Williams v Commonwealth | |
---|---|
Court | High Court of Australia |
Full case name | Williams v Commonwealth of Australia |
Decided | 19 June 2014 |
Citation(s) | [2014] HCA 23; 252 CLR 416 |
Case history | |
Prior action(s) | Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 23; 248 CLR 156 |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Patrick Keane JJ |
Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] HCA 23 (also known as Williams (No 2)) judgment of the High Court. [1] It is related to executive prerogative and spending in relation to the Australian Government's National School Chaplaincy Programme.
Following the decision in Williams v Commonwealth (Williams (No 1)), the Commonwealth enacted the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act (No 3) [2] in an attempt to validate the National School Chaplaincy Programme and other similar Commonwealth spending programs.
Mr Williams brought new proceedings in the High Court challenging the validity the legislation's provisions and regulations, in particular, s 32B of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (Cth) (FMA Act), Part 5AA and Schedule 1AA of the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997 (FMA Regulations) and item 9 of Schedule 1 to the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act (No 3) 2012 (the Financial Framework Amendment Act).
The High Court unanimously upheld Mr William's challenge that the relevant provisions of the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act were invalid as they extended beyond the scope of Parliament's power under the Constitution.
The High Court rejected arguments by the Commonwealth that the provisions were valid as laws incidental to the powers to spend and to enter into contracts, finding that the laws needed to be grounded in a separate head of legislative power.
The Australia Act 1986 is the short title of each of a pair of separate but related pieces of legislation: one an Act of the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, the other an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In Australia they are referred to, respectively, as the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK). These nearly identical Acts were passed by the two parliaments, because of uncertainty as to whether the Commonwealth Parliament alone had the ultimate authority to do so. They were enacted using legislative powers conferred by enabling Acts passed by the parliaments of every Australian state. The Acts came into effect simultaneously, on 3 March 1986.
Australian labour law concerns Commonwealth, state, and common law on rights and duties of workers, unions and employers in Australia. Australian labour law has a dual structure, where some employment issues and relationships are governed by Commonwealth laws, and others are governed by state and territory laws or the common law. It shares a heritage with laws across the Commonwealth of Nations, UK labour law and standards set by the International Labour Organization, the Australian legislature and courts have a built a comprehensive charter of rights at work.
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.
The Constitution Alteration Bill 1946, was a successful proposal to alter the Australian Constitution to give the Commonwealth power over a range of social services. The question was put to a referendum in the 1946 Australian referendum with two other (unrelated) questions. It was carried and inserted into section 51 of the Australian Constitution.
The Criminal law of Australia is the body of law in Australia that relates to crime.
Section 51(v) of the Constitution of Australia is a subsection of Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia that gives the Australian Parliament power to legislate on "postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services".
The constitutional basis of taxation in Australia is predominantly found in sections 51(ii), 90, 53, 55, and 96, of the Constitution of Australia. Their interpretation by the High Court of Australia has been integral to the functioning and evolution of federalism in Australia.
Australian family law is principally found in the federal Family Law Act 1975 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules 2021 as well as in other laws and the common law and laws of equity, which affect the family and the relationship between those people, including when those relationships end. Most family law is practised in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Western Australia, depending on the location and complexity of the matter. Australia recognises marriages entered into overseas as well as divorces obtained overseas if they were effected in accordance with the laws of that country. Australian marriage and "matrimonial causes" are recognised by sections 51(xxi) and (xxii) of the Constitution of Australia and internationally by marriage law and conventions, such as the Hague Convention on Marriages (1978).
New South Wales v The Commonwealth, the Incorporation Case, was a decision handed down in the High Court of Australia on 8 February 1990 concerning the corporations power in s51(xx) of the Commonwealth Constitution. The states of New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia brought an application seeking a declaration as to the validity of certain aspects of the Corporations Act 1989 (Cth).
The Native Title Act 1993 (NTA) is a law passed by the Australian Parliament, the purpose of which is "to provide a national system for the recognition and protection of native title and for its co-existence with the national land management system". The Act was passed by the Keating Government following the High Court's decision in Mabo v Queensland (1992). The Act commenced operation on 1 January 1994.
Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd , was a decision of the High Court of Australia on 17 April 1985 concerning section 74 of the Constitution of Australia. The Court denied an application by the Attorney-General of Queensland seeking a certificate that would permit the Privy Council to hear an appeal from the High Court's decision in Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises Pty Ltd .
Betfair Pty Limited v Western Australia determined that a series of amendments made by the Western Australian government to prohibit the operation of betting exchanges, amounted to discriminatory burdens of a protectionist kind.
The World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983, was an Act of the Parliament of Australia which provided for certain protections for World Heritage listed places.
Australian corporations law has historically borrowed heavily from UK company law. Its legal structure now consists of a single, national statute, the Corporations Act 2001. The statute is administered by a single national regulatory authority, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC).
Australian securities law relates to securities issued by corporations as well as other securities, including debentures, stocks and bonds issued by governments, and interests in managed investment schemes.
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.
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth, also known as 'S157', is a decision of the High Court of Australia.
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.
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.
Roche v Kronheimer is an early case in which the High Court considered the defence power and external affairs power of the Commonwealth under the Australian Constitution and the Parliament's power to delegate certain legislative powers to the Executive. The Court concluded that Federal Parliament had the power to implement the Treaty of Versailles under the defence power and to delegate that implementation to the Governor-General. Higgins J also saw it as a valid exercise of the external affair power.