Bank Nationalisation Case

Last updated

Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth [1]
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Decided11 August 1948 (1948-08-11)
Citation(s) [1948] HCA 7, (1948) 76 CLR 1
Case history
Appealed to Privy Council (see below)
Court membership
Judges sitting
Case opinions
The Banking Act 1947 was beyond the power of the Commonwealth Parliament as:
  • it involved compulsory acquisition that was not "on just terms", as required under section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution (per each member of the Court)
  • it violated the requirement that trade and commerce "shall be absolutely free", as required under section 92 of the Constitution, which is to be understood as a right of persons to trade freely inter-state (per Rich, Starke, Dixon and Williams) [2]

The Bank Nationalisation Case, also called Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth (1948) 76 CLR 1, is a 1948 decision of the High Court of Australia [3] (upheld on appeal to the Privy Council) that invalidated Chiefley government legislation that attempted to nationalise the private banking sector. Separate majorities held that the legislation breached three different provisions of the Constitution: section 92 (requiring trade and commerce between the states to be "absolutely free"), section 51(xxxi) (requiring compulsory acquisition of property to be "on just terms") and section 75(iii) (which grants the High Court original jurisdiction in cases where the Commonwealth is sued).

Contents

A subsequent appeal application by the Commonwealth to the Privy Council 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 section 74 of the Constitution. 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 Cole v Whitfield the section was reinterpreted as a prohibition on protectionist legislation.

The case rendered a key pillar of Labor's economic policy unworkable and possibly was influential in the eventual defeat of the government in 1949. 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 (section 65) and the external affairs power (section 51(xxix)) were later utilised by governments, beginning with the Whitlam government in 1972.

Background

Comfortable in government after two strong election wins, the Labor government of Ben Chifley announced in 1947 its intention to nationalise private banks in Australia. To accomplish this goal the Parliament passed the Banking Act 1947 . [4] Under the Act, shares in the private banks would be owned by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, which in turn would be owned by the Federal Government. [5] The proposal was controversial, and the constitutional validity of the law was challenged by a number of banks, including the Bank of New South Wales, as well as the non-Labor states of Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. [6] The banks were represented by a formidable legal team, [6] with the Australian incorporated banks represented by Garfield Barwick KC , [3] : at p. 7  who would later become the Chief Justice, and the United Kingdom incorporated banks represented by Frank Kitto KC , [3] : at p. 37  who would later be appointed to the High Court, while the Commonwealth was represented by the former High Court judge H. V. Evatt KC . [3] : at p. 49 

High Court decision

The Court hearing lasted for a record 39 days. [6] The summary of the parties arguments occupies 143 pages of the Commonwealth Law Report. [3] : at pp. 7–149  A number of arguments were put to the Court, most of which were rejected.

However the Court declared the law invalid on four grounds, albeit by different majority of judges: [6]

Privy Council decision

Commonwealth v Bank of New South Wales
Royal Arms of the United Kingdom (Privy Council).svg
Court Privy Council
Decided26 October 1949
Citation(s) [1949] UKPC 37, [1950]  AC  235;
[1949] UKPCHCA 1, (1949) 79 CLR 497
Case history
Prior action(s)see above
Court membership
Judges sitting Lord Porter, Lord Simonds, Lord Normand, Lord Morton of Henryton and Lord MacDermott
Keywords
Nationalisation, banking

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 section 74 of the Constitution. [10] [11] [12]

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 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." [13]

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". [14]

Ben Chifley (centre) with HV Evatt (left) and Clement Attlee (right) at the Dominion and British Leaders Conference, London, 1946 ChifleyEvatt.jpg
Ben Chifley (centre) with HV Evatt (left) and Clement Attlee (right) at the Dominion and British Leaders Conference, London, 1946

Aftermath

At the 1949 federal election the Chifley government lost power, ostensibly due to the problems regarding this legislation and the Court case. [15]

