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    
Wednesday, 14 October 1970


Mr Clyde Cameron (HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA) asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

(1)   Did the editors of Butterworth's Fourth Edition of 'Federal Industrial Laws' at page 380 slate that Mr Justice Dunphy exhibited some rather dubious reasoning when he ruled in the case of Commonwealth Steamship Owners Association v. Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia that an organisation, party to a batt, is concerned in that ban at every moment of time that the ban continues.

(2)   Did he say in answer to question No. 1556 that the editors did not express the view that the Judge exhibited some rather dubious reaso'ning in his judgment in the abovementioned case; if so, why.


Mr Snedden - The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:

(t)   In 'Federal Industrial Laws' at page 379 of the fourth edition, the editors quote, in part, the remarks of Mr Justice Dunphy set out in part (I) of the answer to the honourable member's question No. 1556. The remarks of the Judge appear in his judgment in Commonwealth Steamship Owners Association v. Waterside Workers Federation of Australia (1960) 2 F.L.R. 328 and it is this case to which the editors refer when they say that the Judge's remarks were 'obviously going too far'. On page 380 of the .same edition, the editors express the view that the judgment of Mr Justice Dunphy in Commonwealth Steamship Owners Association v. Waterside Workers Federation of Australia (No. 2) (1963), 5 F.L.R. 103 exhibits some rather dubious reasoning'.

(2)   Yes, because, as will be seen from the above, the editors do not express the view that the judgment of Mr Justice Dunphy in the 1960 case at 2 F.L.R. 328 'exhibits some rather dubious reasoning' as suggested by the honourable member in his question No. 1556. They express this view as lo his judgment in the 1963 case at 5 F.L.R. 103.







Suggest corrections