Attorney-General (Vic) ex rel Dale v Commonwealth

Last updated

Attorney-General (Vic); ex rel Dale v Commonwealth
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case name Attorney-General for Victoria (at the Relation of John Dale, Peter McCallum and Roy Fallowes Watson) v Commonwealth
Decided19 November 1945
Citation(s) [1945] HCA 30, (1945) 71 CLR 237
Case history
Subsequent action(s) British Medical Association v Commonwealth [1949] HCA 44, (1949) 79 CLR 201
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Latham CJ, Rich, Starke, Dixon, McTiernan & Williams   JJ.
Case opinions
4:1 the "Pharmaceutical Benefits Act 1944" was invalid
McTiernan J dissenting

Attorney-General (Vic); Ex rel Dale v Commonwealth, [1] commonly known as the "First Pharmaceutical Benefits case", [2] was a High Court of Australia decision. The case dealt with limits of the powers of the Australian Federal Government under section 81 of the Constitution of Australia, [3] to take and spend money by legislation, in this case to fund reduced prices for prescription medicines. [4] [5]

Contents

Background

In 1944, the Labor Federal Government of Prime Minister Ben Chifley bill for the "Pharmaceutical Benefits Act 1944" received Royal Assent. [6] [7] The law was immediately challenged by the Attorney-General for Victoria on behalf of three Victorian medical doctors, Dale, McCallum and Watson, who were the president, vice-president and secretary of the Victorian Medical Association. [8] Doctors opposed the scheme because they saw it as the start of a plan to nationalise healthcare. [4] [9]

Decision

Standing

The first matter to be decided was whether a State Attorney General had "standing" to intercede in a Commonwealth Government matter. All of the judges held that the Attorney-General has standing to argue that an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament was invalid under the constitution, following a line of authority commencing with the Union Label case. [10] Justice Dixon reformulated the test, holding that:

It is the traditional duty of the Attorney-General to protect public rights and to complain of excesses of a power bestowed by law and in our Federal system the result has been to give the Attorney-General of a State a locus standi to sue for a declaration wherever his public is or may be affected by what he says is an ultra vires act on the part of the Commonwealth or of another State. [11]

Appropriations power

On the substantial matter of the constitutionality of "Pharmaceutical Benefits Act 1944", [6] the issue was whether the appropriations power, [3] was a free standing power to spend any money raised by the Australian government, or whether the power was limited to matters on which the Australian parliament could pass legislation, particularly section 51 of the constitution. [12] The majority of the court took a restrictive view of the appropriations power, holding that the Act was beyond the scope of the powers granted to the Federal Government in section 81 of the Constitution. The court was however divided as to the nature of that restriction, with each judge giving the own judgment and there was no clear reason for the decision. Latham CJ took a broad view of the appropriations power, however he characterised the law as one controlling doctors, chemists and the sale of drugs and only incidentally for the appropriation of money. Justices Starke and Williams held that expenditure had to be supported by another head of legislative power. Justice Dixon rejected both the narrow and wide view of the appropriations power, holding that each question had to be determined according to "the distribution of powers and functions between the Commonwealth and the States", but deciding, similarly to Latham CJ, that the "Pharmaceutical Benefits Act 1944" was primarily for dispensing free medicine and appropriation of money was only incidental. Rich J agreed with Dixon J. Justice McTiernan dissented, taking a wide view of the appropriations power, holding that "The Constitution puts the power of the purse in the hands of Parliament, not in the hands of the Courts." [4] [5]

Aftermath

1946 Referendum

The decision prompted the 1946 referendum to amend the Constitution to give the Australian Parliament the power to make laws with respect to:

s51(xxiiiA.) The provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances:

The referendum was passed, being approved by 54.39% of voters and obtained a majority in all six States. [13]

Second Pharmaceutical Benefits case

After the success of the referendum, the Australian Parliament passed the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act 1947, [14] relying on the new head of power. The majority of the high Court held that the Act was invalid as authorising a form of civil conscription. [15] The construction of section 81 of the constitution was settled on the narrow view, that expenditure had to be supported by another head of legislative power. [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Australia</span> Highest court in Australia

The High Court of Australia is Australia's apex court. It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified in the Constitution of Australia and supplementary legislation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australia Act 1986</span> Legislation by the UK and Australian Parliaments

The Australia Act 1986 is the short title of each of a pair of separate but related pieces of legislation: one an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, the other an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In Australia they are referred to, respectively, as the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK). These nearly identical Acts were passed by the two parliaments, because of uncertainty as to whether the Commonwealth Parliament alone had the ultimate authority to do so. They were enacted using legislative powers conferred by enabling Acts passed by the parliaments of every Australian state. The Acts came into effect simultaneously, on 3 March 1986.