This particular understanding of s 92 would remain highly influential, until it was overturned in favour a free trade interpretation in Cole v Whitfield . [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Australia</span> Apex court of Australia

The High Court of Australia is the apex court of the Australian legal system. It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified in the Constitution of Australia and supplementary legislation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australia Act 1986</span> Legislation by the Australian and UK parliaments

The Australia Act 1986 is the short title of each of a pair of separate but related pieces of legislation: one an act of the Parliament of Australia, the other an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In Australia they are referred to, respectively, as the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK). These nearly identical Acts were passed by the two parliaments, because of uncertainty as to whether the Commonwealth Parliament alone had the ultimate authority to do so. They were enacted using legislative powers conferred by enabling Acts passed by the parliaments of every Australian state. The Acts came into effect simultaneously, on 3 March 1986.

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Legal cases regarding Australian constitutional law are often handled by the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian judicial system. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

The Constitution Alteration (Marketing) Bill 1936, was an unsuccessful proposal to alter the Australian Constitution to ensure that the Commonwealth could continue legislative schemes for the marketing of agricultural produce such as the quota for dried fruits. It was put to voters for approval in a referendum held on 6 March 1937.

<i>Commonwealth v Tasmania</i> 1983 Australian constitutional law case

Commonwealth v Tasmania was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 1 July 1983. The case was a landmark decision in Australian constitutional law, and was a significant moment in the history of conservation in Australia. The case centred on the proposed construction of a hydro-electric dam on the Gordon River in Tasmania, which was supported by the Tasmanian government, but opposed by the Australian federal government and environmental groups.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Owen Dixon</span> Australian judge and diplomat (1886–1972)

Sir Owen Dixon was an Australian judge and diplomat who served as the sixth Chief Justice of Australia. Many consider him to be Australia's most prominent jurist.

<i>R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers Society of Australia</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia, known as the Boilermakers' Case, was a 1956 decision of the High Court of Australia which considered the powers of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration to punish the Boilermakers' Society of Australia, a union which had disobeyed the orders of that court in relation to an industrial dispute between boilermakers and their employer body, the Metal Trades Employers' Association.

The judiciary of Australia comprises judges who sit in federal courts and courts of the States and Territories of Australia. The High Court of Australia sits at the apex of the Australian court hierarchy as the ultimate court of appeal on matters of both federal and State law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian legal system</span>

The legal system of Australia has multiple forms. It includes a written constitution, unwritten constitutional conventions, statutes, regulations, and the judicially determined common law system. Its legal institutions and traditions are substantially derived from that of the English legal system, which superseded Indigenous Australian customary law during colonisation. Australia is a common-law jurisdiction, its court system having originated in the common law system of English law. The country's common law is the same across the states and territories.

Section 51(i) of the Australian Constitution enables the Parliament of Australia to make laws about:

Section 51(xxxi) is a subclause of section 51 of the Constitution of Australia. It empowers the Commonwealth to make laws regarding the acquisition of property, but stipulates that such acquisitions must be on just (fair) terms. The terms is sometimes referred to in shorthand as the 'just terms' provision.

In Australian constitutional law, chapter III courts are courts of law which are a part of the Australian federal judiciary and thus are able to discharge Commonwealth judicial power. They are so named because the prescribed features of these courts are contained in chapter III of the Australian Constitution.

<i>Kruger v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

In Kruger v Commonwealth, decided in 1997, also known as the Stolen Generation Case, the High Court of Australia rejected a challenge to the validity of legislation applying in the Northern Territory between 1918 and 1957 which authorised the removal of Aboriginal children from their families. The majority of the bench found that the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 was beneficial in intent and had neither the purpose of genocide nor that of restricting the practice of religion. The High Court unanimously held there was no separate action for a breach of any constitutional right.

