THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, MAY 16, 1932. MR LANG’S DISMISSAL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21645, 16 May 1932, Page 6

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, MAY 16, 1932. MR LANG’S DISMISSAL.

The dismissal £l9lxl office of the Government in New South Wales has naturally caused a sensation. It is on very rare occasions that a Governor exercises his prerogative of dismissing his Ministers, and there has been no previous experience of the kind in Australia. The rarity of the exercise of the prerogative may be attributed to the rarity of such a betrayal by Ministers of their trust as calls for and justifies their dismissal. In May’s “ Constitutional History of England ” it is stated, that, while the right of the King to dismiss his Ministers is unquestionable—and a Governor of a Colony or State within the Empire enjoys the rights exercisable by the King, whose representative he is—constitutional usage has prescribed certain conditions under which the right should be exercised. “It should be exercised solely in the interests of the State and on grounds that can be justified to Parliament to which, as well as to the King, the Ministers are responsible.” The existence of conditions in New South Wales that justified the exercise by the Governor of his prerogative cannot be reasonably doubted. One of our cable messages this morning states that Professor Berriedale Keith, an acknowledged authority on constitutional law. has expressed the opinion that Sir Philip Game’s action, in dismissing Mr Lang, was “fairly justified.” The statement is interesting and valuable, because,. .Professor Keith has, in his book “ Imperial Unity and the Dominions,” indicated objections to the use by a Governor of his prerogative. “ It must,” he writes, “ always be remembered that strong action on the part of a’Governor is more likely to confuse an issue than not: it at once tends to cast in the scales the strong feeling which in any community with parliamentary government is raised against an appearance of arbitrary authority, and thus intervention by a Governor may interfere with the natural play of political forces and do more harm than good. The best work of a Governor in these cases can be. done not by a!ctive intervention but by the use of his influence in favour of the adoption by his Ministers of the true constitutional course and in the majority of instances such action is probably more effective in the long run than any active use, of reserved powers, which, while doubtless existing, should be reserved for the most serious cases of troubles.” It is only necessary, however, to review the recent history of New South Wales to perceive that it Avas one of “ the most serious eases of troubles ” that caused the Governor to’act—add then only after he had exhausted his poAver of persuasion Avith his Ministers to induce them to respect the Constitution under Avhich they were holding office. Less than a fortnight ago Sir Philip Game, on a visit to a country town in New South Wales, Avas probably taken by surprise by the blunt expression of the hope of the mayor, who Avelcomed him,; that his Excellency “ would he able to find a solution of the difficulties confronting the people.” The Governor rallied, so;neAvhat evasively, that as the people had accepted the responsibility of self-government it was, their duty, and not the Governor’s, to find a Avay out of the difficulty. This reply induced a number of prominent bhsiness people in Sydney to procure the opinion of an eminent constitu--tional lawyer respecting the position. This opinion included the following statement respecting the povfjrs of a Governor to dismiss his Ministers: The effect of recent Constitutional developments is that these poAvers should be exercised only in very rare emergencies and when the safety of the State imperatively demands it. it is claimed that the present is such an emergency. There has been no parallel to it, because the circumstances which ha\ r e occurred could only have arisen under a federation, and at a time when the Government of the State is in conflict with the Government of the Commonwealth. To-day every hour that the present Ministry remains in powei' the financial position of New, South Wales, and of the Commonwealth, becomes more serious and the possibilities of strife more imminent. The Government has broken and continues to break the Financial Agreement with the Commonwealth and Jthe other States, which overrides both the State and Federal constitutions. It is continuing to act in breach of that law. and its Ministers daily utter threats of defiance and violence. These are circumstances Avhich the Governor, who is ultimate" protector of the Constitution and of the people, cannot ignore without a dereliction of duty.

The gravamen of the offence of the Lang (Government was that it involved a breach ,of ths fundamental law of the Commonwealth and was part of an attempt to frustrate the law of the Commonwealth and the Government of Commonwealth. Th all the circumstances it is perfectly idle on the part of Mr Lang’s journalistic mouthpiece to assert that it is by “ a foul blow ” that the Government has been dismissed and to pretend that “the Constitution has ceased to exist;” v