Sir Harry Talbot Gibbs was Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia from 1981 to 1987 after serving as a member of the High Court between 1970 and 1981. He was known as one of Australia's leading federalist judges although he presided over the High Court when decisions such as Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen in 1982 and Commonwealth v Tasmania expanded the powers of the Commonwealth at the expense of the states. Gibbs dissented from the majority verdict in both cases. On 3 August 2012, the Supreme Court of Queensland Library opened the Sir Harry Gibbs Legal Heritage Centre. It is the only legal heritage museum of its kind in Queensland and features a permanent exhibition dedicated to the life and legacy of Sir Harry Gibbs.

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Legal cases regarding Australian constitutional law are often handled by the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian judicial system. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals)</span> 1967 constitutional referendum on the legal status of Indigenous Australians

The second question of the 1967 Australian referendum of 27 May 1967, called by the Holt government, related to Indigenous Australians. Voters were asked whether to give the Commonwealth Parliament the power to make special laws for Indigenous Australians in states, and whether Indigenous Australians should be included in official population counts for constitutional purposes. The term "the Aboriginal Race" was used in the question.

The 1913 Australian referendum was held on 31 May 1913. It contained six referendum questions and was held in conjunction with the 1913 federal election.

The Constitution Alteration Bill 1946, was a successful proposal to alter the Australian Constitution to give the Commonwealth power over a range of social services. The question was put to a referendum in the 1946 Australian referendum with two other (unrelated) questions. It was carried and inserted into section 51 of the Australian Constitution.

Section 51(i) of the Australian Constitution enables the Parliament of Australia to make laws about:

Section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution of Australia, commonly called "the race power", is the subsection of Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia granting the Australian Commonwealth the power to make special laws for people of any race.

The reserved powers doctrine was a principle used by the inaugural High Court of Australia in the interpretation of the Constitution of Australia, that emphasised the context of the Constitution, drawing on principles of federalism, what the Court saw as the compact between the newly formed Commonwealth and the former colonies, particularly the compromises that informed the text of the constitution. The doctrine involved a restrictive approach to the interpretation of the specific powers of the Federal Parliament to preserve the powers that were intended to be left to the States. The doctrine was challenged by the new appointments to the Court in 1906 and was ultimately abandoned by the High Court in 1920 in the Engineers' Case, replaced by an approach to interpretation that emphasised the text rather than the context of the Constitution.

Section 51(xxxi) is a subclause of section 51 of the Constitution of Australia. It empowers the Commonwealth to make laws regarding the acquisition of property, but stipulates that such acquisitions must be on just (fair) terms. The terms is sometimes referred to in shorthand as the 'just terms' provision.

The constitutional basis of taxation in Australia is predominantly found in sections 51(ii), 90, 53, 55, and 96, of the Constitution of Australia. Their interpretation by the High Court of Australia has been integral to the functioning and evolution of federalism in Australia.

In Australian constitutional law, chapter III courts are courts of law which are a part of the Australian federal judiciary and thus are able to discharge Commonwealth judicial power. They are so named because the prescribed features of these courts are contained in chapter III of the Australian Constitution.

Section 51(vi) of the Australian Constitution, commonly called the defence power, is a subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution that gives the Commonwealth Parliament the right to legislate with respect to the defence of Australia and the control of the defence forces. The High Court has adopted a different approach to the interpretation of the defence power, which emphasises the purpose of the legislation, primarily the defence of Australia, rather than the subject matter.

<i>Victoria v Commonwealth</i> (1957)

Victoria v Commonwealth, is a High Court of Australia case that affirmed the Commonwealth government's ability to impose a scheme of uniform income tax, adding to Australia's vertical fiscal imbalance in the spending requirements and taxing abilities of the various levels of government.

