IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALTA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY INDUSTRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: Ryan J Brisbane 15 July 1992 JUDGMENT No. ol. QJ Brunl aunt Zuon ) No Q14 of 1992 ) ) VICTORIA JANE McJANNET (First Applicant) CHARLES HENRY LIVINGSTONE (Second Applicant) MEDIA, ENTERTAINMENT AND ARTS ALLIANCE a reqistered Industrial Organisation of Employees pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Third Applicant) HERBERT WHITE, ARTHUR WESTBROOK, JAMES BEATTIE, MACQUARIE HAYWARD WILLIAM MORRIS and EDWARD EASTON (First Respondent) QUEENSLAND BRANCH OF THE AUSTRALIAN THEATRICAL & AMUSEMENT UNION OF EMPLOYEES (Second Respondent) AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION OF EMPLOYEES (Intervener) EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Application has been made by the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations for the State of Queensland for leave to intervene in these proceedings. The -2- application is made pursuant to 5.59 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 which provides: "Where the Court is of the opinion that an organisation, person or body should be heard in a proceeding before the Court in a matter arising under this Act, the Court may grant leave to the organisation, person'or body to intervene in the proceeding." The application has been opposed by the applicants in the substantive matter, first on the ground that the Attorney- General for the State of Queensland has not so far chosen to exercise his statutory right to intervene in these proceedings pursuant to s.78A of the Judiciary Act. In the second place, opposition has been based on general discretionary considerations which are clearly available under s.59. The grounds on which the opinion, which is the pre-requisite to the grant of leave under s.59, may be formed are left completely at large by the terms of the section. I agree, with respect, with what was said by a Full Court of this Court in ens v Australian Buildin Construction Employees' and Builders' Labourers' Federation (1978) 46 F.L.R. 16 at p.22 that intervention in litigation inter partes should not lightly be allowed. However, the application by the Minister here is very different from the application for leave to intervene in that case. Here, the substantive application raises squarely the interaction of the Industrial Relations Act of the Commonwealth with the industrial legislation of the State of Queensland. The State Minister does not seek to adduce -~ 3 - evidence or to cross-examine deponents whose evidence has been adduced on behalf of one or other of the parties. Rather, he seeks to make submissions in the light of that evidence as to its effect in the context of the interacting legislation to which I have just referred. He also seeks to make submissions on the interpretation which the Court should adopt of the State legislation which he is responsible to administer. The Court may well derive assistance from those submissions. If that expectation is disappointed or the grant of leave to intervene is likely unduly to prolong the proceedings, this Court can exercise the power, which I consider it has, to revoke leave or to impose conditions on the Minister's intervention. For these reasons, I propose to grant leave to the Minister to intervene. I also consider it an appropriate exercise of the Court's discretion to grant leave to the applicant to join as third and fourth respondents respectively the Industrial Registrar for the State of Queensland, and Mr Graham Dolbel who has been nominated as the returning officer to conduct the ballot for the proposed amalgamation between the second respondent and the State-registered Australian Workers Union. The application should be amended to specify the relief claimed against each of the added respondents. -4- I certify that this and the preceding three (3) pages are a true copy of the ex tempore reasons for judgment herein of his Honour Mr Justice Ryan Associate: Date: 15 July 1992 Counsel for the applicants: Mr Rothman Mx Boccabella Solicitor for the applicants: Goss Downey Carne Counsel for the first and second respondents: Mr Herbert Solicitor for the first and second respondents: Dillons Counsel for the third respondent, and the second intervener: Mr Martin Solicitor for the third respondent, and the second intervener: Crown Law Office Counsel for the fourth respondent and the intervener: Mr Hall Solicitor for the fourth respondent and the intervener: > C.A. Sciacca & Associates