Section 96 was reaffirmed twice in
recent years.
Commissioner of Taxation, where a
lecturer challenged the constitutional
validity of Kevin Rudd's taxpayer
handouts of $900. One of Pape's
argument was that Section 96 did
not allow for a Federal government
injection of stimulus in the form of $900
payouts directly to taxpayers as the
money should have gone to the states
first who could have passed it on to
their residents. In 2012 in Williams
v Commonwealth(School Chaplains
Case) the Federal government's ability
to fund government activities inside
states was again called into question.
government has argued that the
Commonwealth was relying on its
executive power contained under s.51
and not under s.96. In both cases
the High Court disagreed. It appears
that the current High Court does not
in funding local activities directly was
directly and sufficiently connected to a
valid constitutional head of power. The
Court declared that s.96 is relevant
and it has a limiting effect on Federal
government power. This means for
practical purposes that the Federal
government must go through the
states to fund activities that are not
sufficiently connected to its own head
of power.
now be more obvious. It is not because
as it supporters have suggested to
local governments do in Australia.
That is already self-apparent. The
referendum is about is changing
the precarious federal nature of
our constitution in favour of more
centralisation.
there is a central government as
well state governments. The central
government runs things of a national
character, that is defence, foreign
relations, customs and excise and
postal services. The state governments
are supposed to run the things that