This Act has been repealed and is no longer in force. It is retained for historical reference.
Jurisdiction
Commonwealth
Act Number
22 of 1929
Collection
act
Plain English Summary
2/10 complexity
What this Act does
The Act says that certain excise duties (taxes on goods) that were demanded or collected under a set of tariff proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on 22 August 1929 are to be treated as having been lawfully imposed and lawfully demanded or collected (s 2–3).
The validation covers collections made before the dissolution or expiry of the then-current House, and collections made at or after that dissolution or expiry, up to and including 20 December 1929 (s 3).
Who this affects
People and businesses that paid those duties between the dates specified: the Act treats their payments as having been lawfully required (s 3).
The collecting authority (the Commonwealth) and any officials who demanded or collected those duties: the Act removes a legal defect by declaring those past demands/collections lawful (s 3).
Parties who might otherwise have challenged the validity of those specific collections in court: the Act limits that avenue by deeming the collections lawful (s 3).
How it works mechanically
The Act defines "Tariff proposals" narrowly as the proposed duties introduced on 22 August 1929 (s 2).
It then applies a legal-deeming rule that retroactively validates demands or collections of excise made pursuant to those proposals in the specified time window (s 3). The short title is provided at s 1.
Sourced from the Federal Register of Legislation (legislation.gov.au), CC BY 4.0.
The statutory text implements a forward legal effect: collections in the specified period are to be treated as lawful (s 3). The explicit purpose in the text is validation of those collections.
Practical consequences borne by private parties: those who paid the excise in the covered period have their payments treated as legally required; the text does not provide for refunds or dispute-resolution mechanisms, so any prospect of reversing those payments is constrained by the deeming in s 3.
Incentives and trade-offs: by removing a legal defect retrospectively, the Act reduces legal uncertainty about the status of specific past collections (s 3). The trade-off is that it forecloses or narrows retroactive challenges to those collections, shifting the cost of any legal error onto payers rather than the Commonwealth (s 3).
Compliance burden and implementation risk: there is no new ongoing compliance action required by the Act; its operative effect is retrospective and statutory rather than administrative (s 3). The Government’s discretion to treat those earlier demands as lawful is replaced by the statutory deeming in s 3.
Market and private-enterprise effects (source-grounded)
The Act does not change future excise arrangements; it confirms the legal status of specified past collections only (s 3).
Because the validation is retrospective and limited to a specific set of proposals and dates, any effect on competition, prices, contracts, ownership or ongoing business decisions is indirect and limited to how businesses account for or absorb costs already incurred under those collections (s 3).
Key sections cited
Short title: s 1.
Definition of the term validated: s 2.
Retrospective validation rule (operative effect): s 3.