Nelson Evening Mail SATURDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1942 BRITAIN’S TIES WITH THE DOMINIONS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 77, 24 October 1942, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail SATURDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1942 BRITAIN’S TIES WITH THE DOMINIONS

THE recent decision of the Commonwealth Government to submit the Statute of Westminster to Parliament for ratification has revived interest in a measure which has been pushed into the background by the multifarious activities of war. The Statute of Westminster, which may well be termed the Charter of the present day British Commonwealth, was passed by the Imperial Parliament in 1931 with a view to codifying the relationship between the Mother Country and the Dominions. As might be expected, it served to clarify an existing situation rather than to create a new one. It was based on the feli-citously-worded Balfour Declaration of 1926, which described Great Britain and the self-governing Dominions as autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by their common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Com- ; monwealth of Nations. The draft of the Statute was of; course submitted to the Dominion Governments for consideration before being presented to the Imperial Parliament, and was approved by them. It did not define the characteristics of a Dominion as opposed to a Crown Colony, but took the unusual course of specifying which overseas territories were to be regarded as Dominions. Six were named—Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Newfoundland, and the Irish Free State- It was clearly laid down that the government of these countries was in no sense under the control of the British Parliament. A measure passed in London was not law in any Dominion unless that Dominion expressly

gave its consent. The Dominions, thus recognised as virtually sovereign states, were free to enter into such agreements and treaties with other nations as they thought fit. It was no longer necessary for their diplomatic arrangements to be made through the British Foreign Office, and most of them took the opportunity of appointing their own representatives to countries with which they had close relations. An interesting position arose in connection with the status of the Gov-ernor-General. Since he could no longer be considered as the agent of the Home Government, he came to be regarded as the personal link between the King and the Dominion, and by a happy paradox, the law which frankly recognised the autonomy of the Dominions bound them more closely to the Crown. It had long been the practice to give the Dominions a voice in the selection of their Vice-Regal representatives; this privilege was now conceded as a right, and both Australia and South Africa even went so far as to insist, in special circumstances, upon the appointment of a native-born Governor-General. The far-reaching effect of the new view of Imperial relationship was clearly seen wjien Great Britain declared war on Germany on 3rd September, 1939. This action was not binding on the Dominions, and their pronouncements were made independently. It will be remembered that Australia and New Zealand followed the Mother Country’s lead immediately, but Canada and South Africa delayed their declaration for several days and Eire, with traditional perversity, took no action at all, and still preserves an uneasy neutrality. There is little fear that the Statute of Westminster, by laying emphasis upon the independence of the Dominions, will in any way upset

Empire unity. The rights it grants were freely and willingly conceded by Great Britain, and the principles upon which it is based were tacitly accepted many years before it became law. Forty years ago disI cerning observers foresaw that the growing power of the Dominions would ultimately justify a claim to nationhood; but the process was hastened by the Great War of 191418. Their achievements and sacrifices in that struggle gave them a place in the eyes of the world, and at the Peace Conference of 1919, and in the constitution of the League of Nations, they were regarded as separate entities. This was done with the full approval of Great Britain; and the Statute of Westminster therefore merely crystallised a position that already existed in fact, but was vague and uncertain in law. Though we are no longer subject to the Mother of Parliaments, we are still firmly bound

to Britain by our allegiance to the King, and by ties of kinship, tradition and common interest. These are links which in the words of Edmund Burke “though light as air, are nevertheless strong as iron.” Provision was made for the Statute of Westminster to be ratified by the Dominion Parliaments, and in some cases this was done. In Australia and New Zealand, however, the sentimental ties with the Motherland were strong, and the people were in no hurry to insist on their independent status. In these two countries the Statute has therefore remained dormant and the decision to revive the matter has provoked surprise and even criticism. Opponents of the Bill maintain that it suggests a desire to cut adrift from Great Britain, and that it is just the kind of propaganda that would please the Axis. But Dr. Evatt, who brought the bill forward, scouts any such idea, and explains that the measure has been introduced simply to clear up legal difficulties. For instance, it would be impossible, unless it were passed, for Australia to establish a civil government in any territory taken from an enemy Power. Moreover, he adds, the bill is necessary to allow the Commonwealth Government to carry out after the war a proper programme of economic security and social justice. He does not indicate the specific ways in which these ends are to be attained; bilt his remark that “the Commonwealth cannot rely on its present wide defence powers after the war” suggests that he has in mind some form of alliance with the United States or other friendly nations with a view to securing permanent stability in the Pacific. There seems no doubt that the bill will eventually pass the Commonwealth Parliament; and since our position and our problems in New Zealand are much the same as those of Australia, interest in the Statute and its constitutional implications may be revived here.