Comments on: Supreme Omelette

By: Maximus

Maximus — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:12:16 +0000

And gradually other people wake up to the appalling cost of this ediface: Richard Long notes in the DomPost today that:
“Time to contain court’s cost ”
“OPINION: Frankly, there is a case for Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias to be banged up in the slammer herself, along with some of her colleagues. Not for challenging the size of the jail population and suggesting a prisoner amnesty, but for presiding over the outrageous waste of public expenditure involved in the new $80 million Supreme Court building in Wellington.

“Restoration of the old High Court building, to house a Supreme Court of only five judges, was initially to cost $20 million. That was exorbitant enough. But now the cost has gone from $4 million a judge to $16 million a head. The judiciary and the last government decided that the renovated old High Court would not be grand enough and that they could not fit the five judges, with their court and chambers, into the old category one-listed historic building. So taxpayers were then landed with funding a new structure for the Supreme Court while still restoring the old High Court building.

“A bit of double-bunking in one of those flash new container prison cells sounds like just the thing to bring the judiciary down to earth. If anyone had the slightest inkling of this runaway cost of a Supreme Court, who would have voted for cutting our links with the Privy Council?”

By: Maximus

Maximus — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 08:46:07 +0000

Comment by Rosemary McLeod, from today’s Sunday Star-Times: “The new Supreme Court building rises in Wellington, and as its decorative facades were being put in place last week, my thoughts were grumpy. It’s not the arty cast-bronze renditions of native trees that bug me – though they well might, as twiddly finishes to a boring structure – but the thought of how justice fares here compared with elsewhere in the world. Take the case of Josef Fritzl in Austria……”

By: m-d

m-d — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:15:30 +0000

…should it demure according to its role of interpreter of legislation handed down to it from the Government of the day?…
In which case, its location down the hill from the parliamentary precinct, and the architectural downplaying of the symbolic role of the court does indeed seem appropriate…

By: m-d

m-d — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:12:06 +0000

To clarify the Dredd judgment above:
Our system is based on the principle that power is distributed across three branches of government � Parliament, the Executive, and the Judiciary. Parliament makes the law. The Executive (Ministers of the Crown also known as the Government) administers the law. The Judiciary interprets the law through the courts.
In practice, however, without the checks and balances inherent to the US system (e.g. I don’t believe that our judiciary can reject legislation drafted by the legislature (Parliament) as being unconstitutional for example?), our system is much more hierarchical than that of the US, with, arguably, the Executive really in control of everything.
All of which your line of enquiry even more difficult to answer – in that, should we consider the Supreme Court building as the final component in a triadic relationship with Parliament House and the Executive Wing (The Beehive) – and if so, is its current location appropriate?, or should it demure according to its role of interpreter of legislation handed down to it from the Government of the day?

By: jayseatee

jayseatee — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:10:30 +0000

in re: Honeywood
This was basically the origin of my question regarding the nature of the court. It’s interesting that in the US despite the judicial system being set up as a third branch independent of the other two, that the Supreme Court chambers were in the basement of the Capitol for 135 years. It wasn’t until the design and construction of the current building from 1928-1935 that the court had its own building that recognised the prominence of it’s role in governing.

Based on Judge Dredd’s comment (and 1 comment I appreciate does not create a consensus) but it seems one could ask whether the court even deserves it’s own building. If the court is subservient to the Governor General and/or parliament, is it not a falsehood to create the sense that it is the country’s second most important building? Perhaps a bubble submerged and hidden from public view is the correct metaphor?

