Knowledge (XXG)

R v Barger

Source πŸ“

328: 506:
differently from the man or similar property in another locality". The second proposition was more controversial, in which Isaacs J sought to distinguish parts of a State from parts of the Commonwealth, holding that section 51(i), when read in conjunction with section 99, did not require taxation to be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, instead "that the treatment that is forbidden, discrimination or preference, is in relation to the localities considered as parts of States, and not as mere Australian localities, or parts of the Commonwealth considered as a single country". This followed the line of reasoning apparent from his earlier statements in Parliament when introducing the
31: 549:
course of argument, Griffith CJ stated "The express power given to the Commonwealth Parliament to deal with foreign and inter-state trade and commerce implies a prohibition against interfering with interstate trade and commerce, and that must be remembered in dealing with the other powers given." The majority described the applicable rule in this case as "different, but ... founded upon the same principles", concluding that the power of taxation could not be exercised so as to operate as a direct interference in the internal affairs of the States.
440:
regulate the wages of employees in manufacturing, and could enforce that with a penalty for non-compliance. A State could not impose an excise as this power was exclusive to the Commonwealth. It followed in their Honour's judgement that such a penalty, even if calculated by reference to the quantity of articles manufactured, was not an excise, where the purpose was "not to raise money for the purposes of government, but to regulate the conditions of labour". The
595:
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.
422:. The Court was divided 3:2 and the division in the Court can be seen as a continuation of the debate in the constitutional conventions about the nature of the federal system and the legislative powers of the new Commonwealth. While the doctrine of reserved powers permeated the decision of the majority, Grifith CJ, Barton & O'Connor JJ, it is not clear that the decision rested solely on that doctrine. 475:
the States were different, which is quite another thing" This decision was affirmed on appeal by the Privy Council. which held that "The rule laid down by the Act is a general one, applicable to all the States alike, and the fact that it operates unequally in the several States arises not from anything done by the Parliament, but from the inequality of the duties imposed by the States themselves".
510:, that States Wages Boards and Arbitration Courts could not be recognised as setting 'fair & reasonable' wages without discriminating between the States because they depended on State lines which must be forgotten for the purpose of taxation. The Commonwealth could recognise different rates in different parts of Australia, but not as different State rates. This distinction was one that 527:
which exempted certain manufacturers from paying the excise was of no effect. The suggestion that the exemption would be of no effect was dealt with in short form by the majority, holding that "The proviso in the Act in question cannot, of course, be regarded as 'of no effect,' for to do so would be 'to make a new law, not to enforce an old one'."
1365: 234:, later recalled that Isaacs "had a remarkably keen brain but it was apt to be sometimes too subtle for my liking. When we were drafting a bill whose constitutionality was not beyond doubt, his devices to conceal any possible want of power were sometimes so ingenious as to raise, rather than evade, suspicion". 444:
was held to be in substance a regulation of the manufacture". The decision in this respect has been criticised as a collapse into formalism, holding that 'motive' and 'consequences' were irrelevant while the 'purpose apparent on its face' was relevant. Further a particular tax may have more than one
352:
where agricultural machinery was built. In 1907 McKay applied to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration for a declaration that the wages at his factory were "fair and reasonable". McKay admitted that he was in a position to pay whatever the court found to be fair and reasonable wages.
