GOVERNORS-GENERAL

Greymouth Evening Star, 28 February 1931, Page 7

GOVERNORS-GENERAL

METHOD OF APPOINTMENT [BY CABLE —PRESS ASSN. —COPYRIGHT.] LONDON, February 26. In the House of Lords, Lord Denman asked if the Government proposed to appoint an accredited British representative to Australia, as had been done in Canada and in South Africa. Lord Novar said he failed to see how the High Commissioner could carry out the duties that were until recently performed by the GovernorGeneral. Lord Passfield replied: This is a matter of some delicacy. It is difficult to speak plainly without a liability, at a distance, of being misunderstood. The present Government has not participated in the establishing of the guiding principle which led to the change in the manner of the appointment of Australia’s Governor-General. Any question of propriety as to the action of the Commonwealth Government in appointing the Governor-Genera,! is a matter for themselves, and not for the British Government. The present and the previous Government’s policy was to go slowly and let constitutional practice w<ork out itself. The Government must proceed with the concurrence and cordiality of the Commonwealth Government. He said he did not know whether a High Commissioner to Australia would fill the bill. This was a matter for consideration. . , „ He Continued: The British Constitution is not logical. There are things that ought to be put right, bit by bit. Sometimes it is better not to be overlogical. Certainly this was not the practice in 1926. New Zealand, he said, had not sought any change. So long as she was contented with the older system, there was no reason why the Government should insist on an alteration out of a desire for logical uniformity. Lord Passfield added that he recognised the importance of not forcing the pace. They must be guided, if not governed, by the conclusions of the imperial Conference of 1930. Legislation would not be introduced without the express assent of the Dominion Parliaments. The debate then ended.