Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Undermining the constitution to save school chaplains and others

By Meg Wallace - posted Wednesday, 25 July 2012


This also indicates that the members of the Executive had breached section 26 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act. They may be guilty of an offence, but there is now no penalty. Phew!

But a big problem remained. Not only was the NSCSWP, and related contracts for funding invalid. The Government was faced with more than 400 other funding agreements that were now potentially invalid. Billions of dollars were at stake. Some contracts had been undertaken to fund agreements to commence within a few days of the Court's decision. The Government has sought to remedy its legally dubious situation by rushing through the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act 2012, purporting to provide the necessary authority for appropriate funding under the Constitution.

However, the Act may well not save the Government. It lists in regulations over 400 general matters ('heads) for which the relevant Minister or delegated officer can make, amend or cancel funding arrangements by simply tabling a further regulation, thus by-passing proper accountability and debate. These heads include assisting business, community infra structure, 'student resilience and wellbeing', 'the provision of entitlements to the current and former Prime Ministers', 'political party secretariat training', 'domestic policy' and 'regional development'. The way is open for pork-barrelling and vote-buying.

Advertisement

The Government has shown little respect for the High Court's message about proper appropriation, Parliamentary scrutiny, and the Constitutional division of federal/state powers. Instead Parliament gave full authority to the Executive to spend money on whatever it wants without the need for adequate parliamentary scrutiny. (See, e.g. Professor Anne Twomey, Parliament's abject surrender to the Executive) .

This time the Government aimed for a 'get-out-of-trouble-free' card, but may have overplayed its hand. It is ripe for another High Court Challenge. Well, Ron Williams is seeking legal advice with that view in mind. Watch this space.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

8 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Meg Wallace is the President of the Rationalist Society of NSW. She is a lawyer and former academic.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Meg Wallace

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Meg Wallace
Article Tools
Comment 8 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy