Constitution Of New Zealand Essay

A constitution is “the system or body of fundamental principles under which a nation is constituted or governed; it sets up the framework for the Government itself.” Unlike most other nations, New Zealand does not have a singular constitutional document that outlines principles comprehensively. On the contrary our constitution is made up of many different elements, such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990, the Constitution Act 1986, Constitutional Conventions and parliaments standing orders, as well as a number of further documents and constitutional principles. These elements collectively effectuate the ideas and principles integral to our countries successful governance. The fact that our constitution is not codified in a singular supreme

It is through this role that they are able to check the legislative branch of government. Although the Judiciary’s power in minimising their activities is generally restricted. While the judiciary has to adhere to the law that the legislative branch makes, judges are able to interpret statues narrowly to avoid injustice. This ability is a convention that has developed over time but can also be found in the law. The New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 instructs the courts that, “Wherever an enactment can be given a meaning that is consistent with the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights, that meaning shall be preferred to any other meaning.” This power to interpret statutes allows judges to define their own meaning when a statute is unclear or complex. By being able to perform this function, the Judiciary possesses a certain amount of power to check the legislative branch of government. This results as the law is applied according to the judiciary’s interpretation of it, rather than employing what the legislative branch envisaged in their enactment of the statute. By interpreting statutes, the Judiciary have in the past been able to limit legislative power. However this is essentially centred on whether they legislative is willing to allow these actions. Therefore the judiciary’s ability to check legislative power is largely limited, as they have to stay with in

A supreme law constitution would allow the judiciary to strike down any law or any action by government that was made if it was proven in court not to comply with principles in the constitution. Having a supreme constitutional government would allow the judiciary to have a greater power to check other branches of government because they would be held more accountable for their decisions. Unlike our situation now, the legislative and executive would not be able to legislative to overrule decisions the judiciary has made. This would give the judiciary considerable power. In relation to checking other branches of government, this would make New Zealand government more democratic by ensuring that that the power balance of all branches remained in control. But in contrast, a supreme law constitution would also result in a less democratic nation by decreasing the separation of powers between branches. A supreme constitution would transform the judiciary into political institutions by authorizing them to overrule the legislative or executive actions. As neither an elected or overly representative group, giving the Judiciary a great deal of power over the law in New Zealand could potentially have dire consequences in the instance of an abuse of power. Therefore there are both positives and negatives to be considered when assessing the effect that having a supreme law constitution would