty which has been made and which is the subject of the High Court hearings. [More…]

• But what it really means is that members of this Government and the Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor, have it clearly in mind that if the High Court upholds the Parliament’s claim to sole sovereignty over this area he intends then to abrogate the existing legislation. [More…]

• I suggest that this has about it a large measure of presumption, because the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act is at this moment the subject of challenge before the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• It would appear that it may well have been advisable for the Government in this circumstance, having waited not 3 months but 7 months, to wait yet another two or three months and have in its hands the judgment of the High Court. [More…]

• But what will the denial of this legislation do should the High Court of Australia find that the Commonwealth has supremacy in the areas we are discussing? [More…]

• -Senator Greenwood said in 1973 that ‘there are therefore 2 fundamentals which have to be linked with any resolution of this problem: firstly, to know what the limits of authority are’- that is tremendously important for we do not want to have a vacuum in which no one has the responsibility- ‘and, secondly, when we do know where the authority lies’- I suggest he would have been referring there to the matter which is now before the High Court- ‘we must have it worked out cooperatively with whatever regime we have in the off-shore waters’. [More…]

• In a practical sense, forgetting the States’ rights issue as an overriding one here- I suggest that the development of Australia’s off-shore minerals is of greater importance than the issue of the States’ rights at this time after so many years of dissension about that matter have gone by- the subject really to be discussed tonight is whether the Commonwealth is to have the mechanics of making the Seas and Submerged Lands Bill operate if the High Court should find in its favour. [More…]

• There was no way in which it could be resolved other than by a decision of the High Court. [More…]

• There was no way that the High Court could deal with this until such time as there was a genuine challenge. [More…]

• Hence it was necessary to reach a situation in which the Federal Government would lay claim to all of the off-shore areas of Australia and give the States the opportunity to litigate against the Federal Government through the High Court and finally have the situation resolved. [More…]

• This is the situation we have reached at the present timethat is, the matter is now before the High Court. [More…]

• Having regard to what Justices of the High Court have saidand all witnesses who gave evidence on this aspect generally concurred- it would appear that the Commonwealth has the constitutional power to legislate under its external affairs power to give effect to international obligations. [More…]

• With regard to the challenge that is being made in the High Court at present, the Premier of South Australia, Mr Dunstan, a Labor Premier, revealed in the Press on 5 July 1974 that South Australia also would take up the challenge as to where authority lay in the off-shore areas of Australia. [More…]

• As reported in the South Australian Advertiser’, Mr Dunstan suggested to the Commonwealth Government that it should invite the States to join in a test case in the High Court which could be done co-operatively- I emphasise the words ‘could be done cooperatively’but the Commonwealth Government had refused the suggestion. [More…]

• We assented some months ago to the first part of this Bill, which claimed for the Commonwealth sovereignty over this area in respect of minerals, whether oils or others, and we assented to that for the express purpose of enabling that intensely contentious constitutional question to be decided by the only appropriate tribunal- the High Court. [More…]

• To such extent are we being governed not by Alice in Wonderland but Dr Jim Cairns in fairyland that we are asked, a week or two before the High Court delivers its decision, to put this administrative code into gear so that the tiger can take over control of minerals other than oil in the off-shore oil area. [More…]

• It could have gone to the High Court long before this and its constitutionality been determined. [More…]

• The whole idea of bringing the legislation on was to ensure that it could be challenged in the High Court and determined and one of the reasons why there has been uncertainty in the industry is that that challenge has not come about and there has not been a final decision on the law relating to this subject. [More…]

• We will not succeed and the matter now will have to be resolved by the High Court. [More…]

• That is a matter for testing in the High Court. [More…]

• The Administrator’s message on this occasion deals with such a minor error that has been discovered in the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Bill 1975. [More…]

• By way of explanation I point out that clause 3 of the Bill will prevent the asking of special leave to appeal to the Privy Council from certain decisions of the High Court. [More…]

• However, the concluding words of the clause are intended to exempt from its operation any decision of the High Court which was given in a proceeding which was commenced in a State court before the date of commencement of the Act. [More…]

• It could be read as referring to the commencement of the appeal proceeding in the High Court whereas it is intended to refer to the commencement of the original proceeding in a court of a State. [More…]

• Honourable senators will recall that the latter Bill was discharged from the Senate Notice Paper on 12 February 1975, following the appointment of Senator Murphy, as he then was, to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• If one goes back to one of the earlier cases decided by the High Court there was a clear indication by one of the eminent judges that companies such as mining companies, manufacturing companies, religious companies and charitable companies are excluded from the definition of trading and financial corporations. [More…]

• One must acknowledge from that decision that the High Court found no difficulty in holding that as a manufacturing company the provisions of the Trade Practices Act could apply to such a company. [More…]

• It was a case of mistaken identity Sir, I would like to go before a high court so that this lad can get a fair hearing. [More…]

• The possibility of taking this case to the High Court has been raised. [More…]

• If he wants to take the case to the High Court- it is up to him to make the decision whether he takes it to the High Court- we will supply him with counsel for any court in Australia to which he has to go. [More…]

• High court judges do not have personal assistants. [More…]

• His Honour’s tipstaff is a Mr John Silverlock who is the senior tipstaff of the High Court and formerly a tipstaff of the late Sir Douglas Menzies. [More…]

• In other words, I would invite honourable senators to conclude that His Honour Mr Justice Murphy has probably the best qualified staff of all the High Court judges and I would hope that this magazine the ‘Bulletin’ will now have the common decency to call off its vendetta against His Honour. [More…]

• I have never heard yet one remark either in the trade practices field or in this field that properly acknowledged that it was the Liberal Party Government that brought before the High Court the review of the old Huddart Parker case and argued for an expansion of the Commonwealth power under the head of the Constitution which deals with foreign corporations and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth. [More…]

• The High Court was induced to depart from the old 1909 decision and to adopt an interpretation of that provision upon which the efficacy of the trade practices law and now this proposed law is based. [More…]

• I am yet to be informed- I will be grateful if anybody informs me as the debate goes on- that the High Court has ever suggested that this Parliament can legislate for the incorporation of companies or the formation of companies, because the language of the power as to domestic companies refers to trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth. [More…]

• -I doubt that the Minister would be persuaded even by the High Court, so confident is he in his own position. [More…]

• He named Mr Justice Murphy of the High Court. [More…]

• For that reason, there is only one proper body to examine this matter- the High Court of Australia, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. [More…]

• In Senator Webster’s case the High Court will be able to determine whether the Constitution was breached. [More…]

• This matter has gone so far that the High Court is now the only body competent to clear Senator Webster’s name. [More…]

• In this case, in the interests of the Parliament and the Australian people, the Government has an obligation to pay the costs which could be incurred by Senator Webster before the High Court because the case will be dealing with the public interest. [More…]

• Were it possible for the High Court to offer a broad legal opinion to the Parliament, then it might be possible for us merely to pass this motion and let the matter rest. [More…]

• The High Court has traditionally taken the attitude that it can only deal with the matter immediately before it. [More…]

• We would be just as deserving of contempt as we would be if we refused to let the High Court judge Senator Webster’s position. [More…]

• We cannot ask the High Court to resolve Senator Webster’s position without ourselves considering the wider questions which may involve many, even all of us. [More…]

• This is a matter which should be tested in the High Court. [More…]

• We cannot hope that the problem will go away merely by dispatching Senator Webster to the High Court. [More…]

• I ask the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, who represents the Attorney-General, whether he is able to confirm that there are currently at least 10 cases before the High Court of Australia in which Commonwealth legislation or its administrative procedures are under constitutional challenge. [More…]

• Is he able to confirm the report published today that the constitutionality of sections of the Trade Practices Act also are to be challenged before the High Court? [More…]

• Will he obtain from the AttorneyGeneral information as to the constitutional challenges pending in the High Court and the stage which the challenges have reached, and place that information before the Senate? [More…]

• As to the number of matters in which the constitutionality of governmental measures is challenged in the High Court, I do not have the exact details but I shall ask the Attorney-General to supply them and I shall then let the honourable senator have this information. [More…]

• The Government’s motion requires that Senator Webster’s case be brought before the High Court. [More…]

• In my opinion this Parliament recognised that there was only one answer to that question years ago when it inserted in the Commonwealth Electoral Act a provision that questions with regard to vacancies occurring in the Senate in circumstances such as this might be referred, by resolution by the Senate, to the High Court sitting as a court of disputed returns. [More…]

• Therefore in my opinion, a prima facie case appearing, this case, if it were isolated and alone, would be proper for reference to the High Court. [More…]

• But there are some enigmas when it goes before the High Court. [More…]

• I mention it so that when the record of proceedings goes before the High Court it will be brought expressly to notice. [More…]

• I have not been able to find any High Court rules- I think they exist but in the limited time available to me I have not been able to find any- which say how this matter shall be tried. [More…]

• Therefore, it is appropriate in my opinion that the motion seeking the reference of this matter to the High Court should be accompanied by the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers). [More…]

• Therefore, if I had the advantage of having considered the matter up to the stage at which I have considered it now, I would much prefer that Senator Webster’s case be considered along with all others by the judicial committee of inquiry and not sent alone to the High Court. [More…]

• The appropriate tribunal is the High Court. [More…]

• The motion moved by the Government and the amendment moved to it by the Opposition show very favourable support for Senator Webster’s position and for the referral of his case to the High Court. [More…]

• It has singled him out to be a sacrificial guinea pig on the altar of Parliament or the High Court. [More…]

• I hope that the High Court will see fit to delay consideration of this case- I am not a legal man and it may not be possible for this to happen, but I hope it isumi! [More…]

• Therefore the Committee is assessing really whether Senator Webster’s case should go before the High Court, and the general opinion of this Senate is that he shall be judged. [More…]

• I suggest that if Senator Webster’s case is to be referred directly to the High Court another should go with it. [More…]

• I move my amendment to obtain what I believe is a minimum of justice- to make sure that Senator Webster’s position is quite clear and his case should go to the High Court but not until the judicial committee has reported. [More…]

• We must entertain the possibility that Senator Webster may yet properly defend his position in the High Court. [More…]

• I propose to support the motion that has been moved for the referral to the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns of questions relating to the qualifications of Senator Webster, and I also propose to support the amendment which has been moved by Senator Withers and which will have the effect of appointing a judicial committee of inquiry to examine the types of circumstance in which other members of Parliament may have contravened provisions of the Constitution and will enable the Senate and the House of Representatives to be informed of any such instances. [More…]

• Senator Webster is a person for whom I have an intense feeling of sympathy at the present time, not just because he will be facing the High Court and its decision with regard to his qualifications but also because he has been so unjustly singled out as the result of what I regard as a vindictive newspaper campaign that has been seized on politically by some persons within the Government. [More…]

• I do not believe that the law would be upheld or that right would be done if that were the case, because we have before us at present a prima facie case which, in my judgment- and I think that every senator must look at it in terms of how he views those facts- warrants consideration either by this chamber or by the High Court as to whether or not Senator Webster has contravened the Constitution. [More…]

• I think that it ought to be said and acknowledged that it was what Senator Webster himself told this chamber that provided the basic prima facie case upon which the questions will go before the High Court because, in the material sent to Mr President, there was not the evidence upon which the Senate, properly advised, could have sent a question to the High Court. [More…]

• Of course, I use the word evidence’ in the broad legal sense, but I think a High Court judge who received the material contained in the committee’s report to Mr President would have been sending the material back to the Senate and asking us to give more facts, or the High Court would have found itself in a very embarrassing situation of virtually having to move, of its own motion, to require before it evidence on which it could make its assessment. [More…]

• Equally, it should be recognised that what he said is the basis upon which this matter goes before the High Court. [More…]

• If as a result of that investigation there appears to be a prima facie case why individuals should have their qualifications as members of either House of this Parliament referred to the High Court, I believe that those questions should be raised, as in this particular case, and those questions should go to the High Court also. [More…]

• But not everyone is as forthcoming, though I hope in due course they will be if a genuine question is raised, as Senator Webster was in raising the issues on which a case is now to be taken to the High Court. [More…]

• The tone of that degeneration was set by those senators who, despite the fact there is to be a High Court hearing in relation to Senator Webster which must resolve certain general issues regarding the meaning of the provisions in the Constitution, and despite the fact that there is to be a judicial inquiry on the wide range as set out in the amendment, bandied names across the chamber in a manner which must have disgusted those who are truly interested in arriving at a resolution of this difficult matter. [More…]

• Then, we had from the same senator a dissertation on the law, even though the honourable senator knew that the High Court would soon be determining the law in relation to Senator Webster and even though he knew that a full scale judicial committee of inquiry was to be established by agreement of the Government. [More…]

• It is not for me to be gratuitous in extending good wishes, but I simply say that I will have no personal pleasure and no party political pleasure if the High Court should determine that Senator Webster has- unwittingly I do not doubtbreached the Constitution. [More…]

• The third alternative was to take advantage of section 203 of the Electoral Act and, by resolution of the Senate, have the question of Senator Webster referred to the High Court as a Court of Disputed Returns. [More…]

• In view of the status of this matter, being on the verge of being referred to the High Court and of the appointment of a judicial committee of inquiry with very wide terms of reference, I suggest that that statement was completely inappropriate. [More…]

• The second point is that despite what has been said this afternoon, Senator Webster’s case, I understand by resolution of the Senate, is about to be referred to the High Court of Australia, sitting as a Court of Disputed Returns, and the public can be confident that the High Court will interpret the provisions of the Constitution, insofar as such interpretation is appropriate for the determination of Senator Webster’s case, with its normal impartiality. [More…]

• Two options were open at that stage, either for the Senate to refer the matter to its own committee of disputed returns or to refer it to the Court of Disputed Returns which is the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• It has been the consensus of all honourable senators up to this stage that the matter should go to the Court of Disputed Returns, which is the High Court. [More…]

• It was that reading which convinced me in the final analysis of the need to accept the consensus which exists in the Senate and that this matter should be taken out of the area of disputation amongst honourable senators and sent into an area where the Senate could be informed by the Court of Disputed Returns, the High Court of Australia, whether there exists the case in which Senator Webster had- and I believe unwittinglybreached the constitutional requirements of section 44 and section 45. [More…]

• There cannot be any certainty as to how the High Court will react or give a judgment. [More…]

• In fairness to Mr Hills- I do not know about Mr Brown- he was saying that if there had been a register and Senator Webster had disclosed his interests in the J. J. Webster company, that disclosure in fact would have been a defence in the case that he will have to face in the High Court. [More…]

• It seems to me that there is also general agreement that this matter ought to be determined in the High Court because of the legal complications involved. [More…]

• The motion which I moved in the Senate last week was designed to enable the matter to be referred to the High Court. [More…]

• We know that there are certain limitations on which matters may be referred to the High Court. [More…]

• Nevertheless I hope that the vote that will follow will allow this matter to go properly before the High Court and, in the terms of the Opposition’s amendment, allow other aspects to go to a judicial committee to ensure that this most important matter receives proper consideration in the proper places. [More…]

• I entered here as a lone wolf following the resignation of the illustrious Senator Murphy on his elevation to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The major step towards ultimate domination by the Commonwealth of the States’ financial power came with the uniform tax scheme of 1942, which the High Court then upheld as a wartime measure and 15 years later again upheld under peacetime powers. [More…]

• The Board’s action has been challenged and I understand a decision on the matter will soon be handed down by the High Court. [More…]

• This is that the provisions made by the Bill before the Senate will not affect the reference of any question affecting disqualification to the High Court by the Senate in relation to which a question arises in pursuance of section 203 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. [More…]

• There is already another procedure for this and in normal circumstances it would seem to the Government that the Senate itself would refer the question to the High Court and have the matter properly judicially determined. [More…]

• One significant change that the Bill will make is that common informer proceedings if brought are to be brought in the High Court. [More…]

• The Houses ‘power to refer questions of disqualification to the High Court will remain unaffected. [More…]

• In what is now known as the Wheat case- New South Wales v. the Commonwealth ( 1915)-New South Wales appealed to the High Court from a decision of the Inter-State Commission. [More…]

• The High Court, by a majority, held that section 101 of the Constitution did not authorise the establishment of the Inter-State Commission as a court and therefore the provisions of Part V conferring judicial powers upon the Inter-State Commission were invalid. [More…]

• The High Court shall have jurisdiction, with such exceptions and subject to such regulations as the Parliament prescribes, to hear and determine appeals from all judgements, decrees, orders, and sentences- [More…]

• Of the Inter-State Commission, but as to questions of law only: and the judgement of the High Court in all such cases shall be final and conclusive. [More…]

• The High Court will have jurisdiction on appeals on matters of law as the Commission’s decisions are final on matters of fact. [More…]

• Under Clause 16 prosecutions can be instituted in the High Court for contravention of or failure to comply with an order of the Commission. [More…]

• Also, the Attorney-General may apply to the High Court for an injunction to restrain a person or body from contravening the Act, including orders made by the Commission under the Act. [More…]

• In the event that a State government were to fail to comply with an order, an injunction from the High Court could be sought if necessary under this clause. [More…]

• Jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court to hear and determine any prosecution, application or other proceeding and that jurisdiction will be exclusive of the jurisdiction of any other court. [More…]

• Remuneration and allowances of five members of the Commission are stipulated in Part V. Clause 26 provides that the President will receive a salary of $41,000 per annum, which is equivalent to a Justice of the High Court; and other members a salary of $35,000 which is equivalent to a judge. [More…]

• The Government is vulnerable on the issue which took some time previously in this chamber concerning the sending of one of its members to the High Court and his qualifications as a senator while it covers up for members in the other House. [More…]

• It has become so apparent that what he was wanting from the AttorneyGeneral in Victoria was a promise from that Attorney-General that he would not give his fiat or approval to a challenge to the legal aid scheme in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• One raises the question: Why is the Government, and the Attorney-General in particular, so apprehensive of a challenge in the High Court to the Australian Legal Aid Office? [More…]

• Is it because the Attorney-General apprehends that if the High Court was able to pass judgment upon the way in which the scheme has been developing it would say that the scheme has been developed by the Commonwealth without constitutional power? [More…]

• Is there some risk in the Attorney-General’s eyes that the High Court, on grounds which appear appropriate to it, might declare the Office incapable of operating, in the way in which the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory declared that the Australian Legal Aid Office was incapable of operating? [More…]

• It is well known that currently the High Court is determining the scope of section 81 and whether, for example, the Australian Assistance Plan can be financed under section 81. [More…]

• As a result of the setting up of this Committee and its sittings and as a result of it hearing evidence of the type which it admitted, the case of Senator Webster has been sent to the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. [More…]

• Mr President, you have sent us a letter informing us that you have transmitted to the High Court the resolution which was passed by the Senate. [More…]

• You have added other details in your role of informing the High Court of the decision of the Senate. [More…]

• I remind the Senate while we are on this matter that the reference to the High Court of the letter and the evidence from the Committee and the debate that ensued in the Senate when the matter was referred to the Senate are a matter for the Court and perhaps for a special judicial committee which may be set up by the Senate. [More…]

• Looking beyond that which I hope will not happen I have consulted my legal advisers and they tell me that there is no difficulty in taking this matter directly to the High Court. [More…]

• To ensure that Senator Webster was not alone in having to go to the High Court and have his position in this place tested, it was decided by the Senate- Senator Hall should not deny this, nor should he endeavour to confuse it- that a Judicial Committee should be set up to hear any other evidence of a similar nature which might disqualify a senator. [More…]

• These are reservations which have caused the Opposition some concern over the many months that we have had the opportunity to consider this Bill, and we recognise that it would be likely that the Bill would be challenged in due course before the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• It will be headed by a race relations commissioner with the status of a High Court judge and with powers similar to those used in the Spanish Inquisition. [More…]

• Was your approval requested, and given, as President of the Senate for the Federal Attorney-General to seek leave to intervene on behalf of the Australian Government to establish a case against Senator Webster in the High Court? [More…]

• On 1 3 May I tabled a copy of my letter to the Principal Registrar of the High Court referring certain questions for determination with respect to the qualifications of Senator Webster. [More…]

• It is addressed to the Principal Registrar, Court House of the High Court of Australia, Taylor Square, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, and states: [More…]

• The Administrator informs the Senate of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia that the proposed law intituled ‘Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975’, which was reserved for the Queen’s pleasure, has been laid before Her Majesty and that, on the thirtieth day of April in the year one thousand nine hundred and seventy five, the Queen was graciously pleased to assent to the said law. [More…]

• If I, when in opposition, had got to my feet and said that all judges of the High Court were similarly in a position of being corrupted, I would have been told to resume my seat for daring to criticise members of the judiciary. [More…]

• They did in fact stack certain organisations, including the High Court, with political appointees. [More…]

• If that sort of argument is used, we could bring evidence before this Senate that would show that the stacking has never been done by the Labor Party when in office but that it was done by the Liberal Party when in office, even to the extent that every person who in any way challanged a former Prime Minister of this country, now Sir Robert Menzies, was booted upstairs into the High Court, a High Commission, into London - [More…]

• It is not merely an investigatory body with power to recommend change to government- it is an enforcement body, with the only proviso being the right of appeal to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The High Court shall have jurisdiction, with such exceptions and subject to such regulations as the Parliament prescribes, to hear and determine appeals from all judgements, decrees, orders, and sentences- [More…]

• Of the Inter-State Commission, but as to questions of law only: and the judgement of the High Court in all such cases shall be final and conclusive. [More…]

• The matter of an Inter-State Commission has been the subject of long debate in this country ever since the original Commission became redundant as a result of the challenge that flowed from what is known as the wheat case in which the judical powers of the then Inter-State Commission were challenged in the High Court. [More…]

• But in the hurley burley following the First World War it was discontinued, after its attempt to execute its adjudication function as a court was nullified by the High Court. [More…]

• But, secondly at that time we followed a terrific era of constitutional contention in the High Court when, for a long time, the view prevailed that transport legislation in some way escaped the prohibition of section 92 and that it was not required to provide free transport among the States. [More…]

• Ever since then we have had a series of miscellaneous, inconsistent decisions from the High Court, striving to apply in a judicial way the principle of section 92 to interstate road transport in particular. [More…]

• It will have a chairman with a precedence and status equal to that of a High Court judge, and there will be 4 members of the [More…]

• So, in relation to land, I have illustrated how this body can supersede the highly inappropriate body of the High Court in solving many of the little cases that come up as to contravention or otherwise of section 92. [More…]

• As a result of the judgment of the High Court in that case in that year, it became in effect a dead letter from then on. [More…]

• The judgment of the High Court- it will be noted that the judgment rested on the distinction made between the tenure of office of judges of the High Court and of members of the Commissionsounded the death-knell of the Commission. [More…]

• There have been many High Court decisions on the question of what is trade and commerce. [More…]

• That is fair enough as an ultimate objective, but there is a world of difference between stating that objective and empowering a commission with the precise functions which will enable it to do those things and to declare whether or not it is to achieve those functions in defiance of what State parliaments might have decided and notwithstanding what the High Court may declare. [More…]

• But if you were so pedantic you would be met in due course with what the High Court says. [More…]

• The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is established under the section of the Constitution that gives the Commonwealth the power to deal with the settlement of interstate disputes; but if in a particular area that authority does something that can be justified under the trade and commerce power the High Court would regard it as a body established under that power. [More…]

• Honourable senators should look at what the High Court has said and in particular at what Sir John Latham said in the Riverina Transport Pty Ltd case, which many will remember as one of the classic judgments in regard to section 92 of the Constitution. [More…]

• Because of the requirement that trade, commerce and intercourse among the several States should be absolutely free, the High Court, in the exercise of the power which was conferred upon it, declared to be unlawful those legislative and administrative acts which it regarded as contrary to that guarantee of freedom. [More…]

• I know that in regard to the difficult area of the usage which interstate road operators make of the roads of the Commonwealth the High Court has imposed an exception, namely, that if there is a charge made which relates to the maintenance of the road, and that is a reasonable charge related to the upkeep of the roads, it is not an infringement of the freedom. [More…]

• Is the High Court thereby bound to accept the Inter-State Commission’s decision as binding upon the High Court; or could we have the curious situation arising that what the Inter-State Commission says is unfair is declared by the High Court to be fair and not an infringement of the freedom? [More…]

• It may well be that that legislation could be declared invalid- I do not know and nobody else knows- because at present it is under challenge before the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Perhaps that is more an argument for deferring this matter to await the outcome of the High Court challenge. [More…]

• One would have imagined that any government that had any real interest in electoral reform, electoral justice and electoral equality would have waited until the determination of that question before the High Court before ordering a redistribution. [More…]

• Parliament in which he has indicated that the Government wants to experiment with this Bill to see what its powers are, that it is starting off in the transport sphere and that it hopes there will be favourable High Court decisions in relation to the exercise of some of its powers. [More…]

• I am prepared to support the creation of an Inter-State Commission which has some powers of adjudication- they may be very limited powers of adjudication because of High Court decisions -and which is designed to execute and maintain the laws which are made by this Parliament. [More…]

• If the Commission does something which is not acceptable to any member of the Parliament he can take action in the Parliament to do something about it or if somebody chooses to take action against a decision of the Commission the matter may go to the High Court. [More…]

• There is at present a related question under constitutional challenge in the High Court involving the legislation by the Australian Parliament providing for grants to the States for schools conducted by churches and other religious organisations. [More…]

• It is expected that the High Court decision will significantly develop understanding of the implications of section 1 16. [More…]

• It will also take over some of the review functions now vested in State supreme courts, the Australian Industrial Court and the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Equally, the Liberal Party and the Country Party have pointed out to the Senate that there is pending in the High Court a case that could invalidate the very basis on which these maps have been drawn. [More…]

• The Bill would be challenged in due course before the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• I suggest that Senator Greenwood would have sufficient confidence in the good sense of the High Court to know that any abuse of the foreign affairs placitum in the Constitution would be subject to the scrutiny of the judges of the High Court. [More…]

• In any event, as suggested in the passage that I have quoted, if there is any doubt about the constitutionality of this Bill we can confidently leave it to the High Court to decide the matter. [More…]

• I am sure that Senator Greenwood would agree with me that we do not have anything to fear in regard to the impartiality of the High Court in deciding the limitations of the foreign affairs power in this regard. [More…]

• Whatever the ultimate interpretation by the High Court of these various contentions may be, it is apparent, on the face of it, that there is a practical difficulty which the most cursory examination would reveal. [More…]

• It was a committee presided over by Mr Justice Kerr, who is now the Governor-General, and had as its members Mr Justice Mason, now of the High Court and then the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, and Professor Whitmore of the Australian National University. [More…]

• Except as provided by this Act and subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under paragraph 75 ( v) of the Constitution, a decision of the Tribunal shall not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question, or be subject to prohibition, mandamus, certiorari or injunction, in any court on any account whatever. [More…]

• Secondly, we have the right inalienably vested in the High Court under the Constitution to supervise this Tribunal by the prerogative writs. [More…]

• We in the Opposition believe that there should be one court system, and that should be the existing court system, with the High Court of Australia at the apex. [More…]

• It partakes of the character of virtually the only Federal court apart from the High Court- I know that the Federal Court of Bankruptcy exists- which has been established; and it is thought that in some way the Australian Industrial Court might be utilised. [More…]

• Apart from the Bankruptcy Court, it is the only court which exists below the level of the High Court in the Commonwealth constellation and it is the logical court to hear such matters. [More…]

• It appears to me to be overwhelmingly logical that the appropriate court to hear appeals in matters of law from the decisions of this Tribunal is the only Commonwealth court which exists apart from the High Court and the Bankruptcy Court. [More…]

• The High Court and the other Federal courts deal at present with a considerable range of federal matters. [More…]

• The High Court has made it clear that, in investing State courts with federal jurisdiction, the Parliament must take those courts as it finds them. [More…]

• The amendment proposed by clause 9 will ensure an appeal lies to the High Court against sentence where an accused is committed for sentence to the Supreme Court and is sentenced by that court. [More…]

• A similar provision was inserted in section 52 (2) of the Australian Capital Territory Superme Court Act following the decision of the High Court in Jackson v The Queen (1964) A.L.J.R. [More…]

• The High Court in this case held that the expression ‘convicted on indictment before the Supreme Court’ in section 52 of the Act did not cover the case where a person was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence by a lower court. [More…]

• I must say that I have never seen a jury sitting in the High Court or in any of the Federal courts. [More…]

• It is said that if the Superior Court were established the High Court would be able to concentrate upon its task of interpreting the Constitution and acting as the ultimate court of appeal. [More…]

• If the Parliament desires to limit the number of other matters which go before the High Court the Parliament has power to do so. [More…]

• Chapter III of our Federal Constitution lays down the functions and powers of the High Court and the matters on which the High Court is to have original jurisdiction. [More…]

• Those are the sections which define the original jurisdiction of the High Court- the Parliament may make laws - According to sub-paragraph (iii)Investing any court of a State with federal jurisdiction. [More…]

• Any of the original jurisdiction matters of the High Court are matters which are capable, if this Parliament determines, of being heard by a State court. [More…]

• But if it is thought that the High Court’s jurisdiction to hear appeals is so extensive that it prevents the High Court from giving appropriate time to the matters which are before it or which prevents the High Court from giving judgments with reasonable dispatch- I know that we in the Senate are waiting with interest for some judgments which have been awaiting delivery for some time- the Parliament has the power to make such exceptions as it desires with regard to the general power of the High Court to hear appeals. [More…]

• He said that there shall be a Federal judicature consisting of the High Court and such other Federal courts as the Parliament shall create. [More…]

• Then he went on to invest in the High Court an enumeration of six or seven items of litigation. [More…]

• They are all out of date, have never been expounded in reality and are very much out of touch, but anybody who reads the criticism to which they were subjected in the submission of Mr Owen Dixon K. C, as he then was in 1 929, to the Royal Commission on the Constitution will see at once how completely inappropriate and unwise it is to persist with that demarcation of original jurisdiction in the High Court. [More…]

• However, so far from heeding that most salutary advice, we have those provisions copied into this Superior Court Bill giving exactly the same terms for the original jurisdiction of the High Court- matters arising under a treaty, matters affecting a consul and that sort of nonsense which was appropriate to the American colonies in 1776. [More…]

• However effectual such provisions may be for ensuring that the High Court retains an almost exclusive authority to declare the meaning and effect of the Constitution, no one can fail to see that this is done at the expense of rendering almost futile and impossible the practical administration of justice for the purpose of adjusting the real controversies between subject and subject, or redressing real grievances which a subject may have against the Crown. [More…]

• The 2 provisions that we have had incorporated in our Constitution in contradistinction from the United States are that the High Court has been made a court of general appeal not merely from Federal courts, as is the case in the United States, but from both Federal and State courts. [More…]

• That has given our High Court sufficient jurisdiction to ensure that in the orderly administration of the law the mistakes that arise in the State sphere as well as the Federal sphere can be corrected on appeal and you can develop a uniformity of doctrine in both the Federal and State law under the guiding hand of one comprehensive general appeal court. [More…]

