During the period from 1907 to 1921 Mr Justice Higgins,
in his capacity as President of the Commonwealth Court
of Conciliation and Arbitration, delivered a number of
judgements which were to have a significant influence on
the process of wage fixation in Australia long after he
resigned from the Presidency, The first, though it was
not an arbitration case, was the so-called "Harvester"
judgement in which he established the principle that the
minimum or "living" wage for an unskilled male should be
sufficient to enable him to support a family in "frugal
comfort". At that time (1907) there was no assessment
of what constituted an appropriate "living wage" for
unskilled females as the issue did not arise.
Subsequently, however, there were several opportunities
in which it would have been possible to determine the
female "living wage" but it was not until 1919 that this
issue was finally resolved.
The basis and circumstances of the "Harvester" judgement
have received substantial academic attention. Of
particular importance is the study, undertaken by P.G.
McCarthy, which traced the development of the concept of
a living wage in the Australian context and its ultimate
expression as an "ideal" of seven shillings per day.
McCarthy, however, was not able to determine with any
certainty the basis of Higgins' decision in the
Harvester case. This uncertainty as to Higgins'
motivation is also applicable to his decision in the
Clothing Trades case in 1919. This case has received
little detailed analysis with most commentators relying
on Higgins' printed judgement to explain the outcome.
The sequence of cases leading up to the Clothing Trades
case and the process by which Higgins reached his
decision on the "living wage" for females are the
subject of this thesis. The conclusion, however, is
that the basis of Higgins' living wage award for females
is no more certain than his award for males
