Attorney General Vic v Commonwealth the Clothing Factory case Facts Factory

Attorney general vic v commonwealth the clothing

This preview shows page 11 - 12 out of 33 pages.

Attorney-General (Vic) v Commonwealth (the Clothing Factory case)Facts: Factory produced uniforms for the armed services.It also sold clothing to civilian departments, municipal authorities, and other public utilities. Held: Maintenance of a factory to make naval and military equipment is within the fieldof legislative power and its internal organisation in time of peace is largely a matter for determination by the Executive. The retention of all members of a specially trained and specially efficient staff might well be considered necessary, and such retention could not be effectively carried out unless that staff was fully engaged. (d) Maintenance of discipline in the armed forces: In Re Tracey (ex parte Ryan), HC recognised that defence power necessarily extends to establishment of military tribunalsoutside the scope of Chapter III as “the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth demands the provision of a disciplined military force.”In Re Colonel Aird (ex parte Alpert), the High Court upheld laws which required servicemen to comply with the Defence Force Discipline Act while overseas. Alpert was charged before a military tribunal with rape while on leave in Thailand and contested the validity of the Act.It was irrelevant that Alpert was on recreational leave at the timeRe Tracey; Ex parte RyanFacts: An army sergeant was charged with several offences before a military tribunal. He challenged the jurisdiction of the magistrate on the basis that the tribunal was not established under Chapter III of the Constitution (the judicature). Held: the defence power extended to the creation of a disciplinary code outside ChapterIII of the Constitution. “The naval and military defence of Cth demands provision of a disciplined force or forces ... requires asystem of discipline which is administered judicially as part of the organisation of the force itself. Power includes power to enact a disciplinary code standing outside Ch III & to impose upon those administering code duty to act judicially.”Re Colonel Aird; Ex parte Alpert Facts: Defence Force Discipline Act1982(Cth) s 9 purported to make the Act apply to defence force personnel outside of Australia. Alpert was charged beforea military tribunal with rape while on leave in Thailand and contested the validity of the Act.Held, the legislation fell within the Commonwealth's power under s 51(vi) to maintain discipline in the armed forces. It did not matter that the soldierwas on recreational leave at the time. “It is proper concern of Parliament to require defence members, when serving overseas, to behave according to standards of conduct prescribed by Australian law”[2] The power in tense times; “a mounting danger of hostilities before any actual outbreak of war will suffice to extend the actual operation of the defence power as circumstances may appear to demand” Communist Party case [necessities of war give the Cth “authority over an immense field’, but those necessities “cannot exist in the same
Background image
Image of page 12

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture