Posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2021, at 16:41:13
In reply to Re: there will never be enough to meet genuine need, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2021, at 16:19:49
presently it is not looking at all promising from the courts.
that they are going to find the obvious.
_______
new zealand doesn't have a formal constitution like other nations.
we will say 'we have many constitutional documents' or even say that the treaty of waitangi (a peace treaty between maaori and the british crown) is our constitutional document...
but all of our statutes are supposed to be on equal footing. and there are no restrictions on the laws that parliament is allowed to pass.
historically parliament has been very very conservative in writing new law. we are a relatively new country. the spirit or idea of it seems to be that we are going slow as we can to introduce the laws that have been introduced already in every other developed nation.
we only just teh other day finally got a capital gains tax law on property investment to try and curb the fact that everybody either owns multiple rental properties or pays a landlord around 80 or 90 per cent of their govenment income on rent.
______________
some of the statutes have penalties written into the statute.
'violate this statute and the maximum penalty is a $300 fine' sort of a thing.
pay $20,000 to a lawyer to get the case to the High Court for an offence that has a maximum fine of $300 sort of a thing.
I have seen documents purporting to say that the 'normal' or 'standard' or 'usual' way the court costs are to be distributed are... that they sort of share the costs.
So... $25,000 for applicants lawyers. $20,000 for respondants lawyers. $500 filing fee. $1600 scheduling and 1/2 day trial fee.
For an offence that carries a maximum $300 penalty.
Assuming it isn't appealled...
________________________
Other laws don't have maximum penalties associated.
__________________________
Does that mean there can be no penalty?
__________________________
High Court found: Yes.
I suppose this might be like this:
'The High Court can only make findings on the basis of precedent. We are a new country. There arne't really any precedents. There isn't really precedent for financial remuneration or any kind of remedy. Therefore the court has no grounds to award remedy'.
What about principles of natural justice?
The High Court is precedent based. I think.
______________________________
SO then it needs to go to the court of appeal.
_________________________________
This is the state of developmetn of law in NZ
_________________________________
The Court of Appeal previously found that damages should be awarded for Bill of Rights Violation.
New Zealand has a Bill of Rights. Very very minimal.
It says within it that it is not an exhaustive list. Other rights may exist and it doesn't mean to rule them out. But there is a rudimentary list. With no remedy for violation built into the statute. It isn't like 'maximum fine of $300 dollars per day for involuntarily confining a person in conditions of torture'.
Anyway... The court of appeal decided... To award damages for a bill of rights violation.
It was decided that a law without remedy was 'toothless'. So they gave teeth to the law by providing an award of damages.
__________________________________
The Universities of New Zealand violate the Education Act. They refuse to accept that the Statute deems domestic adults to be eligible to be enrolled in programmes they have applied to.
They refuse to enrol domestic adults in programmes they have applied to because they want to force the adult to enroll in teh progarm of their (rather than the domestic adults) choosing. Like me. Delaying enrolling me in teh MPHl because they wanted to force me to do a PhD.
Refusing to consider me for Medicien. Just going 'no' and dismissing my application without processing it properly.
The statute gives them discretion to *also* or *additionally* consider teenage applicants. But there is no discretion to refuse to accept htat domestic adults are eligible or to throw away their applications without processing them through to the selection stage (e.g., when all the eligible applicants are considered in a rank order list).
______________________________
So the court of appeal needs to give teeth to the Education Act.
They are required to allow domestic adults to work to international standarsd of scholarship. That means geting their work to external examiners. That means allowing external examienrs to sign the students off.
They are required to pay me damages for their failures to comply with the statutes.
They are required to have trained me. I want my training place. And reparation for the fact they refused to do that. Dealying me. Refusing to accept my completed qualifications. Refusing to accept my tehsis.
I don't care if they like what I said my thesis or not. I d'nt care if I"m liable. They can sue me. But they hav eno power to refuse to confer my Degree.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0
If the courts of New Zealand won't do it (won't allow New Zealnd studnets to work to international standards and won't allow international community to sign off on New Zealand students copmletion of research Degrees) then...
No Universities for New Zealand.
It was the f*ck*ng oversight.
You have to let us check you made the milk powder properly because if we don't check up on you people die.
You have to let us check you mixed the concrete properly and poured enough of it. you used the correct grade wood. YOu did the things you were supposed to do for building complance. Otherwise we can't insure the building. It' sa hazard. It will burn and people could die.
You have to let us sign your studnets off.
You can't keep slaves.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1115245
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20210419/msgs/1115256.html