LEGALLY RIGHT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 149, 26 June 1934, Page 10

LEGALLY RIGHT.

PARLIAMENT'S LIFE.

QUESTION OF EXTENSION.

CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION.

The constitutional position of the present New Zealand Parliament in extending its life for a year was denned by Mr. A. C. Braeeington in an address to the Public Service Administration Society in Christchurch (states the "Press"). Mr. Brassington cited views of authorities concerning an _• English precedent. for a similar action, and maintained that the New Zealand Parliament had been quite within its legal rights in doing what it had done. It was provided by section 35 of the Finance Act, 1932, said Mr. Brassington, that unless it should previously be dissolved the Parliament should continue to sit until December 23,' 1035. When this was done, one of the objections expressed was that the legislative provision appeared in the Finance Act and not in a special statute. But there was no fundamental law providing that a statute dealing with the Constitution had to be tabled in any particular way. It need have no special form, and there was no reason why it might not be included in a Finance Act or other statute.

The whole position was that Parliament, because of its sovereign power, could <lo what it liked by legislation, provided the bill passed both Houses and received the assent of the GovernorGeneral. It could change and create afresh even the Constitution, as was stated by A. V. Dicey, the eminent English authority, who referred to "the omnipotence of Parliament."

For the life of Parliament a case in point wae the Septennial Act of 1716. The Parliament sitting at that time did so under an Act of 1694, which provided for three-year Parliaments. By the Septennial Act the members of the House then sitting had the period of their tenure of office extended by four years. The authorities, llallam and Stanhope, maintained that the Parliament did not exceed its powers in doing this. The 31 peers who objected did so on the ground that the Commons must be chosen by the people, that they were the agents of the people, and could not be eaid to be so chosen if they sat for a longer time than that in force at the time of their election. If they sat after that time they were sitting as members chosen by Parliament. It was stated by Dicey that the English Parliament, in doing this, had made a legal, though unprecedented, extension of its powers. He maintained that there was nothing in English law to prevent Parliament prolonging its own life, abolishing itself, setting up a dictator, or altering the franchise. From a legal I point of view the Parliament of New Zealand had similarly been within its rights in 1032 in prolonging its life for a year.