414:
588:
violation of
Section 92 of the Constitution. The Law Lords held that a simple legislative prohibition of interstate trade and commerce would be constitutionally invalid, but a law seeking to regulate or prescribe rules as to the manner of trade and commerce would not necessarily be in breach of section 92. The Board noted that the question of whether a law was merely regulatory or unduly discriminatory "will often be not so much legal as political, social or economic. Yet it must be solved by a court of law."
42:
596:
265:. However, the Board did affirm that the legislation breached section 92 of the Constitution, thus endorsing the individual right interpretation of the section. Additionally, the Board formulated its own test for when section 92 would be breached. This test was adopted and applied by the High Court until 1988, where in the case of
387:
it involved the acquisition of property that was not "on just terms, contrary to section 51(xxxi) of the
Constitution. The problem with acquisition arose out of the Act's sections detailing the appointment of new directors for all private banks with the power to control, manage, direct and dispose of
591:
Additionally, while rejected this nationalisation by the government, the Board left the door open to future takeovers where "on its own facts and in its own setting of time and circumstances ... prohibition with a view to State monopoly was the only practical and reasonable method of regulation".
587:
The Privy
Council endorsed the High Court decision in adopting the individual rights approach. Provisions of the Commonwealth law prohibited private banks from carrying out interstate business banking. Interstate banking transactions under the law were thus not "absolutely free" and hence in
544:: section 92 of the Constitution protects an individual right to freely trade inter-state. The test to determine if a direct burden on trade is merely regulatory will turn on both legal and "political, social or economic" factors.
260:
was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. The Board held that the case involved potential questions around the limits of the powers between the
Commonwealth and the states and hence they were precluded from hearing the case under
1078:
282:. Labor remained in opposition for 23 years and with nationalisation no longer an option, the party moved towards less direct methods to achieve its social and economic goals. The use of tied grants to the states (
383:
Section 92 of the
Constitution, in providing that "trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States ... shall be absolutely free." conferred a positive right on the banks to engage in the business of interstate
375:
The Court hearing lasted for a record 39 days. The summary of the parties arguments occupies 143 pages of the
Commonwealth Law Report. A number of arguments were put to the Court, most of which were rejected.
1083:
572:
In appealing the decision to the Privy
Council, the Commonwealth adopted a deliberate strategy of limiting the grounds of appeal to avoid seeking a certificate from the High Court under
1088:
340:
states of
Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. The banks were represented by a formidable legal team, with the Australian incorporated banks represented by
925:
709:
Johnston, Peter (2003). "The Bank
Nationalisation Cases: The Defeat of Labor's Most Controversial Economic Initiative". In Lee, H P; Winterton, George (eds.).
17:
749:
576:. The case was argued for 37 days before the Privy Council, one of the longest in its history, during which two of the Lordships assigned to the case (
316:
287:
246:
183:
867:(xxxi) "The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for ... the acquisition of property on just terms ...".
573:
535:
392:
283:
262:
250:
242:
190:
952:
630:
This particular understanding of s 92 would remain highly influential, until it was overturned in favour a free trade interpretation in
388:
assets of those banks. Dixon J held that this was a "circuitous device to acquire indirectly the substance of proprietary interest."
512:
424:
257:
100:
1073:
1068:
968:
718:
502:
534:
The Board did not have the jurisdiction to hear the case, as it potentially involved "inter se" matters as described in
358:, who would later be appointed to the High Court, while the Commonwealth was represented by the former High Court judge
788:
517:
325:
193:, which is to be understood as a right of persons to trade freely inter-state (per Rich, Starke, Dixon and Williams)
620:
279:
1098:
507:
321:
778:
660:
497:
237:
banking sector. Separate majorities held that the legislation breached three different provisions of the
896:
880:
864:
848:
1093:
349:, who would later become the Chief Justice, and the United Kingdom incorporated banks represented by
238:
734:
379:
However the Court declared the law invalid on four grounds, albeit by different majority of judges:
1045:
650:
446:
413:
214:
189:
it violated the requirement that trade and commerce "shall be absolutely free", as required under
1049:
832:
474:
218:
176:
156:
52:
337:
303:
275:
451:
253:(which grants the High Court original jurisdiction in cases where the Commonwealth is sued).
910:
1041:
930:
820:
627:
lost power, ostensibly due to the problems regarding this legislation and the Court case.
77:
8:
934:
442:
126:
824:
455:
81:
624:
291:
226:
974:
964:
784:
714:
655:
645:
363:
354:
345:
329:
1036:
632:
563:
341:
267:
182:
it involved compulsory acquisition that was not "on just terms", as required under
150:
311:
908:
607:
234:
1016:
314:
private banks in
Australia. To accomplish this goal the Parliament passed the
1079:
Freedom of interstate trade and commerce in the Australian Constitution cases
1062:
957:
581:
271:
the section was reinterpreted as a prohibition on protectionist legislation.
138:
978:
391:
The Act, in setting up a "Court of Claims", invalidly attempted to oust the
41:
758:. Commonwealth of Australia: House of Representatives. pp. 804–5, 808.
577:
245:(requiring trade and commerce between the states to be "absolutely free"),
909:
Gowans, G.; Menhennitt C.I.; Phillips P.D.; Tait, J.B. (18 August 1948).
599:
359:
350:
307:
249:(requiring compulsory acquisition of property to be "on just terms") and
230:
132:
1025:. 23 February 1950. p. 2 – via National Library of Australia.
713:. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 95–6.
144:
697:
State of Western Australia and another and The Commonwealth and others
955:. In Blackshield, Anthony; Coper, Michael; Williams, George (eds.).
693:
State of South Australia and another and The Commonwealth and others
610:(right) at the Dominion and British Leaders Conference, London, 1946
603:
320:. Under the Act, shares in the private banks would be owned by the
681:
Bank of New South Wales and others and The Commonwealth and others
278:'s economic policy unworkable and possibly was influential in the
1021:
754:
333:
780:
The High Court of Australia: Celebrating the Centenary 1903–2003
595:
541:
685:
Bank of Australasia and others and The Commonwealth and others
332:
of the law was challenged by a number of banks, including the
302:
Comfortable in government after two strong election wins, the
689:
State of Victoria and another and The Commonwealth and others
1084:
Acquisition of property in the Australian Constitution cases
256:
A subsequent appeal application by the Commonwealth to the
290:) were later utilised by governments, beginning with the
923:
The High Court only once granted a s 74 certificate, in
1089:
Corporations power in the Australian Constitution cases
926:
Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth)
963:. Melbourne : New York: Oxford University Press.
748:
Ben Chifley, Prime Minister (15 October 1947).
959:
The Oxford companion to the High Court of Australia
956:
1060:
936:
826:
772:
770:
768:
766:
679:Full case name of the five actions of the case:
457:
83:
950:
911:"Opinion No. 1833: Re Banking case judgements"
763:
913:– via Australian Government Solicitor.
1029:
747:
222:
104:
812:
810:
808:
806:
804:
802:
800:
328:. The proposal was controversial, and the
40:
851:Trade within the Commonwealth to be free.
536:section 74 of the Australian Constitution
399:
280:eventual defeat of the government in 1949
951:Priest, Susan; Williams, George (2001).
854:
708:
594:
797:
393:original jurisdiction of the High Court
27:Judgment of the High Court of Australia
14:
1061:
1004:Commonwealth v Bank of New South Wales
992:Commonwealth v Bank of New South Wales
817:Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth
407:Commonwealth v Bank of New South Wales
370:
324:, which in turn would be owned by the
210:Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth
35:Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth
18:Commonwealth v Bank of New South Wales
777:Hull, Crispin (2003). "Major Cases".
883:Original jurisdiction of High Court.
776:
184:section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution
886:
750:"Banking Bill 1947: Second Reading"
711:Australian Constitutional Landmarks
310:announced in 1947 its intention to
24:
870:
838:
566:(1986) (in relation to section 92)
286:) and the external affairs power (
274:The case rendered a key pillar of
25:
1110:
412:
1009:
997:
985:
944:
917:
902:
755:Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
1017:"A policy backed by a mandate"
741:
727:
702:
673:
574:section 74 of the Constitution
322:Commonwealth Bank of Australia
263:section 74 of the Constitution
229:legislation that attempted to
223:on appeal to the Privy Council
191:section 92 of the Constitution
186:(per each member of the Court)
13:
1:
1074:Australian constitutional law
1069:High Court of Australia cases
666:
297:
217:1, is a 1948 decision of the
661:Rule according to higher law
614:
175:was beyond the power of the
7:
953:"Bank Nationalisation Case"
899:Appeal to Queen in Council.
639:
10:
1115:
562:
555:
550:
531:
526:
490:
485:
470:
465:
438:
430:
420:
411:
406:
204:Bank Nationalisation Case
170:
165:
118:
113:
96:
91:
73:
58:
48:
39:
34:
651:Constitutional economics
452:[1949] UKPCHCA 1
62:11 August 1948
1006:(1949) 76 CLR 467, 641.
994:(1949) 76 CLR 467, 639.
831: (11 August 1948),
513:Lord Morton of Henryton
475:High Court of Australia
334:Bank of New South Wales
330:constitutional validity
219:High Court of Australia
177:Commonwealth Parliament
53:High Court of Australia
1099:1948 in Australian law
1048:360 (2 May 1988),
611:
443:[1949] UKPC 37
400:Privy Council decision
1042:[1988] HCA 18
931:[1912] HCA 94
621:1949 federal election
598:
336:, as well as the non-
821:[1948] HCA 7
82:(1948) 76
78:[1948] HCA 7
371:High Court decision
227:Chiefley government
225:) that invalidated
625:Chifley government
612:
326:Federal Government
292:Whitlam government
970:978-0-19-554022-2
720:978-0-521-83158-1
656:Political economy
646:Constitutionalism
570:
569:
199:
198:
16:(Redirected from
1106:
1094:1948 in case law
1053:
1037:Cole v Whitfield
1033:
1027:
1026:
1013:
1007:
1001:
995:
989:
983:
982:
962:
948:
942:
938:
921:
915:
914:
906:
900:
890:
884:
874:
868:
858:
852:
842:
836:
828:
814:
795:
794:
774:
761:
759:
745:
739:
735:Banking Act 1947
731:
725:
724:
706:
700:
677:
633:Cole v Whitfield
564:Cole v Whitfield
486:Court membership
459:
416:
404:
403:
366:
357:
348:
342:Garfield Barwick
317:Banking Act 1947
288:section 51(xxix)
268:Cole v Whitfield
247:section 51(xxxi)
173:Banking Act 1947
151:Edward McTiernan
114:Court membership
85:
69:
67:
44:
32:
31:
21:
1114:
1113:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1034:
1030:
1015:
1014:
1010:
1002:
998:
990:
986:
971:
949:
945:
922:
918:
907:
903:
891:
887:
875:
871:
859:
855:
843:
839:
815:
798:
791:
775:
764:
746:
742:
732:
728:
721:
707:
703:
678:
674:
669:
642:
617:
558:
522:
518:Lord MacDermott
450:
434:26 October 1949
402:
373:
362:
353:
344:
300:
251:section 75(iii)
161:
157:Dudley Williams
65:
63:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1112:
1102:
1101:
1096:
1091:
1086:
1081:
1076:
1071:
1055:
1054:
1028:
1008:
996:
984:
969:
943:
916:
901:
885:
869:
853:
837:
796:
789:
783:. Lawbook Co.
