Bryan Pape

Last updated

Bryan Pape was a senior lecturer at the University of New England, New South Wales, Australia [1] and a former office holder and member of the National Party of Australia, [2] who in Pape v Commissioner of Taxation (April 2009) lost [3] his challenge to the constitutional legality of the Kevin Rudd Government's proposed $7.7 billion tax bonus payments as part of the $42 billion economic stimulus package in the High Court of Australia.

A fervent and longtime believer in federalism and state's rights, [4] Pape argued the case himself as a "concerned lawyer". [5] He argued that the $900 stimulus payments anticipated to be made to 7.4 million Australians beginning 6 April were not a valid extension of the Commonwealth's taxation powers but a gift, and the Commonwealth has no constitutional power to spend consolidated revenue on gifts under section 81 and 83 of the Australian Constitution. [6]

Whilst Pape has disagreed with previous government stimulus packages, he then had no standing to take the Commonwealth to court. The $900 tax rebate is the first that he would be eligible to receive and thus enabled him to take the matter to the High Court. While the High Court unanimously rejected the Commonwealth's submission that it could rely on its use of s 81 of the Constitution to support the expenditure, it upheld the Commonwealth's submission that it could do so by relying on the executive power (s.61 of the Constitution) and the incidental power (s.51 (xxxix) of the Constitution) by a thin majority of 4:3. (See (2009) 238 CLR 1.)

Pape believed that if he were successful, "the Government could still give the bonus just through... giving a rebate and letting the money flow through the PAYG system." [7]

Pape died on 27 April 2014 at his home in Armidale. [8]

Related Research Articles

Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia enumerates the legislative powers granted to Federal Parliament by the Australian States at Federation.

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

Federalism in Australia Overview of federalism in Australia

Federalism was adopted, as a constitutional principle, in Australia on 1 January 1901 – the date upon which the six self-governing Australian Colonies of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, and Western Australia federated, formally constituting the Commonwealth of Australia. It remains a federation of those six "original States" under the Constitution of Australia.

The reserved powers doctrine was a principle used by the inaugural High Court of Australia in the interpretation of the Constitution of Australia, that emphasised the context of the Constitution, drawing on principles of federalism, what the Court saw as the compact between the newly formed Commonwealth and the former colonies, particularly the compromises that informed the text of the constitution. The doctrine involved a restrictive approach to the interpretation of the specific powers of the Federal Parliament to preserve the powers that were intended to be left to the States. The doctrine was challenged by the new appointments to the Court in 1906 and was ultimately abandoned by the High Court in 1920 in the Engineers' Case, replaced by an approach to interpretation that emphasised the text rather than the context of the Constitution.

The constitutional basis of taxation in Australia is predominantly found in sections 51(ii), 90, 53, 55, and 96, of the Constitution of Australia. Their interpretation by the High Court of Australia has been integral to the functioning and evolution of federalism in Australia.

<i>Fairfax v Commissioner of Taxation</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Fairfax v Commissioner of Taxation is a High Court of Australia case that considered the scope of the taxation power in section 51(ii) of the Constitution.

<i>Air Caledonie International v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Air Caledonie International v Commonwealth, is a High Court of Australia case that provides guidance as to the constitutional definition of a tax.

<i>Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v Commonwealth, is a High Court of Australia case that provides guidance as to the constitutional definition of a tax.

<i>Luton v Lessels</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Luton v Lessels (2002) 165 CLR 462 is a High Court of Australia case that affirms previous High Court definitions of a tax.

<i>South Australia v Commonwealth</i>

South Australia v Commonwealth is a decision of the High Court of Australia that established the Commonwealth government's ability to impose a scheme of uniform income tax across the country and displace the State. It was a major contributor to Australia's vertical fiscal imbalance in the spending requirements and taxing abilities of the various levels of government, and was thus a watershed moment in the development of federalism in Australia.

<i>Victoria v Commonwealth</i> (1957)

Victoria v Commonwealth, is a High Court of Australia case that affirmed the Commonwealth government's ability to impose a scheme of uniform income tax, adding to Australia's vertical fiscal imbalance in the spending requirements and taxing abilities of the various levels of government.

<i>Victoria v Commonwealth</i> (1971) Australian Payroll Tax case

Victoria v Commonwealth (1971) 122 CLR 353, commonly referred to as the Payroll Tax Case, was a case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the scope of the Commonwealth's taxation power and the extent to which it can burden a state's structural integrity.

