DOMINION STATUS

Hokitika Guardian, 1 September 1931, Page 8

DOMINION STATUS

STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER. COMMENT IN LONDON. LONDON, July 23. By the proposed Statute of Westminster all formal vestiges of inequality are to be abolished between the legislative powers of the Parliament of Great Britain and those of the Dominions. “The Times” to-day has a leading article on th e proposed Bill, at present being discussed in New Zealand. The writer says: That is part of the programme arranged at the recent Imperial Conference. The main provisions, though not the actual words, of the proposed Statute were set out in an agreed schedule, and the British Government undertook to introduce it as soon as it had been approved by all the Dominion Parliaments. In Canada, South Africa,' and the Irish Free State there was no difficulty in obtaining approval for the proposed formal , renunciation of its former supremacy by what used to be known as the Imperial Parliament. In Australia and New Zealand there is no enthusiasm for the change, which is regarded as unecessary from the point of view of Dominion autonomy and suspected as dangerous from the point of view of Imperial unity. ! Mr Forbes, when he moved the resolution on Tuesday, was frankly apologetic. At the Conference he had only consented to the changes proposed because other Dominious wanted them, and it was on that ground along that lie recommended the resolution to the House of Representatives. He r.-as careful to point out that he had insisted on the insertion of a clause in the Statute setting out that none of its provisions, should extend to New Zealand until that provision, was adopted by the Dbmdmon' Parliament. NEW ZEALAND’S VIEW. Mr Forbes’s attitude of unenthusiastic, and indeed distrustful 'acquiescence in the demands of other Doii minions was generally approved by the j members who took part in the debate, j They evidently shared his apprehension | that the complete recognition of the I equality of the different Governments .in the Empire must initiate a new and very <iel[icate series of problems. • Lord Buckmaster, criticising the decision of the Conference in the House of Lords some months ago, said: “You have done the one thing you ought not to do. You have attempted to make regid and difficult of change, relationships which ought -to be fluid and capable of being adapted from time to time to the ever-changing circumstances of life.’’ He could see no t reason for putting an understanding which worked well, nnd which everybody accepted, into the formality and obscurity of an Act of Parliament. That is clearly the general view both in Australia and New Zealand, and indeed at is already plain that the Statute, which purports to deline and simplify the relations of the British and Dominion Legislatures will create j many new puzzles for the constitutdonial lawyer to take the place of that for which it provides a surgical solution. None the less the resolution now before the New Zealand Parliament will doubtless be carried, though without enthusiasm and even with grave anxiety as to its ultimate results. And in much the same spirit the Statute of Westminster to be introduced by Mr Thomas in a few months’ time will doubtless be passed by the British Parliament. With the forma] abdication of longJ disused powers by the Government and Parliament of Great Britain the » national status of the Dominions will be established beyond all cavil. The old unity of the Empire, based upon the supremacy of an Imperial Government and an Imperial Parliament, will be a thing of the past in legal theory as well as in. political practice. That has been an inevitable stage in its developments. ' BUILDING UP A NEW UNITY. Whether the nations which now compose the British Commonwealth of Nations will be able to congratulate themselves on the result will depend upon their success in building up a new unity based upon free co-opera-tion and a common devotion to the common interest. Jn the series of speeches which General Smuts made in Canada a few months before the meeting of the Imperial Conference, he dwelt on the progress which had been made by the Dominions towards selfgovernment, and constitutional* equality with the Mother Country; and he went on to '-ask, now that this goal has been completely and finally achieved : “Cannot the next ten years be given over with the same zeal to the the achievement of closer co-operation and solidarity of policy?” The Governments of tile Empire must, he said, treat their common problems In a spirt of statesmanship and family cooperation, and above all its future “must not be left to the mercy of lawyers andlegal formulas.” The idea which inspired those s[>eeclies is cearly th e ideal which animates New Zealand, more concerned, as Mr Forbes expressed' it. to consolidate the unity of the Empire than to lay down any principles of status. When the Statute of Westminster is formally enacted the constitutional pedants of Dominion status will have I their last shadowy; grievance removed, and the way should be clear to build up by co-operative effort a new but uot' less effective unity, a unity more than ever necessary in the anxious times that lie ahead,