Talk:Dominion of New Zealand/August 2006 - December 2017

Dominion of New Zealand Royal Proclamation 1907 was never revoked
The 1983 Royal Letters Patent concerning the office of the Governor-General of the Realm of New Zealand do not legally (i.e., in law) change the long form full name of the country. The Royal Proclamation of September 10, 1907 stating that "the Colony of New Zealand shall be known as the Dominion of New Zealand" on and after Sept 26, 1907 has never been formally revoked (i.e., it is still in force). The long form full name is stil today the Dominion of New Zealand and it Dependences. The 1917 Royal Letters Patent refering to the office of the Governor-General of the Dominion of New Zealand were revoked in 1983, and replaced. However, the long form full name of the Dominion of New Zealand was formally (i.e., legally) bestowed by the Royal Proclamation of 1907 (not in the Royal Letters Patent of 1917).

Additionally, the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953 does not abolish the rank of Dominion Status. The term Realm (i.e., Realm within the Commonwealth) was a comprimise term of respect, and was not an instrument of statutory name change.

70.30.193.143 18:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Letters Patent are Royal Proclamations, so the official name "Dominion of New Zealand" was legally revoked in 1983, if not in 1947. --Lholden 21:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have heard this before however; the source for the 1953 comment was a speech in 2001 by Dame Silvia Cartwright "In 1946, Prime Minister Peter Fraser instructed government departments not to use the term “dominion” as it was obsolete. It was officially discarded in 1953, and replaced with “Realm of New Zealand.”"


 * I have just read in the 2000 Year Book that "By 1953 it was considered that 'dominion' implied a subordinate role to the United Kingdom, and official style was changed to the 'Realm of New Zealand' which recognised the Queen's position as constitutional head of New Zealand and the Commonwealth-without implying a subordinate relationship to the United Kingdom…The title lingers only in the names of some business, hotels and other institutions established in another age".


 * Anyway the Interpretation Act  says  ""New Zealand" or similar words referring to New Zealand, when used as a territorial description, mean the islands and territories within the Realm of New Zealand; but do not include the self-governing State of the Cook Islands, the self-governing State of Niue, Tokelau, or the Ross Dependency." Brian | (Talk) 21:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Still, I think the name "Dominion" was impliedly repealed. --Lholden 22:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Letters Patent of 1983 were not about giving the state a name but about defining the office and title of the Governor-General and the area over which he, as a representative of the Queen of new-Zealand, has authority. Realm of New Zealand is a term used as a description of that situation. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Why the hell is New Zealand still a Dominion of the British Empire ? Bukhara (Kingdom of Bukhara) (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Realm of New Zealand is not the long form name
The word Realm is a general term for a monarchy that is ruled by a King (or Queen) i.e., a Kingdom.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/realm

A King rules a Kingdom, Union, Dominion, Commonwealth, or Realm. That is to say that within the Order of Precedence of the Feudal System they all possess the same rank (i.e., Feudal Rank). The Order of Precedence, literally meaning "whom that proceeds first", has the following hierarchy (i.e., system of Feudal Ranks), an Emperor, a King, a Prince, a Duke, a Marquis, an Earl, a Count, and a Baron rule an Empire, a Kingdom, a Principality, a Duchy, a March (or Margarvate), an Earldom, a County, and an Estate, respectively.

With respect to New Zealand, its' new constitution of 1986 explicitly states that it is a Constitutional-Monarchy, and that Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is the symbolic figure-head of state (represented by the figure-head Governor-General of New Zealand). Upon close inspection of the 1986 constitution, one will not find one article (i.e., a clause) that relates to the long form name of New Zealand. Not one.

The term Realm of New Zealand appears only in the 1983 Royal Letters Patent describing the Office of the Governor-General of New Zealand. It can not be found anywhere else, and New Zealand does not formally refer to itself internationally as the Realm of New Zealand.

For all intents and purposes, the term the Dominion of New Zealand is still the countrys' long form offical name, as stated in the Royal Proclamation of Sept 9, 1907. It has never been revoked. Whether New Zealand chooses to openly use it or not, the Dominion of New Zealand is still legally in force.

