THE H.B. TRIBUNE FRIDAY, AUGUST 15, 1930 NEW LEGISLATIVE POWERS

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XX, Issue 202, 15 August 1930, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE FRIDAY, AUGUST 15, 1930 NEW LEGISLATIVE POWERS

When, at the beginning of the week, our Prime Minis Iter introduced the subject of the coming Imperial Conference for discussion in Parliament, he made lengthy reference to the recommendations of the Committee of Experts which has been engaged in formulating something in the nature of a “Constitution” for the association of self-governing dominions within the Empire. This committee, as he explained, was set up pursuant to a decision reached at the Imperial Conference of 1926. Its function was mainly to seek specific means and methods whereby the broad principles of the Balfour Resolution passed at that time should be more closely defined and allowed practical effect. With regard to these recommendations Mr. Forbes said that thev were in no way the outcome of any desire of our own Government, either of that day or of this, but were sought entirely by other dominions, New Zealand merely assenting. He then went on to say that “if at the forthcoming conference it should appear that the recommendations meet with common acceptance of the. other Governments concerned, then New Zealand would not dissent.” This, as was said here at the time of utterance, would seem to be a rather indifferent and neutral kind of attitude to assume on behalf of a country whose previous representatives at such assemblies have generally had opinions of their own to express. This is all the more the case because there are not a few deep-thinking and far-seeing men who fear that the adoption of some of the Committee’s proposals are more likely to tend to disruption rather than to unity in the Empire. Among these is Professor J. H. Morgan, who occupies the chair of Constitutional Law at University College, London, but is better known to the world from his work at the Peace Conference and in connection with various post-war activities in Germany. In an article appearing in one of the monthly reviews he deals more especially with the new legislative powers that the Committee suggests should be expressly conferred upon the individual dominions. After noting the admitted vagueness and openness of the Balfour Resolution he proceeds to discuss the possible consequences of the adoption of the Committee’s recommendations. The principal flaw in the Balfour formula is found in the fact that it does not recognise the existing legislative supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. He insists that that Parliament always has had and still has power to legislate for the whole Empire, and that where legislation by any of the dominions conflicts with legislation by the British Parliament expressly and directly applicable to them, then the latter must prevail. Not only this, but he also contends that this is an inherent power of the British Parliament of which it cannot divest itself. This position is in no way altered by the fact that, of more recent years, the Imperial Parliament when passing Acts of general application to Ins Majesty’s pos sessions have excluded the great self-governing dominions from their-

operation, leaving it for them to adopt the Acts or not as they pleased. Nor is it affected by the fact that the Imperial Parliament has practically ceased to legislate for the dominions, except by invitation or consent, or by the fact that it has almost invariably repealed, or authorised the dominions themselves to repeal, earlier Imperial legislation represented as not agreeable to them. Professor Morgan hazards the opinion that matters might well have been left to a system so flexible and elastic as these practices indicate. But the Committee, he says, “has recommended that henceforth the dominion legislatures shall have a general power to repeal each and every Imperial Act remaining on our Statute Book.” Then, through a lengthy discursion, he points out that this means that by an act of possibly hasty legislation any one or other of the dominions might throw oft allegiance to the Crown, establish a dictatorship, or even an independent republic. Short of that—though surely a very unlikely recourse—any dominion might repeal the Act of Settlement, which secures succession to the Hanoverian Dynasty, and change the succession so far as it affects themselves. The only suggested safeguard against this is a “preamble,” with “no legal virtue,” stating that "any alteration in the law touching the succession to the Throne shall require the assent of al Ithe dominions.” Professor Morgan, though he does not put it that way, seems to adopt the maxim that “it is the means to do ill deeds makes ill deeds done.” He fears that, in some quarters, the new legislative authority may operate as an invitation to exercise it in extreme fashion. On the other hand, however, it may perhaps he held that the removal of the last shred of apparent domin ance may serve to allay irritation where it may possibly be felt, and so make for longer fraternal contentment within the Empire. In any event, Professor Morgan’s article, which deals with mapy other phases than above mentioned of the question, would be well worth Mr. Forbes’s perusal on his way Home.