Talk:Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947

The reasons for the adoption
I removed the bit about the UK failing to protect New Zealand from the Japanese advance in world war II, because first of all, it has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the issue, and secondly, New Zealand did not fall to Japan, and there is no evidence that it was likely to. The New Zealand army were in North Africa and Italy fighting the Germans and Italians at the time, and they made no request to return home on Japan's entry into the war. David Tombe (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There was an argument between Churchill and Curtin of Australia in early 1942 regarding whether or not an Australian division returning from North Africa should go to Burma or straight back to Australia. That annoyed Curtin and prompted Curtin to adopt the Statute of Westminster in Australia. But there is no parallel to this situation as regards New Zealand. I cannot remotely see how it could be possible to link the adoption of the statute of Westminster in New Zealnd in 1947 to the Japanese expansion in SE Asia in 1942. David Tombe (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll find the citation, which shows the Fraser government's adoption was motivated, in part, by the Japanese war in the pacific. --Lholden (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's OK now as it stands. Australia adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1942 in order to remove all ambiguity about its rights to prosecute the war as Curtin saw fit. There had been some disagreements between Churchill and Curtin over Australian troops returning from North Africa. Curtin wanted them straight home, but Churchill wanted to divert them to Burma. A compromise was reached in which they were stationed in Ceylon for six months before returning to Australia.

New Zealand on the other hand chose to leave its troops with the British 8th Army in North Africa.

The reasons which you have now cited for New Zealand's decision to adopt the Statute of Westminster in 1947 appear to make sense. But as it had previously been, I simply couldn't figure out any rational basis upon which that decision could have been based on the events of 1942 surrounding Japan's advance in the Pacific Ocean. David Tombe (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there's a reference to it somewhere in the Hansard, I just haven't come across it yet. I suspect though it's simply a statement by an errant MP, rather than a fact as the previous paragraph attempted to make out. If I do find it I'll add it in, and who said it. --Lholden (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't at all surprise me if some MP did make a remark of that nature. But we need to be careful about giving undue weight to a point of view by quoting what MP's have said in parliament. Many MP's say many things in parliament. There is no evidence that the New Zealand government itself adopted the Statute in 1947 in relation to the Japanese advance in the Pacific in 1942. There is no need to exaggerate any dissatisfaction which may have existed in New Zealand in 1947 in relation to the UK and their time of crisis in 1942. From what I can gather, there was negligible dissatisfaction with the UK in New Zealand at that time in history. There has however grown up a young generation in New Zealand in recent times who have decided to distance themselves from the UK, and who don't appear to share the same affection for the UK that their parents did. But that is not a reason to re-write history so as to project these current attitudes back to that earlier time. David Tombe (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that MPs say many things, but it illustrates the broader point of National's opposition to change nicely. And I think you may have misinterpreted it, if you think it exaggerates dissatisfaction with Britain. Quite the opposite, if my guess about what he truely said ("...an instinct as...", see below) is correct. -- Avenue (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, we don't actually know what he said. In fact, we don't even know who said it. It had previously been suggested that New Zealand had adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1947 due to disappointment that the British were unable to halt the Japanese advance in the Pacific in 1942. But there is absolutely no evidence that the New Zealand government's decision to adopt the statute in 1947 was based on any such considerations. I think that you are talking about a different quote. My point was that in 1947 there was very little, if any, dissatisfaction with Britain in New Zealand, but that a modern young generation in New Zealand in recent times have been fishing for grievances, and in doing so have drawn a false parallel with the disagreement between Churchill and Curtin over the return of one of the Australian divisions from North Africa in 1942. New Zealand never had any equivalent kind of disagreement with Britain. The reasons given for the adoption in the article as it now stands are probably correct. I can't confirm them, but I have no reason to doubt them. We cannot retrospectively apply Australia's reasons for adopting the statute in 1942 to New Zealand's reasons for adopting the statute in 1947. But it appears that somebody had been trying to do that. Somebody had been trying to insinuate that there was some kind of dissatisfaction with Britain in New Zealand in 1947. There may be today with the young generation, but there wasn't then in 1947.David Tombe (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that NZ did not adopt the Statute of Westminster in 1947. It adopted 'certain sections' of the 1931 Act ie: sections 2,3,4,5 and 6 ( of the 12 sections ). The Statute of Westminster ( Imperial )became law in NZ in 1931 with the option ( granted ) to adopt those sections at the discretion of the ( British Dominion of ) New Zealand. Lejon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.201.122 (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the Statute of Westminister applied to New Zealand from 1931, but that doesn't mean the New Zealand Parliament adopted it. Semantics I know, but legally there is a difference. --Lholden (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The New Zealand parliament didn't have the choice of adopting it. It was 'certain provisions' of the Act that it had the choice to adopt and that's what the preamble to the NZ 1947 Act states it was doing. In fact the 1947 Act could not have been passed unless the Statute of Westminster was already part of the law of New Zealand .Lejon (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well no, as I said above, the Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK) was applied to New Zealand. However, the provisions applied actually had no material affect, at least outside of the legal system. To say on that basis that the 1947 New Zealand Act didn't "adopt" the Statute is nonsense - or at least arguing the New Zealand Parliament didn't have the choice. Section 8 of the Statute states "8. Saving for Constitution Acts of Australia and New Zealand.

Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to confer any power to repeal or alter the Constitution or the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth of Australia or the Constitution Act of the Dominion of New Zealand otherwise than in accordance with the law existing before the commencement of this Act." read along with section 10, which does not apply "sections two, three, four, five and six," to Australia or New Zealand means that while the Act was applied to New Zealand, it wasn't until we adopted the Act that the Statute came into force. This is what why an adoption Act was required by the parliaments of Australia and New Zealand. --Lholden (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a copy of the act. . I would tend to agree with Lholden, that any parts of this act which applied to New Zealand prior to New Zealand adopting the act in 1947, were so trivial in their effect, that it would be true to say that the act did not apply to New Zealand until 1947. (David Tombe (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

Hmm, OK this is my last post for this subject - here is a part of a radio broadcast by Sir Robert menzies in 1942 regarding the Statute of Westminster 1931 and its relation to the Australian Adoption Act 1942. Sorry I couldn't post a link but you may be able to find the full transcript here - www.menziesvirtualmuseum.org.au -- its worth a read .Look for ' The Forgotten People '.

" Now, a great may people appear to think that adopting these relatively minor provisions in some way affects the status of Australia and its relation to the other countries of the British Empire, and in particular to Great Britain. This is not so. Those portions of the Statute of Westminster which concern themselves with the status of the dominions became law at the end of 1931, and needed no adoption by Australia beyond the resolutions which were carried eleven years ago. The preamble to the Statute of Westminster, which has a declaratory character, is already law. It became law eleven years ago, and nothing we can think or say or do now can affect it. Now, a great may people appear to think that adopting these relatively minor provisions in some way affects the status of Australia and its relation to the other countries of the British Empire, and in particular to Great Britain. This is not so. Those portions of the Statute of Westminster which concern themselves with the status of the dominions became law at the end of 1931, and needed no adoption by Australia beyond the resolutions which were carried eleven years ago. The preamble to the Statute of Westminster, which has a declaratory character, is already law. It became law eleven years ago, and nothing we can think or say or do now can affect it." .Lejon (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lejon, That broadcast might suggest that Sir Robert Menzies has clearly not read the provisions which were adopted in 1942. Section 4 in particular makes the significance clear. My guess is that Menzies knew exactly the significance of the provisions but that he was totally opposed to Curtin's decision to adopt the provisions, and that in his radio broadcast he was trying to belittle the significance. David Tombe (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Doidge quote
Did Doidge really say "With us, loyalty is as indistinct as deep as religion" (not "... an instinct as ...")? If so, I think adding "[sic]" would be called for. -- Avenue (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad. I've fixed the quote now. I've also got a copy of the Act itself so will update it when I get some time later in the week. --Lholden (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Repeal
The repeal of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947 didn't have the material affect of revoking the effect of the Statute of Westminster 1931. The Official Committee on Constitutional Reform wouldn't have recommended its repeal otherwise - the repeal was intended to remove any question of the ability of the UK Parliament to pass legislation for New Zealand, even with our consent. --Lholden (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * When the New Zealand government adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1947 that had the effect of invoking the important provisions of the 1931 Statute of Westminster. By repelaing the 1947 adoption act, that would put New Zealand back to where it was again prior to 1947.


