Jump to content

Talk:New Zealand

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Matthew25187 (talk | contribs) at 21:42, 31 March 2017 (→‎Official languages: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Good articleNew Zealand has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 8, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 22, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
May 1, 2010Good article nomineeListed
March 4, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 26, 2004, September 26, 2005, September 26, 2006, September 26, 2007, December 13, 2007, September 26, 2008, September 26, 2009, and September 26, 2010.
Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article

flag New Zealand
notice board
Regional
Notice Boards

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2014 - Please add Geology of New Zealand

Extended Content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Geology of New Zealand

New Zealand is a section of Zealandia, a much larger submerged continental landmass. Zealandia extends a significant distance east into the Pacific Ocean and south towards Antarctica. It also extends towards Australia in the north-west. This submerged continent is dotted with topographic highs that sometimes form islands. Some of these, such as the main islands (North and South), Stewart Island, and the Chatham Islands, are settled. Other smaller islands are eco-sanctuaries with carefully controlled access. The submerged landmass of Zealandia

The New Zealand landmass has been uplifted due to transpressional tectonics between the Australian and Pacific plates (these two plates are grinding together with one riding up and over the other).

To the east of the North Island the Pacific Plate is forced under the Australian Plate. The North Island of New Zealand has widespread back-arc volcanism as a result of this subduction. There are many large volcanoes with relatively frequent eruptions. There are also several very large calderas, with the most obvious forming Lake Taupo. Taupo has a history of incredibly powerful eruptions, with the Oruanui eruption approx. 26,500 years ago ejecting 1170 cubic km of material and causing the downward collapse of several hundred square km to form the lake. The last eruption occurred c.232CE and ejected at least 100 cubic km of material, and has been correlated with red skies seen at the time in China and Rome.

The subduction direction is reversed through the South Island, with the Australian Plate forced under the Pacific Plate. The transition between these two different styles of continental collision occurs through the top of the South Island. This area has significant uplift and many active faults. As you can imagine, large earthquakes are frequent occurrences here. The most powerful in recent history, the M8.3 Wairarapa earthquake, occurred in 1855. This earthquake generated more than 6m of vertical uplift in places, and caused a localised tsunami. Fortunately casualties were low due to the sparse settlement of the region. Recently, the area has been rattled by the M6.5 Seddon earthquake, but this caused little damage and no injuries. New Zealand’s capital city, Wellington, is situated bang in the middle of this region.

The subduction of the Australian Plate drives rapid uplift in the centre of the South Island (approx. 10mm per year). This uplift forms the Southern Alps. These roughly divide the island, with a narrow wet strip to the west and wide and dry plains to the east. A significant amount of the movement between the two plates is accommodated by lateral sliding of the Australian Plate north relative to the Pacific Plate. The plate boundary forms the nearly 800km long Alpine Fault. This fault has an estimated rupture reoccurrence interval of ~330 years, and last ruptured in 1717 along 400km of its length. Worryingly, it passes directly under many settlements on the West Coast of the South Island and shaking from a rupture would likely affect many cities and towns throughout the country.

The rapid uplift and high erosion rates within the Southern Alps combine to expose high grade greenschist to amphibolite facies rocks, including the gemstone ‘pounamu’ (jadeite). Geologists visiting the West Coast can easily access high-grade metamorphic rocks and mylonites associated with the Alpine Fault, and in certain places can stand astride the fault trace of an active plate boundary.

To the south of New Zealand the Australian Plate is subducting under the Pacific Plate, and this is beginning to result in back-arc volcanism. The youngest (geologically speaking) volcanism in the South Island occurred in this region, forming the Solander Islands (<2 million years old). This region is dominated by the rugged and relatively untouched Fiordland, an area of flooded glacially carved valleys with little human settlement.

Since the end of 2010, several large (M7, M6.3, M6.4, M6.2) and shallow (all <7km) earthquakes have occurred immediately beneath Christchurch. These have resulted in 185 deaths, widespread destruction of buildings and significant liquefaction. These earthquakes are releasing distributed stress in the Pacific plate from the ongoing collision with the Australian plate to the west and north of the city. The earthquakes have significantly altered the city, forcing the demolition of many commercial and residential buildings.

