Three years ago a friend of mine whose a District Court Judge asked me if I would be guest speaker at the annual DCJ shindig, scheduled that year for the Hilton in Taupo. Despite a feeling of significant intellectual inferiority, I accepted on the condition that all I would talk about were personal experiences from about half a century in the broadcasting industry.
My friend thought that was perfect. It was he said, essentially a social occasion mixed with a few legal discussions, and he and his co-organizers wanted a bloke who could tell a few yarns after dinner on the Friday night, have a few drinks with the assembled judges and all would be well with the world.
There would be no fee, but my accommodation, meals and other hospitality would be taken care of.
I was all set for the function scheduled for some time in May of 2021 when my DCJ friend called back very embarrassed. He said he’d have to uninvite me because there was considerable discomfort being expressed by the Chief Justice about my presence there.
Apparently my views on various political issues as had been expressed on my then Magic Talk radio show, and a cancellation by then Finance Minister Grant Robertson of his weekly appearance on the show after I asked about the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, meant that in the eyes of Dame Helen Winkelman I was not an appropriate speaker at a gathering as august as the DCJs’ yearly conference.
To be honest it didn’t matter that much to me. It was one less stress in my life, but considering I had no intention of expressing those political views but rather just reflect on a working life going back to the 1970s I thought it quite staggering that the Chief Justice thought it so inappropriate a mere sports presenter turned newsreader turned talkback host could appear at DCJs’ social function that he should be cancelled.
The Chief Justice, I concluded, is woke and timid.
That memory came back as I read about the quite staggering call made by the Supreme Court, of which Dame Helen is a member, to allow a gentleman named Mike Smith to take seven New Zealand companies to court for their role in causing climate change.
Two things make this unanimous decision by the Court remarkable. One, we already have a law which says the country is aiming for net zero carbon emissions in 26 years, and to have those emissions below half of the 2005 levels in six years. So if these seven companies are not already reducing emissions, which they say and can prove they are, how can they be sued when they are following the law?
Secondly, the Supreme Court has introduced the role of tikanga Maori into the case and how it determined Mr Smith’s relationship to coastal land and waters that have been flooded and damaged.
The problem here is that tikanga Maori, under legislation made by the country’s highest court – Parliament – is not part of New Zealand Common Law. What’s worse is that when the phrase appears in legislation it is not defined.
Some judges would like it be. Some judges have already used or elevated the role of tikanga in their decisions. One of them by Justice Churchman, the Whakatohea customary marine title case in the eastern Bay of Plenty, used some concepts of tikanga to overturn what was actually written and meant in the statute – proof of continuous and exclusive occupation back to 1840.
(Bizarrely His Honour invented some concept called “shared exclusivity.” Can he spell oxymoron?)
Back to Mr Smith and his case. The Court of Appeal had already dismissed it. He applied to the Supreme Court to have it heard again. The Supreme Court in a “yeah right” moment has laughingly suggested that their ruling was not on whether the case had a good chance of succeeding but rather that Mr Smith now gets his day in court.
The one good thing about this decision is that the case, when heard, will not actually be in the Supreme Court, in the first instance at least. It will be heard, according to reports, in the lower courts, presumably starting in the High Court.
But Mr Smith and his backers, wealthy iwi interests from the eleven billion dollar iwi asset base reported recently, are obviously prepared to use their deep pockets to go all the way back to the Supreme Court if necessary where, based on the decision so far, they will receive a very friendly reception.
The whole saga again begs the question. Who runs the country? Parliament or the courts?
As citizens we want it to be Parliament. We elect them to make law and if we don’t like the law they make, we vote them out so the other mob can come in and change it.
Things have changed in the last four decades. The first time I heard the phrase “activist judges” was after the Lands case in the Court of Appeal in 1987 when Justice Robin Cooke issued his famous line about the Treaty of Waitangi being “akin to a partnership.” Look where that statement has brought us.
Helen Clark was the best Prime Minister at rebuking judicial activism. She told then Chief Justice Sian Elias that judges “should stick to the bench and not get involved in politics.” Clark’s deputy Michael Cullen was even more blunt, calling Elias straight out a “judicial activist.”
The Supreme Court decision on Mr Smith’s case against the corporates also veers into the field of politics. It quotes the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and it’s alarmist lines about “the probability of abrupt and or irreversible changes (to the climate) increasing.”
Those are highly contestable IPCC comments. That they are used in a Supreme Court decision should be a worry to us all. The Supreme Court is there to rule on matters of law, not invent new law contrary to the spirit of what is already legislated.
The seven corporates being sued by Smith produce about a third of New Zealand’s reported greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). But remember New Zealand emits just 0.154% of all the world’s GHGs.
