Talk:New Zealand Constitution Act 1986
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think that this article needs to be merged into the larger (and more generic) one on New Zealand's constitution. Unless somebody proposes adding a new article for each significant piece of legislation then there seems to be no reason why this Act should have its own seperate article. Anyway, thoughts and howls of opposition (or support) welcome.Tobit 01:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think all significant acts of Parliament should have their own articles. Take a look at the links to the article to get an idea of how significant this article is. Admittedly, I added many (but not all) of the links, but I wikified existing references rather than add the term gratuitously into articles. The article could stand to be improved, especially by someone with some legal knowledge.-gadfium 08:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The New Zealand constitution is not this act. This act is part of the constitution, consequently it should be seperate. Otherwise the Treaty of Waitangi should be part of the New Zealand Constitution article, but it is seperate. Likewise, there needs to be seperate articles on the Cabinet Manual IMHO. --LeftyG 04:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the articles should be merged. I started the constitution article mainly to describe the various acts and conventions that make up our constitution. As Greg states above, this Act is not the constitution itself - I do think this article needs to be expanded, particularily the context of it should be fleshed out - the main reason for the Act wasn't actually the constitutional crises of '84, but the fact that the old Constitution Act had been virtually repealed and the constitution was in a bit of a mess. --Lholden 07:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'll join in the crew against merging. We have a Constitution Act, 1867 article separate from Constitution of Canada and a First Amendment to the United States Constitution separate from United States Constitution; New Zealand is no less a country. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Confused
Was this act an act of the UK parliament, and simultaneously (but separately) an act of the NZ parliament ? This is how (I think and without referring back) the Canada Act 1982 was passed. The article seems to suggest (I think erronously) that this act was an NZ act only.
Minor point: it's incorrect to say that there's no written constitution in NZ. Like the UK, there's no codified constitution, but most (if not all) of the constitution is written. Statute law and some other aspects of the consititution are written and have formal legal standing in some way. Other parts of constitutional law might have no formal legal standing, but I am willing to wager that someone somewhere has written down in a serious work (a textbook if nothing else) all else that is reasonably regarded as being a part of the consitution.--Phillip Fung 05:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- No, it is an Act of the New Zealand Parliament only. The provisions repealed existed in the previous (1852) Constitution Act, the New Zealand Parliament simply did not carry them over. You are right about the "written constitution" bit. --Lholden 06:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] UK Act
Why was there no mirror legislation passed by the UK Parliament as in the case of Canada and Australia when they repatriated their constitutions? Astrotrain 15:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Because there was no need for it, New Zealand had the right to alter its own consitution --Lholden 22:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Act/article name?
Given that the name of the Act is the Constitution Act 1986, isn't the title of the article wrong? The 1852 Act was the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, passed by the UK Parliament. This Act is the Constitution Act 1986, passed by the NZ Parliament. So shouldn't the article title be "Constitution Act 1986 (New Zealand)" or something like that? - Simon
- Yes probably. Propose a move. --Lholden 23:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