• But in the main they have adopted the general attitude for the adjudication of Federal issues and investing federal jurisdiction in the State courts which are appealable to the High Court. [More…]

• There are also provisions to transfer existing jurisdiction from existing courts- for example, the State Supreme Courts, the High Court, the Supreme Courts of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, the Federal Bankruptcy Court and the Australian Industrial Court. [More…]

• The use of the State courts was seen as a means of maintaining a simple court system handling both Federal and State law, with the High Court acting as the Supreme Court of Australia. [More…]

• The judge in question said that he would prefer to wait until the matters that are at present before the High Court- that is the matter concerning Senator Webster and the other common informer’s matter relating to Dr Cairns- had been disposed of by the High Court. [More…]

• As this judge put it, he thought that he would be embarrassed by adjudicating on such matters before the High Court had handed down its decision. [More…]

• I understand that in relation to the matter concerning Senator Webster it is expected that the High Court’s judgment- the judgment of Sir Garfield Barwick- will be handed down in the very near future. [More…]

• I can remember that when the matter came up before the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament, of which I was a member, I expressed the opinion that from my knowledge of the attitudes of the judiciary it would be unlikely that any Australian judge would like to be pronouncing on these matters pending a decision of the High Court. [More…]

• I assure honourable senators that there is nothing sinister about the fact that there appears to be some delay and it is not likely that the contemplated tribunal will be constituted or will commence its deliberations until the High Court has pronounced on the matters before it. [More…]

• The document seeks donations for Dennis Walker’s High Court appeal against his extradition to Queensland. [More…]

• Although legislation on this subject has been passed through this Parliament it is still a subject of consideration by the High Court of Australia and no decision has yet been made by the High Court which will clarify the nature of the powers of the respective parliaments of the Commonwealth and of Queensland. [More…]

• Therefore, before this Bill can really be known to be effective we will have to await the decision of the High Court. [More…]

• Nevertheless, if the High Court’s decision is that the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia has the power beyond low water mark this Bill will have validity, of course, insofar as we can as a national parliament exercise jurisdiction out into the Pacific Ocean to the extent of sixty or seventy miles of the ocean itself. [More…]

• (a) There were four cases arising under the Trade Practices Act 1 965- 1 97 1 , and its predecessor Acts and the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1971 decided by the High Court. [More…]

• The High Court held that the Council was not a corporation to which section 5 1 (xx) of the Constitution or section 37 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1 97 1 applied. [More…]

• (Appealed to High Court). [More…]

• Appealed to High Court. [More…]

• A fifth case, the St George County Council case referred to above, also went through interlocutory and pre-trial stages, but did not proceed after the High Court decision referred to above. [More…]

• With reference to the answer given by the previous Attorney-General, Mr Justice Murphy, to the question asked by Senator Greenwood concerning the alleged intimidation by the Australian Builders Labourers Federation towards six building companies concerning their proceedings before the High Court: [More…]

• In the case of Lanyon Pty Ltd v. Commonwealth of Australia the late Mr Justice Menzies in the High Court of Australia upheld a claim of privilege in respect of documents falling within a certain class, namely: . [More…]

• I do not want to be discourteous to a Justice of the High Court, nor do I want to be discourteous to somebody I served under. [More…]

• He sounded to me like an applicant for a position either on the High Court as soon as a vacancy is available or to appear before a royal commission with the fairly substantial fees which are paid from time to time and which he got in the Hersey case. [More…]

• If this is his attitude, I suggest that he take the matter up with the Liberal Premier of Victoria who has challenged in the High Court the continuance of the RED scheme. [More…]

• Also in February, the House of Representatives and the Senate debated and passed a companion Bill, the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Bill. [More…]

• That Bill marked the final step in the process of excluding appeals to the British Privy Council from decisions of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The Constitution itself provides by section 74 that no appeal shall be permitted to the Privy Council from a decision of the High Court upon any question, howsoever arising, as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States or as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of any two or more States, unless the High Court shall certify that the question is one which ought to be determined by the Privy Council. [More…]

• The High Court has not given such a certificate since 1912. [More…]

• The point has thus been reached at which, by statute and in practice, the High Court’s decisions can no longer be called in question before any other judicial tribunal. [More…]

• The process begun with the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 and consummated by the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975 should be carried to the logical and proper conclusion that no appeal should lie to the British Privy Council from or in respect to any decision of any Australian court. [More…]

• As matters stand, a decision of his on the law of New South Wales is still appealable direct to the Privy Council and the High Court may be by-passed. [More…]

• It detracts from the position of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Mr President, the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Bill received the full support of the Opposition parties. [More…]

• They said that they completely supported the philosophical objective that the High Court should be the ultimate court of appeal from all decisions made within the Australian legal system but they also said they regarded the Commonwealth as having no legislative power to abolish appeals to the Privy Council from State Supreme Courts. [More…]

• Now, Mr President, this is doing no more than paying lip service to the principle that the High Court of Australia should be Australia’s final court of appeal. [More…]

• On 19 February the Leader of the Government in the Senate explained to honourable senators that full opportunity was available for the validity of this legislation to be challenged and decided in the High Court itself- in the court that, as we are all seemingly agreed, should in all respects be Australia’s final court of appeal. [More…]

• Mr President, either the Opposition parties are sincere in their protestations regarding the place of the High Court in our judicial system, or they are not sincere. [More…]

• If they are sincere, they will support the Bill and then let the High Court decide any legal questions that the Opposition or the States or anyone else may consider are raised by the Bill’s provisions. [More…]

• Nothing could provide a more sincere recognition of the role that the Constitution always intended that the High Court should have. [More…]

• The High Court of Australia invalidated that Act and said that TAA could carry on in competition, that Australian National Airlines, as it then was, could not be expropriated because of section 92 of the Constitution. [More…]

• We felt, and it is a general concept to which the Opposition is striving to give expression, that we should give to the Supreme Courts of the States and the Territories as wide and as comprehensive a jurisdiction as can be, that we should limit the courts exercising a Federal jurisdiction to the High Court of Australia, and that if there has to be some other court that court should be limited in its role and should not be a court of general usage. [More…]

• It has ceased, as a result of an initiative which the Liberal-Country Party took in 1968 with respect to appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council, and it is desirable that the appeal from the Supreme Court to the Privy Council should disappear also. [More…]

• -One would hope that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack ‘s concepts would be accepted but whether or not the High Court regards itself as entitled to look into these matters, the fact is that we should recognise that there is a misuse of section 57 because one would suppose that the purpose of section 57 was to deal with one BUI so that in a double dissolution there could be one issue determined by the people of Australia. [More…]

• We can only regret that the Government has chosen to depart from the conventions of the Constitution, the practices which have characterised the Westminster system, and to rely upon an interpretation of section 57 and possibly the High Court’s reluctance to intervene in parliamentary matters, in an endeavour to achieve particular ends which otherwise it could not achieve. [More…]

• The limit of Commonwealth concern is the power which the Commonwealth has to limit appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council. [More…]

• That power has been fully exhausted so that there is now no appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council. [More…]

• Of course we know that the Australian Assistance Plan might come to grief if Mr Hamer is successful in his challenge to the High Court. [More…]

• But he did not tell us that Mr Hamer already has made an application to the High Court to sweep the scheme away. [More…]

• Victoria has demonstrated its callous indifference to the welfare of Victorian schoolchildren in authorising a challenge to the High Court to invalidate grants to non-government schools. [More…]

• On the one hand the scheme is challenged in the High Court and on the other there is a demand that more money be poured into it. [More…]

• We intend to pursue the same objectives of bringing about the participation of the Australian people whatever the result may be of any action taken by the Tory Government in Victoria to defeat the legislation in the High Court. [More…]

• Has the Minister seen the decision of a Justice of the High Court who placed the major responsibility upon the then Department of Civil Aviation because of the actions of the operator in the control tower? [More…]

• Tribunal in trying to transfer it to Ministers of the Crown drawing a salary of over $40,000 a year, High Court judges drawing a salary of over $40,000 a year, other federal judges drawing salaries of between $25,000 and $35,000 a year and then to transfer it to members of Parliament drawing a salary of $20,000 a year, is likely to inflame with resentment those in the industrial field to whom indexation is offered as a benefit. [More…]

• The honourable senator asked: ‘What have High Court challenges done in this field?’ [More…]

• Now Mr Connor is saying that because of the challenges which are being made in the High Court he will not discuss any further the possible development of these tremendous resources which are so vital for the development of Australia. [More…]

• The High Court has been asked simply to decide whether the Act passed by this Parliament is valid in claiming sovereignty for the Commonwealth Government over the off-shore area. [More…]

• Because the Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor, is determined to get a stranglehold of his own and of the Government’s on this area of Australia, he is preventing any further development taking place until the High Court decides this question. [More…]

• It seems that what Mr Connor intends to do- I think he will find great difficulty in doing this while the Senate remains with its present composition or with any likely changes- is, if he gets a favourable decision from the High Court of Australia, unilaterally to abrogate the laws under which all that exploration has been undertaken and under which the companies are fully entitled to expect that they would be able to develop the discoveries which they have made. [More…]

• Is it waiting to get the decision from the High Court which it hopes will give the Commonwealth Government sovereignty over that area? [More…]

• This Commission is responsible for sinking fund repayments and its Commissioners are the Treasurer of the Austraiian Government, the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Secretary to the Treasury, the Governor of the Reserve Bank, the Secretary of the Attorney-General ‘s Department, a representative of the States and the Secretary of the Auditor-General’s Department. [More…]

• We know that when the matter was raised on 22 April there was a feeling in this chamber as to whether it was right for one person and one person only to have to undergo the ordeal of having his qualifications considered by the High Court. [More…]

• Although we know the sad history of that exercise- Mr Connor may well seek to blame the Opposition, the High Court or anybody else for the failure of that organisation to get off the ground- the fact is that in the Budget last year when that authority was established by law and before it was struck down by the High Court, the government of the day had not provided it with one cent for the exploration for and the development of crude oil. [More…]

• The first defence was that it was only an agreement to make an agreement and, secondly, that the High Court had no jurisdiction because it was a non-justiciable matter. [More…]

• The State had to go to the High Court, which I think Senator Jessop said decided that it had no jurisdiction. [More…]

• It will honour this agreement, because the Labor Party always honours agreements, and it will not have to go to the High Court. [More…]

• One was that it was only an agreement to make an agreement and the second was that the High Court had no jurisdiction. [More…]

• I would remind the honourable senator that a couple of Liberal State governments have challenged the legality of the RED scheme in the High Court. [More…]

• Shortly thereafter that Act was challenged in the High Court by some of the States. [More…]

• As I understand the position- I am open to correction- that Act basically remains a valid Act until the High Court declares it otherwise. [More…]

• I pose this question to honourable senators: Assume that the High Court rules that that Act was not validly passed. [More…]

• Would the Government then bring in a special Bill to undo all those things which were done under legislation which the High Court had declared not to be properly passed? [More…]

• One would have thought that when the legislation was challenged the Government would have awaited the outcome of the High Court case. [More…]

• It rushed in and spent some $30m under the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Act, an Act which the High Court later declared to have been not passed validly at the Joint Sitting. [More…]

• I know that the High Court has ruled that a government can have a storehouse of Bills under section 57 of the Constitution. [More…]

• The High Court has so ruled. [More…]

• One would have thought that one of the basic sorts of things that Government supporters would never have done was to move under the Electoral Act to bring about a redistribution when the question was under challenge before the High Court. [More…]

• If the Government believes it is entitled to act under an Act of Parliament which is still under challenge in the High Court, why does it not have a redistribution in Western Australia? [More…]

• I do not think that Senator Withers can gain political mileage by speaking in a sort of holy, deferential, genuflectual manner about the decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Courts. [More…]

• The whole matter is still before the High Court. [More…]

• I do not think the Labor Party takes too much notice of the High Court. [More…]

• Was it not $30m of public money which was spent unlawfully while the High Court was sitting and hearing that case? [More…]

• We know that the basis of the Bills which are before us is under challenge in the High Court at the present time. [More…]

• As everyone knows, the legislation is now the subject of challenge in the High Court, and that challenge was mounted shortly after the legislation was passed by a joint sitting of the Parliament in circumstances which members of the Senate will recall very well. [More…]

• The legislation was challenged before the redistribution was carried out, and I suggest that the proper course for the Government to have followed would have been to let the redistribution await the High Court’s decision on that case. [More…]

• One reason which has been stated is, of course, that there is a challenge to the enabling legislation now before the High Court of Australia and it is customary when such a challenge lies before the High Court for legislation to be stood aside until the court brings down its decision. [More…]

• The Government proceeds in the face of a High Court hearing in which the very legislation on which these Bills are based in being challenged. [More…]

• I should also like to comment briefly on the references made to a challenge to the redistribution provisions in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Surely it must be taken that the legislation which was enacted following the Joint Sitting of the Parliament which amended the redistribution provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act ceases to be law only when, and if, it is disallowed by the High Court. [More…]

• I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General a question concerning Senator Greenwood’s assertion that Mr Justice Murphy had been guilty of disgraceful conduct in connection with the High Court’s decision on Senate representation for the Territories. [More…]

• -The first 5 justices of the High Court of Australia were all former politicians. [More…]

• Of the present High Court, Chief Justice Barwick and Justice Murphy were AttorneysGeneral of Australia and Justice Mason was Solicitor-General of Australia. [More…]

• If they were not to sit on matters in which they had given relevant advice to the governments then in office, very little work would have been done in the High Court. [More…]

• The fact is that each of them and the other justices before them were appointed to the Court, acted for numerous persons and bodies and gave advice on aspects of the Constitution and the laws which are constantly coming before the High Court. [More…]

• I recall that many years ago- in 1922, as a matter of fact- 2 justices of the High Court, Chief Justice Knox and Mr Justice Starke, sat to determine the constitutionality issue in the actual case in which they had previously appeared as counsel. [More…]

• In that respect, the case was no different from the one concerning the constitutionality of any one of the hundreds of Acts which were passed during the period of each of the former advisers to the government who now sit on the High Court. [More…]

• I would have thought he would remember that Senator Murphy was appointed to the High Court. [More…]

• As to possible remedies, Senator Greenwood would know that his statement undoubtedly constitutes contempt of court, but I would be surprised if the judges of the High Court did not take the view that his remarks were beneath contempt. [More…]

• Secondly, it ought to be recalled, in the light of what he said, that Mr Justice Murphy had declined to sit upon the first constitutional case which the High Court heard after his appointment. [More…]

• The statement which I made ought to be looked at in the light of the statement enunciated by Dr Evatt in 1 948 when he said to the High Court in a case in which he was engaged and in which he challenged the position of some of the judges that the principle ought not to be denigrated from in the slightest degree that a judge should not have any association with the subject matter of the case. [More…]

• There is very much in the history of the High Court to the same effect. [More…]

• The case which Senator Greenwood has cited of Mr Justice Murphy requesting the Chief Justice that he should not sit on one of the earlier cases that came before the High Court concerning the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill, I suggest, is very persuasive evidence of the seriousness with which Mr Justice Murphy approaches his duties and the etiquette of the Court. [More…]

• The President has the same rank, status and precedence as a Justice of the High Court. [More…]

• Leave out the clauses, insert the following clause: 7(1) One of the members shall be a person who is or has been barrister, solicitor, barrister and solicitor, or legal practitioner, of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory of not less than 5 years ‘ standing. [More…]

• Of course, Senator Greenwood has attempted to defame and smear no fewer than 4 judges of the High Court who brought down a ruling which is politically inconvenient to Senator Greenwood and his Party. [More…]

• By breaking all the well known conventions this year, from the time when former Senator Murphy was appointed by the Government to the High Court and the Lewis Government in New South Wales sent to the Senate a person of a different political persuasion from that of the Party to which former Senator Murphy belonged, and by the actions of BjelkePetersen in Queensland sending to this place a person who was not of the same political persuasion as the late Senator Milliner, the Opposition has taken advantage of politics by accident to try to assume control of this country. [More…]

• It is only since that time- as a result of Senator Townley becoming a member of the official Opposition after he had been elected as an Independent, as a result of Senator Murphy retiring from this place to become a Justice of the High Court, and as a result of the death of Senator Milliner from Queenslandthat the Senate is now in its present situation. [More…]

• Senator Douglas McClelland knows as well as I do that when the present Justice of the High Court, Mr Justice Murphy, was Senator Murphy and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, he accepted the responsibility as Leader of the Opposition to slow down the processes of government in the House of review. [More…]

• Allied Petrochemicals Pty Ltd had fought in the High Court for this allotment. [More…]

• It was then challenged in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• When the High Court declared that legislation valid only last week the first thing that the High Court received was a tirade of abuse from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this chamber. [More…]

• That tirade of abuse was delivered because at no stage will the Opposition accept the verdict which arose from the decision of the Australian people in May 1974, which arose from the decision of the Joint Sitting and which finally developed into a judgment of the High Court. [More…]

• We have witnessed the extraordinary situation of a man who purports to be the shadow Attorney-General of this country delivering an ex gratia attack on judges of the High Court because he does not like their decision. [More…]

• Is it not also a fact that following a Joint Sitting of both Houses, which passed these pieces of legislation, the Opposition once again refused to accept the will of the people and then asked the High Court of Australia to rule against the decision made by the Australian electorate? [More…]

• That decision was a reversal of a decision of the High Court in a previous case. [More…]

• A former Attorney-General has blackguarded the High Court and one of its members, Mr Justice Murphy. [More…]

• Senators opposite blackguarded our former colleague who is now a member of the High Court. [More…]

• Further, I remind honourable senators that while he was a justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Owen Dixon, who later became Chief Justice, was appointed Australian Minister to the United States in 1942 and the Judiciary (Diplomatic Representation) Act 1942 was passed to enable him to hold that office in addition to his judicial office. [More…]

• The most eager person to use it- indeed, he used it 169 times in this chamber over 20 years- was the former Leader of the Government in the Senate, former Senator Murphy, who was elevated to the High Court of Australia on the judgment of the Labor Party. [More…]

• There was nothing new about Senator Murphy resigning to take up an appointment with the High Court. [More…]

• Many Attorneys-General had gravitated to the High Court. [More…]

• There has been the departure of the former Leader of the Government in the Senate, the then Senator Murphy, to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• We find, for example, that conventions are the basis upon which Parliament functions- conventions which are not readily identifiable or found in the Constitution or in any decision of the High Court, but conventions upon which the Parliament itself could not operate without some degree of understanding and some degree of common sense, bearing in mind that many of these conventions are related to the Westminster system of government. [More…]

• That the Prime Minister’s office itself is not identified in the Constitution; that the Governor-General himself is not obliged to ask the majority leader to form a government; nor does the Constitution or any legal decision recognise any rights so far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned; nor does it recognise the facility known as Cabinet; nor is there any reference to the fact that the High Court has power over and above the Constitution. [More…]

• There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests that the High Court has any particular powers in these respects. [More…]

• We all know the great referendum campaign and the High Court judgments with which the Australian Labor Party was associated to retain democratic rights in this country. [More…]

• Then he pointed out that there was no windfall profit to APC which would not even recover the costs of the paper work involved, let alone the cost of the High Court action. [More…]

• The High Court of course rules on a question of whether specific legislation is permitted by the Constitution. [More…]

• The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate at that time, the former Senator Murphy- he is now Mr Justice Murphy, having been elevated to the High Court because of his knowledge of these things- in a statement which he made in the Senate in 1970 said: [More…]

• As I mentioned, the position is endorsed by Mr Whitlam and even by Senator Murphy, now a Justice, promoted by the Labor Party to the High Court because of his competence in such matters. [More…]

• There are still fifteen of them sitting on the Government benches who were here in 1972 and who voted with the former Senator Murphy, now a Justice of the High Court, when he moved that motion and when he said those words. [More…]

• His credibility is not questioned by this Government because it saw fit to elevate the then Senator Murphy to the High Court where he is now Mr Justice Murphy. [More…]

• The Labor Party leader of that time, its appointee to the High Court, gave a ruling on the Constitution and the Senate ‘s powers. [More…]

• In accordance with the answer given by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in the House on 30 July 1974, the tabling of these documents has been deferred until the High Court handed down all its judgments on the Bills passed at the joint sitting which followed the dissolution. [More…]

• They have resisted them to the bitter end, in many instances even taking the matters as far as High Court decisions. [More…]

• Senator Greenwood’s ill-tempered attack on a High Court judge, I believe, was no accident. [More…]

• It was a deliberate plan to attempt to downgrade the status of the High Court because a few days previously the High Court had handed down several decisions in favour of legislation that this Government had put before the Parliament over the last couple of years. [More…]

• 1 am pleased also to be able to quote the judgment of Mr Justice Stephen in the recent action in the High Court relating to the Petroleum and Minerals Authority where, referring to the Senate, Mr Justice Stephen said: [More…]

• But the views of the former Senator Murphy, whose standards of constitutional law are so high that the Prime Minister saw fit to elevate him to the High Court, were made quite clear. [More…]

• I fall back now upon the decision by the High Court the other day to uphold the Petroleum and Minerals Authority. [More…]

• Senator Chaney quotes 2 Justices of the High Court, Mr Justice Stephen and Mr Justice Gibbs, as upholding the power of the Senate. [More…]

• Four Justices of the High Court unequivocally stated that the Senate’s powers were not being misused and that the Senate did have the power to reject. [More…]

• That makes 5 justices of the High Court who would support that view. [More…]

• What utter nonsense it is for the Government and Senator Gietzelt to talk about breaking the Constitution when the High Court- the highest constitutional authority in the land- has upheld the Senate’s powers. [More…]

• The only people who could decide upon this would be the judges of the High Court. [More…]

• Perhaps one ought to do some investigation in order to find some means whereby the Parliament can refer sections of the Constitution for interpretation by the High Court without the legislation having to be passed through the House. [More…]

• I invite Senator Georges to read the reasons for judgment of the learned judges of the High Court of Australia in the Petroleum and Minerals Authority case that was decided recently. [More…]

• Honourable senators are aware that the High Court unanimously upheld the validity of that piece of legislation. [More…]

• I understand that a decision by the High Court on the off-shore oil legislation is still pending. [More…]

• Then Senator Murphy was elevated to the High Court, which created - [More…]

• Before the suspension of the sitting I was about to cite the circumstances of the elevation of Senator Murphy to the High Court as a justice. [More…]

• On the first point- the point that the fathers of our Constitution wished to create a Senate far more powerful than any other second House- I would simply refer to a statement by the Right Honourable Sir Edmund Barton, the Leader of the Australasian Federal Convention 1897-98, the first Prime Minister and a justice of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The High Court has decided that the provisions of the Constitution framed in terms of ‘proposed laws’ are directions to the Parliament about the conduct of its business: they are not provisions which the courts can police. [More…]

• Certainly the High Court would refuse to entertain any action to prevent the Senate attempting to pass an unconstitutional amendment. [More…]

• The result would appear to be that a Bill which does not comply with section 54 could become a valid law and one which the High Court would refuse to deal with even though the breach of section 54 reduces the scope of the Senate ‘s power to amend. [More…]

• The difficulties which arise from sections 53 and 54 of the Constitution stem from the High Court’s refusal to enforce those sections and the lack of a definition in the Constitution itself and the absence of an interpretation from the High Court of the meaning of the phrase ‘the ordinary annual services of the Government’. [More…]

• The High Court has rejected a challenge to this approach; its detailed reasons for judgment are not yet available. [More…]

• I should like to see this matter referred to the High Court. [More…]

• We have referred many matters of a trivial nature compared to this to the High Court. [More…]

• I remind Senator Bunton that on 30 October, a couple of days ago, I referred in this chamber, as did other senators, to the decisions of less partisan gentlemen- the judges of the High Court- on this very point. [More…]

• Personally, I prefer the opinions of the judges of the High Court to the opinion of the Prime Minister. [More…]

• Anybody of any experience whatever, except an infant, would know that Chief Justice Griffith was a most outstanding Chief Justice who pioneered the High Court to its elevated position from which it went on and on to gain prestige in the juridical circles of the world. [More…]

• Although my Party-the Liberal Party of Australia expressed reservations about the constitutionality of the election of senators for the Territories it has accepted the ruling of the High Court of Australia on this matter. [More…]

• I believe that, following the High Court’s judgment, that provision might now be reconsidered. [More…]

• We know that before 1 1 November the Governor-General had called for the legal opinion of a member of the legal fraternity who was also a member of the then Opposition, the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Ellicott), the present Attorney-General, who is a cousin of the Chief Justice of the High Court. [More…]

• Certainly during the weekend preceding Tuesday, 1 1 November, there had been discussions with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick. [More…]

• Certainly the undisputed evidence indicates that discussions were held by the Governor-General with people who were not his political advisers; that the Governor-General called for the legal opinion of a prominent member of the legal fraternity who at that time was a member of the Opposition and who happened to be a cousin of the Chief Justice of the High Court; that the Governor-General sought the legal opinion of the Chief Justice of the High Court; that the Governor-General did not seek the advice of, or even have discussions on the subject with, the Prime Minister or any of his other Ministers. [More…]

• I refer to the judgment of the High Court of [More…]

• The most recent judgments of the High Court clearly demonstrate that the Senate has these powers. [More…]

• So the people have made a decision, the judges of the High Court have made a decision and the Governor-General of Australia has made a decision. [More…]

• It is worth remembering, honourable senators, that the Chief Justice holds no particular position in the High Court other than as the administrative head who allocates responsibility. [More…]

• He has no greater power than the other six or seven members who comprise the full High Court. [More…]

• The position of Chief Justice has no substance greater than that of any other member of the High Court. [More…]

• So, if the GovernorGeneral wanted an opinion, why did he not consult all of the members of the High Court? [More…]

• In fact, I am led to believe that a majority of the members of the High Court does not agree with the sort of advice which, it is said, the Chief Justice proffered to the Governor-General. [More…]

• If that is the position, it shows that the Governor-General acted improperly, as indeed did the representative of the High Court. [More…]

• I am especially proud to be the first Labor senator from the Territory, particularly as Senate representation for the Australian Capital Territory was brought about solely by the efforts of the Labor Government, and in face of the best efforts of the Liberal-National Country Party coalition both in this chamber and in another place, and further in the High Court, to prevent it. [More…]

• A similar provision was contained in the Judiciary (Diplomatic Representation) Act 1942 which provided for the appointment of Sir Owen Dixon, then a justice of the High Court of Australia, to be Australian Minister to the United States. [More…]

• One welcomes in some degree the newspaper reports of this morning that the decision in the boilermakers’ case has, I understand, on the basis of submissions from the Commonwealth Government, again come under some criticism in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Might I say that this has nothing to do with my being a party to the longest running case before the Industrial Court, which has cost the taxpayers of Australia $250,000 in the last year and which is now before the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Firstly, the Industrial Court would be able to operate with the same degree of regularity, continuity and stability as do the High Court and the Supreme Courts of the States. [More…]

• So as to ensure, as Senator Button said, that a situation develops in which the Australian Industrial Court can operate with the same degree of regularity, continuity and stability as do the High Court and the Supreme Courts of each of the States. [More…]

• a Judge of a Federal Court, not being the High Court or a court of an external Territory: or [More…]

• The other matter to which I wish to refer relates to the implications in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech in respect of the decision of the High Court of Australia that the Seas and Submerged Lands Act passed by this Parliament in 1973 is valid. [More…]

• Historians will record details of the struggle Labor had to win Senate representation for the territories and they will document the rejection of the Bill by this chamber, the Joint Sitting held to debate the issue and the subsequent appeals to the High Court by the 2 State Premiers. [More…]

• He acted without consulting his own law officers but after secret consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, who may well have to adjudicate at some future time on the validity of his actions. [More…]

• But Professor Howard could not know whether the GovernorGeneral’s consultation extended to any matter as to which any serious and justiciable question could be raised by the High Court. [More…]

• But, as a member of the team of the Labour Attorney-General at the time of the 1 974 double dissolution, Professor Howard knows that, at that time, there were in the High Court expressions of judicial disapproval of any attempt by a Governor-General, in proclaiming a double dissolution, to recite any such ‘demonstration’. [More…]

• They took the legislation to the High Court and challenged it. [More…]

• Although my Party-the Liberal Party of Australiaexpressed reservations about the constitutionality of the election of senators for the Territories it has accepted the ruling of the High Court of Australia on this matter. [More…]

• It is beyond comprehension that these people whose Party opposed the legislation year in and year out- they took the matter to the High Court and opposed it there- have the gall to say in the Senate now that their tenure of office should be extended to twice what it is now. [More…]

• In view of the fact that Mordialloc Creek flows into Port Phillip Bay which is, of course, connected with Bass Strait and in view of the High Court decision in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case, I ask the Minister whether in his capacity as Federal Minister for Environment he would be prepared to assist the Hamer Government to deal with the problem of pollution in Mordialloc Creek? [More…]

• I refer to a hearing that is taking place in the High Court in which one Ellis Robinson is seeking a declaration that he is the finder and owner of one of the historic Dutch wrecks off the coast of Western Australia. [More…]

• Does this not indicate that as a result of the High Court decision regarding the Seas and Submerged Lands Act, there may be a serious area of no law beyond low watermark off the shore of Australia? [More…]

• I am aware of the action before the High Court to which my honourable friend and colleague refers. [More…]

• As I understand it, the Solicitor-General himself will be arguing the Commonwealth point of view before the High Court in this matter. [More…]

• This matter has been under urgent consideration, by both my Department and the Attorney-General’s Department since the decision of the High Court regarding the Seas and Submerged Lands Act was announced. [More…]

• Is the Minister aware that a challenge to the Senate election in Tasmania has been filed in the High Court? [More…]

• Also, will the Attorney-General ask the Chief Justice to have the application heard by the Full High Court in view of the practice of the present Chief Justice sitting alone, deciding matters referred to the High Court sitting as a Court of Disputed Returns? [More…]

• I think it is well known that the High Court is in charge of the ordering of its own business, and there would have to be some particular matter warranting early consideration for the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth to make an application to the High Court for an expedited hearing. [More…]

• I am quite sure that we can rely upon the High Court to conduct its affairs in its own way. [More…]

• The question whether a Full High Court or a single judge is to hear these matters is determined by the Electoral Act itself. [More…]

• You made a ruling, Mr President, that if the matter transgresses on a matter before the High Court it ought not to be spoken of here. [More…]

• I know the difficulty which you face, Mr President, because you do not know the substance of the High Court case. [More…]

• You have the word of Senator Harradine that what Senator Greenwood is saying at the present time is not relevant to the case before the High Court, but my understanding is that it is. [More…]

• Your difficulty is that you are not quite certain of the case which is before the High Court. [More…]

• The Judge of the High Court found he did not have that interest and he was exonerated. [More…]

• As a result of the High Court decision I do not know what a pecuniary interest is. [More…]

