Two Americans emigrate to New Zealand from Colorado,
USA.
We talk about
our life in Nelson, New Zealand.
DATE |
Click on any blog entry to read it |
1 |
|
9 |
|
14 |
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
With all the talk of Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court of the US, I thought I'd share information about New Zealand's relatively young Supreme Court.
Help with the information on this blog is courtesy of www.courtsofnz.govt.nz and www.justice.govt.nz.
The Supreme Court of New Zealand was established in 2003 and first sat in 2004. The Supreme Court Act 2003 established within New Zealand a new court of final appeal comprising New Zealand judges:
Until this time, the right to appeal from New Zealand-based courts went instead to the UK-based Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Certain appeals can continue to be determined by the Privy Council - depending on the dates of final judgements or proceedings - but the Act abolished that relationship going forward.
I found it fascinating that an independent country was still having final appeals go to another country - yes, the mother country, but still. The UK was hearing the equivalent of all US Supreme Court type cases for New Zealand. The Privy Council was traditionally the final court of appeal for many Commonwealth countries. Over time, as the various colonies established their independence, many replaced the committee with their own court of final appeal, New Zealand probably the latest happening only in this century!
From www.courtsofnz.govt.nz:
The idea that New Zealand abolish its ties with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was first mooted more than 100 years ago by the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout and it has resurfaced many times in the intervening years.
It was raised in the 1978 Report of the Royal Commission on the Courts and again in 1989 in 'The Structure of the Courts NZLC R7' report.
After a few attempts in the 1990s,
the issue re-emerged in 2000, when the Labour/Alliance Government ... approved the release of a discussion paper entitled Reshaping New Zealand’s Appeal Structure. It invited public comment on three options to replace the Privy Council. Submissions were evenly divided on whether appeals to the Privy Council should be abolished or retained. There was a clear consensus however that if appeals to the Privy Council ended, a replacement stand-alone court sitting above the Court of Appeal should be established.
The Act resulted from this consultative effort, a bill introduced in 2002, and passed by Parliament on 14 October 2003. The Supreme Court was formally established when the Act came into force, and was empowered to hear appeals from 1 July 2004.
There are five Supreme Court Justices, one of whom is a Chief Justice. At the moment, this is a woman, The Right Honourable Dame Sian Elias. The Court can sit only as a bench of five, although it is able to appoint retired judges of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal (under the age of 75) where it is not possible to convene a court of five permanent members.
As in the United States, appeals to the Supreme Court can be heard only with the leave of the court. It must give leave to appeal only if it is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice.
Interestingly,
The judges of the Supreme Court continue to be judges of the High Court [one level down under the Court of Appeal], which maintains the formal integration of the higher courts judicature. The Supreme Court Act does not expressly prevent the Supreme Court’s judges sitting in the High Court. However, it is not appropriate, except in exceptional circumstances, for judges of the Supreme Court to sit in the lower court on a case which could end up before the Supreme Court.
Recently the Court made the news not for any decision, but more for the building in which they do their jobs. It got a makeover and opinion was kinda divided on it. Take a look. At least it brought Prince William to town, he got a lot of press too.
That's all for today's history lesson kids!
I caught this on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart the other night and was appalled - unfortunately it is only one example of what is wrong in US politics right now. I'm sure those in the US heard about this but I'm surprised there isn't more of an uproar considering the subject matter. I'm going to place a lot of blame on the Republicans here as they are squarely to blame in this example. That said, the Dems have their own issues (see Waters and Rangel) and I understand that but, since this is my blog, I'm going to focus on the GOP jackasses.
From what I understand, the Democrats have been trying for 9 years to get a benefits bill approved that would help fund medical expenses for the 9/11 first responders. It seems there are a lot of ongoing medical issues for these brave emergency workers that did all they could to help on that terrible day. Makes sense, great idea in my mind considering the state of the US health care system (speaks volumes that this is even necessary).