By: Honeywood

Honeywood — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:56:46 +0000

I am intrigued by the dome, its burial in the podium, its cross-section and what all this says about our attitude to egalitarianism, justice and national identity. The dome is doubtless a grand volume but its submersion in the building is perhaps the most significant gesture of architectural and cultural denial I have seen in our national architecture, anywhere (although it is rivaled by Noel Lane�s inaccessible egg out the back of the Auckland Museum). Why, when he have the second most important civic building in the country do we diminish it so? Is this the ultimate in tall poppy fear? What would we risk by raising the dome, elevating it to a height appropriate to its function? Externally, the Supreme Court is proportionately the perfect podium in need of completion. WAM have positioned the dome post-earthquake. Where is the architectural courage when most we need it? We finally wrest supreme legal power from mother�s apron strings and then we ameliorate and reduce it in pursuit of egalitarianism. Why are we obsessed with all things being equal? The law is the one thing that is above us. Why does this piece of architecture not recognize and acknowledge this? The most disturbing part of the cross-section is where the judges sit � at the same level as the petitioners. What were they thinking? Should we not look up to the learned and receive wisdom from upon high? A prime architectural opportunity wasted.

By: Judge Dredd

Judge Dredd — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:02:09 +0000

You asked about Ministries, and Departments. – Both Departments and Ministries are branches of Government, but Ministries report to a Minister, who sits in Parliament. Thus Ministries have more political influence and control – and controlability, than a Department.

You asked about Judges, and Political Appointments.
The Supreme Court replaced the Privy Council – which formerly was the highest court in the land – under the Supreme Court Act 2003.
The Supreme Court comprises�
(a) the Chief Justice; and
(b) not fewer than 4 nor more than 5 other Judges, appointed by the Governor-General as Judges of the Supreme Court.
The current Chief Justice, Sian Elias, was an appointment by the Governor General, who is a puppet figure under the control of the Government. There are 4 other Judges on the Supreme Court: Peter Blanchard, Andrew Tipping, John McGrath, and Bill Wilson.

“The court can sit only as a bench of five to hear substantive appeals. It is able to appoint retired judges of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal (under the age of 75) where it is not possible to convene a court of five permanent members.
The judges of the Supreme Court continue to be judges of the High Court, which maintains the formal integration of the higher courts judicature. The Supreme Court Act does not expressly prevent the Supreme Court�s judges sitting in the High Court. However, it is not appropriate, except in exceptional circumstances, for judges of the Supreme Court to sit in the lower court on a case which could end up before the Supreme Court.”

By: jayseatee

jayseatee — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:27:04 +0000

sorry maximus-
you were collateral damage. I’m sure your questionable activities wouldn’t put you anywhere near the top 25 crimes of the century.

Here is a question that I hope someone can answer for me. In the US our system is set up with three distinct and equal branches. (although some of our more recent presidents have challenged this whole notion of checks and balances). What is the role and relationship of the supreme court to parliament? How are the supreme court judges appointed?

Also, in the US the executive branch oversees all of the Departments. There are 15 Departments, which make up the presidents cabinet, these Departments then oversee hundreds of agencies, commissions, services etc. I have tried to find information about this, but is there a hierarchy to the ministries and departments? And why are some Ministries and others Departments?

By: maximus

maximus — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:46:15 +0000

I’m just the tensiest bit disappointed that the architects from WAM (presumably Roy Wilson) haven’t contributed to this discussion (so far), and are still just watching from the side line.

M-D and Jayseatee have raised some really interesting points, that, Wild West aside, have not really been answered. Such as:
What we have is a result of the fact that no one really agrees on what a supreme court in contemporary NZ should state.
Should it be power and authority?
Should it be a friendly/benign transparency?
Should it represent the highest achievement of local architectural development?
Should it simply fit into its context without too much ado?
Should it have bars over the windows to indicate the probable destination of its defendants?

By: maximus

maximus — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:42:12 +0000

“….gone and got jayseatee all rilled up now. ….. admittedly, not a difficult thing to do. In fact i think it is my default. Now tbe ability to get me to be calm i think is worth noting…..”

I’d be keen to see if we can figure out how to get you back to a state of serene calm, given that the conversation has moved off giant egg-like domes and onto cowboys, the wild west, and guillotines….., I’m just worried where this may end up.

Especially as my attempts at humour have been equated with 2 of the most horrible mass murderers in history (Time’s list of the Top 25 Crimes of the Century has The Great Train Robbery and Patty Hearst in there – why couldn’t you compare me to them, instead of that ghastly idiot drawing clowns? I hate clowns! ).

Certainly livens up a dreary week.