MUCH HINGES ON THE WORD “BANKING”

Wanganui Chronicle, 25 February 1948, Page 5

MUCH HINGES ON THE WORD “BANKING”

COUNSEL’S ARGUMENTS IN AUSTRALIAN CASE Recd. 10.15 p.m. Melbourne, Feb. 24 The Commonwealth Banking Act of 1947 was an invasion of State rights, Mr. E. H. Hudson, K.C., claimed befor the Full High Court today. Mr. Hudson is appearing for the State of Victoria in the challenge to the validity of the Act. Much of his argument turned on the meaning of the word "banking," as used in paragraph 13, section 51 of the consitution.

Mr. Hudson submitted that the paragraph itself showed that "banking" as a word was intended by the framers of the Constitution to have a rather limited meaning. Mr. Hudson said the very wording of the paragraph—for example the phrase "extending beyond the limits of the State concerned—suggested that prohibition of State banking as such had not been envisaged by those who drew up the Constitution. The effect of the paragraph was to empower Parliament to make laws regulating banking transactions, but no more Mr Hudson said the Banking Act of last year was inconsistent with the terms of paragraph 13, which indicated that State banking was not to be a subject of Commonwealth legislation. The Federal Parliament had invaded the sphere of State rights by passing legislation which affected and prejudiced the independence and autonomy of State banks. Under the provisions of the Act State Banks could ultimately be destroyed.