House representing the States. The remedy was an appeal to the electors of both Houses; and if the result of that appeal was not decisive, an appeal to the newly-elected representatives of both groups of electors, in joint sitting.

The power to grant the double dissolution, and the power to summon the joint sitting, were both vested in the Governor-General by the same section of the Constitution. It was not reasonable to suppose that the framers of the Constitution intended to place the responsibility of granting or refusing a double dissolution upon the Governor-General personally-to place him in the invidious position of appearing to take sides with one House or the other, or with one political party or the other. It was reasonable to suppose that they intended the Governor-General to accept in this issue the advice of Ministers who represented the majority in the House which, by the Constitution, is given the origination of supplies and the right to challenge the decision of the other Chamber.

Again, according to the scheme of section 57, the double dissolution was a stage in the sequence of events of which the joint sitting is the culmination. It was inconceivable that, after a double dissolution, the Governor-General would ever refuse the advice of his Ministers to call a joint sitting? It was equally inconceivable that it could ever have been intended that the Governor-General should, in his personal discretion, refuse the opportunity for the first stage of the appeal.

The considerations guiding the Governor-General in deciding on the advice given, to grant a double dissolution, were necessarily quite different from those which generally arise in connection with a ministerial crisis, resulting from defeat in the popular Chamber followed by the defeated Ministry applying for a dissolution of that Chamber. Reference has already been made, supra, p. 233, to the constitutional rules which guide the Representative of the Crown in granting or refusing a single dissolution. These rules cannot possibly apply to such an extraordinary statutory occasion as that which arises under section 57 of the Commonwealth Constitution, where all the provisions of that clause have been completely complied with, eventuating in responsible advice to dissolve simultaneously the Senate and the House of Representatives. This section. of the Constitution of the Commonwealth is one without example or precedent in any other Constitution. It was designed and adopted

by the Federal Convention, not as a means of settling party disputes or party conflicts in the popular Chamber, but as a means of settling deadlocks between the National Chamber and the Senate. The section provides a distinct scheme and plan detailing successive steps and stages in any particular conflict between the two Houses, and defining in advance the developments which must take place in order to bring the dormant power of a double dissolution into action. The first step is the selection of a test measure to be introduced into the House of Representatives, its passage through that Chamber, and its transmission to the other. If it is rejected there must be an interval of three months in the same or succeeding session. After the required interval the same measure must be again introduced in the originating House, again passed and again sent to the other Chamber. If it is rejected the second time then the conditions arise which eventually justify the advice of both Houses to be dissolved. Assuming the advice is accepted a dissolution of both Chambers follows and a general election takes place. If the administration which has caused a double dissolution is returned triumphantly at the polls, Parliament is convened and the same Bill is re-introduced, passed and sent to the resisting Chamber. If the Bill is rejected by the Senate a third time, provision is made for a joint sitting of both Houses.

It will be seen, therefore, that a double dissolution is but one step or stage in the process of settling deadlocks between the two Houses. Of course if the Ministry which has advised a double dissolution is defeated at the polls, controversy is for the time. being terminated, and the resisting Chamber achieves a triumph. This is exactly what happened in connection with the double dissolution on the Government Preference Prohibition Bill. A general election of both Houses was held in September 1914. It resulted in the complete and overwhelming defeat of the Cook Ministry and the Liberal party. The Labor party succeeded in returning large majorities both in the Senate and the House of Representatives, and as a consequence the Cook Ministry resigned and Mr. FISHER formed a second Labour Administration.

This precedent is useful and important as showing that when once a conflict between the Senate and the House of Representatives is challenged and accepted with a view to bringing the provisions of section 57 of the Constitution into operation the campaign proceeds

in successive stages, and it follows that when a Ministry has complied with the requirements of the Constitution, they have the right to advise and to expect the Governor-General to dissolve both Houses simultaneously. It is as well that such a view of the constitutional power should be understood and appreciated by all parties so that when the challenge has been delivered and accepted, both Houses should take warning that it is a serious and an important procedure which will result in either victory or disaster to one side or the other. It is not an experiment or a reconnaissance that can be lightly indulged in. The section may be used as a two-edged sword. It may smite the attacking party as well as the resisting party. Neither party and neither House should rely upon the Governor-General to shield them by a refusal to act on the advice of his Ministers. The Governor-General has little, if any, discretion left in such a great crisis and it is not likely that he would run the risk of refusing to follow the advice of a Ministry having command of supplies in the National Chamber, and of refusing to act on what appears to be an implied, if not an expressed mandate of the Con

stitution.

It is true that the section says that the Governor-General "may" dissolve, but in construing other Acts of Parliament in which the word “may occurs it has often been held to have a mandatory signification. The word "may" is a mannerly method of indicating the duty of a representative of the King.

The power of a double dissolution is one of the reserve powers of the Constitution and should only be resorted to on great and urgent occasions involving momentous issues of legislative policy.

The result of the appeal to the country on this occasion shows the force of this warning. The question of preference to unionists was a party question and not one of national importance or national significance, justifying a resort to such a critical and dangerous appeal. The Liberals, on this occasion, staked all and lost. It is not likely that this reserve power will be frequently resorted to in the future. The stake is too serious.

Royal Assent to Bills.

58. When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to

L. P.

41

his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure.

Recommendations by Governor-General.

The Governor-General may return to the House in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation.

Disallowance by the Queen.

59. The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the GovernorGeneral by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.

Signification of Queen's Pleasure on Bills Reserved.

60. A proposed law reserved 107 for the Queen's pleasure shall not have any force unless and until within two years from the day on which it was presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent the Governor-General makes known, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, that it has received the Queen's assent.

§ 107. "PROPOSED LAW RESERVED."

The only imporant proposed laws reserved under this section for the Royal assent have been the Customs Tariff Bill (British Preference) 1906, which was not assented to by the Crown, and the Navigation Bill 1912. This Bill was so reserved in conformity with an understanding with the Imperial Government as it was thought that Imperial interests might be involved. The Royal assent was announced by proclamation on 17th October, 1913.

CHAPTER II. THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT.

Executive Power.

61. The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exerciseable by the GovernorGeneral as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution108 and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

§ 108. "EXECUTION AND MAINTENANCE."

Executive Power.

In the case of Huddart Parker & Co. Proprietary Ltd. v. Moorehead, (1909) 8 C.L.R., 330, attention was drawn to the fact that, by section 101 of the Constitution, the Inter-State Commission is endowed with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.”

The question was raised to what extent, if any, this grant of power to the Commission involved a withdrawal of power from the Executive Government. The validity of section 15в of the Australian Industries Preservation Act was questioned on the ground that it vested in the Comptroller-General of Customs authority which under section 101 of the Constitution could only be vested: in the Inter-State Commission. The High Court held that the power of inquiry vested in the Comptroller-General was not one of the matters entrusted to the Inter-State Commission, and that the execution and maintenance of the trade and commerce laws was not in abeyance till the Commission was established.

Mr. Justice ISAACS said (at p. 387):-"It is hard to perceive the limit of the operation of such a contention. Ministerial control and to a great extent judicial action, would be entirely superseded, ' in the ordinary operation of government by a body entirely independent of the Executive, and not responsible to Parliament, and not necessarily trained in the law. Its duties could not be fulfilled without an immense staff all over Australia operating side by side with, but altogether separate from, the regular members of the public service. I am quite unable to accept this view of the section. If for any reason Parliament thought it desirable to invest the