Chris Carter and the environmental court

[Finn]

Nor did I. Had I, such issues as Whangamata marinas would not be issues. Irrelevant in fact. Marina relies of capitalist developers exploiting the common estate for personal profit. My government, no developers. And if there were, no capitalist bourgeois to "buy" from them (ie disposses the proletariate of their common inheritance, the land).

All these solutions for just a few votes and the price of a case or two of bullets.

You're starting to scare me Ixion. China's a nice place and I reckon you'd be happy there at least for another 5 - 10 years before the west sorts them out.

[limbimtimwim]

heavenly.talker,

What Mr Carter really wanted to say to the court was 'Your decision was ass'. But it would be out of line to say so, I'm sure he would have cited Section 6 ('Matters of national importance') that essentially says "Those who have powers under this act can't mess up the coastline" That means you Judge type people. That is if he had wanted to put noses out of joint. But instead he appears to cite Section 28 allows the minister of conservation to make decisions effecting the coastline. Since he has powers under this act, he can stop the messing up of the coastline!

You complain about him stepping outside of the powers he has been assigned, but he has been quite clearly assigned them, and is compelled by the letter of the law, under section 6, to use them.

Your issue is not with Carter, but the law itself. Don't like it.. Vote harder or something.. Start a political party called 'The down with the RMA party' and propose something you find palatable.

And others: And where does this whining about the 'Lefties' RMA come from? NATIONAL was in power when the RMA was introduced. I am not going to bother reading all the amendments made since 1991, but neither section 6 or 28 have been amended, which is where all the power he needs can come from.

[limbimtimwim]

especially given the pohutukawa tree isn't even a native NZ tree.

Err.. What?

Perhaps it is not 'endemic' (Perhaps it grows on other pacific islands?) but it is for sure 'native'.

[Swoop]

We are a democracy not a Dictatorship.

Are you living in New Zealand?

This is a Tui billboard slogan isn't it???

[Lou Girardin]

Carters sexuality is relevant to the degree that he's Labours token queer Minister. He's shown no regard for traditional users of a resource unless they're Maori. Witness the proliferation of marine reserves.
He has the unmitigated gall to say he knows better than the Environment court after talking to a bunch of disaffected Maoris and itinerant surfers.
This decision will be the death knell of Labour. They won't get their fat arses on the treasury benches again for another 15 years.

[Colapop]

Maori bashing, Gay bashing, Developer bashing - is this is case of classic NZ tall poppy syndrome? So many Kiwi's are accused of wanting something (without the hard work) that others have earned. Sexuality, Ethnicity and Business acumen aside, the issue here is the Ministers powers of veto. If the law is not impartial to the whims of an elected officer then it is a dictatorship not a democracy as said. The confusion is brought about by hypocratic laws that contradict the intent of the law in the first instance.

It's really all the fault of the Lawyers!

[Finn]

Maori bashing, Gay bashing, Developer bashing - is this is case of classic NZ tall poppy syndrome?

Developer bashing is tall poppy syndrome. Maori & gay bashing is plain old fun.

This is NZ's fault. We got the government we deserved. You only get one chance every now and then and we've blown the last 3 opportunites. Last one to leave, let the cat out.

[Finn]

Err.. What?

Perhaps it is not 'endemic' (Perhaps it grows on other pacific islands?) but it is for sure 'native'.

My appologies. I was referring to the Metrosideros species in general. It's like the maori's - they had to have come from somewhere it's just that no one has owned up to where yet.

[MisterD]

- is this is case of classic NZ tall poppy syndrome? So many Kiwi's are accused of wanting something (without the hard work) that others have earned.

IMHO this "Tall Poppy Syndrome" is a figment of c-list celebs imagination. The true tall poppies (Sir Ed, John Britten....) are celebrated, wankers who think the world owes them a living get chopped down.....

[MisterD]

It's like the maori's - they had to have come from somewhere it's just that no one has owned up to where yet.

Taiwan isn't it?

[Hitcher]

Chris Carter’s overturning of the environment court’s ruling makes a mockery of the judicial system. It also interferes with the principle of judiciary independence and the supposed separation of powers (one of the first topics taught in law 101).

Chris Carter, as Environment Minister, has a statutory power of veto. He exercised it. People should not assume that any legal outcome that requires Ministerial assent should be assumed as a given once a Court has made a decision.

We live in a democracy. Rule and process of law has also to be weighed against sub-optimal or downright wrong outcomes. That is why Ministers have veto powers in some circumstances.

I am not agreeing with the decision that Hon Carter made. But I think that there are significant risks for a society where Courts are the final arbiters.

And one of the topics not taught in Law 101 is that law has little to do with justice, not that Hon Carter and the Whangamata marina is a good example of that either.

[idb]

Chris Carter, as Environment Minister, has a statutory power of veto. He exercised it. People should not assume that any legal outcome that requires Ministerial assent should be assumed as a given once a Court has made a decision.

We live in a democracy. Rule and process of law has also to be weighed against sub-optimal or downright wrong outcomes. That is why Ministers have veto powers in some circumstances.

I am not agreeing with the decision that Hon Carter made. But I think that there are significant risks for a society where Courts are the final arbiters.

And one of the topics not taught in Law 101 is that law has little to do with justice, not that Hon Carter and the Whangamata marina is a good example of that either.

True, the risk that he who has the most money gets the most justice.
But is that more or less favourable than the loudest or most trendy lobby group or minority de jour receiving the attention?

Wouldn't it be fairer to go to the Minister in the first instance and ask if he has an opinion to save everyone's time and money?

[Swoop]

Taiwan isn't it?

Correct. Just look at the wood carvings.

[The Stranger:Me]

Why keep his sexuality out of it?
Why not keep his political leanings out of too then we can completely sanitise the topic.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Court rulings should be never be subject to an elected member of parliment's discretion. Whats the point of having any Court if the rulings are subject to a single person approval. We are a democracy not a Dictatorship.

Im sorry that reveals a basic misunderstanding of the political process and separation of powers.

Court decisions MUST always be subject to revision by the executive, think Arthur Allan Thomas, Lindy Chamberlain etc.

remember that judges arent elected and politicians are. Thus, the only way a non-party to a judicial decision can have an effect is through the political process.