Whittaker v Child Support Registrar

Link copied
Case Copied 4 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Whittaker v Child Support Registrar [2002] FCA 1430

MARK ALAN WHITTAKER v THE CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR

Q 130 OF 2002

DOWSETT J
24 OCTOBER 2002
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 130 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

MARK ALAN WHITTAKER
APPLICANT

AND:

THE CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 OCTOBER 2002

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application, including reserved costs.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q 130 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

MARK ALAN WHITTAKER
APPLICANT

AND:

THE CHILD SUPPORT REGISTRAR
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

DOWSETT J

DATE:

24 OCTOBER 2002

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. I am presently considering an application for prerogative relief in respect of an application by the Child Support Registrar addressed to the applicant, seeking to obtain his tax file number. Section 16B and 16C of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) (the “Collection Act”) and ss 150B, 150C and 150D of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) (the “Assessment Act”) authorise such a request. However the applicant submits that the request is inconsistent with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and with provisions of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) (the “Tax Administration Act”).  It is also submitted that some provisions of the last-mentioned Act are invalid.

  2. I will deal with the Constitutional question first. Reliance is placed upon s 55 of the Constitution, which provides in part:

    Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.

  3. Subsection 8WA(1) of the Tax Administration Act provides:

    A person must not require or request another person to quote the other person’s tax file number.

  4. Subsection 8WA(1AA) provides for certain exceptions.  One such exception is where the request is made in connection with the exercise of powers or performance of functions pursuant to an obligation imposed by a taxation law or a law of the Commonwealth referred to in par 202(ga) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (the “Tax Assessment Act”). That paragraph relates to the facilitation of the administration of the Assessment Act and the Collection Act. Thus s 8WA has no apparent application for present purposes. Similar considerations apply to s 8WB of the Tax Administration Act. However the applicant submits that the exception provisions do not relate to matters of taxation and that s 55 of the Constitution prohibits their enactment in a law which imposes taxation. The short answer to that is that neither the Tax Administration Act, nor the Tax Assessment Act, in fact, imposes taxation. In any event, a challenge to the validity of ss 8WA and 8WB would inevitably result in their…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Whittaker v Child Support Registrar and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2002] FCA 1430
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Whittaker v Child Support Registrar was a case before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The dispute involved a challenge to the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth). The applicant sought a declaration that the provisions were invalid as they exceeded the legislative powers of the Commonwealth under section 51 of the Constitution. The respondent, the Child Support Registrar, defended the constitutionality of the challenged provisions.

The court was required to determine whether the provisions in question were within the legislative power of the Commonwealth to make laws with respect to social services. This included an analysis of the scope of the Commonwealth's power under section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution, which allows for laws with respect to social services. The court also needed to consider whether the provisions were reasonably capable of being considered laws with respect to social services, and whether they were within the scope of the relevant legislative power.

The court held that the challenged provisions were valid exercises of the Commonwealth's legislative power under section 51(xxvi). It found that the provisions related to the administration of the child support system and were integral to the operation of the system. The court noted that the provisions were reasonably capable of being considered laws with respect to social services and were within the scope of the relevant legislative power. The applicant's challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions was therefore dismissed. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application, including reserved costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application, including reserved costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

DOWSETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: DOWSETT J

Full text does not contain this section.