WESTERN AUSTRALIA

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22032, 12 February 1935, Page 9

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

PETITION FOR SECESSION QUESTION OF PROCEDURE LONDON, Feb. 3 Government circles are stated to be astonished by the report that the Prime Minister of Australia. Mr. J. A. Lyons, "conveyed to the House of Commons the Commonwealth's strong objection to the House receiving the Western. Australian secession petition, which properly should be directed to the Commonwealth." It is asserted that Mr. Lyons not only completely misunderstands the situation, but misinterprets the meaning of the Commons Public Petitions Committee, which recommended that a Select Committee be appointed merely to determine the advisability of the petition's reception by the Hopse of Commons.

The present Petitions Committee only decides whether it is valid for the petitioners to present the petition, but in no way deals with the petition's merits.

This, it is claimed, is essentially the Commons' own affair, and that no person or party i 3 entitled to dictate to the Commons thereon. Professor Berriedale Keith, the constitutional authority, stated to the Daily Telegraph's representative: "It is perfectly clear that any action by the British Parliament will be wholly unconstitutional and completely out of the question in view of the terms of the Commonwealth Constitution, but Parliament is bound by its own precedents. "The only issue to be argued is the pure question of admissibility of the petition. There is no precise precedent binding, but the , strongest considerations of convenience suggest that, rejection of admissibility will be in accordance with the natural development of the relations between the United Kingdom and the Dominions." Writing in the Scotsman the professor says:—"There is no doubt that everv consideration of expediency and constitutional propriety, which ranks far above bare legality, favours refusal to receive the petition. It is regrettable that West ern - Australia ft Crown Parliament in such an embarrassing position." • "Why does Western Australia now protestingly sit face-to-tail on the ass which, a generation ago, she rode with impatient spurs?" ask« the Economist. Summing up an examination of the secessionists' case, the journal says: "However powerful economic facts may be, constitutional changes will not eradicate economic error from popular thinking, or sap the force of log-rolling and vested interests. "Western Australia's complaint is against the high tariff, in which Britain is no more able to interfere than she can dictate rates for British goods entering Australia."