762:
740:
726:
719:
701:
671:
670:
668:
665:
664:
663:
658:
653:
648:
641:
638:
616:
613:
608:Clement Attlee
602:(centre) with
568:
567:
560:
559:
556:
553:
552:
548:
547:
546:
545:
538:
529:
528:
524:
523:
521:
520:
515:
510:
505:
500:
494:
492:
491:Judges sitting
488:
487:
483:
482:
472:
468:
467:
463:
462:
440:
436:
435:
432:
428:
427:
422:
418:
417:
409:
408:
401:
398:
397:
396:
389:
385:
372:
369:
306:government of
299:
296:
207:, also called
197:
196:
195:
194:
187:
168:
167:
163:
162:
160:
159:
153:
147:
141:
135:
129:
125:Chief Justice
122:
120:
119:Judges sitting
116:
115:
111:
110:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
75:
71:
70:
60:
56:
55:
50:
46:
45:
37:
36:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1111:
1100:
1097:
1095:
1092:
1090:
1087:
1085:
1082:
1080:
1077:
1075:
1072:
1070:
1067:
1066:
1064:
1051:
1047:
1044:, (1988) 165
1043:
1039:
1038:
1032:
1024:
1023:
1018:
1012:
1005:
1000:
993:
988:
980:
976:
972:
966:
961:
960:
954:
947:
940:
932:
928:
927:
920:
912:
905:
898:
894:
889:
882:
878:
873:
866:
862:
857:
850:
846:
841:
834:
830:
822:
818:
813:
811:
809:
807:
805:
803:
801:
792:
790:0-455-21947-8
786:
782:
781:
773:
771:
769:
767:
757:
756:
751:
744:
737:
736:
730:
722:
716:
712:
705:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
676:
672:
662:
659:
657:
654:
652:
649:
647:
644:
643:
637:
635:
634:
628:
626:
622:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
583:
582:Lord du Parcq
579:
575:
565:
561:
557:Superseded by
554:
549:
543:
539:
537:
533:
532:
530:
527:Case opinions
525:
519:
516:
514:
511:
509:
506:
504:
501:
499:
496:
495:
493:
489:
484:
480:
476:
473:
471:Appealed from
469:
464:
461:
453:
448:
444:
441:
437:
433:
429:
426:
425:Privy Council
423:
419:
415:
410:
405:
394:
390:
386:
382:
381:
380:
377:
368:
365:
361:
356:
352:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
318:
313:
309:
305:
295:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
272:
270:
269:
264:
259:
258:Privy Council
254:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
211:
206:
205:
192:
188:
185:
181:
180:
178:
174:
169:
166:Case opinions
164:
158:
154:
152:
148:
146:
142:
140:
139:Hayden Starke
136:
134:
130:
128:
124:
123:
121:
117:
112:
108:
107:
102:
101:Privy Council
99:
95:
90:
87:
79:
76:
72:
61:
57:
54:
51:
47:
43:
38:
33:
30:
19:
1052:(Australia).
1035:
1031:
1020:
1011:
1003:
999:
991:
987:
958:
946:
924:
919:
904:
893:Constitution
892:
888:
877:Constitution
876:
872:
861:Constitution
860:
856:
845:Constitution
844:
840:
835:(Australia).
816:
779:
753:
743:
733:
729:
710:
704:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
675:
631:
629:
618:
590:
586:
578:Lord Uthwatt
571:
551:Laws applied
508:Lord Normand
503:Lord Simonds
478:
466:Case history
378:
374:
315:
301:
273:
266:
255:
239:Constitution
209:
208:
203:
202:
200:
172:
105:
92:Case history
29:
606:(left) and
600:Ben Chifley
498:Lord Porter
360:H. V. Evatt
351:Frank Kitto
312:nationalise
308:Ben Chifley
231:nationalise
133:George Rich
127:John Latham
97:Appealed to
1063:Categories
1050:High Court
935:(1912) 15
833:High Court
825:(1948) 76
667:References
456:(1949) 79
449: 235;
298:Background
284:section 65
243:section 92
213:(1948) 76
145:Owen Dixon
66:1948-08-11
897:s 74
881:s 75
865:s 51
849:s 92
615:Aftermath
479:see above
439:Citations
294:in 1972.
106:see below
74:Citations
979:48195157
640:See also
604:HV Evatt
584:) died.
445:,
384:banking.
221:(upheld
155:Justice
149:Justice
143:Justice
137:Justice
131:Justice
1022:The Age
619:At the
431:Decided
235:private
86: 1
64: (
59:Decided
977:
967:
895:(Cth)
879:(Cth)
863:(Cth)
847:(Cth)
787:
738:(Cth).
717:
542:obiter
1040:
929:
819:
421:Court
338:Labor
304:Labor
276:Labor
49:Court
975:OCLC
965:ISBN
785:ISBN
715:ISBN
623:the
580:and
233:the
201:The
179:as:
171:The
1046:CLR
939:182
937:CLR
827:CLR
540:In
460:497
458:CLR
215:CLR
84:CLR
1065::
1019:.
973:.
933:,
823:,
799:^
765:^
752:.
695:;
691:;
687:;
683:;
636:.
454:,
447:AC
367:.
364:KC
355:KC
346:KC
241::
80:,
981:.
941:.
829:1
793:.
760:.
723:.
699:.
481:)
477:(
395:.
109:)
103:(
68:)
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
