- Harvester Judgment
Ex parte HV McKay (The Harvester Judgment) (1907) 2 CAR 1 was delivered in the
Australia nCommonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration byH.B. Higgins in 1907. The case involved one of Australia's largest employers,Hugh Victor McKay , a manufacturer of 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 abasic 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 from
October 7 ,1907 toNovember 8 ,1907 . Higgins heard evidence from employees of McKay's factory and also their wives. In defining a 'fair and reasonable wage', Higgins employedPope 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.
McKay successfully appealed the decision to the High Court. In "R v Barger" Cite Case AU|CLR|6|41|1908 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. [http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/pubs/rp/2001-02/02rp15.htm] 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) [http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/cib/1999-2000/2000cib14.htm]
Notwithstanding that victory, the 1907 Harvester decision was regarded as a benchmark in Australian industrial case law. 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.While another view doubts it was realistic. [Gerard Henderson Sydney Morning Herald December 18, 2007]
External links
* [http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/failed-policy-strong-on-sentiment/2007/12/17/1197740178864.html Failed policy strong on sentiment]
*cite web
author=H B Higgins
year=1907
url=http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/law/harvester.pdf
title=Ex parte HV McKay (Harvester Case), (1907) 2 CAR 1
format=pdf
work=Law Internet Resources
publisher=Parliament of Australia, Parliamentary Library
accessdate=2006-01-03
*cite web
author=
year=2001
url=http://www.abc.net.au/federation/fedstory/ep3/ep3_events.htm
title=The Harvester Judgement
format=
work=Federation Story: A Fair Go Economy
publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation
accessdate=2006-01-03
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