<i>P. J. Magennis Pty. Ltd. v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

P. J. Magennis Pty. Ltd. v Commonwealth, is a High Court of Australia case that deals with the Commonwealth's power of acquisition of property, which must be on just terms, as specified in section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution.

<i>Pye v Renshaw</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Pye v Renshaw, is a High Court of Australia case that deals with the interaction between section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, and section 96 of the Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian corporate law</span>

Australian corporations law has historically borrowed heavily from UK company law. Its legal structure now consists of a single, national statute, the Corporations Act 2001. The statute is administered by a single national regulatory authority, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC).

<i>Australian National Airways Pty Ltd v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Australian National Airways Pty Ltd v Commonwealth – most commonly known as Australian National Airways Pty Ltd v Commonwealth and also referred to as The Airlines Case or the ANA Case – was a High Court of Australia decision. The case dealt with limits of the powers of the Australian Federal Government under sections 51 and 92 of the Australian Constitution. The outcome of the case was that the Federal Government could found a federally owned airline, but it could not hinder private sector competition with that airline.

<i>Attorney-General (Vic) ex rel Dale v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Attorney-General (Vic); Ex rel Dale v Commonwealth, commonly known as the "First Pharmaceutical Benefits case", was a High Court of Australia decision. The case dealt with limits of the powers of the Australian Federal Government under section 81 of the Constitution of Australia, to take and spend money by legislation, in this case to fund reduced prices for prescription medicines.

Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, as far as is still relevant today is:

... trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.

Section 99 of the Constitution of Australia, is one of several important non-discrimination provisions that govern actions of the Commonwealth and the various States.

References

  1. ↑ Full case name of the five actions of the case: Bank of New South Wales and others and The Commonwealth and others; Bank of Australasia and others and The Commonwealth and others; State of Victoria and another and The Commonwealth and others; State of South Australia and another and The Commonwealth and others; State of Western Australia and another and The Commonwealth and others.
  2. ↑ Johnston, Peter (2003). "The Bank Nationalisation Cases: The Defeat of Labor's Most Controversial Economic Initiative". In Lee, H P; Winterton, George (eds.). Australian Constitutional Landmarks. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 95–6. ISBN   978-0-521-83158-1.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth [1948] HCA 7 , (1948) 76 CLR 1 (11 August 1948), High Court (Australia).
  4. ↑ Banking Act 1947 (Cth).
  5. ↑ Ben Chifley, Prime Minister (15 October 1947). "Banking Bill 1947: Second Reading". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Commonwealth of Australia: House of Representatives. pp. 804–5, 808..
  6. 1 2 3 4 Hull, Crispin (2003). "Major Cases". The High Court of Australia: Celebrating the Centenary 1903–2003. Lawbook Co. ISBN   0-455-21947-8.
  7. ↑ Constitution (Cth) s 92 Trade within the Commonwealth to be free.
  8. ↑ Constitution (Cth) s 51(xxxi) "The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for ... the acquisition of property on just terms ...".
  9. ↑ Constitution (Cth) s 75 Original jurisdiction of High Court.
  10. ↑ Constitution (Cth) s 74 Appeal to Queen in Council.
  11. ↑ Gowans, G.; Menhennitt C.I.; Phillips P.D.; Tait, J.B. (18 August 1948). "Opinion No. 1833: Re Banking case judgements" – via Australian Government Solicitor.
  12. ↑ The High Court only once granted a s 74 certificate, in Colonial Sugar Refining Co Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) [1912] HCA 94 , (1912) 15 CLR 182.
  13. ↑ Commonwealth v Bank of New South Wales (1949) 76 CLR 467, 639.
  14. ↑ Commonwealth v Bank of New South Wales (1949) 76 CLR 467, 641.
  15. ↑ "A policy backed by a mandate". The Age . 23 February 1950. p. 2 – via National Library of Australia.
  16. ↑ Cole v Whitfield [1988] HCA 18 , (1988) 165 CLR 360(2 May 1988), High Court (Australia).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.