Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 7 December 1965


Mr CONNOR (Cunningham) . - Many of the questions posed in relation to this clause remind me of a passage from " Macbeth "-

It is a tale . . . full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I wonder whether the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) has disregarded the implications of section 75 of the Commonwealth Constitution. Under that section the High Court of Australia has original jurisdiction in any matter in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth. I quote here from an article by Professor Richardson -

For this purpose the Commissioner and members of the Tribunal, including the Review Division, would, no doubt, be regarded as officers of the Commonwealth. Accordingly, if the Commissioner or the Tribunal were acting beyond power conferred by the Act--

In other words, if they were in error on questions of law - a writ of prohibition or an injunction as appro priate could be sought in the High Court.

That being so, the amendment is futile and this debate is futile.







Suggest corrections