594:
The beginnings of the overturning of the doctrine were already evident in the dissenting decision of Isaacs and Higgins, who 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
572:
Higgins J similarly rejected the reserved powers doctrine stating "To say that the Federal Parliament cannot make a law because legislation on the subject belongs to the States is rather to invert the true position. The Commonwealth has certain powers, and as to those powers it is supreme; the State
469:
Section 51(ii) of the Constitution provides that in making laws with respect to taxation, the Commonwealth cannot "discriminate between States of parts of States". This was the first occasion this issue had been considered by the High Court, although Griffith CJ had previously handed down a decision
534:
was in substance a tax, neither Isaacs J nor Higgins J needed to deal with the effect of dealing with any other matter. Higgins J put it succinctly that "this Act deals only with the imposition of taxation; it taxes, and it defines the persons to be exempted from the tax. This is all it does. There
474:
that an excise which exempted goods on which customs or excise duties had been paid under state legislation did not discriminate between the states, holding that "f the imposition of these duties leads to an inequality, it is not a defect in the Federal law; it arises from the fact that the laws of
439:
1906 was invalid because it was not in substance a tax, but rather an impermissible attempt to regulate the conditions of manufacture, and that went beyond extent of the taxation power. Their Honours approached the substance of the Act by considering the position of the States, which could directly
316:
are, on an application made for the purpose to the President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, declared to be fair and reasonable by him or by a Judge of the Supreme Court of a State or any person or persons who compose a State Industrial Authority to whom he may refer the
240:
was a member of the Protectionist Party, but was in broad agreement with the Labour Party social reforms. When the Labour Party sought to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill to cover State railway employees, Higgins was one of the radicals who supported the amendments and helped bring down
460:
Higgins J also rejected the substance argument, holding that as the Act imposed a tax on the production or manufacture of commodities, it was an excise tax, which the Federal Parliament could impose and the State Parliaments could not. The claim the real substance of the act was the regulation of
526:
Section 55 of the constitution provides that "laws imposing duties of excise shall deal with duties of excise only" and that "any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect." Thus if taken literally the effect of s 55 would be that the excise was valid, but the proviso
376:
1906 was invalid. That objection was referred to the Full Court of the High Court for hearing. The argument for Barger and McKay was that although the Act on its face purports to be an exercise of the taxation power, the real substance and effect of the Act was with respect to the conditions and
548:
The conclusion of the majority was reached in the shadow of the reserved powers doctrine, in which the grants of power to the Commonwealth in the Constitution should be read in a restrictive way so as to preserve areas that had been intentionally left as the responsibility of the States. In the
505:
There are two propositions within the judgment of Isaacs J. The first, later to assume orthodoxy, was that "Discrimination between localities in the widest sense means that, because one man or his property is in one locality, then, regardless of any other circumstance, he or it is to be treated
492:
required the Court to have regard to local circumstances, it followed that the wages payable under an award "might vary according to the area within which the manufacture was carried on." and that this was an invalid attempt to authorise discrimination between States and parts of States. In the
256:. In October 1906 Isaacs and Higgins were each appointed to the High Court, setting up a clash between the three inaugural 'federalist' judges, Griffith CJ, Barton & O'Connor JJ, and the two 'nationalist' judges, Isaacs & Higgins JJ. All five judges had been leading participants in the 487:
was not a law with respect to taxation. Thus the question of whether it discriminated between States could only arise on the hypothesis that the primary finding was wrong and the law was "with respect to taxation". Their Honours held that "The words 'States or parts of States' must be read as
561:. It is an inherent consequence of the division of powers between governmental authorities that neither authority is to hamper or impede the other in the exercise of their respective powers, but that doctrine has no relation to the extent of the powers themselves; it assumes the delimitation 497:"if the Excise duty had been made to vary in inverse proportion to the Customs duties in the several States so as to make the actual incidence of the burden practically equal, that would have been a violation of the rule of uniformity". 357:
per day and published a schedule of fair and reasonable wages called "The Excise Tariff Standard for Time-work". Higgins J declared that the wages paid by McKay were not fair and reasonable in so far as they fell below that standard.
517:
Higgins J reasoned along similar lines to Isaacs J and observed that it would not be discrimination between States or parts of States if a graduated income tax were introduced when incomes were higher in one State than in another.
371:
1906. Both McKay and another manufacturer of agricultural machinery in Melbourne, William Barger, were prosecuted by the Commonwealth for failing to pay the excise. The defences of Barger and McKay included an objection that the
366:
Despite the declaration in the Harvester case, McKay did not increase the wages paid to his employees to the minimum that Higgins J had declared to be fair and reasonable, nor did he pay the excise specified in the
1199:
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution: "The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade, commerce, or revenue, give preference to one State or any part thereof over another State or any part
1433: 583: 557:
Isaacs J strongly opposed the reserved powers doctrine, holding "There can be no derogations from the grant expressly made, except those which are expressly stated or which of necessity
1515: 591:. The doctrine had been 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. 353:
Higgins J heard the application and submissions were made by unions and other large manufacturers. Higgins J determined that the minimum wage for unskilled workers should be
327: 300: 261: 457:
was clearly a tax on the specified machinery, that the proviso did not remove that characterisation and the reason of the legislature was irrelevant to validity.
