Section 81 of the Constitution of Australia

Last updated

Section 81 of the Constitution of Australia creates a "consolidated revenue fund", money collected by the Commonwealth through taxation and other levies. [1] The way this money may be collected is regulated by Section 51 of the Constitution. [1] Notable legal decisions decided by the High Court of Australia about section 81 include "the Pharmaceutical Benefits case"

Contents

Text

All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution.

Section 81, Australian Constitution [2]

Related Research Articles

"Consolidated fund" or "consolidated revenue fund" is a term used in many states with political systems derived from the Westminster system to describe the main bank account of the government. General taxation is taxation paid into the consolidated fund for general spending, as opposed to hypothecated taxes earmarked for specific purposes.

Constitution Alteration 1946 proposed to extend the powers of government 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 s51(xxiiiA) into section 51 of the Australian Constitution.

The referendum of 13 April 1910 approved an amendment to the Australian constitution. The referendum was for practical purposes a vote on the Constitution Alteration Bill 1909, which after being approved in the referendum received the Royal Assent on 6 August.

The Constitution Alteration (Finance) Bill 1909, was an unsuccessful Australian referendum which sought to alter the Australian Constitution to amend section 87 which was due to lapse in 1910. It was to add to the Constitution a financial agreement reached between the States and the Commonwealth to replace the section.

In the Westminster system, a money bill or supply bill is a bill that solely concerns taxation or government spending, as opposed to changes in public law.

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.

<i>Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v Commonwealth</i>

Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v Commonwealth, is a High Court of Australia case that provides guidance as to the constitutional definition of a tax.

<i>Combet v Commonwealth</i>

Combet v Commonwealth, 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 2005–2006.

Constitution of Australia United Kingdom legislation

The Constitution of Australia, or Australian Constitution, is the supreme law under which the government of the Commonwealth of Australia operates, including its relationship to the States of Australia. It consists of several documents. The most important is the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, which is referred to as the "Constitution" in the remainder of this article. The Constitution was approved in a series of referendums held over 1898–1900 by the people of the Australian colonies, and the approved draft was enacted as a section of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Bryan Pape was a senior lecturer at the University of New England, New South Wales, Australia and a former office holder and member of the National Party of Australia, who in Pape v Commissioner of Taxation lost his challenge to the constitutional legality of the Kevin Rudd Government's proposed $7.7 billion tax bonus payments as part of the $42 billion economic stimulus package in the High Court of Australia.

<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.

The fiscal imbalance in Australia is the disparity between the revenue generation ability of the three levels of governments in Australia relative to their spending obligations; but in Australia the term is commonly used to refer more specifically to the vertical fiscal imbalance, the discrepancy between the federal government's extensive capacity to raise revenue and the responsibility of the States to provide most public services, such as physical infrastructure, health care, education etc., despite having only limited capacity to raise their own revenue. In Australia, vertical fiscal imbalance is addressed by the transfer of funds as grants from the federal government to the states and territories.

<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.

Section 96 of the Constitution of Australia authorises the Australian (Commonwealth) Parliament to grant financial assistance to any state on the terms and conditions that it sees fit, subject to acceptance by the state(s) concerned. The expanded use of the power under section 96 has added to Australia's vertical fiscal imbalance and enabled the Commonwealth to have a significant influence over matters that would otherwise be constitutionally State responsibilities.

Section 3 of the Constitution of Australia deals with the salary of Governor General. The salary of Governor-General is paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and is regulated by the Constitution, which fixed the initial salary at £10,000, an amount that would not increase until 1974.

Chapter II of the Constitution of Australia

Chapter II of the Constitution of Australia establishes the executive branch of the Government of Australia. It provides for the exercise of executive power by the Governor-General advised by a Federal Executive Council.

<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.

The 1992 Virginia State Elections took place on Election Day, November 3, 1992, the same day as the U.S. Presidential and the U.S. House elections in the state. The only statewide elections on the ballot were one constitutional referendum to amend the Virginia State Constitution and three government bond referendums. Because Virginia state elections are held on off-years, no statewide officers or state legislative elections were held. All referendums were referred to the voters by the Virginia General Assembly.

Chapter IV of the Constitution of Australia pertains to trade, the appropriation of funds for the Commonwealth, state debts, and funds for the states given to them by the Commonwealth. Much of it no longer applies.

References

  1. 1 2 Keyzer, Patrick (2005). Constitutional Law (Second ed.). Butterworths. p. 334. ISBN   978-0-409-31861-6.
  2. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s81.html