Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. Does the Attorney-General stand by his statement that the decision in Williams v Commonwealth of Australia No. 2 has no implications for Commonwealth programs other than the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask a supplementary question. Does the Attorney-General stand by his claim that it would be erroneous and ignorant to suggest that the case has no implications for Commonwealth programs other than the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I do. I point out to Senator Singh that I was referring to a press release issued by the shadow minister for finance, Mr Burke, who made some very wild claims about the meaning of the decision. The High Court was asked a broad question and a narrow question. It answered the narrow question, 'Was the school chaplaincy program invalid,' by saying that it was. It explicitly declared that it was not necessary to answer the broad question. The effect of the case was to affirm the decision of the High Court in the earlier Williams v Commonwealth of Australia No. 1 decision, which did have very significant potential consequences for a range of programs. But Williams No. 2, beyond striking down the chaplaincy program, took the law as stated in Williams No. 1 no further.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given his smug assertion that there are no implications for other programs, can the Attorney-General now confirm all Commonwealth programs other than the National School Chaplaincy Program are supported by a constitutional head of power?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I can say to Senator Singh is that when the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act was debated in the Senate in June 2012, I expressed the view that I did not think that it would satisfy the requirements set out by the High Court in Williams No. 1. I remain of that view, but the point of your question, Senator Singh, as I understand it is whether Williams No. 2 has a broader implication. It does not; it affirms the law as set out by Williams No. 1. My views about the consequences of Williams No. 1 remain.