Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 5632x7168 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

Views And Comments
Powers Bill
To the Editor
-I am, Sir. &c.,
T. L. GOLDFINCH
Hooking avenue. Royston Park.
Sir—Mr. Wenborn (6[?]9[?]46)
knows that the 1943 Powers Bill
was submitted to the people for
teem to decide whether the func-
tions of the High Court should be
lifted from the sphere of consti
tutional issues, and set in their
proper national perspective. I sub
mit it is not the proper function
of the High Court to usurp and
override the governing functions
and authority, and dictate how na
tional policies are to be framed.
It is not done in Britain and other
Dominion countries, and we are en
titled to the same rights and privi
leges as these democracies. I claim
that the shameful amendment of
the Coal Bill, approved by both
Federal Houses and the NSW As
sembly, shows clearly that a des
potic Upper House, not directly
responsible to the people, can
nullify the nation's self-governing
powers, and thus destroy the .basic
foundations of democracy.
In reference to the James case,
Mr. wenborn complains about the
Powers Bill limiting the power of
the High Court, yet the High Court
ruled against Mr. James. I sub
mit Mr. Wenborn's logic is very
weak; either he has confidence in
the opinions and decisions of the
High Court or he has not, and he
cannot expect to have it both ways.
The High Court declared twice that
section 92 does not bind the Com
monwealth, and its sole purpose Is
to protect interstate trade against
State Interference, ar.d does not
affect the legislative power of the
Commonwealth. I think their
court's ruling is a valid and
convincing argument for enlarging!
Hie Commonwealth's constitutional
powers.-
$