McWaters v Day

The case of *McWaters v Day* was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, McWaters, was appealing a decision concerning the application of Queensland traffic law to an incident that occurred at the Enoggera Army Barracks, a Commonwealth place. The respondent was Day. The Attorney-General for the Commonwealth and the Attorneys-General for Victoria and New South Wales intervened in the proceedings, generally supporting the appellant.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Queensland *Traffic Act* was invalid due to inconsistency with section 40(2) of the Commonwealth *Defence Force Discipline Act 1982*. This inconsistency, if found, would require resolution under section 109 of the Australian Constitution. The appellant argued that the Queensland Act, which regulated traffic, had a different purpose than the Commonwealth Act, which concerned the discipline of defence force members.

The appellant contended that there was no inconsistency because the two legislative provisions served distinct purposes. The Queensland *Traffic Act* aimed to regulate traffic generally, while section 40(2) of the *Defence Force Discipline Act* imposed a disciplinary obligation on defence force members, which was intended to be supplemental to their existing obligations. The appellant submitted that the Queensland Full Court erred in finding an inconsistency, with one judge dissenting and supporting these arguments. The dissenting judge's reasoning was said to be consistent with previous High Court decisions.