Swift Australian Co (Pty) Ltd v Boyd Parkinson
Encyclopedia
Swift Australian Co Ltd v Boyd Parkinson (1962) 108 CLR
189 was a case decided in the High Court of Australia
regarding the scope of the trade and commerce power in section 51(i) of the Constitution.
which conducted a business in the meat and meat exporting trade in that state and elsewhere. The company owned a building in Maryborough
where it conducted a number of operations including the killing and treatment of poultry. It was registered under the Commonwealth Commerce (Meat Export) Regulations made under the Customs Act 1901-1960. It was registered as an establishment at which a long list of operations was allowed to take place, including the "Slaughtering, chilling, freezing and storage of poultry for export". While Swift was in possession of a Commonwealth licence for the production and export of poultry, it did not have the relevant state licence for the same purpose, as mandated under the Poultry Industry Acts, 1946 to 1959 of the State of Queensland. Swift was subsequently convicted by a Court of Petty Sessions for an offence against such a regulation.
The critical issue before the Court was the nature of Swift's business, which included the production of meat for both export and domestic consumption. Did the Commonwealth legislation intend to cover the mixed nature of the business? The Court decided in the negative, distinguishing the case from O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd
, where all of the meat produced was exported. The High Court held that the Commonwealth did not intend to cover a mixed operation and that the law only covered the export part of the business. Hence, Swift required both a state and a Commonwealth licence.
Owen J dissented, holding the Commonwealth did intend to regulate mixed premises. Owen J argued the Court had to consider whether the trade and commerce power allowed the Commonwealth to legislate in this manner. In order for the Commonwealth to make effective its conditions and regulations in an industry, with an objective procedure for export, then it must have the power to regulate abattoirs where there is a mixed operation.
Commonwealth Law Reports
The Commonwealth Law Reports are the authorised reports of decisions of the High Court of Australia. The CLR are published by the Lawbook Company, a division of Thomson Reuters...
189 was a case decided in the High Court of Australia
High Court of Australia
The High Court of Australia is the supreme court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal in Australia. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, has the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the States, and...
regarding the scope of the trade and commerce power in section 51(i) of the Constitution.
Background
Swift (the appellant) was a company incorporated in QueenslandQueensland
Queensland is a state of Australia, occupying the north-eastern section of the mainland continent. It is bordered by the Northern Territory, South Australia and New South Wales to the west, south-west and south respectively. To the east, Queensland is bordered by the Coral Sea and Pacific Ocean...
which conducted a business in the meat and meat exporting trade in that state and elsewhere. The company owned a building in Maryborough
Maryborough, Queensland
Maryborough is a city located on the Mary River in South East Queensland, Australia, approximately north of the state capital, Brisbane. The city is serviced by the Bruce Highway, and has a population of approximately 22,000 . It is closely tied to its neighbour city Hervey Bay which is...
where it conducted a number of operations including the killing and treatment of poultry. It was registered under the Commonwealth Commerce (Meat Export) Regulations made under the Customs Act 1901-1960. It was registered as an establishment at which a long list of operations was allowed to take place, including the "Slaughtering, chilling, freezing and storage of poultry for export". While Swift was in possession of a Commonwealth licence for the production and export of poultry, it did not have the relevant state licence for the same purpose, as mandated under the Poultry Industry Acts, 1946 to 1959 of the State of Queensland. Swift was subsequently convicted by a Court of Petty Sessions for an offence against such a regulation.
Decision
Swift argued that the Queensland Acts were invalid because they were inconsistent with a Commonwealth Act legislating the same matter. Specifically, the Court had to ascertain whether the Commonwealth Act intended to "cover the field", and include the regulation of all meat exporters.The critical issue before the Court was the nature of Swift's business, which included the production of meat for both export and domestic consumption. Did the Commonwealth legislation intend to cover the mixed nature of the business? The Court decided in the negative, distinguishing the case from O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd
O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd
O'Sullivan v Noarlunga Meat Ltd 92 CLR 565 was a case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the scope of the trade and commerce power, under s 51 of the Australian Constitution, and inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws, under s...
, where all of the meat produced was exported. The High Court held that the Commonwealth did not intend to cover a mixed operation and that the law only covered the export part of the business. Hence, Swift required both a state and a Commonwealth licence.
Owen J dissented, holding the Commonwealth did intend to regulate mixed premises. Owen J argued the Court had to consider whether the trade and commerce power allowed the Commonwealth to legislate in this manner. In order for the Commonwealth to make effective its conditions and regulations in an industry, with an objective procedure for export, then it must have the power to regulate abattoirs where there is a mixed operation.
See also
- Section 51(i) of the Australian ConstitutionSection 51(i) of the Australian ConstitutionSection 51 is a subsecton of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution enables the Commonwealth Government of Australia both to regulate and to participate in trade and commerce with other countries and among the States. The potential reach of s51 is very broad...
- Australian constitutional lawAustralian constitutional lawAustralian 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....