This chapter explains the further development throughout the twentieth century of public finance law and its impact on the distribution of financial authority between parliaments, executives and judiciaries. It accounts for the delegation of ever-greater financial authority to executive governments as a result of a number of major events: the world wars, the growth of the welfare state, the development of central banking and the influence of private-sector managerial philosophies on public administration. Taking a broad sample of Australia, Canadian, New Zealand and UK legislation and judicial doctrine, the chapter describes how and why sovereign borrowing was severed from parliamentary processes, the preponderance of public expenditure came to be authorised by standing (rather than annual) appropriation legislation, central banks acquired independent authority to provide monetary finance to treasuries and how public auditing functions became more concerned with the efficient (rather than lawful) use of public money. The manner in which judiciaries' jettisoned their private-property protecting attitude to taxation legislation is also explained.

This chapter evaluates the limited function of common law judiciaries in public finance by reference to UK and Australian case studies. It opens by observing and explaining the asymmetrical involvement of judiciaries in public finance law: why disputes concerning tax legislation are more justiciable than disputes concerning appropriation, debt and monetary finance. The chapter then analyses the only modern attempt by a common law judiciary to expand its involvement in disputes concerning public expenditure, Williams v The Commonwealth of Australia, and its aftermath. That Australian case study neatly illustrates the judiciary's inability to effect a meaningful re-distribution of financial authority away from treasury departments and towards parliaments. The chapter then examines the problems with understanding common law courts as systemically reliable mechanisms to enforce parliamentary authority over taxation by reference to the UK judiciary's tax law and tax agency practice. The chapter concludes that the presence of judicial power does not substantially impact the distribution of financial authority between executive governments and parliaments.

This chapter introduces the central questions broached in the book. How does law distribute authority over public finance between constitutional institutions? How did that law develop? What role do economic, financial and administrative conditions have on the distribution of financial authority between parliaments and executive governments? Do judiciaries play a meaningful role in supervising public finance? Does it make sense to understand parliaments to 'control' public finance in the parliamentary tradition of government? The chapter opens by explaining AV Dicey's understanding of parliamentary control of public finance and his influence on later academic and practical engagements with the financial aspect of constitutionalism. Critical financial concepts are then explained, particularly the different functions performed by fiscal activities (taxing and spending), debt finance and monetary finance. The dominant position of 'central' government finance to the modern constitutional state is introduced and the distinction between 'parliamentary' and 'congressional' constitutional systems is clarified. The chapter closes by summarising the book's major claims.

This chapter provides a case study analysis of the operation of public finance law concerning sovereign debt and monetary finance in the UK and Australia between 2005 and 2016. The legal and financial mechanics of sovereign borrowing and monetary finance are closely examined by reference to the authority of central banks and treasuries to finance the state beyond the point of fiscal deficit. The very broad powers delegated to treasuries over sovereign debt are scrutinised in the context of vastly different economic conditions, and their capacity to shrink the financial authority held by parliaments is observed. Special attention is then given to the monetary financing powers of central banks, particularly the Bank of England. The emergency monetary finance provided by the Bank of England during the financial crisis is surveyed, and the public financing aspect of 'unconventional' monetary policy, particularly quantitative easing, is examined. The chapter closes by observing the absence of meaningful legislative governance of debt and monetary finance in the context of financial or economic emergencies.

Drawing together the book's analyses of public finance law and parliamentary constitutionalism, this chapter argues against the descriptive validity of the idea of parliamentary control of public money and observes the implications of that argument for democratic control of public finance. It begins by settling on an analytical framework for assessing whether parliament does indeed 'control' public finance built upon an idea of 'financial self-rule'. That framework is then applied to the legal and institutional practices which were observed in earlier chapters: concluding that parliaments cannot be said to have control of public finance in any studied jurisdiction. After discussing how broadly that conclusion can be generalised, the chapter evaluates different descriptive models of public finance in parliamentary constitutions: executive control, financial interdependence and parliamentary ratification. The chapter concludes that the latter 'ratification' model is most compelling and explains why that model secures a low level of financial self-rule.