Shane Jones, never one to shy away from a judicial joust, has once again taken a swing at New Zealand’s judges-this time accusing the bench of catching a case of “Americanisation” and warning that Parliament’s sovereignty is at risk of being benched by judicial activism.
>> Looking for a new law job? Check LawFuel’s Network
In a lunchtime address to The Law Association, Jones served up a menu of grievances: from the judiciary’s supposed drift into rewriting the rules on Māori customary rights, to the Waitangi Tribunal’s “litigious” tendencies and the legal profession’s role in making environmental consents a playground for property owners with a view.
Jones, who’s already earned a judicial rebuke (and a ringing in his ears from Attorney-General Judith Collins) for labelling a High Court judge a “communist,” now insists he’s focusing on ideas, not personalities-though his “elements of totalitarianism” comment suggests the gloves are still off.
He’s pushing for a “reset” in Māori affairs, promising a Waitangi Tribunal overhaul to make it “match-fit” for the next phase and to remind everyone that Parliament, not the courts or tribunals, is the real captain of this waka.
On the coalition front, Jones brushed off Helen Clark’s “too many cooks” critique, defending New Zealand First’s insistence on enforceable bottom lines in coalition deals. After all, in his view, if you don’t lock in your wins, you risk being the party left out in the cold-again.
Effectively, Jones is calling time on what he sees as judicial overreach, wants the Waitangi Tribunal to play by the original rulebook, and thinks the legal profession should stop letting amenity values trump economic growth. Whether this is a much-needed “reset” or just another round of political shadowboxing depends on which side of the courtroom you’re sitting.
Interesting take from Shane Jones. Comparing NZ judiciary to US feels like a stretch but I get where the concern is. Judicial activism can blur the lines of separation between powers if not checked. Curious about others’ takes on this.
Not sure I buy what Jones is selling. Americanisation? Sounds dramatic. Roles of courts evolve, always have. Parliament’s still got the reins, right? How do others see this playing out?
Trent, good point. It’s a complex issue. NZ’s legal framework is quite robust and having checks on the judiciary. It’s less about losing control and more about balance. The real question is, where do we draw the line?
so is this kind of like judges taking too much control? bit lost but following.
Ah yes, the American plague has crossed the seas. What next? Judges in superhero capes? Chill Jones, our judges aren’t exactly turning into the Avengers over here.
Jones’s critique about environmental consents is partly on point though. The process can seem like a playground for the wealthy. Still, it’s more systemic than a simple issue of ‘judicial activism’.
The dynamics between legislative intent and judicial interpretation have always fascinated me. Jones’s commentary, while provocative, opens up necessary dialogue on how law evolves in society. Always appreciated, LawFuel Editors, for sparking the thought.