UPPER HOUSE TO STAY

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17450, 24 December 1930, Page 7

UPPER HOUSE TO STAY

THE N.S.W. CONTROVERSY l FULL COURT -DECISION REFERENDUM NECESSARY’ (Elec. Tel. Copyright—United Press Assn.) SYDNEY, Dec. 22. By a majority of four to one, .the State Full Court to-day called a halt to the Legislative Council abolition plans of the Lang Government by ruling that the injunction granted in the Equity Court on December 11 shall become permanent, and that the Abolition Bill shall not be presented to the Governor for Royal assent until the question has been submitted to the people by a referendum. Tlie only dissentient from this judgment was Mr. Justice Loug-Innes, who held, that the Legislature Which framed the farmer Government’s Act making the referendum compulsory had attempted to restrict the powers of repeal conferred upon it, and that the granting of the injunction might provoke aft undesirable conflict between Parliament and the courts.

The Chief Justice, Sir Philip Street, in delivering judgment, found that the Parliament of 1929 was not acting in. excess of its authority in -making the law providing for a 1 referendum. He added that a referendum, of electors was unknown to the British constitution, but in other parts of the civilised world it was a well-recognised method of ascertaining the will of the people on a question -of public importance'. - It way also true that a sovereign legislature, such as the Imperial Parliament, could not bind its successors, but although the constitution of New South Wales was within the limits of an uncontrolled -constitution its legislature—was not a sovereign legislature; it. was a subordinate legislature. •‘As the law stands to-day,” he said, the constitution of this State requires that before the Legislative Council can bo abolished, a referendum shall be taken. It also requires that any bill for the repeal of that provision shall be similarly submitted to the electors for approval before it can become law.” By consent the motion for an injunction was turned into a motion for decree, which means that the suit without the hearing of evidence has been finally disposed of. The defendants, with the exception of Mr. Peden, have to pay costs. 1 J

The Government is preparing to carry its appeal against the decision to the High Court of Australia.