70.30.193.143 18:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In clause 1 of the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor-General of New Zealand; the Realm of New Zealand is defined as including New Zealand, the self-governing state of the Cook Islands, the self-governing state of Niue, Tokelau and the Ross Dependency.


 * the Interpretation Act says "New Zealand" or similar words referring to New Zealand, when used as a territorial description, mean the islands and territories within the Realm of New Zealand; but do not include the self-governing State of the Cook Islands, the self-governing State of Niue, Tokelau, or the Ross Dependency."
 * thus New Zealand is part of a Realm titled "Realm of New Zealand". Brian | (Talk) 19:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the Royal Proclamation of 1907 was impliedly repealed by the Letters Patent 1983 (Letters Patent are in effect Royal Proclamations). Moreover, as Brian points out, the Interpretation Act 1999 the term relates to New Zealand plus its territories (that is, the Cooks, Niue, etc)--Lholden 21:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Legally New Zealand remains a dominion. There has been no legislation or ordinance which purports to change the country's title from dominion to anything else. New Zealand remains one of the Queen's dominions.122.59.83.216 (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's my idea as well. 'Realm of New Zealand' is a description for the relations between New Zealand and its associated states and the area over which the GG holds sway. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

"Realm of New Zealand" does not constitute a long form name
There is a ranking system, not only within the Feudal System (Feudal Ranks) of the Royal Titles, and the Realms the Sovereign rules, but also within the British Commonwealth of Nations legislative instruments, utlilised in British Common-Law.

The Order of Precedence (who proceeds first) of these Common-Law legislative instruments is given as follows, (highest rank) Royal Proclamations, Acts of Parliament, Royal Letters Patent, Royal Warrants, Orders-in-Council (lowest rank). As per the rules of Order of Precedence, a legislative instrument can only be superceded by another legislative instrument of equal or higher rank.

Additionally, their are historical differences between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Kingdom of France that need to be emphasized here for added context. The Kingdom of France was in practise, "legally divided" between the (Roman) Civil Law of Languedoc (i.e., southern France), and the Common-Law of Langue d'Oil (ie., northern France). Therefore, in 1066 when William the Conquered won the Battle of Hastings and unified the Kingdom of England (abolishing the former separate Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms), since his original Realm, the Duchy of Normandy was in northern France, William imported Common-Law into England, where it has "stuck" ever since.

A Civil Code is a complete body of laws, and all future interpretations (i.e., legal decisions) are strictly limited by the said code (i.e., a "Codified" judgement). In contrast, Common-Law is based a few select documents (e.g., Charters, Acts of Parliament, Proclamations, etc.,) and the future interpretations are based solely on proceeding interpretations. This is known as "the Precident System". It is not adhoc law, but the French may look at it as "next to adhoc law". Anyways, the key here is the British Commonweealth of Nations is primarily based on a very flexiable system of Common-Law. Thus, to properly navigate the hierarchy one MUST consider the handy device known as Order of Precidence.

Simply put, the Royal Proclamation of September 9th, 1907 has never been formally superceded. It is still in legal force today. As well, the New Zealand Constitution Act 1987 makes absolutely NO EXPLICIT REFERENCE to the long form name of the country of New Zealand. Read it. You will find nothing.

For all intents and purposes the Dominion of New Zealand still stands, until your own Parliament of New Zealand gets the guts to OPENLY DEBATE to proposed long form name change. At the moment the "New Zealand Republican faction" has carefully dodged "coming out in the sunlight" on this issue, and has engaged in a patient and lengthy campaign of peace-meal Republicanism by Stealth.

70.30.193.143 18:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the exact title of the country really doesn't concern republicans. Secondly, I don't know which first year law book you're reading from, but any student of Dicey will tell you that statute law trumps all. Since I know the Constitution Act 1986 like the back of my hand, I can simply state that this enactment didn't need to make an explicit reference. In any case, by your reason, even if the Constitution Act declared New Zealand the Free State of New Zealand or something like that, it wouldn't be effective. Of course, this is not the case; there have been several enactments and two letters patent that use the term "Realm of New Zealand". That is the long title of New Zealand.


