RESTRAINT OF TRADE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18079, 4 May 1933, Page 7

RESTRAINT OF TRADE

ILLEGAL COMPULSORY POOLS MELBOURNE, April 2(1. The High Court judgment against tlio Queensland Peanut Board may profoundly affect coercive marketing legislation in all Stakes. This decision, following closely upon the Privy Council judgment adverse to the South Australian Dried Fruits Board, masses in full weight the highrat judicial opinion against laws and systems, which violate the Constitution and invade the rights of individual citizens.

The Peanut Board case arose out of a refusal by tire Rockhampton Harbor Trust to surrender on demand a consignment of peanuts. Mr. Justice Webb, of the Queensland Supreme Court, held that the board’s operations offended section 92 of the Constitution, which ordains absolute freedom of intor-State trade. When the board appealed to the High Court other States having similar marketing legislation intervened, and the proceedings assumed the importance of a tost case. Litigation may yet be carried further, although the very recent decision of the Privy Council on virtually identical issues indicates the probable result. For the prcscivt the position is sufficiently clear. Stiuto Marketing Boards depending upon powers of compulsory acquisition of producers’ goods impose restraint upon trade within the Commonwealth, and consequently operate in contravention of the Constitution.