Combet v Commonwealth

Last updated

Combet v Commonwealth
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameCombet and another v The Commonwealth of Australia and others
Decided 21 October 2005
Citation(s) [2005] HCA 61, (2005) 224  CLR  494; 80  ALJR  247, 221  ALR  621
Case opinions
Majority Gummow, Hayne, Callinan & Heydon JJ, Gleeson CJ agreeing
(5:2) Expenditure of public funds on advertising promoting Work Choices was authorised by the Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2005-2006
Dissent McHugh & Kirby J

Combet v Commonwealth, [1] was an Australian court case commenced in the original jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia by Greg Combet, then the secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and Nicola Roxon. The plaintiffs challenged the Australian Government's use of public funds to advertise the new Work Choices legislation. The High Court found that the expenditure was authorised by the Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2005-2006.

The original jurisdiction of a court is the power to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, when a higher court has the power to review a lower court's decision. Original jurisdiction refers to the right of the Supreme court to hear a case for the first time. It has the exclusive right to hear all cases that deal with disputes between states, or between states and the union government. It also has original jurisdiction over cases brought to the court by ordinary people regarding issues to the importance of society at large.

High Court of Australia supreme court

The High Court of Australia is the supreme court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal in Australia. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the states, and the ability to interpret the Constitution of Australia and thereby shape the development of federalism in Australia.

Greg Combet Australian politician

Gregory Ivan Combet is a former Australian politician and trade unionist. He was Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions between 1999 and 2007. He was elected member for the New South Wales Federal seat of Charlton for the Australian Labor Party at the 2007 election and was immediately appointed Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Procurement in the First Rudd Ministry on 3 December 2007. Combet was the Minister for Climate Change, Industry and Innovation in the Second Gillard Ministry before announcing his resignation from the ministry on 26 June 2013 following Julia Gillard's defeat in a leadership ballot. He previously served as Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change, when Penny Wong was the Minister.

Contents

Background to the case

In May 2005 the Prime Minister informed the Australian House of Representatives that the federal government intended to reform industrial relations laws by introducing a unified national system. In the following weeks, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) began an opposition campaign to the proposed laws which included extensive television advertising. On 23 July 2005, the first defendant, the Commonwealth of Australia, printed advertisements in newspapers and on 15 August 2005, the Commonwealth entered into contracts amounting to AU$3.84 million for the purpose of advertising the proposed reforms. The funding for the advertisement was to be drawn out of the public funds of the treasury of the Commonwealth. In October 2005, the ACTU and the Australian Labor Party brought an action against the Federal Government, claiming that the public funds used to advertise the Work Choices legislation were not appropriated by law.

Prime Minister of Australia executive head of the Government of Australia

The Prime Minister of Australia is the head of government of Australia. The individual who holds the office is the most senior Minister of State, the leader of the Federal Cabinet. The Prime Minister also has the responsibility of administering the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and is the chair of the National Security Committee and the Council of Australian Governments. The office of Prime Minister is not mentioned in the Constitution of Australia but exists through Westminster political convention. The individual who holds the office is commissioned by the Governor-General of Australia and at the Governor-General's pleasure subject to the Constitution of Australia and constitutional conventions.

Australian House of Representatives Lower house of Australia

The House of Representatives is the lower house of the bicameral Parliament of Australia, the upper house being the Senate. Its composition and powers are established in Chapter I of the Constitution of Australia.

Australian Council of Trade Unions

The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) is the largest peak body representing workers in Australia. It is a national trade union centre of 46 affiliated unions and nine trades and labour councils. The ACTU is a member of the International Trade Union Confederation.

Arguments

Under section 81 of the Australian Constitution, all monies raised by the executive government of the Commonwealth must “be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed”. [2] Section 83 of the Constitution provides that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation made by law. [3] Government expenditure is appropriated by law through the annual passing of one or more Appropriation Acts. The question for the High Court was one of statutory construction [4] — that is, whether the advertising was authorised by the Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2005-2006, rather than whether the Act was itself constitutionally valid. [5]

An Appropriation Act is an Act of Parliament passed by the United Kingdom Parliament which, like a Consolidated Fund Act, allows the Treasury to issue funds out of the Consolidated Fund. Unlike a Consolidated Fund Act, an Appropriation Act also "appropriates" the funds, that is allocates the funds issued out of the Consolidated Fund to individual government departments and Crown bodies.

The plaintiffs contended that, contrary to section 83 of the Constitution, the expenditure was not “appropriated by law” as it did not fall within the relevant outcomes set out in schedule 1 of the Appropriation Act. The defendants contended that the advertisements would at least fall within outcome 2, “higher productivity, higher pay workplaces” and also, appropriations should be interpreted broadly.

Judgment

Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Callinan JJ

Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Callinan JJ ruled in favour of the defendants on the basis that departmental items were not tied to their outcomes. In other words, government expenditure was lawful as long as the government had stated what the funds were being used for and that it was not the job of the courts to decide whether government policy would result in its stated goals.

Gleeson CJ

Chief Justice Gleeson ruled that the advertisement could possibly result in "higher productivity, higher wages" and that it was for parliament to decide how best to achieve its aims.

Kirby and McHugh JJ

Justices Kirby and McHugh dissented on the account of public funded advertisement not being appropriated at law when it has no nexus with the aims of the expenditure.

Related Research Articles

Australian constitutional law

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

Judiciary of Australia

The judiciary of Australia comprises judges who sit in federal courts and courts of the States and Territories of Australia. The High Court of Australia sits at the apex of the Australian court hierarchy as the ultimate court of appeal on matters of both federal and State law.

Section 51(xxvi) of the Australian Constitution

Section 51(xxvi) of the Australian Constitution, commonly called "the race power", is the subsection of Section 51 of the Australian Constitution granting the Australian Commonwealth, the power to make special laws for people of any race.

