Noakes v Harvy Holmes & Son

[1979] FCA 40

/*l

.-

IN 1'HZ rI:DZRPI, CC3i-!<'l7 O F AT:.?'! PRLTA )

. I

J \%IJSTRJAL	DTVTSIOPI	)	KO.	1 05 L979
)

NEW SOUTrI P'?.T.E,S D1 TT!<TCT R!:CIS'l'P\' -- )

I N TiiF PLaTi ' rR of the C n c l l l a t l o n ,;nd

A r b l k r a t l o n A c z , 1904

AND I?: :I\'I'T.S~? of all l n f o r r n a t l c n

undzr s . l l ? L the sa ld hct

KST) i;'II,LT?h.! DL:''liTC :"lcr(L:Z

D e f end;-{nt

J U D G E :'I?I(J:?C ORPCIZ: J.B. Swceney ,J.

DA'I'E O F OVli-:': 9 ? l a y , lr.79

WIJr.KF: !.?AD!: : Sydney

'ITE C'OTTUT O!?CI;''iS T'EiA',":

The l n f o r r n ~ t l o n be d l s m l s c e c i .

IIJ TI'P: Y1:DI:RAL COURT OF P.lrS'i'PALIA - )

1

I N D l ~ C ' i ' X l : L OTVT S T n N ) NO. 1 of 1979

--

1

Nk:W SOlJTTJ F'ATES DIS?'RICrF RrC.3 STEY ) --

TN TtIE Yu\TTZK of the Concillaijon and

Arbltratlon Act, 1904

AND IL? 'lFI1- MATT1:R of an lnforn~tion under s.li9 of the sald Act

BETWrEN A?CIIIBALD GfJ?PQl< r~lC:CP:;'?,LI

Informant

AND WILLTX.1 DCm?:,'? EicI<FE -

Defendant

J.B. SKEEKEY J. 9 May, 1979

REASONS FOP JUDGMENT

~ h l s is a surmlolis seeklng the imposition of a penalty for

a breach of s.l25(7) of the ~oncillatlon	and Arbltratl3n
Act. 1901 ("the ~ct").

The inforl-lat~on cn which the summons was lssued \\as lald by the informant who was an inspector wlthjn the ncaning

of the Act. The offence alleged was that thc defendant

committed a breach of s.125(7) In that on 10 January, 1378

he made a statenen: in writlng to an Inspector which was

false in certalu particulars. The inforrfiiat~ori \:as lajd

on 9 January, 1979. The defendant submlttcd:

(a)	by the repeal of s.125(7) of the conciliation h
Arbi.trat~on T.ct, 15'04 the l~abil lty, if any,
incurred by the defendant under thdt provision has been extinqulshed.

(b) t h e in formant i s no t authorized t o l a y t h e

in forn ia t lon and l n s t l t u t e t h e p r e s e n t proceed-

i n g s a g a i n s t t h e defendant .

and a t t h e r e q u e s t o f t h e p a r t i e s I d e a l t w l t h t h e s u l m i s s l o ? ~

a s p r e l l m l n a r y m a t t e r s . Both submissions deperid on t h ? v ~ e w

taken of A c t No. G 4 of 1977 whlch 2mer,ded the Conciliation &

~ r b i t r a t l o n Act i n a number o f particulars.

P r l o r t o t h e amendmy Act , t h e A c t had made p rov l s lo l l i o r

I n s p e c t o r s . A d e f i n i t i o r l uT rllspectcr ai;pza~?d ;n :S. C, t h e

d e f l n l t l o n s e c t i o n , and p r o v l s l o n was made f o r i n s p e c t o r s

under s.125. That s e c t i o n prov ided t h a t an i n s p e c t o r sh3cilrl

have such d u t l e s i n r e l a t l o n t o t h e observance o f t h e Act and

r e g u l a t i o n s and o f any award a s t h e l l i n i s t e r d i r e c t s .

