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
Saturday, 9 June 1928

Mr SCULLIN (Yarra) .- In my opinion the clause is unnecessary, and the only change that would be effected by the amendment is objectionable. If the parties conform to the law they have a right to go to the court, and we should not make it mandatory on the judge to declare that it is more desirable that a case should be heard by the Federal court than by a State industrial authority. Unless the judge made such a declaration, he would have to dismiss the plaint. I can quite understand that, if he thought it desirable that a State court should hear the case, he should dismiss it; but suppose that the case might just as well be heardby by a State court as by the Federal court.

Mr Latham - Then I should say that the State court should deal with it.

Mr SCULLIN - That is inconsistent with previous clauses, and with the contention of the Attorney-General that the awards of the Federal court should prevail. One of the objects ofestablishing Federal courts is to obtain uniform laws throughout the Commonwealth. The existing provisions are ample to meet every possible case. The present clause savours of instructing the court to drive the parties away from it. Numbers of clauses that have already been passed, are calculated to have that effect, and now the committee is invited to agree to another of the same nature. I oppose the clause.

Suggest corrections