280:
1906, Both Isaacs and Higgins spoke in support of the bills that imposed custom and excise duties that were payable on certain agricultural machinery, including
604: 292:
Provided that this Act shall not apply to goods manufactured by any person in any part of the Commonwealth under conditions as to remuneration of labour whichβ€”
177: 386: 418:
The Court had to consider whether the Commonwealth had power to indirectly regulate the working conditions of workers under section 51(ii) of the
461:
wages referred to either the motives or the legislators or to the consequences of the legislation, neither of which were matters for the Court.
1510: 1495: 1233: 923: 860: 787: 724: 257: 1520: 774: 711: 535:
is no "provision therein dealing with any other matter." There is no obligation laid on anyone to do anything except to pay the tax."
1025: 844: 188:
was imposed on manufacturers, with an exemption being available for those who paid "fair and reasonable" wages to their employees.
201: 121: 1500: 288:
1906 contained a proviso that the excise would not be payable if the manufacturer paid "fair and reasonable" wages as follows:
1229: 779: 716: 683: 227: 381:
1906 was invalid. The Commonwealth argued that the Act was an exercise of the taxation power and there could be no issue of
609: 354: 212:, on the understanding that the Protectionists would implement a number of social reforms desired by Labor. In 1906 the 471: 30: 260:
and all are properly seen as among the framers of the Constitution. In 1907 O'Connor J resigned as President of the
220:'New Protection' provided tariff protection to employers in exchange for 'fair and reasonable' wages for employees. 1366:
Federated Amalgamated Government Railway & Tramway Service Association v NSW Rail Traffic Employees Association
113: 1505: 419: 377:
remuneration of labour. The State of Victoria obtained leave to intervene in both cases and similarly argued the
1263: 1129: 869: 830: 588: 382: 349: 241:
Deakin's government. When Labour formed a minority government in 1904, Higgins became Attorney-General in the
488:
synonymous with 'parts of the Commonwealth' or 'different localities within the Commonwealth.'" Because the
197: 181: 173: 41: 1015: 573:
has the rest. We must find what the Commonwealth powers are before we can say what the State powers are".
281: 249: 213: 209: 1088: 1196: 995: 980: 657: 1343: 966: 95: 1321: 205: 672: 706: 1021: 840: 801: 793: 783: 738: 730: 720: 679: 345: 935:. Commonwealth of Australia: House of Representatives. 21 September 1906. pp. 5138–5150. 769: 1475: 332: 1459: 1438: 1371: 1348: 1259: 1125: 865: 632: 71: 1326: 1160: 453:
Isaacs J rejected the substance argument, holding that in the absence of the proviso, the
242: 110: 52:
The King and the Minister of State for the Commonwealth Administering the Customs v Barger
1442: 1420: 1405: 1390: 1375: 1352: 1308: 1293: 1278: 1212: 1144: 1106: 1073: 1058: 1043: 636: 75: 1330: 1164: 340: 90: 1489: 946: 904: 882: 296:
are declared by resolution of both Houses of Parliament to be fair and reasonable; or
237: 231: 217: 129: 117: 565:. It is contrary to reason to shorten the expressly granted powers by the undefined 1225: 1178: 1011: 702: 253: 223: 125: 566: 834: 562: 230:
in Deakin's government. The secretary of the Attorney-General's Department, Sir
155:(2) even if it was a tax, the Act dealt with matters other than taxation; & 1434:
Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (Engineers' case)
558: 511: 797: 734: 514:
described in 1958 as something he had the "greatest difficulty in grasping".
805: 742: 309:
are in accordance with the terms of an industrial agreement filed under the
184:
to indirectly regulate the working conditions of workers. In this case, an
331:
Sunshine Harvester on display at the Campaspe Run Rural Discovery Centre,
132: 1241: 931: 272:
The Commonwealth government introduced two bill that would become the
829:
John M Williams (2015). "Ch 5 The Griffith Court". In Dixon, R &
185: 1245:. Commonwealth of Australia: House of Representatives. p. 5142. 326: 157:(3) it interfered with matters reserved exclusively to the States. 245:, because Labour had no suitably qualified lawyer in Parliament. 1177:
Rose, D (1977). "Discrimination, Uniformity and Preference". In
1147:
at p. 70-1 & 78–80 per Grifith CJ, Barton & O'Connor JJ.
1480:
Australian federal constitutional law: commentary and materials
54:
The Commonwealth and A. W. Smart, Collector of Customs v McKay
409:
interfered with matters reserved exclusively to the States.
