Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-30T03:50:24.357Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State of Victoria v. The Commonwealth of Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

John Evans
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Notes
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 1977 , pp. 246 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 (1975) 50 A.L.J.R. 157; (1975) 7 A.L.R. 277. High Court of Australia; Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Gibbs, Stephen, Mason, Jacobs and Murphy JJ.

2 First Uniform Tax Case (1942) 65 C.L.R. 373, Second Uniform Tax Case (1957) 99 C.L.R. 575.

3 The scope of s. 81 had never been directly in point. In Attorney-General for Victoria v. The Commonwealth (Pharmaceutical Benefits Case) (1945) 71 C.L.R. 237, s. 81 came to be considered as a means of upholding the validity of the Act setting up a pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Although the claim was rejected the scope of s. 81 did fall for discussion.

4 (1975) 50 A.L.J.R. 157, 159 per Barwick C.J. quoting from Australian Assistance Plan, Discussion Paper No. 1 (1973) 3.

5 The majority were McTiernan, Stephen, Jacobs and Murphy JJ., the minority consisted of Barwick C.J., Gibbs and Mason JJ.

6 (1945) 71 C.L.R. 237.

7 Id. 253, referred to by McTiernan J. in Victoria v.Commonwealth (1975) 50 A.L.J.R. 157, 167.

8 Id. 256 McTiernan J.'s adoption of Latham C.J.'s viewpoint should be contrasted with Gibbs J.'sopinion that the “Commonwealth” was the body politic and not “the people forming a particular community”, (1975) 50 A.L.J.R. 157, 169.

9 Murphy J. also agreed with the views of Latham C.J. in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Case (1945) 71 C.L.R. 237, 254-256, see Victoria v. The Commonwealth (1975) 50 A.L.J.R. 157, 185.

10 Victoria v. The ::ommonwealth (1975) 50 A.L.J.R. 157, 185.

11 Id 177.

12 Ibid.

13 (1945) 71 C.L.R. 237 per Dixon, Rich, Starke and Williams JJ.

14 Victoria v. The Commonwealth (1975) 50 A.L.J.R. 157, 169. Gibbs J. only considered the extent of the national implied power to the point where the welfare scheme under \consideration would not be within such a power.

15 Victoria v. The Commonwealth (1975) 50 A.L.J.R. 157, 164-165.

16 Ibid.

17 Id. 177.

18 Id. 179.

19 /d. 184.

20 Id. 180.

21 Id. 181. The plaintiffs' contention that the description of the particular item of appropriation was not sufficiently specific, was similarly dismissed by Jacobs J.

22 Id. l74.

23 Id. 188.

24 Id. 166.

25 Id. 179.