From the government’s Clean Energy Future scheme Regulatory Impact Statement (emphasis added):
14.5 Monitoring, facilitating and enforcing compliance
Legislation
The mechanism will be implemented through unitary Commonwealth legislation. States and Territories will be informally engaged as part of ongoing cooperation and coordination on climate change policy through the Council of Australian Governments.
That one word – “unitary” – is the key to understanding why the scheme is, by definition of its own draft bills, unconstitutional.
In our previous analysis ( The Carbon Pricing Scheme Is Unconstitutional ), we saw that the government’s package of legislation – the “backbone” of their scheme – contains key bills that are mutually-dependent, and mutually-contradictory (internally inconsistent), with respect to their differing definition/s of what exactly the imposition of a “charge” for a carbon “unit” (permit) actually is, under the Constitution:
The main bill – Clean Energy Act 2011: Exposure draft, Part 4, Division 2, Section 100 – says that the imposition of a charge for carbon permits is not an act of imposing a tax.
Note (a) of that Clean Energy Act 2011, Section 100 references the proposed Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Act 2011, Part 2. Which says that
(1) it is an Act that is “associated with the Clean Energy Act 2011″, and that
(2) the imposition of a charge for carbon permits is an act of imposing “a duty of excise”.But …
Note (b) of that Clean Energy Act 2011, Section 100 references the Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—General) Act 2011 Section 8. Which says that
(1) it is an Act that is “associated with the Clean Energy Act 2011″, and that
(2) the imposition of a charge for carbon permits is an act of imposing a tax, and is not an act of imposing “a duty of excise”.
In order to impose their desired legislation, the burden of proof is on the government to show that their proposed new “charge” is in accordance with section 55 of the Constitution:
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 55
Tax Bill
Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.
Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties of customs or of excise, shall deal with one subject of taxation only; but laws imposing duties of customs shall deal with duties of customs only, and laws imposing duties of excise shall deal with duties of excise only.
By use of the word “unitary”, the government’s Regulatory Impact Statement clearly affirms that the package of legislation necessarily functions as one.
Therefore, given that the bills within that one package are both mutually-dependent, and internally-contradictory, and are so on that very point of definition (what is the charge? a tax? a duty of excise? neither? both?), then the legislation package is clearly unconstitutional.
The only question remaining … who will finance a High Court challenge, if this government will not drop the scheme scam?
Barnaby Is Right 
It doesn’t require a High Court challenge, it would be far cheaper to simply ignore the operation of the law as it applies to you, then let them send the gestapo round, and defend the action that the fascists bring against you. Let them waste the money on bringing legal action and rely on your surviving rights as the defendant in the action.
The leftist Courts aren’t solidly behind the taxman, and this would end up in the Federal Court then the High Court anyway.
Of course more than likely the gillard regime will have fallen before the tax is ever implemented.
Of course, the whole monetary and financial system of the planet might have fallen (not just the ridiculous Gillard Gang) by the time they get around to foisting this “Financial Strip Mining” exercise on the good people of Oz…
Then let them try to bring in the scam….can’t tax it if we ain’t got it…
When is the Government going to stop stuffing the country
It seams the government only uses the constitution when its in their benifit otherwise they & the courts ignore it