According to New Zealand's constitution, this constitutional monarchy country follows the Westminster system which has the separation of powers, which are legislation, judiciary and executive. After the Glorious Revolution in the U.K, a real constitutional monarchy system has established, the Magna Carta is just a prologue, the background is that the power of the house of commons were growing, the merchant level were ask for less tax and limitation. When the parliament won, the royal family had nothing to do but accept. Why U.K, not Spain, Portugal or Holland----which are the leaders of the Age of Exploration, leading the world into the industrial era? one of my friend's answer is: U.K has a strong middle class which were mostly merchants and they have courage to gave the crown to a foreigner.
New Zealand's legal system is all most the same as U.K's, and does other members of the commonwealth. A king or a queen as the monarch of the country, has the highest glory but limited power, the majority party in the parliament manage the country and their party leader is the prime minister. But our Prime minister do not live in 10th Downing Street and we do not have Buckingham Palace, so here is a representative appointed by the Queen called Governor General. One of his or her job is sign the act which passed by the parliament, this process is called Royal assent, the Governor General have the rights refuse to sign the bill which he thinks he should do so, but this is not a good situation. Most of the time, the Governor General do not do much about the executive work, he or she just like a senior member of a big family, is respected by others and is a sign of the power, while the prime minister, like the chief manager, dealing with daily affairs.
It is said that this system has three branch, but it is not like a real republic like the U.S. In the U.S, the president's party is not definitely the majority, the midterm election is considered as an exam to the party which is in office. This is the real scenario now, republicans control the house of representative, and they always been the opposition of the government. The court has the right to check the legislation, judge can announce the law is unconstitutional. This kind of things will never going to happen in a constitutional monarchy, the reason is that the judiciary can not have the power to check the legislation, they can just follow the law to do their judgment.
Another difference is that the opposition party will not control the house under the U.K system. If the result of the election shows that there is no winner----no one can gain over half of the votes, the leaders turn to find a partner, coalition government is in preparation.
According to New Zealand's constitution, this constitutional monarchy country follows the Westminster system which has the separation of powers, which are legislation, judiciary and executive. After the Glorious Revolution in the U.K, a real constitutional monarchy system has established, the Magna Carta is just a prologue, the background is that the power of the house of commons were growing, the merchant level were ask for less tax and limitation. When the parliament won, the royal family had nothing to do but accept. Why U.K, not Spain, Portugal or Holland----which are the leaders of the Age of Exploration, leading the world into the industrial era? one of my friend's answer is: U.K has a strong middle class which were mostly merchants and they have courage to gave the crown to a foreigner.
New Zealand's legal system is all most the same as U.K's, and does other members of the commonwealth. A king or a queen as the monarch of the country, has the highest glory but limited power, the majority party in the parliament manage the country and their party leader is the prime minister. But our Prime minister do not live in 10th Downing Street and we do not have Buckingham Palace, so here is a representative appointed by the Queen called Governor General. One of his or her job is sign the act which passed by the parliament, this process is called Royal assent, the Governor General have the rights refuse to sign the bill which he thinks he should do so, but this is not a good situation. Most of the time, the Governor General do not do much about the executive work, he or she just like a senior member of a big family, is respected by others and is a sign of the power, while the prime minister, like the chief manager, dealing with daily affairs.
It is said that this system has three branch, but it is not like a real republic like the U.S. In the U.S, the president's party is not definitely the majority, the midterm election is considered as an exam to the party which is in office. This is the real scenario now, republicans control the house of representative, and they always been the opposition of the government. The court has the right to check the legislation, judge can announce the law is unconstitutional. This kind of things will never going to happen in a constitutional monarchy, the reason is that the judiciary can not have the power to check the legislation, they can just follow the law to do their judgment.
Another difference is that the opposition party will not control the house under the U.K system. If the result of the election shows that there is no winner----no one can gain over half of the votes, the leaders turn to find a partner, coalition government is in preparation.
Reference:
Supreme Court Act 2003 No. 53
Constitution Act 1986