• One is the disqualification provision of section 44 of the Constitution which has been judicially interpreted by the Chief Justice of the High Court. [More…]

• We went, quite properly, to the High Court. [More…]

• The matter was properly considered and the Chief Justice of the High Court brought down a decision. [More…]

• The point I am making is that when, as a result of the High Court’s decision, there is some doubt as to the meaning of words, we should seek to use alternative words for the purpose of clarification. [More…]

• I have been informed that Justices of the High Court do not travel economy class when on official business. [More…]

• No review is currently being made of travel arrangements for Justices of the High Court. [More…]

• Is the Guild about to issue a High Court Writ to force the Government to arbitration on the issues in dispute following the ‘Scott Inquiry’ into Chemists’ Earnings, Costs and Profits. [More…]

• and (2) There have been Press reports that the Pharmacy Guild of Australia is levying each of its members $100 for the purpose of establishing a research unit within its national secretariat, and that the Guild is considering the issue of a High Court writ because the former Government did not accept all the recommendations of the chairman of the ‘Scott Inquiry’. [More…]

• I asked when this important Senate matter was to be heard and whether a full panel of the High Court of Australia would comprise the Court of Disputed Returns. [More…]

• One, of course, also could discuss the decision of the Austraiian High Court last December when it held that the manner in which the present Federal electoral boundaries are drawn was not in breach of section 24 of the Constitution, but held at the same time that sections 3, 4 and 12 (a) of the Representation Act were invalid. [More…]

• The High Court also pointed out that by regulation the interval had been altered from 10 to 5 years- not by Act of Parliament but by way of regulation. [More…]

• Those courts, or the High Court, then were the only courts with such jurisdiction. [More…]

• On 9 February 1975 Labor Senator L. K. Murphy from New South Wales resigned from the Senate to accept an appointment to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• To cover his nonattendance in the Senate while the case was being considered by the High Court, this chamber granted him leave of absence for one month. [More…]

• I refer him also to the fact that a High Court decision is pending which is relevant in this area. [More…]

• If the answer to (1) is in the negative, does the Government consider High Court action on the part of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia to force the matter to arbitration a reasonable course for that organisation to take. [More…]

• 1 ) and (2) The matters to which the honourable senator refers are now the subject of a High Court writ taken out by the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. [More…]

• The Pharmacy Guild has subsequently issued a High Court writ to test the extent of the Government’s powers to determine chemists’ rates of remuneration for dispensing pharmaceutical benefits. [More…]

• Is the Government studying the implications of the recent High Court decision on electoral boundaries; if so, when is it expected that the study will be completed. [More…]

• These provisions which have given rise to increasing administrative and legal problems in recent years were the subject of two cases before the High Court in 1974 and 1975. [More…]

• I asked when this important Senate matter was to be heard and whether a full panel of the High Court of Australia would comprise the Court of Disputed Returns. [More…]

• The rules of the High Court require that the petition be served and that it be advertised in both the Tasmanian and Commonwealth Gazelles. [More…]

• 1 ) Did the Petroleum and Minerals Authority acquire five million one cent paid shares in Mareeba Mining NL in 1974; if so, did those shares revert to the Commonwealth of Australia when the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Act was declared invalid by the High Court. [More…]

• Five million 50c ordinary shares, paid to lc on allotment, were issued jointly and severally to the Petroleum and Minerals Authority and the Commonwealth of Australia; following the High Court decision on the Authority’s legislation these shares devolved on the Commonwealth solely. [More…]

• NL as a shareholder, to extend loan funds of $300,000 to the Company and to assist with further Dianne mine development; following the High Court decision on that Authority’s legislation, the Company continued discussions with Commonwealth officials on the matter of further mine finance. [More…]

• But he, as the Minister supposed to be upholding the Constitution through the Executive, is only too happy to reflect on a member of the Bench of the High Court if that member of the High Court Bench was once a member of the Australian Labor Party. [More…]

• As Senator Douglas McClelland said, Sir Garfield Barwick is not the only member of the High Court who has been a member of a political party. [More…]

• In view of the removal of some doubts by the High Court and the establishment of the basic validity of the Act, can the Attorney-General give an assurance that there will be additional appointments of judges to the family courts at an early date to meet the present critical situation? [More…]

• But I would say to the honourable senator that the matter of whether family courts could meet in closed session, if one could put it that way, was specifically decided in a recent High Court judgment. [More…]

• As long ago as 1953 the then Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia made the following observation in the railway case of that year. [More…]

• Firstly, the Industrial Court would be able to operate with the same degree or regularity, continuity and stability as do the High Court and the Supreme Courts of the States. [More…]

• I assure him also that the Government is well aware that the need for quite a number of amendments may well emerge in the future, particularly when the reserved judgment of the High Court in the Maher v. Egan case is handed down. [More…]

• The result of that was the Pharmacy Guild’s taking out of a High Court writ against the Commonwealth to test the Government’s powers to determine the chemists’ rates. [More…]

• Honourable senators will also doubtless be aware that the basic provisions of the Act were subsequently challenged in the High Court which, on 1 1 May, delivered judgment substantially affirming the validity of the provisions. [More…]

• In the case of matrimonial property, the High Court held that the Act is valid only where the property proceedings are related to pending or completed proceedings between the parties for divorce or other principal relief. [More…]

• It will be seen that the High Court decision has meant that the concept of a Family Court able to deal with matters relating to family law cannot be realised under a law of this Parliament. [More…]

• One of the main purposes of the Bill now before the Senate is to amend the Act so as to bring it into line with the decision of the High Court. [More…]

• The Standing Committee is already examining proposals for uniform matrimonial property laws amongst the States and Territories, and the Attorney-General hopes that it will be able to come up with some firm proposals in the light of the High Court’s decision. [More…]

• Before leaving the decision of the High Court, I should mention that section 97(1), which requires proceedings under the Act to be held in closed court, was held to be invalid so far as it purported to apply to State Courts when exercising jurisdiction under the Act. [More…]

• As the High Court decision means that the closing of State courts when exercising federal jurisdiction is a matter for State law, the adoption of the principles of section 97 (1), so far as closing their courts when exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act is concerned, is a matter for the States. [More…]

• The only avenue of appeal from Territory Supreme Courts is therefore to the High Court. [More…]

• The Bill has arisen out of a High Court decision on 1 1 May last in the case of Russell v. Russell. [More…]

• As I understand it, the High Court held in its decision in that case that the Family Law Act is valid but that there are certain sections of it which are deemed to be invalid. [More…]

• The Standing Committee is already examining the proposals for uniform matrimonial property laws amongst the States and Territories and the Attorney-General hopes that it will be able to come up with some firm proposals in the light of the High Court’s decision. [More…]

• The High Court, in the case of Russell v. Russell, has said that that provision is invalid insofar as it purports to extend to State courts invested with jurisdiction under this Act. [More…]

• Although it is competent for State parliaments or the English Parliament to subtract that quality from one of their courts, in the judicature provisions of our Constitution we say that the judicial power of this Commonwealth shall be vested in the High Court and such other courts as Parliament provides. [More…]

• But I am dismayed and disappointed to find that although some of the High Court judges referred to the decision in Scott v. Scott in 1913 Appeal Cases, yet the very relevant passage that I want to bring to the attention of the Senate was not commented on or adverted to. [More…]

• Therefore it surprises me when I turn to the Bill to find that despite the fact that the High Court invalidated section 97 insofar as it referred to other courts in the sense of State courts, as I read the Bill there is no amendment put forward to section 97 although in other respects of custody and property there has been an attempt to alter the language of the Bill so as to come within the constitutional limits allowed by the High Court. [More…]

• I am at a loss to know why, in view of that, the words ‘other courts’ have not been excised from section 97, because as I read what the High Court said, it is a clear statement that neither the State summary jurisdiction courts nor the State Supreme Courts can be required to sit in closed court. [More…]

• Thirdly, the amendments, by reason of the cases of Russell v. Russell and Farrelly v. Farrelly, have come through the judgment of the High Court which demonstrated that there are limitations to the powers which the Commonwealth has to make these laws. [More…]

• I would, however, refer the Honourable Senator to the decision of the High Court in the Australian Assistance Plan Case (7 A.L.R. [More…]

• In view of the fact that the Government now has been in office since December 1975 and in view of the fact that the Australian High Court handed down judgments in December 1975 concerning the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Representation Act, has the Government yet made any timetabling arrangements for the appointment of distribution commissioners for House of Representatives electorates in the various States? [More…]

• -It is quite obvious that the honourable senator does not understand what the High Court ruled last December and I suggest that he read again the judgments and decisions in that litigation. [More…]

• The whole matter has now been put back to the High Court for a determination of section 10 of the Representation Act. [More…]

• The head of the prison, Krivov, said to the political prisoner Paruyru Ayrikyan, who was deprived of his copy of the letter to the Presidium of the High Court of the U.S.S.R., that if such letter should appear in print in the West, then Ayrikyan would be facing a new trial. [More…]

• There has been a High Court ruling on this matter and that is that that constitutional provision does not protect people in the Australian Territories. [More…]

• As we said then and as we say now, the distinction that the High Court has found can be drawn between the necessity for the Commonwealth to pay just terms for land compulsorily acquired within the 6 original states and the Territories is a legal distinction. [More…]

• Although the High Court of Australia ruled some 10 months ago that the distribution should not await the holding of a census, I ask whether the census confirms the calculation that the Minister gave last April. [More…]

• The Government had formulated certain legislative plans arising out of the decision of the High Court late last year, I think it was, despite the fact that the decisions of the learned judges are somewhat hard of understanding concerning section 10 of the Representation Act, which is the principal Act to kick off a redistribution; but only about a week or 10 days ago I received a writ that was issued by the Attorney-General of New South Wales on behalf of a New South Wales citizen. [More…]

• The interesting thing about the writ, as I understand it- I gave it only a cursory look before I gave it to the Attorney-General- is that it seeks a declaration from the High Court that section 10 of the Representation Act, as amended by the previous Labor Government after the double dissolution, is invalid. [More…]

• Honourable senators will understand why the Government may well be showing some hesitation at the moment in attempting to amend section 10 of the Representation Act to comply with what it thought the High Court said last year, as the whole matter has been thrown into the High Court again. [More…]

• I think it would be an adventurous government which would attempt a redistribution on the basis of New South Wales having 44 seats because, having gone through the whole process, the High Court could say: ‘Start all over again because there should be only 43 seats for that State’. [More…]

• The Government hopes that the High Court will be able to hear and determine the matters raised in that writ at the earliest possible date. [More…]

• I think they have done the nation a service by asking the High Court to clarify the matter once and for all. [More…]

• I understand that as a result of a collision between 2 aircraft at Sydney in 1971 a High Court judgment assigned 40 per cent of the responsibility for the collision to aircraft controllers. [More…]

• The matter relates to a writ which has been issued out of the High Court to seek clarification of certain sections of the Representation Act and the procedure to be adopted in relation to a redistribution of Federal electoral boundaries. [More…]

• Some three or four weeks ago a writ was issued out of the High Court of Australia by a Mr R. D. McKellar of Emu Plains, New South Wales, against the Commonwealth of Australia, the Acting Chief Electoral Officer, Mr White, and the Minister for Administrative Services, Senator Withers. [More…]

• The Government hopes that the High Court will be able to hear and determine the matters raised in that writ at the earliest possible date. [More…]

• I think they have done the nation a service by asking the High Court to clarify the matter once and for all. [More…]

• Governor-General need not intervene even if Section 53 of Constitution was justiciable because High Court had the power, but claims that case of Osborne V Commonwealth indicated that Section 53 was justiciable, i.e. [More…]

• In the absence of High Court decisions the only argument left . [More…]

• It is necessary that we should also remember that a great deal of difficulty has been caused as a result of a recent High Court decision. [More…]

• The only other matter to which I think I should refer is the suggestion as to how the Government should cope with some of the problems which have been presented by the recent decision of the High Court which has reduced the jurisdiction of the Family Court in certain significant matters. [More…]

• There was the Chief Justice of the High Court, there were the Premiers of the States and there was this chamber which had to go to ultimate lengths not only in the interpretation of the Constitution but also in the prostitution of the conventions of this place. [More…]

• The issue of jurisdiction is being litigated in the High Court of” Australia. [More…]

• I understand that a meeting was held this morning, which was adjourned until tomorrow, and that it is the intention of the State branch of the Australian Workers Union to recommend to the meeting tomorrow that an application be made to the High Court to endeavour to resolve the very vexed and real legal problems which arise in regard to the conflicting jurisdictions of State and Federal laws in these matters. [More…]

• It is to be hoped also, and perhaps expected, that the recommendation of the employees will be to return to work pending the litigation before the High Court. [More…]

• Presumably the technicalities of this dispute will be resolved in the High Court. [More…]

• He first became Associate to Sir Frank Kitto of the High Court and later to the Chief Justic Sir Owen Dixon. [More…]

• He was Associate to Sir Frank Kitto of the High Court and to the Chief Justice, Sir Owen Dixon. [More…]

• I once said to him at a meeting when he was a member of the executive of the Liberal Party that however much I appreciated and understood the arguments he was advancing I thought they would have wider acknowledgment and recognition in the future which I thought awaited him, when he would adorn the bench of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• It is unquestionable that that Committee whose report which was finally presented by other members who succeeded Senator Greenwood, found its case resting in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The High Court of Australia upheld the thesis that that Committee had projected- projected to a substantial degree by Senator Greenwood. [More…]

• I think it is fair to say, as we all know, the New Zealand Government was pre-occupied principally with its interest in the Banaban litigation which was going on in the British High Court. [More…]

• Western Australia does have legislation, but the validity of this legislation has been contested before the High Court. [More…]

• Should the relevant High Court judgment be handed down in the meantime, the Bill will be reviewed in the light of that judgment. [More…]

• -It is true that Mr Field, a one-time senator in this place, has had paid his fees in respect of a High Court action concerning his qualifications to sit in this place. [More…]

• The Committee was unanimous in its recommendations that the Constitution should be amended to fix a retiring age of 70 for judges of the High Court and that Parliament should be empowered to prescribe a retiring age forjudges of the other Federal courts. [More…]

• The Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee has made certain recommendations to the Senate relating to the retiring ages of High Court and Federal court judges. [More…]

• Therefore, we would hope not only that the matter standing in the name of Senator Missen would be brought forward at an early date under General Business when Parliament resumes for the autumn session but also that the Government would see its way clear to act in accordance with this recommendation and in accordance with the recommendation of the Constitutional Convention which was held in Hobart by bringing down a Bill early in the next sessional period to enable the retiring age of judges of the High Court to be set at 70 years and of all other judges of Federal courts to be set at 65 years. [More…]

• The court in this particular case upheld the company’s claim and this decision is now the subject of an appeal to the High Court. [More…]

• Having achieved that responsibility and authority after much struggle through various committees, investigations and challenges to the High Court, I believed that by now we would have taken certain decisions which would have led to further investigation of the threats that face the Great Barrier Reef. [More…]

• Field asking for the Government to pay Mr Field’s legal fees in the High Court case which challenged his right to sit as a Senator? [More…]

• The purpose of this Bill is to seek the approval of the Parliament to an Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Republic of Nauru that would allow appeals to be brought to the High Court from certain classes of decisions of the Supreme Court of Nauru. [More…]

• Under the legislation that was in force in the former Trust Territory of Nauru an appeal lay to the High Court, by leave of that Court, from the judgments, orders and decrees of the then Court of Appeal. [More…]

• Nauruan leaders expressed a wish that provision be made for appeals to the High Court from certain judgments of the Supreme Court of Nauru that was to be established under that constitution. [More…]

• The Government is happy to accede to the desire of the Nauruan leaders and so to enter into the arrangements necessary for a suitable scheme for appeals to the High Court. [More…]

• The Bill represents a novel and significant step in that for the first time the High Court will function as a final court of appeal from the Supreme Court of another independent sovereign country. [More…]

• In this case the Nauruan Government took, as I have explained, the initiative in seeking to have the High Court serve as the final appellate court of Nauru. [More…]

• We see that as an expression of confidence in the capacity and impartiality of the High Court. [More…]

• We have had, of course, to consider the source of constitutional power to enable the Parliament to enact the legislation and to confer the jurisdiction on the High Court. [More…]

• The High Court has held that it may have conferred on it appellate jurisdiction other than from the State courts, so long as there is a proper source of power for the Parliament to enact the legislation conferring the jurisdiction. [More…]

• A line of decisions has established that the High Court may hear appeals from Territory courts. [More…]

• That is to say, the High Court- can be given judicial duties beyond the matters set out in ss. [More…]

• Later clauses provide for appeals to lie and applications for leave to be made to the High Court under the Agreement. [More…]

• The necessary jurisdiction is to be vested in the High Court in respect of those matters. [More…]

• The High Court will be empowered to make Rules of Court for procedure in matters coming to it from Nauru. [More…]

• Clause 10 deals with the appearance of a party before the High Court, either personally or by a representative. [More…]

• That representative may be a legal practitioner of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory, or may be a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nauru. [More…]

• If an appeal is made in a criminal matter by a person who is required to serve a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court of Nauru, that person cannot appear personally in the High Court. [More…]

• The preamble notes the previous arrangements that formerly applied in regard to appeals to the High Court and the Nauruans’ desire to maintain those arrangements. [More…]

• Article 1 sets out the nature of matter in which appeals are to lie to the High Court and is careful to allow appeals as of right against the specified classes of decisions of the Supreme Court when acting in its original jurisdiction. [More…]

• Under Article 2 appeals would not come before the High Court in matters that are appropriate for final decisions in Nauru. [More…]

• I know of no constitutional authority, either in the Constitution or in the decisions handed down by the High Court, which says that the Senate can only make a request and that if it is ignored that is the end of the matter. [More…]

• I remind the Minister handling this matter- it is now Senator Carrick, the Minister for Education- that when the Labor Government was being challenged by the High Court’s decision as to the validity of certain arrangements for another statutory authority- in that case, the Pipeline Authority which the High Court invalidated under the Constitution- the Minister of the day boastfully bragged publicly that in anticipation of an adverse decision a company had been incorporated in Canberra to carry on the Government’s proposals. [More…]

• The main point on which I wish to speak is my concern, similar to that of the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Wright, about the erection of the National Gallery and High Court buildings. [More…]

• The cost of the High Court building was originally estimated at $ 1 5m. [More…]

• One can see that evidence in the High Court building. [More…]

• I should make the point in passing of course that the section to which I have referred recently survived a challenge in the High Court. [More…]

• At the same time there is a need to relieve the High Court of some of the work-load it now has in matter of federal and Territory law. [More…]

• This need will be partly fulfilled by plans the Government has to ensure that State and Territory Supreme Courts will have exclusive original jurisdiction in some matters in respect of which jurisdiction has in the past been vested in the High Court. [More…]

• Specifically, what is intended is that the original jurisdiction the High Court now has under such laws as taxation and industrial property legislation should be taken from that Court and vested exclusively in State and Territory Supreme Courts. [More…]

• Since 1973, income tax appeals from the Commissioner of Taxation or the Board of Review have been vested in the State Supreme Courts, but nothing was then done to remove from the High Court appeals of this kind under other taxation legislation. [More…]

• Appeals from Territory Supreme Courts now lie directly to the High Court. [More…]

• Besides adding to the work of the High Court, this is often inconvenient and expensive for Territory residents. [More…]

• If, as is appropriate, this jurisdiction is to be taken from the High Court, there is now no existing federal Court that is really suitable to serve as an appellate court, either from the Territory Supreme Courts or from State Courts exercising federal jurisdiction in matters of special federal concern such as taxation, bankruptcy, industrial property and trade practices. [More…]

• For example, common law actions in contract or in tort by or against the Commonwealth and its authorities wil continue to be a matter for State and Territory Courts, except to the extent to which the High Court has and exercises original jurisdiction, which cannot be taken from it under the Constitution. [More…]

• The effect of these arrangements will be that, subject to the provision for appeals by special leave to the High Court from the Full Court of the new Court, the Federal Court of Australia will be the authoritative exponent of the law in the special federal matters and will thus ensure uniformity of interpretation of the law in important areas such as income tax and industrial property. [More…]

• It will be recalled that at present an appeal in income tax matters lies from State courts to the High Court. [More…]

• There is to be an appeal to the High Court as of right from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in matters involving $20,000 or more, except in relation to a ground of appeal in which the quantum of damages for death in personal injury is in question. [More…]

• In all other matters, an appeal will lie from the Full Court to the High Court only by special leave of the High Court. [More…]

• The High Court itself will be better able to concentrate on its role as a constitutional court and the final appellate court in Australia. [More…]

• This Bill is the first step in a thorough revision of that Act and is concerned primarily with the question of relieving the High Court of some of the burden of its original and appellate jurisdiction. [More…]

• A number of the Justices of the High Court have drawn attention in recent times to the need for some relief to be given. [More…]

• At the same time the amendments will have the effect of strengthening State Supreme Courts by enabling them to handle cases involving federal jurisdiction which at present are dealt with by the High Court. [More…]

• The High Court occupies a position of special importance under our constitutional framework. [More…]

• It is vital to the working of the High Court that it should be left free to concentrate on constitutional issues and on the fundamental issues of law that come before it in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. [More…]

• Before explaining the change that would be made by the Bill, it will be useful to explain, in general terms, the present sources of the High Court’s jurisdiction. [More…]

• One is directly from section 75 of the Constitution, the other from the power given to the Parliament by section 76 of the Constitution to confer original jurisdiction on the High Court. [More…]

• The High Court has an appellate jurisdiction, conferred by section 73 of the Constitution. [More…]

• Section 73 provides for appeals to the High Court from State Supreme Courts, other State courts exercising federal jurisdiction and federal courts. [More…]

• The Judiciary Act provides, in general terms, for the appellate and original jurisdiction of the High Court and for the exercise of federal jurisdiction by State courts. [More…]

• In addition, particular Acts provide for the jurisdiction of the High Court, federal courts and State courts in particular matters. [More…]

• Section 35 of the Act deals with appeals from State Supreme Courts to the High Court. [More…]

• It provides for appeals as of right to the High Court in cases denned in terms of a money value of $3,000 and upwards, and in cases involving the status of persons under laws relating to aliens, marriage, divorce, bankruptcy and insolvency. [More…]

• In certain other cases, an appeal lies by leave of the High Court or the State Supreme Court concerned. [More…]

• Otherwise, an appeal lies only by special leave of the High Court. [More…]

• An appeal lies to the High Court from any State court exercising federal jurisdiction where an appeal would lie to the State Supreme Court and, in other cases, the High Court may grant special leave to appeal from a State court exercising federal jurisdiction. [More…]

• The High Court is empowered to order the removal into the High Court from a State court of any proceedings involving constitutional issues. [More…]

• Where a constitutional issue before a State court involves an inter se question, it is automatically removed into the High Court. [More…]

• Because section 40A operates automatically in cases involving inter se questions it can cause inconvenience and sometimes can cause insignificant constitutional and other questions to be sent to the High Court. [More…]

• Under the present provisions the High Court may, on an application by a party to the proceedings, remit a matter before it to a State court for trial. [More…]

• The relatively low limit of the money value denning appeals as of right from State Supreme Courts to the High Court, $3,000, which was fixed in 1955 and the right of appeal from lower State courts exercising federal jurisdiction mean that matters of lesser significance can come before the High Court. [More…]

• The provisions of the Judiciary Act, sections 38a and 40 a, giving the High Court exclusive jurisdiction in matters involving inter se questions (except in criminal matters) and ensuring automatic removal of inter se questions from State courts into the High Court would be repealed. [More…]

• The provisions for removal of constitutional issues to the High Court by order of the High Court are to be extended to federal and Territory courts as well as State courts. [More…]

• A new provision is to be inserted requiring notice to be given to the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth and of the State in which the proceedings are instituted in the case of proceedings involving constitutional issues in courts other than the High Court. [More…]

• A new provision is to be inserted empowering the High Court to order removal into the High Court of a matter of federal jurisdiction from another court. [More…]

• This will enable important questions of federal law to be decided directly by the High Court without having to go through the trial in the other court and an appeal to the High Court. [More…]

• The provision for remittal by the High Court of matters to State courts for trial is to be extended in 2 ways. [More…]

• The High Court is to be given power to remit a matter of its own motion. [More…]

• A new provision is to be inserted giving a barrister or solicitor who is on the High Court Roll and entitled to practice in a federal court a right of audience in any State court exercising federal jurisdiction. [More…]

• The general effect of the changes will be to provide some relief to the High Court, by restricting the appeals that come to it as of right and enabling it to remit to other courts for trial matters commenced in the original jurisdiction of the High Court. [More…]

• It will provide a firm and more appropriate framework within which the High Court and other courts can operate in the future. [More…]

• Furthermore, the provision that an appeal does not lie as of right to the High Court directly from a single Judge of the State Supreme Court or from a lower court of a State will give greater authority to the State Full Courts and Courts of Appeal. [More…]

• The amendments will give further legislative expression to the Government’s plans to establish the new Federal Court of Australia, to confer additional federal jurisdiction on State Courts, to relieve the pressure on both the original and appellate jurisdiction of the High Court and to provide added status to the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory Supreme Courts. [More…]

• In other cases, where an appeal now lies from the Australian Industrial Court to the High Court by leave of the High Court, an appeal will lie from the Federal Court of Australia to the High Court. [More…]

• The only way of reviewing those decisions at present is by way of prerogative writ in the High Court. [More…]

• The High Court now has an extensive original jurisdiction in industrial property matters. [More…]

• Appeals from decisions of the Commissioner of Patents and the Registrar of Trade Marks lie directly to the High Court constituted by a single Justice. [More…]

• Although State courts have jurisdiction to try actions for infringement of a patent or a registered trade mark, the revocation of a patent or the cancellation of registration of a trade mark on the ground of invalidity is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court. [More…]

• Thus if, in an action for infringement of a patent in a State Supreme Court, a counter-claim is made for revocation of the patent the proceedings are automatically removed into the High Court. [More…]

• In addition, the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction under the Patents Act to extend the term of a patent or to grant a compulsory licence for the working of a patent. [More…]

• The High Court will no longer have original jurisdiction in patents and trade marks matters, except to the extent that an action may be brought in the original jurisdiction of the High Court under section 75 of the Constitution. [More…]

• Appeals now lie from the Commissioner of Patents and the Registrar of Trade Marks to the High Court in a number of matters that are primarily administrative in character and which do not involve questions of patent or trade mark law. [More…]

• There is, for example, an appeal from the Commissioner of Patents to the High Court against a refusal of the Commissioner to grant an extension of time under the Patents Act. [More…]

• Provision is, however, made for appeals by special leave of the High Court to lie direct to the High Court under the Income Tax Assessment Act and the Patents and Trade Marks Acts. [More…]

• The High Court has original and appellate jurisdiction under a number of other Commonwealth Acts. [More…]

• Bills will be introduced in due course to amend these Acts to transfer the original jurisdiction of the High Court to State and Territory Supreme Courts and to provide, in appropriate cases, for appeals to the Federal Court of Australia. [More…]

• In particular, the High Court still has original jurisdiction, concurrent with State and Territory Supreme Courts, to hear taxation appeals under the Estate Duty Assessment Act and the Gift Duty Assessment Act and exclusive jurisdiction in sales tax appeals. [More…]

• Where an appeal is taken under these Acts from the Commissioner or a Board of Review to a Supreme Court, there is a right of appeal to the High Court. [More…]

• The High Court is to be divested of the original jurisdiction it now has to hear taxation prosecutions under the Income Tax Assessment Act. [More…]

• In addition, these Courts will, as I have already said, have jurisdiction under the Patents and Trade Marks Acts, in matters in which original jurisdiction is now vested in the High Court, in respect of proceedings instituted by Territory residents or by companies having their principal place of business in a Territory. [More…]

• It is most unlikely in political terms that ex-Senator Murphy should have joined the High Court. [More…]

• I do not think there would be any doubt about the interpretation that the Privy Council or the High Court would put upon it. [More…]

• The main changes to be made by the Bill are to clarify certain matters as a result of the decision of the High Court in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case and to facilitate future changes in the Administrative Arrangements Order. [More…]

• The need for the clause arises out of the decision of the High Court, in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case, that the States end, generally speaking, at low water mark, and do not include the territorial sea. [More…]

• It follows on that section of the Bill which relates to the decision of the High Court of Australia in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case and to the indication by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to Sir Charles Court of the Commonwealth Government’s position on this decision. [More…]

• As I understand it, that correspondence deals with the whole question of the effect of the decision of the High Court of Australia in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case, namely the sovereignty of the Commonwealth Parliament offshore below the low water mark. [More…]

• The decision of the High Court in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case has raised a number of very difficult questions as to the respective jurisdictions of the Commonwealth Parliament and the State parliaments. [More…]

• It has been stated on a number of occasions by the present Commonwealth Government that it proposes to hold- indeed it is holding- discussions with the State governments in respect of a variety of problems which, as I have said, have arisen out of that decision of the High Court. [More…]

• I understand that Sir Charles Court, the Premier of Western Australia, has made a proposal to the Commonwealth Government which would involve a devolution in some way to the State governments of the sovereignty which has been accorded to the Commonwealth Parliament by the High Court decision. [More…]

• However, I am sure that I can say this much: The Commonwealth Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott), whom I represent in this chamber, and I are concerned as to the situation that has arisen as a result of the decision of the High Court in respect to State laws. [More…]

• I appreciate that there have been High Court decisions subsequently which have gone some way towards clarifying the application of State laws. [More…]

• I think that everybody is awaiting with great interest a further decision of the High Court in a case in which a gentleman by the name of Robinson is suing the State of Western Australia in respect of the application of a State Act. [More…]

• We believe that the proposed legislation will do much to prevent indiscriminate looting and salvage, although the extent and effectiveness of the legislation will depend upon the outcome of the appeal to the High Court on the constitutionality of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act. [More…]

• There is the Western Australian Maritime Archaeology Act 1975 which, as the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) said in his second reading speech, has been put under challenge in the High Court. [More…]

• The legislation now being enacted will fill the vacuum in the event of the High Court declaring invalid certain provisions of the Western Australian Maritime Archaeology Act. [More…]

• The case was heard in Sydney before the High Court of Australia in March 1976. [More…]

• The case lasted for 3 days and is still awaiting the decision of the High Court. [More…]

• Senator Mcintosh made some remarks about what the Bill is really all about: There will be a possible legislative vacuum should the High Court rule that the Western Australian Museums Act has no application off-shore in the State of Western Australia. [More…]

• I am advised, and the Government is advised, that flowing from the High Court’s decision on the off-shore legislation which was passed by the Senate in, I think, 1 973 or 1974, it is more likely that the High Court will rule that the State of Western Australia has no jurisdiction in this area vide the Museums Act. [More…]

• Should the High Court rule in that way until the Commonwealth was able to pass legislation, there would be a legislative vacuum in this area. [More…]

• The original intention of this legislation was that it would be introduced but not passed until the High Court decision came down. [More…]

• Depending on the judgment that comes from the High Court and the content and force of that judgment resulting from the Robinson case- and who knows, it could come down tomorrow or it could come down next year some time- the Government will then act by proclamation. [More…]

• If I understand him, the Minister is saying that if in the Robinson case the High Court declares the Marine Archaeology Act of Western Australia to be invalid then this Act can be proclaimed and will take up the hiatus that has been covered by the decision of the High Court in the Robinson case whenever that might be declared. [More…]

• A High Court matter is pending. [More…]

• The division is also deeply disturbed about the Australian Meat Exporters’ Council threat to seek a writ in the High Court to prevent the Federal Government and the Australian Meat Board from introducing controls on the export of Australian meat to the U.S. in 1977. [More…]

• In this case, as Senator James McClelland mentioned a few moments ago, the Nauruan Government took the initiative in seeking to have the High Court serve as the final appeals court of Nauru and this indicates a degree of confidence in what Senator James McClelland called the most prestigious court in Australia. [More…]

• I seem to recall from the second reading speech of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) that it was something of a novel and interesting process whereby this step was taken and that for the first time the High Court will function as final court of appeal from the supreme court of another independent sovereign country. [More…]

• That is the conception which the Minister admits has a very august parent in the person of the former Attorney-General and present Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick- would have removed from State courts the bulk of the federal jurisdiction exercised by those courts and greatly weakened the status of those courts and the quality of the work dealt with by them. [More…]

• Firstly, the High Court is the pre-eminent Court in Australia. [More…]

• Secondly, the salaries and allowances of High Court judges should have a suitable margin above those paid to federal and State judges. [More…]

• All I am recording is the principles on which the Tribunal based its assessment of the wage value of judges of the High Court and other federal judges. [More…]

• For instance, the percentage increase in salary for the Chief Justice of the High Court is 16.7 per cent. [More…]

• The percentage increase for other High Court judges is 15.9 per cent. [More…]

• I well remember that one of the present justices of the High Court was one of the first honourable senators of that time to make the observation and draw the distinction as to what is happening in the context of this Tribunal. [More…]

• The problem is, as I attempted to explain before, that in a matter heard by the High Court some weeks ago a certain litigant challenged the validity of certain sections, in particular section 10 1 think it was, of the Representation Act. [More…]

• Until that matter is resolved it is virtually impossible to commence a redistribution because the number of seats for the House of Representatives will depend on the outcome of the High Court case. [More…]

• We have no control over when the High Court will deliver that decision. [More…]

• It takes approximately 40 to 45 weeks, or somewhere about that time- it could be a little less- for a redistribution to be completed and I would hope that the High Court’s decision would be available early in the New Year. [More…]

• But if the Government needs to legislate to make the legislation conform with the High Court’s decision we would be able to do that almost immediately upon the resumption of the Parliament. [More…]

• As soon as that matter is finalised the Government intends to proceed immediately to a redistribution for the House of Representatives, but we are in the hands of the High Court. [More…]

• The sooner we get the High Court’s decision the sooner we will be able to proceed with the redistribution. [More…]

• I refer to one or two people from at least one organisation with which Mr Justice Murphy of the High Court had problems. [More…]

• It is hard to see why there should be a distinction between this appointment and the appointment of, say, High Court judges who must display exactly the same inpartiality and independence. [More…]

• I think there is probably no justification for a distinction to be made between the appointment of High Court judges, for example, and the Ombudsman. [More…]

• Although an attempt was made to solve the problem by paying a 5c prescription fee to pharmacists for the previous 3 years, a High Court writ was issued, and the Government has now produced this legislation. [More…]

• That is, 1975- when no action had been taken by the Whitlam Government, the Guild ‘s National Council meeting in Canberra decided to proceed with a writ in the High Court. [More…]

• I would, however, refer the Honourable Senator to the decision of the High Court in the Australian Assistance Plan Case (7 A.L.R. [More…]

• After that decision was taken the Liberal Party challenged it in the High Court, to try to prevent the people of the Northern Territory from electing senators. [More…]

• I understood that the recommendations of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board concerning the granting of licences in the north-western suburbs of Sydney and in Wollongong are the subject of litigation before the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• I am further advised by the Parliamentary Counsel that the question has not come before the High Court and therefore, to put the matter beyond doubt, it is recommended that new sub-clause (5A) be inserted. [More…]

• Field asking for the Government to pay his legal fees in a High Court case which challenged his right to sit as a Senator. [More…]

• Has the Premier of Queensland discussed the possibility of a High Court challenge to the ban on sand mining on Fraser Island with the Prime Minister or any of his Ministers. [More…]

• I ask the Minister for Administrative Services: Following the handing down of the High Court judgment in the McKellar case and now that the Government has had time to consider the implications of the High Court judgment, does the Government intend taking early initiatives to enable a general redistribution of House of Representatives electorates to be carried out? [More…]

• However, the fact of the matter is that it has been decided by the High Court of Australia that in relation to a special charge of assault against a policeman it was not any defence to say that the accused did not know even that the victim was a policeman, much less for him to say that he had no reason to know. [More…]

• One is aware of the power off-shore flowing from the High Court’s decision. [More…]

• Mr Keating said he wanted petroleum explorers to clearly understand that a future Labor Government will not look favourably in respect of production licences upon permit areas granted by the Western Australian Government after the date of the handing down of the decisions of the High Court on the Seas and Submerged Lands Act. [More…]

• That means that producers are being told that they cannot rely upon leases granted by the State Government after the High Court decision which, of course, was handed down some time ago. [More…]

• Then came the dispute over the off-shore rights, and eventually the High Court decision. [More…]

• We did not wish to delay the development of these projects, but it was obvious that until the High Court clarified the rights of the Commonwealth and the States in respect of the legislation, there was going to be an atmosphere of uncertainty. [More…]

• While it is in my mind, I invite any Government speaker to nominate during the course of this debate an area in which this Liberal Federal Government would relinquish any of its rights in a way which the Labor Government would not do as a result of the High Court decision. [More…]

• The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has written to Sir Charles Court to advise him of the Commonwealth’s prerogatives in respect of the High Court decision, and yet Sir Charles Court appears to be still debating the matter. [More…]

• In this regard I noted that Senator Chaney saw fit to castigate the Labor Party’s spokesman on these matters, Mr Keating, for having said- I cannot remember the exact words-something to the effect that a future Labor federal government would view with some suspicion exploration permits granted by State governments in view of the High Court’s decision on these matters. [More…]

• Ever since the High Court judgment they have said that this is a black and white question of law and that it is not a question of political ideology. [More…]

• Of course, most of the amendments flow out of the recent High Court decisions in the McKinlay and McKellar cases. [More…]

• Although I know that honourable senators and many other people may well become impatient about these matters -Senator Georges certainly seems to be in that state at the moment- it is the Government’s view that it is far better to bring forward a scheme which has constitutional force and effect than to bring forward some half-baked effort like that which the previous Government, of which Senator Georges was a supporter, brought in and which Senator Georges and others who served on the Select Committee know would very likely have been shot down in pieces in the High Court. [More…]

• Most of the proposed amendments arise as a necessary consequence of 2 High Court decisions- that of [More…]

• The High Court has now made a number of very important rulings which have changed this scheme of things and which require new procedures to be introduced as a matter of urgency. [More…]

• The Bills contain provisions designed to ensure that the High Court’s decision is given effect to and ensure that a determination of the representation entitlement of the several States will be made in the twelfth month of the life of a House of Representatives. [More…]

• The Government believes that the procedures which I have outlined meet the constitutional requirements as interpreted by the High Court in its McKinlay judgment. [More…]

• Account must also be given to the judgment of the High Court in the McKellar case. [More…]

• The High Court held invalid and of no effect the 1964 amendment which introduced the ‘any remainder’ formula as it did not comply with the requirements of section 24 of the Constitution relating to the nexus between the House of Representatives and the Senate and the proportional representation of the several States in the House of Representatives. [More…]

• It was challenged in the High Court of Australia by Victoria and the challenge was rejected by that Court. [More…]

• The High Court has had occasion to discuss this matter- I think this is set out in the report quite simply- and one could say that the Court, particularly in the case of Osborne v. Commonwealth, has pointed out that it is for Parliament to resolve what are the meanings of these expressions and to determine these matters, and not for the courts to endeavour in any way to define the power of the Parliament. [More…]

• The third proposes to amend the Constitution so as to provide for a maximum retirement age for Justices of the High Court and of other Federal Courts. [More…]

• The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Constitution so as to provide for a maximum retirement age for Justices of the High Court and of other Federal Courts. [More…]

• Section 72 of the Constitution provides for Justices of the High Court and of other courts created by the Parliament to be appointed by the Governor-General in Council and it provides that they are not to be removed except by the Governor-General in Council, on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session, praying for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour on incapacity. [More…]

• As long ago as 1918, the High Court held in Alexander’s Case that section 72 requires that every Justice of the High Court and every Justice of any other court created by the Commonwealth Parliament shall, subject to the power of removal contained in that section, be appointed for life. [More…]

• It has, in consequence, been generally accepted that Justices of the High Court, and other Federal Judges including Magistrates, cannot be required to retire on reaching a specified age. [More…]

• This includes 7 on the High Court, 19 on the Federal Court of Australia and 27 on the Family Court of Australia [More…]

• The Senate Committee’s recommendation drew a distinction between Justices of the High Court and Judges of other Federal Courts. [More…]

• The Committee considered that the Constitution itself should provide that High Court Justices be required to retire on reaching the age of seventy years and that Parliament should be empowered to fix the maximum retirement ages of other Federal Judges subject to a constitutional limit of seventy years. [More…]

• In observing this distinction the amendment contained in this Bill recognises the special position of the High Court as the Federal Supreme Court created by the Constitution and vested with the power to interpret the Constitution. [More…]

• It also recognises that the same considerations do not necessarily apply in the case of Judges and Magistrates in courts other than the High Court and that the position in regard to those other courts may well vary from court to court. [More…]

• The second safeguard is that, even though under the proposal this Parliament will be authorised to fix the specific retiring age for Judges of Federal Courts other than the High Court, a Judge once appointed will have a constitutionally guaranteed tenure to the retiring age that was applicable to his office at the time of his appointment. [More…]

• We cannot get away from the fact that this legislation is an addendum to, or perhaps a dilution, of the original intention of the High Court decision. [More…]

• I interpolate here to say that that section is in accordance with the determination of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• In the McKinlay case the High Court held that, if as a result of a reassessment by the Chief Electoral Officer, there is an alteration in the entitlement of a State to numerical representation in the House of Representatives, a redistribution should be ordered. [More…]

• I think that it ought to be appreciated that the decision of the High Court of Australia in McKellar’s case did not come down until 1 February. [More…]

• It is contained in this Bill for a very simple reason, namely, because of what the High Court has said. [More…]

• In fact, clause 1 1 says basically what the High Court found. [More…]

• It is there because the High Court said so. [More…]

• He then went on to say that clause 1 1, the clause we are debating now, would not be in this Bill- that is what I understood him to say- if it had not been for the direction of the High Court in the judgment that it handed down. [More…]

• It may well be that the High Court considered that the only way there could be a redistribution under this Government would be by giving some direction. [More…]

• The High Court, in its wisdom, has hit on this method of forcing this Government to carry out a redistribution. [More…]

• Senator Withers has said that clause 11 would not be in this Bill except for the direction of the High Court. [More…]

• As I understand what the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) has said, when the McKinlay judgment was handed down in December 1975, some 15 months ago, the officers of his Department and the Commonwealth Electoral Office, which is a statutory office, started working on proposed amendments to the legislation to provide for the contingency that the High Court suggested might exist if a redistribution had not been carried out where one should have been carried out and that was for the holding of an election at large. [More…]

• Then, when proceedings were instituted in the High Court by Mr McKellar, or those who supported him, all other work ceased. [More…]

• They arise principally out of decisions brought down by the High Court in the McKinlay judgment of December 1975 and the McKellar judgment which was handed down by the High Court this month. [More…]

• That is not a condition or amendment which arises from the High Court judgments in the McKinlay and McKellar cases. [More…]

• Again, we say that the 7-year provision is not a measure flowing from either of the High Court judgments but is one which the Government itself has chosen to incorporate in the legislation. [More…]

• As the Opposition sees it, apart from the rule relating to electorates of 5000 square kilometres or more and apart from the 7-year provision to which I have alluded, the main parts of this long awaited amending legislation now from the December 1975 High Court judgment in the McKinlay case and the February 1977 judgment in the McKellar case. [More…]

• That provision, of course, does not flow from the High Court’s judgment and indeed was not referred to in the Minister’s second reading speech. [More…]

• All of the proposals in those Bills are claimed to be directly consequential upon or to flow from the High Court’s judgment in the McKinlay and McKellar cases. [More…]

• However, so far as the proposed amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act are concerned, the Opposition indicates now that for the reasons I have mentioned- because of the watering down of the 10 per cent principle in clause 7; because of the addition of the 7-year proviso- something that does not flow from the High Court’s determination; and also because the legislation in clause 1 1 does not lay down rules for the way in which elections at large shall be conducted- the Opposition will be opposing the second reading of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill. [More…]

• The Bills have been introduced as a result of 2 High Court decisions. [More…]

• The High Court has now made a number of very important rulings which have changed this scheme of things and which require new procedures to be introduced as a matter of urgency. [More…]

• The Bills contain provisions designed to ensure that the High Court’s decision is given effect to and to ensure that a determination of the representation entitlement of the several States will be made in the twelfth month of the life of a House of Representatives. [More…]

• The High Court held invalid and of no effect the 1964 amendment which introduced the ‘any remainder’ formula as it did not comply with the requirements of section 24 of the Constitution relating to the nexus between the House of Representatives and the Senate and the proportional representation of the several States in the House of Representatives. [More…]

• This is due, of course, to the fact that in working out the quotas for the various States, whereas in the past this remainder aspect allowed a proportion of people over a quota to be taken into consideration for the provision of an extra seat within a State, the High Court has ruled that unless this proportion in the remainder is over 50 per cent there can be no extra seat for that State. [More…]

• It will be necessary for me to quote a judge of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Without going into the details of that argument, the remarkable thing was that some tentativeness existed in the Labor Party at this stage about whether the High Court would remain aloof on the issue. [More…]

• On behalf of my Party I think I can pay tribute to the High Court for in many ways its attitudes and decisions find a parallel in the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice Warren in the time of the Republican era of President Eisenhower. [More…]

• Without being nasty to the present Government, I think that what we lose perhaps on the swings through the timidity of the Fraser Government we seem to pick up on the roundabout through the progressiveness of the High Court. [More…]

• There is no doubt in my mind that recent decisions of the High Court obviously caused the Government to speed up changes in its attitude. [More…]

• It may be that social democrats like myself will have greater faith in the judiciary now that the High Court of Australia has people of the calibre of the former Attorney-General, Senator Murphy. [More…]

• I feel that when we are unable sometimes to convince the conservative thought in the Parliament we will achieve our victories through the Judges in the High Court. [More…]

• All three are necessary to bring into effect the various amendments to the electoral system which are required by reason of High Court decisions of recent times and which also pick up other necessary changes which the Government desires to bring into operation straight away. [More…]

• Because of the High Court’s decision, if we did not carry out a proper redistribution when a State has a change in the number of members it is entitled to there would have to be an election at large- an election whereby all the members for that State would be elected in one large ballot- which would be a sort of monstrous three times over Senate-type poll. [More…]

• These Bills provide the methods whereby regular determinations will be made at a certain stage after each election in accordance with the High Court’s decision. [More…]

• On 2 occasions in his speech Senator Mulvihill praised the High Court enthusiastically. [More…]

• He said that what is lost on the swings- he finds the Government a loss- is picked up by the progressive attitude of the High Court. [More…]

• In recording those words I hope he will always be as enthusiastic about the decisions that the High Court will make over the years. [More…]

• -With due respect, the former Senator Murphy is but one member of the High Court and, magical though he may be, I do not think that he could necessarily bewitch all the other members of the Bench. [More…]

• Senator Mulvihill must recognise that he is inviting here an attitude towards the High Court which I trust will be consistently followed. [More…]

• Even if the High Court does not always please Senator Mulvihill as much as it does now, I trust that he will always accept it in the same ready way as he has accepted it in relation to that decision. [More…]

• Under the High Court’s decision and without those provisions there could be a redistribution taking place every Parliament. [More…]

• The Representation Amendment Bill sets out other significant matters and the Census and Statistics Amendment Bill necessarily follows from the McKinlay judgment of the High Court. [More…]

• I commend the spirit of the Bills and the way in which they have complied with the requirements of the High Court. [More…]

• That is a provision which has been imposed on this Government by a decision of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The redistributions have been forced upon this Government by High Court decisions. [More…]

• But against that there is a body of legal opinion which believes that, to be on the safe side, the Act ought to be amended to comply, as far as is humanly possible, with the recent decisions of the High Court. [More…]

• Relying on the High Court judgment and staying with the 10 per cent variation, we find that the quota of electors, theoretically- because we know it will vary intra-State- will vary from 7 1 841 in South Australia to 40 129 in the Northern Territory. [More…]

• The High Court has said that there is a certain method of determining the number of members of the House of Representatives to which each State will be entitled. [More…]

• They are almost the words from the High Court judgment. [More…]

• We do not know whether the High Court will one of these days define what it meant when it said ‘a general election held at or towards the effluxion of the 3 years spoken of. [More…]

• I presume that that is what the High Court had in mind, that it would be about the time an election normally would be due within the expectations of a parliament. [More…]

• I am afraid that that is the best advice I can get from my advisers and the best which parliamentary counsel could do with the judgment of the High Court. [More…]

• The honourable senator will also know that both the High Court building and the National Gallery are being built in that area. [More…]

• As I understand the matter the challenge has only just been announced by the Queensland Government and as far as I know there has been no opportunity yet for the Commonwealth Attorney-General or the Government to consider what stand the Commonwealth will be taking in the High Court on this matter, the hearing of which of course will be some time hence. [More…]

• Other issues associated with the referenda interfere with States ‘s rights, the rights of people in States and the rights of justices of the High Court. [More…]

• I instance the proposed retiring age for High Court justices. [More…]

• The contentious issues now being considered include a change in the rights of the States, of the rights of people in the States, of the rights of the Senate, of the rights of the High Court, of the rights of the House of Representatives and of the rights of the Prime Minister in calling elections. [More…]

• Indeed, the only real measures of constitutional reform that hitherto have been feasible have stemmed largely from the interpretations of the High Court of Australia, which, of course, is not subject to the will of the people. [More…]

• It is not a satisfactory way of doing things for governments, parliaments or the people of Australia to have to rely upon High Court decisions and changes that may occur from time to time in the composition of the High Court to obtain changes in their own Constitution. [More…]

• There has been a great change in the interpretation of the Constitution by the High Court during that period. [More…]

• There has been a fundamental change by the High Court in the interpretation of the provision of the Constitution in relation to the corporations power, which is the matter raised by Senator Wright, in a case known as the concrete pipes case with which I am sure Senator Wright is more familiar than I and certainly more familiar than most people would be. [More…]

• My recollection is that in my previous answer to him, acting upon advice given to me, I indicated that the previous Government had taken steps to acquire the land but that the New South Wales Government had intervened by High Court action. [More…]

• Nevertheless from the introduction of proportional representation in 1949 until the vacancy caused by Senator Murphy’s appointment to the High Court in 1975 the practice was observed of filling casual vacancies by the appointment of a person belonging to the same political party as the former senator. [More…]

• This was agreed to by all the Government representatives who were at that Constitutional Convention and on Committee D. In Committee D it had the support of that eminent legal luminary who now sits in the High Court and once sat in the Senate; it was not possible to find an appropriate form of words. [More…]

• I refer to reports that the Government of Queensland has challenged in the High Court of Australia the right of Territories to be represented in this chamber. [More…]

• I understand that writs have now been filed with the High Court. [More…]

• I am not aware of the arguments put forward in the High Court in Melbourne yesterday but I am able to say that there is a Social Services Act which provides for benefits and pensions for Australian people if they meet the terms of eligibility for those pensions and benefits. [More…]

• I do so not in a parochial way but because senators representing the Territories, as I do, are under challenge and perhaps it will not be too long before the High Court upholds the challenge and there will no longer be, for a while anyway, representation of the Territories in the Senate. [More…]

• As to which States will gain or lose seats, that is a purely statistical exercise which will be undertaken in accordance with the Representation Act which was amended recently by a Bill that was before the Parliament to make it conform with the decision of the High Court in McKellar’s case. [More…]

• Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a recent High Court decision which apparently found that the taxation of disability portions of DFRB pensions was invalid and that the Government is responsible for paying back tax payments for some years- 3 years has been suggested- which have been collected in this form? [More…]

• Of course, the High Court has found some deficiencies and therefore there is some difficulty, particularly in regard to property and custody where some of the powers cannot be exercised at the present time. [More…]

• It is fair to say that in recent High Court decisions there is now revealed a very substantially greater potential for the States in indirect taxation. [More…]

• You will recall that sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 141 were inserted in the Act when the High Court found that the Industrial Court did not have the power to freeze funds involved in a Union amalgamation. [More…]

• The facts of the matter are that the High Court decision which was referred to by the Attorney-General was brought down subsequent to the amendments to sub-section (2) and (3) of section 141. [More…]

• We have the first law officer of the Crown advising a member of the Parliament that an amendment to one of the principal Acts of this Parliament took place because of” a decision of the High Court, when in fact, that decision of the High Court was taken subsequent to and not preceding the amendments to the Act. [More…]

• If answer to ( 1 ) is in the affirmative, what attitude has Australian Government asked its representative on the Commission to adopt towards the compassionate suggestion for assistance that might be offered to the Banabans as put forward by the English High Court in the judgment brought down on the action taken by the Banabans against the Commission. [More…]

• What was the cost to Australia as a member of the British Phosphate Commission of the action taken in the English High Court by the Banaban community. [More…]

• Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Nauru relating to appeals to the High Court of Australia from the Supreme Court of Nauru. [More…]

• It has been widened very substantially by High Court judgments recently. [More…]

• We all know that the Banabans took an action in the British High Court against the British Phosphate Commission for a loss of benefits as a direct result of the mining of phosphate on Ocean Island. [More…]

• Litigation involving these people in the British High Court to date has cost some $lm, yet we find that in the judgment handed down on the replanting cases against the British Phosphate Commissioners it was left to the parties involved in the litigation to attempt to reach agreement on the quantum of damages which were not to be ‘ minimal ‘ or ‘ very large ‘. [More…]

• I am merely saying that it is rather sad that Sim has to be involved in legal expenses in a High Court action in the United Kingdom when, if there had been some rapport between the various governments and the people involved, that $lm could have been put to the immediate benefit of the people who claim to have been offended by the actions of the British Phosphate Commission over the years. [More…]

• I direct Senator Wriedt ‘s attention to the recent High Court judgment on turnover tax. [More…]

• Are the amendments proposed as a result of a High Court decision that such pensions are not taxable? [More…]

• The matter of urgency, namely the Government’s illegal and unfair actions in depriving the unemployed of unemployed benefits, is moved, firstly, because of the Government’s actions towards the unemployed in this country; secondly, because the number of unemployed in this country is rising each month, and the Government is taking no action to prevent the rise; thirdly, because of the Government’s actions in depriving the Aboriginal inhabitants of Queensland of their rightful unemployment benefit by directives last year; and, fourthly because of the very great importance of the moment in view of the implications of the High Court ‘s decision in the Karen Green case in Melbourne on Friday last. [More…]

• I am aware that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) and her Director-General stated in answer to questions from the Press that the High Court brought down a judgment and informal declarations and that until the declarations are made formal they will not give an indication of the Government’s attitude, but they may make submissions regarding the nature of these declarations. [More…]

• The High Court ruled that the Director-General of Social Security, acting under Government instructions, exceeded his powers in denying unemployment benefit to all school leavers for up to 3 months. [More…]

• Before the High Court the case for the Government asserted that unemployment benefits were a gratuity and not a right. [More…]

• If that was the reason, I suggest that the Government has been humiliated in the High Court. [More…]

• A young girl, the daughter of a widow pensioner, who had never been in court and had never been in the public eye before in her life was courageous enough to take part in a High Court challenge to question the Government ‘s right to act in this way. [More…]

• He has been exposed by every action he has taken against the unemployed to be ungenerous and he has been exposed by the High Court to be using wrong and unlawful methods. [More…]

• The Government- and, I suggest, the High Court- agrees with the Opposition that the method of implementation of this denial of benefits was illegal and that government by decree should not replace government according to the law of this country. [More…]

• Last Friday Mr Justice Stephen in the High Court of Australia handed down a judgment resulting from the action of Karen Christine Green through Patricia Ann Truman v. Laurie Daniels, Brian Wraith and the Commonwealth of Australia. [More…]

• We sought to debate in this Parliament the illegal action of this Government, action which was found to be illegal by the High Court, in denying by decree the unemployment benefit to school leavers in this country, many of whom are forced through the economic circumstances of their parents to go directly from the education system to seek work. [More…]

• That action has now been found by the High Court to have been an illegal action. [More…]

• Of course, the Government, being extremely embarrassed by the decision of the High Court, this afternoon refused the Senate the opportunity to debate the matter thoroughly. [More…]

• However, 1 point out that the High Court’s decision in Clayton v. Heffron, (1960) 105 C.R.L. [More…]

• Has the Acting Crown Solicitor of Queensland taken out a writ in the Queensland registry of the High Court, naming the Commonwealth of Australia, Aberdare Holdings Pty Ltd and John Charles Bennett, as defendants, and seeking a declaration that the purported acquisition by the Commonwealth of certain lands in the Parish of Noosa is unauthorised and void. [More…]

• The State of Queensland has taken out a writ in the Queensland Registry of the High Court of Australia naming the Commonwealth of Australia, Aberdare Holdings Pty Limited and John Charles Bennett as defendants. [More…]

• 1 ) to (4) A writ of summons seeking to challenge the validity of the Senate (Representation of Territories) Act 1973 was issued out of the High Court District Registry, Brisbane, on 3 March 1977. [More…]

• I ask the Minister for Social Security: Has the Government decided what action it will take as a result of the High Court case involving Miss Karen Green? [More…]

• Since a long way back that court has comprised a single justice of the High Court from whose decision there is no right of appeal. [More…]

• High Court of its original jurisdiction under Commonwealth statutes and conferring it on other appropriate courts. [More…]

• It is proposed to transfer the responsibility for the hearing of certain appeals under the Life Insurance Act from the High Court to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. [More…]

• The opportunity has been taken to divest the High Court of its original jurisdiction under the Act and to transfer that jurisdiction to other appropriate courts. [More…]

• The Industrial Court found that it was a wrongful dismissal and rather than re-employ him, General MotorsHolden’s appealed twice to the Supreme Court and once to the High Court but did not get satisfaction. [More…]

• I know that these people have gone to the High Court with claims, irrespective of whether their State had a Liberal or Labor Minister for Transport. [More…]

• You will recall that sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 141 were inserted in the Act when the High Court found that the Industrial Court did not have the power to freeze funds involved in a Union amalgamation. [More…]

• I was surprised to read in your letter that you seem to be under the impression that sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 141 were inserted in the Act when the High Court found that the Industrial Court did not have the power to freeze funds involved in a union amalgamation. [More…]

• Here we had the first law officer of the Crown replying to a letter which I had spent a good deal of time preparing, passing it off by saying that the Act was amended because of a High Court decision, when any infant in the industrial arena knows that that was not the case. [More…]

• In fact, some of the valuations supplied in recent times have been tested before the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Remarkably, as anybody who has had any experience in the valuation field would know, the High Court in fact has been finding almost in line with the valuations established by the Commonwealth Taxation Office. [More…]

• As I understand it, the present position is that my Department, of its own volition, has instructed the Deputy Crown Solicitor to issue a writ in the High Court of Australia- we are going to do that- for the determination of the compensation. [More…]

• The High Court is the place to judge whether the scrap metal is worth a certain figure or whether a certain figure should be awarded for disturbance, severance, compensation, relocation and all of the other matters that arise in ascertaining the proper amount of compensation to be paid to a citizen. [More…]

• I think the High Court is the proper place for that to be determined and I would not have it otherwise. [More…]

• Let me state very briefly the reasons why I think Mr Aufferber has reason not to be quite so sanguine about action in the High Court. [More…]

• If he took time off to read the High Court judgments in both the McKinlay case and the McKellar case, he would know that unless one wished to have an election at large, it is not possible to take the House of Representatives out until a redistribution is made, certainly in accordance with the decision in the latter High Court case. [More…]

• That may have been a good argument if it had not been for the intervention of Mr McKellar in the High Court. [More…]

• If the honourable senator just does not understand the implications of the 2 recent High Court cases there is nothing much I can do for him. [More…]

• The stage when Sir Robert took the House of Representatives out in 1963 was before the 1964 amendment was made to the Electoral Act which the High Court has just said is of no force and effect. [More…]

• I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, by reminding the Minister that it is now more than 4 weeks since the High Court finalised its declaration that the Director-General of Social [More…]

• Is the Government to make a decision in the light of this case or is the Government merely to ignore the decision of the High Court and the law of this land? [More…]

• The case of Karen Green is under review by the Director-General of the Department following the High Court judgment and it will be finalised as soon as possible. [More…]

• If that change to the Constitution can be made retrospective in relation to the appointment of a senator, why cannot a constitutional alteration have retrospectivity in relation to the present judges of the High Court of Australia? [More…]

• The reason why the constitutional amendment so satisfactorily passed by the electorate in relation to the retiring ages of judges does not apply to the present members of the High Court is that it does not purport to do so. [More…]

• Parliament cannot legislate, of course, to remove the powers of judicial review given to the High Court by the Constitution-section 75 (v). [More…]

• Most of the prerogative writs are granted on the discretion of the court and one would imagine that the High Court faced with an application for a prerogative writ under section 75 (v), would give careful consideration to the situation that an application could have been made to the Federal Court under these provisions. [More…]

• The second and third items to which we wish strongly to draw attention relate to payment from the Treasurer’s Advance Account to a former justice of the High Court of Australia of $47,500 in lieu of long leave and $2,500 for unremunerated periods of service as Acting Chief Justice, and the payment of $40,500 in lieu of long leave to a former Chief Judge of the Industrial Court. [More…]

• The Committee was informed that a Cabinet decision made in 1967 did provide for such payments to be made to judges of Federal Courts but did not include justices of the High Court. [More…]

• Whilst the Committee does not quarrel with the principle that justices of the High Court and judges of other Federal courts should be remunerated for long leave, it considers that the arrangements not founded on statutory authority which prevailed in previous years and enabled payments to be made from public funds should forthwith be terminated and that the Government should introduce into the Parliament appropriate legislation to remedy the situation. [More…]

