People also search for Victoria v Commonwealth (1957) | ||
Attorney-General (Vic); Ex rel Dale v Commonwealth (1945) 71 CLR 237 - commonly known as the "Pharmaceutical Benefits case" - 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 Australian Constitution to take and spend money by legislation, in this case to fund reduced prices for prescription medicines.
Contents
Background
In 1944, the Labor Federal Government of Prime Minister Ben Chifley bill for the "Pharmaceutical Benefits Act 1944" received Royal Assent. The law was immediately challenged by the Attorney general of Victoria on behalf of the Victorian Medical Association and a number of medical doctors including one Dr Dale.
Decision
The first matter to be decided was whether a state Attorney General had "standing" to intercede in a Commonwealth matter. Justice Dixon led the court in finding there was standing. On the substantial matter of the constitutionality of "Pharmaceutical Benefits Act 1944", the court was split. Only Justice McTeirnan's decision was unambiguously for the Commonwealth. Chief Justice Latham, Justices Starke, Williams and Rich wrote non-determinative judgments with respect to "standing", but nevertheless determined that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act 1944 was beyond the scope of the powers granted to the Federal Government in section 81 of the Constitution of Australia.
Later case
The ambiguity was finally determined in British Medical Association v Commonwealth (1949) 79 CLR 201, the "Second Pharmaceutical Benefits case" of 1949.