Statute of Westminster Info?

Hey Guys,

Could anyone give me any general information on the 1931 Statute of Westminster? I know it gave Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Ireland and Newfoundland basic independence, but could people tell me why some of these places took longer to enact the Statute, and also how close was it voted in within Westminster? Or was it a Statute that didn't need voting in and instead was a simple decision?

Also is there anyway of stopping it of passing through? Whether it be in Westminster or something?

Thanks to anyone who can help give me this information :)
 
Hey Guys,

Could anyone give me any general information on the 1931 Statute of Westminster? I know it gave Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Ireland and Newfoundland basic independence, but could people tell me why some of these places took longer to enact the Statute, and also how close was it voted in within Westminster? Or was it a Statute that didn't need voting in and instead was a simple decision?

Also is there anyway of stopping it of passing through? Whether it be in Westminster or something?

Thanks to anyone who can help give me this information :)

Ah, no it didn't. And still has not. We are still loyal subjects of Her Majesty, whom God preserve.

The Statute was enacted by the Imperial Parliament, not the Dominions. It was adopted by the various Dominions at different dates, mainly because most of them didn't regard it as very important, and got round to it, when it suited them to. I think you do not quite understand what it was, and the practical effects of it. It wasn't a big deal, not a Declaration of Independence or anything. Just a bit of legal housekeeping. It made a convenient "point in time" but no more. When New Zealand did adopt it in 1947 I don't remember anyone being at all interested or exited.

It was passed like any other statute, but I don't think it was in any way contentious. You could probably stop it passing simply by having the government not be interested. The practical effect of it not passing would be almost zero, as far as the Dominions were concerned.

Now, as far as New Zealand goes, the IMPORTANT one was the Dominion Act, 1907. And maybe the Balfour Declaration.
 
What he said. ^

Now, as far as New Zealand goes, the IMPORTANT one was the Dominion Act, 1907. And maybe the Balfour Declaration.

And similarly, in Canada the date we remember is 1867 for a reason. Heck, we had control over our own foreign policy before that - in the wussiest way possible, but it was our own foreign policy.

But I take issue at the Canada still isn't independent bit: we are independent; we have our own Queen and everything. We may be in personal union with the UK, Australia, NZ, &c &c, but we're independant in every other possible way.
 
Ja, Canadian 'independence' is such a nebulous concept. There never was any 'independence' event. What there was was a series of moves that granted Canada more and more autonomy. Certainly, some of the biggest moves were in the interwar years, and the Statute of Westminster was probably the biggest single one of those. But it's NOT a big thing in Canada.

There are those who claim (I'm not among them) that 'independence' wasn't achieved until the Constitution was brought to Canada under Pierre Trudeau in in 1982 (although the idea of a country's constitution being legislation of a foreign nation is ... quaint.
 
The problem is that "independence" is the wrong word. Pretty much all, the commonwealth countries are "independent", and have been for ages (mostly way prior to 1931). But "independence" has sort of ARW connotations, which aren't really there for the Commonwealth.

The idea that some statute , in 1931 or later "granted independence" in any way is just wrong. If anything the SoW was more of a "are you still hanging round? You're all old enough to manage your own lives, bugger off" sort of a thing.
 
Australia didn't have fully-fledged diplomatic relations with countries outside the Commonwealth until after it was ratified by the Curtin government - this is why Menzies' radio address on the outbreak of WW2 said that Britain had declared war, and as a result Australia was at war. One of the reasons that Curtin's government pushed ratification through was to open independent channels to the USA for war aid.
 
Interesting question with reference to NZ as unlike the other examples raised we do not have a single formal entrenched constitutional framework, instead using the more nebulous unwritten type. So what this means is that when constitutional change does occur, it can do so without anything more than a simple act of parliament – there is no need for a constitutional referendum or vote of some kind outside of parliament, or an order in council, a change in practice by the executive or things of that nature

So in 1987, when NZ repealed the Statute of Westminster, therefore repatriating sovereignty, we did so via an ordinary act of parliament and that was that.

When we removed the Privy Council in London as our final court of appeal, that was also by ordinary act of parliament (2003?).

I've found an article (pdf), url linked and the summary (web page) pasted below that addresses this in more detail, wrt the Statute, go to about page 5 onwards of the PDF file. There is also a podcast (mp3?)from 2008, if you have 50 minutes to spare.

In 1857 responsible government was consolidated and more than nominal independence from Britain achieved when the British Parliament passed the New Zealand Constitution Amendment Act. This gave the New Zealand Parliament authority to amend all but a few entrenched sections of the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852.

Although the change in the designation of New Zealand – from the “Colony of New Zealand” to the “Dominion of New Zealand” – took effect on 26 September, 1907, complete autonomy in New Zealand’s foreign affairs was not obtained.

The Governor-General continued to: be appointed by Britain; act as both representative of the British Government as well as the sole official representative of New Zealand views to the Imperial government; be the only person to hold the official coding ciphers; exercise sole discretion over which material and despatches were to be passed to the New Zealand government.

New Zealand acquired the right to conduct its own international trade negotiations independently of Britain in 1923. It exercised this right for the first time in 1928, when it signed a trade treaty with Japan.

Before the Statute of Westminster Act 1931 – and arguably until the New Zealand Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act in 1947 – the New Zealand Parliament was not a sovereign parliament, it did not have the capacity to make all law, (such as legislating extra-territorially), and there were some laws that it could not unmake.

Full New Zealand sovereignty can be dated to 1947 – both in terms of gaining formal legal control over the conduct of its foreign policy and the attainment of constitutional and plenary powers by its legislature.

In passing the Constitution Act 1986 (effective 1 January 1987), New Zealand “unilaterally revoked all residual United Kingdom legislative power.” New Zealand, as of 1987, is a free-standing constitutional monarchy whose parliament has unlimited sovereign power.
 
Last edited:
By 'basic' dependence I simply meant they had control over most of their own affairs, otherwise I wouldn't have put in the 'basic' :rolleyes:

And yes I know it applied at different times, I never said it all happened at once.

But thanks for the comments anyway, they've helped me understand this Statute more :)
 
Top