''Williams v Commonwealth of Australia'' 014HCA 23 (also known as ''Williams (No 2)'')

judgment Judgement (or US spelling judgment) is also known as ''adjudication'', which means the evaluation of evidence to decision-making, make a decision. Judgement is also the ability to make considered decisions. The term has at least five distinct u ...

of the High Court.''Williams v Commonwealth of Australia'' It is related to executive prerogative and spending in relation to the Australian Government's

National School Chaplaincy Programme The National School Chaplaincy Programme (NSCP), between 2011 and 2014 known as the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Programme, is an Australian federal government programme which funds chaplains in Australian primary and secondary s ...

Background

Following the decision in ''

Williams v Commonwealth ''Williams v Commonwealth of Australia''. (also known as the "School chaplains case") 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 ...

'' (''Williams (No 1)''), the Commonwealth enacted the ''Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act (No 3)''See th
Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act (No 3) 2012 (Cth) s 32B
/ref> 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).

Judgment

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.

References

{{Reflist, 30em High Court of Australia cases 2014 in case law 2014 in Australian law Law about religion in Australia