Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 23

Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 23

The Commonwealth executive does not have the power under s 61 of the Constitution to enter into contracts and engage in spending, such as under the National School Chaplaincy Program, in the absence of legislative authority beyond appropriation, except where such activities fall within established categories of executive power (such as administration of departments or prerogatives), or in emergencies. Neither the Funding Agreement nor payments made under it were supported by the executive power of the Commonwealth under s 61. Section 116 was not contravened because the office of school chaplain was not an office under the Commonwealth.

Parties
Plaintiff: Ronald Williams; First Defendant: Commonwealth of Australia; Second Defendant: Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth; Third Defendant: Minister for Finance and Deregulation; Fourth Defendant: Scripture Union Queensland; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales; Intervener: Attorney-General of the State of Queensland; Intervener: Attorney-General of the State of Tasmania; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of South Australia; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of Victoria; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia; Amicus Curiae: Churches' Commission on Education Incorporated (amicus curiae)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge (special Case) / Full Court Decision and Answers to Special Case Questions
Outcome
Plaintiff successful on core constitutional issue.
Legal Topics
Commonwealth Executive Power, Appropriation of Public Monies, Federalism, Standing, Section 61 of the Constitution, Section 116 of the Constitution, Commonwealth Contracts and Spending, National School Chaplaincy Program, Separation of Powers
Constitutional Law Public Law Commonwealth Executive Power Appropriation of Public Monies Federalism Standing Section 61 of the Constitution Section 116 of the Constitution +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Williams

Plaintiff

Commonwealth of Australia

First Defendant

Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth

Second Defendant

Minister for Finance and Deregulation

Third Defendant

Scripture Union Queensland

Fourth Defendant

Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales

Intervener

Attorney-General of the State of Queensland

Intervener

Attorney-General of the State of Tasmania

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of South Australia

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of Victoria

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia

Intervener

Churches' Commission on Education Incorporated (amicus curiae)

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge (special Case) / Full Court Decision and Answers to Special Case Questions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commonwealth executive has power under s 61 of the Constitution to enter into contracts and make payments in the absence of legislative authority other than appropriation
  2. 2 Whether the Darling Heights Funding Agreement and related payments to Scripture Union Queensland are invalid as beyond executive power
  3. 3 Whether the arrangements or payments contravene s 116 of the Constitution (religious tests)

Ratio Decidendi

The Commonwealth executive does not have the power under s 61 of the Constitution to enter into contracts and engage in spending, such as under the National School Chaplaincy Program, in the absence of legislative authority beyond appropriation, except where such activities fall within established categories of executive power (such as administration of departments or prerogatives), or in emergencies. Neither the Funding Agreement nor payments made under it were supported by the executive power of the Commonwealth under s 61. Section 116 was not contravened because the office of school chaplain was not an office under the Commonwealth.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff successful on core constitutional issue.

Orders

  • Plaintiff has standing to challenge the Funding Agreement and the payments under it (for the relevant years).
  • The Darling Heights Funding Agreement is invalid as beyond the executive power of the Commonwealth under s 61 of the Constitution.