Sunday, November 21, 2010

Radical Reform in the High Court: Youth Allowance

In a move that sent Australian legislatures reeling, the High Court handed down three rather controversial decisions on Thursday, 11th November 2010, which were reported in the media. The three cases declared invalid or altered the interpretation of several key provisions in laws that have been making headlines over the recent months.

The final case handed down revolved around the Social Security Act 1991 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. In Commissioner of Taxation v Anstis, the Court ruled that youth allowance under the Social Security Act were to be classed as income for the purposes of a tax return. Further, at [38] of the majority Judgment, their Honours held “that expenses occasioned by [Ms Anstis’] enrolment, full-time study and satisfactory progress in that degree were incurred by [Ms Anstis] as a recipient of youth allowance. The outgoings did not lose their connection with the "position" she held as a recipient of youth allowance simply because she might have been studying for reasons other than enjoying an entitlement to youth allowance.”

Effectively, this decision says that a University student who receives youth allowance is able to claim as deductibles such resources as stationary, computers and textbooks. (Note that we are not able to give financial advice, this is not to be taken as financial advice and should you wish to see how this affects you we strongly encourage you to discuss the matter with your accountant or financial adviser).

Radical Reform in the High Court: Immigration Law


In a move that sent Australian legislatures reeling, the High Court handed down three rather controversial decisions on Thursday, 11th November 2010, which were reported in the media. The three cases declared invalid or altered the interpretation of several key provisions in laws that have been making headlines over the recent months.



The second of the decisions, Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia; Plaintiff M69 of 2010 v Commonwealth of Australia, concerned the right of appeal for decisions regarding off-shore processing of illegal immigrants and refugees.



The provisions that were declared invalid here are the provisions that concern the review of the detainee’s legal position (ie. whether they fall within the Refugee Convention as amended by the Refugee Protocol). In coming to its decision, the Court held that as the provisions did not place a duty upon the Minister to comply with the International Convention, Migration Act, or the case law then it was not subject to declaratory relief from the High Court as laid out in s 75(v) of the Constitution. As such, the provisions could not operate in a manner consistent with the High Courts jurisdiction under the Constitution and any decision made under those provisions must therefore comply with the Convention, Act and case law to be valid.

Radical Reform in the High Court: Anti-Bikie Laws

In a move that sent Australian legislatures reeling, the High Court handed down three rather controversial decisions on Thursday, 11th November 2010, which were reported in the media. The three cases declared invalid or altered the interpretation of several key provisions in laws that have been making headlines over the recent months.

One of the decisions, South Australia v Totani, concerned the South Australian Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008 – the Act which forms the framework for the Queensland Criminal Organisation Act 2009. The central provisions, which required the Magistrates Court to issue control orders to those organisations and people the Attorney-General deemed to be part of a criminal organization, were declared invalid in individual Justices of the Court. The primary reasoning behind the judgments was that to place such an obligation upon the Judiciary struck at the fundamental aspects of the Rule of Law which guides and protects the Australian citizenship.

However, due to the structure of the Queensland Act, it is unlikely to be struck down on similar grounds. That Act gives the Supreme Court a power to review the decision of the Attorney-General, thereby still guaranteeing the Judiciary their independence from the other arms of Government.