In Attorney-General for New South Wales v Trethowan, [1932] AC 526 (PC) the validity of the Constitution (Legislative Council) Amendment Act 1929 was tested. This Act inserted a new s 7A into the Constitution Act 1902. This provided that no bill to for abolishthe upper house in New South Wales (NSW) could be presented unless it had been supported by a majority of voters in a referendum. Similarly, s 7A itself was also entrenched; in order to repeal this section the same procedure had to be followed, an arrangement known as 'double entrenchment’. In 1930, following a change in the NSW state government, it was decided to repeal the Constitution Act 1902, s 7A and abolish the upper house. Before putting the bill forward for royal assent, the matter went to the Privy Council for their advice as to whether the proposed amendment was legal. The Privy Council held that the requirement to have a referendum was binding, and that parliamentary sovereignty had no relevance in determining the present case. The Privy Council seemed to indicate that the matter turned on a statutory construction of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, s 5. The New South Wales Parliament was a legislative body having subordinate powers and hence the issue was not one relating to sovereignty of the type enjoyed by Westminster.