Tasmania v Victoria

The State of Tasmania and its Attorney-General brought an action in the High Court against the State of Victoria and its Minister for Agriculture. The dispute concerned a proclamation issued by the Victorian Governor in Council, which prohibited the importation of potatoes from Tasmania into Victoria. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that this proclamation was invalid.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Victorian Vegetation and Vine Diseases Act 1928, and specifically section 4 thereof, were validly enacted by the Victorian Parliament, and whether the proclamation prohibiting the importation of Tasmanian potatoes was authorised by that Act. Furthermore, the Court had to determine if the prohibition, even if authorised by the Act, contravened section 92 of the Commonwealth Constitution, which guarantees freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States. The Court also considered whether the proclamation constituted an "inspection law" within the meaning of section 112 of the Constitution.

A majority of the High Court (Gavan Duffy C.J., Evatt and McTiernan JJ.) held that the proclamation was invalid because it exceeded the powers granted by section 4 of the Vegetation and Vine Diseases Act. They reasoned that the Act authorised the prohibition of specific plants or vegetables likely to introduce disease, but not a prohibition based solely on the place of origin, such as "potatoes from Tasmania." The Court further found that the proclamation, by imposing an indefinite and absolute prohibition on the importation of Tasmanian potatoes regardless of their disease status, directly infringed section 92 of the Constitution. They distinguished the case from *Ex parte Nelson* [No. 1] on the basis that the latter involved conditional restrictions rather than an absolute prohibition. Rich J. also found that the proclamation violated section 92, holding that the prohibition was a direct and immediate restriction on inter-State trade. Starke J. found the Act itself to be valid but the proclamation invalid as it was not authorised by the Act.

The Court also addressed the standing of the plaintiffs, with a majority finding that the Attorney-General of a State is entitled to seek relief in the High Court when another State's actions prevent its citizens from marketing their goods in that other State, particularly when a constitutional question under section 92 is involved. The defendants' demurrer to the statement of claim was overruled. The Court also noted that a decision given on an equal division of opinion in the High Court is not binding on the Court in subsequent cases.