A slam dunk I would have thought. Yes, there are probably some differing opinions on how best to spend the proposed $7.4 billion - qualification rules, what's covered, oversight, etc. but I really think everyone would agree this is the right thing to do. You want people who will be putting their life on the line for others to have some assistance themselves if needed. I read the Dems even offered a solution to pay for this - close a tax loophole to corporations that do business in the US but avoid taxes because they are based off shore (of course this is an ominous sign as an increase to any tax is something the Republicans are strongly against).
Well guess what, the Republicans have decided that this bill doesn't work for them. Really? How can they even justify that? Especially considering how much they play the 9/11 card in their daily political life. For those who aren't aware, most Republicans reference 9/11 to gain support for whatever they are trying to sell. It's a very sensitive issue and used frequently as rationale for protecting the homeland (i.e. reason for waging war, limiting civil liberties, etc) among scores of other things.
The Republicans are mad because the manner in which the Democrats have proposed the bill (it is not eligible to have unrelated amendments attached - in this case something dealing with illegal immigration the republicans are pushing - so it requires a 2/3 majority to pass). Seriously? Why would there be the need for any additional amendments in this case? Why the hell can't the Republicans just do the right thing here. This is not the right issue to cry about not getting something they want out of it. Why the hell can't they think of someone other than themselves? If you agree with it, vote yes. If you don't, vote no. Simple.
From the sound of it the Republicans want to get an amendment dealing with illegal immigration attached (huh? I know, it has nothing to do with providing health care to the 9/11 responders). This is a standard tactic. One party submits a bill, the other party tacks on unrelated things of interest to them and then after some debate the bill passes. Kind of a compromise of sorts but actually it just dimishes the effectiveness of the original bill. It ends up that more money gets spent on completely unrelated pet projects. It's less like compromise and more like buying & selling of votes. In the end they all kind of get what they want (yet still complaining about how the other side hijacked the process), give a bit up, and the voters pay the price. From what I've been seeing, in the end the citizens just end up with a piece of mediocre legislation.
Bottom line on this is the Republicans are simply voting no on everything the Democrats propose (their way of getting even for losing last election). They would have to get their amendment added and eliminate everything the Democrats wanted before even considering a vote yes (heck, they have even voted against things they have supported in the past). It's plainly obvious they are waiting to see how the upcoming elections go, they've been stalling for some time now and just being obstructionist. The Republicans are great with spin (mostly consists of ignoring facts and making up their own to fit) so they will do all they can to prevent the Dems getting anything passed - if the issue (as in this case) doesn't seem to be in their best interest to vote against, they'll just spin it to make it look like the Dems fault (which they are trying to do). Yeah, that's real leadership.
Another reason given is the Republican's standard line that they aren't sure this is the right way to be spending the American's hard earned money. There are concerns that there aren't enough protections in the bill to guard against waste and abuse. Fine, valid point. Fix it then. Offer a solution. Don't just use that as an excuse. One of the biggest issues right now is that the parties don't work together - voters have been pushing this as a top issue for several years now. Well here's the opportunity for win-win. You can all work together for a good cause. Drop the bullshit political maneuvering long enough to do the right thing.
The Daily Show played a clip of New York Democratic Representative Anthony Weiner voicing his views on this. Actually dude went off and laid the smack down on the Republicans. Check it out. Respect to him. Finally a bit of back bone from the Dems. Of course, the Republicans had a comeback and attempted some of their famous spin. It's never their fault. No, never. I really hope the American public doesn't buy it this time.
The Republican stance is sickening to me. If they are against the contents of the bill, just say so. Fine, you don't want to spend the money because you don't think it is as important as your other causes (preventing marriage for all citizens, illegal immigration, gun protection, etc). Stop the spin bullshit. If you are for it, vote for it. Show some integrity (yes, I realise that might be impossible for constantly hypocritical politicians) but I think this is a situation where the country would be much better off.
Now for a positive example of where the system has actually worked well. California's Proposition 8 (ban of gay marriage) was recently ruled unconstitutional by a California judge. There's a good story in Slate about the case and decision. Many of the so called "facts" put up by the defense fell apart under scrutiny (i.e. children are better off in opposite marriage households) - they were originally even going to prove gay marriage would "effect some twenty-three harmful consequences" but this soon disappeared. I've yet to even hear a valid factual argument as to why marriage among gays/lesbians is even an problem - all those against only ever point to their religious teachings (compassion for all? no, not that one I guess). Fine, leave it at that, they don't have to be married in a church but their marriage should be recognized civilly.
