While interested in her reply to the normal concerns about the genie escaping from the bottle, l was able to reflect on perhaps more important areas of Crown responsibility where it already had.
I’m talking about the belated attempts to reign in activist
judges in the Court System and the “Jonny come lately” wringing of hands about
the unrestrained activities of the big
four foreign owned banks.
One might wonder why it has taken so long for these
important sectors with power over our daily lives to be questioned expecting a
serious response.
Because the “self interested” dominance of their own
particular field of activity has been causing problems for us humble folk who
too often need their help for decades and the responses from Central
Governments of all persuasions has always been to ignore the elephant in the
room.
Now that questions are being asked about these “rougue
steers” defending their patch at our cost, are we any more likely to see any
real attempt to put them back behind the gate where they can carry out their
duties subject to the laws that govern their activities like everyone else.
I would like to think the answer is “Yes” but recent
personal experiences suggest “Maybe not!”
And we must ask - WHY NOT!
Surely there is enough evidence out there pointing to both
systems operating in an uncontrolled manner and it is having a very real affect
on the Nation’s growth potential.
But the suggestion that a reborn, Taxpayer funded Kiwi Bank
is likely to make any difference is just “fiddling while Rome burns.”
As far as the Banks are concerned, l invite people like me
to lodge a complaint with the Banking Ombudsman - the sheriff with supposed
authority to tell the Banks “their parents weren’t married.”
Unfortunately you will find it is a waste of time - the
response you will get will sight rules governing the Ombudsman’s ability to
even chastise the Bully Boys as being too restrictive.
You will also find that this quartet of “bounty hunters” can
do what they like unchallenged and existing law allows them to get away with
it.
The Courts in this country appear to be no different.
Try appealing a judgement made by one of the current crop of
activist judges and the first thing you will notice is that the system
encourages them to close ranks behind someone who is a mate within the
governing fraternity.
Over recent years l have been witness to events that have
destroyed my confidence in the New Zealand Judiciary.
While supporting a colleague trying to defend his good name
and safeguard his children’s inheritance, l have been privy to decisions that
in any other country would be described as corrupt.
While not suggesting the rot is widespread or that
rehabilitation based on an honest Royal Commission assessment is not possible,
the Government (in the case of the Courts has the power to put its own house in
order) and in the case of the Banks, ensure that the laws governing their
activity are adequate to ensure we are all operating on a level playing field.
Is that too much to ask.
Probably!
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
4 comments:
Clive, if you think New Zealand has issues with those who Preside from A Court Bench, please cast your " eyes" - from that East Coast residence of yours across the Pacific to America and the "prevailing issues with Justices, who Preside" and their approaches to Justice and their definition of imparting sentence!
Not sure whether you’re talking about US lower court Justices where the appointments are much more political and the sentencing is more likely to be based on political allegiances (you can easily see the evidence of that type of abuse during the current administration’s time in office) - or are you referring to the Supreme Court who, although political appointments as well, do tend to be more independent of their political masters.
Often you will get Democrat justices voting with Republicans on issues in a majority decision.
That is how it should be, but much of the lower court judges are rotten to the core and their judgements too often reflect their partial oversight.
We here in this country are unfortunately watching a slow motion takeover by radical activists of the Lower Court and it must be challenged.
I’m only the bell ringer.
Clive - thank you for response to my comment, no issue with your statement. Your comment on US -
1/- Lower Court Judges, I believe this has been an issue for many past years, the last 4 years is more of a concern that may never have resolution for many that have been before a Court.
2/- Supreme Court - if you are correct, how can a Justice, suddenly decide to " reverse" a contentious issue (Roe V Wade)
when, one would assume, that the adjudication, of the US Supreme Court, at the time, set the matter in stone". Thus the question - "who got to knobble the Justice".?
As to a [quote] - " slow motion takeover by radical activist of the Lower Court", would that also apply to 'some in our Supreme Court'?
Those that are in sympathy with the radicals are careful not to openly show their support but their influence is clearly shown in the judgements of those they appoint. It becomes a clandestine oversight but can be very effective in changing the political leanings of those at the top one way or another.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.