The government will pass a law preventing companies from being sued over climate change damage in many cases.
The law, which applies to current and future cases, will stop a High Court case against Fonterra and six other major emitters in its tracks.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the Climate Change Response Act would be amended to prevent courts from making findings of liability in tort from damage or harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
I am 100% in favour of the law change. We have judicial activism gone mad. The courts invented a new type of tort where companies engaged in 100% legal activities can be sued because someone doesn’t like the Government’s climate change policies.
It is for Parliament to set climate policies, not the Supreme Court. This is not Parliament retrospectively amending a statute they got wrong. This is Parliament reasserting its sovereignty.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
11 comments:
Doesn’t David understand government? Still? Three arms, David: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. You remove one of those arms and we head for despotism.
If Parliament is reasserting its sovereignty, then it needs to do so in more ways than just this such as stopping Councils like the FNDC ceding sovereignty to faceless iwi.
Anon:6:43 Each of the three arms of democracy have to stay in their lane though. The Courts are to ensure the legislation is applied properly , or it breaches the rules of Comity.
The courts are not for instigating new law, just regurgitating old law, and twisting it to their respective wishes it seems in NZ.
Basil you’re not a judge. The judges have been acting according to honest and moral principles in the eyes of the law. Despotic governments always go after judges, educators, and the journalists. Read some history or bathe in your own ignorance.
In defence of Basil, a problem in the common law system is judicial activism whereby judges take it upon themselves to read into the law what Parliament never intended it to mean. Judges can legitimately "iron out the creases" in the law, as Lord Denning put it, put they can't affectively rewrite it. This is not a problem in the 'Napoleonic' European systems where judges may use analogous reasoning but they can not substantively add to the law.
“judicial activism” is a deceptive and backdoor attempt to normalise language, in an attempt to magnify the right-wing attacks on one of the foundations of democracy in western governments. Weasel words are becoming sadly more common in online and political discourse. It doesn’t change history or the pattern of dictators going after judges.
"Judicial activism" is an expression that is commonly used in legal discourse and articles. Some writers use it in a complimentary manner, some use it in a denigrating manner, some use it as a neutral term. And it has absolutely nothing to do with "dictators going after judges".
Yes you do, Barend. You amplify the Orwellian right-wing attacks against morally responsible and competent judges who are correctly fulfilling their roles as part on New Zealand’s democracy. The attacks are baseless and seem designed to turn the public in favour of big business at the cost of our environment , which is for all the people. No environment, no economy!
I think Anon 6.43 is oversimplfying our Westminster system of Government by trying to apply the US model to New Zealand.
It's not for nothing the US Constitution is often referred to as the American experiment with democracy. Trump is the living example of its frailty.
Having had rather longer to mature, the Westminster system is the more robust of the two. It makes the executive arm (Cabinet) subservient to the legislative arm (Parliament) from which it is drawn, while all the time isolating the Head of State from policy formulation.
So, in New Zealand, all the power resides with Parliament, subject to that key guard-rail, a Parliamentary majority for any Prime Minister. No majority, no power. Ever seen a vote of no-confidence proposed in the US system? Not going to happen, however low the popularity polls fall.
The job of judges in both systems is however the same; to apply the facts of every case they try, to existing law. In our case, that law is as determined by Act of Parliament.
Whatever the judges say, they have no alternative but to comply with the intention of Parliament. If they don't, then Parliament will put them right. Which is as it should be, because Parliament reflects the will of the people. And that's how a democracy is supposed to work, isn't it?
Judges fulfil a critical and important role. It has nothing to do with the US. It is a distinct independent role in interpreting and following legislation. The National govt was advised not to go wild with legislative overreach while cases were in train. National don’t campaign on legislative overreach, so no it isn’t democracy this week. It’s the opposite and all for big business polluters. Madness and to see folks simping for politicians is weak.
Anon 8-04. "Legislative over-reach" Is a very subjective opinion. Who are you referring to when you say that National was "advised not to go wild with legislative over-reach"? By whom? Incidentally, the Judiciary should not "interpret" the law. Their job is to implement it. If they are unsure what it means, they should ask the Attorney General, not just follow their own beliefs. This is exactly the problem NZ is having at the moment
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.