R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration; Amalgamated Engineering Union, Ex p [1949] HCA 51

High Court of Australia Latham C.J. Dixon, McTiernan, Williams and Webb JJ. R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation & Arbitration; Amalgamated Engineering Union, Ex p [1949] HCA 51

ORDER Application refused. Latham C.J.

This is an application for a writ of mandamus directed to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration and the judges of that Court directing that the court should hear according to law the parties to certain disputes in pursuance of the duty of the court to hear and determine the same according to law and should also hear and determine according to law any application which may be made by any of the parties to those disputes for a resumption of the hearing of the disputes.

The affidavits submitted to the court show that the Arbitration Court has been engaged for several months in hearing an application for the increase of the basic wage. That application involves a consideration of what may be described as a family wage and of child endowment. In the general Federal election which is at present proceeding, the voting in which will take place on 10th December next, reference has been made to the relation of child endowment to the basic wage. That is a matter which would have to be determined by the court in the hearing of the disputes mentioned. The court made an announcement in these terms—"At the basis of the problem of settling the disputes before the court concerning the Basic Wage for adult male and female workers are, as has been made manifest during the proceedings, questions relative to the amount and fair and proper distribution of the National Income and to the capacity of the economy to support such a distribution." Reference is then made to the fact that these matters have been raised as an issue in the political field and it is stated that the court has decided that it is its duty to proceed no further in the present case "while the issue remains the subject of election propaganda." I read those words as meaning that the adjournment which the court directed on this occasion was an adjournment only until after the election, and not an indefinite adjournment, as has been suggested.