• In no circumstances should such payments to justices of the High Court and judges of the various Federal courts be seen to be dependent upon a favourable government decision; rather, they should be based upon statutory authority. [More…]

• Bless me, today it is announced in the public Press that the Post Office is proceeding with an appeal to the High Court against an order which a court in New South Wales directed to it to get on with its job. [More…]

• The need for the amendment, which was announced on 15 April 1977, arises from a recent decision by the High Court involving an invalidity pension paid under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Scheme to a former officer of the Navy who was prematurely retired as the result of an accident sustained in the course of duty. [More…]

• The High Court held that the pension concerned fell within the scope of provisions of the law which exempt from tax pensions similar in nature to exempt repatriation disability pensions. [More…]

• We were asking questions about the situation which applies now that a High Court decision has been brought down in favour of Karen Green. [More…]

• The Government’s failure to properly reconsider applications for unemployment benefit by school leavers illegally deprived of benefits at the end of the last school year following the High Court decision on the Karen Green case’. [More…]

• The Government’s failure to properly reconsider applications for unemployment benefit by school leavers illegally deprived of benefits at the end of the last school year following the High Court decision on the Karen Green case’. [More…]

• We believe that the Government should by now have reconsidered the position of those school leavers who were deprived of the unemployment benefit at the end of last year in view of the fact that it is now more than a month since the High Court ruled that the decision of the Government and the actions of the DirectorGeneral of the Department of Social Services in the Green case were in fact illegal. [More…]

• Eventually the Social Welfare Action Group, Miss Karen Green and others who assisted her took the Government’s action to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The High Court of Australia declared on 16 April that the Director-General of Social Security acted invalidly in not paying Unemployment Benefits to eligible youth who had just left school. [More…]

• These people inserted the advertisement because they are obviously concerned that the Minister should take note of the High Court’s findings and act promptly through her Director-General to right the wrong that has been done. [More…]

• -The Opposition has brought before the Senate as a matter of urgency what it terms ‘the Government’s failure to properly reconsider applications for unemployment benefit by school leavers illegally deprived of benefits at the end of the last school year following the High Court decision on the Karen Green case’. [More…]

• If I may make a personal observation with regard to the case in question which went before the High Court, that particular applicant was considered for the payment of a special benefit. [More…]

• The persons who represented Karen Green sought an order from the High Court in December 1976 to the effect that Karen Green was entitled to the unemployment benefit throughout the period from 27 December 1976 to 22 February 1977, that the benefit had been wrongfully denied her, and that she was entitled to an order from the court accordingly. [More…]

• In these instances the Director-General has subsequently advised me that he is making a review of the claim for benefits made by Karen Green on 20 December having regard to the declarations made by the High Court on 22 April. [More…]

• The Director-General states that because the matter is an important one which has already had consideration in the High Court, he is of the view that as a matter of prudence he should have legal advice on certain a spects of the interpretation of section 107 as affected by the declarations made by the court before he finalises his review. [More…]

• The Director-General sought the legal advice that he requires from the Government’s legal advisers within a few days of the expiration of the 2 1 days allowed by the High Court for the making of an appeal. [More…]

• But, as I stated, he is awaiting a legal interpretation of the judgment from the High Court from our legal advisers in the Attorney-General’s Department. [More…]

• The Government deplores the fact that the motion continually misstates the facts of the judgment of the High Court and rejects completely the underlying assertions that are made within the motion. [More…]

• The Government’s failure to properly reconsider applications for unemployment benefit by school leavers illegally deprived of benefits at the end of the last school year following the High Court decision on the Karen Green case. [More…]

• The recent High Court decision illustrates how this Government has attempted to dodge its responsibilities in relation to the unemployed. [More…]

• What will happen now, after the High Court decision? [More…]

• Does the Government intend, as seems to be the case, to thumb its nose at the High Court decision? [More…]

• If it disregards a decision of the High Court-the highest court in this land- it is going to lose all the credibility that it had. [More…]

• It seems to me that this Government has no wish at all to take any notice of the High Court decision because the Government has stated quite clearly through the Minister that it is a matter of policy that school leavers should not be eligible for the unemployment benefit. [More…]

• To retain any credibility with the Australian people it must take the necessary steps to implement what was set out in the judgment by the High Court. [More…]

• The Government’s failure to properly reconsider applications for unemployment benefit by school leavers illegally deprived of benefits at the end of the last school year following the High Court decision on the Karen Green case. [More…]

• I remind honourable senators that the High Court handed down a judgment on 1 5 April. [More…]

• There is no ambivalence, no ambiguity in the judgment handed down by the High Court. [More…]

• The Minister for Social Security, in following Senator Grimes in this debate, seemed to suggest in the case of Karen Green, the person who was the subject of the High Court challenge and who was successful, that there had been some failure to properly inform herself of the terms and conditions of the Act as they related to her special condition. [More…]

• We are concerned that from December until the time of the High Court judgment in April many school leavers were entitled- not all persons leaving school were entitled- to unemployment benefit. [More…]

• Has the Department taken any steps at all to notify school leavers who registered in November or December 1976 of their rights under the Act, particularly section 107, as confirmed by the result of the High Court challenge. [More…]

• I think that what we have witnessed with regard to the Government’s action over this unemployment benefit for school leavers and its subsequent action- or should I say inactionfollowing the High Court judgment in April shows that it is an arrogant and dishonest Government which is prepared to put its own penny pinching policies ahead of the law. [More…]

• It is this decision, this procedure, which not only the Opposition but also the High Court considers to be illegal. [More…]

• It seems that despite the result of the High Court challenge the Government will persist in excluding this group from receiving the benefit and it will take no steps to enable these people who have been wrongfully denied the benefit to gain retrospective payments. [More…]

• -The Senate is debating an urgency motion which charges the Government with ‘failure to properly reconsider applications for unemployment benefit by school leavers illegally deprived of benefits at the end of the last school year following the High Court decision on the Karen Green case’. [More…]

• I get back to the High Court judgment. [More…]

• I repeat that the High Court judgment simply said that the Director-General should not have issued a blanket instruction to his officers, but that each applicant’s case should have been examined to see whether he or she fell within the provisions of paragraphs 107 (c) (i) and (iii) of the Act. [More…]

• However, with regard to the matter that has been raised, I have said repeatedly that the Director-General is considering the matter of the payment of the unemployment benefit to Karen Green following the High Court case. [More…]

• I conclude my answer by saying that, if the judgment from the High Court is read accurately, it will be seen that it was acknowledged by Mr Justice Stephen that a decision needed to be made by the Director-General and a determination needed to be made by him. [More…]

• When the DirectorGeneral has made his determination, he will advise the legal advisers of the persons who brought the action in the High Court against the Director-General and the State Director of Social Services, and these other matters will follow. [More…]

• High Court ruling, whether these people are able to register- there were many thousands of them who were not able to do so-and whether they will be able to call upon the government to pay them the unemployment benefit retrospectively. [More…]

• On the other hand, we have a High Court decision stating that that instruction was flouting the Social Services Act. [More…]

• Now even though there is a High Court judgment of which I spoke earlier this Government still will not give them retrospective payment. [More…]

• Why has not the Minister got the courage to accept the responsibility of her portfolio and give a direction to the Director-General, whether it be that the Government disagrees with the High Court judgment or agrees that these young people should be paid the money? [More…]

• The Committee drew attention to payments to a former Justice of the High Court of Australia for unremunerated periods of service as Acting Chief Justice and to the payment to a chief judge of the Industrial Court. [More…]

• We all know Bills of some urgency have to be introduced expeditiously because of some High Court judgment or whatever it might be. [More…]

• At the outset, I mention that when Senator Rae presented the report of Senate Estimates Committee F on Tuesday, he drew attention to an amount of $50,000 that had been paid in lieu of long service leave and unremunerated periods of service as Acting Chief Justice paid to a former Justice of the High Court and to a further amount of $40,000 which was paid to the former Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Industrial Court. [More…]

• This makes the amount paid to the former Justice of the High Court or the amount paid to the former Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Industrial Court look like chicken feed. [More…]

• We also now have a High Court judgment which seems to indicate that our position some months ago was the correct one. [More…]

• I was pleased and interested to hear that the Director-General of Social Services will be making public his decision on his deliberations on Mr Justice Stephen ‘s ruling in the High Court. [More…]

• ~Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was asking the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) about the Government’s intentions when the Director-General of her Department gives his decision on the High Court judgment. [More…]

• The Minister has said, in answer to Senator Cavanagh, that the Director-General of her Department will make a statement tomorrow on the decision handed down by the High Court in relation to school leavers. [More…]

• The High Court has proved that they could legitimately have registered. [More…]

• If the Director-General says tomorrow that he will adhere to the Act and allow those people to be paid that retrospective payment to which they are justly entitled, I am concerned about what the Government will do for those people who can prove that the very reason they did not register was the announced policy of the Government, which has been proved by the High Court to be in breach of the Act. [More…]

• High Court decision relating to responsibility may place some further responsibility on the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development. [More…]

• I would have thought that because of the legislation which was passed and which was upheld by the High Court the prime responsibility rested with the Australian Government. [More…]

• Now we have the decision of the High Court. [More…]

• I hope the Minister will table today the statement which has been put out by the Director-General of the Department of Social Security on his interpretation of the High Court judgment. [More…]

• At that stage there was confusion about whether the case to be heard by the High Court would be successful or not. [More…]

• For that reason I did not think at first that any questions should be asked about it, but to his great credit Senator Wright made no such assumptions and it was due to his probing that the fact was elicited that the payment of these sums in relation to the High Court had no statutory basis other than their inclusion in an Appropriation Bill; and in relation to other Federal judges the only basis for payment was a decision made by Federal Cabinet in 1 967 which I would suggest is not a sufficient basis for such a payment. [More…]

• I would like to make it clear at the outset that I am not attacking the proposition that judges who work at the tempo and with the application of High Court judges are not entitled to such a benefit. [More…]

• Any man who has practised law knows that High Court judges earn their keep. [More…]

• I refer to the former High Court Judge, Sir Edward McTiernan. [More…]

• I remember a distinguished chief justice of the High Court who, in practice, in 1921, by tradition having performed notable national service for the Wool Board had delivered to him a cheque for 10,000. [More…]

• In no circumstances should such payments to Justices of the High Court and Judges of the various Federal Courts be seen to be dependent upon a favourable Government decision, but rather upon statutory authority. [More…]

• Advisory Opinions by the High Court- whether the Constitution should be amended to enable the High Court to give advisory opinions on important questions of law or fact arising out of legislation or other matters; [More…]

• In the case of the Karen Green application on 20 December, 4 days after that application was lodged she commenced proceedings in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• -The honourable senator has suggested that he has made a callous decision bearing in mind the judgment of the High Court which placed within his responsibility the decision to determine eligibility. [More…]

• I ask the Minister: If the DirectorGeneral of Social Services was not satisfied that Karen Green was qualified for unemployed benefits on 20 December, can she say whether the Director-General attempted to satisfy himself as to her eligibility during the course of the school holidays and before the High Court judgment was handed down? [More…]

• Director-General have any discussion with the Minister or was there any exchange of minutes between the Director-General and the Minister concerning this case before the Director-General made his decision after the High Court judgment? [More…]

• The proceedings in the High Court commenced on 24 December. [More…]

• In relation to discussions that were held between the Director-General and myself following the commencement of proceedings in the High Court, such discussions were held by the Director-General with me and with the Attorney-General’s Department. [More…]

• Discussions certainly were held regarding the proceedings of the High Court. [More…]

• Discussions have been held following the High Court judgment. [More…]

• Extensive discussions were held between the AttorneyGeneral’s Department and the Director-General following the High Court judgment. [More…]

• Following the judgment by Mr Justice Stephen in the High Court case brought by Miss Green against the Commonwealth and the Decarations made by Mr Justice Stephen on 22 April 1977, the Director-General reviewed the claim for unemployment benefit made by Miss Green on 20 December 1976. [More…]

• Mr Daniels said that the Judgment of the High Court deals specifically with the case of Miss Green and he did not propose to initiate a review of any other claims for unemployment benefit by school leavers for the December-January school holidays. [More…]

• However, if, following the High Court Judgment and the Director-General’s Determination in Miss Green’s case any applicant seeks a review of his claim, Mr Daniels said that a review will be made. [More…]

• Do they have to take out High Court writs to gain this right and are they eligible for legal aid to do this? [More…]

• Last Friday the Director-General of Social Services made a determination with regard to the application which had been the subject of High Court proceedings. [More…]

• Following the High Court decision in the Quadramain case, the parties to these leases now find themselves confronted by proposed new sub-sections (9), ( 10) of section 47 of the Act, which prohibit the sort of leasing arrangement which has been commercial practice for some years. [More…]

• The first paragraph said that certain provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to which I had referred were inserted into the Act as a result of a High Court decision. [More…]

• I wrote back to the Minister and said that I was surprised to hear the first law officer of the Crown make the statement when the provisions were inserted before the decision was made by the High Court. [More…]

• After I referred to the effect of the High Court decision in Strickland v. Rocla Concrete Pipes in 1971, Senator Wright asked the following supplementary question: [More…]

• Does not the Minister representing the Attorney-General recall that the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review for the alteration of this power expressly recommended legislation that did not authorise this Parliament to regulate the trade and commerce of corporations, which is the effect of the recent interpretation of the High Court? [More…]

• Is this not an instance in which constitutional review is more properly done by referendum than by High Court interpretation? [More…]

• Since then the High Court decision in Strickland v. Rocla Concrete Pipes Limited in 197 1 has indicated that the existing power extends at least to the regulation of the trading activities of trading corporations. [More…]

• However, the full scope of the power remains to be finally determined by the High Court. [More…]

• How much, if any, of the costs were awarded against (a) Mr Salemi and (b) the Government, in the recent High Court appeal by Mr Salemi. [More…]

• The High Court action was instigated by Mr Salemi. [More…]

• The High Court said that Norfolk Island is an Australian territory over which this Parliament has plenary powers. [More…]

• The High Court would not entertain any sort of argument that the island is other than an Australian territory over which this Parliament has total legislative capacity. [More…]

• Honourable senators will be well aware that one of the alterations to the Constitution that was recently approved by the referendum in May, and has since become law, introduced a maximum retiring age for judges of the High Court and other federal courts. [More…]

• The effect of this Constitution alteration is that any future appointee to the High Court or any other federal court will have to retire by the age of 70 years. [More…]

• In the case of federal courts other than the High Court, the Constitution alteration also enables the Parliament to prescribe by law a maximum retiring age forjudges that is less than 70 years. [More…]

• It is true that the Constitution alteration prescribes 70 years as the maximum retiring age for judges of the High Court, and forjudges of other Federal courts unless and until the Parliament otherwise provides. [More…]

• They took the legislation to the High Court by way of challenge. [More…]

• If he is telling the average employee in Australia, on average earnings, that he can go to the High Court and get this matter dealt with by way of prerogative writ, it illustrates the absolute farcity of this legislation and the absolute ill-conceived nature of the drafting and the concepts behind it. [More…]

• I want to let Commonwealth public servants throughout Australia, whether they be transport workers, clerical workers or workers engaged in technical grades, know that if they are dismissed under this legislation they have the assurance of the Prime Minister that they can have their solicitor take out a prerogative writ in the High Court on their average weekly earnings. [More…]

• As Senator Button today and Senator Wright on other occasions in committees and in this Parliament have said, the thought of using a prerogative writ to appeal to the High Court in situations like this is ludicrous. [More…]

• In view of the recent High Court decision on school leavers and the fact that there is now a new Director-General in the Department of Social Security, will the Minister publish guidelines to assist school leavers to be registered promptly so as to ensure that if necessary- I underline the words ‘if necessary’- they will receive immediately the unemployment benefit according to the conditions laid down for each member of the community who is seeking work? [More…]

• In view of the High Court decision last week concerning the wreck of the Gilt Dragon and the reported subsequent proclamation of Commonwealth legislation, can the Minister indicate to the Senate the present position with regard to the protection of the Gilt Dragon and other ancient shipwrecks off the Western Australian coast? [More…]

• -Honourable senators may recall that last week the High Court handed down a judgment in which it held not to be a valid law certain legislation of Western Australia concerning the preservation of maritime wrecks off the coast of that State. [More…]

• Honourable senators will recall also that this Parliament passed the Historic Shipwrecks Bill- I think it was last year -just in case the High Court did, in fact, come to that conclusion. [More…]

• It is my intention to enter into negotiations with my counterpart in Western Australia, as provided in the legislation, to work out a co-operative regime whereby the Western Australian Government, possibly through the Western Australian Maritime Museum will, to a very large extent, if not to the total extent, again resume the responsibility it had before the High Court judgment. [More…]

• The payment would be conditional on the Banabans not proceeding with further litigation apart from the two cases against the British Phosphate Commissioners already before the United Kingdom High Court. [More…]

• In accordance with past practice where members of the judiciary have been appointed to executive offices- for example, the appointment of Mr Justice A. E. Woodward, when a judge of the Australian Industrial Court, to be DirectorGeneral of Security, Sir Owen Dixon, then a Justice of the High Court, to be Australian Minister to the United States and Sir John Latham, while Chief Justice of the High Court, to be Australian Minister to Japan- the Government proposes to introduce legislation to enable Mr Justice Fox to retain his judicial status and the rights which attach to that status while Ambassador-at-Large. [More…]

• Even when that is done, there is a great deal of doubt about whether it will be a legal entity and whether its legality will not come under challenge in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The Department of Foreign Affairs, having read the previous week’s Economist, can tell us that Mrs Ghandi is likely to be exculpated by the local magistrate but is in some trouble with the High Court. [More…]

• The Bill will amend the Evidence Act 1905 to provide for business records to be admitted as evidence of the matters contained in them in proceedings before the High Court, the Federal Court of Australia and other federal courts on a uniform basis. [More…]

• Under the present Bill the provisions for business records to be admitted as evidence will apply to all proceedings before the High Court and federal courts. [More…]

• In view of the fact that the High Court last May completed its hearing of the case brought by the Queensland Government challenging the right of territorial senators to sit in the Senate and it is now October- the same length of time that elapsed between the conclusion of the hearing of the first territorial senators ‘ case and the date of the judgment of the High Court in that case- is the Attorney-General now able to state when it is likely that the High Court will be handing down its judgment in the case it heard last May? [More…]

• It is legislation that could have serious industrial consequences, legislation that could well be the subject of a contest in the Federal Court of Australia and legislation that could well be contested in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• If one peruses the report of the 1977 review of the Remuneration Tribunal it is interesting to observe that at the time the report was brought in the remuneration of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland was greater than the salary payable to the Chief Justices of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• At the time of that report the salary of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland was $55,090 whereas the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia was $52,500. [More…]

• Under this legislation the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court, as recommended by the Remuneration Tribunal, is to be extended to $55,000, which is still less by some $90 than the figure appearing in the Tribunal’s report as at 31 May 1977. [More…]

• So notwithstanding this legislation, we have a situation where the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia is in fact less than that payable to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland. [More…]

• Indeed, the same situation applies on a lesser scale to salaries payable to justices of the High Court compared with those payable to justices of the Supreme Court of Queensland, and they are about the same as those payable to justices of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. [More…]

• We are in a bit of a bind in that the salaries of judges of the High Court-a Federal jurisdictionare subject to determination by the Remuneration Tribunal. [More…]

• In 1917, in expounding the soundness of the arbitration system, justices in the High Court like Higgins and Isaacs, notable for their sympathy for the working man of Australia, said that the arbitration system was designed deliberately as a substitute for economic distress and anarchy due to the primitive method of strike, substituting the reasoned hearing before a tribunal to adjudicate upon disputes. [More…]

• It looked at seas and submerged lands legislation in the broadest federalist terms, in the knowledge that, as Senator Wright would know, the High Court had defined the powers as lying within the Commonwealth, and the conference made a number of decisions, which have now been made public, which were welcomed by the States, in terms of co-operative federalism. [More…]

• -I present the report on Advisory Opinions by the High Court by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs together with the submissions received by the Committee in relation to the reference. [More…]

• In 1910 the Commonwealth Parliament attempted to confer an advisory opinion jurisdiction upon the High Court by the Judiciary Act 1910. [More…]

• In 1921 the High Court held that this Act was invalid as it was outside the legislative power of the Commonwealth. [More…]

• One of this recommendations was that the Constitution should be amended to enable the High Court to give advisory opinions. [More…]

• Should the jurisdiction of the High Court be extended to enable it to give advisory opinions? [More…]

• Is it necessary to amend the constitution in order to extend the jurisdiction of the High Court to enable it to give advisory opinions? [More…]

• c) What is the extent of the jurisdiction to be conferred upon the High Court? [More…]

• The Committee reports affirmatively on the first two questions and sets out in detail the jurisdiction it considers should be conferred upon the High Court. [More…]

• From the evidence and material before it, the Committee became aware that the current system of reviewing constitutional changes can and does create serious problems, the most important of which arises out of the delays which occur in having the validity of legislation determined by the High Court. [More…]

• The Committee is of the opinion that the legislative process would be considerably improved if the High Court was given the power to give advisory opinions. [More…]

• The curious situation arises that there would be a right of appeal from an advisory opinion of a State Supreme Court to the Privy Council but no appeal could be made to the High Court. [More…]

• That the Constitution should be amended so that the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and the States or a person authorised by the fiat of an Attorney-General may seek the advice of the High Court: [More…]

• On questions of law arising out of any treaty entered into by the Commonwealth and the validity of any legislation made pursuant to it; and that the High Court should be empowered to hear appeals from advisory opinions given by the State Supreme Courts. [More…]

• The question of clothing the High Court of Australia with the responsibility for giving advisory opinions has, as the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs pointed out, been an issue in this country for well over 50 years. [More…]

• As he noted clearly and succinctly, the Judiciary Act was passed in 1910 but it was not until 192 1 that the High Court rendered an opinion that that Act was invalid. [More…]

• This highlighted the fact that the High Court did not have jurisdiction in the area of advisory opinions, a function that has been exercised for many years now in certain countries whose constitutions were drafted along lines similar to our own. [More…]

• It was obviously the view of this Parliament in its early days that the High Court had advisory opinions jurisdiction, but in 1921 that belief changed. [More…]

• The Committee is unanimous as a result of its investigations and the views that have been expressed to it and having regard to the sources from which those views have emanated, that the High Court should have such jurisdiction. [More…]

• I am unable to indicate to the Senate when the High Court decision in this case, dealing with a challenge to the validity of territorial senators, will be given. [More…]

• No doubt the justices of the High Court will be as well aware as we are and everybody else is of the events that are about to take place and of the significance of them to the case before the Court. [More…]

• However, in the circumstances I do believe that, whilst it might not be usual for an AttorneyGeneral to take any direct steps in regard to the giving of judgments by the High Court, I should make sure that the Chief Justice is aware of the situation. [More…]

• In addition to all those matters, I understand that this week a challenge has been issued in the High Court of Australia concerning amendments which were put through this parliament early in February. [More…]

• In view of that challenge and in view of the challenge, which has been heard by the court but upon which judgment has not been delivered, as to the right of the Territories to return members to the House of Representatives or to the Senate, and in view of the fact that redistributions are required, according to an existing judgment of the High Court which precludes any election being held on the old boundaries in at least five States, and presumably would permit an election at large, it is astonishing, to say the least, that the GovernorGeneral should have granted permission for the dissolution of Parliament, particularly when his action blatantly contradicts his own statement in New Delhi in February 1 975. [More…]

• Senator Walsh alluded to the fact that since then a writ has been issued out of the High Court by one Mr Lalor who describes himself as a solicitor from Kalgoorlie which is an accurate description. [More…]

• We all know that the High Court decided that so far as New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland were concerned, a redistribution should take place because of population variations which had occurred since the last redistribution in 1968 and as a result of judgments handed down by the High Court in December 1975 and again earlier this year in the McKinlay and McKellar cases, after which amendments were made to the Electoral Act in February this year. [More…]

• When I went past the construction site for the High Court building recently, I noticed what I hope were only temporary car parking facilities. [More…]

• I conclude by observing that, if my recollection is right, Sir John Latham was Chief Justice of the High Court and did not resign. [More…]

• -Senator Wright would not, of course, expect me to give an absolute assurance that the High Court of Australia would interpret any legislation in the way that he has suggested, but that certainly is the Government’s intention. [More…]

• Firstly, a judgment of the High Court, known as the McKinlay case, was handed down in December 1975 at a time when a general election was being held. [More…]

• Then another judgment of the High Court, known as the McKellar case, was handed down in February of this year. [More…]

• As a result of that judgment, amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act were framed and introduced into the Parliament to overcome legal defects found to exist in the Commonwealth Electoral Act by the High Court in the McKellar and McKinlay cases. [More…]

• As well as writing into the legislation provisions to overcome the legal difficulties enunciated by the High Court in the McKinley and McKellar cases, the Government chose of its own volition to write in two additional clauses. [More…]

• The seven-year rule, if I may refer to it as such, was not a determination of the High Court. [More…]

• It is that provision in that Act that has now caused a legal challenge to be issued in the High Court concerning the validity of the Western Australian redistribution. [More…]

• It is because of those two provisions being written into that legislation at that time- two provisions that were not as a result of High Court judgmentsthat the Government finds itself in this amazing situation today. [More…]

• On Monday of last week a challenge was issued in the High Court to the February amendments to the Act. [More…]

• On Tuesday of this week another amending Bill was introduced to validate the amendments of February last because of the challenge that had been issued in the High Court. [More…]

• As I have mentioned, a High Court challenge has been commenced in respect of the validity of the Western Australian redistribution in view of the existence of the seven year rule. [More…]

• If this legislation is not enacted a challenge could well take place in the High Court. [More…]

• The High Court could injunct the present redistribution or it could hear the matter and rule the existing redistribution to be invalid and then there could well be an election at large. [More…]

• If anybody tries to be smart and goes to the High Court and says that my nomination is invalid, I will have an answer from Senator Withers stating that I am in order, as I am sure Senator Douglas McClelland will agree. [More…]

• Election candidates, particularly senators who like to get nominations from a number of areas, will probably have to do what I am doing and risk a High Court challenge to the validity of their nomination because the rolls might not be available before the writs close. [More…]

• Insofar as the Bills relate to Western Australia I understand that as a result of the redistribution, a citizen of that State, believing it to be illegal, took an action in the High Court, as he had a citizen’s right to do. [More…]

• As the honourable senator has said, an action was taken in the Court of Disputed Returns, part of the High Court, by a Mr Lalor, a citizen of Kalgoorlie, challenging the validity of sections 25 (2) (b) (i) and 25 (4) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, as amended in February of this year. [More…]

• That will remove the retrospective provisions contained in the BUI and wil enable Mr Lalor, a litigant who has his writ now before the High Court, to proceed with the action he has taken. [More…]

• The purpose of the Opposition moving this amendment was to enable the litigant concerned to continue with the prosecution of his writ in the High Court. [More…]

• We are pleased to see that now, probably only because of action taken in the High Court, the Government has seen its way clear to mend its ways and to delete that sub-section. [More…]

• They are, firstly, the Crimes (Foreign .Incursions and Recruitment) Bill 1972 and, secondly, advisory opinions by the High Court. [More…]

• Mr Justice Steven of the High Court plainly agreed with the Opposition and if one needs further confirmation it lies in section 14 of the Bill: The Government has been forced to introduce legislation to deprive school leavers of unemployment benefits for that six-week period. [More…]

• We believe that this legislation, as well as the decision given by Mr Justice Stephen in the High Court, vindicates the attitude taken by the Opposition at that time. [More…]

• Has the AttorneyGeneral studied the implications of a recent High Court decision involving mining operations in Tasmania’s south-west wilderness region in the case of Stow v. Mineral Holdings Ltd which appears to rule out future legal action by conservation organisations in disputes of this nature? [More…]

• My Australian and United Kingdom Ministers were agreed that the High Court of Australia is the appropriate tribunal to determine the issues raised in the petitions and, accordingly, that the petitions should not be referred to the Judicial Committee. ‘ [More…]

• I recall that at the time of his appointment to the position of Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia from this Parliament some years ago- that, of course, is not jobs for the boys, any more than Sir John Spicer’s appointment was or Sir Nigel Bowen’s appointment was- Sir Garfield Barwick, in justification of his appointment, made a point that I think has some validity. [More…]

• He said that judges, especially judges of the High Court who may have to pronounce on matters with some political content- as Senator Webster, the Minister for Science, would readily admit- should not, after their appointment, be in a position of expecting any further favours from the government of the day. [More…]

• Sir Garfield Barwick ‘s point therefore was that it was appropriate that a man who was not already a High Court judge- namely himselfshould be appointed because there would then be no taint and there would be no suggestion that any High Court judge had been rewarded for services rendered to the government. [More…]

• Applications have been made to the High Court. [More…]

• As I have said, no doubt there will be further hearings because there are proceedings in the High Court and there are suggestions of appeals to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and so on. [More…]

• The Bill which was introduced in the last Parliament, but lapsed on its dissolution, will amend the Evidence Act 1905 to provide for business records to be admitted as evidence of the matters contained in them in proceedings before the High Court, the Federal Court of Australia and other Federal courts on a uniform basis. [More…]

• Under the present Bill the provisions for business records to be admitted as evidence will apply to all proceedings before the High Court and Federal courts. [More…]

• The very illustrious member of the High Court and former Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy, was much maligned for his dealings with ASIO. [More…]

• a disc, tape, paper, film or other device from which sounds or images are capable of being reproduced; proceeding’ means a proceeding before the High Court or any court (other than a court of a Territory) created by the Parliament ; [More…]

• Proceeding’ means a proceeding before the High Court or any court (other than a court of a Territory) created by the Parliament. [More…]

• So, if a penalty was to be collected for a breach of the Trade Practices Act, proceedings would take place in the High Court or, as I understand it, a court other than a court of a Territory. [More…]

• The effect of this amendment would be that the definition of ‘proceeding’ would then read: proceeding’ means a proceeding before the High Court or any Court (other than a court of a Territory) created by the Parliament or the court of a State when exercising Federal jurisdiction. [More…]

• From the front steps one can also see a new building for the High Court of Australia being constructed. [More…]

• All I can say to him is that he ought to look at the Act and the High Court judgments concerning this matter and not rush into the Press and expose his ignorance. [More…]

• Honourable senators will recall the High Court judgment which says that the determination should be made midway through the life of a parliament. [More…]

• As the honourable senator would remember, the High Court said that a census was not really needed and that the Chief Australian Electoral Officer could rely on the quarterly figures supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. [More…]

• These were the clauses of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Bill 1977 and advisory opinions by the High Court. [More…]

• Really it is a matter that could well be left to the High Court. [More…]

• Whether the point could be successfully argued in the High Court could be tested only if somebody referred it to the High Court. [More…]

• I believe that the courts of the land do at all levels- whether it is the magistrates court or the High Court- share an equal place with this assembly and must be treated with the fullest respect. [More…]

