Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

POLITICAL STIR.

Federal Attorney-General's Action Challenged. ACCEPTANCE OF BRIEF. (Received 9.30 a.m.) CANBERRA, this day. , A political stir was caused yesterday when a Labour member of the House of Representatives, Mr. Maurice Blackburn, who represents a Victorian constituency, moved the adjournment of the House to discuss "the acceptance by the Federal Attorney-General, Mr. R. G. Menzies, of a brief from Victorian persons or bodies concerned in a dried fruits appeal case before the Privy Council." Mr. Blackburn stated that Mr. Menzies is now in London representing the Commonwealth in that appeal. His action in accepting a brief, and, it was reported, a fee of 2000 guineas, to represent the State of Victoria, whose interests in the appeal were identical with those of the Commonwealth, was, he said, a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of section 45 of the Commonwealth Constitution which was liable to render his seat vacant. Mr. Blackburn claimed that the veriest junior could say what Mr. Menzies was going to say which was that Victoria concurred with the Commonwealth argument. Mr. W. M. Hughes, Minister of Health, defending Mr. Menzies, contended that it was very proper that Victoria should be represented in this appeal and no better person could be selected than tlie man who was formerly Attorney-General of that State. It was true that the test of propriety must be the effect of Mr. Menzies' actions in the public interest, and in this instance they certainly were not conflicting with public interest. New South Wales was to be represented by its Attorney-General, Mr. Manning. The Prime Minister, Mr. J. A. Lyons, said that Mr. Menzies' action was not in conflict with the Constitution, but whether the Victorian Government should pay Mr. Menzies an honorarium was not a matter for the Federal Government. The motion was defeated on a party division by 38 to 23 votes. MR. MENZIES SILENT. REFUSAL TO COMMENT. (Received 1.30 p.m.) LONDON, March 31. Mr. R. G. Menzies refuses to comment on the Labour allegations that he improperly accepted a brief from Victoria in the Privy Council case.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19360401.2.47

Bibliographic details

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 78, 1 April 1936, Page 7

Word Count
348

POLITICAL STIR. Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 78, 1 April 1936, Page 7

POLITICAL STIR. Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 78, 1 April 1936, Page 7

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert