BRITISH COMMISSIONER

Hawera Star, Volume L, 20 December 1930, Page 5

BRITISH COMMISSIONER

AUSTRALIAN REPRESENTATION EARLY APPOINTMENT EXPECTED HOME GOVERNMENT’S CHANNEL . J !••«. A«M>ociuUoii —By Kieuiilc i.ir-gi..,." u.^ngni.; LONDON, Dec. 19. The announcement ol the appointment of a British High Commissioner to Australia can be expected in the near future. Apparently the British Government fully realises the remarkable situation that has arisen as a sequel to the appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs as Gov-ernor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, being the only Dominion having no British representative. It is believed that the question of a suitable appointee is now being considered. It will be necessary to enter into full consultation with all the Dominions in accordance with the Imperial Conference resolutions before an appointment is made, and the High Commissioner must be approved by Mr Senllin in the same manner as foreign countries approve ambassadors. It is understood that M r Scull in approves the principle, and the same practice will be followed as with South Africa—no official statement will be made until the appointment is actually announced by the King, but the Commissioner will primarily be the British Government’s channel for carrying out most of tlio duties Govomors-tJonercil performed before becoming solely the King’s personal representative. He will probably lie stationed at Canberra, with a staff of British Government officials.

Lord Stanley, of Alderley, formerly Governor of Victoria, in a letter to the editor of “The Times,” draws attention to the answer of Mr J. _ H. Thomas (Secretary for the Dominions' in the House of Commons on December 3 that he had seen Mr Scullin. with a view to expediting the Victorian settlers’ inquiry.

He is of opinion that the answer suggests that the Secretary of State was using the Prime Minister both as a channel of communication and as an authority empowered to direct and instruct the States, in which connection recent, events .suggest that neither the Imperial Conference nor Britaih fully considered Australia’s special constitution. “I am unable,” writes Lord Stanley, “to reconcile the declaration that Australia is an autonomous -community with the Commonwealth’s lack of authority in the large field of governmental activities of the States, whose heads are appointed on the advice of British Ministers. Presumably the Royal instructions to the GovernorGeneral have been altered t*> fit the confemc’s decisions, but it it not yet announced that the State Governors’ instructions have been modified.

“If explicit instructions regarding the withholding of the Royal assent to certain legislation be unaltered, it is clear that Australia is not an autonomous community, nor can it be made so bv the transference of the power of disallowance to the Governor-General. Yet the withdrawing of those disallowing powers would enlarge the States’" powers beyond what was contemplated bv federation.

“Moreover, it is anomalous —if there be autonomy—that the State Governor should be aopointable on the recommendation of the British Minister. But the giving to Commonwealth Ministers of power to recommend the appointment of State Governors would be contra rv to the spirit of the Constitution.”