Governors and Their Advisers.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20492, 10 March 1932, Page 8

Governors and Their Advisers.

The announcement in yesterday's cable news that a deputation is to urge Sir Philip Game to dissolve the New South Wales Parliament raises some interesting questions as to the powers of Governors everywhere, but especially in Australia. The Sydney Bulletin has been arguing that the Governor can dissolve Parliament without or against the advice of his Ministers, and that as the present Parliament no longer represents the people, it is his duty to exercise this right. In support of this view the Bulletin quotes the following passage from Maitland: The King [which includes of course a Governor exercising his prerogative] without breaking the law can dissolve a Parliament whenever he pleases. Any restraints there are on. this power are not legal restraints. The parenthesis, which is not Maitland's, is open to question, for while it is true that the place of a. Governor in a State constitution is becoming assimilated to that of the King in the British constitution, it is wrong to assume that their powers are identical. The New South Wales Year Book comes nearer to the point when it says, " The Governor may summon, " prorogue, or dissolve any Parliament. " His instructions provide that in the "exercise of these functions he is to "act by the advice of the Executive " Council, but he may disregard the "advice. . ■ • The undoubted right "of the Governor, as the depository "of the Royal prerogative, to refuse "to grant a dissolution of Parliament "if he think" fit, has been exercised "more than once." It is a mistake, however, to infer from this, as the Bulletin does, that the Governor can dissolve Parliament at his discretion, for a right to disregard advice is not a right to act without being asked to aet. In any case, even if it could be abown that Sir Philip Game haß a right

to dissolve Parliament without tlie advice of his Ministers, he would be very unwise to use it. The argument that Mr Lang has lost the confidence of the people because at the Federal election the polling in New South Wales was heavily against the " Lang " Plan " candidates cannot concern the Governor in his official capacity. As long as the Lang Ministry has the confidence of the Lower House, he must assume that it has the confidence of the country and act only on its advice; any other course lays him open to the suspicion of political bias, and that is a suspicion Governors must at all costs avoid. The anxiety of a section of the people of New South Wales to get rid of Mr Lang deserves sympathy, but it does not justify them in urging' on the Governor a course that would seriously compromise the dignity and prestige of his office.