• Is it a fact that the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick, has recently paid several visits to the historic homestead of Lanyon in the Australian Capital Territory which has been gazetted on the register of the Australian Heritage Commission? [More…]

• Were the visits of the Chief Justice to Lanyon occasioned by his desire to have this mansion allocated by the Government for occupancy by the Chief Justice when the High Court is established permanently in Canberra? [More…]

• When will action be effected to ensure that all children can be treated with equal justice by the Courts and that other deficiencies arising in Family Law legislation through recent decisions of the High Court can be eliminated. [More…]

• Amendments were made to the Family Law Act following the decision of the High Court in Russell v. Russell to bring it within the limits of constitutional power as determined in that case. [More…]

• That litigation is proceeding in the Federal Court and has been the subject of an appeal to the High Court. [More…]

• The question of the constitutional power of this Parliament to pass section 45D of the Trade Practices Act is an issue before the High Court and it has not yet been resolved. [More…]

• The High Court has not given its decision on the question, and until it does the proceedings cannot be taken any further. [More…]

• Probably any further action that is contemplated by other companies affected by this policy of the Seamens Union is awaiting resolution of that question by the High Court. [More…]

• Reports of the speech that I made in Sydney on Monday morning at the opening of the new Family Court premises indicate that I proposed to ask the States to hand over to the Family Court the power in relation to custody matters which has been denied to it as a result of decisions of the High Court, a situation which leads to considerable problems that have been previously canvassed and are well known. [More…]

• One proposal is understood to be to take the legislation to the High Court when it becomes law. [More…]

• I refer to a report in the Melbourne Sun on 10 April of the weekend meeting between Commonwealth and State AttorneysGeneral and in particular to the statement that all State governments except those of Queensland and Western Australia are prepared to transfer family law powers to the Commonwealth to enable the same laws and facilities to apply to the custody and welfare of ex-nuptial children and to all matrimonial property in order to overcome the effects of High Court judgments in 1976 which limited the effectiveness of the Family Law Act. [More…]

• We cannot accept that it has no validity, bearing in mind that no High Court could give a judgment on a subsequent challenge to the legislation contrary to the overwhelming support of the Australian people given to the Australian Government by the referendum. [More…]

• If the honourable senator is suggesting that, in the face of a more than 90 per cent affirmative vote in a referendum in which the issues were clearly espoused and in which the views of the Queenslanders about the areas of responsibility were clearly expressed, the High Court could find some degree of uncertainty or some legal anomaly then it seems to me that there is something wrong with the High Court. [More…]

• He could not have escaped the fact that in regard to perhaps the most significant of all powers- that is, the seas and submerged lands powers- the Commonwealth, of its own initiative, through the Premiers Conference, has invited the States to share powers with the Commonwealth although the High Court ruled that powers lay with the Commonwealth. [More…]

• I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General: In view of the interest in government and politics generated through seminars, symposiums et cetera, will he contact the Attorney-General to have a review made of the prices charged for copies of High Court judgments, particularly the recent finding on the Privy Council decision? [More…]

• On a number of occasions I have indicated that with my limited knowledge of the law I believe that the High Court, in a decision some months ago in, I think, the H. C. Sleigh Ltd case, suggested that the States have the power to impose a turnover tax, which in many ways would be parallel to a sales tax or purchase tax, and that the States might be able to go ahead unilaterally if they desired to impose such a tax. [More…]

• The third charge is that the Commonwealth, in granting air service licences to Chartair and Tillair, had acted in a discriminatory manner actionable in the High Court. [More…]

• First of all, there is the Commonwealth Government’s approach to the seas and submerged lands legislation whereunder the High Court has given all power to the Commonwealth Government. [More…]

• The High Court has reserved its decision in relation to another dispute where section 45D proceedings have taken place. [More…]

• The Bill will seek to remedy these defects and to give the Commissioner the same protection and immunity as a Justice of the High Court. [More…]

• That is a matter which I would be very hesitant to put to the High Court, if that were to be the end of the matter, in view of some recent judgments which have been given by it. [More…]

• Along similar procedural lines, the Bill also contains provisions to extend to the Aboriginal Land Commissioner the same protection and immunity as a justice of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• It was perceived from opposition to the petroleum and minerals authority legislation and by the ultimate rejection of that legislation on a legal technicality by the High Court of Australia that the general hostility of the Liberal and National Country Parties which dominated the Senate of the day would prevent the then Labor Government from passing a more appropriate Act. [More…]

• Quite clearly, those words will limit the interpretation of this Bill if ever it is challenged in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Many suggested that they would be forced to take action even in the High Court if the Commonwealth persisted with the legislation. [More…]

• In particular, the 1878 Admiralty chart was referred to when the territorial extent of Queensland was examined in the legal context of the seas and submerged lands litigation in 1975 in the High Court. [More…]

• A decision of the High Court given at the end of last year has made it necessary to amend the law so that the averaging system applicable to primary producers is not available to people who have no real stake in a primary production business and have become a beneficiary in a primary production trust simply to gain the benefits of tax averaging. [More…]

• The additional power will facilitate the abandonment of cumbersome administrative procedures that had to be instituted following a High Court decision which indicates that the Commissioner does not always have power to amend assessments for that purpose. [More…]

• After that historic achievement in which he successfully stood alone against several notable King ‘s Counsel he appeared in many famous constitutional cases before the High Court and the Privy Council. [More…]

• I first met him in 1932 when I was his second junior in a case before the High Court. [More…]

• In other cases, where an appeal lay from the Industrial Court to the High Court of Australia by leave of the High Court, an appeal now lies from the Federal Court of Australia to the High Court. [More…]

• In relation to the limitations on appeals to the High Court presently existing in the Act, these limitations have been retained in this Bill. [More…]

• As it is proposed that there be no right of appeal from a single judge to a full court in relation to section 158P inquiries, the Government considers that there should likewise be no right of appeal to the High Court. [More…]

• I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications whether his attention has been drawn to a High Court judgment handed down recently by His Honour Sir Keith Aickin, in which judgment His Honour declared null and void the granting of licences for two commercial radio relay stations in Queensland on the ground that the former Australian Broadcasting Control Board in its hearing had denied natural justice to the parties concerned? [More…]

• Because the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in its hearings to date has been allowing- in my opinion, properly allowing- an air of informality in its public hearings on applications for renewal of licences and because there is so much public interest in the matter, can the Minister say whether the Tribunal intends adopting its existing practice or whether the High Court judgment now means that in all future hearings conducted by the [More…]

• I have not in fact seen the judgment by Mr Justice Aickin in the High Court to which Senator Douglas McClelland refers. [More…]

• I believe that the Government would study such a judgment, as would the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, and of course reach decisions as to how the Tribunal should comport itself in the future so that its behaviour is in accordance with the High Court judgment. [More…]

• The Minister will recall that yesterday I asked him a question concerning the windows in the new High Court building. [More…]

• The validity of such notices in these circumstances has been raised in proceedings in the High Court in respect of alleged offences against the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations and the purpose of the Ordinances and Regulations (Notification) Bill is to remove the possibility of invalidity flowing from the unavailability of copies. [More…]

• However, the Bill expressly provides that the validation it provides for is not to affect existing prosecutions under the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations, thus excluding the High Court proceedings referred to from the scope of the Bill. [More…]

• The Minister’s admission that he has not studied legal interpretations for some time is borne out by the fact that recent judgments of the High Court suggest that we cannot rely too much on the dictionary meaning or the generally accepted meaning of words. [More…]

• We all thought we knew until the High Court judgment in a case against Senator Webster. [More…]

• I protest against draftsmen continuing to use words which the High Court has told us do not mean what we all thought they meant and what many still think they mean. [More…]

• What is the estimated cost to Government revenue of tax avoidance arising from participation in trusts and use in primary producers’ tax averaging concessions, as a consequence of the recent High Court judgment (Cridland v. Commissioner of Taxation), and the removal of the $ 16,000 limit on income which may be averaged, as reported in The Taxpayer, 10 December 1977. [More…]

• The unions took the matter to the High Court which held that the Deputy Arbitrator in fact had power to grant a right of appeal and that, as the other orders were made on the erroneous assumption that he lacked jurisdiction to deal with the unions’ claim, they could not be allowed to stand. [More…]

• The High Court’s decision has very serious implications for the management and continuing efficiency of the Public Service. [More…]

• The possibility of legislation being introduced to that effect was mentioned in the High Court proceedings and when the matter was resumed before the Deputy Arbitrator. [More…]

• However, during the High Court proceedings, some doubt was raised as to the capacity of the Public Service Arbitrator and the Deputy Arbitrator to make such orders. [More…]

• However, on 4 May, the Government received a telegram from Sir Charles Court which, by implication, threatened a High Court action if it went ahead with this legislation, and noises were heard from other State Premiers also. [More…]

• Section 38 of the Judiciary Act requires States to make application to the High Court. [More…]

• As the Minister pointed out, the High Court of Australia in recent days has been seized of the problem which is set out in the second paragraph of the Minister’s second reading speech. [More…]

• In view of the decision by the High Court in the challenge by AUS Student Travel Pty Ltd against the Australian Department of Transport, would he not now agree that the decision is a setback for all Australians seeking cheap air travel? [More…]

• All I understand is that the High Court decision will enable the Government to pursue what is an eminently responsible position, that is, to ensure that all travel agents work equally; that all activities and regulations which relate to affinity groups and similar groups should be equal; and, consistent with that and with the maintenance of the highest safety factors possible in air travel, that air fares might be reduced. [More…]

• As Attorney-General for the Commonwealth, I then applied for the removal of those proceedings into the High Court for determination by that court of such important matters as claims of Crown privilege that were, of course, made by the Crown in the proceedings in the Queanbeyan court. [More…]

• Argument has been conducted in the High Court on the issues and it has reserved its decision which we are awaiting. [More…]

• Indeed, last year one of the payments under consideration was that to Mr Justice McTiernan upon his retirement from the High Court. [More…]

• I feel bound to lay with emphasis my submission in that respect because of what I think is a most unprecedented step in that the Attorney-General should be elevating a question of privilege as to documents to a consideration in summary proceedings before the High Court. [More…]

• As I have already indicated in answer to a question earlier today, that is a matter for decision by the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• I took the step of referring such a fundamentally important question for the earliest possible decision by the High Court. [More…]

• I do not propose to say anything more on the subject until the decision of the High Court is given. [More…]

• The decision to deal with the Curran scheme came about largely because of a decision in the High Court of Australia on 4 November 1 974. [More…]

• Following that court decision the then Treasurer, Mr Crean, warned that action would be taken to counteract the High Court decision. [More…]

• The High Court of Australia has brought down a decision which, in effect, provides that a law need not have the meaning intended by the Government which originally enacted it. [More…]

• There are, of course, difficulties with the Income Tax Assessment Act when the High Court of Australia insists on bringing down absurd interpretations, particularly relating to section 260 of the Act, and stands the English language on its head and says that the words do not mean what they say. [More…]

• Therefore, the problem of the High Court would largely disappear. [More…]

• That arose from another ruling of the High Court which some people might have thought to be peculiar. [More…]

• Treasurer Crean said in 1974, after the full High Court first pronounced the validity of this law, that he would tie it in with, I think, a capital gains tax, but nothing was done. [More…]

• Not only did the full High Court confirm the existing legislation as valid in 1974; it was also confirmed as valid in other judgments some 1 8 months ago- again by the High Court. [More…]

• Indeed, the Treasurer, in one of his statements which I have not before me, said that in his view, on the present composition of the High Court, there was no possibility of it declaring the Curran scheme illegal under the existing law; hence the need for an amendment. [More…]

• This statement as to the law has been recently approved by the Chief Justice of the High Court in the 1 977 case of Slutzkin v. the Commissioner of Taxation. [More…]

• The High Court by a division of three to one said that he is entitled to the credit he establishes by appropriating his share credit to this dividend from the capital reserve as a cost. [More…]

• I have the headnote of the decision of the High Court in relation to the Curran case. [More…]

• High Court of Australia [More…]

• On disallowance of his subsequent objection to the assessment, the taxpayer requested the matter be forwarded to the High Court of Australia, where Jacobs J stated a case for the opinion of the Full Court. [More…]

• The following questions were stated for the opinion of the Full High Court: [More…]

• A brief outline of the historical facts in relation to this legislation is that in 1 974 the High Court decided that a sharebroker called Curran could legitimately use artificially created losses to set off against his income. [More…]

• That section, broadly interpreted, as it was intended to be, I imagine, could mean that where Curran-type schemes are manufactured for the sole purpose of avoiding tax- which is the allegation which has been made in regard to what has been happening since 1974- the Commissioner of Taxation could set aside the claims and his action could be upheld in the High Court. [More…]

• The Government specifically wants to stop the Curran scheme which the High Court declared legal on 4 November 1974. [More…]

• A little later in 1974, after the High Court decision, the then Treasurer said that the Government was considering amending the income tax law to counteract the High Court decision. [More…]

• If we expect people to plan their affairs within the law, and those who were using the Curran schemes were planning within the law as declared by the High Court, the two things I have outlined must be done by government. [More…]

• The High Court of Australia said in 1974 that Curran-type schemes are legal, but to hear people talk now, one would think that such practices are the worst possible criminal offence. [More…]

• If the High Court says that something is legal how can we say that these people, who act within the legal framework, are the greatest bunch of so-and-sos? [More…]

• But the High Court has said that Curran-type schemes are legal. [More…]

• The Curran scheme is said to be dignified by a High Court decision and so on. [More…]

• I do not propose to quote Lord Greene’s remarks again but I propose to quote from a judgment of Mr Justice Isaacs, one of the most distinguished judges who ever graced the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• I assure Senator Sir Reginald Wright, Senator Messner and others who have mentioned section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act that the Government is very concerned about the ineffective application of the section now as a result of High Court decisions. [More…]

• They took the matter to the High Court. [More…]

• When they were defeated there they took the matter to the High Court and they lost. [More…]

• No strike was called, but the union took the matter to the High Court which subsequently upheld the union’s point of view that the right of appeal was a fundamental condition of employment. [More…]

• The High Court said that the right of appeal was a fundamental condition of employment, particularly in the Public Service where a wide range of job opportunities existed and a wide range of qualifications are desired for those various positions. [More…]

• I want to make just a few points about the legislation, particularly relating to the High Court decision to which Senator Colston referred. [More…]

• I think it is necessary to make the point that the decision of the High Court appeared to the Government to mean that the whole area of recruitment into and promotion within the Public Service could be removed from the control of the Public Service Board and departmental management by the Public Service Arbitrator. [More…]

• For 56 years this has been the way it has operated and this legislation to amend the Public Service Arbitration Act, following a decision by the High Court which gave clear interpretation to the law which differed from traditional practices, will put into effect what has traditionally been the accepted situation. [More…]

• The situation has been clarified by the High Court in relation to the existing law. [More…]

• I remind Senator Walsh that his fears in respect of clause 5 of the Bill are somewhat unfounded because I think a similar scheme has been approved by the High Court and it has been operating in another primary industry. [More…]

• I suggest, that it would be challenged, but, if it is, the High Court will then have to determine it. [More…]

• In view of the interest in government and politics generated through seminars, symposiums, et cetera, will he contact the Attorney-General to have a review made of the prices charged for copies of High Court judgments, particularly the recent findings on the Privy Council decision? [More…]

• The price of a copy of the Reasons for Judgment delivered by a Justice of the High Court is fixed by Rules of Court made by the Judges. [More…]

• It is not intended that the service provided by the High Court should supplant the normal law reporting services commercially available. [More…]

• As I have indicated, the fee payable for a copy of Reasons for Judgment is fixed by the Rules of the High Court, which are a matter for the Justices themselves. [More…]

• The desirability of reviewing the existing law relating to offences at sea was referred to by the Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Garfield Barwick, in 1974 in the case of The Queen v. Bull (131 CLR 203, at page 235). [More…]

• The Bill now before the Senate represents the first fruits of the consultations and agreements between the Commonwealth and the States initiated by this Government to deal with the situation it faced following upon the decision of the High Court in the Seas and Submerged Lands Case in late 1975 (135 CLR 337). [More…]

• The object of this exercise which we have been engaged in since last year has been to endeavour, on the basis of federalism, to restore to the States powers, many of which were thrown in great doubt as a result of the High Court decision. [More…]

• For instance, one might contrast the practicality of a referendum on whether we should export our uranium with a referendum on whether High Court judges should retire at the age of 70. [More…]

• The meaning of the word free’ has worried the High Court of Australia over the years when it has dealt with the interpretation of section 92 of the Constitution. [More…]

• It is not for others to decide whether by our default or our permission- a default which allows elitist groups, whether in board rooms or in political cells to manipulate society- or a permission, or perhaps submission, which allows a non-elected bench of High Court justices to put parameters on our society. [More…]

• We have been fettered and hindered in the task of developing forms of commercial life appropriate to the critical needs of the Australian community by the non-elected Bench of High Court justices, particularly in the period immediately after the Second World War. [More…]

• It is a doubt that will never be resolved unless there is a challenge to the High Court. [More…]

• The Government, despite any possible fears about what power it has, should act upon the basis that it believes it has the power and should acquire land on behalf of Aborigines in such a way that there would be a challenge to the High Court for the purpose of determining the actual legal position in Australia. [More…]

• We know that sometimes on questions of who is the authority on interpretation the High Court brings down many unusual decisions. [More…]

• I sent a copy of the text of my speech to every legal person in the Federal Labor Party and asked them for their reactions on the legal points I had raised, I did not get a reply from them all, but of those replies that I did get the best that one could get was: ‘I think the High Court may rule’. [More…]

• I can say only that he says that the High Court may uphold a challenge. [More…]

• As Minister for Aboriginal Affairs there was much legislation which one would have liked to have brought forward and which on the advice that we had could have subjected this question to a challenge in the High Court. [More…]

• One legal opinion I have seen assumes that the High Court could well rule that Aborigines are not people of a special race. [More…]

• Everyone knows that if we acquired either Aurukun or Mornington Island there would immediately be a challenge in the High Court of Australia against the Commonwealth’s action. [More…]

• These relate particularly to access to and parking at the High Court and National Gallery sites and to a general improvement of traffic patterns within the parliamentary area. [More…]

• Are the new National Gallery and the new High Court buildings in danger of falling down? [More…]

• The upshot of its actions in recent years is that the Arbitration Commission is increasingly like the High Court, setting itself up as an economic legislature, with power to make arbitrary and ill considered forays into economic policy making to defeat the intentions of Government policy. [More…]

• Cottee ‘s appointment to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission an attempt by the Government to avoid a second High Court injunction being lodged by Mr Cottee against the granting of this licence to another applicant? [More…]

• Does the AttorneyGeneral agree that one of the Government’s problems with tax avoidance schemes is the interpretation by the High Court of Australia of section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act? [More…]

• However, a major problem is presented by the interpretation of that section by the High Court. [More…]

• The outcome of that report and the decisions of the High Court have made wheat growers a little firmer in their resolution to continue in Australia. [More…]

• Although the High Court was fairly evenly balanced in its decision, I know that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), who has the main carriage of this matter, has indicated that there will be no basic change to the underlying theme of the present stabilisation scheme following the High Court decision. [More…]

• If I might paraphrase some words from a High Court decision, anyone with a ‘modicum of knowledge ‘ or a pretence of expertise in this field would or should have known of the inevitable result of filing an application for a bans clause within 20 minutes or so of my recommendation. [More…]

• Legislation enacted in 1976 to establish the Federal Court of Australia and to restructure the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court left a number of loose ends to be tidied up at a later date. [More…]

• The 1976 legislation removed from the High Court the original jurisdiction that it had under Commonwealth law in the areas of greatest workload. [More…]

• The High Court should be free to concentrate on its role as a constitutional and appellate court in matters of general importance. [More…]

• The Court has also replaced the High Court as the Court of Appeal from Territory Supreme Courts. [More…]

• to divest the High Court of original jurisdiction vested in it by statute, other than original jurisdiction as a Court of Disputed Returns under the Commonwealth Electoral Act; [More…]

• In removing the original statutory jurisdiction of the High Court, the Bill does not, of course, purport to limit the jurisdiction conferred directly on the High Court by the Constitution. [More…]

• Thus in some cases where a statute now confers a right to proceed against the Commonwealth in the High Court, repeal of the statutory provision would still leave intact the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in matters in which the Commonwealth is suing or being sued. [More…]

• Where the statutory right to proceed against the Commonwealth is moved to State or Territory courts, those courts would have a jurisdiction in those matters concurrent with the jurisidiction vested in the High Court by the Constitution. [More…]

• If such an action is commenced in the High Court, that court is empowered under the Judiciary Act to remit the proceedings to the appropriate State or Territory court. [More…]

• An appeal from a decision of a State or Territory Court, including a decision in an action for an infringement of copyright or design, is to lie only to the Federal Court of Australia or, by special leave of the High Court, to that court. [More…]

• Amendments made by the Bill will remove the original jurisidiction conferred on the High Court under the Copyright Act 1968 and the Designs Act 1906. [More…]

• The jurisidiction of the High Court under section 28 of the Designs Act to cancel the registration of a design or to grant a compulsory licence for the manufacture of articles to which the design is applied is transferred to State and Territory Supreme Courts. [More…]

• An appeal from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia to the High Court of Australia will lie only by special leave of the High Court. [More…]

• An appeal may be taken directly from the State or Territory Supreme Court to the High Court by special leave of the High Court. [More…]

• Because, under the Federal Court of Australia Act, an appeal lies as of right from the Full Court of the Federal Court to the High Court when a sum of $20,000 or more is in issue, many income tax appeals may lie as of right from the Federal Court to the High Court. [More…]

• It had been intended that an appeal would lie to the High Court in income tax matters only by special leave of the High Court. [More…]

• In the legislation as introduced into the Parliament in 1976, this result was achieved because the Federal Court of Australia Bill provided that an appeal might be taken to the High Court from the Federal Court only by special leave of the High Court. [More…]

• That Bill was amended during the course of debate to provide that an appeal would lie as of right from the Federal Court to the High Court in the same circumstances as an appeal would lie as of right from the Full Court of a State Supreme Court to the High Court under the amendments to the Judiciary Act then introduced. [More…]

• Where the High Court still has, under taxation legislation, original jurisdiction in taxation prosecutions, that jurisdiciton is to be removed. [More…]

• Part VIII of the BUI provides for the amendment of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955 so as to remove the jurisdiction conferred by that Act on the High Court. [More…]

• Under the Act, the High Court has conferred on it jurisdiction concurrent with State and Territory courts. [More…]

• The Bill makes appropriate provisions preserving existing rights to appeal to the High Court under the taxation legislation and to preserve the jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of proceedings instituted in the High Court at the date on which the relevant provisions of the Bill are brought into operation. [More…]

• Clauses 125-128 of the Bill provide for the High Court to remit pending proceedings or proceedings arising out of rights of appeal accrued at the date the Bill comes into operation to a State or Territory Supreme Court having jurisdiction in that proceeding. [More…]

• It may be recalled that the Judiciary Act was amended in 1 976 to give the High Court a general power to remit proceedings brought in the original jurisdiction of the High Court to appropriate State or Territory courts. [More…]

• Others give effect to the policy of removing from the High Court original jurisdiction under Commonwealth statutes. [More…]

• These cases are the present jurisdiction of the High Court under the Banking Act, the jurisdiction to determine references of questions of law from the Courts-Martial Appeal Tribunal, the jurisdiction to declare unlawful associations under the Crimes Act, certain jurisdiction of the High Court under the Insurance (Deposits) Act, the power to try on a summary basis prosecutions for offences against the Royal Commissions Act and certain jurisdiction under the Treasury Bills Act. [More…]

• An early judgment of the High Court, in the Union Label case in 1 908, concluded that the Commonwealth legislative powers in respect of trade marks did not extend to marks applied to goods to identify the source of labour employed by the manufacturers of those goods. [More…]

• In my experience of appearances before the Tribunal- I say this with no disrespect whatsoever to its judicial members- it operates with about as much legal informality as a cross between the High Court of Australia and the Privy Council. [More…]

• I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications whether his attention has been drawn to a High Court judgment handed down recently by His Honour Sir Keith Aickin, in which judgment His Honour declared null and void the granting of licences for two commercial radio relay stations in Queensland on the ground that the former Australian Broadcasting Control Board in its hearing had denied natural justice to the parties concerned? [More…]

• Because the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in its hearing to date has been allowing- in my opinion, properly allowing- an air of informality in its public hearings on applications for renewal of licences and because there is so much public interest in the matter, can the Minister saywhether the Tribunal intends adopting its existing practicesorwhether the High Court judgment now means thatture hearings conducted by the Tribunal the right c. cross-examination must be allowed? [More…]

• It is not deterred by comments made by the self-styled Charge d ‘Affaires to the effect that any attempt to force closure of the so-called ‘Embassy’ would be met by a challenge in the High Court. [More…]

• Yesterday we heard how the High Court upheld a decision made by the Director-General of Civil Aviation in the IPEC case. [More…]

• After that girl had won an appeal against the Director-General’s decisionthe High Court found that under the Act the Director-General had acted improperly- the Director-General reconsidered her case but again refused to grant the unemployment benefit. [More…]

• What concerns me also is that the Government has decided for some reason or other that the States should be given back- I take it that this was taken away from the States by legislation and various High Court decisions- the responsibility for the supervision of waters within the three-mile limit. [More…]

• This has led to statements during the last 12 months by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), in discussions at Premiers Conferences and following the High Court decision that power in relation to those waters in actual fact lies with the Commonwealth. [More…]

• The one High Court pronouncement on this subject is just not clear on what is meant by one ordinance being wholly or partly the same in substance as another. [More…]

• Because of the lateness of the hour I quote only part of a judgment by Mr Justice McTiernan, a High Court judge, in a case concerning the meaning of ‘in substance’. [More…]

• Is the Attorney-General aware of reports in some newspapers that the Government intends to introduce legislation to overcome rulings made by the High Court of Australia in the Sankey case last week in relation to Executive privilege? [More…]

• I have seen some reports in newspapers along the lines that Senator Lajovic mentions, but the fact is that the Government is not considering any legislation which would have the effect of reversing or modifying the decision of the High Court in relation to the Sankey case. [More…]

• The Government, of course, accepts and will abide by the decision of the High Court in that case. [More…]

• The High Court decision is of great importance to both the Government and the Parliament and it is one which my Department and I are considering carefully. [More…]

• In view of the recent decision in the Sankey case in which the High Court indicated that certain documents such as Cabinet minutes or communications between heads of departments would not automatically be immune from disclosure to the Court if public interest required it, could you make available to the Senate an opinion as to the impact of this decision on the ability of honourable senators to obtain such documents either by request within this chamber or in Estimates or other committees? [More…]

• Surely this democratically elected chamber should not have restrictions placed on it from which the High Court- that non-elected bench of justices- has managed to escape. [More…]

• I refer to the negotiations that have been proceeding for some considerable time now for the transfer to the Commonwealth of power with regard to family law in the areas where there is divided jurisdiction as a result of High Court litigation in the last few years. [More…]

• My recollection of the case is that the High Court said clearly that that was not so. [More…]

• The order of magnitude that we are talking about is transcript for some 10 or 12 constitutional cases, because that is all that are, being heard per annum by the High Court. [More…]

• It would contribute also much to students’ and researchers’ understanding of the dynamics of adjudication, as it were- the process of opinion formulation by High Court judges as it emerges with tentative questions and answers becoming more certain in the course of argument. [More…]

• It is of very great interest to legal researchers and analysts of High Court decisions to be able to compare the opinions, or judgments as they finally come down, with the nature of the arguments that have been given and the material that has been put to the judges in the course of argument. [More…]

• I also make the more general point that to improve in any way the community’s knowledge, through at least its professional members, of the operation and dynamics of the High Court is something hardly to be sneezed at. [More…]

• It is becoming increasingly recognised, particularly with the more dramatic events of recent years, that the High Court is an institution playing a role of significance in our political and governmental system which is at least on a par with the significance of this Parliament and which in many ways is a role which is approaching the significance of the Executive. [More…]

• I have been led to understand- I communicated this understanding to the Minister in the course of the Estimates Committee proceedings- that at least one of the High Court justices had taken the view that it was inappropriate or wrong for students to be exposed to the argument that takes place in the High Court before such argument has been shaped up or the High Court judges’ opinions have reached final fruition in the form of their final written opinions. [More…]

• The fact that the Chief Justice took that particular view of the function of transcript rather suggests that he was also of the view, as I suggested might have been possible, that the provision of this material to law school academics, researchers and students, was bad; that it would give them misconceived ideas of the nature of the judicial process; and that perhaps not only would it make them excessively willing to criticise High Court judges for what they produced in their final opinions, which these academics are prone enough to do at the moment, but also might it tempt them to start using the text of what fell from judges in the course of argument as further grounds for criticising them. [More…]

• The view taken by my predecessor in relation to this matter and the view I have taken is not based on anything that has been said by any judges of the High Court about the wisdom of providing the transcripts. [More…]

• I imagine a situation where transcripts of an argument in a particular class of proceeding before the High Court are made available for researchers. [More…]

• No doubt, there is a great deal of interest in the arguments presented in taxation cases in the High Court. [More…]

• 1 ) When the High Court’s principal seat is established in Canberra will the Court continue to make even occasional visits to the more distant States. [More…]

• Did the Attorney-General tell the 75th Anniversary Sitting of the High Court on 6 October 1978, that these matters ‘should desirably be solved as soon as possible’. [More…]

• Did the Australian National Group consult any of the following groups before making its nominations of candidates for the International Court of Justice: (a) the High Court; (b) legal faculties and schools of law; and (c) national academies and national sections of international academies devoted to the study of law, in accordance with the recommendations of Article 6 of the Statute of the International Court. [More…]

• Mr Curtis was reported in last Friday’s edition of the Adelaide Advertiser to have said that the High Court’s rejection a fortnight ago of the Government’s claim of privilege for documents in the Sankey case is certain to lead to changes in the Freedom of Information Bill. [More…]

• Does he consider that the High Court ruling has advanced the law and in essence supports claims that the Bill as proposed is inadequate, that the wide range of possible exemptions from disclosure will excessively limit access to information and that too much is left to the discretion of a Minister and public servants to determine what is in the public interest? [More…]

• Mr L. J. Curtis, who is a First Assistant Secretary of my Department, did take part in the seminar in Adelaide last week that was referred to by Senator Jessop, during which he said that the decision of the High Court in the Sankey case was certain to change the debate in relation to the Freedom of Information Bill. [More…]

• All he said was that the decision of the High Court will be taken into account in the debate in relation to the Freedom of Information Bill and will be the subject of a good deal of discussion. [More…]

• I want to stress the fact that the decision of the High Court in the Sankey case dealt with a different question. [More…]

• The decision of the High Court was in that category. [More…]