Therefore these seven companies, acting in accordance with New Zealand law, emit 0.051% of the world’s GHGs. In court Mike Smith must prove that miniscule amount of emission makes a difference to world’s climate.
Any judge with a modicum of common sense would see it’s a ludicrous proposition.
Three years on from being uninvited to a judges’ social function I think the Chief Justice is still woke and timid.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
I was all set for the function scheduled for some time in May of 2021 when my DCJ friend called back very embarrassed. He said he’d have to uninvite me because there was considerable discomfort being expressed by the Chief Justice about my presence there.
Apparently my views on various political issues as had been expressed on my then Magic Talk radio show, and a cancellation by then Finance Minister Grant Robertson of his weekly appearance on the show after I asked about the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, meant that in the eyes of Dame Helen Winkelman I was not an appropriate speaker at a gathering as august as the DCJs’ yearly conference.
To be honest it didn’t matter that much to me. It was one less stress in my life, but considering I had no intention of expressing those political views but rather just reflect on a working life going back to the 1970s I thought it quite staggering that the Chief Justice thought it so inappropriate a mere sports presenter turned newsreader turned talkback host could appear at DCJs’ social function that he should be cancelled.
The Chief Justice, I concluded, is woke and timid.
That memory came back as I read about the quite staggering call made by the Supreme Court, of which Dame Helen is a member, to allow a gentleman named Mike Smith to take seven New Zealand companies to court for their role in causing climate change.
Two things make this unanimous decision by the Court remarkable. One, we already have a law which says the country is aiming for net zero carbon emissions in 26 years, and to have those emissions below half of the 2005 levels in six years. So if these seven companies are not already reducing emissions, which they say and can prove they are, how can they be sued when they are following the law?
Secondly, the Supreme Court has introduced the role of tikanga Maori into the case and how it determined Mr Smith’s relationship to coastal land and waters that have been flooded and damaged.
The problem here is that tikanga Maori, under legislation made by the country’s highest court – Parliament – is not part of New Zealand Common Law. What’s worse is that when the phrase appears in legislation it is not defined.
Some judges would like it be. Some judges have already used or elevated the role of tikanga in their decisions. One of them by Justice Churchman, the Whakatohea customary marine title case in the eastern Bay of Plenty, used some concepts of tikanga to overturn what was actually written and meant in the statute – proof of continuous and exclusive occupation back to 1840.
(Bizarrely His Honour invented some concept called “shared exclusivity.” Can he spell oxymoron?)
Back to Mr Smith and his case. The Court of Appeal had already dismissed it. He applied to the Supreme Court to have it heard again. The Supreme Court in a “yeah right” moment has laughingly suggested that their ruling was not on whether the case had a good chance of succeeding but rather that Mr Smith now gets his day in court.
The one good thing about this decision is that the case, when heard, will not actually be in the Supreme Court, in the first instance at least. It will be heard, according to reports, in the lower courts, presumably starting in the High Court.
But Mr Smith and his backers, wealthy iwi interests from the eleven billion dollar iwi asset base reported recently, are obviously prepared to use their deep pockets to go all the way back to the Supreme Court if necessary where, based on the decision so far, they will receive a very friendly reception.
The whole saga again begs the question. Who runs the country? Parliament or the courts?
As citizens we want it to be Parliament. We elect them to make law and if we don’t like the law they make, we vote them out so the other mob can come in and change it.
Things have changed in the last four decades. The first time I heard the phrase “activist judges” was after the Lands case in the Court of Appeal in 1987 when Justice Robin Cooke issued his famous line about the Treaty of Waitangi being “akin to a partnership.” Look where that statement has brought us.
Helen Clark was the best Prime Minister at rebuking judicial activism. She told then Chief Justice Sian Elias that judges “should stick to the bench and not get involved in politics.” Clark’s deputy Michael Cullen was even more blunt, calling Elias straight out a “judicial activist.”
The Supreme Court decision on Mr Smith’s case against the corporates also veers into the field of politics. It quotes the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and it’s alarmist lines about “the probability of abrupt and or irreversible changes (to the climate) increasing.”
Those are highly contestable IPCC comments. That they are used in a Supreme Court decision should be a worry to us all. The Supreme Court is there to rule on matters of law, not invent new law contrary to the spirit of what is already legislated.
The seven corporates being sued by Smith produce about a third of New Zealand’s reported greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). But remember New Zealand emits just 0.154% of all the world’s GHGs.
Therefore these seven companies, acting in accordance with New Zealand law, emit 0.051% of the world’s GHGs. In court Mike Smith must prove that miniscule amount of emission makes a difference to world’s climate.
Any judge with a modicum of common sense would see it’s a ludicrous proposition.
Three years on from being uninvited to a judges’ social function I think the Chief Justice is still woke and timid.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
11 comments:
Tyranny is on notice, and populism is rising.