In the end the civil rights of the minority have been protected from the views of the majority. Yes 52% of California voted to ban gay marriage, mostly because I'm guessing they don't agree with the lifestyle. Well that's their opinion and the fact that the ban infringes on civil rights protected by the US Constitution says their opinion is only that. In any case, the decision is significant but will probably start a series of appeals that will eventually get to the Supreme Court. For now this is a great moment when the system has shown that it can work as intended.
I may not be able to apply for citizenship for another year, but today I feel like I officially became a kiwi.
I learned a haka. Every kiwi - iwi or pakeha - should know how to haka, and there's no better haka to learn than Ka mate, the haka performed by the All Blacks that originates with Ngati Toa (nah-tee-toe-a, an iwi tribe). The All Blacks have customised their haka and it's really specific to them. Today I learned the basic version.
I've been working with a great fellow, Mike of Ngati Toa, who has helped out with planning for the world-record-breaking haka attempt on 11 September here in Nelson on Tahunanui Beach. He's the one who said that every kiwi should know a haka, and it would be a great idea for the top of the South (Island) to do this giant haka now that the iwi tribes in the region are moving out of the grievance mode and into more of a reconciliation time. Iwi and pakeha should come together - and so earlier today this pakeha (kinda sorta) joined up with other kiwis and shouted at the top of her lungs and gestured as if going to war right then and there. [The haka was performed as a pre-battle ritual.]
So all night long I haka-ed my heart out - on the way to the grocery store, inside the grocery store, and at home where I taught Don the haka. I recited the words over and over to practice for the big day. Of course, on the big day I'll be working, but I'll haka where I am if not on Tahunanui Beach with everyone else.
Here are the words to Ka mate and the basic translation, although difficult to do word for word since it's evocative of a larger story. But you can read more about it here.
Ka mate Ka mate - I die, I die!
Ka ora Ka ora - I live, I live!
Ka mate Ka mate - I die, I die!
Ka ora Ka ora - I live, I liveTenei te tangata, huru huru - this is the hairy man
Nana nei i tiki mai - who fetched the sun
Whaka whiti te ra - and caused it to shine againA hupane, a kaupane - one upward step, another step
A upane a kaupane - an upward step, another step
Whiti te ra! - the sun shines!
If you want to know more about the haka attempt, visit our facebook page.
I have been just a weeeeeeeeeee bit busy these past few weeks finalising plans to re open Nelson's Trafalgar Park, our local rugby stadium that can now, after a $7.4m upgrade, host Rugby World Cup level matches as well as concerts, soccer matches, and lots of other events.
Last week the Park had it's first game with the home team Tasman Makos (mah koz) and 10,100 people who packed the place near full for an incredible match.
But yesterday a small team of scrappy council workers including me welcomed the Park's new look with a free open day for the entire community, and the feature of the day was having your picture taken with the Webb Ellis Cup, the trophy awarded to the winner of the quadrennial Rugby World Cup. And of course Don and I took part. I am very windblown and wet from a rainy morning that had all of us pretty worried, so excuse the dishevelled look! But the weather came through and at times we even had sunny clear skies.
It's just a small little cup, standing only 28cm tall. And you are NOT allowed to touch it at at all. In fact when the handler has to move it from place to place, it is with very thick gloves. I suppose it's a lot like the Stanley Cup, only that cup is a real cup, much larger and people get to lay their scrubby little fingers on it. But I wasn't going to make hay about that to my dear rugby colleagues who brought it down for us.
All in all it was a grand day, the Park was full of families and people having fun with players from the Makos, a player from the NZ All White (soccer) squad who just got back from South Africa playing in the World Cup, and lots of music and free food.
Now I've just got to get through a little thing called breaking a world record in two weeks. I'm soooo looking forward to rest!
