According to the Minister's statement at a press release announcing the proposed reforms, the new provisions would encourage parents into the workforce and off welfare. It would also discourage welfare recipients from having large families which can consequently increase the chances of children being raised in poverty.

The new provisions provided as follows:

Section 84FC

1. Parenting payments will be capped at the rate payable to a parent with the responsibility and care of one child, irrespective of the number of children for whom the parent is responsible for, where an applicant or recipient of a parenting payment meets the following criteria:

1. The person is an indigenous Australian, or identifies as being an indigenous Australian; and
2. The person resides in a region or area declared by the Minister to be a designated area under section 84FD.

1. A parent in receipt of a parenting payment is not entitled to an increase in that payment for any children born subsequent to commencing receipt of that payment.
2. This section does not apply to foster-parents or substitute parents who have assumed responsibility for the care and upbringing of children whose biological parents are unable to care for them.

Section 84FD

1. Where, in the opinion of the Minister for Families -
2. a specified geographical region or area has significantly high and persistent rates of welfare dependency, substance abuse, violence or crime, the Minister may issue a declaration that the specified region or area is to be treated as a designated area for the purposes of sub-section 84FC(1)(b).

RESPONDENT - Commonwealth

NB: In developing submissions for the moot, consider whether section 51(xxvi) is limited with respect to indigenous Australians, including to laws which benefit indigenous peoples. Please write a submission, to argue that Section 51(xxvi), that is the Race Power is not limited with respect to making laws which benefit indigenous peoples. the new provisions are valid. even if they were for the determine of indigenous people, they would be still valid. please write 1000 words minimum

These are my submisions

submission 1

1. Initially s 51(xxvi) empowered the Parliament to make laws with respect to: "The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws".

1. s 51(xxvi) was amended in the 1967 referendumto remove 'other than the aboriginal race in any State'.The text of the provision was not otherwise altered.
2. The 1967 amendment was one that might fairly be described in today's terms as a "minimalist amendment" as a matter of language and syntax. Kartinyeriv Commonwealth(1998) 195 CLR 337 per Gaudron J.
3. It placed them in precisely the same constitutional position as the people of other races. Section 51(xxvi) should not be limited to laws which benefit Aboriginal Australians if it is not similarly limited with respect to the people of other races. prior to 1967, s 51(xxvi) authorized special laws which were not for the benefit of the people of a particular race, the referendum did not alter that position.
4. The literal meaning of the text of section 51(xxvi) confers ageneral power to legislate 'with respect to' the people of a race.

1. The power conferred by s51(xxvi) remains general power to legislate 'with respect to' the people of a race. As established by my learner friend, The new provisions added by the Federal Minster , s 84F C and 84FD to the Social Security Act 1981 (Cth) are valid under s s51(xxvi) of the constitution.

Kartinyeriv Commonwealth(1998) 195 CLR 337 per Gaudron J.

Submission 2

1. section 51(xxvi) is not limited with respect to making laws which benefit indigenous peoples
   1. Majority in Kartingeri v Commonwealth (1998) ruled that laws could be made for the detriment of a race not just for the benefitof a race as suggested in Koowarta v Bjelke-Peterson.
   2. s 51(xxvi) gives the commonwealth the power to legislate with respect to "the people of any race", there is no doubt that Parliament might legislate in any way it chose so long as the law in question differentiated in some way with respect to the people of a particular race
      1. The provisions are aimed to break the intergenerational cycle of poverty in the Indigenous communities by encouraging workforce participation
2. The criterion for the exercise of power under s 51(xxvi) is that it be deemed necessary - not expedient or appropriate.
3. It is a matter for the Parliament to deem a law necessary.Kartinyeriv Commonwealth(1998) 195 CLR 337 per Gaudron J.

2.4.1. To form a view as to that necessity, however, there must be some difference pertaining to the people of the race involved or their circumstances or, at least, some material upon which the Parliament might reasonably form a political judgment that there is a difference of that kind.

2.4.2 The new provisions do not need to be appropriate but need to be necessary. Theyare necessary to prevent welfare dependency across generations of families particularly in Indigenous communities with high rates of welfare dependency and substance abuse. Capping payments for indigenous parents would encourage them to enter the workforce to provide better for the needs for their children.

1. The test of constitutional validity of s 51(xxvi) is not whether it is a beneficial law. Rather, the test is whether the law in question is reasonably capable of being viewed as appropriate and adapted to a real and relevant difference which the Parliament might reasonably judge to exist.
   1. s 51(xxvi) authorises "discriminatory treatment of members of [a particular race] to the extent which is reasonably capable of being seen as appropriate and adapted to the circumstance of that membership". Leeth v The Commonwealth, Deane and Toohey JJ
2. Chief Justice Brennan and Justice McHugh Stated that the power which supports a valid Act supports an Act repealing it'. The Social Security Act 1981 (Cth) is valid, therefore introducing new modifications and new provisions of its operation must also be valid.

Kartinyeriv Commonwealth(1998) 195 CLR 337