LANG’S APPEAL

Hokitika Guardian, 1 June 1932, Page 5

LANG’S APPEAL

TO PRIVY COUNCIL

DISMISSED WITH COSTS

Australian Press Association.)

(•Received tins uio at H.ZP u.m, SYDNEY, June 1

“Lang’s appeal in tlie Upper Hou-o case, dismissed with: costs by fc„e I'nvy Council,” was broadcast throughout Australia last night and was responsible for remarkable; demonstrations in Sydney. '

Mr Stevens (Premier) was addressing a huge election meeting at Hurstvilie when the announcement brought the audience to its jeet. Enthusiastic* dieer.s for the King and Empire, were followed by the National Anthem. Mr Stevens, taking advantage of the occasion, told his hearers his plans Jor the reconstitution of the Legislative Council, should his party be returned.

There were similar demonstrations on a smaller scale at other anti-Labour meetings. t

The main question for decision by the Privy Council was: Can the State Parliament pass laws which cannot be repealed by a. subsequent Parliament in the ordinary way?”

The facts are that the Bavin Government in 1929 enacted that the Upper House shall- not be abolished without ’ the consent of n majority of the people, obtained by a referendum, and further that this section shall not be repealed without a re.erendum, “The Lang Government ignored this ' principle, and passed a Bill abolishing the Legislative Council. Certain members of the Legislative Council appealed to the High Court, claiming tlie Abolition Bill was .invalid. Their viewpoint was duly upheld and Lang then appealed to the Privy Council.

DECISION A LANDMARK

COMMENT BY MR LATHAM

LONDON. M-v -SI. Mr Latham (Commonwealth Attorney General) who is shortly returning to Australia, stated, the. Privy Council decision is a landmark in the constitutional history of the Empire, ft cleni-n up a very important question which has hitherto been doubtful. The- judgment establishes the proposition that the Legislature of New South Wales has full power to constitute its own constitution. The position now is that the Legislative Council can be'abolish, edonly after a referendum of the people has been taken in this respect. Therefore, the constitution of • New South Wales is similar to the Commonwealth’s which contains a genera] provision to the same effect. The import-"-Ufance of the questions involved amply justified the action of tlie Commonwealth Government in accepting the Privy Council’s invitation to intervene. It would be a hard argument, lie added, from a political point of view. Tt will not be possible without a referendum, for any Government to seize power New South Wales and hold it- with ’A,e docile assent of a single chamber like the last Assembly of New South Wales, and place the State under tlie tyranny of a personal dictatorship, since the Upper House had censed to be a deliberative body, merely registering the decrees of the Premier of the day.

THEIR LORDSHIPS' REVIEW

LONDON, May 31

Tn the Privy Council judgment, their lordships, in dismissing Lang’s appeal, reviewed the various acts relating to the New South Wales constitution, and they were held to have been completely enacted. The section of the 1929 Act, which stipulated that bills, relating to specified kinds of legislation (for example, the abolition of the Legislative Council, or altering its constitution or powers, or repealing or amending the 1929 enactment), should not be presented for Royal assent until the electors had approved it in the prescribed ihanner, LONDON, May 31. Their Lordships held that bills pf the kind specified could not be presented to the Governor for Royal assent unless, and until, the majority of electors voting had approved of them. The judgment of the High Court of Australia was therefore upheld, and tlie appeal dismissed with costs.