R v Barger

R v Barger
Court High Court of Australia
Full case name The King and the Minister of State for the Commonwealth Administering the Customs Plaintiffs; and Barger Defendant. The Commonwealth and A. W. Smart, Collector of Customs Plaintiffs; and McKay Defendant.
Decided 26 June 1908
Citation(s) [1908] HCA 43, (1908) 6 CLR 41
Court membership
Judges sitting Griffith CJ, Barton, O'Connor, Isaacs and Higgins JJ
Case opinions
Decision by Griffith CJ, Barton and O'Connor JJ

R v Barger[1] is a High Court of Australia case that considered the scope of the taxation power.

Facts

The Commonwealth government, under the Excise Tariff 1906, imposed taxes on the use of certain types of agricultural machinery, subject to the following exemptions:

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 which—

(a) are declared by resolution of both Houses of Parliament to be fair and reasonable; or
(b) are in accordance with an industrial award under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904; or
(c) are in accordance with the terms of an industrial agreement filed under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904; or
(d) 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 matter.

Barger did not operate pursuant to these conditions, and the Commonwealth sought back-payment of the taxes.

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). As the majority opinion noted:

The foregoing arguments lead to the conclusions:—

  1. That the Act in question is not in substance an exercise of the power of taxation conferred upon the Commonwealth Parliament by the Constitution.
  2. That, even if it were within the competence of that Parliament to deal with the conditions of labour, the Act would be invalid as being in contravention of sec. 55.
  3. That, even if the term "taxation," uncontrolled by any context, were capable of including the indirect regulation of the internal affairs of a State by means of taxation, its meaning in the Constitution is limited by the implied prohibition against direct interference with matters reserved exclusively to the States.

Analysis

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.[2]

See also

References

  1. ↑ R v Barger [1908] HCA 43, (1908) 6 CLR 41 (26 June 1908)
  2. ↑ See also Fairfax v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1965] HCA 64 Austlii

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd ("Engineers' case") [1920] HCA 54; (1920) 28 CLR 129

Further reading