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
Thursday, 18 June 1903

Mr GLYNN (South Australia) - I suggest to the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne that it would be better to test the whole question of vesting the States Courts with jurisdiction under clause 41, because this clause really deals only with exclusive jurisdiction. If the honorable and learned member will consent to do that, perhaps the Attorney-General will consider another point. It seems to be assumed that clause 41 itself confers original jurisdiction, but I do not think it does. It only follows clause 39, which provides that the judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be exercised by Federal Courts or by the courts of the States, which are by the law of the Commonwealth invested with Federal jurisdiction. That is to say, by laws which are to be subsequently passed. Clause 41 then provides that the investment of jurisdiction is to be subject to certain limits as to locality, subject-matter, or otherwise ; therefore it appears to me that clause 41 confers no jurisdiction. I think that under this clause we should prescribe the limits of exclusive jurisdiction, and then, by an addition to clause 41, invest with general jurisdiction the several courts of the States. It is almost impossible to define the courts that are not Supreme Courts, and I suggest that between this and the next discussion of the Bill, the matter of defining the subordinate courts may be considered.

Mr. MAHON(Coolgardie). - I understand that some remarks which I previously made have been taken by the honorable and learned member for Corinella as casting some reflection on him. I had no intention of doing anything of the kind, and I desire to withdraw any remarks to which the honorable and learned member may take exception.

Suggest corrections