248:
Both Isaacs and Higgins had previously been members of the
836:
The High Court, the Constitution and Australian Politics
678:(2nd ed.). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. p. 188. 216:
was in power, with support from Labour. Prime Minister
824: 822: 1046:
at p. 74-76 per Grifith CJ, Barton & O'Connor JJ.
299:
are in accordance with an industrial award under the
1103:
Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd v Irving (Queensland)
208:
formed the first government with the support of the
138: 106: 101: 86: 81: 67: 59: 47: 37: 23: 1296:at p. 77 per Grifith CJ, Barton & O'Connor JJ. 671: 392:The issues before the High Court were whether the 348:, one of Australia's largest employers, owned the 311:Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 262:Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration 252:and in 1896 supported the trial introduction of a 1157:Cameron v Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation 674:Australia: A Concise Political and Social History 483:The primary finding of the majority was that the 653: 651: 649: 647: 645: 495:Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited v Irving 403:discriminated between States or parts of States; 976: 974: 200:saw a series of minority governments until the 953:. Commonwealth of Australia. 15 December 1904. 1516:Taxation in the Australian Constitution cases 1234:"Excise Tariff (Agricultural Machinery) Bill" 1122:Fortescue Metals Group Limited v Commonwealth 949:Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 924:"Excise Tariff (Agricultural Machinery) Bill" 911:. Commonwealth of Australia. 12 October 1906. 889:. Commonwealth of Australia. 12 October 1906. 763: 761: 759: 605:Constitutional basis of taxation in Australia 302:Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 8: 1117: 1115: 1098: 1096: 899: 897: 697: 695: 406:dealt with a matter other than taxation; and 1183:Commentaries on the Australian Constitution 991: 989: 1456:Fairfax v Federal Commissioner of Taxation 715:. Canberra: National Centre of Biography, 29: 20: 1482:, 1999. LBC Information Services, Sydney. 861:NSW v Commonwealth (the WorkChoices case) 522:Dealing with a matter other than taxation 493:converse situation to that considered in 1006: 1004: 530:Consistent with their opinions that the 268:Customs and Excise payable on Harvesters 16:Judgement of the High Court of Australia 1086:Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd v Irving 998:Commonwealth of Australia Constitution. 983:Commonwealth of Australia Constitution. 660:Commonwealth of Australia Constitution. 621: 160:per Griffith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ 707:"Isaacs, Sir Isaac Alfred (1855–1948)" 176:case where the majority held that the 7: 964:Ex Parte H.V. McKay (Harvester case) 770:"Higgins, Henry Bournes (1851–1929)" 92:Ex Parte H.V. McKay (Harvester case) 1017:The High Court and the Constitution 426:Was the Act in substance an excise? 389:was exclusive to the Commonwealth. 775:Australian Dictionary of Biography 712:Australian Dictionary of Biography 544:Grifith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ 479:Grifith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ 431:Grifith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ 153:(1) it was not in substance a tax; 14: 581:The decision was made before the 465:Discrimination between the states 1443:(1920) 28 CLR 129 1256:Commissioner of Taxation v Clyne 1020:. Federation Press. p. 41. 490:Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1376:(1906) 1 CLR 488 1353:(1904) 1 CLR 497 1242:Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) 1165:(1923) 32 CLR 68 932:Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) 400:was in substance an excise tax; 264:and was replaced by Higgins J. 1421:(1908) 6 CLR 41 1406:(1908) 6 CLR 41 1391:(1908) 6 CLR 41 1331:(1904) 1 CLR 91 1309:(1908) 6 CLR 41 1294:(1908) 6 CLR 41 1279:(1908) 6 CLR 41 1213:(1908) 6 CLR 41 1145:(1908) 6 CLR 41 1074:(1908) 6 CLR 41 1059:(1908) 6 CLR 41 1044:(1908) 6 CLR 41 839:. Cambridge University Press. 780:Australian National University 717:Australian National University 637:(1908) 6 CLR 41 589:reserved State powers doctrine 76:(1908) 6 CLR 41 1: 1511:Australian constitutional law 1496:High Court of Australia cases 610:Australian constitutional law 435:Their Honours held that the 472:Chief Justice of Queensland 196:The first decade after the 1537: 1521:Australian labour case law 1089:[1903] St R Qd 261 338: 258:Constitutional Conventions 1215:at p. 106-7 per Isaacs J. 543: 478: 180:could not be used by the 143: 28: 1423:at p. 113 per Higgins J. 1393:at p. 54 per Grifith CJ. 1311:at p. 134 per Higgins J. 1281:at p. 133 per Higgins J. 1076:at p. 117 per Higgins J. 350:Sunshine Harvester Works 214:second Deakin government 1368:(Railway servants case) 1132:548 at - per French CJ. 587:in 1920 swept away the 430: 420:Australian Constitution 198:Federation of Australia 174:High Court of Australia 42:High Court of Australia 1501:1908 in Australian law 1439:[1920] HCA 54 1408:at p. 84 per Isaacs J. 1372:[1906] HCA 94 1349:[1904] HCA 21 1260:[1958] HCA 10 1126:[2013] HCA 34 1107:[1906] UKPC 20 1061:at p. 98 per Isaacs J. 866:[2006] HCA 52 768:Rickard, John (1983). 633:[1908] HCA 43 336: 335:, Victoria, Australia. 320: 294: 250:Parliament of Victoria 72:[1908] HCA 43 1460:[1965] HCA 64 1327:[1904] HCA 1 1232:(21 September 1906). 1161:[1923] HCA 4 553:Isaacs and Higgins JJ 501:Isaacs and Higgins JJ 449:Isaacs and Higgins JJ 330: 290: 182:Australian Parliament 1344:Peterswald v Bartley 670:Clarke, F G (1992). 151:1906 was invalid as: 1462:, (1965) 114 CLR 1. 282:stripper harvesters 206:Protectionist Party 885:Customs Tariff Act 337: 323:The Harvester case 274:Customs Tariff Act 907:Excise Tariff Act 789:978-0-522-84459-7 726:978-0-522-84459-7 508:Excise Tariff Act 485:Excise Tariff Act 455:Excise Tariff Act 442:Excise Tariff Act 437:Excise Tariff Act 346:Hugh Victor McKay 286:Excise Tariff Act 278:Excise Tariff Act 165: 164: 161: 149:Excise Tariff Act 1528: 1506:1908 in case law 1463: 1452: 1446: 1430: 1424: 1415: 1409: 1400: 1394: 1385: 1379: 1362: 1356: 1340: 1334: 1322:D'Emden v Pedder 1318: 1312: 1303: 1297: 1288: 1282: 1273: 1267: 1253: 1247: 1246: 1238: 1230:Attorney-General 1222: 1216: 1207: 1201: 1194: 1188: 1186: 1174: 1168: 1154: 1148: 1139: 1133: 1119: 1110: 1100: 1091: 1083: 1077: 1068: 1062: 1053: 1047: 1038: 1032: 1031: 1008: 999: 993: 984: 978: 969: 961: 955: 954: 943: 937: 936: 928: 920: 914: 912: 901: 892: 890: 879: 873: 857: 851: 850: 826: 817: 816: 814: 812: 765: 754: 753: 751: 749: 699: 690: 689: 677: 667: 661: 655: 640: 626: 362:The prosecutions 228:Attorney-General 159: 102:Court membership 33: 21: 1536: 1535: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1486: 1485: 1472: 1470:Further reading 1467: 1466: 1453: 1449: 1431: 1427: 1416: 1412: 1401: 1397: 1386: 1382: 1363: 1359: 1341: 1337: 1319: 1315: 1304: 1300: 1289: 1285: 1274: 1270: 1254: 