The Dominion. FRIDAY, JULY. 24, 1914. A GOVERNOR'S POWERS

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2210, 24 July 1914, Page 6

The Dominion. FRIDAY, JULY. 24, 1914. A GOVERNOR'S POWERS

The' constitutional question recently raised by the action of the Governor of Tasmania (Sir William Macartney) - in imposing certain conditions in regard to a dissolution before entrusting Mr. Earle (the leader of the Labour Party) with the duty of 'forming an Administration is of great importance to all the self-governing Dominions. The matter was referred to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who decided that the Governor had exceeded' his powers. It may be said in passing that the members of the Tasmanian Parliament quite recognised. that the Governor's action; was taken in good faith, and the Legislative Assembly has unanimously expressed the hope that His Excellency will not feel bound by any precedent to sever his connection with Tasmania. If the opinion of some con-stitutional-authorities is correct Sir William Macartney's action has proved a blessing in disguise, for it nas evoked a most-important piunouncement regarding the duties and powers of a Governor. 1 This is contained in the dispatch of the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Harcourt), which, according to Mr. Sidney Low, "puts the coping stone on tho edifice of colonial self-government, and marks the final phase of the emancipation of the oversea States from external control in the management of . domestic affairs." Tin's rather grandiloquent summing up of the dispatch would seem to exaggerate its importance, but it is nevertheless an interesting and valuable document to the selfgoverning Dominions. Mr. Low writes of the dispatch as a final recognition of the principle of Britannic autonomy, and states that .it prepares the way for some form of Britannic federation. "A colony," he says, "now is-a sort of Republic with a Prime Minister as virtual President." If this interpretation is tho correct one, quite a revolutionary change, in the functions of a. Governor appears to" be involved; but other authorities tako a much less sensational view of the position. It would certainly be remarkable it far-reaching constitutional changes of the character indicated by Mr. Low could be brought about by a few strokes of the pen of the Secretary of State in deciding such a point as that raised by the action of the Govcrnor of Tasmania; -and if the dispatch is of such outstanding Justor-jcal >/VJ;feauce it is surpris-

ing that we have heard so little about it in this part of the world. From the information at present available it is very difficult to see how Mr. Low arrives at his extraordinary deductions. Mr. Harcourt contends that: ■

Tho observance of the principles of responsible government requires that a Governor must bo clothed with Ministerial responsibility for all acts in relation to public 'affairs to which lie is a party, as head of tho Executive. Ho cannot, therefore, perform any such act except on the advico of his Ministers, and for performing it on such advice no political responsibility attaches to him personally. Tho question whether or not a dissolution should be granted is a purely internal affair, and is thus regulated by-tho general rule. A Governor, therefore, cannot dissolve tho Legislature except 011 the advice of his Ministers. Commenting on this statement the Sydney Morning Herald very reasonably contends that Me. Harcourt does not mean that a Governor must do exactly what his Ministers advise him to do—that, for instance, he must grant a dissolution whenever a Ministry asks for it. It simply lajrs it down that he cannot dissolve Parliament without the advice of his Ministers, which is a very different thing from saying that he must do so if they request it. According to Mr. Harcourt the constitutional position is as follows:

. There have, of course, been not a few casos in which Governors have rejected advice tendered to them by their Ministers that the Legislature should be dissolved. These, however, do not stand on a different constitutional footing from any other case in which .a Governor may have found himself unable to accept tho advice of his Ministers. In all such eases the Ministers either acquiesce in the Governor's action—in which event they accept responsibility for it—or leave the Governor to find new Ministers who will accept the responsibility.

-This. contains no real departure from the generally-accepted theory as to a Governor's functions. If a Governor does not accept the advice of his Ministers, he must find now Ministers who will be prepared to - accept responsibility for his action,- as he cannot himself perform the executive acts necessary for carrying on the government. The point raised in Tasmania was not tho right of the Governor to refuse a dissolution, but his right to exact from, Mr. Earle a promise that an immediate dissolution of Parliament should take place before he would entrust him with the duty of forming a Ministry.' In doing this Sir William Macartney .practically dictated the advice which his Ministers should give him at a future date, and in this he exceeded his powers. In giving his decision, Mr. Harcotjrt remarked that a Governor must always act on Ministerial authority. This assertion involves no new' principle, neither does it indicate any startling departure from existing rules. The position is made quite clear by the recent action of tne. of Australia in granting a dissolution of the two Houses of tho Federal Parliament. If,' as'.the Sydney' Morning Herald points out, he had refused tho double dissolution, and Mr; Cook had resigned, Mr. Fisher on accepting office would Have been 'constitutionally responsible for that refusal ; but as Mr. Cook's advice was accepted, Mr. Cook has to bear tie responsibility for it.