E LAW - MURDOCH UNIVERSITY ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF LAW VOLUME 1 NUMBER 4 (DECEMBER 1994) Copyright E Law and/or authors Review of Western Australian State Taxes 1994 Chapter 4 THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE PETROL TAXES Part One: The Scheme Part Two: The Law Part Three: Application of the Law to the Scheme Part Four: Recommendation Bibliography INTRODUCTION This chapter will be divided into four main sections. The first will establish the State's power to levy petrol taxes, while identifying section 90 of the Constitution as the main limit on such a power. It will further identify the legislative scheme that is the focus of this chapter, and highlight the principal elements of the Act that are essential to a discussion of its constitutionality. The second section will give a brief history of the case law on section 90, focusing on the term "duties of excise". The third and most important section will identify the major factors used by the High Court in recent cases in deciding whether a particular Act imposes a duty of excise. Concurrently, the legislative scheme identified in part one will be analysed in light of these factors, and a conclusion reached on its constitutional validity. Finally, part four will explore possible recommendations that would avoid the Act being struck down. PART ONE: THE SCHEME The Nature of State Tax Power Generally the States have broad powers to levy taxation. The Commonwealth Constitution assumes that States will continue to raise revenue through taxation. This is because the Commonwealth's power under section 51(ii) is not exclusive, and section 107 declares that State Parliaments shall inherit all those powers of the former colonial parliaments which are not vested exclusively in the Commonwealth Parliament. The Constitution, however, places certain express prohibitions on this general taxing power of the States, the relevant one for our purposes being the "excise duties" prohibition in section 90. The Legislative Scheme There may be numerous legislative schemes in Western Australia that may be investigated to determine whether a petrol tax is imposed.[1] This chapter will deal only with Part IIIA of the Transport Co-ordination Act 1966 (WA), - hereinafter referred to as "The Scheme"- entitled Business Franchise (Petroleum Products) Licensing. This is because this scheme constitutes the major source of revenue from petrol for the State,[2] and is in the form of a business franchise licence fee, the constitutionality of which has been the centre of great debate. The Scheme provides[3] that "A person shall not on or after 1 July 1979 carry on the business of wholesaling petroleum products unless he is the holder of a licence".[4] The Minister has the power to grant such a licence pursuant to an application in the approved form.[5] However the licence cannot be granted until the "fee payable in respect of the licence has been paid".[6] The licence commences on the date specified, and ceases to have effect after a maximum of one month. For licences issued prior to 1 July 1986, the maximum period was one year.[7] The following table provides a summary of the fees payable.[8] It deals with licence fees for petroleum products[9] wholesaled[10], providing information from inception of The Scheme in 1979 to the present. Table I: Table of Business Franchise (Petroleum Products) Licence Fees[11] Year (end 30 June) Licence Fee Formula Revenue($M) 1979-80 $500 + 0.90 c/L(msp) + 3.00 c/L(d) 16.905 1980-81 $500 + 1.30 c/L(msp) + 3.00 c/L(d) 24.439 1981-82 $500 + 1.60 c/L(msp) + 3.00 c/L(d) 29.031 1982-83 $500 + 1.85 c/L(msp) + 3.40 c/L(d) 34.038 1983-84 $500 + 2.10 c/L(msp) + 3.85 c/L(d) 41.246 1984-85 $500 + 2.17 c/L(msp) + 3.95 c/L(d) 43.971 1985-86 $500 + 2.17 c/L(msp) + 3.95 c/L(d) 46.042 1986-87 $ 50 + 4.17 c/L(msp) + 5.95 c/L(d) 98.162 1987-88 $ 50 + 4.17 c/L(msp) + 5.95 c/L(d) 91.023 1988-89 $ 50 + 4.17 c/L(msp) + 5.95 c/L(d) 88.173 1989-90 $ 50 + 4.17 c/L(msp) + 5.95 c/L(d) 137.645 1990-91 $ 50 + 5.54 c/L(msp) + 7.29 c/L(d) 131.196 1991-92 $ 50 + 5.67 c/L(msp) + 7.38 c/L(d) 131.087 1992-93 $ 50 + 5.67 c/L(msp) + 7.45 c/L(d) 136.642 1993-94 $ 50 + 5.67 c/L(msp) + 7.45 c/L(d) 130-140 (est) For the first year calculation of fees is made by reference to volume of motor spirit and diesel wholesaled during one year backwards from 31 March 1979.[12] For the licence periods between 1 July 1980 and 30 June 1986, calculation of fees is also made by reference to volumes wholesaled by the applicant in the year ending 31 March last preceding.