Infobox at NPOVN

I have raised the issue of the what info to put into the "Foundation" field at WP:NPOVN#Info-box: "Establishment" of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. I suggest the process will be more likely to succeed if editors who have been involved in the discussions, including myself, limit their participation by presenting their positions and wait for uninvolved editors to comment before engaging in lengthy argument that would make it difficult for univolved editors to follow and comment. TFD (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Independence from UK

I believe that the Constitution Act 1986 should be included as the final stage in New Zealand's independence as that was when the UK's power to legislate for New Zealand was completely removed, giving it full sovereignty. If you notice the pages for Canada and Australia, both have similar acts passed around the same time period that also removed the UK's power to legislate for their governments as well. The dates which these acts were enacted are included in the respective country's info box, as the final step in independence from the UK. Thus, I think that my edit should be kept to bring in line with the wiki pages of Australia and Canada, as well as to mark the date of full sovereignty for New Zealand. Thanks. --Agent5514 (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before the act, could the UK have legislated for NZ without a prior request from NZ? If the answer is no, NZ sovereignty has not been affected. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even to this day, any legislation passed by the parliament of New Zealand must be submitted for Royal Assent. The Governor-General of New Zealand signs on behalf of the monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. I don't know whether Royal Assent has ever been refused, but the power to do so is always there. New Zealand is therefore not fully independent. The conferring of Dominion status in 1907, the adoption of the Statute of Westminster in 1947, and the Constitution Act 1986 are simply steps in that direction. Until NZ no longer has to seek Royal Assent, it does not have full sovereignty. Akld guy (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. See wp: 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, or wp: Gough Whitlam. There is no real difference from the governmental system in NZ.The difference is that such a situation has not (yet) occurred in NZ. In fact, discretionary intervention by the Governor-General is more likely and more necessary under the supposedly more democratic NZ MMP arrangement of government. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Akld guy - what you say would be true if it was the Queen of England that was signing the legislation. The entity that provides the Royal ascent is the Queen of New Zealand.Andrewgprout (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What point are you making? Are you saying that Queen Elizabeth II acts entirely independently in the case of New Zealand without any conflict of interest from her role as Queen of Great Britain? If she does act entirely independently, what is the point in retaining her as head of state? Wouldn't NZ have a New Zealander as head of state by now, or has she used her power to veto that? Do you see the dilemma? New Zealand is forced to seek Royal Assent even to remove her as head of state. Akld guy (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is really questionable that the Queen has any practical powers she certainly has never used them if she has. The point I am making is that Royal ascent is given by the Queen of NZ - which is not something that anyone can really contest - so this does not affect the independence argument in any way. And your question about the Queen's usefulness is probably off topic but in essence her usefulness is her powerlessness.Andrewgprout (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't seem to have used them, but that's because legislation passed in NZ is innocuous to someone 20,000 km away. Royal Assent would take on huge significance if a war were to break out that involves or might involve New Zealand. I'm sorry, but as long as New Zealand is forced to seek Royal Assent for approval of legislation, it cannot be said to be independent. You can try to make it seem that it is by claiming that Royal Assent has never been refused, so far as we know, but that won't make it so. Akld guy (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be making the rather bizarre claim that the Queen or more precisely the Governor General could withhold ascent to a Bill and keep that a secret and without it becoming a full-blown constitutional crisis which it most certainly would be. Your answers sound way too conspiratorial for my liking. So unless you have something to say about why or why not the 1986 Constitution Act should be in the info box I think we should leave this discussion here. Andrewgprout (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I took exception to was the statement by Agent5514 right at the beginning that the 1986 act was "the final stage in New Zealand's independence". It was not, and New Zealand is not independent. In fact, the current infobox is misleading because it implies that independence has been achieved. The real argument should be that there should be no entry for Independence at all, and that is what I would support. Akld guy (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(In this post, I moved Roger 8 Roger's post up under my first post because he replied to me and subsequent edits moved his comments down the page. I have re-indented other posts accordingly). Akld guy (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussion here... Talk:New_Zealand/Archive_6#Constitution_Act_1986 and Talk:New_Zealand/Archive_6#Independence and probably elsewhere -- to quote from this previous discussion "The Constitution Act 1986 act tidied up and clarified a lot of constitutional provisions, but it didn't make New Zealand any more independent. It was the events of 1947—culiminating in the UK parliament passing the New Zealand Constitution Amendment Act—that gave New Zealand full legal independence".
This discussion started because I reverted the addition of the Constitution Act into the independence section of the info box - my main reason for doing this is that we could put any number of acts and changes in the last 176 years as leading to independence and we cannot put all of them in - I believe we currently have the three most significant dates listed and I am unsure that the 1986 Act matches these in importance. I do wonder whether it might be wiser to say something in the info box to say " its complicated" and point readers to Independence_of_New_Zealand article. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of info-boxes is to provide key information, not to explain the complexities of the evolution of New Zealand's independence. Independence was achieved through the establishment of conventions followed by official declarations and finally by legislation. I think we could safely limit the dates to the recognition of dominion status, which is the most commonly used date. The field name ("Independence") could be changed to something like "Recognized as dominion." TFD (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the claim that New Zealand is not fully independent is a rather extreme view and should be in a footnote rather than the infobox. I suggest that Akld Guy's edit should be reversed.-gadfium 22:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to advise I had added a citation required template, but on reading the paragraph above, I agree with Gadfium, so will go back to the article and remove the claim. It would need mention and referencing within the article text to be restored. Moriori (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that it is even an extreme view: it is simply wrong, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of NZ's constitution. Any mention of it should be in a section about the constitutional not about whether NZ is or is not independent. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it should be removed. It is a misunderstanding of the constitution, but reading it requires expertise and therefore it comes under original research to interpret it, which can only be done by reliable sources. TFD (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP should not be implying in the infobox that independence has been attained. Akld guy (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
since there is consensus in reliable sources that New Zealand is independent, it should. So far you have provided arguments why New Zealand is not independent but no source that make that argument. The fact that a country's head of state can withhold assent to legislation does not mean a country is not independent. The fact that one country shares a monarch with another does not mean one country is dependant on the other. Furthermore, there are procedures for obtaining royal assent against the wishes of the monarch. TFD (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please supply a source stating that New Zealand is independent. The onus is on you to add a reference to the article to that effect, since the infobox implies that it is. The onus is not on me to justify that NZ is not independent. Do you have any comment on the fact that New Zealanders NEVER speak of or celebrate the attainment of independence? Do you have any comment on the fact that NZ has no Independence Day? I repeat, NZ is forced to seek Royal Assent from the Monarch to pass legislation to remove her as head of state. That cannot be called independence. I am neither a monarchist nor a republican, but interested in seeing that the infobox does not misrepresent the situation. Akld guy (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See "Australia and New Zealand" in The Routledge Companion To Postcolonial Studies, p. 24: "In 1919, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa all signed the Treaty of Versailles (establishing the League of Nations) as independent states, and in so doing claimed a status in international law formally recognized by the British Parliament's 1931 legislation (known as the Statue of Westminster) to grant the dominions full independence."[1] Perhaps the reason New Zealand does not celebrate independence is that there was no date that could be seen as a transfer to independence, unlike say Barbados. It marks it independence from 1966. New Zealand under the 1980s legislation has the same legal position as Barbados. Also, it could be that they did not like the term. TFD (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One obscure reference that does not state explicitly that NZ is fully independent. In fact it states that Australia, NZ, Canada and South Africa claimed a status that was recognized by 1931 legislation to grant them full independence (at an unspecified later time). Doesn't say that it did grant independence. Come on, if NZ were fully independent, don't you think we'd have shouted it from the rooftops and there would be references everywhere? The infobox is misleading and there is no way that it can be reworded to make the situation clear. The only option is to delete the Independence entry and explain the stages in the body of the article. Akld guy (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New Zealand has full independence from the UK Government but not from the monarchy. This seems to be the central piece of confusion. The legal entity that is the Crown in Right of the United Kingdom is quite distinct from the Crown in Right of New Zealand. The remaining piece of inter-dependence is that these rights of sovereignty are both nominally held by the same institution, the monarchy. This state of affairs is known as a "personal union". In the case of a constitutional monarch with a locally appointed viceroy (the governor-general) this is a very limited form of inter-dependence. It's true in practice (and to some extent in theory) that the monarch isn't sovereign, Parliament is—and the New Zealand Parliament is a different entity from the British Parliament that just happens to share the same figurehead.