1250: 1236: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1208: 1204: 1195: 1191: 1176: 1175: 1171: 1155: 1151: 1140: 1136: 1120: 1113: 1101: 1094: 1084: 1080: 1069: 1065: 1054: 1050: 1039: 1035: 1028: 1010: 1009: 1002: 994: 987: 979: 972: 962: 958: 945: 944: 940: 926: 922: 921: 917: 903: 902: 895: 881: 880: 876: 858: 854: 847: 828: 827: 820: 810: 808: 790: 767: 766: 757: 747: 745: 727: 701: 700: 693: 686: 669: 668: 664: 656: 643: 627: 623: 618: 601: 579: 555: 546: 541: 539:Reserved Powers 524: 503: 481: 467: 451: 433: 428: 416: 383:reserved powers 364: 343: 325: 270: 243:Labour ministry 194: 158: 156: 154: 152: 53: 17: 12: 11: 5: 1534: 1532: 1524: 1523: 1518: 1513: 1508: 1503: 1498: 1488: 1487: 1484: 1483: 1471: 1468: 1465: 1464: 1447: 1425: 1410: 1395: 1380: 1357: 1335: 1313: 1298: 1283: 1268: 1266:246 at p. 266. 1248: 1217: 1202: 1189: 1185:. p. 194. 1169: 1149: 1134: 1111: 1092: 1078: 1063: 1048: 1033: 1026: 1000: 985: 970: 967:(1907) 2 CAR 1 956: 938: 915: 893: 874: 852: 845: 818: 788: 755: 725: 691: 684: 662: 658:section 51(ii) 641: 620: 619: 617: 614: 613: 612: 607: 600: 597: 584:Engineers case 578: 575: 554: 551: 545: 542: 540: 537: 523: 520: 502: 499: 480: 477: 466: 463: 450: 447: 432: 429: 427: 424: 415: 412: 411: 410: 407: 404: 401: 363: 360: 341:Harvester case 339:Main article: 324: 321: 319: 318: 314: 307: 297: 276:1906, and the 269: 266: 193: 190: 178:taxation power 163: 162: 141: 140: 136: 135: 108: 107:Judges sitting 104: 103: 99: 98: 96:(1907) 2 CAR 1 88: 87:Related action 84: 83: 79: 78: 69: 65: 64: 61: 57: 56: 49: 48:Full case name 45: 44: 39: 35: 34: 26: 25: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1533: 1522: 1519: 1517: 1514: 1512: 1509: 1507: 1504: 1502: 1499: 1497: 1494: 1493: 1491: 1481: 1477: 1476:Winterton, G. 1474: 1473: 1469: 1461: 1457: 1451: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1435: 1429: 1426: 1422: 1419: 1414: 1411: 1407: 1404: 1399: 1396: 1392: 1389: 1384: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1367: 1361: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1345: 1339: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1323: 1317: 1314: 1310: 1307: 1302: 1299: 1295: 1292: 1287: 1284: 1280: 1277: 1272: 1269: 1265: 1262:, (1958) 100 1261: 1257: 1252: 1249: 1244: 1243: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1221: 1218: 1214: 1211: 1206: 1203: 1198: 1193: 1190: 1184: 1180: 1173: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1153: 1150: 1146: 1143: 1138: 1135: 1131: 1128:, (2013) 250 1127: 1123: 1118: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1099: 1097: 1093: 1090: 1087: 1082: 1079: 1075: 1072: 1067: 1064: 1060: 1057: 1052: 1049: 1045: 1042: 1037: 1034: 1029: 1027:9781760020248 1023: 1019: 1018: 1013: 1007: 1005: 1001: 997: 992: 990: 986: 982: 977: 975: 971: 968: 965: 960: 957: 952: 950: 942: 939: 934: 933: 925: 919: 916: 910: 908: 900: 898: 894: 888: 886: 878: 875: 871: 868:, (2006) 229 867: 863: 862: 856: 853: 848: 846:9781107043664 842: 838: 837: 832: 825: 823: 819: 807: 803: 799: 795: 791: 785: 781: 777: 776: 771: 764: 762: 760: 756: 744: 740: 736: 732: 728: 722: 718: 714: 713: 708: 704: 703:Cowen, Zelman 698: 696: 692: 687: 681: 676: 675: 666: 663: 659: 654: 652: 650: 648: 646: 642: 638: 634: 630: 625: 622: 615: 611: 608: 606: 603: 602: 598: 596: 592: 590: 586: 585: 576: 574: 570: 568: 564: 560: 552: 550: 538: 536: 533: 528: 521: 519: 515: 513: 509: 500: 498: 496: 491: 486: 476: 473: 464: 462: 458: 456: 448: 446: 443: 438: 425: 423: 421: 