The Associated Chambers of Commerce have written to His Excellency the Governor-General asking him to forward to the Colonial Office a cable in the following terms:

Associated Chambers Commerce Australia respectfully protest against Commonwealth Navigation Bill⁽²⁾ receiving assent. Introduces harassing undesirable restrictions and con-ditions many at serious variance Merchant Shipping Act which should continue law of entire Empire. Far-reaching amendments thereof should be preceded by inter-British Conference Australian interests being represented. Also protest against assent Immi-gration Restriction Amending Act⁽³⁾ unnecessarily hampers white travellers movements subjects Britishers greater expense inconvenience than foreigners by foreign-owned ves-sels. Howard Berry, President.

His Excellency has referred the matter to the Prime Minister with a request to be informed whether the Ministers have any objection to the message referred to being transmitted to the Secretary of State as desired by the Associated Chambers of Commerce.

The Prime Minister has referred the matter to the Minister for Customs and he has forwarded it to me for advice.

I desire to point out that the Immigration Restriction Amending Act referred to in the suggested cable has already been assented to by the Governor-General in the King's name, and has become law, and that any protest against assent being given to it is now too late.

The Navigation Bill has been passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth and has been reserved for the Royal assent. The matters dealt with in the Bill are, in my opinion, within the powers conferred upon the Commonwealth Parliament by the Con-stitution, and the question of making a law in the form in which the Bill is framed is, in relation to the Commonwealth entirely a question for the Commonwealth Parliament.

Although subjects of the Crown may have a constitutional right to petition the Crown, I am not aware of any constitutional right on the part of a subject to protest against the Royal assent being given to a Bill which has been passed by Parliament.

The Associated Chambers of Commerce do not exercise any public functions under the Commonwealth and are under no responsibility to the Crown or to the people of the Commonwealth in relation to the desirability of the Royal assent being given to or withheld from a measure which has received the assent of Parliament, and communi-cations from them in relation to such matters are entitled to no greater consideration than communications from private persons.

There is nothing in the Royal Instructions to require His Excellency to forward to the Secretary of State any communications received by him from private persons in re-lation to the giving or withholding of the Royal assent to any proposed law.

In view of the constitutional position, I think that it is probable that the Secretary of State for the Colonies would not take the message into consideration even if it were forwarded to him.

It appears to me also that the sending of the message might foster the idea that the Secretary of State for the Colonies is a court of appeal from the Commonwealth Par-liament. There is nothing in the constitutional position to create the Secretary of State for the Colonies into such a court, and in my opinion it would be very undesirable for anything to be done which would be likely to give rise to incorrect ideas as to his position.

Again, if persons who oppose a measure could claim a right to have a message in re-gard to it sent by His Excellency, persons who support the measure could claim a similar right.

I am of opinion-

1. that the Associated Chambers of Commerce are not entitled to claim to have the message forwarded by His Excellency;
2. that His Excellency is under no duty to forward the message;
3. that it is probable the Secretary of State would not take the message into consideration if forwarded;
4. that the sending of the message might give rise to incorrect ideas as to the position occupied by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in relation to the matter; and
5. that the sending of the message might give rise to an inconvenient precedent.

The message, in itself, is in my opinion of very little importance, but in view of the constitutional position it appears to me to be the duty of Ministers to object to its being sent by His Excellency.

[Vol. 11, p. 47]

(1)Date in Opinion Book Incomplete.

(2)Enacted as the navigation Act 1912; the bill was reserved on 24 December 1912 and Royal assent proclaimed on 24 october 1913.

(3)immigration act 1912.

(4)This opinion is unsigned in the Opinion Book, but it is attributed to Mr Hughes.