Talk:Constitution of New Zealand

Statute of Westminister Adoption Act 1947
I have removed this Act from 'Sources of Constitutional Law' because it was repealed by the Constitution Act 1986, see second schedule. This Act should really be part of a history section on this page, which I am currently drafting.Lholden 22:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Letters Patent of 1983
I'd like to explain this edit:


 * The LP of 1983 has no actual title. It is just described as the "Letters Patent constituting the office of Governor-General of New Zealand", and it is just a description, not a proper noun.


 * LPs are instruments in a class of their own, to be differentiated from Warrants and other such royal writings. They all contain the phrase "We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent". E.g. Charter of the BBC are Letters Patent.

I'm sure that those editing the article will know this already&mdash;this is for the benefit of passers-by.

DiamondVertex (Talk) 05:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Report of the Constitutional Arrangements Committee
The link for the Report of the Constitutional Arrangements Committee is dead, does anyone have a copy elsewhere, if not, we'll have to remove the link Brian | (Talk) 03:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't know what the original looked like but is this it? r2b2 05:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was looking for that. --Lholden 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand House of Representatives
New Zealand House of Representatives is now a seperate article from New Zealand Parliament. can people who look at this page have a look and improve them both to show the full consitutional nature of the split? --Midnighttonight 04:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others (1976)
Can info be added on the Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others (1976) case? currently, I am busy writing a research paper, so I can't do major edits, but in the course of the paper I am refering to this case, and thought Wikipedia could help me (although I would never reference wikipedia...), but alas it cannot. --Midnighttonight 09:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll write something nup. It's a pretty important case.--Lholden 22:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem with credibility
If any one were to ask the average New Zealander when their constitution was promulgated they'd get blanks stares--I know because I began asking that question in 1978 and all I got was blank stares. I have been asking that question for more than 30 years and the responses have not improved. Nowadays--since the Labour Party decided that they could stay in office by blaming the woes of the world on other people you get such knee-jerk reactions as the current anti-American "We do not have a constitution" nonsense and the following diatribe about how New Zealand has a superior form of government etc and blah blah blah--not that they really know what it actually is. (Tell Joe Blogs "you have a constitutional monarchy" and they just stare at you. No idea what you are talking about.) So here we find a welcome respite from the Cult of Denial and the Temple of Dumb and Dumber and what do we find--no sources. It is regrettable that the very few New Zealanders that have taken the time to actually research and explain New Zealand's governmental structure have not--wait for it-- bothered to actually provide sources for this. You few have a tremendous opportunity to make these things clear and put all those high school/college teachers who fill their students' heads with unmitigated sheep's dip back on their collective heels and do a bang up job and raise the level of respect for Wikipedia in New Zealand by doing this article and the associated articles correctly. Please! Provide definitive sources.Malangthon (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not sure if you're complaining that the article has no sources (it does - see the External links) or if there's a lack of citations in the article (which is valid). Which one is it? --Lholden (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Malangthon, I'd have a lot more sympathy for your point of view if you had avoided the unnecessary political opining... but anyway, as none of us around here are paid for our work, perhaps you'd like to be part of the solution by contributing as an editor. You seem to have plenty of time on your hands, judging by the length of your spiel.  Many of the other articles related to NZ's politics and government need a lot of work on structure, basic facts etc.  IMHO, this one is a welcome relief because it's factual and makes sense.  Well done to those who have contributed.--Januarian (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Januarian :-) --Lholden (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things...
I have removed a couple of repealed laws from this page. While they were important, since 1986 they have no longer been part of NZ law. Also, its it worth having a bit on laws are not as significant as the previously mentioned ones, but still are important: Off the top of my head I would name the: State Sector Act 1988, the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, Ombudsmen Act 1975, the Official Information Act 1982, the Public Finance Act 1989, and maybe the Human Rights Act 1993. Anyway, what does everyone think? Lewis, I am sure you will have a opinion :P Brian | (Talk) 00:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course :-) I think they're linked to now in the article anyway, so I'm not worried about removing the Statute of Westminster...