<i>DEmden v Pedder</i>

D'Emden v Pedder was a significant Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 26 April 1904. It directly concerned the question of whether salary receipts of federal government employees were subject to state stamp duty, but it touched on the broader issue within Australian constitutional law of the degree to which the two levels of Australian government were subject to each other's laws.

The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 was an Act of Congress providing for several kinds of economic stimuli intended to boost the United States economy in 2008 and to avert a recession, or ameliorate economic conditions. The stimulus package was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 29, 2008, and in a slightly different version by the U.S. Senate on February 7, 2008. The Senate version was then approved in the House the same day. It was signed into law on February 13, 2008, by President George W. Bush with the support of both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. The law provides for tax rebates to low- and middle-income U.S. taxpayers, tax incentives to stimulate business investment, and an increase in the limits imposed on mortgages eligible for purchase by government-sponsored enterprises. The total cost of this bill was projected at $152 billion for 2008.

<i>Pape v Commissioner of Taxation</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Pape v Commissioner of Taxation is an Australian court case concerning the constitutional validity of the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act 2009 (Cth) which seeks to give one-off payments of up to $900 to Australian taxpayers. The decision of the High Court of Australia was announced on 3 April 2009, with reasons to follow later.

Beginning in 2008 many nations of the world enacted fiscal stimulus plans in response to the Great Recession. These nations used different combinations of government spending and tax cuts to boost their sagging economies. Most of these plans were based on the Keynesian theory that deficit spending by governments can replace some of the demand lost during a recession and prevent the waste of economic resources idled by a lack of demand. The International Monetary Fund recommended that countries implement fiscal stimulus measures equal to 2% of their GDP to help offset the global contraction. In subsequent years, fiscal consolidation measures were implemented by some countries in an effort to reduce debt and deficit levels while at the same time stimulating economic recovery.

2009 Australian federal budget

The 2009 Australian federal budget for the Australian financial year ended 30 June 2010 was presented on 12 May 2009 by the Treasurer of Australia, Wayne Swan, the second federal budget presented by Swan, and the second budget of the first Rudd Government. Swan commented that the budget would be tougher than in previous years. "Projected government revenue has fallen by $200 billion since the last budget because of the global economic crisis."

The fiscal imbalance in Australia is the disparity between the revenue generation ability of the three levels of governments in Australia relative to their spending obligations; but in Australia the term is commonly used to refer more specifically to the vertical fiscal imbalance, the discrepancy between the federal government's extensive capacity to raise revenue and the responsibility of the States to provide most public services, such as physical infrastructure, health care, education etc., despite having only limited capacity to raise their own revenue. In Australia, vertical fiscal imbalance is addressed by the transfer of funds as grants from the federal government to the states and territories.

Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia Australian Constitution section regarding religion

Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. Section 116 also provides that no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. The product of a compromise in the pre-Federation constitutional conventions, Section 116 is based on similar provisions in the United States Constitution. However, Section 116 is more narrowly drafted than its US counterpart, and does not preclude the states of Australia from making such laws.

<i>Williams v Commonwealth</i> 2012 Australian constitutional law case

Williams v Commonwealth of Australia is a landmark judgment of the High Court. The matter related to the power of the Commonwealth executive government to enter into contracts and spend public moneys under section 61 of the Australian Constitution.

References

  1. ↑ "UNE - Law School - Staff contact details". Archived from the original on 23 August 2011. Retrieved 2 August 2011.
  2. ↑ Sexton, Elisabeth (19 March 2009). "$900 bonus at risk". Melbourne: The Age Online.
  3. ↑ "High Court says yes to $900 bonus". The Sydney Morning Herald.
  4. ↑ "Altered States". The Sydney Morning Herald. 25 January 2005.
  5. ↑ "Kevin Rudd's bonus in Bryan Pape High Court challenge". News.com.au. 19 March 2009.
  6. ↑ Harper, Angela (31 March 2009). "Stimulus cheques hang in balance". Melbourne: The Age Online.
  7. ↑ "Bonus payments 'will go ahead despite court decision'". Australian Broadcasting Corporation . April 2009.
  8. ↑ England, University of New. "The Bryan Pape Memorial Prize for Constitutional Law". www.une.edu.au. Retrieved 14 June 2022.


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.