413: 408: 405: 402: 399: 398: 397: 395: 390: 388: 384: 380: 375: 370: 361: 359: 356: 351: 347: 342: 334: 329: 322: 315: 312: 308: 305: 303: 298: 295: 293: 289: 287: 283: 279: 275: 267: 265: 263: 259: 255: 251: 246: 244: 239: 238:H. B. Higgins 235: 233: 232:Robert Garran 229: 225: 221: 219: 215: 211: 207: 203: 202:1910 election 199: 191: 189: 187: 186:excise tariff 183: 179: 175: 171: 170: 150: 146: 142: 139:Case opinions 137: 134: 131: 127: 123: 119: 115: 112: 109: 105: 100: 97: 94: 93: 89: 85: 80: 77: 73: 70: 66: 62: 58: 55: 50: 46: 43: 40: 36: 32: 27: 22: 19: 1479: 1455: 1450: 1432: 1428: 1417: 1413: 1402: 1398: 1387: 1383: 1364: 1360: 1342: 1338: 1320: 1316: 1305: 1301: 1290: 1286: 1275: 1271: 1255: 1251: 1240: 1220: 1209: 1205: 1192: 1182: 1172: 1156: 1152: 1141: 1137: 1121: 1102: 1085: 1081: 1070: 1066: 1055: 1051: 1040: 1036: 1016: 963: 959: 948: 941: 930: 918: 906: 884: 877: 859: 855: 835: 809:. Retrieved 778:. Canberra: 773: 746:. Retrieved 710: 673: 665: 628: 624: 593: 582: 580: 571: 556: 547: 531: 529: 525: 516: 507: 504: 494: 489: 484: 482: 468: 459: 454: 452: 441: 436: 434: 417: 396:1906 : 393: 391: 387:excise power 378: 373: 368: 365: 344: 310: 301: 291: 285: 277: 273: 271: 254:minimum wage 247: 236: 224:Isaac Isaacs 222: 210:Labour Party 195: 168: 167: 166: 148: 144: 91: 82:Case history 63:26 June 1908 51: 18: 831:Williams, G 445:objective. 355:7 shillings 1490:Categories 1418:R v Barger 1403:R v Barger 1388:R v Barger 1306:R v Barger 1291:R v Barger 1276:R v Barger 1210:R v Barger 1197:Section 99 1142:R v Barger 1109:, AC 360. 1071:R v Barger 1056:R v Barger 1041:R v Barger 996:section 55 981:section 90 811:22 October 748:22 October 685:0729513092 629:R v Barger 616:References 532:Excise Act 394:Excise Act 379:Excise Act 374:Excise Act 369:Excise Act 192:Background 172:is a 1908 169:R v Barger 24:R v Barger 1454:See also 1226:Mr Isaacs 1200:thereof." 798:1833-7538 735:1833-7538 68:Citations 1179:Zines, L 1014:(1981). 1012:Zines, L 833:(eds.). 806:70677943 743:70677943 705:(1983). 599:See also 577:Analysis 567:residuum 512:Dixon CJ 414:Decision 226:was the 218:Deakin's 122:O'Connor 111:Griffith 1478:et al. 1228:,  1181:(ed.). 872:1 at -. 563:aliunde 470:whilst 385:as the 317:matter. 130:Higgins 60:Decided 1167:at 72. 1024:  843:  804:  796:  786:  741:  733:  723:  682:  559:inhere 333:Elmore 284:. The 204:. The 128:& 126:Isaacs 118:Barton 1458: 1437: 1370: 1347: 1325: 1258: 1237:(PDF) 1159: 1124: 1105: 951:1904" 927:(PDF) 909:1906" 887:1906" 864: 631: 145:(3:2) 38:Court 1022:ISBN 841:ISBN 813:2016 802:OCLC 794:ISSN 784:ISBN 750:2016 739:OCLC 731:ISSN 721:ISBN 680:ISBN 313:; or 306:; or 304:1904 147:the 1264:CLR 1130:CLR 870:CLR 569:". 1492:: 1441:, 1374:, 1351:, 1329:, 1239:. 1163:, 1114:^ 1095:^ 1003:^ 988:^ 973:^ 929:. 896:^ 821:^ 800:. 792:. 782:. 772:. 758:^ 737:. 729:. 719:. 709:. 694:^ 644:^ 635:, 133:JJ 124:, 120:, 116:, 114:CJ 74:, 1445:. 1378:. 1355:. 1333:. 1187:. 1030:. 947:" 913:. 905:" 891:. 883:" 849:. 815:. 752:. 688:. 639:.

Index


High Court of Australia
[1908] HCA 43
(1908) 6 CLR 41
Ex Parte H.V. McKay (Harvester case)
(1907) 2 CAR 1
Griffith
CJ
Barton
O'Connor
Isaacs
Higgins
JJ
High Court of Australia
taxation power
Australian Parliament
excise tariff
Federation of Australia
1910 election
Protectionist Party
Labour Party
second Deakin government
Deakin's
Isaac Isaacs
Attorney-General
Robert Garran
H. B. Higgins
Labour ministry
Parliament of Victoria
minimum wage

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