R v Barger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| R v Barger | |
High Court of Australia |
|
| Full case name | The King v Barger |
| Date decided | 26 June 1908 |
| Citations | (1908) 6 CLR 41 |
| Judges sitting | Griffith CJ, Barton, O'Connor, Isaacs and Higgins JJ |
| Case history | |
|---|---|
| Prior actions: | none |
| Subsequent actions: | none |
| Case opinions | |
| (3:2) The Court considered the scope of the taxation power in section 51(ii) (per Griffith CJ, Barton & O'Connor JJ) | |
R v Barger (1908) 6 CLR 41 is a High Court of Australia case that considered the scope of the taxation power.
Contents |
[edit] Facts
The Commonwealth government imposed taxes on the use of certain types of agricultural machinery. An exemption applied where the employment conditions of workers using the machinery were made pursuant to certain specified conditions. Barger did not operate pursuant to these conditions, and the Commonwealth sought back-payment of the taxes.
[edit] Decision
The Court had to consider whether the Commonwealth had power to indirectly regulate the working conditions of workers under section 51(ii) of the Australian Constitution. It held that the Commonwealth's imposition of the fee was invalid because it was not pursuant to section 51(ii). The Substance of the Act was to regulate the conditions of manufacture, and that went beyond the power of section 51(ii).
The decision needs to be seen in light of its context. It was made before Engineers swept away the doctrine of reserved State powers. The reserved State powers doctrine was established and affirmed in earlier cases by the original High Court Bench (Griffith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ) who were the majority in this decision. The beginnings of the overturning of the doctrine were already evident in the dissenting decision of Isaacs and Higgins JJ. They held that neither the purpose nor the effects of the Act were a valid objection for the exercise of the taxation power. Simply because the law had another purpose did not mean that the law was not one with respect to taxation. The taxation power is a non-purposive power, hence any law that could be encapsulated under the subject matter of taxation would be valid under section 52(ii). The dissent also brought up the notion of dual-characterisation - that a law could be characterised several different ways. As long as at least one of the characterisations is pursuant to a head of power, the law would be constitutionally valid.
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- Winterton, G. et al. Australian federal constitutional law: commentary and materials, 1999. LBC Information Services, Sydney.
