Page:History of Adelaide and vicinity.djvu/692

 Xvi ADELAIDE AND VICINITY ^. Notes o„ the Constitution or South Australia of the Imperial Parliament." The dispute was referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and the following questions were asked : — 1. Whether the Constitution Act, 1867, confers on the Legislative Council powers co-ordinate with those of the Legislative Assembly in the amendment of the Bills, including Money Bills ? 2. Whether the claims of the Legislative Assembly as set forth in this message of November 12, 1885, are well founded? To which the following terse answer was given : — " Their Lordships agree humbly to report to your Majesty that the first of these questions should be answered in the negative, and the second in the affirmative." The New Zealand Council is a nominated Council, and the two New Zealand Houses had agreed to joint Standing Orders, which in effect declared that the practice of the two New Zealand Houses in reference to Money Bills should be the same as the practice of the Lords and the Commons. The question asked the Imperial law officers of the Crown (Coleridge and Jessel) was : "What would have been the practice of the House of Lords in reference to the particular Money Bill in dispute ? " — and their very guarded reply was: — "We think the Bill was a Money Bill, and such a Bill as the House of Commons would not have allowed to be altered by the House of Lords." In both these cases the Upper Houses were nominated, and not representative Houses ; in both cases they had agreed to accept the position of the House of Lords, so far as Money Bills were concerned ; and in both cases the only question asked was what would have been the practice of the Lords and Commons. These cases have no bearing whatever on the legal or constitutional position of the elected Legislative Council of South Australia, which has never agreed to accept any such position. In South Australia both Houses are now constitutionally bound by the "Compact of 1857," which has worked extremely well, and a violation of that "Compact" by either House would now be "unconstitutional." Alterations of the Constitution Act — How made Section XXXIV It is generally believed that the Constitution Act cannot be altered unless the Bill seeking to make an alteration is passed on both its second and third readings in both Houses of Parliament by absolute majorities. This is not so. Any part of the Constitution Act which does not refer to " the Constitution of Legislative Council or House of Assembly," if passed in the ordinary manner, can become law. Section XXXIV. provides that "the said Parliament shall have full power and authority from time to time by any Act to repeal, alter, or vary all or any of the provisions of this Act and to substitute others in lieu thereof : Provided that it shall not be lawful to present to the Governor for Her Majesty's assent any Bill by which an alteration in the Constitution of the said Legislative Council or House of Assembly may be made, unless the second and third reading of such Bill shall have been passed with the concurrence of an absolute majority of the whole number of the members of the said Legislative Council and of the Hou.se of As.sembly respectively : Provided al.so that every Bill which shall be so passed shall be reserved for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure thereon."