Australian administrative law defines the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of Australian governments. It is basically a common law system, with an increasing statutory overlay that has shifted its focus toward codified judicial review and to tribunals with extensive jurisdiction.

<i>Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally</i>

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia on 17 June 1999. The case concerned the constitutional validity of cross-vesting of jurisdiction, in particular, the vesting of state companies law jurisdiction in the Federal Court.

<i>New South Wales v Commonwealth</i> (2006)

New South Wales v Commonwealth is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia, which held that the federal government's WorkChoices legislation was a valid exercise of constitutional power. In essence, the majority found the Constitution's corporations power capable of sustaining the legislative framework, while the conciliation and arbitration and territories powers were also seen as supporting parts of the law. Further, the majority also held that the legislation permissibly limited State powers and did not interfere with State constitutions or functioning. A minority dissented.

<i>Cole v Whitfield</i>

Cole v Whitfield, was a landmark High Court of Australia decision where the Court overruled two long settled approaches to the interpretation of the Constitution, that no regard could be had to the debates of Constitutional Conventions in the interpretation of the Constitution, and that the words "absolutely free" in Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, protected a personal individual right of freedom in interstate trade. It was instead replaced with the economic notion of "free trade" in that interstate trade was not to be subject to discriminatory burdens of a protectionist kind. Despite being a unanimous judgment, the decision remains controversial.

<i>Kruger v Commonwealth</i>

In Kruger v Commonwealth, also known as the Stolen Generation Case, the High Court of Australia rejected a challenge to the validity of legislation applying in the Northern Territory between 1918 and 1957 which authorised the removal of Aboriginal children from their families. The majority of the Bench found that the 1918 Ordinance was beneficial in intent and had neither the purpose of genocide nor that of restricting the practise of religion. The High Court unanimously held there was no separate action for a breach of any constitutional right.

Court of Disputed Returns (Australia)

The Court of Disputed Returns in Australia is a special jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia. This jurisdiction was initially established by Part XVI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902 and is now contained in Part XXII of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns hears challenges regarding the validity of federal elections. The jurisdiction is twofold: (1) on a petition to the Court by an individual with a relevant interest or by the Australian Electoral Commission, or (2) on a reference by either house of the Commonwealth Parliament.

<i>Pape v Commissioner of Taxation</i>

Pape v Commissioner of Taxation is an Australian court case concerning the constitutional validity of the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act 2009 (Cth) which seeks to give one-off payments of up to $900 to Australian taxpayers. The decision of the High Court of Australia was announced on 3 April 2009, with reasons to follow later.

<i>Roach v Electoral Commissioner</i>

Roach v Electoral Commissioner is a High Court of Australia case, decided in 2007, dealing with the validity of Commonwealth legislation that prevented prisoners from voting. The Court held that the 2006 amendments were inconsistent with the system of representative democracy established by the Constitution. Voting in elections lies at the heart of that system of representative government, and disenfranchisement of a group of adult citizens without a substantial reason would not be consistent with it. The three-year criterion in the 2004 amendments was held to be valid as it sufficiently distinguished between serious lawlessness and less serious but still reprehensible conduct.

<i>Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth</i>

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth, was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 4 February 2003. The case was an influential decision not only in relation to immigration law but to administrative law generally and is an authority for the proposition that Parliament cannot restrict the availability of constitutional writs.

<i>Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd</i>

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Baxter Healthcare Pty Ltd, (Baxter) was a decision of the High Court of Australia, which ruled on 29 August 2007 that Baxter Healthcare Proprietary Limited, a tenderer for various government contracts, was bound by the Trade Practices Act 1974 in its trade and commerce in tendering for government contracts. More generally, the case concerned the principles of derivative governmental immunity: whether the immunity of a government from a statute extends to third parties that conduct business with the government.

<i>Attorney-General (Vic) ex rel Dale v Commonwealth</i>

Attorney-General (Vic); Ex rel Dale v Commonwealth, commonly known as the "First Pharmaceutical Benefits case", was a High Court of Australia decision. The case dealt with limits of the powers of the Australian Federal Government under section 81 of the Constitution of Australia, to take and spend money by legislation, in this case to fund reduced prices for prescription medicines.

<i>Rowe v Electoral Commissioner</i>

Rowe v Electoral Commissioner is a High Court of Australia case dealing with the requirement of the Australian Constitution that members of Parliament be "directly chosen by the people". The High Court held that Commonwealth legislation that sought to restrict the time in which a person may seek to enroll in an election or alter their enrolment details after the writs for an election have been issued was invalid.

<i>Williams v Commonwealth</i>

Williams v Commonwealth of Australia is a landmark judgment of the High Court. The matter related to the power of the Commonwealth executive government to enter into contracts and spend public moneys under section 61 of the Australian Constitution.

<i>Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS</i>

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to immigration law, jurisdictional error and illogicality as a ground of judicial review.

Section 51(xxvii) of the Constitution of Australia grants the Commonwealth Parliament the power to make laws with respect to "immigration and emigration." Historically, it was the principal legislative power in support of Australia's immigration scheme, which is now embodied in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

References

  1. Combet v Commonwealth [2005] HCA 61 , (2005) 224 CLR 494, 80 ALJR 247, 221 ALR 621
  2. Constitution (Cth) s 81
  3. Constitution (Cth) s 83
  4. Combet v Commonwealth [2005] HCA 61 , (2005) 224 CLR 494 at [43] per Gleeson CJ.
  5. Combet v Commonwealth [2005] HCA 61 , (2005) 224 CLR 494 at [102] per Gummow, Hayne, Callinan & Heydon JJ.