 * The problem with the Acts you suggest is that they're only partially constitutional. The Interpretation Act is another one I'd add. --Lholden (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah agreed. While they do not fit into what we could call the core constitutional docs, they however are still important in there own right. Maybe either a "Other important legislation" section, or add them to another wiki page somewhere. Anyway, was just food for thought. Forgot about the Interpretation Act... oops ;)  Brian | (Talk) 11:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Major changes by Wikicom2000
I've reverted major edits to this article and others by Wikicom2000, not because I disagree with the content added but because they are major, un-discussed edits that put forward a particular POV. I ask Wikicom2000 to please discuss these edits here first. --Lholden (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for setting up this discussion. I am quite new to this editing, it took me a while to find this section. A few things about the NZ Politics and its constitutional laws. The article is quite misleading, it give the impression that the NZ politics has some sort of legal safeguards against abuse of Power but in fact there is none. When the legislature passes a bill, there is no upper house review nor judicial review (unchecked). Therefore one must be very careful on the usage of the word "constitution", I don't deny there are constitutional laws in NZ but not the Constitution. What I mean by it is the entrenched supreme safeguards against tyranny. The NZ system itself sometimes called Tyranny of Majority. Under the current system, it can produce another Hitler and there is no safeguard against it. In the British system there isn't really a written Constitution but the Bill of Rights for example enjoys the superior law status. On the other hand NZ only has ordinary laws, which means there is no guarantee of Rights. At any time the Parliament can limit whatever the right is you have today, it even can abolish the Supreme Court tomorrow. It's like a warranty of manufactured goods at absolute discretion of the manufacturer. I think the article should reflect these aspects too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicom2000 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's great, but you need to understand the Wikipedia policy on Points of View (POV) - see WP:POV. I certainly agree that there is a lack of constitutional safeguards in New Zealand, but nonetheless don't edit the Constitution article to suit my POV, because there are contrary opinions, that are verifiable. It might be a good idea if you read Wikipedia's other policies on editing. --Lholden (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The GG's Office is nominally non-partisan ...
"The Office is nominally non-partisan, the Prime Minister advises the Sovereign who to appoint as the Governor-General." This is badly written. Is it trying to say that appointment to the Office is nominally non-partisan, but the PM...? Nurg (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I've rewritten it. Nurg (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Constitution of New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elections.org.nz/voting/referendums.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dpmc.govt.nz/cabinet/manual/intro.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121205011941/http://www2.justice.govt.nz/cap-interim/ to http://www2.justice.govt.nz/cap-interim/
 * Added tag to http://otherpublications.clerk.parliament.govt.nz.clients.intergen.net.nz/attachments/FileForWeb-20060216-110239-J.1%20Constitutional%20Arrangements.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Enactments
This is an odd paragraph. It's re-stating imperial legislation. Thoughts? --LJ Holden 00:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed the paragraph --LJ Holden 09:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Small "c"
Constitution of New Zealand should be a small "c" as there isn't a single Constitution as such. --LJ Holden 09:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster separation
Re my latest edit - clearing up a misunderstanding that the adoption of the Statute of Westminster separated the New Zealand and UK Crowns, since I've been editing and expanding the New Zealand adoption Act article. In fact, the adoption of the Statute of Westminster was just the first step --LJ Holden 22:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Add the OIA to the table?
Should the Official Information Act 1982 be added to the table? It is listed in the Cabinet Manual reference, has been described by the Court of Appeal as being of constitutional significance, and is now described on a host of government websites as "an important part of New Zealand's constitutional framework". --IdiotSavant (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep! I think there was some discussion at the time when the table was created but can't recall it, given we have verifiable sources within government referring to it as a part of the constitutional framework then it should be added. --LJ Holden 23:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Though please tweak the description - I'm not entirely happy with it. --IdiotSavant (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)