Follow HighCourtNSCP on Twitter 

As of 26 June 2014 I am yet to receive any proportion of costs awarded within the the High Court's decision in Williams I on 20 June 2012. The extremely comprehensive, scaled process is such, that I am unaware of what amount will eventually be reimbursed - knowing only that it will not represent my total legal costs. Within the Court's judgement in Williams II on 19 June 2014, it was ordered that the defendants should pay my costs of the special case. The costs of the proceeding are otherwise in the discretion of the single Justice who makes final orders disposing of the proceeding. The process of seeking the reimbursement of these costs is yet to commence, will be lengthy, and again, will not represent the full amount expended upon Williams II.

In consideration of the above, I will gratefully accept any financial assistance which can be provided.

To all of the generous folk in Australia and beyond who have supported and encouraged me throughout two successful High Court challenges - please accept my deepest appreciation.

DIRECT DEPOSIT

BANK: NAB

ACCOUNT:
Horowitz & Bilinsky Pty Ltd ATF Ronald James Williams

ACCOUNT#
: 169589121

BSB
: 082 080

REFERENCE
: R.J. Williams

Please Note: While the above account name may not be accommodated in full within the space provided at some online banking facilities, be assured that NAB account number 082 080 169589121 is dedicated to the Horowitz & Bilinsky RJ Williams controlled moneys account, with or without the provision of 'reference' or other information.

CHEQUE/MONEY ORDER

MAILING DETAILS: Printable Page

All funds deposited to the above controlled moneys account will be applied to legal costs and disbursements associated with my High Court proceedings.

Please note that any monetary assistance to off-set these legal costs is not a tax deductible expense. I do not claim charity or non-profit status.

All funds donated via the PayPal facility below will without exception be re-directed to the H&B RJ Williams controlled moneys account described above.

 

 

The above movie is a whistle-stop tour of possibly the most outrageous political stunt
ever foisted upon the taxpayers of Australia. As soon as possible I will update the movie
to reflect the 19 June High Court of Australia decision.

 

The Drum ABC TV 19 June 2014

NSCP

RONALD WILLIAMS v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA & ORS

[19 June 2014] HCA 23

Today the High Court unanimously decided that legislation enacted by the Commonwealth Parliament which purported to provide legislative authority to make agreements for the outlay of public money, and to make payments under those agreements, is invalid in its operation with respect to a funding agreement between the Commonwealth and Scripture Union Queensland ("SUQ"). By that agreement, the Commonwealth was to pay SUQ to provide chaplaincy services at schools in Queensland.

In December 2010, Ronald Williams brought a proceeding in the High Court challenging the payment of money by the Commonwealth to SUQ for SUQ to provide chaplaincy services at the state school Mr  Williams' four children attended. In 2012, the Court held that  the funding agreement between SUQ and the Commonwealth, and the payments made under it, were not supported by the executive power of the Commonwealth under s 61 of the Constitution.

Soon after the Court made orders in that proceeding, the Parliament enacted the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act (No 3) 2012 (Cth) ("the FFLA Act"). The FFLA Act amended the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (Cth) ("the FMA Act") and the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997 (Cth) ("the FMA Regulations") to provide legislative support not only for the making of agreements and payments of the kind which were in issue in the first proceeding, but also for the making of other arrangements and grants.

Mr Williams then brought a fresh proceeding in the High Court against the Commonwealth, the relevant Minister and SUQ, challenging the validity of the relevant provisions of the FMA Act and FMA Regulations inserted by the FFLA Act. He challenged the validity of those provisions both generally and in their particular operation with respect to the payment of money by the Commonwealth to SUQ under the then funding agreement. Both the agreement and the payments made under it were said to be made under the "National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program".

The Court held that, in their operation with respect to the challenged funding agreement and the challenged payments made under that agreement, none of the challenged provisions is a valid law of the Commonwealth. The provisions are not, in their relevant operation, supported by a head of legislative power under the Constitution. Providing at a school the services of a chaplain or welfare worker for the objective described in the FMA Regulations is not a provision of "benefits to students" within the meaning of s 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution. The Court further held that the Commonwealth's entry into, and expenditure of money under, the funding agreement was not supported by the executive power of the Commonwealth. The making of the payments was therefore held to be unlawful.