 * As I said above, the 1907 proclamation was impliedly repealed by the 1983 Letters Patent, and the Royal Titles Act 1953. Ipso facto, the proclamation is not legally in effect. --Lholden 09:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Your arguement does not hold water.

70.30.193.143 18:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Rationale and References for the Dominion of New Zealand Proclamation
On September 9, 1907, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland issued the Royal Proclamation of the Dominion of Zealand. This legislative instrument of the British Commonwealth of Nations conferred upon the Colony of New Zealand the higher Feudal Rank of Dominion Status, and announced the birth of the Dominion of New Zealand, on and after September 26, 1907.

It is the opinion of this editor, that the actual text of the September 9, 1907, Royal Proclamation of the Dominion of New Zealand should be included in text the Wikipedia article page entitled the Dominion of Zealand (i.e., this article). Why? This document is the heart-and-soul of the article.


 * You should read Wikipedia's policies on quoting sources then, which were pointed out to you in comments to your IP address. --Lholden 09:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You might consider attempting to improve your courtesy skills.
 * 70.30.193.143 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This document is not available in the Internet. This documents' original text has not been reproduced (to the best of my knowledge) in any currently available legal or historical textbook on New Zealand.


 * It's avaliable on my website here, and has been so since this time last year. --Lholden 09:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing this out. Perhaps you should consider making your site easier to navigate.  It seems to hide your topics quite well actually.


 * 70.30.193.143 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Really, how so? I think it's pretty easy to find what I'm on about --Lholden 23:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

How did I get the text of the Royal Proclamation of the Dominion of New Zealand? I went to the National Archives of the Dominion of Canada (now refered to as Library and Archives Canada) here in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, and got a photocopy right out of the London Gazette (Tuesday, September 10, 1907). This was not an insignificant amount of effort on my part.


 * Thank you for your effort, however the actual Proclamation itself is in the Constitution Room at the New Zealand National Archives. --Lholden 09:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. I knew that.  However, not everyone can blithely wander into the museum to read it.  As well, you have just indirectly proven my point.  You had to go the museum to get the full text of the Royal Proclamation of the Dominion of New Zealand (1907), as it was available at no other obvious source.  Perhaps, you should consider re-evaluating your debating skills.


 * 70.30.193.143 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes they can, the Archives New Zealand Constitution Room is open to the public as a permanent display. And how exactly have I proven your "point" - That there's a secret republican conspiracy to hide the fact that New Zealand's long title is the "Dominion of New Zealand"? Well, actually, no I didn't. The Constitution Room was created so that the public could go and see for themselves the documents mentioned. In any case, if the document isn't avaliable at any other source, that doesn't mean that there's a secret government conspiracy to hide the long title of New Zealand, because it is actually the Realm of New Zealand. --Lholden 23:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The full text of the Proclamation of the Dominion of New Zealand (Sept. 9, 1907) is NOT available at the indicated link you provided,

http://www.archives.govt.nz/docs/pdfs/Constitution_English_web.pdf#search=%22Constitution%20Room%20Letters%20Patent%22

I have been searching for the full text of this Royal Proclamation for over 3 years. I missed your lone website reference. I thank you for posting the full text of this document. It is a pivotal Constitutional document in the history of the country of New Zealand.

Of the over 150 independent countries that presently exist, all of them (save 19) possess an official long form name, and an (unoffically derived) short form name. This is a international convention (i.e., a tradition).

New Zealand only uses its short form name (i.e., "New Zealand"), and has submitted to the United Nations and the CIA Factbook an entry of "none" with respect to its long form name . Ask yourself, why do these 19 countries out of the over 150 break this convention of submitting a long form name?. Why? (i.e., go through the complete list of existing countries yourself, find the 19 countries (long form name: "none"), and look for a pattern. There is one, if you are astute enough).