<i>Combet v Commonwealth</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Combet v Commonwealth, was an Australian court case commenced in the original jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia by Greg Combet, then the secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and Nicola Roxon. The plaintiffs challenged the Australian Government's use of public funds to advertise the new Work Choices legislation. The High Court found that the expenditure was authorised by the Appropriation Act 2005–2006.

<i>Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd</i> (No 2) Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd , was a decision of the High Court of Australia on 17 April 1985 concerning section 74 of the Constitution of Australia. The Court denied an application by the Attorney-General of Queensland seeking a certificate that would permit the Privy Council to hear an appeal from the High Court's decision in Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd .

<i>Pape v Commissioner of Taxation</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Pape v Commissioner of Taxation is an Australian court case concerning the constitutional validity of the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act 2009 (Cth) which sought to give one-off payments of up to $900 to Australian taxpayers. The decision of the High Court of Australia was announced on 3 April 2009, with its full reasons released on 7 July 2009.

<i>Roche v Kronheimer</i>

Roche v Kronheimer is an early case in which the High Court considered the defence power and external affairs power of the Commonwealth under the Australian Constitution and the Parliament's power to delegate certain legislative powers to the Executive. The Court concluded that Federal Parliament had the power to implement the Treaty of Versailles under the defence power and to delegate that implementation to the Governor-General. Higgins J also saw it as a valid exercise of the external affair power.

<i>Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Australian Boot Trade Employees Federation v Whybrow & Co, commonly known as Whybrow's case or the Boot Trades case, was the third of a series of decisions of the High Court of Australia in 1910 concerning the boot manufacturing industry and the role of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in preventing and settling industrial disputes. In doing so the High Court considered the constitutional power of the Federal Parliament to provide for common rule awards and the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant prohibition against the Arbitration Court. The majority held in Whybrow that the Arbitration Court could not make an award that was inconsistent with a State law, but that different minimum wages were not inconsistent as it was possible to obey both laws. In Whybrow the High Court established the doctrine of ambit, with the emphasis on the precise claim made and refused, and the practice with respect to "paper disputes" being treated "prima facie as genuine and real", with the majority holding that the High Court had power to order prohibition to correct jurisdictional error as part of its original jurisdiction. Finally in Whybrow the High Court unanimously held that the Federal Parliament had no constitutional power to provide for common rule awards.

References

  1. ↑ Attorney-General (Vic); Ex rel Dale v Commonwealth [1945] HCA 30 , (1945) 71 CLR 237.
  2. ↑ Carrol; Stellios (19 October 2009). "Pape and government spending – no cause for alarm". Clayton Utz . Retrieved 15 April 2010.
  3. 1 2 Constitution (Cth) s 81 Consolidated Revenue Fund.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Galligan, Brian (1987). Politics of the High Court (PDF). University of Queensland Press. pp. 150–154. Retrieved 15 April 2010.
  5. 1 2 Lawson, Charles (2008). "Re-Invigorating the Accountability and Transparency of the Australian Government's Expenditure". (2008) 32 MelbULawRw 879.
  6. 1 2 Pharmaceutical Benefits Act 1944 (Cth).
  7. ↑ "The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme – an Overview". Parliament of Australia. 2 January 2003. Archived from the original on 7 September 2016.
  8. ↑ The latin abbreviation "ex rel" in the title means "at the relation of" and indicates the Attorney General was bringing the proceedings on behalf of the doctors.
  9. ↑ Goddard, M (2014). "How the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme began" (PDF). Med J Aust. 201 (1): S23-5. doi: 10.5694/mja14.00124 . PMID   25047771.
  10. ↑ Attorney-General (NSW) v Brewery Employees Union of NSW (Union Label case) [1908] HCA 94 , (1908) 6 CLR 469.
  11. ↑ Attorney-General (Vic); Ex rel Dale v Commonwealth [1945] HCA 30 , (1945) 71 CLR 237 at p. 272 per Dixon J.
  12. ↑ Constitution (Cth) s 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament.
  13. ↑ Handbook of the 44th Parliament (2014) "Part 5 – Referendums and Plebiscites – Referendum results". Parliamentary Library of Australia..
  14. ↑ Pharmaceutical Benefits Act 1947 (Cth).
  15. ↑ British Medical Association v Commonwealth (Second Pharmaceutical Benefits case) [1949] HCA 44 , (1949) 79 CLR 201.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.