Page:JT International SA v Commonwealth of Australia.pdf/49

Gummow J

The effect of the United States decisions is to accept that the "taking" clause may be engaged without what the decisions in this Court would classify as an "acquisition". However, the greater scope this gives to the Fifth Amendment has been tempered by a doctrine permitting "regulation" which does not amount to a "taking" ; "regulation" will amount to a "taking" if the regulatory actions in question are "functionally equivalent to the classic taking in which government directly appropriates private property or ousts the owner from his domain".

Reference was made in several submissions to the characterisation of the Packaging Act as a law of "trade regulation" as determinative or at least indicative of the placement of the law outside the application of s 51(xxxi). However, to adopt this course would be to provide a false frame of reference. The caution given by Mason J in Trade Practices Commission v Tooth & Co Ltd should be borne in mind. His Honour there said:

"It is one thing to say that a law which is merely regulatory and does not provide for the acquisition of title to property is not a law with respect to acquisition of property."

Remarks by Brennan J in The Commonwealth v Tasmania (The Tasmanian Dam Case) also are relevant here:

"In the United States, where the Fifth Amendment directed that private property should not be 'taken' without just compensation, the Supreme Court construed the provision as one 'designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole': Armstrong v United States . If this Court were to construe s 51(xxxi) so that its limitation applies to laws which regulate or restrict use and enjoyment of proprietary rights but which do not provide for the acquisition of such rights, it would be necessary to identify a touchstone for applying the limitation to some regulatory laws and not to others. The