• I have not completed my examination of the full implications of the High Court decision. [More…]

• On 14 November, Senator Tate asked me whether the recent judgment of the High Court in the case of Sankey v Whitlam and others in relation to the confidentiality and production of certain Commonwealth documents might have any impact on the procedures of the Senate and its committees. [More…]

• I go no further than to express the view that the Senate would no doubt take the recent High Court judgment into consideration in reaching any decisions. [More…]

• We need mention only that it was first done illegally, as was demonstrated by Miss Karen Green in her case in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Here in the parliamentary triangle, we have our great National Library and the new National Gallery and High Court are already under construction. [More…]

• Non-lawyers may think that this would give the Commissioner of Taxation adequate power to deal with artificial schemes but, in fact, the High Court has completely emasculated this section, rendering it ineffective. [More…]

• It is through this loophole that the High Court of Australia has emasculated section 260 of the Act. [More…]

• For example, in the Curran case, a tax loss was allowed by the High Court although the taxpayer, in fact, made a commercial profit on the deal. [More…]

• to (3) The National Capital Development Commission is responsible for the design and construction of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The High Court building will be one of the most significant National buildings in Australia befitting the constitutional status of the High Court. [More…]

• The Court is a unique project and must be planned meticulously; accordingly a great deal of reliance is placed on the user to give the benefit of his knowledge of the functional requirements of the High Court. [More…]

• Apart from his intimate knowledge of the functioning of the High Court of Australia he has been able to pass on details of similar buildings in other countries, to learn from others’ experience and to aviod their mistakes. [More…]

• When the High Court is completed in 1980 Canberra and Australia will have a fine national building of which all Australians can be proud. [More…]

• It will be an example of Australian design and craftsmanship of the highest quality and a fitting home for the High Court to fulfil its function in Australia’s democratic and judicial system. [More…]

• This, of course, is the basis on which, over many years now, with the effective approval, if not the direction, of the High Court to this effect, assessment Acts have been traditionally distinguished in their presentation from taxing Acts properly so called. [More…]

• However, that is not a matter for the Senate but for the High Court to decide. [More…]

• 972, that, contrary to the procedures recommended by the statute of the International Court, the Australian national group failed to consult either the High Court or the nation’s law faculties before making its nomination of candidates for election to the International Court. [More…]

• That was the effect of the High Court decision in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case. [More…]

• The other important point to be made- I do appreciate that honourable senators who have spoken recognised this- is that this measure is the first in what I hope will be a series of Bills to be considered and passed by this Parliament over the next 12 months or more to give effect to the constitutional settlement reached at the last two Premiers conferences regarding the control of the offshore areas of Australia as a result of the decision of the High Court in the Seas and Submerged Lands Case. [More…]

• The High Court decision, of course, ascribed to the Commonwealth Parliament the full power to legislate in respect of this area but in that decision it did not take away in terms the very considerable powers that the States themselves have, in relation not only to the three-mile limit but also probably even further, provided there is a connection between the off-shore activity and the State whose laws are sought to be applied. [More…]

• Under the terms of the High Court decision, the Commonwealth could always come in and, by virtue of section 109 of the Constitution, pass its own laws and thereby override State laws. [More…]

• Is the Minister aware of the decision given by Mr Justice Aickin in the High Court on 16 February 1 979 to the effect that private citizens and organisations claiming a non-property interest cannot enforce compliance by the Government with the administrative procedures of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act? [More…]

• Does the Minister agree with the criticisms expressed by Dr Mosley of the Australian Conservation Foundation that the High Court decision sets a bad precedent and robs the legislation of any substance? [More…]

• The High Court found that no locus standi existed for the ACF as a private group to force Commonwealth Ministers to comply with the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act and the administrative procedures. [More…]

• My Department was advised by the Crown Solicitor’s office that the rules of the High Court provide that an appeal may be lodged within a period of 2 1 days from the date of the decision. [More…]

• Given the cost of conducting High Court legal actions, the limited financial resources of the ACF and the strength of Mr Justice Aickin ‘s judgment, it is unlikely that the ACF will appeal against the decision. [More…]

• In essence, the Bill provides for the last stage of the legislative steps which began in 1976 to remove the original jurisdiction of the High Court vested in it by statute and vest it mainly in the State and Territory Supreme Courts and in the new Federal Court of Australia in part. [More…]

• The explanatory memorandum which has been circulated with the Bill by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) summarises the purposes to which the Bill is directed: Firstly, it divests the High Court of original jurisdiction vested in it by statute, other than its original jurisdiction as a court of disputed returns under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. [More…]

• I think it is fair to say that the Australian Labor Party, both in opposition and in government, has always taken the view that the High Court should not be snowed under with original jurisdiction but should be the true pinnacle of the court system in Australia, an appellate court, a constitutional court, and a court which deals with intergovernmental disputes. [More…]

• The Opposition also believes that there should always be an appeal to the High Court as a right in matters involving the interpretation of the Constitution. [More…]

• Essentially we welcome the legislation because it does make the High Court the final court of appeal in all Australian matters; that is, it carries that process to a further stage by removing trial by a single judge of numerous matters which have tended to clog up the proceedings of the High Court, which should devote its energies to matters of more importance. [More…]

• The objective of the Bill is to make the necessary detailed jurisdictional changes in order to complete the achievement of what the Government describes as a coordinated structure of Federal and State courts in Australia- a system in which the High Court is freed of a good deal of its previous original and appellate jurisdiction in order to be able to concentrate its scarce resources and efforts on appellate matters of major significance; a system in which the new Federal Court is vested with both appellate and original jurisdiction in a variety of matters, including the whole jurisdiction of the previous Bankruptcy and industrial courts and appellate jurisdiction from the Territory Supreme Courts; and thirdly, a system in which the State and Territory Supreme Courts become the primary trial courts in their respective areas with the State courts exercising in addition a more significant role than hitherto in the application of federal law- for example, in tax and industrial property questions and also to some extent in constitutional litigation at first instance. [More…]

• In particular it is pleasing to see such developments as the final removal of the long-standing anomaly whereby single High Court Justices had to spend endless sitting weeks in the trial of highly complex and often legally quite trivial patent and trade mark matters. [More…]

• Another major and very familiar problem area is of course that of family law, where, as is quite well known, the High Court has held in the case of Russell and Russell that there are constitutional inhibitions on the Federal Family Court being able to deal with the full range of matters that can arise in matrimonial and particularly child custody cases. [More…]

• I believe that the way to achieve this new structure in the long run is to accept that view and to endeavour to persuade the States, State judges and, no doubt, the members of the legal profession that in many areas the appeal process should be with the Federal Court of Australia and ultimately to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The alternative view, which is strongly held, is that all jurisdiction should be vested in the State courts, with them having their own courts of appeal, and ultimately with the High Court being the final court of appeal. [More…]

• I do not think that it is possible to see the High Court as being the only court of appeal to ensure uniformity of interpretation. [More…]

• The jurisdiction that is assigned to the Federal Court under the Courts-Martial Appeals Act relates to references of questions of law, which hitherto have been referred to the High Court and to the Federal Court. [More…]

• Ultimately, of course, there are avenues for action to be taken on legal grounds in the Federal Court or the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• I think the honourable senator will be aware that in the matter of defining the responsibilities in relation to off-shore waters and the constitutional problem that came up following the High Court judgment, giving the Commonwealth right over territorial waters, it has been necessary for the Commonwealth and the Queensland Government to enter into discussions relating to this matter. [More…]

• As a result of the decision of the High Court in the Seas and Submerged Lands case, the Commonwealth has authority over the reef. [More…]

• Those States suffered a set back when the High Court found that all waters below the low water mark belonged to the Commonwealth. [More…]

• That responsibility was embodied in legislation which was challenged in the High Court. [More…]

• The High Court ruled in favour of the national Parliament. [More…]

• It must be made quite clear that the powers which the Commonwealth has, and which the High Court has declared, are such that the marine park can operate effectively. [More…]

• Only vacancies in the High Court were ways in which that Government sought to translate chronic conflicts and misunderstandings - [More…]

• The fact is that I was not reflecting on the High Court or a High Court judge as such. [More…]

• The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I do not believe that there was any intended reflection on the High Court. [More…]

• That is in no way a reflection on the High Court. [More…]

• I take it that that was a reflection in terms of the High Court decision in another matter. [More…]

• The persons who represented Karen Green sought an order from the High Court in December 1976 to the effect that Karen Green was entitled to the unemployment benefit throughout the period from 27 December 1976 to 22 February 1977, that the benefit had been wrongfully denied her, and that she was entitled to an order from the court accordingly. [More…]

• Karen Green used her right of appeal to take the case to the High Court. [More…]

• Mr Justice Stephen is of High Court status. [More…]

• Even if the High Court judge found that she had the qualifications- he made no determination on that- she did not meet the requirements to satisfy the Director-General. [More…]

• The legal advice she had was sufficient to encourage her or someone with her to go to the High Court. [More…]

• The need for these amendments arose out of a High Court decision to the effect that the trust provisions of the income tax law do not apply to income of a trust that is derived from a foreign source. [More…]

• He made reference then to the problem which faced Karen Christine Green in her case which came before the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• 1 refer to a judgment of the High Court by Mr Justice Kitto which is printed there and particularly to page 1291 of the Journal. [More…]

• Is Mr Cottee ‘s appointment to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission an attempt by the Government to avoid a second High Court injunction being lodged by Mr Cottee against the granting of this licence to another applicant. [More…]

• In fact, I have been giving consideration to the implications of the Sankey case since the decision of the High Court of Australia was given. [More…]

• However, the law applicable to a situation of this kind in Australia is, of course, not determined by the United States Supreme Court but by the Family Law Act passed by this Parliament and interpreted by the Family Court of Australia or ultimately the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• As I recall it, in 197.5, the Labor Government cut back the rate of work on the National Gallery and the High Court. [More…]

• -Senator Walsh asks about the High Court of Australia building. [More…]

• The honourable senator was not present in the chamber when I referred to the fact that in 1975 the Labor Government reduced the rate of construction on the High Court building. [More…]

• It was not until the present Government came to power that work on the High Court building returned to normal. [More…]

• As I have already mentioned, the Government has speeded up construction of the National Gallery and the High Court buildings. [More…]

• The legislation is mainly aimed at dealing with the decision of the High Court of Australia in the Union Fidelity case of 1969, in which the High Court yet again frustrated the Parliament’s intentions in attempting to spread the burden of income tax raising equitably throughout the community. [More…]

• This situation has changed drastically in recent years because of the activity of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The High Court is a non-elected bench of justices who are politically irresponsible in a strict sense in that they do not have to answer to anyone for their activity no matter how devastating that activity may be within the community. [More…]

• Unfortunately, the lessons which that court put forward in 1560 have been forgotten in the 1970s by the Australian High Court which, instead of trying to interpret the tax avoidance provisions in taxation legislation in accordance with their reason and intention, has adopted a very legalistic approach which has allowed these avoidance schemes to proliferate. [More…]

• The High Court itself must take a large share of the responsibility for creating a situation in which there is a general threat to the equity of our entire taxation system and a real threat to Government revenue. [More…]

• I believe that in both those ways the High Court has attacked the necessary cohesion which is required in the tax paying community for a sense of fairness to pervade and, therefore, for the money to flow freely as it ought in a situation where fairness is thought to prevail in the Treasury. [More…]

• What we need- and I am pleased if it is the case, as Senator Watson has indicated- is a new type of section 260, not only in order to bring clarity into the situation where the High Court has sowed anarchy and confusion but also to enable this Parliament once again to state quite clearly and firmly that in its view tax avoidance schemes ought to be outlawed. [More…]

• If we could say that once again as a Parliament it would be, I believe, a very foolhardy High Court which would then attempt to water down by legalistic interpretation this new statement of the firm view of the elected representatives of the ordinary taxpayers in this country. [More…]

• I think it is known from the studies that have been made by the High Court of Australia in the interpretations of the existing section 260 that this is not an easy task. [More…]

• I make no comment on the matters that were raised by Senator Tate with regard to the legalistic approach which has been taken by the High Court as distinct from what he would consider preferable in that intent and reason should have had a greater emphasis in the judgments that have come from the High Court. [More…]

• In February 1978 the Government decided upon certain proposed amendments to the Judges’ Pensions Act, which included a proposal that judges who had served at least five years but less than 10 years, which is the existing qualifying period, should receive a pro rata pension if their retirement was due to the constitutional requirement, which was passed by referendum, of compulsory retirement at 70 years of age for High Court judges and Federal Court judges or 65 years of age for Family Court judges. [More…]

• I ask the Attorney-General: Are there any present Justices of the High Court or the Federal Court of Australia who will be beneficiaries under the proposed amendments to the Judges Pension Act or is Mr Justice McGregor the only present judge who will be affected by the proposed amendments? [More…]

• While applauding the continued efforts of the Commissioner of Taxation in seeking to crack down on artificial tax evasion schemes, I draw the Minister’s attention to a recent decision of the full bench of the High Court of Australia in the case of Smorgan which confirms that a bank holding documents in safe custody will be required to open clients’ safe deposit boxes and hand over documents to the Commissioner. [More…]

• -I have, in fact, seen newspaper reports of the decision of the High Court of Australia in the matter Senator Messner raises. [More…]

• Having referred to Mr Justice Kerr becoming Governor-General: to appoint Senator Murphy to the High Court. [More…]

• When I last spoke on this question, I expressed considerable doubt whether the High Court would uphold the point that the Commonwealth had power to acquire land for the settlement of people of a particular race. [More…]

• A decision of the High Court has never been sought on the question and, therefore, no legal opinion can be beyond dispute because the final arbitor on what words actually mean must be the High Court. [More…]

• The report refers to the many questions that have to be decided and indicates what in the Committee’s belief would be the High Court’s attitude if a challenge came to legislation. [More…]

• If the High Court’s decision disagrees with Parliament’s definition of ‘just terms’, the legislation is invalid. [More…]

• Mr Yoannidis was not satisfied so he took a series of cases to the High Court. [More…]

• It is the expectation of the Government that the new Parliament House will be truly the crowning achievement within the Parliamentary Triangle where already we have our great National Library and where the new National Gallery and High Court are now under construction. [More…]

• Rules of court have been made traditionally by the judges of the court in the case of superior courts such as the High Court and the Supreme Courts of the States and Territories. [More…]

• I think that the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) reflected the feelings of all of us when he said in his second reading speech that it was the expectation that the new parliament house would be what he called the crowning achievement ‘within the parliamentary triangle where already we have our great National Library and where the new National Gallery and High Court are now under construction’. [More…]

• Whilst it is true that the National Library, the National Gallery and the High Court will be in the parliamentary triangle, I should add that when the new and permanent parliament house is completed, in addition to the great trinity of buildings in the triangle Parliament House will have another neighbour which is as close or closer to it than any of the buildings to which the Minister has referred. [More…]

• My question concerns the High Court building in Canberra. [More…]

• Is it the case that one of the two great windows in the new High Court building will contain a portrayal of the British Coat of Arms? [More…]

• Does it have the support of all or even a majority of the High Court judges? [More…]

• I am advised by my colleague in another place that according to reports in the Pakistani Press, the Pakistan authorities have carried out the death sentence which was imposed upon the former Prime Minister, Mr Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, by the Lahore High Court and which was confirmed by the Pakistan Supreme Court. [More…]

• Honourable members will be aware that on 6 February 1979, the Pakistan Supreme Court, by a four to three majority, upheld the death sentence imposed upon former Prime Minister, Mr Bhutto, by the Lahore High Court in March 1978 for alleged complicity in the murder of the father of a political opponent. [More…]

• Whatever the alleged crimes may have been, the execution of a political opponent of the Government after a division in the High Court of Pakistan of four to three, where three justices made a plea for clemency, was horrendous. [More…]

• I will not canvass the rights and wrongs of the case but I think it is important that we look at the decision of the High Court of Pakistan which, by a four to three vote, rejected the appeal against the death sentence. [More…]

• Yes, no prosecution has been instigated by the Department of Transport, although in 1978 a High Court action was brought against the Department by the Australian Union of Students following the investigation by the Department into the Union’s activities, but the Court found on the action in favour of the Department. [More…]

• The reason for that slump was the dispute in the High Court of Australia over the Seas and Submerged Lands Act. [More…]

• Reference in that Act to appeals to the High Court has been omitted because such appeals now lie to the Federal Court of Australia under the provisions of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. [More…]

• It has no doubt been drawn to the attention of honourable senators that to a large extent the Tribunal has been intimidated by the appearance before it of some of the most eminent Queen’s Counsel at the Bar in New South Wales, Queen’s Counsel who have raised with the Tribunal Chairman the question that his decisions or the decisions of the Tribunal may well be subject to an appeal to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• Walker, that this Government is seeking to introduce at Federal level similar legislation designed to nullify the effects of the High Court’s Sankey judgment? [More…]

• Following the decision of the High Court in Sankey and Whitlam, as I believe I have already said in the Senate, I have been considering its implications in relation to claims made for the inadmissibility of documents in court proceedings under the heading known as Crown privilege. [More…]

• I believe that before contemplating legislation in relation to the decision of the High Court in Sankey and Whitlam, we should see how it works in the courts and whether, in fact, it presents any problem. [More…]

• The recent judgment of the High Court of Australia, as the honourable senator will be aware, actually negated that belief. [More…]

• Will the Attorney-General acknowledge that probity and integrity of a high order are required of any appointee to the High Court? [More…]

• On the point of order, the question is being asked not directly in the context of Mr Ellicott ‘s integrity but rather in the context of the administration of the Attorney-General’s Department and the decision that is about to be made by the Attorney-General on behalf of his Department to make an appointment to the High Court. [More…]

• I do not propose to make any comment whatever in relation to any possible appointment to the High Court. [More…]

• The Government believes that payments to High Court justices such as those dealt with in this Bill should not depend upon the exercise of Executive discretion but on legislation. [More…]

• It is appropriate, however, that the provisions for justices of the High Court be made in a separate Bill because of the special position occupied by that Court which is the court established under the Constitution whereas other federal courts are created by the Commonwealth Parliament. [More…]

• The Judges (Long Leave Payments) Bill is a companion Bill to the High Court Justices (Long Leave Payments) Bill 1979 and makes similar provision for payments in lieu of long leave not taken upon the death in office or the retirement of a federal or Territorial judge or a person who, by virtue of an Act, has the same status as a judge. [More…]

• The honourable senator will be aware that there was a ruling of the High Court of Australia that territorial waters were under the control of the central government and that they had not previously been the responsibility of the adjacent State governments. [More…]

• In view of yesterday’s dismissal by the Federal Court of Australia of the Industrial Relations Bureau prosecution of the Melbourne City Council in the Kane case and also the pending challenge to the constitutionality of the IRB legislation in the High Court of Australia, will the Government now acknowledge that the legislation has been not only counter-productive to industrial harmony but also quite impotent to serve the purposes the Government intended for it? [More…]

• We are prepared to do that but we cannot ignore- whether you want to ignore it or not- the High Court and its decisions. [More…]

• You cannot go back before the High Court and say something exists that does not exist. [More…]

• We say that this is the very issue that was involved in the Sankey case where the High Court took the view that it was appropriate for a judicial tribunal to make its own mind up whether the interests of justice in a particular case were such as to outweigh the interests in maintaining the freedom from disclosure of Cabinet deliberations. [More…]

• The High Court made the point that it had to be in a position to make up its own mind. [More…]

• Might I suggest that this legislation was drafted before the Sankey case was decided by the High Court. [More…]

• -Has the AttorneyGeneral ‘s attention been drawn to Press reports indicating that the Government might be considering either buying or building an official residence for the Chief Justice when the High Court of Australia moves to Canberra? [More…]

• The Government has considered this question and has decided not to provide a residence for the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia either in Canberra or elsewhere. [More…]

• He spoke of the need for probity and integrity in appointees to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• I take it that the honourable senator has some difficulty in understanding what areas are covered by the Seas and Submerged Lands Act, that he does not fully understand what is the region of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and what may be defined by any re-alignment of responsibilities following the High Court’s decision in the - [More…]

• A High Court [More…]

• I also inform the Senate that the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) will be unable to be with us this week essentially because of the death of his mother early this morning and his duties in regard to the swearing in of the new High Court judge. [More…]

• Last Friday in Brisbane, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia rejected the Australian Wheat Board’s submission that the wheat marketing case was settled and committed Ubergang’s case for hearing in the full High Court. [More…]

• A High Court judgment said it was not for the court or the Taxation Commissioner to say how much a taxpayer ought to spend in obtaining his income but only how much he had spent. [More…]

• Then we have the new High Court of Australia building, the cost of which has been expanded by some $7m at the personal whim of the Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, who would have received also, pursuant to the position he occupies, a country seat had the Press and the Labor Party not exposed to the public what was going on a couple of weeks ago. [More…]

• Even after legislation was passed by the Joint Sitting of Parliament, the people who now sit .in government had the temerity to challenge it in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• I also refer to the fact that a union case is before the High Court at present. [More…]

• I imagine that the provision of a car for a judge of the High Court would be justifiable. [More…]

• The article stated that the practice became customary for all seven High Court judges soon after Federation. [More…]

• It has that power as a result of the High Court decision in the Seas and Submerged Lands case, which decided that all waters below the low-water mark are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. [More…]

• The funding and administration of the High Court. ‘ [More…]

• The funding and administration ofthe High Court’. [More…]

• Mr President, the High Court of Australia occupies a supremely strategic place, not only in our legal system but also, by virtue of its constitutional adjudication, in our political, our social and our economic system as well. [More…]

• Although the High Court is usually rather less visible than the other arms of government, it is at least as important as the Executive in determining the general shape and character of Australian society, and it is probably more important than this Parliament. [More…]

• In those circumstances, it is important that the High Court should not only be a body in whose individual membership the community has the utmost confidence but also it should be an institution which operates with maximum effectiveness in carrying out the role which the Constitution and the law assign to it. [More…]

• But both the effectiveness with which the High Court is discharging its functions, and the respect in which the court is held, are matters which have given steadily increasing ground for concern in recent times, so much so that it has now reached the point where in the opinion of the Opposition the matter justifies the attention of an urgency debate in this Parliament. [More…]

• The first of these matters is the extravagance associated with the construction of the new High Court building. [More…]

• Sir Garfield has dominated the High Court like a colossus since his appointment as Chief Justice fresh from the ranks ofthe coalition Ministry in 1964. [More…]

• At page 152 of Australian Senate Practice, Senator Evans, it is indicated that there will be no criticism of the justices of the High Court. [More…]

• I think that if you could proceed to debate the topic which is before the Senate- namely, the funding and administration of the High Courtwithout making undue reflection upon the persons of the justices of that Court you would be in keeping with the traditions and practices of this place. [More…]

• With respect, Mr Acting Deputy President, it is very difficult indeed to talk about the administration of the High Court without referring in some detail to the particular person who, more than anyone else, is responsible for that administration. [More…]

• I simply conclude the point that Sir Garfield Barwick apparently regards himself as being the appropriate person to bring to fruition the long-cherished dream of giving Australia its own national High Court building in Canberra. [More…]

• For a time it did appear that Sir Garfield aspired not only to the erection of a tabernacle of that kind, from which he could pronounce his and the High Court’s judgments, but also to the purchase of a $400,000 rural mansion in which he could sleep on those decisions. [More…]

• Regrettably, however, this does not seem entirely true of other matters, and I come now to the particular question of the High Court building. [More…]

• I do not wish it to be thought that either I or the Opposition oppose the bringing of the High Court to the national capital or housing it in an edifice of an appropriately dignified stature. [More…]

• But what I think has to be appreciated is that, leaving aside for a moment the question of tourists and visitors, whereas Parliament House already accommodates some 1,500 people and will be expected to accommodate a good many more by the end of the century, and whereas the Parliament House locates not only 188 parliamentarians, the whole apparatus of the Executive heads of government and in effect the whole of the national media, the High Court’s job basically as a building is just to accommodate seven judges, the court staff- now 50 and anticipated to rise perhaps to a maximum of 100- and a handful of litigants at any one time. [More…]

• The cost of the High Court building is rather like a cheap perfume- really all in the packaging. [More…]

• Perhaps it is too late to be cavilling about these basic aspects of design of the High Court building, although I regret that the Parliament did not devote more attention to these matters when they were being resolved in 1972 and 1973. [More…]

• To talk of the Chief Justice of the High Court as an eight year old child, I think, is not upholding the dignity of this chamber. [More…]

• President, that as a matter of fact in no way can the construction of the High Court building be said to be the funding and administration of the High Court. [More…]

• The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The High Court being referred to is the new building being constructed. [More…]

• I think that when this is being discussed, the funding of it and its administration, including the administration of the building of the new High Court, would be appropriate under Standing Order 64. [More…]

• On the point of order, I made it clear in the very first sentence of my speech that I was referring to the High Court as an institution. [More…]

• Although the Government is engaging with some success in a spectacular effort to reduce my speaking time, I suggest that I am perfectly in order in addressing myself to the particular matter, the costing of the High Court building being squarely within the framework of this motion. [More…]

• I concede that the Senate will not be sitting one month from now but one wonders why on this particular Thursday there is need suddenly to debate as a matter of urgency the funding and administration of the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• He spent the bulk of his time on the question of extravagance of the new High Court building. [More…]

• All of us, I believe, on this occasion should pay tribute to those who over the decades have sought to have this Court in Canberra, and not least to the Chief Justice and the present Justices who have spurred us to see that within not so many years- three or four- the principal seat of the High Court, a noble seat, will be at the seat of government. [More…]

• Now we are engaged in building a National Gallery, and this High Court building. [More…]

• Mr President, you would be amazed how important it is to the people of Australia that we should debate the question of the High Court this week in the absence of the Attorney rather than wait for three days. [More…]

• -As a relative newcomer to this Senate I wish to seek a degree of clarification as to the manner and extent to which senators can scrutinise the role, criticise the operation and evaluate the outcome of the operations of the High Court. [More…]

• In both the executive and legislative branches of government there appear to be not unreasonable elements of checks and balances, but so far as the role of the High Court is concerned, its deliberations and actions appear to be somewhat sacrosanct. [More…]

• Seldom is it necessary for the Parliament or the community to view with concern some of the unfettered dictates of this High Court. [More…]

• When that happens, not only is injustice done to the community at large but also a fundamental danger exists in giving a High Court such power that it can move in a direction which, philosophically, is contrary to that which is in the best interests of the nation. [More…]

• At the moment we have a High Court that is throwing out virtually all appeals by the Commissioner of Taxation so far as tax avoidance is concerned. [More…]

• I wish to draw attention to a change in the philosophy adopted by the High Court. [More…]

• If I recall correctly, the present Chief Justice of the High Court was a losing advocate in that particular decision. [More…]

• However, with the passage of years, we have a situation in which the current High Court Chief Justice seems to be the leader in a situation in which it is almost impossible for the Commissioner of Taxation to win a case before the court in matters of tax avoidance. [More…]

• I was also referring to the difficulty in which we find ourselves when the High Court of Australia which is directed by a strong and intransigent personality, leads the country and the Court into a philosophy in tax avoiding matters that runs counter to the prevailing community philosophy. [More…]

• But unfortunately, in their simplicity, the High Court sees ways to assist those who appear to be avoiding their obligations with respect to taxation. [More…]

• I regret the necessity for raising this matter about the High Court, but I believe that this is the only place in the Commonwealth of Australia where one can safely raise such matters without fear of severe penalty. [More…]

• In a recently published article entitled ‘Constitutional Obstacles to Organised Marketing in Australia’, Michael Cooper quotes comments from various justices of the High Court of Australia in the Clark King case. [More…]

• What is surprising is that they should be expressed not by some commission of enquiry with special expertise in wheat marketing, or by a legislative body representing the various interests at stake, but by the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• the Privy Council proved itself to be just as adroit as the High Court in speaking with many voices. [More…]

• That passage was used as the starting point for 4 of the 5 justices who sat on the High Court case, then the Clark King Case. [More…]

• In the course of my remarks last Thursday in the debate on the High Court of Australia I had occasion to make reference to Sir Garfield Barwick ‘s ‘closest judicial and legal admirers’. [More…]

• The only way for the Government to deal with section 260 while people like Barwick are sitting on the bench of the High Court of Australia is for it to make a clear statement on the definition of taxable income. [More…]

• Is of the opinion that the taxation system is inequitable because of its erosion by tax avoidance schemes, many of which have been approved by the High Court; [More…]

• Internal Discipline Section’ or ‘Section’ means the Internal Discipline Section established by section 85; law’ means a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; legal practitioner’ means a barrister or solicitor of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory: offence’ means an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; [More…]

• ( 1 ) A member has, in the performance of his duty as a member, the same protection and immunity as a Justice of the High Court. [More…]

• “(2) A legal practitioner or other person appearing before the Tribunal has the same protection and immunity as a barrister has in appearing for a party in proceedings in the High Court. [More…]

• “(3) Subject to this Division, a person summoned to attend or appearing before the Tribunal as a witness has the same protection, and is, in addition to the penalties provided by this Division, subject to the same liabilities, as a witness in proceedings in the High Court. [More…]

• The proof Mr Ellicott offered was that Mr Whitlam had not appealed to the High Court against his dismissal. [More…]

• The question of whether the Governor-General could withdraw his Ministers’ commissions could never come before the High Court in any shape or form. [More…]

• 1 ) Is one of the two great windows in the new High Court Building to contain a portrayal of the British Coat of Arms. [More…]

• Does it have the support of all, or a majority, of the High Court Judges. [More…]

• 1 ) The Australian Arms will be displayed in the centre of the large glass wall at the front of the new High Court Building facing Parliament House. [More…]

• -I refer the Minister for Social Security to a case of a very courageous mother of seven from Hobart who recently had her widows pension restored and was paid some $10,000 after taking out a High Court writ against officers of the Minister’s Department. [More…]

• What action has been taken against those officers who refused her this pension in October 1977 and then allowed the situation to go on until a High Court writ was necessary? [More…]

• There is in the Bill a number of transitional provisions in relation to appeal proceedings, pending before the High Court and the Federal Court of Australia, from decisions of the old Supreme Court. [More…]

• -The substance of the High Court Justices (Long Leave Payments) Bill 1979 and the Judges (Long Leave Payments) Bill 1979 has been dealt with by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) in the second reading speech. [More…]

• It appeared that the payments, which were in the form of a gratuity, were made by virtue of a convention that one suspects the High Court had established for itself. [More…]

• When stripped to their essentials these two Bills provide in effect for payments of the two following kinds to High Court judges in particular and to Federal judges generally. [More…]

• This, I understand, has been the practice for many years, particularly at the High Court level where long leave has been taken only in fairly isolated instances and has not been regarded as something which the judges took as a regular matter. [More…]

• There are some less than charitable souls who might hope that the leave taken by some High Court Justices would be of a more permanent character than is provided for in this particular legislation. [More…]

