The intent of the Constitution

THE EDITOR, Madam:

IN YOUR issue of 9 May, Mr. Berthan Macaulay reportedly states that the Bills "shall not become law except a referendum has been held", if it is intended to amend or alter sections 49 (3) or 49 (5) of the constitution in certain respects and that, as neither section relates to section 110, which deals with the Privy Council, it would be unconstitutional for government to hold a referendum to decide whether or not the Privy Council shall continue to be our final Court of Appeal. But surely neither section 49 (3) nor 49 (5) prohibits parliament from holding a referendum.

Mr. Macaulay also reportedly states that if government attempts to hold a referendum without the authority of any law, it would constitute a silent encroachment on the liberties enshrined in the constitution. But, surely, the intent of the Constitution must be that the people shall have the right to express their opinion on any matter, and the holding of a referendum would not be a breach of their liberties but rather a protection of those liberties.

I am, etc.,

E.E. FRASER

2A Grovenor Heights

PO Box 598, Kgn. 8

Back to Letters