Talk:Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The reasons for the adoption 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Doidge quote 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Public Act Number discrepency