You don't hear people shouting from the rooftops about New Zealand's gradual independence because it's been gradual. Ties have been severed incrementally at a snail's pace. Imagine for a second that Dominion Day had also been the day that:
  • we ratified the Statute of Westminster to get the right to pass laws with extraterritorial effect
  • we gained the right to independently modify our Constitution and used it to pass the Constitution Act
  • the Queen's title changed to say "Queen of New Zealand and her other realms and territories"
  • we replaced our Premier with a Prime Minister
  • we replaced our Governor with a Governor-General, a New Zealand national appointed on the advice of our Prime Minister
  • we exchanged Ambassadors and High Commissioners with other countries
  • we were given membership of the League of Nations/United Nations
  • New Zealanders ceased to be British subjects and became New Zealand citizens
  • we stopped participating in the British honours system and set up our own system
  • we replaced appeal to the Privy Council with our local Supreme Court
If all that happened in one day (or even over a year) we would have absolutely seen shouting from the rooftops and many, many sources talking about New Zealand's independence.
Ben Arnold (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is NZ NOT independent? As far as I can see NZ can do whatever it wants to whenever it wants to. Restraints on that, meaning limitations on its independence, are most likely to come from such things as dependency on other countries for food supply, military occupation, or free movement restraints. Indepence is a relative thing. Most peeople would say that a country like Belgium was independent, but I suggest it is very interdependent on, and hence constained by, other countries, especially within the EU. Are we confusing independence with sovereignty? Not exactly the same thing. Perhaps we should look to change 'independent' with 'sovereign' (even though NZ is sovereign so the result will be the same.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In what way is NZ NOT independent?" It looks like you haven't read my posts above. And as I said, the onus is not on me to prove that it doesn't have sovereignty, the onus is on you and the others here to prove that it has, since it didn't have it at the start in 1840. When, since 1840, has NZ been declared independent? Akld guy (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to your arguments about independence above [20:43, 4 March 2017]. I agree with you on one point though that unlike almost all other former colonies, Canada, NZ and Australia did not use the term independence. Instead I would just include the date NZ was recognized as a dominion, which is the most commonly used date for NZ. TFD (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen's role for New Zealand is the same as it is for Australia, Canada, or Britain itself, she remains a 'last resort' authority for the people from a bad or evil government, in that she has the ultimate power to dismiss governments that are corrupt or plain bad, governments that are beyond the power of the people themselves to remove. In addition, as head of the respective armed services and police forces/services the members of these services ultimately owe allegiance to the Queen herself, and not to the respective national government. Governments change and one may end up with a government that does things that are 'beyond the pale', e.g. Nazi Germany. You may notice that such governments generally remove the Queen as Head of State. e.g., Apartheid-era South Africa, and Amin-era Uganda. This is generally done so that a nation's armed forces can be lawfully ordered to do things to the population that a civilised country would not tolerate. In circumstances with the Queen as Head of State should a member of the armed forces receive orders that he/she regarded as patently wrong they could make an appeal to the Queen, who would then decide whether the orders as a matter of policy were justified, etc., if she decides this is not then the orders would be unlawful, and the government giving them would be acting unlawfully. The troops involved would not be legally obliged to obey such orders. Obviously some extreme governments would not like this, so that's why they remove the Queen as Head of State. That is also why Hitler made himself Head of State and made his armed forces swear allegiance to him, personally, rather than to the German States, as was required for German leaders previously. For a Civilised, Democratic, country allowing this much power in the hands of one man or woman, Is Not A Good Idea.
BTW, when acting as Head of State for a commonwealth member nation she makes her decisions on the basis of the interest of that nation, not those of the UK. Sometimes these do not coincide.
I nearly forgot, the Queen's role is illustrated in the Air New Zealand Flight 901 controversy where the official government accident investigation was distrusted by significant numbers of people who requested and received a Royal Commission to investigate the matter. By doing so they could be fairly sure the matter would be impartially investigated without favouring one side or the other. At the time Air New Zealand was run and operated by the New Zealand Government. The case eventually went to the Privy Council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.238 (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Official languages

In the lede it is stated that English is an official language of New Zealand. Last I saw, it technically wasn't (ref. Petition to make English an official language in New Zealand), just the most dominant by convention. Has this situation changed, or should the status of English be made more clear in the article? — Matthew25187 (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Zealand&oldid=773189939"