The Court held by majority that Mr Williams had standing, and that the funding agreement and the making of payments pursuant to that agreement were beyond the executive power of the Commonwealth. Justice
Heydon dissented. The Court unanimously rejected that part of Mr Williams' challenge which relied on s 116 of the Constitution. Section 116 states that "no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth". All members of the Court agreed that chaplains engaged by Scripture Union Queensland held no "office ... under the Commonwealth".
Majority judgments In the majority, Chief Justice
French, Justice
Hayne, Justice
Crennan and Justice
Kiefel each wrote separate judgments, while Justices
Gummow and
Bell wrote together. The majority resolved the question of standing by reference to the involvement of the Attorneys-General of the States. In particular, the majority concluded that because the States had exercised their right to intervene under the
Judiciary Act, and because Victoria and Western Australia had intervened substantially in support of Mr Williams, "the questions of standing may be put to one side". Resolution of the issues concerning the Commonwealth executive power turned on two arguments made by the Commonwealth about the scope of the power of the Commonwealth to contract and spend. First, all six members of the majority rejected a broad submission that the Commonwealth executive's power to spend lawfully appropriated money was unlimited. Secondly, four members of the majority (Chief Justice French and Justices Gummow, Crennan and Bell) rejected a narrower submission to the effect that the Commonwealth executive could spend money on any subject matter that corresponded to a head of Commonwealth legislative power, as identified in sections
51, 52 and 122 of the Constitution. The other members of the majority (Justices Hayne and Kiefel) did not reach a final view about the narrower submission; their conclusion was that, even if the submission was correct, no head of Commonwealth legislative power supported the Commonwealth's entry into the funding agreement or the making of payments under that agreement. In relation to Question 3, which concerned whether the drawing of money for the purposes of the funding agreement was authorised by appropriations, the majority of the High Court held that it was unnecessary to answer the question.
Dissenting judgment Justice Heydon concluded that Mr Williams had no standing to challenge the drawing of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (Question 3). However, he concluded that Mr Williams did have standing to challenge the validity of the funding agreement, and to challenge the making of payments to Scripture Union Queensland in the 2010-11 year. Justice Heydon concluded that the Commonwealth's narrower submission – that the Commonwealth executive could spend money on any subject matter that corresponded to a head of Commonwealth legislative power – was correct. On that basis, the funding agreement and the payments made under the funding agreement were supported by the Commonwealth executive power. In particular, they were within the scope of the "provision of ... benefits to students" within the meaning of s 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution. == Legislative response ==