August 29, 2024 • 5 mins
Minister Shane Jones has been on the receiving end of some backlash after his comments on the judiciary.
Attorney-General Judith Collins plans to speak to Jones following a recent incident where he called a High Court judge a 'communist' - prompting concern from New Zealand Bar Association.
Law Association Vice President Julie-Anne Kincade says respecting the judiciary is vital in a democracy.
"I also share the concerns about some of the ways our politicians are expressing their views."
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Lawye is a pretty upset at Shane Jones Ah because
he called the judge a communist. New Zealand Bar Association
has written to the Attorney General Judith Collins, saying an
increase in public statements about judges by ministers is amounting
to attacks on the judiciary. Vice president of the Law Association,
Julienne Kincaid Casey is with me now, hey.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Julienne, Good afternoon, Heather.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Do you agree with the Bar Association the sentiments in
the letter.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
I agree that we have to respect the separation of powers. Absolutely.
It's a vital in a democracy that we all know
our boundaries. And I also share the concerns about some
of the ways that people are politicians are expressing the views.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Do you think do you think that his comments are
an attack on the judiciary.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
I think that there are ways of expressing concerns with
judicial decisions rather than expressing some someone expressing themselves the
way he did. So. Really, to put it another way,
really we should play the play the ball and not
the man or the woman as it were.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Is the mitigating effective for you at all? That he
didn't do what Stewart Nash did. Stewart Nashwin on the
radio and add a craik at the judges. Whereas he
said this in a private meeting that has since become public,
does that make it any less bad.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
Well, I don't know the circumstances of the meeting, and
I don't know the circumstances of high it came out,
but I think there may have been other comments. I
also saw that just a little while ago, our Attorney
General has said that she will speak to him again.
I would like to say that we had a very
good speech in June of this year from the Attorney
General General on this very topic about the separation of
(01:46):
powers and everybody working together with mutual respect and restraint
and not resorting to coercion and confrontation. So I'm very
confident that our Attorney General knows exactly where the lines
are and where that's needed to be, where people need reminding.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
Else there the mitigating factor that the judge I mean
kind of actually was a communist.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Look, I don't know in sufficient about the circumstances of
the common.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Julia, let me tell you, because you feel I feel
like you're coming into this argument with not a lot
of knowledge. So the judge used to belong to a
social justice leagal whatever it was that basically is described
as a bunch of communists and he called her a communist,
so it's a descriptor as well as.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
He wasn't talking about the judge and the decision and
her past in the Communist Party. He was using that
as a point to to criticize it.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
So to my question, which was does it mitigated that
she was a judge, your that she was a communist?
Your answer is not really, because he's criticizing her ability
to make an unbiased decision here.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Yeah, Yes, it wasn't complement and it does disrespect to
the independence of the judiciary. The Parliament and the executive
have obviously got lots of powers if legislation isn't working
as they would like to see it working. And I
think there's just better ways of changing things than making
comments like Julian.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
I think that you guys as lawyers, have a point
that he has probably cross I mean, he has crossed
that line, hasn't he He's attacked judiciary.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Yeah, but you don't.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Have any public sympathy, do you, because I mean that
would be fair, is that a lot of people are
seeing what's going on with the judges and thinking, actually
there's a bit of creep going on here.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Ultimately it's the role of the Attorney General to sort
of stride those to pillars of our institutions, the law
and the judiciary. And I am fully confident that that's
happened in it. Do you think.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Instead of judges and everybody in the legal fraternity having
a moan about Shane Jones, who we know runs his
mouth off, maybe the right thing to do in this
circumstance is the judges having a bit of self reflection
here and wondering why people are criticizing them and maybe
amending their behavior.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
I actually disagree with you. I think when things are published,
I mean we all all lawyers are very careful and conscientious,
and to suggest otherwise I think doesn't really understand what happens.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
But Julian, I'm looking at decisions relating to the to Mecca,
the law that he was talking about, and two judges
have completely misinterpreted what Parliament wanted. That your Julian, it's
not just my view, it's the view of the dissent
and Judge Farie Miller as well.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
There's a view of there is it a process where
the cases go to court and then they are decided
by the judges. If people don't if people involved in
the case don't like the decision, they can appeal it.
And if people in Parliament don't like what's happening, they
can change the legislation and totally original kind of just finished.
The original legislation has left doubt and regal room because
(04:51):
that's the judges' job to interpret it that it's you know,
being interpreted in a way that perhaps people in the
legislators don't like it. Well, then it is their job
then to check legislation going through those processes, and they
have all of those powers available to them.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Julianne, thank you. I appreciate you coming on and having
the debate with me. Really good to talk to you.
