Download Free Sample

Introduction

This paper shall specifically and particularly deal with the case analysis and assessment based upon the Case of Wilkie vs, The Commonwealth (2017) which deals with the substance was whether holding a voluntary postal survey under some specific arrangements on same sex marriage controversial or not. This paper shall deal with another case which was decided and determined post the decision and judgement of the case as has been referred to and stated above and has the clear and uncontentious impact of the observations of the above case. The judgement so delivered in the case of Wilkins in Australia, is considered to be one of the landmark judgements as observed and determined by the Australian Judiciary. It was held summarily by the High Court Judicature of Australia, that spending of the executive arm of the public funds as has been the case for the purpose of conducting the postal survey is valid, legal and absolutely for the interests of the masses and does not cause any kind of prejudice to the resources of the public and therefore of the state1.

The paper supplements the stand and position that whether non-ordinary appropriation of the public and parliamentary funds with the approval of the executive shall be considered as reasonable in the interests of the public or not. There are certain and several case laws which have been decided and determined after the decision and observations of the case of Wilkins and the ratio of the case so decided by the High Court of Australia. The case of Wilkins substantially deals with the provisions of the Appropriation Act of the Australia so drafted and planned by the Parliament and specifically Section 10 and Section 12 of the Legislation therefore which in detail discusses the power of the finance minister as well as of the Parliament to deal with the resources and funds so allocated2.

This case simply is manifestation of the fact that the law made by the Parliament shall be construed to be the primary substantive law and hence all the supplementary actions shall follow pursuant to the parliament law so structured and implemented. In this case it was held by the Honourable High Court of Australia, that the finance minister shall not be considered to be eligible enough to allocate and use the funds for the purposes for which the directions have not been sufficiently issued by the parliament and a legal entitlement therefore shall lie upon the ministry wing to perform operations in accordance and consonance to the issued directions and delegated functions of the Parliament therefore.

The Constitutional Structure and Framework of the State shall be upheld as the Priority and any action in derogation therefore shall have a null and void effect and shall not allowed to be executed and implemented which may injure and prejudice the interests of the Society and breach the constitutional essence therefore.

There are no such specific cases which has been decided and determined after the case of Wilkins except the case of Australian Marriage Equality Limited which has been decided and determined on the same and identical merits to that of the case of Wilkins. In this case too, basing the observations so decided in Wilkins it was held and observed by the High Court of Australia, that any kind of challenge and question to the constitutional provisions shall be considered to be nullity and be void. As far as this case is considered, it was decided in favour of the executive that the appropriation of the funds shall be in accordance and consonance with the constitutional provision relating to the parliamentary funding and appropriation. It shall not be legal and ethical to surpass the boundaries and limits as set by the Constitution for the purpose of securing the interests of the Society.

It was observed by the High Court in the above mentioned two cases that it shall be the legal obligation of the authorities and the organisation to honour to the ethical adherences and considerations. The executive cannot exceed the powers and privileges provided by the constitution of the commonwealth and the legislations attached to the constitution therefore. The finance minister in the case did appropriate millions of fund for the purpose of volunteer same sex proposal survey as a plebiscite which was not in consonance and pursuant to the conditions and terms attached in the Appropriation Act and therefore was in violation of the Section 83 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth3.

The specific section only deals with the substance that the Finance minister shall allocate fund so sanctioned by the Parliament as has been provided for and the digression shall only be considered to be effective and reasonable in the cases of unforeseen contingencies and emergencies which in this case was not justified by the affidavit so provided by the Finance minister as a reason for appropriating 122 Million towards an action which was not provided for in the Constitutional Provisions and the Appropriation Act therefore.

There were various landmark observations in these cases which have been stated, discussed and described herein by the High Court of Australia in the year 2017 which basically and primarily discuss the cause of the powers of the finance minister, the Constitutional provisions relating to the appropriation of funds by the executive, the determination of any situation as being unforeseen and contingent, constitutional validity and reasonability of the advances made to the finance minister and the appropriation and allocation of the funds and resources therefore. It was observed conclusively that there cannot be appropriations without any kind of designated purpose and motive which was somewhere reflected in this case and situation therefore. It is very crucial and essential for the purpose of the interests of the society to use and appropriate the funds in accordance to the terms and provisions therefore. It shall be necessary and imperative for the State to protect the Constitutional Integrity and Unity of the State.

The major case in corroboration to the case of Wilkin has been stated in the above paper for the purpose of assessing the impact of the case of Wilkin so decided by the High Court Judicature of Australia.

Bibliography

"High Court Dismisses Challenge, So Australia Is Off To The (Postal) Polls On Same-Sex Marriage",  The Conversation  (Webpage, 2022) <https://theconversation.com/high-court-dismisses-challenge-so-australia-is-off-to-the-postal-polls-on-same-sex-marriage-82372>.

Martin Clark and View →, "Wilkie V Commonwealth; Australian Marriage Equality Ltd V Cormann | Opinions On High",  Blogs.Unimelb.Edu.Au  (Webpage, 2022) <https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/2017/09/28/wilkie-case-page/>.

"High Court Ruling On The Constitutional Challenge To The Marriage Equality Survey - Timebase",  Timebase.Com.Au  (Webpage, 2022) <https://www.timebase.com.au/news/2017/AT04418-article.html>.

You Might Also Like:-

Criminal Justice System in Australia Assignment Sample

Policy Change to Civil and Criminal Justice Systems Relevant to Managing Terrorism

Justice Studies Assignment Help