N.S.W. UPPER HOUSE

Hokitika Guardian, 24 December 1930, Page 6

N.S.W. UPPER HOUSE

FULL COURT DECISION. (Australian Press Association) SYDNEY, December 23. By a majority of four to one, the New South Wales State Full Court to-day called a halt to the Legislative Council abolition plans of the, Lang Government by ruling that the temporary injunction that was granted in the Equity Court shall become permanent, and that the Abolition Bills passed by Parliament shall not be presented to the State Governor for the Royal Assent until the question has been submited to the people by a referendum. The dissentient from this judgment was Mr Justice Longinnes, who held that the legislature which framed a former Government Act making a referendum compulsory had attempted to restrict the powers of repeal conferred upon it, and that the granting of an injunction might provoke an undesirable conflict between Parliament and the courts. The Government is now preparing to carry its appeal against the decision to the High Court of Australia. 1929 PARLIAMENT. BOUND ITS SUCCESSORS! SYDNEY, December 23. in the 'Full Court, the Chief . Justice Sir Phillip Street, delivered the judgment. He said the Court found that the Parliament of 1929 was not acting in excess of its authority in making a law providing for a referendum. He added that a of electors vras unknown to the British constitution, but said that in other pairs of the civilised world it was a well-recognised method of ascertaining the will of the people on a question of public importance. ft was also true, he said, 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. He said: “As the law Stands to-day, the constitution of this State requires that, before the Legislative Council can be abolished, a referendum shall be taken. It also requiries that any Bill for the repeal of that provision shall be similarly submitted to the electors for approval before it can become law.” By consent, the motion for an injunction was turned into a motion for a decree, which means that the suit without hearing any evidence, has been finally disposed of. The defendants with the exception of Mr Peden, have to pay costs.