Talk:Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865

When the Act says local acts are void
I just had to add in the word "not" in the sentence "Thus it confirmed that colonial legislation (provided it had been passed in the proper manner) was to have full effect within the colony, limited only to the extent that it was not in contradiction with ("repugnant to") any Act of Parliament that contained powers which extended beyond the boundaries of the United Kingdom to include that colony." Its omission completely reverses the meaning of the sentence, obviously. I can understand why it was missing, but because I think that sentence is a bit long and unwieldy, but I can't think of a better way of putting it at the moment.

By way of explanation, it appears to me that the purpose of the Act is to make clear that the only reason for declaring a local act void is inconsistency/repugnancy to an earlier act which specifically extends to that colony. This deliberately excludes than the common law, or acts of parliament intended for operation in the UK. Therefore, repugnancy with an act of parliament can still cause a local act to be voided, but only in a clearly defined set of circumstances. This is accomplished by having two sections in the act, "Colonial Law when void for Repugnancy" (sec. 2) and "Colonial Law when not void for Repugnancy" (sec. 3).

Hope that clears things up, and maybe someone can turn my musings into good enough english to put in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.63.190 (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this actually right? - "whether or not those English laws had been intended by Parliament to be effective in the colony." - it should at least be the Imperial Parliament - but wasn't the question simply whether the colonial law was repugnant to English law? Perhaps some sources would clarify the assertion. Suastiastu (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)