[disordinary]

She does not have any power, her party has power collectively. A prime minister has no more power than any other minister. She's not like a president, she can't decree law.

NZ also has a constitution, the constitution is made up of multiple discreet documents including Te Tiriti O Waitangi, the founding document of New Zealand, the bill of rights act, the human rights act, the constitution act, etc.

The lack of a constitution is in some ways a good thing, democracy has to evolve as time evolves, some countries place too much of their identity in outdated laws which are 231 years old.

[LAC-Tech]

The lack of a constitution is in some ways a good thing, democracy has to evolve as time evolves, some countries place too much of their identity in outdated laws which are 231 years old.

Other countries rely too much on a badly translated treaty not signed by half the country describing an arrangement that no longer exists that's 182 years old.

Might be best not to throw stones from single-paned glass houses.

[areyousure]

> The lack of a constitution is in some ways a good thing

Out of curiosity, when you say "THE lack of a constitution" [emphasis mine], where are you referring to?

[disordinary]

New Zealand

[areyousure]

Cool, so I understood correctly: In response to "NZ has no constitution", you respond first that it does and then follow with why it's good that it doesn't.

I thought this was such a bold argument that I must have misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification.

[disordinary]

Sorry, I meant the lack of an overarching constitutional document gives more flexibility as it's not one thing which is held up as an almost holy document. The closest we've got it the treaty of Waitangi.