This document summarizes several key cases related to constitutional interpretation in Australia. The cases discussed include R v Barger, Engineers' Case, Payroll Tax Case, Bank Nationalisation Case, and Grain Pool case. Some of the main principles of interpretation discussed include determining the intent of Parliament based on the language used, examining the substance rather than form of legislation, and broadly construing constitutional powers to evolve with changing circumstances.

1. Constitutional Law
Topic 5 Interpretation and
Construction

2. Interpretation cases
• Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide
Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129
• R v Barger (1908) 6 CLR 41
• Victoria v Commonwealth (Payroll Tax Case)
(1971) 122 CLR 353
• Bank of NSW v Commonwealth (Bank
Nationalisation Case)(1948) 76 CLR 1
• Grain Pool of Western Australia v
Commonwealth (2000) 202 CLR 479

3. R v Barger (1908) (p 261)
• The Crown brought proceedings against
William Gabriel Barger for customs payments,
under the Excise Act on the basis that the
legislation was empowered under s 90.
• The main issue was whether the law was one
that was related to taxation or not.
• Nature and character of the legislation needed
to be determined.

4. R v Barger (cont.)
• The majority acknowledged that there may be
several different ways to frame the legislation.
• The substance of the legislation was that it
was a law regulating the manufacture of
agricultural implements.
• The law imposing duties could not be
construed to deprive the states of their
powers.

5. Engineers’ Case
• Facts: Industrial dispute between the
Amalgamated Society of Engineers and the
Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd and 843 others.
• States sought to rely on their immunity from
Commonwealth control in respect of State
trading – Reserved state powers doctrine.

6. Engineers’ Case (analysis)
• Question was whether the legislation allowed
for an industrial dispute extending beyond the
limits of any one State.
• Reserved state powers doctrine could not
displace ordinary principles of construction
are applied to provide expressed or implied
meaning.

7. Engineers’ Case (analysis)
• The fundamental rule of interpretation is that
a statute is to be expounded according to the
intent of Parliament.
• Determined by examination of the language
used in the statute as a whole.
• Determine meaning of language in its ordinary
and natural sense (p 267).

8. Payroll Tax Case (1971)
• Payroll Tax legislation was passed providing
revenue to finance the provision of child
endowment.
• Child endowment related to salary or wages
and was paid by employers.
• Victoria sought a declaration that the Tax
legislation was invalid.

9. Payroll Tax Case (analysis)
• Windeyer J: Interpretations of the limits of
constitutional powers meant adhering to rules
of statutory interpretation.
• The Constitution is not an ordinary document.
• Development of the Constitution evolves over
time as circumstances changed.

10. Bank Nationalisation Case
• The case related to a Banking Act 1945 & 1947
passed by the Commonwealth, providing for,
amongst other things, the acquisition of
shares by the Commonwealth Bank in any
private bank in Australia and elsewhere.
• Legislation gave power to the Cth to make
laws with respects to banking corporations
that were not state banks.

11. Bank Nationalisation Case (cont.)
• Question was whether the Cth had exceeded
its power under s 51(xiii)(“banking power”)
and corporations power s 51(xx).
• Note that the impugned legislation specifically
exempted states s 7 Banking Act 1947.
• There were several provisions in the Banking
Acts that gave power to the Cth to increase its
power over private banks to the indirect
detriment of the states.

12. Bank case (arguments)
• Defendants argued that the 1947 Act was valid
because it related to banking i.e. "touched and
concerned banking" and was "relevant" to the
subject matter of banking.
• The plaintiffs argued that the constitutional
validity of legislation should be determined by
enquiring what was the "pith and substance" of
the law; whether the legislation had what was
called "substantial impact” upon authorised
subject matter.

13. Bank case (analysis)
• Banking power (s 51(xiii) enabled the Cth to pass
legislation for a complete and effective banking
system.
• The power extended to regulations which aid,
foster, protect or alternately prohibit, banking
and persons (legal and natural) engaging in
banking.
• Banking Act 1947 Cth as a whole was not invalid
as being beyond the power of the
Commonwealth under s 51(xiii), although
particular sections may be invalid as beyond that
power.

14. Grain Pool case
• Plaintiff challenged validity of the Plant
Variety Rights Act 1987 Cth and Plant
Breeder's Rights Act 1994Cth on the basis that
s 51(xviii), with respect to “patents of
invention” was limited by certain traditional
concepts of patent law, including a
requirement for both novelty and
inventiveness.

15. Grain Poole (analysis)
• Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Hayne
and Callinan JJ: noted that there are "general
principles" for determining "whether a law is with
respect to a head of legislative power such as s
51(xviii) " (at 492):
– “the constitutional text is to be construed "with all the
generality which the words used admit".
– “…and when the validity of such legislation is in
question the task is to consider whether it "answers
the description, and to disregard purpose or object".

16. Grain Poole (discussion)
• Majority cited Nintendo Co Ltd vCentronics
Systems Pty Ltd Nintendo (at 160):
– “It is of the essence of that grant of legislative
power that it authorises the making of laws which
create, confer, and provide for the enforcement of,
intellectual property rights in original
compositions, inventions, designs, trade
marks and other products of intellectual effort.
• Interpretation results in broad reading

17. Grain Poole Limitations?
• 202 CLR 479, 532, Kirby J: reached the same
conclusions but considered the "really
essential characteristics” of what were
"patents of inventions" ought to be taken in
the context of intellectual property in the 20th
and 21st century.
• Kirby J held the legislation to be valid. i.e. the
Cth had the power to make the laws.

18. Grain Poole Limitations?
• 202 CLR 479, 495-496: Both the majority and
Kirby J noted Constitutional limits on s
51(xviii)
• Were not clear on what the outer limits were.
• Majority discusses a "centre" or
“circumference” of a "patents of inventions"
• The power inhered adaptability so as to reflect
technological developments.