I n s p e c t o r s w e r e g iven a r i g h t o f e n t r y t o c e r t x 1 1 a r e a s , a

r i g h t t o i n s p e c t work, t o i n t e r v i e w en~ployees a11d t o reqliirr?

t h e p roduc t ion o f c e r t a i n r e c o r d s and i n s p e c t and cake extracks

from t h e r . Sub-sect ion ( 7 ) of t h e s e c t i o n prov ided t h a t LI

person who h inde red e t c . an i n s p e c t o r o r made a statemarlt tc

an i n s p e c t o r i n t h e cou r se o f h i s d u t i e s which was fa!.c,e o r

m i s l e a d ~ n g should be g u l l t y o f an o f f e n c e and a p e n a l t y was

pruz ided . An inspector under s.119 o f t h e AC:- had p v e r

confe r r ed on hlm i n terms t o seek t h e l m p o s l t j c n of a geriali-y

by t h e Court i n t h e c a s e of a b reach o r n o n - n ~ s e r v a n c e o f an

award. Under s.54 it wa.5 p a r t of t h e d z t l e s o f t h e In spec to r

t o l n v c s t i g a t e m a t t e r s a f f e c t ~ n g t h e s a f e t y of e m p l o y e ~ s cn a

r e q u e s t by a member o f t h c comnonke.?lth f : o n c l l ~ a t ~ o n :. i ' , r b i r . ? -~ t - l~~

commission t o t h e Department of Labour. Under s .126 t h e

inspector was r e q u i r e d when s o d ~ r e c t c d by a member of t h e

Commission t o i n s i l t u t e procec-dlngs Cur an oZfer.cm.? a g a l n s t

t h e A c t o r tile recovcry of a p e n a l t y under s . l l .3 . ~t may :X:

mentioned t h a t where pcna1t1c.s w e r e p rov ided i n t?le Act ,

some s e c t l o n s gave an exhaustive l l s t of t h o s e e n t l t l e d t o

apply. S e c t l o n 119 was o i t h i s c l a s s . I n o t h e r s , p e n ~ l t - ~ n s

w e r e p ~ o v i d e d fol- b r eaches o f an award or t h e Act o r r cgu la -

t l o n s h u t no s t a t emen t appeared a s t o t h e p e r s o n s e n t l t l ~ d

CO b r l n g p roc fed ings . ~ e c c i o n i3i provrCeci t i l ac a perboil \$ilo

had committed an o f f e n c e a g a l n s t t h e Act o r r egu l i i t l ons migilr;

be charged acco rd ing ly b e f o r e t h e Court and t h a t t h e c o u r t

might impose t h e penalt;. provicied by t h e A c t o r regulat:ions.

Proceedinys were t o be instituted by surmons l s s n e d *zpon

information. I n s p e c t o r s t h e n i n my view were t hen a b l e t o

b r l n g proc,>edlngs cnde r s .119 , s .54 and 5.125 Sy v l r t u e of

t h e s p e c i f i c p r o v l s l o n s i n t h e s e s e c t i o n s and u ~ d e r o t h e r

s e c t l o n s by v i r t u e of s .13 o f t h e Crlmcs ~ c t .

The two subm>ssions now made depend f o r t h e l r v a l i d i C y on t > e

q u c s t l o n whether t h e airendlnq ?,c+: sicvs a ccnr-rary i n z e n t l c n

t o s . 8 o f the? Acts T n t e r p r e t a t l o n Act and s . 1 3 o f t h e Crlnr_s

Act. So f a r a s each s u b ~ l s s l o n i3 concerned, r e l l , ~ n c e vss

p l aced on t h e scheme o f t h e ~ l x n d l n g i.cl- and i n p a r t l c . ~ I ? r

"Wherc. immedlat.ely be501 t h o cormencPnlel3:: of t h l s

s e c t l o n , a pa r ty t o procredl- i~gs bef<)ie c o u ~ ~

unde>r t h ~ s J \ c t was a11 ; ~ : - ; p e c l - ~ r , i - ~ e F ,r,:a'.i s h a l l

t a k e 1-Y.e pl.zce of t h e InsF-.i.tDr ;I:; such pi.r(.y an2

t h e proceedings sh<l; l cc nt lnl r ; ! ?.cc:ur?;irgly. "

The amendlng Act s o f a r a s is r e l e v a n t rerroved from t h e ncr

t h e concept o f i n s p e c t o r s and p u t i n t h e l r p l a c e an Industrial

P e l a t l o n s Dureau. I t p r o - ~ l d e d machinery f o r t h l s Dureau and

provlded t h a t t h e D l r e c t o r miqht appo in t a u t h o r i z e d persons .

