AUS v NZ
In respect to ANZAC day tomorrow, we have explored the distinct legal differences between these two unified countries.
What makes New Zealand’s legal system different to ours?
Photo by Kerin Gedge on Unsplash
In the serene realm of liberal democracies, Australia and New Zealand dance to distinct constitutional tunes, each with its own legislative choreography. While both nations share a foundation as constitutional monarchies with a governor-general, their parliamentary blueprints reveal striking differences.
Australia, a Federation, orchestrates power across its states and territories under a constitutional playbook. In contrast, New Zealand operates as a unified state, channeling legislative authority from the central government to local regions. This dynamic underpins New Zealand's singular legislative house, which concentrates formidable national sway in the hands of the ruling party.
Australia's dual-house parliamentary model, spanning the House of Representatives and the Senate, champions democratic balance. Conversely, New Zealand's unicameral system, akin to Queensland's, simplifies the legislative pathway, sans inter-house tussles.
Photo by Matthew Alexander on Unsplash
The two nations diverge on voting mechanics. Australia's preferential voting elects representatives for specific electorates, whereas New Zealand's Mixed-Member-Proportional (MMP) method injects nuanced party dynamics into electoral outcomes.
Australia flaunts a codified constitution enshrined in a singular document, while New Zealand's constitutional fabric weaves statutes, conventions, and the Treaty of Waitangi into an uncodified tapestry, allowing for more fluid constitutional adjustments.
Lastly, electoral nuances abound. Australia maintains a singular electoral roll, whereas New Zealand harbors both a general roll and a Māori roll, embodying the nation's unique commitment to proportional representation.
In essence, while bound by democratic ethos, Australia and New Zealand diverge in the mechanics of governance, each infusing its political canvas with distinct hues of representation and power distribution.
Home is where the law is
Photo by Sebastian Herrmann on Unsplash
The "forum non conveniens" test is not applicable in family law disputes between Australia and New Zealand. An example illustrating this occurred in the case of Nevill & Nevill. Here, the wife initiated property proceedings in Australia, while the husband filed similar proceedings in New Zealand and sought to stay the Australian proceedings.
Key factors considered under the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) included the parties' residence, location of witnesses, subject matter of the dispute, and applicable law. The court determined that New Zealand was the more appropriate forum based on substantial connections to New Zealand, where the parties had lived and accumulated assets predominantly. The court emphasized the importance of treating matrimonial issues as a single controversy and ruled to permanently stay the Australian proceedings.
This case highlights the unique legal framework governing cross-border family law disputes between Australia and New Zealand, underscoring the significance of understanding jurisdictional considerations under the Trans-Tasman Act.
Bad advice from jeremy
In respect of ANZAC day I’m going to list the 3 things I’d like to steal away from New Zealand:
3. Kiwi Birds
These cute little birds just look like a fun pet that I want to have jumping around my house. I wish we had these first and they were named Aussie Birds.
2. The Hobbits
These movies were incredibly, especially at the age I watched them. So, to have that as a claim to fame and be able to visit the filming areas is so cool and I’m so jealous.
1. The Accent
Unpopular as it might be, the Australian accent just sucks. Theirs is just so much cooler and seems to make things 10x funnier.
UPCOMING EVENTS
Law Ball: 11th of May
Theme: Old Hollywood
Logan Fun Run: 26th of May
Distances: 2.5km, 5km or 10km