[13] Reference needs to be made to regulations[14] to determine the amount payable in respect of each volume of petroleum product wholesaled in the relevant reference period.[15] However, in calculating fees for periods commencing after 30 June 1986, reference needs to be made to the regulations for both the amount payable in respect of each volume wholesaled and for the relevant reference period. From 1 July 1986 the reference period begins two months immediately prior to the month in which the licence commences.[16]The revenue estimate for 1993 - 94 represents approximately 6.5 % of WA's total revenue.[17] Compare this with tobacco tax 9.6% ($188M) and liquor tax 3.2% ($62M).[18] It is also important to note that the licence fee imposed, assuming it is passed on directly to the consumer, constitutes 8.17% of the total retail price of the product.[19]The licence fees imposed by The Scheme are collected from only seven or eight persons, thus making it perhaps the most simple tax in WA. Of the revenue raised,[20] only about 4% is spent by the Department of Transport (WA). Of this 4%, there are two main uses: (1) Road Safety advertising campaigns and (2) maintenance and rebuilding of roads.[21] Does the Legislative Scheme Impose a Tax? Before we can test the constitutional validity of The Scheme, it must be established that it in fact imposes a tax. In Philip Morris Ltd v Commissioner of Business Franchises,[22] it was said that licence fees exacted for the privilege of manufacturing, producing, selling, or distributing a commodity, and calculated by reference to the value or quantity of the commodity manufactured, produced, sold or distributed by the licensee during a particular period, have the attributes of a tax. In support of this conclusion is the fact that the fees imposed by The Scheme are compulsory for persons wishing to wholesale petrol products. Furthermore they cannot be said to be requited payments, in the sense that the fees paid are not directly proportional to the value of specific services, property[23] or privileges rendered in return. PART TWO: THE LAW As outlined earlier, the main hurdle to the constitutionality of The Scheme is the first limb of section 90 of the Constitution. The first limb states, that:On the imposition of uniform duties of custom the power of the [Commonwealth] Parliament to impose duties of custom and excise, and to grant bounties on the production or export of goods, shall become exclusive... This section has produced three main areas of judicial debate over the years. The first relates to the purpose of section 90. In the various judgements there can be detected two main alternatives to the constitutional purpose of section 90: the centralising of tariff policy, and the centralising of commodity taxes. The first view seeks to preserve the State's fiscal autonomy, however, the second view is the dominant one. Adopted by the majority in Capital Duplicators v ACT [No.2],[24] the latter view ensures "that differential taxes on goods and differential bonuses on the production or export of goods should not divert trade or distort competition".[25]The second area of debate relates to the definition of 'duties of excise'. The main area of concern is at what step in the process must the tax be imposed to be deemed an excise. The first important case, Peterswald v Bartley,[26] concluded that a duty of excise was "analogous to a customs duty imposed upon goods either in relation to quantity or value when produced or manufactured".[27] However beginning with Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board,[28] and concluding with the majority decision in Bolton v Madsen,[29] the narrow approach in Peterswald was gradually widened. In Bolton, it was held that a duty of excise is a tax "directly related to goods imposed at some step in their production or distribution before they reach the hands of consumers".[30] This definition recognises that a tax on consumption is beyond the section 90 prohibition.[31]The third and final major debate concerned the test to be used when determining how "closely related to goods" the tax must be to be an excise, ie. must it have a closer connection with production and distribution than a mere exaction for the privilege of engaging in a business. Early cases like Bolton and Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria[32] were authority for the adoption of the 'criterion of liability' test, which focused on the form of the legislation. However in Capital Duplicators [No.2], the majority formally rejected this approach. They adopted the 'practical effect' test, which looks at the substance of the legislation in question and attempts to identify if, in effect, the tax amounts to a burden on the goods to be later passed on to the consumer. Thus it is now important to identify the factors that recent cases have used in determining whether particular legislation imposes, in substance, a duty of excise. These factors, "which may or may not be present in every case and which may have different weight or emphasis in different cases",[33] will be simultaneously applied to The Scheme, and a conclusion then reached on its constitutionality. PART THREE: APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE SCHEME Barwick CJ's Considerations The starting point in most of the recent judgments is Barwick CJ's statement in Anderson's Pty Ltd v Victoria that the relevant considerations included the "indirectness" of the tax, it's immediate entry into the costs of the goods, the proximity of the transaction it taxes to the manufacture or production or movement of the goods into consumption, [and] the form and content of the legislation imposing the tax...[34]The price elasticity of demand for petroleum products is fairly low.[35] This relative inelasticity means that the incidence of the tax is principally on the consumer. This means that the tax will be indirect in the sense that it "is demanded from one person in the expectation and with the intention that he shall indemnify himself at the expense of another"[36].Although the legislation ostensibly taxes sales in a prior period by reference to volume wholesaled, the requisite proximity to manufacture or production of goods may yet be established. The presence of a back-dating device such as the Dennis Hotels formula may still mean that the fee has a closer connection than is valid.[37] Is the Legislative Scheme Regulatory in its Principal Elements? In Philip Morris and especially in Capital Duplicators [No.2], considerable weight was attached to the provision in the legislation which prohibited sales without a licence. As early as Dennis Hotels, Taylor J was concerned that such a provision should be a substantive one and not merely an adjunct to a revenue statute if it were to support a characterisation of the impost as something other than an excise.[38]If a licence is available to all those who are prepared to pay the fee, then a genuine privilege is not conferred by the granting of a licence.[39] There are no trade restrictions imposed by The Scheme on WA licence holders, nor are any restrictions imposed for the protection of the public. The only condition that has to be satisfied by an applicant is more obviously related to guaranteeing payment than protection of the public.[40] Nor is there a discretion to refuse a licence or impose conditions on grounds related to the manner or place of conducting a petroleum products business.[41]Petroleum products have certain characteristics which invite regulatory control. The use of petroleum products has certain negative externalities such as pollution and traffic congestion and even the infrastructure provided for most petroleum users.[42] In order to control the increase in these negative characteristics of petroleum consumption, it may be appropriate to control the sale and distribution of petroleum products.[43] However, the issue of licences is not a traditionally accepted method of regulating the sale and consumption of petroleum products in the interests of the public.[44]The size of the fee exacted under section 47N (approximately 8% of the retail price of petrol) clearly exceeds the cost of implementing any scheme envisaged by the Act. In Capital Duplicators [No.2], the majority considered that, especially in relation to petrol, where the magnitude of the fee is such as to deny a regulatory character to the law which imposes it, the validity of the fee would require closer attention.[45]From even a brief analysis of The Scheme, it can be seen that it is principally for revenue raising, not regulation and therefore the fee imposed is likely to be a "duty of excise". Is the Proximity of the Prior Period, the Length of the Licence and the Existence of any Exemptions such that there is a Strong Relationship between the Fee and the Goods Sold? In Philip Morris, Brennan J stated that when the proximity of the two periods is such that the transactions of the prior period are referred to merely to provide a reliable forecast of the transactions that will occur during the currency of the licence[46]then the licence fee is more likely to be declared an excise. This is partly based on Stephen J's observation in Dickenson's Arcade[47] that the "very act of measuring the amount of tax by reference to the number, weight, volume or value of the goods dealt in will usually be explicable only as disclosing that what is being taxed is the taxpayer's dealing with those goods"[48].The duration of the licence currently stands at one month: section 47M. The usual period for licences for engaging in any business, sporting or social activities is a year.