70.30.193.143 17:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're going around in circles. I didn't say that the Proclamation was avaliable at the link I provided, I said that anyone could wander in and look at the Proclamation, which is different to what you said.


 * I don't know you mean by the "convention" to submit a long-form name. As far as I can see, the 19 states you mention are almost (except Burkina Faso) Commonwealth Realms. You'll have to explain to me why New Zealand's use of "New Zealand" is such a bad thing; in any case it is my view - backed by legislation, the wording of NZ passports, etc - that the long form name of New Zealand is the Realm of New Zealand.


 * --Lholden 00:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

References relating to the Royal Proclamation of the Dominion of New Zealand

[1]. ''The London Gazette. Published by Authority'', Numb. 28058, p. 6149, Tuesday September 10, (1907).

[2]. Handlist of Proclamations Issued by Royal and Other Constitutional Authorities 1714-1910 George I to Edward VII Together With an Index of Names ands Place IV, Burt Franklin, New York, New York, pp.836, (1967).

[3]. J.B. Scott, Autonomy and Federation Within Empire The British Self-Governing Dominions, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C., pp. 352, (1921).

[4]. J. Hight and H.D. Bamford, The Constitutional History and Law of New Zealand, Whitcombe and Tombs Limited, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 408, (1914).

[5]. Edmond-Edouard Buchet, Le "Status" des Dominions Britanniques en Droit Constitutionel et en Droit International, Librarie du Recueil Sirey (Societe Anonyme), 22, rue Soufflot, Paris (Ve), pp. 133, (1928).

[6]. M.E. Lang, Codification in the British Empire and America, The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., Clark, New Jersey, pp. 204 (reprint of the 1924 original), (2005).

70.30.193.143 15:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dominion Status is not dead. Legal "Hair-Splitting" has hidden it
The salient point, discerned by the astute reader is that notwithstanding the practise that Canada and New Zealand have ceased using Dominion of Canada, and Dominion of New Zealand, in Constitutional Law however this does not matter. The legal disignation "Dominion of" is still legally in force.

Passage 1 (Ref. [1], pp. 195-196).


 * The British were asked to remove their Goveror-General; his Irish replacement ceased to function and the office lapsed. The oath of allegence was ended, as were appeals to the Privy Council.  The masterpiece of de Valeria's hair-splitting was the External Relations Act of 1936 which provided that as long as the Free State was associated with Britain and the Dominions and th King was recognised by those Nations as the 'symbol of their co-operation' and continued to act on behalf of each (on the advice of each of their respective governments) for diplomatic purposes, he would do the same for the Free State.  After a referendun in 1937 a republican constitution was adopted whereby the Free State became a sovereign, independent, democratic state styled 'Eire or Ireland'.  The British and Dominion Governments agreed to treat it as a Dominion in external association with the Commonwealth.  Ireland's neutrality during the 1939-1945 demonstrated convincingly that Dominion status equated with fully independent status.


 * Ireland was not alone in discarding the style. Canada withour changing its Constitution of formal designation, ceased using Dominion of Canada after 1926 and joined the United Nations in 1945 under the original name of 'Canada'.  Canadians also chafed under the formula 'Dominions beyond the Seas' and called for changes to the royal title.  South Africa took the same same view, and even New Zealand unobtrusively dropped the style.  It joined the United Nations as 'New Zealand'.  In Jaunary 1946 the Prime Minister's Department in Wellington circularised heads of departments that 'Dominion of New Zealand' was obselete and likely to cause embarrassment.  As departmental note-paper ran out new letterheads would use 'New Zealand', though publicity was not to be drawn to the change.  Once again, however, style and substance reamined distinct.  Although New Zealand had abadoned the style 'Dominion', it had not yet become a fully sovereign state by adopting the Statute of Westminster.  This delay was until 25 November 1947, three-and-a-half months after the ending of the Raj.

Passage 2 (Ref. [1], pp. 202).


