Secession—The Legal Difficulties

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21391, 6 February 1935, Page 10

Secession—The Legal Difficulties

It was announced in a cable message printed yesterday that the Commonwealth Government had taken steps to oppose the reception in England of the petition for the secession of Western Australia. The news is not unexpected, and its ultimate effect, unlikely as this may seem at the moment, may be for the good. When the referendum was taken two-thirds of 90 per cent, of the electors of Western Australia voted for secession, giving to the Labour Government that wai put in power at the same time a definite mandate. The Labour party, pledged by policy to support any referendum, but opposed to secession, met an awkward position with procrastination. After a delay of many months tne case for secession was drawn up by a specially-ap-pointed group, the document being intended, according to the introduction, "to be read and used as a " supplement to an address to his "Majesty the King and petitions to " both Houses of Parliament seeking " legislation necessary to effectuate " the withdrawal of the people of " Western Australia from the " Federal Commonwealth of Aus - " tralia." The secessionists realised very well that their aim could not be achieved by an appeal to the Commonwealth Government, and took the only other course which suggested itself, an approach to the Imperial Parliament. But the legal difficulty arising from this action cannot be solved by the existing machinery, if those opposed to secession, whether the small but solid minority in Western Australia or the larger forces of the other states, insist upon their legal rights. This is precisely what the Commonwealth Government is doing. The Statute of Westminster, which attempted to fix the relationships of the component parts of the Empire, failed to give legal expression to the rather vague Balfour formula upon which it was based. The Imperial Parliament, under that statute, can legislate for a Dominion, but only with the advice and consent of that Dominion; and this was a point emphasised by Australia when agreeing to sign it. Further, Australia specifically reaffirmed the inviolability of the constitution and of the statute upon which it is based. Those opposed to secession, who believe that the country's prosperity depends upon greater solidarity of the federated states rather than separation, are rightly basing their argument upon the Commonwealth Constitution. Section 123 provides that any amendment must be made by legislation and referendum in Australia; and there is an added argument in Section 105 A, which provides that no state can avoid its obligations undei the financial agreement save with the consent of the other states. The further argument that the preamble of the constitution describes the. Commonwealth as " an indissoluble " union" has been effectively met by the secessionists, who argue that some of the conditions of the contractual agreement have not been kept and that they are therefore entitled to unilateral rescission. From the legal tangle this fact emerges, that only the Commonwealth Government, in the circumstances, can grant secession, and that it is not likely to do. Thfi resultant deadlock, as has already been hinted, may well be solved by the passing of time, which may soften the hardened opinions of tne secessionists. The movement has passed through the stages of agitation, crystallisation of opinion, statement and restatement of the case, and is now straying in the maze of legal argument. Further, the gradual trade revival may persuade Australia to depart from Impolicy of abnormally high tariffs and so remove in part one of the main grievances of the secessionists.