[49] The shorter the licence period and the more proximate the prior period, the more reliable the forecast is when a back-dating device is used such as in The Scheme. The terms of the legislation operate to ensure that the fee is paid once only, from which an inference might be drawn that "its purpose is to ensure that in the ordinary course of distribution, petroleum products will be taxed but once before they reach the consumer".[50]At this stage in the analysis, general principle leads to the conclusion that The Scheme imposes a duty of excise and is therefore unconstitutional. Degree of Similarity to the "Franchise Cases" Due to State government reliance on past decisions of the High Court and in the interests of certainty in federal fiscal arrangements in an area which is historically devoid of judicial consensus, the High Court has had to fashion any later principles around three decisions: Dennis Hotels, Dickenson's Arcade and H C Sleigh[51]. These cases are good authority for their results in similar circumstances only[52] and are not to be taken as authority for a "rigid dichotomy between licence fees and excise duties".[53]The Scheme is based on the volume of petroleum products wholesaled in a one month period beginning two months prior to the month in which the licence commences. This is exactly the situation which was declared to be an excise in Capital Duplicators [No.2]. The only difference between that case and the present situation is that we are here concerned with petroleum products, and H C Sleigh is a decision which ruled that a licence fee on petrol can be valid. In H C Sleigh there was a three month licence period. The prior reference period was twelve months and finished approximately three months[54] before the licence period started. The decision represents the smallest allowed periods.[55]For the above reasons The Scheme is not sufficiently similar to any of the franchise cases to warrant a different conclusion on its constitutionality than that reached through general principle earlier. Thus in the light of this, the next section will explore several recommendations that will avoid The Scheme being struck down and the resultant damage caused.[56] PART FOUR : RECOMMENDATION It is submitted that a wide interpretation of section 90 is unjustified and superfluous. First, section 90 reserves limited power for economic control.[57] States have the ability to impede Commonwealth policies through other legislative measures which can discourage or encourage economic manufacture.[58] Second, it narrows the State tax base thereby effecting their ability to function independently.[59] This forces them to impose taxes which are regressive, inefficient and complex in an attempt to avoid having the taxes struck down. A change in the current position of the law is necessary to avoid the Scheme being struck down and to provide general certainty in the law. If constitutional validity were undoubted, existing vertical imbalance[60] could be minimised and a single administratively efficient sales tax could be imposed.[61] Such taxes could be easily monitored by the Commonwealth, increasing its capacity to control the economy. A strong prima facie case for giving the States power to levy excise duties exists. Such a power could be granted in the following ways: 1. Judicial Interpretation: Return to Peterswald Merely waiting for a return to the Peterswald definition would be an unsatisfactory solution. Up to now judicial interpretation has not been a suitable avenue for improvement. If left to the judiciary, a real possibility exists for further complication and uncertainty to arise, not to mention the time wasted waiting for a particular factual circumstance to be brought forward.[62] 2. Legislative Drafting Creative State legislative drafting techniques are not viable means to enable States to levy excise duties.[63] A false sense of constitutional security could result by extending the one month licence period involved to 12 months and introducing a regulatory element. Greater inefficiency, inequity and costly complex tax structures would eventuate from attempting to negotiate dubious loopholes in the array of current High Court decisions. 