Commonwealth Response to Cyclone Tracy

Question: Discuss about the Commonwealth Response to Cyclone Tracy. Answer: Introduction: The paper critically responds to the statements made by Chief justice French in relation to the executive powers of the commonwealth in relation to spending of government funds. The High court has recently passed three major judgments in relation to the powers of the commonwealth in relation to appropriate of government funds. The paper critically analyzes the rationale behind the decisions provided in these cases. In the case of Pape v Commissioner of taxation 2009 HCA 23 the plaintiff had challenged the validity in relation to the executive powers of the commonwealth to make gifts and grants. There were four questions which the court had to address in this case. The first question was in relation to the standing towards the claim. The high court held that the plaintiff had the right to challenge the legality of the executive powers. The court based its decision on the finding that if the act was determined to be unlawful that it would have an effect on the entire tax bonus. The court also based its findings on the doctrine of precedent and the fact that the Act is an Inseverable whole. Although this was a judicially correct finding by the court, it would lead lead to many more challenges in future in relation to the executive powers of the Parliament. In relation to the constitutionality of the legislation the court had referred to Section 81 and 83 of the constitution along with Section 61 a nd 51 (xxxix) of the constitution. It was appropriately found by the court in this case that the combination of section 81, 83, 61 and 51(xxxix) makes the Tax bonus for working Australians Act (No 2) 2009 (cth) constitutionally valid. The court in relation to the third issue in this case had referred to Section 16 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) and held that the consolidate revenue fund in relation to the payment of specified amounts by the commissioner are required and Section 3 of the Bonus act made the legislation a Taxation Law]. Thus it was held by the court that spending of government funds is valid if they are authorized by the parliament. It can be noted through the decision of the court in this case that court not only provided the parliament authority in relation to the tax bonus act but also gave it unlimited powers towards allocation of government funds through the enactment of appropriate legislations. Thus if the parliament wishes to appropriate the government funds in a direction they only need to draft a legislation according to the constitution. In the case of Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 23 the High Court had provided another landmark judgment in relation to the executive powers of the parliament and appropriating funds under Section 61 of the Australian Constitution. The court in this case had to address four questions. The initial question was in relation to the standing of the plaintiff against the claim. The court held that the plaintiff had sufficient grounds to challenge the validity of the appropriation powers. The second question was in relation to the validity of the executive powers of the common wealth under section 61 and 116 of the constitution. The court ruled that the powers of the executive parliament do not include the powers of commonwealth to authorize the executive and Section 61 and 116 of the constitution did not provide statutory authority to the parliament. The court upheld the claim of the plaintiff ruling that the parliament can only appropriate funds if it has the powers to do s o according to a specific legislation made under the constitution. In dissent Heydon J provided that the regular assumption that the the executive parliament has power to spend anything if it is within the legislative powers of the commonwealth was correct. The judgment made by the court can easily be termed as temporary relief as the parliament has to power to enact legislation according to its will as far as it is in compliance with the provisions of the constitution. The statement was proved as the parliament exactly did so in order to defeat the judgment made by the court through its powers to make legislations. Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act (No 3) 2012 (Cth) was subsequently enacted by the parliament to so that the parliament can provide itself with the power to make grants and other arrangements. The legislation would ensure that the parliament would have sufficient powers to make any arrangements or grants according to its will as per the provisions of the new legislation. Thus the parliament was successful in defeating the judgment of the court and was now in a position where they could not be challenged. Mr. Williams brought another claim against the actions of the parliament with respect to the validity of Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act (No 3) 2012 (Cth) in the case of Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] HCA 23 (Williams (No 2)). In this case the high court upheld the claim made by the plaintiff and provided that certain provisions which had been incorporated in the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act were not valid as they were not supported by any legislation with respect to the constitution. The High court rejected the claim of the commonwealth that the Section of the Act is valid as it is incidental to laws in with respect to constitutions power to enter contract and appropriate money. The court held that the new provisions to the legislation did not fall within commonwealths legislative powers and thus they are invalid. The court further denied to reopen the decision provided in [William (No 1)] and ruled that the proposition of the commonwealth reveals no greater content than that the Commonwealth parties wish that the decision in [Williams (No 1)] had been different. Through this statement the court made it clear the parliament does not have unlimited powers to make legislation in relation to the constitution and all legislations must therefore be supported by the provisions of the constitution. References Eburn, Michael. "Managing civil contingencies in Australia."The International Journal of Human Rights18.2 (2014): 143-158. Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act (No 3) 2012 (Cth) Ratnapala, Suri, and Jonathan Crowe.Australian Constitutional Law: Foundations and Theory. Oxford University Press, 2012. Saunders, Benjamin. "The Commonwealth and the Chaplains: Executive Power after Williams v Commonwealth." (2012). Tax bonus for working Australians Act (No 2) 2009 (cth) Lynch, Andrew. "Commonwealth Spending After Williams (No 2): Has the New Dawn Risen?." (2015). McNamara, Joe. "The Commonwealth response to Cyclone Tracy: Implications for future disasters."Australian Journal of Emergency Management, The27.2 (2012): 37. Saunders, Cheryl, and Michelle Foster. "The Australian Federation: A story of the centralization of power."Federalism and legal unification. Springer Netherlands, 2014. 87-102. Williams, George. "Bryan Pape and his legacy to the law."U. Queensland LJ34 (2015): 29.8.2 (2014): 143-158.