Coffey v Commonwealth

[1969] HCA 22

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., Kitto, Taylor and Windeyer JJ.

COFFEY v. THE COMMONWEALTH

(1969) 118 CLR 465

2 June 1969

Statutes

Statutes—Interpretation—Regulation-making power—Validity of regulation—Power to make regulations not inconsistent with Act—Section of Act defines breach of regulations under Act as offence and provides for punishment—One regulation provides that officer absent from duty commits a breach of the regulations—Another regulation gives discretion to require performance of duty for period equal to period of absence from duty in breach of the first regulation—Public Service Act 1922-1966 (Cth), ss. 55*, 97*—Public Service Regulations (Cth), regs. 13*, 14*.

Decisions

June 2.
BARWICK C.J. The appellant in this case submitted that reg. 14 (1) of the Public Service Regulations is invalid on two grounds, as I understand counsel : one, that the regulation is inconsistent with s. 55 of the Public Service Act 1922-1966 in particular; secondly, that it goes beyond the authority intended to be given by s. 97, having regard to the provisions of s. 55. (at p466)

2. As to the first ground: in my opinion, the short answer to the argument was given by Mr. Justice Owen in his judgment when he said (1968) 118 CLR, at p 351 :

"I think the short answer to these arguments is that reg. 14 (1) is not a provision imposing punishment on an officer who commits a breach of reg. 13. Its purpose is to enable a chief officer to require an officer who has, without authority, been absent from duty during a period when he should have been at work, to make up the time lost by such absence." (at p466)

3. In my opinion, that accurately describes the operation of reg. 14 (1): it is not inconsistent with s. 55. (at p466)

4. As to the second submission, in my opinion, the validity of the regulation is covered by the opening words of s. 97, if not indeed by pars. (k) and (m) of that section, having regard to the subject matter of the Act and the nature of the regualtion under challenge. (at p467)

5. In my opinion, the appeal should be dismissed. (at p467)

KITTO J. I agree. (at p467)

TAYLOR J. I agree. (at p467)

WINDEYER J. I agree. (at p467)

Orders

Appeal dismissed with costs.