Chris Carter and the environmental court

[HenryDorsetCase]

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

its pretty obvious that one is relevant to the topic and one simply isnt.

I dont care what he does in his private life, as long as he doesnt do it in the public street and scare the horses, but the issue here is his use of the discretion WE gave him.

remember that being a Minister is a statutory office i.e. its independent of the person filling it.

Personally I have a lot more time for Carter than I do for that snivelling whining softie Nick Smith (Nationals spokes-drone on envirimint)

[idb]

Why keep his sexuality out of it?

Wellllllll..............maybe you can explain its relevance to this discussion?

[Finn]

Wellllllll..............maybe you can explain its relevance to this discussion?

No problem. It's about sticking things where they don't belong.

[ManDownUnder]

Wellllllll..............maybe you can explain its relevance to this discussion?

at the risk of dragging this back on topic... there are two issues here

1) Did Carter (honorable or otherwise) break the rules by vetoing the decision?
2) Should a member of the executive be able to veto decisions of the courts?

I believe the answers (respectively) are No, and No.

The second no coming in from a basis of the executive having the role of making the rules by which the Courts Operate.

I believe it is the role of the courts to weigh the evidence and make an informed decision based on that evidence, taking into consideration precedents, and the rationale for arriving at them, and giving a clear rationale enabling future effects of that desicion to be desirable.

If an elected official doesn't like the way things are going - they should be able to change the way decisions are made, requiring more/less/different importance to be placed according the the then current policy.

They should not be able to quash or overturn the decision of the court. The right of appeal for any decisions should be available to all, and that is the task of a higher court.

Judicial Review is an important tool that should remain available, but should be used sparingly - as I believe it currently is.

Edit - for the record - sexuality ain't relevant in this topic. We're talking about the birds and the bees... but also the place they live - that's the only link I could make...
MDU taking off my serious hat now...

[idb]

No problem. It's about sticking things where they don't belong.

Shit I must be dumb, I still don't get it.

[MisterD]

Wellllllll..............maybe you can explain its relevance to this discussion?

I think it's arguable that it is unsurprising that someone who is gay, and therefore a member of one of the political left's protected species, has made a decision which favours another such group (ie Maori).

I doubt you'd say it was irrelevant if a minister who was rich had over-ruled the environment court in favour of the developers....or even, as was the case with John Key at the election, with respect to proposed tax-cuts.

[idb]

at the risk of dragging this back on topic... there are two issues here

1) Did Carter (honorable or otherwise) break the rules by vetoing the decision?
2) Should a member of the executive be able to veto decisions of the courts?

I believe the answers (respectively) are No, and No.

The second no coming in from a basis of the executive having the role of making the rules by which the Courts Operate.

I believe it is the role of the courts to weigh the evidence and make an informed decision based on that evidence, taking into consideration precedents, and the rationale for arriving at them, and giving a clear rationale enabling future effects of that desicion to be desirable.

If an elected official doesn't like the way things are going - they should be able to change the way decisions are made, requiring more/less/different importance to be placed according the the then current policy.

They should not be able to quash or overturn the decision of the court. The right of appeal for any decisions should be available to all, and that is the task of a higher court.

Judicial Review is an important tool that should remain available, but should be used sparingly - as I believe it currently is.

Edit - for the record - sexuality ain't relevant in this topic. We're talking about the birds and the bees... but also the place they live - that's the only link I could make...
MDU taking off my serious hat now...

Cheers MDU
Not knowing anything about law I can't comment on judicial review except to say that I'm sure I would think it's a good thing if I agree with the decision and a bad thing if I disagree.

I wonder if the minister has had all of the information put in front of him that the court has seen, if not and he made his decision based on a philosophical or political stance then he could have made a decision right at the beginning of the process and saved everyone a lot of time and money.

[Hitcher]

there are two issues here

1) Did Carter (honorable or otherwise) break the rules by vetoing the decision?
2) Should a member of the executive be able to veto decisions of the courts?

I believe the answers (respectively) are No, and No.

I believe that the answers have to be No and Yes.

Courts don't always get things right, as evidenced by a bunch of high profile cases that have been overturned either on appeal or by the relevant Ministers. If you don't want Ministers intervening, then take those powers off them. But that wouldn't get my vote.

[oldrider]

Wellllllll..............maybe you can explain its relevance to this discussion?

If he is unable to appreciate the significance of his own "gender" how on earth is he capable of deciphering the significant facts in the decision making process of "Government".

The man has obviously been borne "confused".

His latest decision demonstrates to me that he is now "completely confused". :spudbn:

Thats why his sexuality is relevant to this discussion. IMO.

Confusion seems to be an important attribute in choosing labour candidates!

I defend his right to be "confused" but I don't want confused people making confused decisions on "my behalf". :spudgrr: John.

[idb]

I think it's arguable that it is unsurprising that someone who is gay, and therefore a member of one of the political left's protected species, has made a decision which favours another such group (ie Maori).

I doubt you'd say it was irrelevant if a minister who was rich had over-ruled the environment court in favour of the developers....or even, as was the case with John Key at the election, with respect to proposed tax-cuts.

Arguable at the very least I would say.
Does the Foreshore Act thing instigated by Labour favour the Maori?

If a rich minister demonstrably had no personal interest in the development then I doubt that anyone could question the decision.

[Hitcher]

This is like the fucking Middle Ages, unless I am missing some incredibly subtle piss-taking here, but I think not.

Hon Carter's "sexuality" obviously tittilates some red necks but has no relevance whatsoever to the topic under discussion. Hon Carter, as an "out" gay man, has absolutely no confusion about his "sexuality", as opposed to some of the brain-dead, repressed homophobes who post on this site.

[Jamezo]

Completely unrelated to the legal issues, I have no truck with a decision not to sacrifice a perfectly servicible swamp in order to provide a bunch of yuppies with a berth for their 'pleasure craft'.

Arh, mateys, ain't nothing wrong with the good ol' fashion way, drop a 500 pound anchor in the middle of the bay and get yer scurvy crew to row you out to said vessel of plunder.

[Paul in NZ]

This is like the fucking Middle Ages, .

hey.. hang on a gold dang minute here fella... I think I might have missed out on something when I was middle aged...

Paul N

(um - still not got the ST back Brett? you seem a little tense)

[MisterD]

Does the Foreshore Act thing instigated by Labour favour the Maori?

But that's the government as a whole, very much aware of how their behaviour plays with the electorate as a whole, versus one minister, very much aware of how unaccountable he is to the residents of Whangamata.

[oldrider]

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.

What on earth makes you think NATIONAL is not a "left" leaning political party?

There is very little difference between any of the political parties seriously on offer in this country and all of them have leanings left of center, including ACT.

The only "right wing" party on offer in New Zealand (IMO) is the Libertarian party and they really just make a token effort.

New Zealand gets the government it deserves I'm afraid. John.