Replies

That was just a formality -- The Brits passed their own version in 1931. These statues did not affect autonomy and independence of Australia, which was granted in 1901. In 1901, Australia accepted as default legislation, the centuries of British law as legal precedent. In a way today, that still hasn't changed. In the 1970s, there was a movement to remove/repeal some of the very old - unused legislation that had been accepted in Medieval Britain. For example --it had been illegal for a woman to gossip -- there was a piece of legislation that dated back to the Plantagenet Dynasty and one of the many pieces of default legislation that was accepted with Federation. The gossiping legislation was never enforced and therefore was easy to repeal.

Other pieces of legislation date back from significant moments in British history -- the Great Fire of London in 1666, for example. After that event, the Parliament of Charles II made it illegal for any new structure to be built of wood on its first floor -- it must be brick. I'm not sure if that law is repealed today in Australia - but the habit of building brick buildings remained a large custom, even when we have sprinkler technology, fire hydrants etc.

Australian law is a very different beast. Although it does have the basis of British legal precedent, there are elements of Australian law that were only forged in Australia and that was well before 1901 -- the incident at the Eureka Stockade has left an indelible mark. No Australian to this day is required to have any papers on him/her at any time (including driver's license). But when asked for the license, has several days to produce it. In Australia, you can leave the house without your driver's license, run a red light, be pulled over and have 3 days to produce your legal right to drive at the local police station.

That was just a formality -- The Brits passed their own version in 1931. These statues did not affect autonomy and independence of Australia, which was granted in 1901.

Not the case.

Australia did not appoint its first overseas Ambassador (Richard Casey, later to become Baron Casey, to the United States) until 1940. Why not? Because until that time, Australia's foreign affairs were still handled from London. And Casey was then, in 1942, appointed (over Australian objections) British Minister Resident in the Middle East by Winston Churchill, exercising Britain's legal right to overrule Australian decisions on foreign affairs. That incident was a main reason why Australia ratified the Statute of Westminster - to prevent it happening again.

Britain didn't exercise its powers over Australia very often between 1901 and 1942, but they were real.

Fellow Australians, it is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that in consequence of a persistence by Germany and her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war.

That was automatic in 1939 because of these powers. In Canada where the Statute of Westminster had become active in 1931 (it didn't have to be ratified there), there was actually debate in the Canadian Parliament over the issue and Canada did not declare war automatically when the United Kingdom did, but did so a week later.

"Our King, Mister Speaker, is at war and this Parliament is sitting to decide whether we shall make his cause our own." - The Right Honourable Ernest La Pointe in the House of Commons in the Parliament of Canada.

The Passing of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act in 1942 was not just a formality. Until it was passed by the Australian Parliament, the law had no force here at all. If it hadn't been for World War II, it is unlikely it would have been adopted as quickly as it was - it was only John Curtin's concerns that Churchill might try and overrule him on issues concerning Australian troops that lead to its adoption in 1942 with effect from the start of the war.