• Indeed, I think that all High Court judges, with the exception of the Chief Justice, have been appointed on the basis of those arrangements. [More…]

• A matter pending in the High Court’s original jurisdiction, with respect to which a State, Federal or Territorial Court would have jurisdiction- the High Court is now empowered to remit the matter for trial in such a court, (s. 44 of the Judiciary Act, inserted by s. 9 of the Judiciary Amendment Act 1976); [More…]

• Original jurisdiction to hear taxation prosecutions under the Income Tax Assessment Act- transferred from High Court to State and Territory Courts by Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Jurisdiction of Courts) Act 1976; [More…]

• The High Court of Australia in the case of Rejfek and another v. McElroy and another dealt with the question of standards of proof. [More…]

• On one occasion in about the early 1970s when we were dealing with certain aspects of Department of Immigration estimates, I moved an amendment with the blessing of my then leader who is now an illustrious member of the High Court, the then senator but now Mr Justice Murphy. [More…]

• Firstly, there is the writ of assistance, which is obtainable only from a High Court or Supreme Court judge upon application by the Minister or Comptroller-General of Customs. [More…]

• -Has the AttorneyGeneral received an appeal from Mrs K. I. Inglis for financial assistance to meet legal costs in a proposed High Court action against some public servants and Ministers? [More…]

• It was because of these considerations that the Government felt it was better not to make a specific reference, as the original Bill did, to a civil standard of proof because it may have been thought that we were trying to confine the court in some way and to water down some of these well-known views to which I have referred that had been expressed by judges of the High Court. [More…]

• The Government felt that, in all the circumstances and in the light of that well known area of the law, it was better simply to leave that for the courts to determine, no doubt feeling that they would follow the views which have been expressed by High Court judges in other cases. [More…]

• In another case involving the Department of Social Security and the High Court in which the plaintiff was known to me, when the matter reached the public arena the person involved was telephoned- one can only say harassed- by conservative members of the lower House and accused of taking political action. [More…]

• Mrs Clarke, who is obviously a courageous woman, sought assistance this year from the Australian Legal Aid Office and, as a result, took out a High Court writ against the two officers of the Department and the decision they had made. [More…]

• Mrs Clarke denied that she was living in any such relationship and that was the reason for her taking the High Court action. [More…]

• Faced with a High Court challenge, the department backed down, and has agreed to resume paying her $203.40 a fortnight pension, as well as a lump sum to make up for the 2 1 months since the pension was cancelled. [More…]

• I refer the Minister for Social Security to a case of a very courageous mother of seven from Hobart who recently had her widows pension restored and was paid some $10,000 after taking out a High Court writ against officers of the Minister’s Department. [More…]

• What action has been taken against those officers who refused her this pension in October 1977 and then allowed the situation to go on until a High Court writ was necessary? [More…]

• 1 merely asked the Minister to supply to this Parliament the reasons why $10,000 of public money was paid to Mrs Clarke without her having to go to court when she merely took out a High Court writ thereby threatening the Department with action. [More…]

• I ask the Minister again for an explanation of why Messrs Wraith and Lanigan and officers of the Department continued to refuse Mrs Clarke her pension from October 1977 until August 1979 and why they suddenly reversed that decision in view of the High Court writ. [More…]

• I believe that the Minister is in fact saying that women who feel that they have been unjustly deprived of a pension under these circumstances will have to do what Mrs Clarke did, that is, take out a High Court writ, obtain legal aid if they are eligible to do so and threaten the Department in this regard in order to have such a decision changed- if the guidelines are to stay the same. [More…]

• It is not an inconsiderable thing for anyone to do to take out a High Court writ, even with legal aid, and face the possibility of having to appear in the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• The only other alternative is for the hundreds or thousands of women in this community who are deprived of their pensions in these circumstances to take out High Court writs to get justice. [More…]

• The kind of schemes that I am referring to in this narrowest definition of avoidance is best typified by the notorious Curran scheme which, in its original form as upheld by the High Court of Australia, involved the conversion by a stockbroker of a $2,000 money profit into a $ 1 80,000 paper loss. [More…]

• One of them is to rewrite section 260 of the tax Act- the notorious section 260- in such a way as to overcome the emasculation of that section which has been accomplished by the High Court and to make it a genuine annihilating provision of the kind it was originally intended to be. [More…]

• However, I do acknowledge that getting section 260 right is likely to be a fairly time-consuming business, given the present incumbents of the High Court and the tentativeness the Government is showing in this area. [More…]

• Perhaps the best known statement of it is that of Chief Justice Sir Owen Dixon in the case of Maxwell v. Murphy in the High Court in 1957. [More…]

• That point was made clearly by Mr Justice Isaacs, as he then was, in the case of George Hudson Ltd v. The Australian Timber Workers Union in the High Court in 1923, when he said this: [More…]

• In fact, despite all the bluff and the various actions in the English High Court, there was no legal process by which the parents could take that company to court to get monetary compensation for the sheer financial loss they may have suffered in meeting the medical and other expenses in dealing with the child ‘s deformity, and of course no compensation or damages were available for the emotional shock and the continuing emotional situation which that family might face. [More…]

• is of the opinion that the taxation system is inequitable because of its erosion by tax avoidance schemes, many of which have been approved by the High Court; [More…]

• I refer to the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• It has to be said that there is no doubt that the High Court, by its legalistic interpretation of section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, has completely vitiated the intention of the Parliament in drawing up that section. [More…]

• The tax avoiders who romped off with the $400 million at the expense of wage earners in 1978-79, are filled with gratitude towards the judges of our High Court. [More…]

• It is the language of a journalist, but I think it adequately conveys the understanding now within the community that the High Court has abandoned principles of interpretation used in our courts since the sixteenth century, when one looked to the mischief and to the intent in order to determine the effect of the words actually used in a statute. [More…]

• There is no doubt that what is needed in order to solve this impasse, this confrontation between the Parliament and the High Court- I think it is that- is for the Parliament to come up with a new taxation provision. [More…]

• But whatever it is and however it emerges from this Parliament, I believe that it would be a very fool-hardy High Court which would then attempt to water down by legalistic interpretation that new statement of the firm view of the elected representatives of the ordinary taxpayers in this country. [More…]

• In the first place, as Senator Tate has said, what is needed is certainly the rewriting of section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act to overcome its emasculation by the High Court- a rewriting that would give the Commissioner of Taxation what it was originally intended that he should be given, namely, a general discretion to override any arrangement of an artificial kind that is wholly inspired by avoidance motives. [More…]

• It is an important weapon in the armoury, but I envisage difficulties in drafting the section in such a form that it will survive the challenge to which it will undoubtedly be exposed in the High Court. [More…]

• -I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to the recent High Court of Australia decision in Raimondo v. The [More…]

• I refer briefly to some of those implications which were indicated by the judgment of the High Court of Australia in relation to the Seas and Submerged Lands Act which came into force on 3 December 1973. [More…]

• In dealing with the Act, Sir Garfield Barwick, Chief Justice of the High Court, stated: [More…]

• By the accretion of the 200 nautical mile economic zone around Australia’s coast, we take on board- if that is the appropriate nautical expression- an enormous area of resources as Mr Justice Murphy and others pointed out in the course of the High Court judgment on the Seas and Submerged Lands Act. [More…]

• My purpose is to emphasise that, as far as the Opposition is concerned, and as the High Court pointed out in no uncertain terms, the matter is one which is appropriately the responsibility of the Commonwealth. [More…]

• 1 ) What is the estimated cost of loose furniture for the High Court building. [More…]

• What are the estimated costs of: (a) loose furniture; and (b) soft furnishings, for the offices of the Chief Justice and each other High Court Judge. [More…]

• What are the estimated costs of fixtures and fittings in the offices of the Chief Justice and each other High Court Judge. [More…]

• the Chief Justice and Justices of the High Court of Australia [More…]

• Whether or not the jurisdiction is left in our hands by the High Court, which of us in any event would want to be like the judges in pre-war Germany who simply acted out their office in a train of events that culminated in legal conclusions that ‘Jews’ and ‘Communists’ were no longer full citizens entitled to rely on rights previously accumulated, that is to say, were persons who could be struck down by a mere executive act. [More…]

• In 1976 the High Court examined this matter and stated that the legislature has the power to make laws directing the Commission with respect to procedural matters, but may not direct the Commission on how to settle disputes. [More…]

• Are there to be cases in the High Court of Australia every time there is a dispute to determine whether the word ‘consult’ means to say goodday or goodbye, or that there has to be consultation to the point where the views of the deputy president as against the determination or conclusion of the commissioner have to be considered? [More…]

• I was reinforced in this belief by the judgment of the High Court of Australia in 1930 in the case of the A.R.U. [More…]

• In the face of that decision of the High Court, Mr Justice Moore would obviously know that the clause would have no effect and that the consultations could be no more than just consultations. [More…]

• Although we were given the assurance today that there was nothing more than consultation on a question, I am concerned about Senator Evans’s good description of the legal position in which he said that there may be much more in this Bill which will necessitate testing it before the High Court of Australia. [More…]

• In that case the High Court of Australia held invalid provisions which allowed conciliation committees comprising persons who were not members of the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, as it was then called, to make decisions without hearing argument. [More…]

• The three justices of the High Court said: [More…]

• I must say that I would have doubts as to whether that would stand up to challenge in the High Court. [More…]

• I know also that there is power in the High Court to ‘read down’ powers, as happened in regard to the Family Law Act, so that they fit within the constitutional framework and so that they can operate without defeating the law. [More…]

• Do we condemn the decisions of Sir Nigel Bowen or any of the other former Liberal parliamentarians who have been elevated to the High Court? [More…]

• The question is decided by the High Court of Australia, which is the only body that can determine in the end whether something is constitutional. [More…]

• In view of the decision of the High Court in the Communist Party case, I should have thought that any Attorney-General would have to do a lot of explaining to this Senate to show why Australian citizens and Australian organisations should be stripped of their rights- indeed, completely extinguished- by the dictates of Cabinet without reference to any criteria argued before an independent tribunal. [More…]

• That is regrettable, given the controversial character of the whole question of court administration under this Government, particularly with regard to High Court administration and the discussions to which that has given rise over the last year and, in that context, with regard to the decision, which has now apparently been taken by the Government, to vest independent powers of administration in the High Court in that body of judges itself. [More…]

• The case was taken to the High Court of Australia, much to the concern of the Scottish community. [More…]

• Lest anybody thinks that that is a simple enough proposition, this matter, needless to say, has been decided in the High Court of Australia in the case of Ambascol Press v. Director, Posts and Telegraphs (New South Wales). [More…]

• The High Court was ruling on a publication which was described in the following terms: [More…]

• I refer the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to a report in the media that the Northern Territory Government is to institute a challenge in the High Court of Australia regarding the Utopia land claim. [More…]

• In the interim, it appears that a particular point of law is being taken to the High Court of Australia by the Northern Territory Government. [More…]

• -Has the Attorney-General seen a report of remarks attributed to the Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Garfield Barwick, who apparently has strongly criticised the lack of availability to the public of texts of government regulations? [More…]

• I have seen a newspaper report of remarks made by the Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, when delivering a judgment in the High Court, I think yesterday or the day before, concerning the question whether copies of regulations were available at a place notified, at the time such regulations were made. [More…]

• -My question, which is directed to the AttorneyGeneral, follows his reply to me yesterday concerning criticism by the Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Garfield Barwick, of the lack of availability to the public of some regulations. [More…]

• However, since the authoritative High Court decision in Sankey v. Whitlam, it is apparent that much of this attitude has been based on a misconception of the existing powers of the courts. [More…]

• High Court judgments. [More…]

• I submit most respectfully, Mr Acting Deputy President, that if Mr Porter, Sir Charles Court or anybody else- even the other Mr Everingham- want to test the Racial Discrimination Act 1 975 they will find that it will stand up to a High Court challenge also. [More…]

• It is a view of the relationship between the Executive and independent tribunals which has been challenged at the highest level of the judiciary of this country, namely, the High Court of Australia, and at the highest political level in this country, namely, a Senate standing committee. [More…]

• This power has been the subject of several High Court cases. [More…]

• The latest case on the subject was the 1975 High Court decision on the Seas and Submerged Lands Act, which does not help us much because it was not concerned with the internal scope of the external affairs power, although Justice Murphy did state a wide view of the power. [More…]

• As long ago as 1936 the High Court in the Burgess case rejected the view that section 51(29) was limited to the external aspects of matters covered in other paragraphs of section 5 1. [More…]

• For one thing, the international treaty would almost certainly have to be honestly entered into; for another, the High Court will probably be cautious about how far it will let this power be used for fear it will get out of control. [More…]

• The Commonwealth Electoral Act has been used to override legislation in Queensland and has been upheld in that regard by the High Court. [More…]

• What are the estimated costs of fixtures and fittings in office suites for the Chief Justice and each other High Court Judge, in the High Court building presently under construction in Canberra (see Part 4 of the answer to Senate Question No. [More…]

• The estimated costs of fixtures and fittings in office suites for the Chief Justice and each other High Court Judge in the High Court building are: [More…]

• High Court of Australia Bill [More…]

• The High Court of Australia Bill and the associated amendments to the Judiciary Act and the evidence Act together represent a legislative scheme for effecting the transfer to the seat of Government of the third arm of Government established under the Constitution. [More…]

• Chapter III of the Constitution which deals with the judicature commences with section 7 1 , which vests the judicial power of the Commonwealth in: a Federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia and in such other federal courts as Parliament creates and, such other courts as it invests with federal jurisdiction. [More…]

• The High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice, and so many other Justices, not less than 2, as the Parliament prescribes. [More…]

• The Judiciary Act 1903 which provided for a High Court consisting of a Chief Justice and two other Justices included a provision: on and after a date to be fixed by Proclamation the principal seat of the High Court shall be at the seat of Government. [More…]

• Until the date is fixed, the principal seat of the High Court shall be at such places as the Governor-General from time to time appoints. [More…]

• Passage of this legislation will enable them to be joined by the High Court and so complete the plan envisaged by the framers of our Constitution. [More…]

• The movement to the seat of government of the High Court does not, however, mean that the Court will sever all its links with the States. [More…]

• The occasion for the transfer has been taken to accord to the High Court a measure of independence from departmental control that reflects the special position accorded the Court by the Constitution. [More…]

• Honourable senators will be aware that, in accordance with my previously announced commitment to do so, I had consultations with the Attorneys-General of the States prior to the filling of the vacancy on the High Court earlier this year. [More…]

• By requiring the process to be undertaken whenever a vacancy on the High Court occurs, this provision should do much to ensure that the Court continues to be truly national in character and fully equipped to discharge its constitutional functions as a Federal Supreme Court. [More…]

• There are, however, to be offices of the Registry in each State and the Northern Territory at which all documents associated with High Court litigation will be accepted for filing and transmission to the Registry in Canberra. [More…]

• For that purpose a statutory office entitled ‘the Clerk’ has been created and the legislation provides that he shall have ‘the function of acting on behalf of, and assisting, the Justices in the administration of the affairs of the High Court and . [More…]

• In other respects the Bill makes little change to the existing provisions now found in the Judiciary Act and the High Court Procedure Act. [More…]

• Incorporated in this Bill are all the provisions dealing with the constitution and seat of the Court and administrative matters relating to the Court now to be found in the Judiciary Act and the High Court Procedure Act. [More…]

• In consequence this Bill provides for the repeal of the High Court Procedure Act. [More…]

• As indicated in the observations I made in connection with the High Court of Australia Bill, the primary purpose of this Bill is to transfer from the Judiciary Act the existing provisions dealing with the constitution and seat of the Court, its registries, places of sitting and the like and to incorporate the procedural provisions formerly found in the High Court Procedure Act. [More…]

• Section 23 provides that, in the event of there being an equal division of the High Court upon the hearing of an appeal from a judge of the High Court or from a supreme court of a State, the decision appealed from is to be affirmed and that in any other case the opinion of the Chief Justice or the senior justice of the High Court present shall prevail. [More…]

• Accordingly, in appeals from all courts created by this Parliament, if there is an equal division of the High Court the opinion of the Chief Justice determines the outcome of the appeal. [More…]

• Finally, the Bill contains a number of transitional provisions made necessary by the new legislative scheme for the High Court. [More…]

• This Bill, which completes the legislative scheme for the transfer of the High Court to Canberra, contains only two substantive provisions. [More…]

• The first relates to judicial notice of certain signatures and is made necessary by the changes in titles of the officers of the High Court. [More…]

• This provision is designed to make it clear beyond doubt that Rules of Court made by the High Court under the Evidence Act are subject to disallowance by Parliament. [More…]

• I refer to the 1975 case of Queen v. Hass when the High Court of Australia ruled that it was not competent under the High Court’s own judicially created rules for a litigant to appear in person to seek special leave to appeal. [More…]

• Too often, there are other reasons for moving awayextensions of town boundaries (town planning), and Utopia High Court appeal (legal issues). [More…]

• With all respect to Senator Knight, who no doubt believes that Australian Capital Territory rates cases are ones that ought to go direct to the High Court, I am glad to see that the percentage of the amount of jurisdiction which is devoted to this very fascinating area of rates is declining. [More…]

• Last Friday in Brisbane, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia rejected the Australian Wheat Board’s submission that the wheat marketing case was settled and committed Ubergang’s case for hearing in the full High Court. [More…]

• A similar challenge was rejected by the High Court on 8 September 1978 in Clark King and Co. Pty Ltd v. Australian Wheat Board. [More…]

• The fact that there is a further High Court challenge to the same legislation does not preclude the Commonwealth and State Governments, in reliance upon the Clark King case, from seeking further legislation in relation to wheat marketing and pricing arrangements. [More…]

• It contains an amendment of a small and consequential kind arising out of the High Court of Australia Bill and a change there made to the title of a key judicial officer. [More…]

• 2), which is part of a general reorganisation of the legislation relating to the High Court aimed essentially at cleaning up the statute book, primarily by disposing of a series of High Court Procedure Acts which have been promulgated over the years. [More…]

• But I suspect that Sir Garfield at least will bear that dimunition of power in this respect with some fortitude, given the aggrandisement of power which has been accomplished in recent years and is now formalised in the further provisions of the High Court of Australia Bill, to which I will turn in a moment, relating to the financial administration on an independent basis of the affairs of that Court. [More…]

• Whilst this Bill is primarily concerned, as I indicated, with repealing previous legislation in this area scattered about the statute book and with consolidating procedural matters in the Judicary Act- a wholly worthwhile enterpriseone of the procedural matters thus consolidated relates to the conduct of jury trials by the High Court. [More…]

• As is reasonably well known, the High Court has construed that part of section 80 as meaning only that the right to jury trial applies where an offence is described in Commonwealth legislation as, in fact, indictable. [More…]

• Let us turn finally to the High Court of Australia Bill 1979, which is the central Bill in this package of Bills and which certainly is the most substantial in its range and content. [More…]

• It contains three main elements, the first of which is a series of administrative provisions associated with the establishment of the seat of the High Court in Canberra. [More…]

• I take the occasion to note only that the Opposition certainly shares the view which has been espoused in many quarters that the High Court should continue to travel around the country fairly extensively, even when it is located in the new building in Canberra, especially when matters such as applications for leave to appeal are in issue. [More…]

• The second element in the High Court Bill is the important and new provision it makes for the High Court to have separate administrative powers with respect to its financial affairs. [More…]

• The powers now vested specifically in the High Court, which presently are exercised by the Attorney-General ‘s Department on behalf not of the Court but of the Commonwealth generally, include the power of the Court to enter into contracts, its power to deal in various ways with property, its power to manage buildings and the staff of the Court and also its power, which has raised some rather quizzical eyebrows in various quarters but 1 suppose one can assume that it will be administered sensibly to accept gifts, devices and bequests directed to the courts- one hopes with the best of motives- from various sources. [More…]

• Associated with that, of course, have been the particular claims of the High Court to enjoy this right of control over its own affairs as being the pinnacle of the Federal judicial system, it being argued to be appropriate to accomplish the transfer in this respect, again, at the time of the High Court’s shift to Canberra. [More…]

• It is not a luxury that is to be enjoyed- not for some time anyway, if indeed there are any proposals in the pipeline- as I understand it, by the other Federal ^’courts in the system; yet there would appear to be no difference in principle between their position and that of the High Court. [More…]

• So, I suggest that the Government’s credibility in advancing separation of powers arguments as a justification for this new arrangement so far as the High Court is concerned would be enhanced by extending the same honour and courtesy to the Parliament. [More…]

• The second point I want to make in this general discussion of the weaknesses of the arguments that have been advanced in favour of separate administration for the High Court is that the track record of the High Court in recent years in the administration of its own affairs has not really been such as to encourage enormous confidence in its financial or other administrative responsibility. [More…]

• With regard to the furnishing of the temple across the road, again there has been very considerable room for concern about the way in which costs have escalated, largely at the instance, it appears, of requests made and generated from within the existing High Court organisation. [More…]

• I refer in particular to the material derived by Senator Mcintosh in the course of the recent round of hearings of Estimates Committee E in relation to the list of proposed furniture for the High Court. [More…]

• There is reason to believe- as I have had occasion to say in earlier debates on this subject- that the proposed staff structure for the new High Court is somewhat erratic by most rational standards, with the proportion of uniformed attendants to researchers and associates being such as might be appropriate in a Roman emperor’s bath house but not all that obviously so in the context of a working national institution such as the High Court. [More…]

• The problem is, of course, that to a very large extent, even if the High Court continues to be administered from outside, from the Attorney-General’s Department, one is very largely in the hands of the judges and the recommendations that they make. [More…]

• I hope further that it can be assumed by the Opposition- again I would appreciate the views of the Attorney on this-that the Clerk to be appointed to head the High Court administration, in fact, will appear before Senate Estimates committees when it comes to the determination and analysis of the High Court’s budget. [More…]

• The final matter dealt with in this legislation, and the final matter on which the Opposition comments, is the very important question of the appointment of High Court judges and the new clause in the legislation which now appears as clause 6 of the High Court of Australia Bill in the following terms: [More…]

• Indeed, it was only with the appointment of His Honour Mr Justice Wilson very recently that Western Australia had its first appointment to the Bench, and it remains true that neither South Australia nor Tasmania has ever had members on the High Court. [More…]

• We certainly would resist any move that this Government or some future government might be tempted to make, by virtue of its now being incorporated in statutory form, to provide that in the future there will be some kind of rotating arrangement for membership of the High Court- a kind of judicial Buggins ‘ turn syndrome. [More…]

• The Opposition insists that the national importance and character of the High Court demands that the perspective which only the Commonwealth can give, irrespective of which party is in. [More…]

• government, should be dominant, the one that actually applies in the determination of High Court appointments. [More…]

• We do not want to see a situation in which exciting or potentiallycontroversial appointments to the High Court will be submerged by the demands of the lowest common political denominator. [More…]

• Indeed, the points of the Bill which concern us most are those found in clauses 1 7 and 40, which are concerned directly with the High Court’s proposed new powers to control its own finance in certain ways. [More…]

• It is relevant to comment that the High Court appears to have started off very much on the wrong foot, with a reputation for extravagance. [More…]

• If any additional money is to be spent in improving court facilities in this country, surely it should be spent on these lower courts rather than on the High Court which I suggest, because of its stature, prestige and elevation, needs it least. [More…]

• While I am on the question of precedent- I think this has a very important bearing- I note that the excuse given for clause 17 is that the High Court must have power over its own finances and spending because only in that way can it be seen to be truly independent. [More…]

• in reply- I thank the Senate for the support which is obviously going to be given to the High Court of Australia Bill 1979 and the Evidence Amendment Bill 1979. [More…]

• The principal Bill when enacted is to be known as the High Court of Australia Act. [More…]

• There are some major amendments to the existing Judiciary Act, which now provides for the constitution of the High Court. [More…]

• The purpose of this legislation is to enable the constitution of the High Court, and matters relating generally to it, to be the subject of a specific Act of Parliament which will be known as the High Court of Australia Act. [More…]

• The immediate need for it is the fact that next year the High Court will be moving into its new building in Canberra. [More…]

• The establishment of the principal seat of the High Court at the seat of government is a major occasion. [More…]

• This time last year the High Court celebrated the 75th anniversary of its establishment. [More…]

• By the time it moves into its own building in Canberra, the High Court will have been established for over 76 years. [More…]

• That is a rather long time for the High Court to wait in order to obtain its permanent position at the seat of government. [More…]

• The High Court of Australia Bill has been proposed to coincide with that event. [More…]

• Obviously some legislative changes had to be made to accommodate the new situation of the High Court in Canberra. [More…]

• In Melbourne and Sydney those registries are at the High Court itself and in other capital cities they are located in the supreme courts of the States. [More…]

• When the Principal Registry of the High Court is established in Canberra it will be necessary to preserve the facilities in each of the capital cities where the solicitors and the parties in proceedings in the Court over the years have been able to lodge their documents and to have them accepted by the Court. [More…]

• One is the provision which accords to the High Court in future a measure of responsibility for the administration of its affairs. [More…]

• The other is the principle of consultations with the States on the appointment of High Court judges in the future. [More…]

• The first is the provision in this Bill which accords a measure of independent administration to the High Court. [More…]

• It will be carried into effect by the appointment of an officer to be known as the Clerk of the High Court. [More…]

• The present administration of the High Court, like that of other courts set up by the Parliament, is carried out through officers of the Attorney-General’s Department and the appropriation is included in the estimates for that Department. [More…]

• The establishment under this Act of the power of the Court to administer its own affairs and of the office of a Clerk of the High Court places the High Court in a position analogous to that of an independent statutory authority. [More…]

• The High Court itself is created by the Constitution, so there is no question of creating any new independent statutory authority. [More…]

• So even though this is the way the financing will proceed there will be control by the Government of course, and ultimate control by the Parliament, over the finance that is made available to the High Court. [More…]

• In order to seek to correct it, the Government felt that it was important that before an appointment was made to the High Court the Government’s attention should be drawn to the widest list of names of suitable lawyers throughout the whole of the nation who could be and ought to be considered for the appointment. [More…]

• There is no suggestion that there will be any direction to the government or any restrictions on its absolute power and discretion to decide whom it will recommend for appointment to the High Court. [More…]

• We are discussing a Bill before the Senate not expenditure on the High Court building. [More…]

• The High Court shall not, except with the approval of the Minister, enter into a contract under which the Court is to pay or to receive an amount exceeding $ 100,000. [More…]

• That has to be read in conjunction with the provision that the High Court is to be given administrative independence. [More…]

• The High Court’s ability to enter into contracts, of course, will depend upon the money that is made available to it in accordance with the estimates to which I have been referring. [More…]

• The object of the High Court’s having administrative independence- it is the same privilege as is accorded to independent statutory authorities- is that it does not have to obtain ministerial or departmental approval for the contracts or expenditures it enters into. [More…]

• As the sort of contract that the High Court might enter into would not be in excess of that figure, except in very unusual circumstances, it was thought reasonable to have a lower figure than perhaps would be provided for independent statutory authorities. [More…]

• As I have said, the ability of the High Court administration to enter into those contracts will, in the end, be dependent upon its obtaining money to satisfy them. [More…]

• This provision is more to control expenditure of a capital nature that the High Court may enter into. [More…]

• Earlier today we had before us a Bill which virtually gave complete independence of operation to the High Court of Australia, to the judicial arm of government. [More…]

• Whilst not legally obligated to do so, the Minister gave an undertaking to review the situation following a High Court decision in 1977 after several cases dated back to 1976. [More…]

• That the Commonwealth does have power to act in this area is, in my submission, as clear as it could be, given that the area has not yet been completely charted by High Court decisions and, to some extent, one does have to rely on analysis and extrapolation of likely trends in those decisions. [More…]

• This is the kind of argument that would have to be fought out in the High Court were the Commonwealth to be adventurous and courageous enough to legislate unilaterally in this area. [More…]

• I am confident that the High Court would be supportive of expansive interpretations. [More…]

• The High Court, as we know, will readily give us the answer . [More…]

• It was in 1970 that the Senate, at the suggestion of the then Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Murphy, now Mr Justice Murphy of the High Court of Australia, and with the support of all parties established the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. [More…]

• After the then Senator Murphy went to the High Court, the Enderby Bill was introduced. [More…]

• The High Court, as we know, will readily give us the answer . [More…]

• Senator Evans said that we should have proceeded at the national level only and imposed national companies and securities legislation by virtue of the powers that, in his view, the Commonwealth Parliament has and leave it to the High Court to resolve any doubts about it. [More…]

• On that very day, this Parliament agreed to the passage of the High Court legislation which virtually gave the High Court complete independence as to its financial operations. [More…]

• Here we have the situation where yesterday the Senate approved an amount of some $48m being made available to the High Court to give it complete autonomy in its operations but the Executive was telling us that in its opinion the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives should be paid an amount much less than the amount recommended by the Remuneration Tribunal. [More…]

• I asked a question at Question Time and spoke in the debate on the High Court of Australia Bill in the afternoon. [More…]

• The original contract price for the High Court building was $18m. [More…]

• The point to which I wish to draw particular attention is why the Chief Justice- designated or regarded as the chief user- I think that is the term- especially since one would not expect that the present Chief Justice would be around for much longer than the High Court; one would certainly hope not, anyway. [More…]

• His gross extravagance, indulging his own delusions of grandeur with this High Court building - [More…]

• I wish to say something about the High Court building that is being constructed across the road and which we find objectionable. [More…]

• -I raise some matters pertaining to the construction of the High Court building on the banks of Lake Burley Griffin. [More…]

• Questions were raised by Senator Primmer in relation to the changing of toilet seats in the new High Court buildings. [More…]

• The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) was asked some questions about the redistribution which flowed from the decision which was made by the High Court involving an interpretation of the Constitution which required the Government, at a certain time, to create an additional electorate in Western Australia. [More…]

• That distinction has never been accepted by the Australian Parliament, and section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, although undermined by the High Court- I will come to that in a moment- clearly says that whilst such transactions are legal they are to have no effect against the revenue, and that the Treasury is entitled, despite the transaction, to gather in funds which should be directed properly to it, where the dominant intention in setting up the commercial or trust transaction, whatever it might be, is to avoid legitimate contributions to revenue. [More…]

• But what we have had over the last decade or so is a High Court which has aided and abetted the tax avoiders. [More…]

• It is my understanding that the present legislation, especially as regards the powers of the Australian Wheat Board to market wheat in Australia, relies heavily on the decision of the High Court of Australia in the Clark v. King case. [More…]

• However, another case is before the High Court and if this overrules the case referred to, that could change the internal marketing arrangements. [More…]

• If the Commonwealth eschewed all legislation which could conceivably be successfully challenged in the High Court, given that court’s notorious record of both political and capricious judgments, the Commonwealth would scarcely legislate at all. [More…]

• Very recently the High Court suggested that that particular almost sacrosanct quality attaching to the Cabinet’s decision to withhold evidence needs to be modified. [More…]