November 25 2007 marked the 60th anniversary of New Zealand's adoption of the Statute of Westminster 1931, which we adopted with the consent of Britain in 1947. The adoption of the Statute of Westminster was legally more significant than Dominion status, yet is more obscure. For the republic debate, two issues stand out: the length of time it took for New Zealand to adopt the Statute, and the constitutional implications of it.

A newspaper article on the adoption of the Statute of Westminster, 1947.

The constitutional implications are important: the Statute began the legal separation of a Crown in right of New Zealand from the British Crown, prompted the creation of New Zealand citizenship separate from British subjects, and removed the ability of Westminster to legislate for New Zealand without our consent - the ability of Westminster to legislate with our consent was not removed until the Constitution Act 1986 was passed.

Background

The Statute of Westminster grew out of the Balfour Declaration of 1926, which itself came about because of the dismissal of Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King by the Canadian Governor General, who claimed to be acting on the British government's behalf. The Statute itself focussed on giving legal effect for the equality and legislative independence of the dominions of the embryonic British Commonwealth. One area of contention is the preamble to the Statute, which requires "...the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom" to changes to the succession to the throne. However, because this is the preamble of the Act, it is technically not binding, and the last instance when it was raised - with the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1937 - was before New Zealand had adopted the Statute.

Constitutional implications

The long-term constitutional implications of the Statute of Westminster were far greater, arguably, than the Dominion. A separate New Zealand Crown meant that today the New Zealand monarchy is legally separate from the British monarchy - for this reason monarchists argue that the Queen is a New Zealand head of state, because the Queen is legally Queen of New Zealand. This argument ignores the reality that while the Queen is Queen of New Zealand, the Queen undertakes all of her other constitutional and symbolic functions as the British Sovereign, and is resident in the United Kingdom almost exclusively, and when Her Majesty travels, she represents the United Kingdom. This argument is threadbare. A separate New Zealand Crown also means that responsibility for the Treaty of Waitangi has been transferred from the British Crown to the New Zealand Crown - which means that a republic will affect a similar transfer. This, of course, is the reality that endless delegations of Maori to Buckingham Palace found: the Treaty is the responsibility of the New Zealand Government, and the British Crown provides Maori with no special protection from the government.

An anti-British statute?

Dr Michael Bassett's biography of war time Labour Prime Minister Peter Fraser, Tomorrow Comes the Song, sheds some light as to why New Zealand did not adopt the Statute of Westminster for some time. The early run-ins between the first Labour Government and Britain - specifically on the issue of foreign affairs - New Zealand supported military action in Ethopia against Mussolini's Italy, Britain did not - and economic policy. The "Buy NZ Made Goods" campaign had been labeled "anti-Imperial" by the opposition, as it discouraged buying British goods. This experience had hardened Scottish-born Fraser into avoiding anything seen as "anti-British". He became preoccupied with avoiding the accusation of being seen as "anti-British", which like the modern accusation against republicans is of course more of a reflection on supporters of the status quo. Fraser's government had proposed to adopt the Statute of Westminster in 1944, following Australia which adopted the Statute in 1942, but the proposal was quietly buried due to an outcry by the opposition. Ironically, it was the opposition that was to force Frasers' hand - Sidney Holland, later National Prime Minister from 1949 - 1957, introduced a private members' Bill to abolish the Legislative Council (the old appointed upper house), which failed because New Zealand did not have the ability to amend the Constitution Act 1852 without the consent of the British Parliament. Fraser's government adopted the Statute in 1947, a year after instructing government departments to drop the name "Dominion" from official stationary. At the time, Fraser said the move was "catching up with realities".

The implications for the republic debate of the Statute are subtle, but important. First, the adoption of the Statute means that New Zealand is legally independent of Britain. New Zealand is today independent in almost every sense of the word - except when it comes to its head of state, who is symbolically the British head of state. This often creates a number of nonsense arguments about whether New Zealand already has a "New Zealand" head of state. Secondly, while the Statute does not bind the Commonwealth realms to consult each other on the succession to the Throne, the reality is that any changes would more than likely need to be agreed on by all 16 of the members of the Commonwealth who retain the Queen as head of state. This precludes any change to the succession without a debate on the monarchy. The Statute has implications for key issues in a republic, such as the Treaty of Waitangi and New Zealand's legal independence. It is important that as republicans we understand these implications, in order to have a sensible debate about the implications of becoming a republic.

External links 

• Dr Michael Bassett: Tomorrow Comes the Song: A Life of Peter Fraser, 2001 

Resources

• Wikipedia - Statute of Westminster 1931
  
• Wikipedia - Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947