 * "In April 1949, a special conference produced the single London Declaration. In the first draft the King was styled 'Head of the Commonwealth and synbol of free association of the independent members'.  Nehru jibbed at the former as his Cabinet members had only authorised him to accept the latter.  Cripps explained that the King was the Head as a symbol - the 'symbolism created the Headship'.  Nehru prefered head as symbol rather than and symbol.  Malan (of South Africa) feared people might suspect some supra-sovereignty and pressed for greater clarity, which was solved by the formula the King was 'the symbol of the free association of its independent members and as such the Head of the Commonwealth'.  So India stayed in, just eight days after Ireland left.  The supreme irony is the role of the King of the Head of the Commonwealth had been first suggested by de Valera in 1922.  The new styles were conformed at the accession of Queen Elizabeth II in February 1952 when she was proclaimed as 'Queen of this Realm and all Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth ...'.  The Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, said regretfully that once 'the word "Dominion" was greatly esteemed', but now 'Realm' was an expression of unity and 'respectful association' with the Crown.

References

[1]. R.D. King and R.W. Kilson, ''"The Strange Death of Dominion Status", (W. David McIntyre), The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History. Special Issue The Statecraft of British Imperialism'', Frank Cass and Co. Ltd, Ilford, Essex, UK, Vol. 27, No.2, pp. 193-212, May (1999).

70.30.193.143 00:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A good analogue is with the Princess of Wales - e.g. Camilla, Princess of Wales. For diplomatic reasons she may not use the style, but the wife of the Prince of Wales is the princess of Wales. In due course she will be Queen, whether or not that style is used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.83.216 (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

republican conspiracy
This article is not a "republican conspiracy"; it was written with the full use of learned articles and other sources, the general consensus in New Zealand is that Dominion has been replaced by realm. Brian | (Talk) 09:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said. --Lholden 09:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that the long form name of the Dominion of New Zealand was ever officially repealed. My arguement has been that it is still legally in force (via the un-repealed Royal Proclamation of the Dominion of New Zealand, September 9, 1907).

The Order of Precedence of legislative instruments is as follows; (highest rank), Royal Proclamations, Acts of Parliament, Royal Letters Patent, Royal Warrants, and Orders-in-Council (lowest rank). The rule is that a pre-existing legislative instrument can only be superceded by a new one of equal or greater rank.

Simply put, the Royal Proclamation of the Dominion of New Zealand (1907) is of higher rank in Order of Precedence than a Royal Letters Patent (1983), with regard to legislative instruments.

There simply is no way around that fact.

70.30.193.143 18:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you're getting your legislative Order of Precedence from, but I cannot find any reference to it in any of my legal books. I think this is because Parlimentary sovereignty ensures that common law instruments (i.e. Royal Proclamations) are actually subject to Parliament. The 1907 Proclamation itself was a product of a resolution of the General Assembly. So I don't accept that somehow Royal Proclamations cannot be repliedly repealed by an Act of Parliament changing the style of the Sovereign, or a Letters Patent (which is basically a Proclamation anyway).


 * Even if what you're saying is correct - and I don't think it is - The Accession Proclamation for Queen Elizabeth II actually uses the word "realm" in place of "dominion". That alone should surely impliedly repeal the 1907 Proclamation. --Lholden 23:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

