Cotter River Act 1931 (ACT)

The case involved an amendment to the Cotter River Ordinance 1914-1928, made through the Cotter River Ordinance 1931, in relation to the Cotter River Reservoir in the Australian Capital Territory. The amended ordinance prohibited fishing and the use of devices for taking fish in the reservoir, with a penalty of ten pounds for offenders. The amendment also updated the wording of the reservoir from "Dam" to "Reservoir" and modified the schedule defining the boundaries of the land in the Territory for the Seat of Government.

The court was tasked with determining the legality of the amendment to the Cotter River Ordinance 1914-1928 through the enactment of the Cotter River Ordinance 1931. The primary legal issue was whether the amendment was within the powers conferred to the Governor-General by the Federal Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909 and the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910-1930. Additionally, the court considered whether the changes to the ordinance, particularly the prohibition on fishing and the updated terminology, were within the scope of the original legislative intent and whether they complied with statutory requirements.

The court found that the Governor-General had the authority to enact the amendments through the Cotter River Ordinance 1931, as the powers conferred by the Federal Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909 and the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910-1930 were sufficient for such legislative action. The court also determined that the changes, including the prohibition on fishing and the updated terminology, were within the scope of the original intent of the ordinance and were in compliance with statutory requirements. The court upheld the validity of the amendment and its associated changes to the Cotter River Ordinance.

The court confirmed the legality of the amendment to the Cotter River Ordinance 1914-1928 through the enactment of the Cotter River Ordinance 1931. The amendments, including the prohibition on fishing and the updated terminology, were deemed valid and in compliance with the relevant statutes. The court's decision supported the authority of the Governor-General to enact such amendments within the Australian Capital Territory.