6 92 , AUSTRALIA 



The Governor General of the Commonwealth in 1912 was Lord Denman. The follow- 

 ing were the names of the Cabinet still in office at the end of the year: 



Prime Minister and Treasurer Andrew Fisher 



Attorney General . .... .''". V . W.M.Hughes 



Minister for External Affairs . , . , . . J.Thomas 

 Minister for Home Affairs - , . . , . . . K. O'Malley 

 Postmaster General . . ' ',' ... . ( . ' , . C. E. Frazer 



Minister for Defence . . ' : '. ."'.'. ' .' . G. F. Pearce 



Minister for Trade and Customs F. G. Tudor 



Vice-President of Executive Council . . . . . G. McGregor 

 Honorary Ministers ., 4 .^ ,,',' ; , .. ... . E. Findley and E. A. Roberts 



The Constitution and the High Court. The Federal Constitution, in safeguarding 

 the Federal power from trespass by the states and the power of the states from tres- 

 pass by the Federation, necessarily set up a system of conservative check. But the 

 full extent of that check was only understood when a High Court began to interpret 

 the statutes in the light of the Constitution. Already a considerable amount of the 

 legislation of the Australian Parliament has been declared ultra vires by the High 

 Court. Some of the decisions affected political issues so deeply that it was sought to 

 amend the Constitution so as to facilitate " Labour" legislation, but this effort failed. 

 The power to amend the Constitution is in itself subject to many safeguards. A pro- 

 posed amendment must first have the approval of an absolute majority of both Houses 

 of Parliament; it is then submitted to a poll of the people, and to pass it must secure 

 (a) a majority of the total votes cast, (b) a majority of the votes cast in a majority of 

 the states. If the three largest states voted " Yes " and the three smallest states 

 voted " No," though the total Australian vote was " yes," the proposed amendment 

 would still fail. 



In 1906 the Australian Parliament had passed an " Excise Act " which was intended 

 to enforce what was called " the New Protection." A high protective Customs Duty 

 had been placed on agricultural machinery, and at the same time an Excise Duty on 

 the same machinery manufactured locally, with the provision that the Excise Duty 

 should be remitted if the manufacturers paid " fair wages." On June 26, 1908 the 

 High Court declared this Act invalid, on the ground that it was not what it purported 

 to be a taxing Act, but rather an Act to regulate wages within a state, a thing 

 which the Federal power was not competent to undertake under the Constitution. 



The first two Australian Parliaments devoted much time to discussing a Federal 

 Industrial Arbitration Act, which included in its control state railway servants. This 

 inclusion was nullified by a High Court decision that it was an unconstitutional inter- 

 ference by the Federal power with the affairs of the states. In the Trade Marks Act 

 the Australian Parliament gave Trade Unions the right to register what is known in 

 the United States as the " Union label," a mark showing that certain goods were 

 manufactured by Trade Union labour only. The Australian High Court (August 1908) 

 set this part of the statute aside on the ground that such a " Union label " was not a 

 genuine trade mark, and the proposal to register it as a trade mark was really a subter- 

 fuge to assume control of labour conditions which were outside the province of the 

 Commonwealth. 



Not only Federal legislation but state legislation has been vetoed. An Arbitra- 

 tion Act in New South Wales had sought to give the widest powers of regulating in- 

 dustrial disputes. In a series of five appeals the High Court gave such a strict inter- 

 pretation to the provisions of that Act that it was more than half destroyed. (The 

 High Court is the only Court of Appeal in cases affecting the Constitution, and is 

 with the Privy Council an alternative Court of Appeal in all other cases.) 



In 1913 an effort was to be made to secure from the people a reversal of their verdict 

 in 1911, when they refused to give endorsement to amendments of the Federal Con- 

 stitution which would legalise for the future the Federal and Labour legislation which 

 the High Court had vetoed. Meanwhile the Australian Constitution, as interpreted 

 by the High Court, is a barrier against any great development of socialistic enterprise 

 on the part of the Commonwealth Government. 