End date of 1947?
I have a problem with the template that was added stating that the "end date" of the Dominion of New Zealand came in 1947 with the passage of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947. The passage of this act did not necessarily end NZ's status as a "British dominion". The article recognises the ambiguity as to when NZ stopped being the "Dominion of New Zealand". Ultimately, it may have just been a name, and of no real consequence. For that reason, I think that the use of the infobox may not work well in this case. Or perhaps the infobox could be more fuzzy about the end date or acknowledge the ambiguity somehow. In any case, I think we would be hard pressed to find any sources that say that dominion status ended in 1947 when the Statute of Westminster 1931 was adopted. (Indeed, the SOW 1931 itself refers to the Act applying to certain "dominions"—it does not say that the places cease to be dominions.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think 1947 was actually the start of the end of Dominion status; arguably it still exists as the 1907 proclamation has never been formally revoked, although it was potentially superseded by the 1983 Letters Patent. You're right in that it is unclear when exactly Dominion status ended, although scholars all appear to agree that it has. I added the infobox simply for continuity from the new Colony of New Zealand article. I'm not bothered removing the 1947 date, although it would probably be more helpful to the casual reader to understand the significance of the 1947 adoption of the SoW 1931. --LJ Holden 07:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good way to put it—that 1947 is was the beginning of the end of dominion status. (I have no objection to agreeing that dominion status has effectively ended; I'm not quite sure what the user in the posts above was going on about.) Would a footnote by the date 1947 be appropriate in the infobox? I think retaining the date could be helpful, as long as it is explained somewhat. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR concerns about the "beginning of the end" analysis? Anon raises a point below and I have responded. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Separate kingdom
The idea that each of the Queen's "realms" are separate kingdoms, entirely legally separate, is not only a legal myth but illogical. There is one British monarchy. The Queen uses different royal styles and sometimes different symbols in the different parts of her "realms and territories". But the idea that they are completely separate is a nationalist/republican myth. The notion of a divisible crown is without legal foundation. It is also contrary to the evidence - the royal styles follow a consistent pattern, each referring to the other realms and territories (if there was only a Queen of New Zealand, that would be the extent of the title); the chosen royal title and style cannot divide the monarchy (that is like saying that if I call my Jaguar a Mercedes it will somehow change the model of the vehicle); the Statue of Westminster was predicted on a single Crown; the constitutions of some of the realms and dominions refer to the sovereign as being the sovereign of the UK (for instance PNG); none of the realms and dominions are called kingdoms; if these were separate crowns, why do they co-operate, share the Buckingham Palace website, etc. So the statement that "New Zealand is now an independent kingdom where the sovereign reigns no longer as the British Monarch, but as the Monarch of New Zealand" should be deleted.122.59.83.216 (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In a purely judicial / legal sense the crown(s) are different because they operate in 16 separate judicial environments. From an institutional standpoint however it is still a singular institution with a shared character. As you say, the title of the monarch means exactly the same thing in all 16 realms. Just the wording is different. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I deleted the section. per WP:OR and because it is unsourced. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Not predecessor
New Zealand evolved from colony to dominion etc. To describe the "Dominion of New Zealand is [sic] the historic predecessor to the Realm of New Zealand" is an odd thing to say, as they are the same country. In point of law New Zealand remains a dominion.101.98.74.13 (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A fair and valid concern, anon. According to the article, the "Dominion" name simply fell out of use. As a Canadian, I'm instantly reminded by the "Dominion of Canada" label- it was present in statutes, then Parliament stopped using it and renamed Dominion Day Canada Day. The Constitution of Canada uses the word "Dominion" at one point, but not to establish "Dominion of Canada" as a formal name, and there is no Dominion of Canada article as a "Former country" article. Perhaps the New Zealand situation is different; perhaps there was a formal name change. But if so, this article does not establish that. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it's accurate to say that NZ remains a dominion at law. I know of some sources that would directly challenge that hypothesis. New Zealand's constitution remains largely "unwritten": there is no entrenched document that would set out a name of the country. Current NZ is the same country as the dominion of NZ in the sense that the DR Congo is the same country as Zaire was -- but as in that case, there has been a clear change in naming. In NZ, it is evident through practice and official documents. I agree that for a reader who may not understand the changes that have occurred, it's awkward to state that one is the predecessor of the other. There's probably a more elegant/accurate way of stating it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not accurate to say that New Zealand is a dominion at law. As I've said before there have been a number of enactments, Letters Patent etc that have implicitly repealed the 1907 dominion declaration. However I accept that it's not exactly clear what the situation is, and that saying the Realm of New Zealand was the successor to the Dominion of New Zealand isn't exactly accurate either. I've edited the lead to reflect this --LJ Holden 08:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dominion 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060803200446/http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=24 to http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=24
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/69puof4m6?url=http://www.michaelbassett.co.nz/book_tomorrow.htm to http://www.michaelbassett.co.nz/book_tomorrow.htm

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) 07:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)