 * Actually, when I said that New Zealand wouldn't have had the authority to repeal the 1947 act, I actually meant the 1931 act. New Zealand would have had the authority to undo the 1947 act and hence return to the pre-1947 situation. But it could not repeal the 1931 act because that was Westminster legislation. And at any rate, repealing it would have the effect of undoing indepedence even more so. David Tombe (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well yes, but the actual substance of the Adoption Act was to give New Zealand's Parliament the ability to amend acts that related to New Zealand, so since the Statute of Westminster 1931 related to New Zealand then it could be repealed by under the Statute of Westminster. The question is why - and what was the consequences of that?
 * I'm not exactly sure why the Official Committee on Constitutional Reform suggest repeal. I can only suggest perhaps they wanted to clarify the Sovereign status of New Zealand's parliament while consolidating constitutional enactments. As for the consequences of repeal, the answer it seems is a legal principle according to Lord Denning in Blackburn v Attorney-General [1971] 1 WLR 1037, 1040 (which I finally managed to find!):
 * "We have all been brought up to believe that, in legal theory, one Parliament cannot bind another and that no Act is irreversible. But legal theory does not always march alongside political reality. Take the Statute of Westminster 1931, which takes away the power of Parliament to legislate for the Dominions. Can any one image that Parliament could or would reverse that Statute? Take the Acts which have granted independence to the Dominions and territories overseas. Can anyone imagine that Parliament could or would reverse those laws and take away their independence? Most clearly not. Freedom once given cannot be taken away. Legal theory must give way to practical politics"
 * In other words, while the legal theory is that repealing the Statute of Westminster Adtoption Act 1947 is that it would have the affect of revoking New Zealand's independence, the practical reality is that it doesn't because "Freedom once given cannot be taken away". --Lholden (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Holden, I've never lost track of the practical reality. It is a trivial issue for all practical intents and purposes. But it is interesting to know exactly why the New Zealand government decided to raise this trivial issue in 1986. They could easily have introduced a brand new constitution and totally ignored matters to do with the 1931 and the 1947 acts. Those old acts which laid the legal foundations of New Zealand's independence did not need to be mentioned in any new constitution. The independence issue was already long settled.

There is a certain parallel between what New Zealand did in 1986 and what South Africa did in 1934 regarding its 'status of the Union' bills. The Nationalists under Hertzog, who were strongly anti-British had just got into power and they decided to pass the 'Status' bills in order to reaffirm South African independence. Jan Smuts was unhappy about the 'status' bills because he said that they achieved nothing in practice that hadn't already been achieved by the 1931 Statute of Westminster. Smuts claimed that Hertzog had merely passed the status bills to make a political point.

New Zealand were effectively playing the same game in 1986 when they decided to make an issue of the 1931 and 1947 acts. There was absolutely no need to drag those issues up at that time. Earlier in the same year, Australia passed an act to remove the residual constitutional links with the UK. That probably wasn't even necessary either because it removed the protection which the Australian states had from the Canberra government. But nevertheless it did have some practical effect, albeit trivial, and it did require Westminster legislation, and Westminster legislation was passed. It looked to me very much as though New Zealand decided that it didn't want to be left out of the action, and so they decided to claim independence for a second time. But what they then did was technically inoperative, even though it had no effect in practice, and it will never be challenged. It's like they were trying to invent a fiction of a new independence year for New Zealand as 1986. David Tombe (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the thing: the Constitution Act 1986 wasn't about declaring independence. Its impetus came from the 1984 Constitutional Crisis, which was due to contentions over the caretaker convention. Arguably, New Zealand was more independent than the Australian States were prior to the Australia Acts, the only remaining power of the UK Parliament was to legislate at our request. I don't think they made an issue over repealing the Statute of Westminster, they were simply tidying up the statute book, which was the intention of the 1986 Act. The reports from the Official Committee on Constitutional Reform make it clear their main gripe was with the numerous statutes that constituted New Zealand's constitution, which they wanted to consolidate. --Lholden (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that, but I still think it was the wrong thing to do. It was somewhat reminiscent of what Hertzog did in South Africa in 1934 in relation to the 'status bills' for purely anti-British reasons. The new constitution could have avoided the entire issue of the foundation acts, because that had long been settled. They weren't doing any harm on the statute books and they were an important part of New Zealand's history. The idea of removing those statutes suggested 'history deletion' to me, of the kind that we read about in George Orwell's 1984. Somebody with a chip on their shoulders was trying to make a point.

Anyway, the main point in all of this concerns the issue of ascribing an ultimate date to New Zealand independence. If you don't see the 1986 act as relating to independence, how would you word its significance in a chronology of New Zealand history? By analogy, what date would you give for South African independence? 1931 or 1934? David Tombe (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Public Act Number discrepency
The article's lede lists the act as "Public Act no. 28 of 1947" while it is numbered "1947, No. 38" in the online copy of the act available at New Zealand Legal Information Institute. Unless anyone objects I'll change the article to match. Kiore (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)