The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro, THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1932. PROTECTING THE PEOPLE

Southland Times, Issue 21718, 2 June 1932, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro, THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1932. PROTECTING THE PEOPLE

When Mr Lang said that he expected the Privy Council’s decision to go against him he did not mean that his view of the law was in accord with that of the highest legal tribunal available to the units of the Empire, because if he had viewed the appeal of the New South Wales Government as unsound in law he would not have troubled the Privy Council. Mr Lang’s utterances in recent times suggest that he intended to include the Privy Council in the group of forces which he looks on as corrupted by his political enemies. Recently he told a New South Wales audience there would be “no law” if he were returned to power, a declaration taken to mean that the judicature would receive attention at his hands. But whatever Mr Lang may think of this decision the fact remains that the Privy Council, permanently placed beyond the reach of political interference, has given a decision confirming that of the High Court of Australia, a decision which puts any attempt to abolish the Legislative Council under proper restraint. Where the Legislative Council lived under the threat of extinction through the packing of its ranks with nominees selected for their readiness to vote for a suicide Bill, such a protective measure was necessary to ensure that a Government, carried into office by a temporary wave of popularity, could not change the constitutional machine by abolishing a part of it which stood in the way of enactments opposed to the pledges clearly given to the electors. To-day New South Wales knows that neither Mr Stevens nor Mr Lang can abolish the Legislative Council without first obtaining a definite mandate from the people of the State through a referendum. There is nothing undemocratic in that. On the other Hand it affords the greatest possible protection for the people because it secures to them the right to check a government seeking to engage in constitutional sabotage. This decision by the Privy Council should not go unnoticed in New Zealand. The Legislative Council should be adequately protected, so that it may be preserved to perform its proper functions, which are centred about the protection of the people's rights. The House has the powei’ to prolong its own life, and any government going into power can violate every pledge it gave to secure the votes of the people, attacking the Legislative Council if it seeks to compel such a government to go back to the people for a new mandate. Always in such cases the Legislative Council is presented to the public as an instrument of obstruction;'but actually it exists to see that where grave changes are attempted, the will of the country is known and obeyed before the change is made. In New South Wales only the people can abolish the Legislative Council, and that should be the position in every State with a bicameral system, because the Council exists for the protection of the people against the operations of a wicked government which is tyrannical because it is out of touch with the will of the electorate from which it drew its authority.