Attorney-General (Vic) (at the Relation of Dale ) v Commonwealth [1945] HCA 30

Cons Foil Foll Cor Refit Dised Foot Gk i nsNorthem a ra BECKS forgery, BatxGk MawEe fain aly

Poitier galConetey Fiance Lal Cone Hiservedtinars| eames | ance mmo) 1 eae Com (2002 weal) OES TAP C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR VICTORIA (AT

THE RELATION OF DALE AND OTHERS) : Pee

AND

THE COMMONWEALTH AND OTHERS . Derenpants.

Constitutional Law (Cth.)—Appropriation of money—Scope of power—Whether

limited or unlimited as to purpose—* Purposes of the Commonwealth" —Power of incidental legislation—If power of appropriation wnlimited, extent of power to control manner and method of expenditure—Provision for free medicine— Appropriation of moneys to pay chemists—Validity—The Constitution (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), 88. 51 (waxix.), 75, 81, 83—Pharmaceutical Benefits Act 1944 (No. 11 of 1944).

High Court—Action for declaration of invalidity of Commonwealth statute—Power

of Attorney-General for a State to sue.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Act 1944 provides for the supply by chemists without charge to the public of certain medicines prescribed by medical practitioners, appropriates money to pay the chemists for the medicines supplied, and imposes duties on medical practitioners and chemists in relation

to the prescription and supply of the medicines.

Held, by Latham C.J., Rich, Starke, Dixon and Williams JJ. (McTiernan J. dissenting), that the Act is not authorized under the power of appropriation in s. 81 of the Constitution and the power of incidental legislation in 8. 51 (xxxix.), and is invalid,

Held, also, by Latham C.5., Rich, Starke, Dicon and Williams JJ., the Attorney-General of a State has a sufficient title to invoke the provisions of the Constitution for the purpose of challenging the validity of Commonwealth legislation which extends to, and operates within, the State whose interests