FEDERAL LABOUR

Grey River Argus, 13 August 1937, Page 12

FEDERAL LABOUR

Election Policy 40 HOUR WEEK. SYDNEY, August 3. ’Decisively answering the attempts of the anti-Labour Press to compromise the Labour Party’s campaign for the Federal election before the policy speech had been delivered, the Federal leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Curtin, last night reiterated and emphasised the statements that he made in Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne relating to the formulation of the party’s policy. Mr. Curtin declared that the only authority which could decide the platform and policy for Federal Labour candidates throughout Australia was the Triennial Commonwealth Labour conference, the most recent of which was held last year at Adelaide. “The platform and policy adopted at this conference,” he added, “are binding not only upon the selected Labour candidates and myself as their leader, but upon every Labour supporter throughout Australia, and these are the definite and concrete propositions upon which Labour will fight the coming election.” Referring to the anti-Labour Press attempts to confuse the Labour Party's policy of strict neutrality and isolation from foreign conflicts with the decision of the A.C.T.U. Congress to adopt a policy of “collective security through the League of Nations,” Mr. Curtin said: “Any other section, group, committee or conference is entitled to express an opinion on any matter, but they may not in any way direct Labour candidates in respect to the platform and policy of the Labour Party. Not even a State executive may do that. Referring to the Lyons Government in its refusal to implement the Geneva Labour Conference 40-hour convention, Mr. Curtin showed that, there was no difficulty in the way of the Commonwealth Parliament and no legitimate reason why it should delay the matter further. “Section 51, sub-section 29, of the Constitution distinctly confers power on the Commonwealth to legislate with respect to external affairs,” he said. “A convention entered into by the Commonwealth Government is clearly an external affair, and has been so decided by the highest court of the Dominions, the Privy Council. “Similarly, in the High Court case of King v. Burgess, commonly referred to as the Goya Henry or aviation case, there was practically judicial unanimity. The decision was that so much of section 4 of the Air Navigation Act as empowered the Governor-General to make regulations for carrying out and giving effect to the convention was a valid , exercise of the 'external affairs’ pow- i er conferred upon the Commonwealth j by section 51 of the Constitution. ; “The Commonwealth has express , legislative power, under section 51, ; sub-section 29. in respect of 'concilia- ] tion and arbitration for the preven- ] lion and settlement of industrial dis- 1

pules extending beyond the limits of any one State.’ It is extremely easy, as the uresent and former AttorneysGeneral have stated, Io cause an interstate dispute to invoke Federal , jurisdiction, and this has been done many times. The court can then function, and all that is required is an amendment to the Commonwealth. Industrial Act on the lines of New Zealand legislation, that the judges ‘shall award a 40-hour week, except where it: can be shown by the employer to create great hardship’—or words to the like effect.

“Recently Mr. Menzies has stated that the Commonwealth Parliament has no authority to pass an Act declaring a genera’ 4djiour week. This is no doubt correct. But he does not deny the legality of declaring that the Parliament shall direct the judges in that respect. He merely says that such directions ‘have never been given.’ This is irrelevant if the power exists,” said Mr. Curtin. “Both Commonwealth and State Parliaments have, however, frequently given such directions. The former directed the court to take into consideration ‘the probable economic effect of the award in relation to the award and the probable economic effort thereof; hours of labour not to be reduced except by three judges: and reserved for Parliament any award affecting public servants. “These directions are quite constitutional. In fact, industrial justices like Higgins, Beeby and Heydon have, in various judgments, declared that the question of hours is for Parliament, and not for the court, to declare. Mr. President Westhoven recently put this view tersely and de- 1 finitely.

“There are, therefore, two means within the Constitution to give effect Io this reform: (1) By an Act ratifying a convention on the subject: (2) by an amendment to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act directing the court to give effect to the proposal in the manner indicated,” he emnhasised.

Mr. Curtin, who arrived from Melbourne yesterday, met the officers of the party and several N.S.W. members of the Federal Parliamentary caucus and discussed with them during his brief stay lhe progress of the campaign in this State.