Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] HCA 23

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FRENCH CJ, HAYNE, CRENNAN, KIEFEL, BELL AND KEANE JJ

RONALD WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF

AND

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA & ORS DEFENDANTS

Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] HCA 23 19 June 2014 S154/2013

ORDER

The questions in the amended special case dated 1 May 2014 be answered as follows:

Question 1

Was the SUQ Funding Agreement:

(a) as made, and as varied by the First to Fourth Variation Deeds, authorised by Appropriation Act (No 1) 2011-2012 (Cth)?

(b) as varied by the Fifth to Tenth Variation Deeds, authorised by Appropriation Act (No 1) 2012-2013 (Cth)?

(c) as varied by the Eleventh to Fourteenth Variation Deeds, authorised by Appropriation Act (No 1) 2013-2014 (Cth)?

Answer

Unnecessary to answer.

Question 2

If not, are:

(a) s 32B of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (Cth) (FMA Act);

(b) Part 5AA and Schedule 1AA of the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997 (FMA Regulations); and

(c) item 9 of Schedule 1 to the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act (No 3) 2012 (the Financial Framework Amendment Act);

wholly invalid?

Answer

In their operation with respect to the SUQ Funding Agreement (being the Funding Agreement dated 21 December 2011 between the Commonwealth and Scripture Union Queensland, the third defendant, as varied from time to time up to and including a Fourteenth Variation Deed dated 23 January 2014) and with respect to the payments purportedly made under that Funding Agreement in January 2012, June 2012, January 2013 and February 2014, none of s 32B of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (Cth), Pt 5AA and Sched 1AA of the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997 (Cth) or item 9 of Sched 1 to the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act (No 3) 2012 (Cth) is a valid law of the Commonwealth.