Talk:Constitution Act 1986

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: merge

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 The provisions repealed existed in the previous (1852) Constitution Act, the New Zealand Parliament simply did not carry them over.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)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: 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)
replies: text: Because there was no need for it, New Zealand had the right to alter its own consitution --Lholden 22:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New Zealand got the right to alter its Constitution when the UK Parliament passed the New Zealand Constitution (Amendment) Act in 1947, thus this act, unlike Aussie and Canada, did not need to be passed in both parliaments Brian | (Talk) 06:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Commonwealth of Australia "got the right" to alter its Constitution in 1901 when the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Imp.) was passed. Simultaneous legislation was passed in Australia (a) to terminate the right of Great Britain to legislate for Australia and (b) because the states were still British colonies at the time. Did New Zealand achieve (a) unilaterally? —Felix the Cassowary 14:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New Zealand had had the right to alter the Constitution Act 1852 (Imp.) by Acts of its own parliament since the Act itself was passed. (a) was achieved by the Constitution (Amendment) Act in 1947, although there was a residual provision in the 1852 Act that allowed the UK to legislate for NZ at our Parliament's request. This was what was removed (or more correctly, not carried over) in 1986. --Lholden 20:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UK Act

message: 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)
replies: text: I would disagree, articles titles do not need to be the legal name. Brian | (Talk) 00:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you're right - it should probably stay where it is. The two enactments are, after all, linked --Lholden 02:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Act/article name?