Watershed for Commonwealth Appropriation

Question: Discuss about the Watershed for Commonwealth Appropriation. Answer: Introduction: Bryan Pape who was a barrister and law lecturer was a plaintiff in this case representing himself. The case was in relation to the validity of Tax Bonus with respect to the Working Australian Act (No 2) 2009 as per the constitution. The legislation had the aim to provide up to $900 to tax payers who paid tax in one go. The case was decided by the high court on the 3rd day of April 2009. The plaintiff had challenged the provisions of the legislation based on the claim that the bonus provided through the legislation were not backed up the the powers of taxation according to the constitution and were actually a gift. Against the claim of the plaintiff it was argued by the defendant common wealth that the provisions of the legislation were backed up by Section 81 of the constitution, external affairs powers Section 51 (xxix), implied neighborhood power, trade and commerce power Section 51(i) and taxation power Section 51 (ii). Can the court grant relief to the plaintiff claimed by him in his statement of claim and writ of summons. The validity of the Tax Bonus Act because of its being backed by one or more implied or expressed sections of legislative powers with respect to the Australian constitution. The validity of the tax bonus which the plaintiff is eligible for with respect to appropriation under Subsection 83 and 81 of the Australian constitution On whom the burden of cost in relation to the special case should lie. With respect to the first and primary issue in relation to the case it was provided by the defendant commonwealth that the plaintiff in this case does not have adequate sufficient interest to provide arguments against the application of the Bonus Act against the other person. The submission of the defendant was rejected by all the members of the court. the court provided that the validity of the bonus pay would be binding in case of disputes which arise out of such payments in the future and if the tax bonus with respect to the plaintiff was invalid than the total tax bonus package should have been invalid. The court based on the fact that the legislation was as inseverable whole and the doctrine of president ruled that the plaintiff has the right to challenge all provisions of the legislation with respect to his complaint. The court ruled that the claim made by the plaintiff was a novel claim and in case he would succeed than it would be against his financial interest. Thus the cour t ruled that the answer to the first issue of the case is Yes. With respect to the second question in relation to constitutionality, appropriation powers with respect to Section 81 of the constitution provides that one consolidate revenue fund shall be formed with the moneys and revenue received or raised by the Executive government and shall be used according to the objectives of the commonwealth with respect to the liabilities and charges imposed by the constitution. It has further been provided by Section 83 of the constitution that the government is not allowed to take out any money from the commonwealth fund unless it has been sanctioned by a law. It had been argued by the commonwealth that it has been granted with powers to make legal provisions with respect to money through section 81. It was provided by commonwealth that according to section 83 purposes of the commonwealth meant the appropriate purpose as wished by the parliament and therefore the parliament had unlimited power to make laws in relation to money. The contention made by the defendant with respect to Section 81 of the constitution was rejected by the court. It was held by the court after analyzing the Section and the judgments of the previous courts on it that appropriation or spending powers were not consistent within their character. The analysis was done by the court not giving relevance to the other decisions of the court in relation to the section. The court ruled that money expenditure made by the commonwealth was required to be made either under executive powers of the common wealth or by provision in relation to the legislative power of the commonwealth. Thus, Section 81 and 83 do not support the money spent by the common wealth in this case. Under the executive powers the court held that the legislation in relation to the bonus was made within the powers of the parliament as it has been backed up by Section (XXXIX) of the constitution along with Section 61 dealing with executive powers. Therefore the answer to the second issue of the case was Yes. In Obiter, the majority of the judges ruled that the bonus act did not have enough evidence to be supported by taxation power. The next question before the court was the existence of appropriation. It has been provided by the plaintiff that the act was not valid under Section 83 of the Constitution. The court contrary to the claim provided that an appropriation by law existed. The decision was made by the court based on Section 16 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953. The court also considered section 3 of the Bonus Act according to which it could be made a taxation law. Concluding the finding the court ruled that section 81 and 83 themselves do not provide authority of expenditure instead they allow expenditure of government fund to be allowed by the parliament. Therefore the answer to the third issue was yes. The court in relation to the fourth issue ruled that both parties will bear their own cost. The decision of the court has changed the way in which powers provided by the constitution in relation to the commonwealth are interpreted. The decision is set to change the way in which the government works in relation to expenditure of government funds. The case has not been directly used in any other case yet but is provisions work as guidelines for judges to interpret the powers of the government. References Chordia, Shipra, Andrew Lynch, and George Williams. "Williams v. Commonwealth [No 2]-Commonwealth Executive Power and Spending after Williams [No 2]."Melb. UL Rev.39 (2015): 306. Chordia, Shipra, Andrew Lynch, and George Williams. "Williams v. Commonwealth: Commonwealth Executive Power and Australian Federalism."Melb. UL Rev.37 (2013): 189. Hemming, Andrew. "Williams v Commonwealth: Much Ado about Nothing."U. Queensland LJ33 (2014): 233. Hogg, Melissa, and Charles Lawson. "The Watershed for Commonwealth Appropriation and Spending after Pape and Williams?." (2014). Lynch, Andrew. "Commonwealth Spending After Williams (No 2): Has the New Dawn Risen?." (2015). Olds, Michael.The stream cannot rise above its source: The principle of responsible government informing a limit on the ambit of the Executive Power of the Commonwealth. Diss. Murdoch University, 2016. Twomey, Anne. "Post-Williams Expenditure-When Can the Commonwealth and States Spend Public Money without Parliamentary Authorisation."U. Queensland LJ33 (2014): 9.