Talk:Government of New Zealand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject New Zealand / Politics  (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (marked as Top-importance).
 

Govts by term[edit]

The table does not seem to be in the correct order... --Helenalex 08:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Several Governments are (roughly) equal in term, but which are you querying? Perhaps a table in chronological order AND this one by length of term? Hugo999 10:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Coalitions[edit]

This has probably been raised before, but since each government since 1996 has relied upon one or more coalition partners, how correct is it to use terms like "the fifth Labour government"? For example, the offical NZ Government website (beehive.govt.nz) refers to three distinct governments (labour/alliance 1999-2002, labour/progressive coalition 2002-2005 and labour/progressive coalition 2005-2008). Unless a party can govern alone, the traditional multi-term 'governments' are a thing of the past, and there will always be a need to distinguish between each term of government when coalition partners change. It seems inaccurate and potentially biased to define governments in a way that minimises the role of coalition partners. Without those partners, the leading partner would not have been able to form a government. It is more accurate to link the achievements and controversies of each actual government (eg 1999-2002 not 1999-2008) to all the parties involved in each government, not just the leading party. I realise this is a more complex approach, but if the consensus is to keep combining a series of governments into one government defined only by the leading partner, then perhaps some commentary at the start of the page would be appropriate. --Januarian (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There probably should be more of an explanation, but I am against having seperate pages for each permutation. For example, we would obviously have seperate pages for the 4th national govt and the national/nz first coalition formed in 1996, but wouldn't we also need another page on the national/mauri pacific/alamein kopu thing which they bodged together after that coalition collapsed? If it's misleading to group the first two together, surely it is also misleading to group the second and third 'governments' together. I think there is usually enough consistency within groupings led by one major party to justify having them all on one page, although we probably do need to reorganise the 4th national and 5th labour pages to reflect the changing coalitions and how this affected policy. --Helenalex (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)



Governments of New ZealandGovernment of New Zealand — Relisted. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 08:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Unless I'm mistaken, and the plural is correct. The singular "Government" is used in most other similar articles, e.g. Government of Australia, Government of India, Government of the United Kingdom. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the scope of this article is really a list of governments, and as such it's different to the articles that you have quoted. To that end, I don't support your move request, but I won't lose sleep if it does get moved / others don't share this view. Schwede66 01:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the list is only one aspect of the article, not the main subject. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - this article should first and foremost describe the general form of government in a little more detail than it does. Any article whose primary scope is a list should start "List of". If there have been multiple forms of government, this article should describe the current state of affairs, with much of the historical detail in another article somewhere. The lists themselves are somewhat disingenuous - how is it defining a "term"? Conventionally, in a Westminster system a "term" runs from the administration of the oaths to the dissolution. Referring to each party's turn in office with an ordinal is less than helpful, unless they are commonly or customarily referred to as such (e.g. the United States Congress convenes for fixed terms, and historically those terms have been numbered). If a table is needed, use a WP:sortable table. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, although it doesn't make any material difference. --Lholden (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support provided that the list is split out. Adabow (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Category name[edit]

With the page now having been renamed (moved), should the relevant Category:Governments of New Zealand be renamed, too? Schwede66 05:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't see why not. --Lholden (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this article, since the governmental process is described on the Politics page?[edit]

Why bother having a "Government of New Zealand" page, which basically says nothing useful, and a "Politics of" page which says everything? I can see there's been some rather tedious wiki-lawyering about it, but I came looking for info about the governance of NZ, and found this page which is pretty useless - and only links to the proper page, "Politics of", at the bottom.

Can someone explain this anomaly, and fix it? Gymnophoria (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not wiki-lawyering. If you read the article you'll see that this is not actually about the governance of New Zealand but specific Governments (note capital G, meaning we're talking about individual ministries). This page is the header to the individual articles (e.g. the First Labour Government). --LJ Holden 21:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)