Harvester Judgment
The Harvester Judgment was a benchmark legal case for ensuring workers in Australia were paid a fair basic wage. The case had national ramifications and was of international significance.[1]
The Harvester Judgment was delivered in the Australian Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration by H.B. Higgins in 1907. The case involved one of Australia's largest employers, Hugh Victor McKay, the owner of the Sunshine Harvester Works, a company which built agricultural machinery. Higgins ruled that McKay was obliged to pay his employees a wage that guaranteed them a standard of living which was reasonable for "a human being in a civilised community", regardless of his capacity to pay. This gave rise to the legal requirement for a basic wage, which dominated Australian economic life for the next 60 to 80 years.
Higgins had been appointed President of the newly created Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in 1907 and had been a Justice of the High Court of Australia since 1906.
The hearing took place in Melbourne on several days between 7 October 1907 to 8 November 1907. Higgins heard evidence from employees of McKay's factory and also their wives. Higgins gave his judgment on 8 November 1907.
In defining a 'fair and reasonable wage', Higgins, without explicit acknowledgment, employed Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum of 1891, an open letter to all the bishops that addressed the condition of the working classes. Higgins ruled that remuneration "must be enough to support the wage earner in reasonable and frugal comfort."
Higgins set a 'fair and reasonable' minimum wage for unskilled workers of 7/- (7 shillings), which is around 70 cents, or 42/- per week. Later surveys showed that this minimum was adequate to provide subsistence[2].
McKay successfully appealed the decision to the High Court, which allowed the appeal and overturned the decision, In R v Barger[3]. The High Court found Higgins's decision constitutionally invalid because the legislation was essentially concerned with the regulation of employment conditions, a power not held by the Commonwealth Parliament and not capable of being supported by the excise power.[4] The High Court further found a tax based on compliance with certain labour conditions which could differ from State to State was a discrimination within the meaning of section 51(ii) and a preference within the meaning of section 99. (16)[5]
Notwithstanding that victory, Higgins' 1907 Harvester decision was regarded as a benchmark in Australian industrial case law. Despite the High Court's reversal, Higgins regarded the minimum wage as sacrosanct and applied the Harvester reasoning to subsequent judgments in his long and distinguished career as president of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court.[6]
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ Ford, Olwen (2001). Harvester Town: The making of Sunshine 1890-1925. Sunshine & District Historical Society Incorporated. ISBN 0959598944.
- ^ Foundations of the Welfare State by Pat Thane
- ^ (1908) 6 CLR 41
- ^ Dr Andrew Frazer (28 May 2002). "The Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Power: from Cradle to the Grave?" (HTML). Law Internet Resources. Parliament of Australia, Parliamentary Library. http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/pubs/rp/2001-02/02rp15.htm. Retrieved 2009-08-28.
- ^ Bernard Pulle (7 March 2000). "Dairy Industry Adjustment Bill 2000-Constitutional Issues (Current Issues Brief 14 1999-2000)" (HTML). Law Internet Resources. Parliament of Australia, Parliamentary Library. http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/cib/1999-2000/2000cib14.htm. Retrieved 2009-08-28.
- ^ Gerard Henderson (18 December 2007). "Failed policy strong on sentiment" (HTML). Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/failed-policy-strong-on-sentiment/2007/12/17/1197740178864.html. Retrieved 2009-08-28.
[edit] External links
- H B Higgins (1907). "Ex parte HV McKay (Harvester Case), (1907) 2 CAR 1" (pdf). Law Internet Resources. Parliament of Australia, Parliamentary Library. http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/law/harvester.pdf. Retrieved 2006-01-03.
- "The Harvester Judgement". Federation Story: A Fair Go Economy. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 2001. http://www.abc.net.au/federation/fedstory/ep3/ep3_events.htm. Retrieved 2006-01-03.
- "Fact and myth: Reflections on why Higgins made the Harvester decision," by W.M. Robbins, I. Harriss and R. Macklin, Charles Sturt University
 |
This article related to Australian law is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
