The Secretary, Home and Territories Department, forwards the following request for advice:

A suggestion has been made that, if practicable, it should be arranged for the present Parliament to meet at Canberra for one day, in the latter half of this year, for the transaction of business.

In view of the final paragraph of section 125 of the Constitution my Minister would be glad to learn whether, in your opinion, the holding of such a meeting would preclude Parliament from again meeting in Melbourne.

Section 125 of the Constitution provides that the Seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be determined by the Parliament; and concludes with the words: The Parliament shall sit at Melbourne until it meets at the seat of Government.

The only express requirement of those words is that until a certain event the Parliament shall meet in Melbourne. They do not contain any express provision that after the named event–namely, after the Parliament has once met at Canberra, it shall not meet again at Melbourne. The question asked is, in effect, whether such a provision, though not expressed, is necessarily implied.

The consideration of the question involves the consideration of section 125 as a whole.

Section 125, in the Constitution Bill as submitted to the first referendum, provided that the Seat of Government should be determined by the Parliament, and that until such determination the Parliament should be summoned to meet at such place within the Commonwealth as a majority of the Governors of the States, or in the event of an equal division of opinion among the Governors, as the Governor-General should direct.

After the failure of the first referendum, it was agreed to amend the clause to its present form.

In substance–in the events which have happened–section 125 requires that the Seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be in the Federal Territory of Canberra, and that until the Parliament meets there, it shall meet at Melbourne.

Exactly what is involved in the declaration that the Seat of Government shall be at a certain place is not defined in the Constitution. The words must be interpreted in accordance with constitutional practice and tradition. They certainly do not involve a legal requirement that the Federal Executive Council, for instance, cannot lawfully transact business anywhere else. They as certainly do contemplate that the Commonwealth Parliament should normally sit at the Seat of Government.

But I am of opinion that there is no absolute legal bar to the Parliament, on any particular occasion, sitting elsewhere. There might be a hostile invasion of the seat of government; there might be pestilence, or flood or fire, which made it impossible, or inconvenient, for Parliament to sit there for the time being. It would not be a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution to hold that Parliament is debarred, in an emergency of which itself must be the judge, from sitting elsewhere.

The considerations above-mentioned apply with even stronger force to the transition, indicated by the Constitution, from one meeting-place to another, and to any temporary arrangements during such transition.

I am of opinion that the suggested sitting for one day at Canberra would not preclude the Parliament from meeting again in Melbourne.

[Vol. 22, p. 59]