3. Constitutional Amendment The only real solution is to "cut the Gordian knot" [64] and amend the Constitution. The possible omission of "and of excise" from section 90 was suggested in The Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution (1929) [65] and in The Fiscal Powers Sub-Committee Report to the Australian Constitutional Convention (1985),[66] later to be one of the Convention's recommendations. These proposals were in vain. Even the more general interchange of a powers proposal which permitted the Commonwealth "to designate any of its exclusive powers as matters about which a State could make laws" failed to pass the electors in 1984.[67] In 1988 the Constitutional Commission again submitted these recommendations. Alternatively, it recommended that the States be permitted to levy excise taxes as approved by a resolution of both Houses of Federal Parliament.[68] It is yet to be seen whether any will be implemented.[69]The uncertainty surrounding the Commonwealth's ability to sufficiently and effectively control State taxes has been the major determinant inhibiting an amendment of section 90. Gibbs CJ and Murphy J suggest in Hematite[70] that if a State tax is found to be burdensome on federal activity, then the exercise of heads of Commonwealth power (such as for example section 51(ii) and (iii)) would attract section 109, thereby invalidating the State taxation laws due to inconsistency.[71] Mason and Murphy JJ concluded that a law enacted under section 51(ii) providing that no excise duties be payable on specific goods would prevail over any inconsistent State law because of section 109.[72] Hence the presence of section 109 may well render unnecessary a reference to duties of excise in section 90. However, a number of factors detract from the strength of this argument. Firstly, the power of the Commonwealth to legislate under section 51(ii) and (iii) is subject to the qualification that the law must not discriminate between States or parts of States.[73] Secondly, it cannot infringe the limitations on federal legislative power implied by the nature of the Constitution.[74] Thirdly, practical and political constraints on the Commonwealth's ability to enact legislation rendering State law inoperative do exist.[75]Therefore, although the High Court has pointed to the ability of the Commonwealth to legislate so as to control State taxing power in the absence of the "duties of excise" prohibition, it might not in fact allow it.[76] Nevertheless the argument proposed is a possibility and adds another dimension to the debate until resolved. In any case the Commonwealth has sufficient constitutional power in relation to different types of taxes and sufficient political and economic power to deal with any difficulties that might arise.[77] Therefore, section 109's applicability to section 51(ii) and (iii) can be put to one side.Interim ReliefIt is submitted that the alternative recommendation that States be permitted to impose excise duties subject to approval of both Houses of Federal Parliament is the best short term solution. The Commonwealth would be in a position to control what excises the State could levy ensuring certainty and flexibility is provided while being able to test the waters until the more suitable solution of a section 90 amendment is implemented. BIBLIOGRAPHY CALEO, C., "Section 90 and Excise Duties: A Crisis of Interpretation" (1987) 16 MULR 296 [Travels through s.90's history highlighting the judicial approaches to definition, purpose, history and precedent which has shaped interpretation of s.90. Hematite Petroleum and Gosford Meats are examined in greater depth.] CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION (1988) [Recommendations are forwarded with justifications. Very helpful in providing an understanding of what the state of the law is currently and where the law should be heading. Incorporates: The Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution (1929) and The Fiscal Powers Sub-Committee Report to the Australian Constitutional Convention (1985).] DIXON, N., "Section 90 - Ninety Years On" (1993) 21 Fed Law Review 228 [A more recent article which concentrates on the High Court decision in Phillip Morris.] HANKS, P., Australian Constitutional Law, Materials and Commentary (5th ed), Butterworths, Sydney, 1994 [Provides a money saving collection of extracts of the relevant cases in the High Court's history of interpretation of s.90. Also contains a critical analysis of most of the major judgements.] HANKS, P., "Section 90 of the Commonwealth Constitution: Fiscal Federalism or Economic Unity" 10 (3) September 1986 Adelaide Law Review 365 [Article is based on economic arguments of the purpose of s.90 enunciated by the proponents of both the wide and the narrow views of purpose. Useful to see the various