Australian Constitutional Law

Australian Constitutional Law

Introduction

William v Commonwealth case has become one of the most significant cases, in which federal considerations played a role in restricting the extent of the executive power of Commonwealth Government. Majority of the considerations in this case was developed based on the foundations of Pape case, which recognized the relevance of federal consideration for the Commonwealth government executive power's scope. Williams highlighted the spending power of Commonwealth government and leads towards enacting an amended Bill i.e. FFLA. This Bill holds an immense importance related to the Commonwealth granting and arrangements for different programs, and governs the spending programs of Commonwealth by ensuring the intentions of Parliament in appropriating funding for schemes. Thus, Williams case leads to the government support for chaplaincy program funding agreement and specifies relevant grants and schemes that can be arranged by Commonwealth government.

Discussion

Permissible Scope for Executive Spending by High Court Ruling under Williams, Pape, and Other Precedent The Commonwealth is given the power to collect funds from its subjects, which in results has provided it the power to spend these funds. The power to raise funds from public through taxation and the power to spend these funds are among the strongest powers available to governments. Where, these powers are essential for government in order to get the required position scale. Nevertheless, one of the significant characteristic of constitutional democracy is that, in theory, government do not has money of its own to spend. As the revenue generated through public (taxation) should be deposited in the CRF i.e. Consolidated Revenue Fund (s 81), therefore, the Australian Government owns no money and can only withdraw money from CRF after getting authority of Parliament (s 83). The spending of money by Commonwealth is governed by two most significant fiscal powers: the grants and the appropriation powers. The appropriation power subjects the Commonwealth to allot funds for their purposes, including expense for making sure that the government machinery can run. Besides that, funds can also be appropriated to fund projects of large scale and new policies. Where, the budget announces the measures of appropriation. On the other hand, the grants power, stated in s 96 of the constitution, allows the Commonwealth to reallocate funds to the State and therefore is a dominant tool in the hands of the Commonwealth.

Several legal cases were raised in courts related to the spending of Commonwealth, among which one of the most recent and effective case was Williams v Commonwealth [2012] HCA 23. This case has greatly influenced the High Court's ruling on Commonwealth spending. In reference to this case, the High Court ruling is that the Commonwealth Government cannot rely alone on the executive power for supporting the grant to the chaplaincy program. Even the Appropriation Act is not enough to support it. Thus, a validly enacted legislation for supporting such expenses was required. According to the Court, there are number of factors that affect the scope of government spending: Firstly, the money that government spent was public money ...