AUST. BANKS CHALLENGE PRIVY COUNCIL’S POWER ON APPEAL

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 22915, 6 April 1949, Page 7

AUST. BANKS CHALLENGE PRIVY COUNCIL’S POWER ON APPEAL

(11 a.m.) LONDON, April 5. The Australian Government’s case to have reversed the Australian High Court’s decision invalidating its bank nationalisation legislation ended in the Privy Council this morning, when Mr. D. N. Pritt, K.C., concluded his argument on behalf of New South Wales and Queensland.

These States intervened to sup- * port the Commonwealth contention that the Bank Act did not infringe Section 92 of the Constitution. The presenfation of the Commonwealth case lasted just over 15 days. Sir Cyril Radcliffe K.C., on behalf of the banks, then began his argument on a preliminary point that the Privy Council is not competent to hear .the appeal without a certificate of the High Court because it means deciding an inter sc question. (An inter se question is one between Commonwealth and a State or between a State and a State). The right to argue this preliminary point was granted to the banks when the Privy Council granted the Commonwealth leave to appeal. Sir C.vril Radcliffe submitted that the appeal was outside the Privy Council s jurisdiction. The appellants had not asked for a certificate. He said he hoped to establish that section 46 of the Act, which gave power to the Federal Treasurer to prohibit private banks from continuing in business, was not within the legislative power conferred upon the Commonwealth bv section 51 of the constitution. Sir Cyril Radcliffe said he would try to satisfy tlie Privy Council that section 46 (if the Act was not an independent power standing aloof from the remaining clauses. It was only to be applied as an appendage to the acquisition and compensation clauses. Section 46 gave too great a power for fairness and should be struck down for that reason. ... Mr. G. E. Barwick K.C.. dealing with the relation of section 46 of the Act to section 92 of the constitution, said that section 46 prohibited all further banking transactions by private banks on the receipt of notice bv the Federal Treasurer. Dr. H. V. Evatt. he said, had said that the section stopped the business and not t’ne transactions. The section, in saying that the banks should not carry on banking business in Australia, meant that they should not carry on banking transactions. It forbade them all to trade and so. necessarily, it forbade all inter-Slate transactions. Mr. Barwick said the evidence in the High Court was that all the respondent banks had inter state transactions, but that two of them had no branches outside their own States.

Section 41 excluded from the activity of inter-State banking all who were engaged in it so as to create a monopoly for the Government-owned Commonwealth Bank.