AUSTRALIAN NAVIGATION ACT

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17220, 10 August 1921, Page 7

AUSTRALIAN NAVIGATION ACT

PEDERAL HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT. (By Cabkr-Pwas AaMciatioa—CoFVrJgliU (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) SYDNEY, August 8. The High Court held that the Navigation Act is invalid as regards intrastate trade, but other sections of the Act deauVwith by the Court are valid. In the Federal High Court consisting of Sir Adrian Knox, C.J., Mr Justice Hiffgins, Mr Justice Isaacs. Mr Justice Gavan Duffy, Mr Justice Rich, Mr Justice Powers, and. Mr Justice Starke, held at Durlinghurst, on- July 27th,vthe hearing was concluded of the demurrer by the defendants in the suit by the Newcastle and Hunter River Steamship Co,, Ltd.> and "others agaiast the Commonwealth Attorney-General and another, in regard to the validity of certain sections of the Navigation Act, on the ground that the plaintiffs' statement of claim disclosed no cause of action. ' Plaintiffs complained that they were being required by the Minister 'for Trade and Customs and the Department, of Navigation to fulfil ' certain conditions of the Navigation Act by taking out a license to conduct trade that they had been carrying out for a long time"; that they had been ordered to set such licenses, make necessary structural alterations, to* their ships, causing large expenditure; that they were required to engage large numbers Of officers and seamen in excess of those at present employed on their ships, and they would thereby have to .expend large annual sums for additional working expenses, as well as large sums for structural alterations. They prayed for a declaration that such requirements were invalid, and that there was no authority to insist upon their being carried but or to insist upon licenses,' inasmuch aa they were carrying on trade only within a State. Generally, plaintiffs attacked the validity of the Navigation Act: ■'■,.,. \'J.. It was contended, on behalf of the plaintiffs, that, as the Commonwealth Parliament'B ■ powers of legislationvaffecting navigation and,shipping were limited ,to inter-State and. foreign commerce, (the Act was ultra vires, m so far aa it purported to regulate the manning accommodation, etc., on vessels engaged in purely intranstate trade. Defendants replied that tile Act was intended to cover all vessels using the inter-State highway, and that if a ves-r sel using such highway, happened,to be engaged only on an intra-State voyage it was, nevertheless, subject to .the regulations applying to inter-State trafOh behalf of the State of "West Australia,. Mr Broomfield referred to subsection 2 of seotion 2 of the Act, in which it is providsd that if any of the prD*istons of the Act exceed the powers of Parliament, and are held to be ultra vires the intention of Parliament must be construed to be that the remaining part of the enactment which is within the power of Parliament shall remain. Mr Bropmfield argued in regard to this from a doctrine, expressed by Mr Justice Isaacs, in the Hybard case, that if parts of an enactment are had, the whole of it must fall. Their honours, generally, appeared to be against this contention, which, however, was supported by" Senator Keating (Tasmania). He adopted the argument put forward by the plaintiffs, and was proceeding to summarise, them when the Chief Justice intimated that the Court did not wish to hear him flri that point, being unanimously of the opinion that the Navigation Act could not apply to vessels engaged inpurely intra-State trade. Mr Justice Higgins confirmed this intimation, but qualified it by saying that such vessels must be understood to be wnolly engaged in intra-State trade, and carrying no cargo intended for inter-State or foreign trade, ~The Court reserved judgment.