New Zealand writes a constitution

samcster94

Banned
They, alongside the U.K. and Israel, are the only three countries that lack a true constitution(even Saudi Arabia technically has one, even if it is literally the Quran and the Sunna). What can be done with a POD of 1907 to given them a constitution like that of Canada in 1982???
 
New Zealand does not become a dominion in 1909, instead staying as a colony and watiting until decollonization in the 1960-80s to gain independence. In this case, it gets a codified constitution, although a cookie-cutter one largely based off the lancaster house templates.
 
New Zealand does not become a dominion in 1909, instead staying as a colony and watiting until decollonization in the 1960-80s to gain independence. In this case, it gets a codified constitution, although a cookie-cutter one largely based off the lancaster house templates.

Well, it was 1907 that we became a dominion, 1947 that the Statute of Westminster was ratified. Given that the request for dominion status came from the New Zealand parliament, which was self-governing before this point, I don't see an easy way to delay dominion-status any further.

In any case, we do have a constitution - it's just uncodified, like Britain's. So what OP's really asking is, is there a way for the constitution to be written down on a single piece of paper? :p Even parts of Canada's constitution are uncodified.
 
Well, it was 1907 that we became a dominion, 1947 that the Statute of Westminster was ratified. Given that the request for dominion status came from the New Zealand parliament, which was self-governing before this point, I don't see an easy way to delay dominion-status any further.

In any case, we do have a constitution - it's just uncodified, like Britain's. So what OP's really asking is, is there a way for the constitution to be written down on a single piece of paper? :p Even parts of Canada's constitution are uncodified.

Indeed. The British invented the notion of "unwritten/uncodified constitution" just to say thay they do have one like everyone else and NZ copied that. :openedeyewink:

The main problem of an unwritten constitution is its flexibilty. That is to say, there's no harder procedure to change Constitutional laws, so technically it's easier to lose some fundamental rights under a flexible constitution. However, being the UK and most of the Dominions quite stable countries I don't think that this legal particularity changes a lot of things.

By the way, even most Civil Law Jurisdictions with a rigid codified constitution have some Constitutional laws outside the main document, the so-called "Constitutional Block".

EDIT: IIRC the Constitution of Australia mentions New Zealand as one of its states.
 
The early NZ Constitution Acts are largely just standard template and so read like the Australian Constitution. Would be easy enough to entrench the earliest one.

Another option would be to introduce the first planned Constitution Act which was widely agreed to be overly complex. If it had been implemented it would be likely to fall over in the mid 50s, but by this time there would be a lot more British settlers, who would demand a say. This would likely result in quite a different document although it would not necessarily lead to entrenchment

Perhaps it would be better to wait till the BNA has been written and so the model of an entrenched constitutional order is more normal?

POD would be to make the 52 Constitution fox the number of provinces or make it harder for them to be created, this allowing the original six to be more stable. Then, inevitably, the country would need a constitutional debate about provincialism and we might then end up with an entrenched document
 
Last edited:
Dead easy: New Zealand joins the other Australian states in ratifying the Australian constitution. Maybe the delegates manage to push through some Aboriginal rights guarantees to protect the Treaty and the Maori, which ultimately improves the status of Aboriginals in Aussie. Win-win!
 
Dead easy: New Zealand joins the other Australian states in ratifying the Australian constitution. Maybe the delegates manage to push through some Aboriginal rights guarantees to protect the Treaty and the Maori, which ultimately improves the status of Aboriginals in Aussie. Win-win!
You do realise that New Zealanders regard the very idea of even considering being part of Australia in much the same way as Canadians regard the concept of being part of the US.
 
You do realise that New Zealanders regard the very idea of even considering being part of Australia in much the same way as Canadians regard the concept of being part of the US.

Nowadays, sure, but the late nineteenth century had several attempts at forming a common Federation, ultimately foundering in 1901. Change that, you have what the OP is asking for.
 
You do realise that New Zealanders regard the very idea of even considering being part of Australia in much the same way as Canadians regard the concept of being part of the US.

I lived in Wellington between 2011 and 2015 (kia kaha Hurricanes!) I'm aware of popular opinion there. I'm not suggesting this should happen now or then, just that it meets the challenge issued by the OP.
 
Top