THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, MAY 27, 1935 SECESSION PETITION

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22119, 27 May 1935, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, MAY 27, 1935 SECESSION PETITION

As was very widely anticipated, Western Australia's petition to the British Parliament for separation from the Commonwealth has not met ■with favour. It was presented in the Lords and Commons simultaneously last December, and a joint parliamentary committee was appointed to consider it. This committee has heard argument on the question whether the petition could properly be received. A delegation from the State advanced the'view that it could, and the Federal Government presented its case against such reception. The committee now reports that the petition is not in order, its plea being doubly ultra vires—beyond the power of the State to present and of the British Parliament to heed. No doubt is raised by the report as to either the right of Parliament to receive whatever petitions it thinks fit or the right of subjects of the Crown to present petitions to Parliament, but these rights, it is declared, are like the abstract right of Parliament to legislate for the whole Empire—exercisable, in relation to affairs of the Dominions, only in accordance with constitutional principles well established and clearly understood, to which Parliament has recently given formal and explicit approval in /the Statute of Westminster. These principles, as the report shows, would be contravened "by reception of the petition, for by joining the Commonwealth the State surrendered its powers as a selfgoverning colony and retained its political entity in respect only to such powers as remained vested in itself as one of the constituent units of the federation. The British Parliament, in enacting the federal constitution, did so at the request of the people of Australia, and thereafter the federation became an autonomous community; therefore, according to constitutional usage, Parliament could not properly vary or dissolve the union unless invoked by the people of Australia to do so, notwithstanding any legal competence of Parliament to enact supreme legislation in such a matter.

This judgment, thus expressed by the committee as a guide to Parliament, is much more than a decision on the technical point of the locus standi of the petitioning State. It holds firmly by the practical principle embodied in the constitutional development of the Empire. The eminence of the British Parliament legally remains, and in some things must remain as long as the Empire exists. Its competence is not in question. But in the course of progressive enjoyment of self-governance by the Dominions regard must necessarily be paid, as the report indicates, to ways of working within the realm. In the pronouncement of the Imperial Conference of 1926, which became the basis of further reference in 1930 and of the consequent Statute of Westminster, equality of status among the communities composing the Empire is qualified as not universally extending to function. Nevertheless, serious practical difficulties would follow the exercise of any eminent function of the British Parliament if it were to ignore any right it has bestowed on a Dominion, and in this matter of the constitution of the Australian Commonwealth it is morally bound to deem its hands tied by the provisions of the constitution bestowed. In passing, the omission from that constitution of express provision for the seceding of any of the States may be noted: the preamble of the Constitution Act refers to the union as "one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth." The possibility of secession had then, apparently, no thought. However, there is provision for amendment of the constitution by legislation passed by both Houses of the Federal Parliament, followed by a referendum in which a majority of States and also a majority of the total electors approve the change. The committee is therefore on solid ground when, after saying that the British Parliament, in enacting the constitution, gave effect to the voice of the people of the continent of Australia and not the voice of any State or States, it asserts that only when invoked "by the voice of the people of Australia" can Parliament properly vary or dissolve the union. There is a provision for amendment affecting one State alone—modifying its representation in the Federal Parliament, altering its territorial boundaries, "or in any manner affecting the provisions of the constitution in relation thereto"—and this includes a stipulation that a majority of voters in that State shall have given approval. But this is rather a provision buttressing an individual State against general assault than a weapon of attack on the federation, and is clearly inappropriate to the subject of the petition. It may be taken for granted that the committee, in preparing its report, has thoroughly weighed every relevant consideration, legal and practical, and Parliament *will prob-

ably act in accordance with its finding. In that event, Western Australia must either have recourse to renewed agitation in the Federal Parliament for legislative steps preparatory to a Commonwealth referendum or turn to the less difficult task of trying to get greater financial aid from the Grants Commission. This commission was established for the purpose of ameliorating financial inequities suffered by the weaker States. The secession movement in Western Australia —and in South Australia and Tasmania, where it has been less implacable—arose from a sense of grievance against the stronger units. In fiscal matters, they have 'alleged, their interests have been sacrificed to those of the more populous and more industrial areas, particularly New South Wales and Victoria. Tariff policy is within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, and it operates without variation over the whole of Australia, working adversely to the discontented States. Another grievance has been the heavy cost of maintaining the machinery of the federation, the Commonwealth being a muchgoverned country. It is significant that in South Australia there has been more agreement with Western Australia's protest against injustice than with its particular method of voicing the protest. In Mr. Lyons' comment on the position created by the committee's report is a hint that the question of grants from the Commonwealth Treasury may be considered afresh.