Higgins, Barry Thomas Patrick v The Commonwealth of Australia [1998] FCA 39

Higgins, Barry Thomas Patrick v The Commonwealth of Australia [1998] FCA 39

Section 634 is a law with respect to the provision of unemployment benefits and is supported by s 51 (xxiiiA). Section 51 (xxiiiA) is not a purposive power, and s 634 is within the core of the power rather than merely its implied incidental aspect. Although s 634 may have an incidental practical effect on interstate movement or on an asserted implied freedom of movement, it does not erect State borders as barriers and is reasonably appropriate and proportionate to the legitimate objects of the Newstart allowance scheme. It therefore does not contravene s 92 or any assumed implied freedom of movement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 February 1998
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge Seeking a Declaration That S 634 of the Social Security Act 1991 (cth) Is Invalid / Final Judgment in the Federal Court After Remittal From the High Court
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['commonwealth Legislative Power' 'unemployment Benefits' 'reasonable Proportionality' 'incidental Power' 'section 92 Interstate Intercourse' 'implied Freedom of Movement' 'newstart Allowance']
['constitutional Law' 'social Security Law'] ['commonwealth Legislative Power' 'unemployment Benefits' 'reasonable Proportionality' 'incidental Power' 'section 92 Interstate Intercourse' 'implied Freedom of Movement' 'newstart Allowance']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge Seeking a Declaration That S 634 of the Social Security Act 1991 (cth) Is Invalid / Final Judgment in the Federal Court After Remittal From the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 634 of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) is supported by s 51 (xxiiiA) of the Constitution as a law with respect to the provision of unemployment benefits.' 'Whether s 51 (xxiiiA) is a purposive power attracting a requirement of reasonable proportionality.' 'Whether s 634 falls only within the implied incidental aspect of s 51 (xxiiiA) and fails a proportionality requirement.' 'Whether s 634 impermissibly burdens the freedom of interstate intercourse guaranteed by s 92 of the Constitution.' 'Whether s 634 contravenes an implied constitutional freedom of movement.']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 634 is a law with respect to the provision of unemployment benefits and is supported by s 51 (xxiiiA). Section 51 (xxiiiA) is not a purposive power, and s 634 is within the core of the power rather than merely its implied incidental aspect. Although s 634 may have an incidental practical effect on interstate movement or on an asserted implied freedom of movement, it does not erect State borders as barriers and is reasonably appropriate and proportionate to the legitimate objects of the Newstart allowance scheme. It therefore does not contravene s 92 or any assumed implied freedom of movement.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.']