previous
next

§ 255. “Shall be of No Effect.”

The next important point discussed was whether a law violating the rule forbidding the combination of taxation with any other matter, or the rule forbidding a tax Act to contain more than one subject of taxation, should be void in toto, or should be void only to the extent of the irrevelancy, or to the extent of the additional subjects. Mr. G. H. Reid moved that the prohibition should not invalidate any part of the law which did not infringe the provisions of the Constitution, and that if any law imposing taxation contained more than one subject of taxation, the tax first in order of enactment should be taken to be properly passed. (Conv. Deb., Melb., p. 2089.) This amendment was negatived by 27 to 15 votes. The feeling, however, prevailed in the Convention that some provision should be made in the Constitution, to the effect that only the parts of the Act in which the forbidden matter existed should be invalid. At a later stage Mr. Reid moved the insertion of the words “and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.” This amendment was accepted without a division. (Conv. Deb., Melb., 2415.)

previous
next