CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 17484, 31 May 1920, Page 5

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.

QUEENSLAND LEGISLATION. PREMIER ANSWERS CRITICS. Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. (Rood. 6 p.m.) LONDON, May 27. Mr. E. G. Theodore. Premier of Queensland, in an interview with the representative of the Australian Press Association, said he was surprised that a great authority like Professor Berridale Keith should allege a breach of constitutional rules in connection with the appointment of a partisan as Acting-Gover-nor, the swamping of the Upper House, and the fact that the Acting-Governor had not exercised the right of reserving assent to a Bill because it prejudiced the rights of British subjects outsido the State. If the Government had acted in an unconstitutional way the matter could easily be tested. Mr. Theodore added that even Governors invariably held definite political opinions prior to appointment, and therefore might all bo classedas political partisans. The appointment of new members of the Upper House, even to the extent of swamping it, had never been considered unconstitutional, and had occurred in recent years in New South Wales and New Zealand. He admitted that the referendum provided Queensland with the means of settling disputes, but this involved great delay and expense. Mr. Theodore said he did not regard Professor Keith's suggestion to establish an Imperal arbitration tribunal as practicable. It would involve the reactionary principle of limitation of sovereign right*,- and' it would not find a solitary supporter in the Non-interference was the safest doctrine. Sir Gerald Strickland, a former Governor of several Australian States, says that Viscount Milner, Secretary of State for the Colonies, cannot be expected to disallow the acts of the Queensland Government, but Professor Keith's remedy is open to grave objection. The Australian Hicrh Court is the proper authority to decide such subjects. It must be made plain to investors that appeals on local mattersto a distant Secretary of State are futile. The future success of democratic government appears to require that every executive should be liable to some control. "My experience in Tasmania, Western Australia and New South Wales." says Sir Gerald, "shows that although Ministers dislike it, the electors appreciate the exercise of impartial authority on their behalf. Governors should be able to deter Ministers from flagrant breaches Constitution by forcing appeals to .he electors on rare occasions." , Mr. Theodore, replying to Sir Gerald Strickland's comments, says, that the suggestion of control of tho Executive would not receive the slightest snppo.' in Australia. No one there wanted the self governming powers of the States whittled down. All desired that the prevailing harmony between the Dominion* and the Mother Country should bo continued and strengthened. "We do not want Downing Street to interfere with our domestic affairs." added Mr. Theodore. ''The Dominion Government* are answerahlo to tho electors and not to the Colonial Office. Sir Gerald Strickland's idea involves a retrograde step."