That's Julian Kincaid Casey, who's the vice president of the
Law Association. For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, listen
live to news talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Lawye is a pretty upset at Shane Jones Ah because
he called the judge a communist. New Zealand Bar Association
has written to the Attorney General Judith Collins, saying an
increase in public statements about judges by ministers is amounting
to attacks on the judiciary. Vice president of the Law Association,
Julienne Kincaid Casey is with me now, hey.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Julienne, Good afternoon, Heather.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
Do you agree with the Bar Association the sentiments in
the letter.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
I agree that we have to respect the separation of powers. Absolutely.
It's a vital in a democracy that we all know
our boundaries. And I also share the concerns about some
of the ways that people are politicians are expressing the views.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Do you think do you think that his comments are
an attack on the judiciary.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
I think that there are ways of expressing concerns with
judicial decisions rather than expressing some someone expressing themselves the
way he did. So. Really, to put it another way,
really we should play the play the ball and not
the man or the woman as it were.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Is the mitigating effective for you at all? That he
didn't do what Stewart Nash did. Stewart Nashwin on the
radio and add a craik at the judges. Whereas he
said this in a private meeting that has since become public,
does that make it any less bad.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
Well, I don't know the circumstances of the meeting, and
I don't know the circumstances of high it came out,
but I think there may have been other comments. I
also saw that just a little while ago, our Attorney
General has said that she will speak to him again.
I would like to say that we had a very
good speech in June of this year from the Attorney
General General on this very topic about the separation of
(01:46):
powers and everybody working together with mutual respect and restraint
and not resorting to coercion and confrontation. So I'm very
confident that our Attorney General knows exactly where the lines
are and where that's needed to be, where people need reminding.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
Else there the mitigating factor that the judge I mean
kind of actually was a communist.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Look, I don't know in sufficient about the circumstances of
the common.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
Julia, let me tell you, because you feel I feel
like you're coming into this argument with not a lot
of knowledge. So the judge used to belong to a
social justice leagal whatever it was that basically is described
as a bunch of communists and he called her a communist,
so it's a descriptor as well as.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
He wasn't talking about the judge and the decision and
her past in the Communist Party. He was using that
as a point to to criticize it.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
So to my question, which was does it mitigated that
she was a judge, your that she was a communist?
Your answer is not really, because he's criticizing her ability
to make an unbiased decision here.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Yeah, Yes, it wasn't complement and it does disrespect to
the independence of the judiciary. The Parliament and the executive
have obviously got lots of powers if legislation isn't working
as they would like to see it working. And I
think there's just better ways of changing things than making
comments like Julian.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
I think that you guys as lawyers, have a point
that he has probably cross I mean, he has crossed
that line, hasn't he He's attacked judiciary.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Yeah, but you don't.
Speaker 1 (03:20):
Have any public sympathy, do you, because I mean that
would be fair, is that a lot of people are
seeing what's going on with the judges and thinking, actually
there's a bit of creep going on here.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Ultimately it's the role of the Attorney General to sort
of stride those to pillars of our institutions, the law
and the judiciary. And I am fully confident that that's
happened in it. Do you think.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Instead of judges and everybody in the legal fraternity having
a moan about Shane Jones, who we know runs his
mouth off, maybe the right thing to do in this
circumstance is the judges having a bit of self reflection
here and wondering why people are criticizing them and maybe
amending their behavior.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
I actually disagree with you. I think when things are published,
I mean we all all lawyers are very careful and conscientious,
and to suggest otherwise I think doesn't really understand what happens.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
But Julian, I'm looking at decisions relating to the to Mecca,
the law that he was talking about, and two judges
have completely misinterpreted what Parliament wanted. That your Julian, it's
not just my view, it's the view of the dissent
and Judge Farie Miller as well.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
There's a view of there is it a process where
the cases go to court and then they are decided
by the judges. If people don't if people involved in
the case don't like the decision, they can appeal it.
And if people in Parliament don't like what's happening, they
can change the legislation and totally original kind of just finished.
The original legislation has left doubt and regal room because
(04:51):
that's the judges' job to interpret it that it's you know,
being interpreted in a way that perhaps people in the
legislators don't like it. Well, then it is their job
then to check legislation going through those processes, and they
have all of those powers available to them.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Julianne, thank you. I appreciate you coming on and having
the debate with me. Really good to talk to you.
That's Julian Kincaid Casey, who's the vice president of the
Law Association. For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, listen
live to news talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.