STATE’S APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 170, 14 April 1932, Page 7

STATE’S APPEAL

Upper House Abolition in New South Wales PRIVY COUNCIL CASE By Telegraph—Press Assn. —Copyright. London, April 12. The appeal of the Government of New South Wales to the Privy Council from the Full Court’s judgment that the Government of New South Wales could not proceed to the abolition of the Legislative Council until a referendum of the people had been taken has commenced before Lords Sankey, Blanesburgh, Hanworth, Atkin, and Russell of Killowen. Counsel In the ease are:— For the appellants: Sir Stafford Cripps, Mr. D. Pritt, K.C., and Mr. A. Nesbitt. For the respondents (certain members of the New South Wales Legislative Council) : Mr. Wilfrid Greene, K.C., Mr. Maughan, and Mr. Wilfred Barton. For the Commonwealth: Mr. J. G. Latham (Attorney-General), and Mr. W. Fullagar. For the Crown (apart from the At-torney-General, Sir Thomas Inskip, who is intervening): Mr. Wilfred Lewis and Mr. J. P. Ashworth, who is Treasury Solicitor. Sir Stafford Cripps outlined the case and will commence argument on Thursday. The intervention of the British Government in the appeal is understood to indicate that the Government attaches great importance to the appeal as a test case, the result of which will be applicable not only to all States of the Commonwealth but practically to all parts of the British Empire. It is believed that the Attorney-General decided to intervene after consulting the Dominions Office. The judgment of the Full Court from which appeal is made was delivered on March 16, ~ 1931. Mr. Justice Rich, in the course of his judgment, with which other judges concurred, said that the case was an appeal by special leave from a decree of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in equity; by which it was declared that a Bill to abolish the Legislative Council of New South Wales or to repeal or amend the provisions of section 7 (a) of the Constitution Act. 1902. of New South Wales could not be presented to his Excellency the Governor for his Majesty’s assent until approved by the electors in accordance with that section. Defendants were restrained from presenting for assent a Bill passed by both Houses of the Legislature for the repeal of section 7 (a) of the Constitution Act, 1902, and a Bill passed by both Houses for the abolition of the Legislative Council. The defendants so restrained were the President of the Legislative Council, the Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales, the Premier, and the other Ministers of the Crown for the State. The provisions of section 7 (a), which were inserted in. the Constitution Act by an amendment .of 1929, provided that a Bill for any purpose within sub-section 1 of the section shall not be presented to the Governor for his Majesty's assent until the Bill had been approved by the electors. If a majority of the electors approved the Bill it was to be presented to the Governor for his Majesty’s assent. z The Government of the day. having announced its intention of taking measures to procure the passage through both Houses of Bills to repeal section 7 (a) and to abolish the Legislative Council, the Legislative Council itself, relying apparently upon the belief that such Bills eould not be lawfully assented to without a referendum, originated and passed Bills which were the subject of the decree. It thus became unnecessary for the Government to adopt any of the measures announced ; and upon the Bills being passed by the Legislative Council the controversy was reduced to the question of law. whether-the Bills could be presented lawfully to the Governor, and whether, if presented, lawfully or unlawfully, the Royal assent could be validly given unless tbc Bills were first submitted to and approved by the electors at a referendum. The suit was instituted by two members of the Legislative Council suing on behalf of themselves and all other members, except the President, and those members who. being Ministers of the Crown, were joined as defendants. Tn July last a crisis arose between Sir Philip Game, the State Governor, and Mr. J. T. Lang, the Premier, over the onestion of appointments to the Upper House. Sir Philip Game refused additional appointments sought by Mr. Lang, and the Premier talked of appealing to the Dominions Office, but it wns reported later that the Dominions Office would not interfere, on the ground that the matter was one for settlement betw°en the Governor and his Ministers. The State Government claimed that the Governor must accept the advice of his Ministers, but no settlement was reached. and Mr. Lang announced his intention of appealing tn the Privy Council on the constitutional issue.