[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.