views on the constitutional purpose behind s.90.] OPESKIN, B., "Section 90 of the Constitution and the Problem of Precedent" (1986-1987) 16 Fed Law Review 170 [Similar to the Caleo article. Specialises and emphasises the issue of following precedent.] TAX POLICY ELECTIVE, 1993 Review of Western Australian State Taxes "The Necessity of Amending Section 90 of the Constitution" 57(11) November 1983 Australian Law Journal 599 (under Current Topics) [Short extracts discussing the necessity for an immediate amendment to s.90. It does not go into any depth, but may be used for a superficial grasp of the issues involved.] Notes: [1] The range is limited by whether the scheme imposes "tax" as such, and how wide one construes the generic term "petrol". Some possibilities (ie. legislative schemes) include: 1. Transport Coordination Act 1966, Part IIIA (ss.47K - 47N). 2. Liquid Petroleum Gas Act 1956, Part IV s.2(3). 3. Petroleum Act 1967, Division 7 and s.153. 4. Petroleum Pipelines Act 1969, ss.8 (1)(j). 5. Petroleum (Registration fees) Act 1967, ss.4 & 5. 6. Petroleum Retailers Rights and Liabilities Act 1982, s.6. 7. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1982. 8. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Registration Fees Act 1982. 9. South Fremantle Oil Installations Pipeline Act 1948. [2] See text accompanying infra note 16. [3] See section 47G for definitions of terms in Part IIIA. [4] Section 47K. [5] Section 47L, subs.(1) & (2). [6] Section 47L (3). [7] Section 47M. [8] Section 47N. [9] Defined in section 47G as motor spirits or diesel. [10] Also defined in section 47G. [11] Motor spirit is "msp", diesel is "d", and cents per litre is "c/L"; information extractable from relevant regulations, and on revenue, has been provided by the Department of Transport WA. N.B. 1993-94 "official revenue estimate is lower, namely $127.078M. See WA 1993-94 Consolidated Fund Estimates for the Year Ending 30 June, 1994, p.8. [12] A minimum of 3 months and a maximum of 15 months prior to the beginning of the licence period. [13] See note 11. [14] Made under section 47X. [15] Cf. first year, where there is no regulation determining the reference period. [16] E.g. For a licence commencing in May 1994, and ending 31 May 1994, reference will be made to the volume wholesaled by the applicant during March 1994. [17] "Revenue" means total taxes and licences. Thus, inter alia, Commonwealth grants "revenue" is excluded. [18] See WA 1993-94 Consolidated Revenue Fund Estimates, supra note 11. [19] April 1994, RAC Road Patrol, RAC of WA Inc, p.52. N.B. Federal Government Product Tax of 30.8 c/L and Federal Government Resource Rent Tax of 3.2 c/L. [20] Section 47W provides for payment of the fees into the Mains Roads Trust Fund. [21] Department of Transport WA. [22] (1989) 63 ALJR 520 at 525. [23] Harper v Minister for Sea Fisheries (1989) 63 ALJR 687. [24] (1993) 118 ALR 1, Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, McHugh JJ. [25] Capital Duplicators v ACT [No.2] (1993) 118 ALR 1 at 8. [26] (1904) 1 CLR 497. [27] Peterswald v Bartley (1904) 1 CLR 497 at 509. [28] (1938) 60 CLR 263. [29] (1963) 110 CLR 264. [30] Bolton v Madsen (1963) 110 CLR 264 at 271. [31] See in particular Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania (1974) 130 CLR 177. [32] (1960) 104 CLR 529. [33] Mason and Deane JJ in Gosford Meats Pty Ltd v New South Wales (1985) 155 CLR 368 at 384, basing it on Barwick CJ's views in Anderson's Pty Ltd v Victoria (1964) 111 CLR 353 at 365. [34] (1964) 111 CLR at 365. [35] Dahl, C. and Sterner, T. "Analysing Gasoline Demand Elasticities: A Survey" in (1991) 13 Energy Economics 203. -0.26 in the short run, -0.86 in the long run. [36] Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (1938) 60 CLR 263 at 300, taken from A-G for Manitoba v A-G for Canada [1925] AC 561 at 566. [37] Philip Morris Ltd v Commissioner of Business Franchises (1989) 63 ALJR 520 at 535-539 (Brennan J). [38] Dennis Hotels Pty Ltd v Victoria (1960) 104 CLR 529 at 576. [39] Philip Morris Ltd v Commissioner of Business Franchises (1989) 63 ALJR 520 at 550 (Toohey & Gaudron JJ). [40] Capital Duplicators v ACT [No.2] (1993) 118 ALR 1 at 17 (Majority). See s.47I Investigation, s.47R Accounts to be kept, s.47S Power to require information, s.47Q Transfers (Minister SHALL transfer upon receipt of money). [41] Philip Morris Ltd v Commissioner of Business Franchises (1989) 63 ALJR 520 at 540 (Brennan J). [42] Tax Policy Elective, 1993 Review of Western Australian State Taxes, at p.95. [43] Philip Morris Ltd v Commissioner of Business Franchises (1989) 63 ALJR 520 at 531 (Mason CJ & Deane J) [44] Supra note 42. [45] Capital Duplicators v ACT [No.2] (1993) 118 ALR 1 at 14 (Majority). [46] Philip Morris Ltd v Commissioner of Business Franchises (1989) 63 ALJR 520 at 538. [47] (1974) 130 CLR 177. [48] Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania (1974) 130 CLR 177 at 235. [49] Philip Morris Ltd v Commissioner of Business Franchises (1989) 63 ALJR 520 at 550 (Brennan J), 554 (McHugh J). [50] Philip Morris Ltd v Commissioner of Business Franchises (1989) 63 ALJR 520 at 554 (McHugh J). [51] HC Sleigh Ltd v South Australia (1977) 136 CLR 475; 12 ALR 449. [52] Evda Nominees Pty Ltd v Victoria (1983) 151 CLR 599; Philip Morris. [53] Philip Morris Ltd v Commissioner of Business Franchises (1989) 63 ALJR 520 at 530 (Mason CJ & Deane J). [54] 30 June 1975 to 24 September 1975. [55] Cf Dennis Hotels - 12 month prior reference period ending a maximum of 12 months before a 12 months licence; Dickenson's Arcade - 12 months prior reference period ending 6 months before a 12 months licence. [56] The possible consequences were discussed in Capital Duplicators v ACT [No. 2] (1993) 118 ALR 1 at 14, per Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, and McHugh JJ, citing Evda Nominees Pty Ltd v Victoria (1984) 154 CLR 311 [52 ALR 401], and Philip Morris (1989) 167 CLR, at 438, 443, 489-90. [57] Caleo, C . "Section 90 and Excise Duties : A Crisis of Interpretation" (1987) 16 MULR 296, at 309. [58] Constitutional Commission (1988) at 828. [59] Constitutional Commission (1988), at 822. [60] See chapter 9 of this publication. [61] Constitutional Commission (1988), at 824 [62] Such a fact situation might arise in an imminent challenge to the validity of the Business Franchise Licences (Petroleum Products) Act 1987 (NSW). Arafura Transport Pty Ltd v NSW is currently filed with the High Court. However, with no dates have been set for argument. [63] Legislation might be drafted in exact conformity with that in H C Sleigh. However, even if the approach of the majority in Capital Duplicators [No. 2] is accepted, there is doubt as to the validity of such legislation. See Capital Duplicators v ACT [No. 2] (1993) 118 ALR 1 at 13-15. [64] "The Necessity of Amending Section 90 of the Constitution" Australian Law Journal 57 (11) November 1983 : 599, at 600. [65] The Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution (1929) at 260. i.e recommending a return to the original 1891 draft bill. [66] The Fiscal Powers Sub-Committee Report to the Australian Constitutional Convention (1985), at 202. [67] Constitutional Commission (1988), at 757. [68] This is to be achieved by an alteration to s.91 of the Constitution. See Constitutional Commission (1988), at 829. [69] It is not necessary to labour the barriers that make constitutional amendment an arduous task in Australia. [70] Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd v Victoria (1983) 151 CLR 599 at 649, 666. Deane J was similarly conclusive. [71] Opeskin, B. "Section 90 of the Constitution and the Problem of Precedent" Fed Law Review (16) 1986-1987: 170, at 177. [72] Hematite Petroleum Pty Ltd v Victoria (1983) 151 CLR 599 at 649. [73] Opeskin, B. "Section 90 of the Constitution and the Problem of Precedent" Fed Law Review (16) 1986-1987: 170, at 177. A law discriminates or gives preference to a State(s) when it provides a different rule for different parts of Australia. On the other hand, if the law contains a uniform rule whose effect or operation differ throughout Australia it is not discriminatory. See James v Commonwealth (1928) 41 CLR 442 and Elliot v Commonwealth (1935) 54 CLR 657. An example would be if the Commonwealth imposed an excise duty on the production of widgets in all States except W.A. This would give Western Australia a tangible commercial advantage and would be classified as a law which gives preference to Western Australia or discriminates against the remaining States. [74] Opeskin, B. "Section 90 of the Constitution and the Problem of Precedent" Fed Law Review (16) 1986-1987: 170, at 177. See also Melbourne Corporation v The Commonwealth (1947) 74 CLR 31; Queensland Electricity Commission v The Commonwealth (1985) 61 ALR 1. [75] Opeskin, B. supra note 65 at 177. [76] South Australia v The Commonwealth (1942) 65 CLR 373, at 416 per Latham CJ; Victoria v Commonwealth (1957) 99 CLR 575,at 614 per Dixon CJ and at 657 per Fullagar J. [77] Constitutional Commission (1988) at 827. The Commonwealth has sufficient federal financial controls and influence such as with respect to State borrowing, budgets, banking, overseas trade and financial transactions which ensure that State revenue laws will not impede Commonwealth policy.