Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935052

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-238139

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 2

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XI Seiten, Seiten 570-1100

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part IV. The federations and the union // Chapter II. The commonwealth of Australia

Collection:: Economics Books

CHAP. 11] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 839 tection’ policy of the Commonwealth Parliament. This policy was intended as a counterpart to the levying of a high tariff, and to secure to the workers their share in the advantages which accrued to the manufacturers by the enactment of a high tariff. Accordingly, by the Excise Tariff, 1906 (Act No. 16 of 1906), an excise duty was placed inter alia on implements manufactured in Australia, but an exemption was given if the conditions as to remuneration of labour specified in the Act were complied with. Under the Act penalties were claimed against Barger and M cKay, manufacturers of agricultural implements, who declined to comply with the conditions specified or to pay the excise duties. The State of Victoria was permitted to intervene in support of the objection to the Act. The Court, as usual, were divided in opinion: the majority, composed of Griffith C.J ., Barton and O’Connor JJ., were against the validity of the Act. the sther two judges in favour of it. The judgement of the Court recognized that the language of an Act was not decisive as to its character, which was deter- mined by the substance of the legislation. They held also that taxation was essentially different in a federal state from the power to regulate indirectly the domestic affairs of the states, a power denied to the Commonwealth Parliament, and that the power to tax must not be used so as directly to inter- fere with the control of the domestic concerns of any state. To select a method of taxation which made the liability to taxation dependent on conditions to be observed in the industry in which they were produced was as much an vttempt to regulate the conditions as if the regulation were made by distinct enactment. The Excise Tariff, 1906, was not ceally an Excise Act, but an Act to regulate the conditions of manufacture of agricultural implements, and was not an exercise of the power of taxation of the Commonwealth. The Act was also open to the objection that it dealt with the regulation of the conditions of manufacture as well as excise, and so contravened the express provision of s. 55 of the Constitution, which confines an Excise Act to matters of excise. and, moreover, even if every other objection could

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation