NORTHERN ADVOCATE DAILY STATE SECESSION MOVE

Northern Advocate, 29 December 1934, Page 8

NORTHERN ADVOCATE DAILY

STATE SECESSION MOVE

Registered for transmission through the post as a Newspaper. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1934.

On the ground, as enunciated by Lord Hailsham, that “matters of great constitutional importance” Avere raised in the secession petition presented to the House of Lords. by the State oi Western Australia, it Avas decided that consideration of the petition be deferred until the British ‘ Parliament resumes next month. It appears highly improbable, hoAvevcr, in the light of the actual constitutional position, that Britain Avill decide upon, taking any part or lot in tin; question. Though, there may be much in the case for Western Australian separation Avhich must command sympathy, it is surely a matter for the consideration of the Federal, not the British, Parliament. The delegates were commissioned to present to the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons a petition from the Government, the Parliament, and the people of Western Australia, praying that the -State may be released from the Australian CommonAvealth and restored to its former status as a self-governing colony under the British CToavu. It is hard to believe that the delegate* could hope to achieve more by their visit than to ventilate gvievanccs Avhich are keenly felt by Hie great majority of 'Western Australians, as a step toAvards getting them remedied. Thirtyfour years ago the State decided to unite in “one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth” Avith the other Australian States; and this decision Avas taken after a referendum of the State electors, who voted by a majority of over t av'o to one in favour of federation on the basis of the Constitution already accepted by the Eastern States and embodied in an Act already passed. Not only was the Federation to be indissoluble. It was laid clown that

the Constitution should not be altered except by a specified procedure. Any proposed change must be accepted by an absolute majority in both Houses of the Australian Parliament and ratified at a referendum by the majority of the voters in a majority of the States, ■which must also lie a majority of all the electors voting. .Furthermore, the interpretation of the Constitution, and the determination of any question as to the limits inter se of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and those of any State or States, are placed under the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, from whose decision upon any such question, it was expressly stipulated, them can be no appeal to the Privy Council except on a certificate from the High Court. In entering the Federation on those terms the State of Western Australia contracted a marriage for better or worse, from which legally there can he no divorce It has been argued that the Commonwealth was created and the Constitution established by an Act of the British Parliament, and that tins Act can be repealed or modified by the Parliament which passed it. That argument is not valid. If it were accepted it would put an end to all constitutional stability, and any constitution could be revoked at will by the sovereign authority by whom it Avas granted. It would follow, for example, that the Constitution of Western Australia could also be revoked —a point which perhaps is not quite so academic as it may seem at first sight, since it is likely that, if Western Australia were separated from the Commonwealth; there would be an immediate demand from the important goldfields area to be separated from Western Australia, and reincluded in the Commonwealth. Both for constitutional and for political reasons, in short, it is impossible for the British Government or the British Parliament to take any part in the dispute, or to intervene in. any way in domestic affairs of the Commoirwealth. They Avitncsscd, it is true, the contract of marriage;, but they have no authority—indeed they explicitly renounced all authority-r-to act as judges of a plea for divorce. This Avould be the position even if the constitutional relations betAveen Great Britain and the Dominions bad remained exactly Avbat they Avere in 1900, Avhen the Commoirwealth Act was passed. At that time the British Parliament 'was in a A r eiy real sense the Imperial Parliament. But since then there has been a great development of the status of the Dominions, culminating- in the Statute of Westminster by which “the Parliament of the United Kingdom” renounced in so many Avords all right to legislate for any Dominion except at the request and by the consent of the Government and Parliament of that Dominion. This general and explicit renunciation Avas modified by saving clauses intended to protect the rights of the Australian States against any possible attempt of the Commomvealth to use it to encroach upon their constitutional rights; but it made even more clear, Avhat in fact Avas clear enough Avithout it, that the British Parliament has no authority to alter the existing Constitution of Australia except, if that Avere conceivable, at the request of the Australian Parliament. If one of the States hoav Avisljes to sever the indissoluble partnership contracted in 1900, then its only course is to approach the other partners and to come to terms with them. Western Australia is not the only 1 State Avhich is dissatisfied with the present position. There is considerable discontent in Tasmania, in South Australia, and, to a less extent, in Queensland. The prime causes of dissatisfaction have been the overcentralisation of the Federal Administration and the pursuit of an economic policy favouring the more developed and more industrialised States at the expense of those Avhich depend more upon primary production. There is here a real problem; but it is a problem which can be solved only by Australian statesmanship. The appropriate method would seem to be by informal round-table conversations betAvecn representatives of the Commonwealth and ol‘ Western Australia. Perhaps—though this is a point Avhicli only Australians can decide —it might be helpful if some impartial and experienced outsider Avere invited to take part, in these conversations and to assist in finding a Avay out of the present deadlock. The difficulty is Hint, while I he CoinniouAvea Ith refuses to listen to any talk of separation, in Western Australia secession is now being advocated almost as something desirable in itself, not merely as a means of redressing grievances. On the other hand the grievances arc indisputable and Inmi been admitted lime and again by spokesmen of the Commomvealth, though the remedies

which they have suggested so far have not found much favour in the West. In spite of all that has been said and done recently in Western Australia it seems at least likely that the idea of secession would cease to attract _ it the Commonwealth authorities were to show a better understanding- of the disabilities under which the State is labouring and a greater readiness to redress admitted grievances.