When we went to church in Sydney the first Sunday the pastor was from Christchurch. He recommended a church here in Christchurch that we went to today. It was definitely the biggest church we’ve been to – I would estimate 350-400 people. It was almost standing-room only. There was a good mix of all ages and stages, unlike most of the previous churches we had been to. I hadn’t met any “uni” students (university students) elsewhere, but there were about ten here. One was a senior mechanical engineering major and the other was a senior forestry engineering major. I also met a guy who graduated recently and is working as a lab tech. Here, “school” refers to elementary through high school. Their “college” is our high school. “University” is the same as ours, but is usually shortened. They don’t refer to themselves as freshmen, sophomores, etc. but just by their year (1st year, etc.).
A group of them were having a potluck lunch and we got an invitation. It was about 25 min outside Christchurch. The host had a house on 10 hectacres (about 25 acres). It was a great crowd, but I primarily talked to a young attorney (“barrister and solicitor”) and a young civil engineer. I didn’t quite understand the distinction, but a barrister does what I consider law practice; a solicitor does exactly that – solicits business. I got the idea that some people are just one or the other in order to avoid a conflict of interest and he used the example of a trust, but I didn’t follow him. My understanding is that there is only one exam (like our bar exam) and that if you pass you pick which or both you want to be.
This guy specializes in environmental litigation. He works for a big firm (several hundred attorneys) that has offices in several cities. He said that environmental actions account for about half of all of their litigation. I’m sure some of that is a reflection of what the firm is good at, but he indicated that it is also a reflection of law practice in general in New Zealand. Apparently a body (like a district environmental council) will propose an action (dictating that farmers can only take 3 cubic meters per second from a stream for irrigation, for example) and then there is debate, etc. So far this is the same as in the states. Once the body makes a decision it can be challenged in court, just like in the U.S. However, the big distinction is that here in the U.S. it could only be challenged for violating the Constitution, contradicting another law, contradicting a higher law (state or federal), etc. Here in NZ it can be challenged based on whether or not the decision is the best one – i.e. you can sue and say that the limit should be 10 cu. m/s instead of 3, whereas in the U.S. it would have to be changed through the same process that created the rule originally. This seems to grant NZ courts strong legislative authority. It also raises the stakes in court, and consequently this attorney said that they brought in experts from all around the world to testify in cases – in a fight over a river’s water flow, fishing associations testify on how much water game fish need, farmers testify about how much water they need in the river, rafting companies testify about how much water they need in the river, power companies testify, environmental groups testify, etc., and in the end the court decides exactly what the rule will be.
I also learned that the soil in NZ contains almost no clay. That means that water rapidly sinks deep into the ground; consequently, it needs almost constant rain to keep water at surface level for plants. It also means that there isn’t a foundation for building concrete roads. That’s why they build thin gravel roads with asphalt over the top. They don’t last long, but they just add a layer on top until it gets too thick, then tear it up and start over.
During my conversation with the engineer he mentioned the hassle of “putting everything in trust.” Apparently when people become licensed engineers here they regularly put all of their money and assets in a trust because they are personally liable for everything they sign. That may be true in the states, too, but I haven’t heard of people routinely hiding assets.
There is an acute lack of seasonal labor here. The population is small and Kiwis don’t want to do that sort of work. (NZ also has a recurring problem with people migrating to Australia to get jobs. A NZ prime minister was once asked about this “brain drain” and he said it wasn’t a big deal because “it raises the IQ of both countries.”) NZ has a lot of people that come to NZ to get citizenship or permanent status and then promptly move to Australia, since Australia and NZ have a free movement agreement and it is easier to get into NZ than Australia.
No comments:
Post a Comment