FATE OF UPPER HOUSE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIII, Issue 18762, 29 December 1930, Page 8

FATE OF UPPER HOUSE

LONDON COMMENT ON COURT’S DECISION. United Press Association —By filectrl# Telegraph—Copyi ‘■ght (Received December 28, 5.5 p.m.) LONDON, December 27. The London “Observer,” referring to the New South Wales Upper House decision, says that the Supreme Court ruling seems sound, and points out that the New South Wales Parliament owes its existence to an Act passed by the United Kingdom Parliament, and asks how the New South Wales can amend it? (Under the Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Act, 1929, the Legislative Council cannot be abolished or reformed without, in addition to the required procedure antecedent to assent by the King, the approval of State. The Constitution Act of 1902 (section 7. part II.) stipulated:— The Legislature may by any Act alter the laws in force for the time being under this Act or otherwise concerning the Legislative Council, and may provide for the nomination or election of another Legislative Council to consist of such members to be appointed or elected by such persons and in such manner as by any such Act is determined. Provided that every Bill passed for any such purpose shall be reserved for the signification of His Majesty’s pleasure thereon and a copy of such Bill shall be laid before both Houses of the Imperial Parliament thirty days at least before His Majesty’s pleasure thereon is signified. The amendment to the Act, made by the Bavin Government, requiring the holding of a popular referendum before any such alteration, was passed through the State Parliament in March, 1929, and reserved for the King’s assent in the form prescribed above. Having reposed on the table of each House of the British Parliament for the requisite period, it received the King’s assent on November 5, 1929, and their finality was proclaimed in the State Government Gazette of September 24th last. The Legislative Council, to which appointments are made by the Government, acting on the advice of the Ministry, has 88 members. They hold office for life, with salary. By a majority of four to one the Full Court of New South Wales called a halt to the plans of the the Lang Government for the abolition of the State Government. They ruled that the injunction granted in the Equity Court should become permanent, and that the Abolition Bills should not be presented to the Governor for the Royal assent until the question had been submitted to the people by referendum. The Chief Justice (Sir Philip Street) when delivering judgment, found that the Parliament of 1929 was not acting in excess of its authority in making a law providing for a referendum. 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 was 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 limits an uncontrolled constitution, its Legislature was not a sovereign legislature. It was a subordinate legislature. “As the law stands today,” the Court held, “the Constitution of this State requires that, before the Legislative Council can be abolished, a referendum shall be taken. It also requires that any Bill for repeal of that provision shall be similarly submitted to the electors for approval before it can become law.” The only dissentient from this judgment was Mr Justice Long Innes, who held that the legislature which framed the former Government’s Act, making a referendum cimpulsory, had attempted to restrict the powers of appeal conferred upon it, and that the granting of an Injunction might provoke an undesirable conflict between Parliament an 4 the Courts).