Barley Marketing Board for the State of New South Wales v Norman

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning the Barley Marketing Board for the State of New South Wales and Pacific Malting Company Pty Limited. The dispute revolved around a scheme implemented by the Board, which the appellant argued contravened section 92 of the Australian Constitution. The core of the disagreement lay in whether the scheme impermissibly burdened or prohibited interstate trade and commerce.

The legal issues before the Court included the definition of "protectionism" in the context of section 92, and whether the principles established in cases such as *Cole v Whitfield* and *Coarse Grains* were applicable and satisfied by the scheme in question. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the scheme's aim of obtaining an economic advantage for a local industry by burdening or prohibiting interstate trade constituted a contravention of section 92, irrespective of whether it also affected intrastate trade.

The appellant argued that protectionism encompasses actions taken to secure an economic advantage for a local industry against competition, and that this can be achieved by burdening or prohibiting interstate trade. They contended that if legislation or executive action seeks to gain a perceived economic advantage for a State by such means, section 92 is contravened. The Court considered whether this definition aligned with existing jurisprudence and whether the specific scheme under review fell foul of these principles, particularly in light of the stated reasons for the scheme, which included addressing interstate sales by some maltsters and depressed world grain prices.