Talk:Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942

Capitalisation

As it happens, when referring to one of the British Dominions, capitalisation is necessary because it refers to a particular type of territory, that is, one with the British monarch as head of state but represented by a Governor-General. This is opposed to lower-case dominion, which can refer to any territory. You think they'd just use a different word, but that's the British for you. --bainer (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a matter that doesn't need to be followed in this context; why does a 'necessary' British usage govern an article that is primarily to do with Australia? Who says it's 'necessary'. It looks odd when the generic has upper case as well as the specific. You don't seem to see the point, and neither do I. Tony 14:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "dominions" would refer to all the territories of the British monarch. The United Kingdom is a "dominion". Dominion with a capital D refers to certain types of British territories - those that are self-governing, and have a Governor-General. The term has gone out of use, but it is relevant to the context here. Only the capital-D Dominions signed the Balfour Declaration. Only the capital-D Dominions were affected by the Statute of Westminster 1931. The article on Dominion describes this in detail. --bainer (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Move Article?

I suggest that this article be moved to Statute of Westminster Adoption Act (Australia). There has (obviously) never been another Statute of Westminster Adoption Act in Australia, but there was a Statute of Westminster Adoption Act in New Zealand, in 1947. Given the proximity of the two dates (and countries), it could be confusing. Thus, the move to the proposed place could separate this article from one on New Zealand's Act (which I will write). I just want to be sure of the nomenclature in Australia, i.e. whether the '1942' is ever considered an essential part of the name. Bastin8 02:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

There isn't a formal naming convention about legislation, but the general convention is that the short title of the legislation should be used as the article title. There can certainly be a disambiguation page at Statute of Westminster Adoption Act, and I think this is a specific enough topic that people are likely to know which article is meant. --bainer (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. Will create NZ article at Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947. Bastin8 14:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The Statute of Westminster and the murder in HMAS Australia

This is a sanitized PR version of Australia signing the Statue of Westminster in 1942. For the sordid details see Australian Defence Force Journal ISSUE 179 : Jul/Aug - 2009 - The Statute of Westminster and the murder in HMAS Australia at http://www.adfjournal.adc.edu.au/UserFiles/issues/179%202009%20Jul_Aug.pdf Anthony Staunton (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Anthony . A very interesting link . The autor makes the classic error of thinking the Statute or the Adoption Act gave australia ' Sovereign Independance ' where in fact they simply increased the autonomy of the British Dominions . Dominion status didn't just fade away it was terminated by the Australia Acts. 121.91.213.106 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The author did not use the phrase 'Sovereign Independance' (sic) but in fact wrote 'Under this arrangement, the Dominions were finally sovereign governments in their own right, able to amend or repeal British legislation applying to them as they saw fit, while the British Parliament was prevented from legislating on their behalf unless specifically requested to do so.' The Statue of Westminster provided de jure independence although de facto independence had existed from Federation. One of Australia's problems in both world wars was the some but not all British generals did not understand that Australian troops were the responsibility of the Australian Government not the British Government. The most famous of these disputes were the Menzies and Fadden governments requesting the withdrawal of Australian troops from Tobruk in 1941 and the Curtin Government refusing a British request to send troops to Rangoon in 1942. At least Churchill appreciated Australian independence although he was tenacious in his advocacy and bitterly disappointed in the Australian refusal, he respected Australia as an independent country even though the Statute of Westminster had yet to be signed. Anthony Staunton (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Why mention Sir Isaac Isaacs in article on the Statute of Westminster?

Last paragraph under sub heading 'Statute of Westminster' In 1930, Australian Prime Minister James Scullin recommended Sir Isaac Isaacs as Governor-General of Australia and he was appointed by the King. The decision to appoint an Australian as Governor-General of Australia was endorsed by the 1930 Imperial Conference. Since all this happened before the Statute of Westminster was enacted and eleven years before Australia ratified it why is it included in this article? Anthony Staunton (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No citations, before adoption and wrong facts

Under the sub heading ‘Adoption’ I have deleted the second paragraph because it has no citations, it mainly happened before Australia ratified the Statue of Westminster and many of the facts are wrong.

‘Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Winston Churchill had promised to send forces to defend Australia in return for Australia's contribution to the war in the Mediterranean and Middle East theatre’. The British promised that they would send support if Australia was in danger of invasion. Australia was never in any danger of invasion particularly after the Battle of Midway. The Japanese put off any plans to invade Australia in March 1942 and following the Australian–American land success in the Australian Territory of Papua in January 1943 and the American land success on Guadalcanal in February 1943 the Japanese was on the defensive in the Pacific and remained on the defensive for the remainder of the war.

‘However, relatively few forces arrived, because Churchill was focused on first defeating the Axis Powers in Europe before turning to Japan.’ No British Army units ever arrived but three Australian divisions arrived home from the Middle East between March 1942 and March 1943, two US divisions arrived in the same period and eight Australian reserve divisions were mobilized with the first Australian reserve units in action less than nine months after Pearl Harbor.

‘Curtin made the decision in December 1941 to recall the 6th Division and the 7th Division to defend Australia, although the 9th Division remained in North Africa until Axis forces there were defeated.’ Churchill not Curtin made the decision to recall the troops to fight the Japanese. The 9th Division stayed because of transport issues and the US sent the 32nd Division to Australia in lieu. The 9th Division left five months before the Axis forces were defeated in North Africa.

‘Curtin openly stated that Australia was turning to America rather than the United Kingdom’. He did and was told by Macarthur that Australia was in the British sphere of influence. Anthony Staunton (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Adoption delete irrelevant and add reference

Delete from paragraph '... after the Fall of Singapore and the sinking of the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse. Prior conservative governments had asserted that British military forces would be able to protect Australia, but Curtin, along with External Affairs Minister Dr H.V. Evatt, thought that focusing on an alliance with the United States would be more valuable. Before the 1940s, the United Kingdom had managed Australia's foreign relations as a matter of course. Curtin's decision to formally adopt the Statute of Westminster in late 1942 was a demonstration to the international community that Australia was an independent nation.' It is either wrong or irrelevant. I am pleased that someone added 'The immediate prompt for the adoption of the Statue of Westminster was the death sentence imposed on two Australian sailors for murder committed on HMAS Australia in 1942.' but regret they did not include Australian Defence Force Journal ISSUE 179 : Jul/Aug - 2009 - The Statute of Westminster and the murder in HMAS Australia at http://www.adfjournal.adc.edu.au/UserFiles/issues/179%202009%20Jul_Aug.pdf as a reference. Anthony Staunton (talk) 12:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)