The matter related to the power of the Commonwealth executive government to enter into contracts and spend public moneys under section 61 of the Australian Constitution.

[1]: para 2 The parties agreed to submit a special case stating questions for determination by the High Court.

All members of the Court agreed that chaplains engaged by Scripture Union Queensland held no "office ... under the Commonwealth".

First, all six members of the majority rejected a broad submission that the Commonwealth executive's power to spend lawfully appropriated money was unlimited.

[1]: paras 35, 159, 253, 524, 595  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.

[1]: paras 9, 117, 168, 457, 598 Justice Heydon concluded that Mr Williams had no standing to challenge the drawing of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (Question 3).