Harper v Minister for Sea Fisheries [1989] HCA 47

Harper v Minister for Sea Fisheries [1989] HCA 47

The fee payable under Regulation 17A is not a tax but a charge for the acquisition of a statutory privilege to take abalone, analogous to the price for a profit à prendre—a privilege over a finite public resource created to protect that resource. Accordingly, it does not constitute a duty of excise contrary to s. 90...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Stated Case / High Court Appeal / Stated Case Answer
Outcome
Application dismissed. Regulation 17A valid.
Legal Topics
['duties of Excise' 'licensing' 'taxation' 'natural Resources' 'public Rights']
['constitutional Law' 'fisheries Law' 'environmental Law'] ['duties of Excise' 'licensing' 'taxation' 'natural Resources' 'public Rights']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Stated Case / High Court Appeal / Stated Case Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Regulation 17A of the Sea Fisheries Regulations 1962 (Tas) in its application for 1987, 1988, or 1989 to commercial abalone licences is invalid as imposing a duty of excise contrary to s.90 of the Constitution']

Ratio Decidendi

The fee payable under Regulation 17A is not a tax but a charge for the acquisition of a statutory privilege to take abalone, analogous to the price for a profit à prendre—a privilege over a finite public resource created to protect that resource. Accordingly, it does not constitute a duty of excise contrary to s. 90 of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Regulation 17A valid.

Orders

  • ['The answer to the stated question: No.' "The plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the stated case."]