Friday Afternoon HCA Transcript

A couple of amusing exchanges in the hearing of Anstis, yesterday:

Commissioner of Taxation v Anstis [2010] HCATrans 183

STEPHEN GAGELER SC: Your Honours, this is a short case in a field that has been the subject of intense scrutiny by the Court in recent years. Without any preamble, can I take your Honours immediately to the relevant provisions of the Social Security Act and the Social Security (Administration) Act. I confess that I do not know exactly what form your Honours have those documents in.

HEYDON J: Mr Gageler, my infirmity is catching up with me. It is very hard to hear what you are saying.

Then there was this confusion:

MR GAGELER: .....If your Honours then move to the Social Security (Administration) Act you will see in section 3 some definitions and references to definitions. Relevantly in subsection (2) the definitions in the 1991 Social Security Act are brought in. Your Honours might also note subsection (4).

HEYDON J: I think I am not completely with your argument. Are you talking about the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999?

MR GAGELER: I am, your Honour.

HEYDON J: You took us to section 3 and then you took us to section 3(4).

MR GAGELER: Yes.

HEYDON J: What you said about section 3 does not correspond with what I have in front of me, and there is no subsection (4). Where have I gone wrong?

MR GAGELER: I am sorry, your Honour. I should have taken your Honour to subsection (3).

HEYDON J: It begins “If (a) a person makes a claim for a senior’s health card - - -

MR GAGELER: The Social Security (Administration) Act as at 24 May 2006.

HEYDON J: What is your subsection (3) again? What are the opening words?

MR GAGELER: Section 3 deals with interpretation. Subsection (3)?

HEYDON J: “A reference in this Act”?

MR GAGELER: “A reference in this Act”, yes, I am sorry, your Honour. I did not think I was going to be hitting controversial territory at this stage, your Honour. Section 11 states the general rule that...