All over the world, the peasants and the tax serfs are getting restless. That is the message that voters are sending loud and clear. From Argentina, Brazil, and India to the United States, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands, and beyond, politically incorrect populist leaders and political parties are surging at the polls. In many cases, they are becoming the dominant political force as awareness grows surrounding the “Great Reset” and other totalitarian schemes from Big Business and Big Government elitists.
Consumers are revolting against the Zeitgeist, too. Just consider the powerful messages being sent to “woke” companies like Target, Bud Light, Disney, and BlackRock, among others, in the form of boycotts, withdrawing investment, and more. In short, Americans and people around the world are sick and tired of having anti-social ideas shoved down their throats. And the trends look set to accelerate in the years ahead.
I don't suppose anyone gets the irony that this Mike Smith, environmental activist, is the same one who took a chainsaw up to One Tree Hill. He should still be paying back the people of Auckland for his arrogant vandalism.
As usual, a very well constructed essay Peter Williams. A great insight into the woke and political workings of what should be an independent judicial system. NZ is not unique as we watch the American Empire crumbling before our eyes, as the Democrat Govt weaponises their own judicial system to remove a political opponent and placing itself in the same category as Russia and China which they are so critical of. Their Supreme Court, unlike ours, appears to be still out of reach which must vex this marxist Govt. We know where our corrupt MSM stands as they endlessly promote their predictable brand of propaganda. Why any sane radio producer with an ounce of integrity would ever tolerate the left wing tripe spewing out of (voice of America) Richard Arnold’s gob on the Hosking Show speaks volumes of how far they have plummeted.
Breaking Views should be applauded for providing an enlightened platform for those that choose to form their own opinions.
Just goes to show that our "best" judges are actually our worst judges.
Political animals who've forgotten about fairness and justice.
Now they deal exclusively in wokeness.
How do you get rid of a Supreme Court judge? Whatever it takes, let's do it.
"The Chief Justice, I concluded, is woke and timid." Very well concluded Peter. Thank you for putting this appraisal of the judiciary into the public arena - don't stop, more please. As for tikanga? how arrogant of these people to think they can adjust the justice system as they see fit. So that's woke and timid and arrogant! Wonder if Judith Collins has anything to say about this - or Paul Goldsmith?
Imagine if the business lose, close up and we import instead. There is such a thing as crapping in your own nest.
Yes, as DeeM suggests, yet another swamp that needs draining!
Court:
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ
Reasons by Williams and Kós JJ.
Peter Williams underestimates just how much tikanga is increasingly affecting court decisions. A simple web search on "tikanga law" will give a sense of this.
The central ‘value’ of tikanga is utu (I kid you not). Activist judges are using tikanga to drive a leftist, collectivist social agenda and to break out of the confinements of common law. In fact, activist judges and legal experts seem to regard common law as ‘foreign’, as NZ derived it from the UK, whereas they seem to regard tikanga as something like ‘true NZ law’, despite few people in society (even among Maori) adhering to it. I personally view it as yet another tool activists are using to retribalise our constitutional, legal and social structures.
Examples of tikanga affecting the law in recent years include:
* An iwi forcibly uplifting the body of recently deceased Maori man from his home to be taken for burial on iwi land – this despite the contrary wishes of the man himself, who no longer associated himself with his iwi, and the wishes of his wife. Police refused to intervene as they knew that if it came to a court case, the judgment may well go against the individual rights of the man and his family and instead in favour of the collectivist demands of the iwi.
* The continuation of the Peter Ellis case after his death. In well-established common law, the case would have ceased at the death of Ellis. What is particularly striking, is Ellis was a non-Maori and never requested that the case should continue if he died.
These cases highlight that tikanga in the courts is eroding our individual legal rights and does not only impact Maori but actually affects everyone in NZ.
Tikanga in the law is already being taught in university courses. From the beginning of 2025 the teaching of tikanga will become a requirement set by the statutory regulator of legal education in NZ, the NZ Council of Legal Education. So the future of the NZ legal system is looking increasingly ‘interesting’.
I feel that this imposition of tikanga is fundamental change to NZ’s basic legal and constitutional framework. It is being imposed on us all with virtually no discussion of its implications upon the legal rights and obligations of ordinary NZers.
LFC
And why does Dame Helen Winkelbottom think it within her brief to decide who an appropriate after-dinner speaker is? Another control freak...the sole source of truth? An elite who thinks others should be servile to their way of thinking?
in criminal cases for jury trials, a lower court hearing, depositions, are heard to determine if there is sufficient evidence toput to a jury/Judge. Mike Smith should be required to submit evidence establishing a prima facie case, before being allowed to go frivolously fishing at the enormous expense of 7 of our larger Companies,
His reputation should disqualify his action, if he cannot show cause,!
Post a Comment