Combet v Commonwealth
Encyclopedia
Combet v Commonwealth was an Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia
in 2005. The case was the result of a challenge against the lawfulness of the Federal Government's use of public funds to advertise the new Workchoices
laws.
informed the Australian House of Representatives
that the federal government intended to reform industrial relations laws by introducing a unified national system. In the following weeks, the Australian Council of Trade Unions
(ACTU) began an opposition campaign to the proposed laws which included extensive television advertising. On 23 July 2005,, the first defendant
, the Commonwealth of Australia, printed advertisements in newspapers and on 15 August 2005, the first defendant entered into contracts amounting to 3.84 million dollars for the purpose of advertising the proposed reforms. The funding for the advertisement was to be drawn out of the public funds of the treasury
of the Commonwealth. In October 2005, the ACTU and the Australian Labor Party brought an action against the Federal Government, claiming that the public funds used to advertise the WorkChoices legislation were not appropriated by law.
The plaintiffs alleged that contrary to section 83 of the constitution, the funds used to finance the advertisements informing and promoting the proposed reforms, was not “appropriated by law” as they did not fall within the relevant outcomes as set out in schedule 1 of the Appropriations act. The defendants contended that the advertisements would at least fall within outcome 2, “higher productivity, higher pay workplaces” and also, appropriations should be interpreted broadly.
Gleeson ruled that the advertisement could possibly result in "higher productivity, higher wages" and that it was for parliament to decide how best to achieve its aims.
High Court of Australia
The High Court of Australia is the supreme court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal in Australia. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, has the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the States, and...
in 2005. The case was the result of a challenge against the lawfulness of the Federal Government's use of public funds to advertise the new Workchoices
WorkChoices
The Workplace Relations Act 1996, as amended by the Workplace Relations Amendment Act 2005, popularly known as Work Choices, was a Legislative Act of the Australian Parliament that came into effect in March 2006 which involved many controversial amendments to the Workplace Relations Act 1996, the...
laws.
Background to the case
In May 2005 the Prime MinisterPrime Minister of Australia
The Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia is the highest minister of the Crown, leader of the Cabinet and Head of Her Majesty's Australian Government, holding office on commission from the Governor-General of Australia. The office of Prime Minister is, in practice, the most powerful...
informed the Australian House of Representatives
Australian House of Representatives
The House of Representatives is one of the two houses of the Parliament of Australia; it is the lower house; the upper house is the Senate. Members of Parliament serve for terms of approximately three years....
that the federal government intended to reform industrial relations laws by introducing a unified national system. In the following weeks, the Australian Council of Trade Unions
Australian Council of Trade Unions
The Australian Council of Trade Unions is the largest peak body representing workers in Australia. It is a national trade union centre of 46 affiliated unions.-History:The ACTU was formed in 1927 as the "Australian Council of Trade Unions"...
(ACTU) began an opposition campaign to the proposed laws which included extensive television advertising. On 23 July 2005,, the first defendant
Defendant
A defendant or defender is any party who is required to answer the complaint of a plaintiff or pursuer in a civil lawsuit before a court, or any party who has been formally charged or accused of violating a criminal statute...
, the Commonwealth of Australia, printed advertisements in newspapers and on 15 August 2005, the first defendant entered into contracts amounting to 3.84 million dollars for the purpose of advertising the proposed reforms. The funding for the advertisement was to be drawn out of the public funds of the treasury
Treasury
A treasury is either*A government department related to finance and taxation.*A place where currency or precious items is/are kept....
of the Commonwealth. In October 2005, the ACTU and the Australian Labor Party brought an action against the Federal Government, claiming that the public funds used to advertise the WorkChoices legislation were not appropriated by law.
Arguments
Under section 81 of the Australian constitution, all monies raised by the executive government of the commonwealth must “be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed”. Furthermore, section 83 of the constitution forbids the drawing of money from the commonwealth except under “appropriation made by law”. The appropriation made by law is created through the annual passing of the Appropriation Act which appropriates “money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of the Government, and for related purposes” . The principle legal issue in this matter is whether the funding of advertisements, informing and proposing the proposed reforms to Australia’s Industrial Relations system was appropriated by Schedule 1 of the Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2005- 2006 (Cth).The plaintiffs alleged that contrary to section 83 of the constitution, the funds used to finance the advertisements informing and promoting the proposed reforms, was not “appropriated by law” as they did not fall within the relevant outcomes as set out in schedule 1 of the Appropriations act. The defendants contended that the advertisements would at least fall within outcome 2, “higher productivity, higher pay workplaces” and also, appropriations should be interpreted broadly.
Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Callinan JJ
Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Callinan JJ ruled in favour of the defendants on the basis that departmental items were not tied to their outcomes. In other words, government expenditure was lawful as long as the government had stated what the funds were being used for and that it was not the job of the courts to decide whether government policy would result in its stated goals.Gleeson CJ
Chief JusticeChief Justice
The Chief Justice in many countries is the name for the presiding member of a Supreme Court in Commonwealth or other countries with an Anglo-Saxon justice system based on English common law, such as the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the Court of Final Appeal of...
Gleeson ruled that the advertisement could possibly result in "higher productivity, higher wages" and that it was for parliament to decide how best to achieve its aims.