The Press WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1947. Constitutional Crisis In Victoria

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25309, 8 October 1947, Page 6

The Press WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1947. Constitutional Crisis In Victoria

In exercising its technical right to reject supply bills in an attempt to force the dissolution of Parliament and a general election, the Victorian Legislative Council is treading on extremely dangerous ground. It is taking advantage of a constitutional power which, by the tradition and spirit of Parliamentary procedure, is anomalous. The Victorian Upper House differs slightly from many other upper chambers in that it is elective and not appointed; but as the franchise is very narrow, being restricted to about a third of all Victorian voters, the Legislative Council cannot fairly claim to be a body representative of the general electorate. Since the British Parliament Act of 1911 it has been an accepted principle of parliamentary government that the elective body has the sole control of the public purse. Sir Frank Clarke. Leader of the Opposition in the Victorian Legislative Council, has attempted to justify the rejection of the supply bills by relating them to the Federal Government’s bank nationalisation plans, pointing out that the votes include the fees of State

Government counsel in the recent High Court proceedings, in which Victorian local authorities successfully challenged provisions of the Federal Banking Act. If there is a connexion it is tenuous indeed; the State Government cannot fairly be held responsible for the actions of the Federal Government. Clearly the Opposition in Victoria believes that it is justified in using these questionable means; but even many who are most incensed at the Federal Government’s plan to nationalise the banks without a mandate feel that the end does not justify the means. Sir Frank Clarke’s own recorded statements show how far he and his supporters have deviated from accepted Parliamentary principles. In June, when a suggestion was made that the Legislative Council should block supply, Sir Frank Clarke declared that although he would “do anything to shake “this Government from the Treas“ury benches”, he considered that the Upper House “ should not interfere on a question of money”. He added: “ It is hot for this House “ to make or unmake governments, “ and it is not for this House to in“terfere with money bills or the “ finances of the State The Opposition majority in the Legislative Council may yet regret its retreat from these principles. Already it has been outmanoeuvred by Mr Cain’s Government in the early exchanges of the constitutional battle. Mr Cain shrewdly postponed acceptance of the dissolution challenge, allowing one payday for the public service to pass by without paying. His Government can be expected to profit from the resentment of the civil servants and from public sympathy with them. The Government has made it known that if an election is held it will fight it on the issue of abolition <sr Teforin of the Upper House. This could well rival bank nationalisation in public interest; and nnless bank nationalisation can be made, beyond dispute, the issue on which Government and Opposition appeal to the electorate, the whole object of the constitutional coup will have failed. There are more serious dangers which are all too apparent to members of the Federal Opposition, now working up a very strong case against nationalisation and for a referendum on the subject. The foundations of this case would be swept away by the return of the Cain Government in Victoria; and that eventuality is made the more likely by the widespread indignation and misgivings which would be aro’ised by a gross abuse of constitutional powers.