~ u t h o r i z e d p e r s c n s were given powers of e n t r y and lwspec t ion

such a s had p r e v i o u s l y been g iven t o i n s p e c t o r s . ?he ~ c t

a l s o prov lded t h a t t h e Eurcau had powcr t o l n f t i t u t e procecd-

i n g s b e f o r e any c o u r t of con2e ten t j u r l s d l c t l s n f o r an orcencc

a g a l n s t t h c A c t o r regulations and t h e Bureau was g lven po.t7c-rs

under 8.113 -dhlch had u n t l i the alilendlng , ~ c t been tmong tiie

powers of an i n s p e c t o r .

D i f f e r e n t p r o v i s l o n s of the Act came i n t o opel-a t lon a t d l f l ' e i e n t

t i m e s . The s e c t l o n s whlch e x p r e s s l y gave p m e r t o an i n s p e r t o r

t o l n s t l t u t e p roccedlngs wsre amcnded o r r e p e a l e d and t h o s e

e x p r e s s poi:ers	removed.	Like	and	a l s o g r e a t e r pove r s k c r e c;l-;cn
t o t h e Bureau.

C e r t a i n pa:ts of t h e amerdlng ~ c were proclalnled t o cormlence t

on 1 October , 1977, o t h e r s on 27 February , 1978 and o t h e r s on

1 Iqarch, 197?. I n p a r t ~ c ~ ~ l a r s.175 of t h e A C ~ , t h e s e c t i o q

whj ch c r e s t e d t h e o i f e n c e c h a r g ~ c i \.Jas rcp-.2l.cd by S . ? cf t h e

amending Act vrhlch came l n t o operation or; 1 :!arch, 1078. s o

f a r a s t h e inspectors and t h e Rureau a r e concerned, t h e va r3o . J~

s t a g e s 6f corrlng i n t o crpcration may be szl~irnax-ls?d a s follo~.,,s:

1. S c c t i o n 4 of t h e A c t !,<IS amcnded by l n s e r t l n g

d c f l n l t l o n s r e l z t ~ n ~ t o t h e Bcica~: and hy

d e l e t l n g t h e def i n - ~ i i o n of 111spz.ctor. ~ 1 1 1 s

came 1x1-o o p e r a t l o n 611 t h ? 2 d t e oC asser i t t o

t h e amendlng Act.

2. s . 1 2 6 ~ ( 1 ) - ( 4 ) and s.126D-S, s.1261: and s.12CR

a l l came lnCo oparaC?on on 3 Octobcr , 1377.

Thc e f f e c t of t h e x nay k? s u ~ r a r ~ s e d a s t h e

es tabl ls1 ,ment o f t h c D'dreau	and pra..riflons	foi-
i t s machinery.

3. The r e v a l n l n g p a r t s of s.l2)?.A and t h e r e n ~ l n i n g

s e c t i o n s I n P a r t V I A carie l n t o o p e r d t i o n on

27 Febluary , 1978.

4. s .8 of t h e amending A c t cane l n t o o p e r a t i o n on

1 March, 1978.

A t t h c time t h e o f f e n c e was com;n~t ted t:~er! t h e r.-cpe,ll o;

s.125 had n o t coms i n t o e f f e c t b;;t by t h e C-ii~le t h e ~ n f o r - r , i -

t l o n byas l a l d t h e s e c t l o n h a 5 been r e ~ e a i e d and t h C ?nc?-sL~:lal

Relations Rureau had come l n t o o p e r a t l o n . I f 5.8 of t h e A c t s

~ n t e r p r e t a t i o n Act i s excluded t h s n a c u r l o u s g~19 app-zrs .

I t was suknu t t ed t h a t t h e RLreau had no powsl- t o p roscc l t e

p r l o r t o s .1202 coming l n t o o p e r % t l o : ~ on 27 re lvxar i . , 1373

and t h a t l i a b i l i t y f o r inEr~nr;r-r,c-rlts v:hich had or:c:lrrw3 ~ r i o r

t o t h a t d a t c and a f t e r 3 O c ~ , : h ~ r , 1377 where p;:oceedl;:.-5 ?JL?

n o t been comenced , t hen lapscc!. That hould l~r: an ~ : l e x ~ ~ l ~ c ; . ' > l ( :

gap and cnc, f o r 1:11:;ch it se?nc i r ~ p o s s l b l e t o ci+fluc2 an) 1 c . ~ ~ : -

l a t l v e p o l l c y . I n I P ~ vlew t h e r c i s no conti-51.. ~ : i t r n ~ ~ c n

w l t k ~ n t h c mcanillg o f s . H of t h e Act? In'LcLpLctatlon Act s11oi:n

I n .Act Yo. E 4 of 1977. I n s o haldln:: I h,.<rc ?L-ccccd?c?, on t h e

n e w t h a t r c ~ a r d slic.:ld h,? had t o r.1~: r~>.;'.znf:? ?.I>< t h c t3n3i-

of t h e l e g ~ s l a t ~ o n a s a whole. I s c e no reason nlGreover

why t h e c c l t r a r y i r i t e n t l o n should riot be shown t o a r l s e

by i m p l l c a t l o n ( G . F . I i c l l b 1 ~ 1 ~ and 3 c . o . Inc . v. C o n t l ~ c n t a 1

-:curs -. PI 1 . Lt d. 109 C . L . R . 154 a t 1 5 3 211d Elue >lcta l ----

Tndust:ri.cs L t d . v. D l l l e y 117 C.L.R. 651) .

p---- p

The second subnlr-s lon t h a t i n any event t h e i n s p e c t o r by

v i r t u e c f t h e l c g ~ . s l a t l v e c h ~ n s c s which came i n t o o p c r a t l o ~ l

on t h e p a s s i n g of t h e h c t and t h e two succeeding proc lamst !cns

bshcr? r-526 1.7lth s . P ( 2 ) ~f t k ~ 2ncz2lzg ,?ct c l c . i ~ I y s h z , a

c c n t r a r y l n t e n t l o n t r l t 3 l n t h e nean lng of. s . 1 3 ( 2 ) of t h e C:?nec.

A c t . Scct~.ori 0 ( 2 ) of t h e amendmq Act makes s p c - c i d prox72 L J cn

f o r t h e Eurcau t o become a p a r t y and t o t a k e t h e p l a r e o f t he

i n s p e c t o r LP c a s e s wheze i r rncd la t e ly b e f o r e t h e conLner!ccmenr

o f t h e s e c t i o n an 1 E:arch, 1378 a p a r t y t o p r o c e e d ~ n g s was ;n

i n s p e c t o r . It secns t o me c l e a r l y c o z t r a r y t~ t h e i n t e n t i o n

o f t h e Act t h a t a s i s sholnn an i n s p e c t o r should he a S l e CO

co:rmence pro=-edlnqs a f t e r l Plarch, 197E when s . e ( 2 ) of t h e

amending ;irk carx? i n t o operation f o r b reaches o f t h e :.ct o r

r e q z l a t ~ o n s whlch \,ould n o t be t aken over by t h e Direai:.

What was ir1t:ended was a cor~p1el.e repl2cene:lt 05 t h e inspmcto?:s

by tile B I . O L C ~ U an6 l t was intencicd t i ~ a t tl? olcl d ~ l t l e s of t h e

inspector i r ~ c l u c i l r ! ~ t h e du ty o f br1ny:ng proceedlncjs cho~.lla

t h e r e ~ f t e r he e x e r c i s e d by a -~~c?:-y d l f fk l - en t hody. l'he d l f f c r -

ences appP21- ~ l c a r l y from a con~par i son of s.125 of t h e qct

1 ~ 1 t h the prov1sicr.z o f a r t dc:.ling w i t 1 1 t!?e 1nd::st-rlzl

R e l a t l a n s I" rsari. I n s p e r t o r s 2;)yc;lr p--,:~..l>~c l?; io h v c : br_ :n

engaged by the Mlnister for Labour and to have funciloned under his dlrecilon. They and thelr f7:nctlons and dutles appcar to have been lntended to he replactd conplctely by the Industrial Relations Bureau.

In my vlew the amendlng ~ c t sho,vs an intention that inspecto~s

shall not after 1 March, 1978 be able to institute proceedlnqs

and that that lntentlon appears clearly 1r. the ~ s t so as to

excl~de the operation of s.13 of the Crlrcrs Act. I am thcrefcre

of the view that the informant *,%7a.s not authorized to lay thf

~nforrnati~n and the summons must be dismissed.