<Li> the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act confers such a power upon the tribunal, which may therefore settle the rights and duties of the parties to a dispute in disregard of those prescribed by State law, which thereupon are superseded </Li> <Li> sec. 109 gives paramountcy to the Federal statute so empowering the tribunal, with the result that State law cannot validly operate where the tribunal has exercised its authority to determine a dispute in disregard of the State regulation . </Li> <P> In practice, the three tests overlap . For example, in Commercial Radio Coffs Harbour v Fuller, the finding that there was no inconsistency between Federal and State laws depended on all three tests . In doing so, the reasoning by Mason J. in Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wardley was affirmed: </P> <P> If, according to the true construction of the Commonwealth law, the right is absolute, then it inevitably follows that the right is intended to prevail to the exclusion of any other law . A State law which takes away the right is inconsistent because it is in conflict with the absolute right and because the Commonwealth law relevantly occupies the field . So also with a Commonwealth law that grants a permission by way of positive authority . The Commonwealth legislative intention which sustains the conclusion that the permission is granted by way of positive authority also sustains the conclusion that the positive authority was to take effect to the exclusion of any other law . Again it produces inconsistency on both grounds: cf . Airlines of NSW Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No 2), where the permission for which Commonwealth law provided was neither absolute nor comprehensive . </P>

Significance of section 109 of the australian constitution