HC Deb 26 June 1973 vol 858 cc1315-7
Q3. Mr. Robert Taylor

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement following his meetings with the Prime Ministers of the Australian States.

The Prime Minister

I was host at a lunch at 10 Downing Street on 7th of June for the Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia and other leading representatives of the Australian States. Representations on constitutional matters have been made on behalf of the Australian States at both ministerial and official level and my colleagues and I have undertaken to give these representations full consideration.

Mr. Taylor

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am naturally very pleased to hear of the detailed discussions which he had with these distinguished visitors? Can he confirm that, while we in this House are always prepared to admire and respect the legitimate aspirations of any nation to control its own highest judiciary, we in this House or Her Majesty's Government are not able to influence what appeals are or are not heard by Her Majesty's Privy Council?

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend is quite right. There are constitutional implications in the representations which have been made by the Premiers or their representatives of all the Australian States. The view of Her Majesty's Government, and I hope it will be the general view of the House, is that we have no desire to cling to any powers on the statute book which may still be there nor have we any desire, either as a Government or as a Parliament, to become involved in internal differences of opinion in Australia. I hope that this will govern our actions.

Mr. Russell Kerr

Is the Prime Minister aware that the present Australian Government are more than capable of dealing with these anachronistic State bodies?

The Prime Minister

I do not think that many Australians would share the view of the hon. Gentleman about the nature of the States. It is a fundamental part of the constitution of Australia to have the Commonwealth Government and the State Governments. The view which we have expressed is that, where differences arise on the constitutional level, we would hope that they can be sorted out between Canberra and the State capitals.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke

Would my right hon Friend consider—if these complicated constitutional matters have to be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—recommending that the Judicial Committee sits in Australia and not in Whitehall?

The Prime Minister

That is certainly a proposal which could be considered and on which I would take the advice of the Lord Chancellor and of the legal advisers to the Government. I would also take into account any representations made by the Australian Government and the State Governments. This is something to which we should certainly give full consideration if the final decision was that the Privy Council should be consulted.

Mr. Heffer

Would not the Prime Minister agree that the answer he gave was correct in the sense that, if Britain can join the Common Market and give away some of our constitutional rights to the EEC, it is obvious that the question of the future constitutional rights of the States in Australia must be a matter to be settled by the Australian people?

The Prime Minister

I admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in bringing the European situation into any question. I can assure him that our European policy and membership of the Community has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the question of the relationship between the Australian States and the Commonwealth Government. Anyone who has been in Australia for any time knows how deep are the feelings in some, perhaps all, States, because all States, whatever their political complexion, have made the same representations. There are strong feelings indeed about this.