Interesting legal observation!
#1
Interesting legal observation!
The New Zealand Government doesn't lawfully exist and hasn't for over 90 years:
Monkey knife fights then?
Full article text here.
New Zealand was granted Dominion status in 1907. The title Dominion means nothing significant, in British law and legislation the term was synonymous with colony. It wasn't until January l0, 1920, however that Australia became a sovereign nation in its own right when both Australia and New Zealand became foundation members of the League of Nations - the forerunner to the United Nations.
Membership of the League of Nation was restricted only to sovereign countries, and Article XX of the Covenant of the League of Nations required the extinguishment of any colonial laws applying to a member state pre-Sovereignty.
That meant the Constitution Acts in New Zealand and Australia passed prior to independence became legally void under international law.
It was a condition of membership of the League of Nations and later the United Nations.
But no new constitutions were ever forthcoming in either country.
It continues to be a founding principle of the United Nations charter, that the laws of one state cannot be used in another unless ratified by a mutual treaty.
...
The Australian Government, allegedly realising its difficult constitutional position, passed the Australia Act in to repeal a range of Imperial laws and shore up its status.
New Zealand, in the same boat as Australia, did likewise with the Constitution Act of 1986 and the Imperial Laws Application Act of 1988.
However ITR argues that both Acts are also void, as it is impossible under international law and the UN Charter for one nation to pass legislation repealing the laws of another nation. Nor are the Acts valid, if the government passing them is not.
...
New Zealand formally severed its colonial ties from Britain by ratifying the 1931 Statute of Westminster in ceremony on November 25, 1947. Britain again drafted a new Constitution for New Zealand, again passed in Westminster, authorising its colony to change any provisions of the old 1852 colonial constitution.
Except, as the Australian Government learnt at great cost, no laws passed by Britain are valid in New Zealand or Australia, nor have they been since 1920.
Membership of the League of Nation was restricted only to sovereign countries, and Article XX of the Covenant of the League of Nations required the extinguishment of any colonial laws applying to a member state pre-Sovereignty.
That meant the Constitution Acts in New Zealand and Australia passed prior to independence became legally void under international law.
It was a condition of membership of the League of Nations and later the United Nations.
But no new constitutions were ever forthcoming in either country.
It continues to be a founding principle of the United Nations charter, that the laws of one state cannot be used in another unless ratified by a mutual treaty.
...
The Australian Government, allegedly realising its difficult constitutional position, passed the Australia Act in to repeal a range of Imperial laws and shore up its status.
New Zealand, in the same boat as Australia, did likewise with the Constitution Act of 1986 and the Imperial Laws Application Act of 1988.
However ITR argues that both Acts are also void, as it is impossible under international law and the UN Charter for one nation to pass legislation repealing the laws of another nation. Nor are the Acts valid, if the government passing them is not.
...
New Zealand formally severed its colonial ties from Britain by ratifying the 1931 Statute of Westminster in ceremony on November 25, 1947. Britain again drafted a new Constitution for New Zealand, again passed in Westminster, authorising its colony to change any provisions of the old 1852 colonial constitution.
Except, as the Australian Government learnt at great cost, no laws passed by Britain are valid in New Zealand or Australia, nor have they been since 1920.
Full article text here.
#2
Re: Interesting legal observation!
While we are at it why does New Zealand Only have one house rather than the more usual bicameral approach?
In the UK usually bills go:
House of Commons > House of Lords > Head of Government (the Queen for Royal Assent)
In the US:
Congress > Senate > Head of Government (President)
Australia:
Lower house > Upper house > Head of Government (Governor-General on behalf of the Queen for for Royal Assent)
It seems a bit of an anomaly of our parliament only has one house without any checks or balances in the form of a second house?
In the UK usually bills go:
House of Commons > House of Lords > Head of Government (the Queen for Royal Assent)
In the US:
Congress > Senate > Head of Government (President)
Australia:
Lower house > Upper house > Head of Government (Governor-General on behalf of the Queen for for Royal Assent)
It seems a bit of an anomaly of our parliament only has one house without any checks or balances in the form of a second house?
Last edited by Charismatic; Aug 22nd 2011 at 2:15 am.
#3
Re: Interesting legal observation!
"International law" does not supersede domestic law. All it means is that perhaps New Zealand was not eligible for League of Nations membership when it joined. And so what?
#5
Re: Interesting legal observation!
Well spotted . Strange that they passed some of those things under urgency since I could see little chance of public submissions being overwhelmingly against the legislation anyway.
#6
Banned
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,010
Re: Interesting legal observation!
There's quite a few there that I would've liked to see submissions for.
The danger with passing so much is that it bypasses the democratic process, and that could grow to be the norm. Nanny state doesn't always know best.
The danger with passing so much is that it bypasses the democratic process, and that could grow to be the norm. Nanny state doesn't always know best.