One renewable energy advocate believes New Zealand would be better off burning our coal reserve than building a liquefied natural gas terminal.  

The Government’s aiming to sign a procurement contract for a Taranaki LNG site by mid-year, and hoping to have it running by late next year or early 2028. 

An electricity levy of two to four dollars per megawatt-hour will fund the build, which is expected to save each household around $50 a year when up and running.  

Rewiring Aotearoa CEO Mike Casey told Kerre Woodham that while he likes to think of himself as a renewable energy advocate, he’s also a pragmatic person.  

He says that the dry year problem has to be solved, but we should use the fuel we already have and import, instead of importing a new, incredibly expensive fuel, at a capital cost that would lock us into using it for a very long time. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

One renewable energy advocate believes New Zealand would be better off burning our coal reserve than building a liquefied natural gas terminal. &nbsp;
The Government’s aiming to sign a procurement contract for a Taranaki LNG site by mid-year, and hoping to have it running by late next year or early 2028.&nbsp;
An electricity levy of two to four dollars per megawatt-hour will fund the build, which is expected to save each household around $50 a year when up and running. &nbsp;
Rewiring Aotearoa CEO Mike Casey told Kerre Woodham that while he likes to think of himself as a renewable energy advocate, he’s also a pragmatic person. &nbsp;
He says that the dry year problem has to be solved, but we should use the fuel we already have and import, instead of importing a new, incredibly expensive fuel, at a capital cost that would lock us into using it for a very long time.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Mike Casey: Rewiring Aotearoa CEO says we should burn our coal stockpile instead of importing LNG

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/9abdd587-881b-421e-b04c-b3ee00021d12/transcript

Ah, Winston. Winston, Winston, Winston. He is the embodiment, as his namesake Winston Churchill famously said of Russia, of a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. The canny campaigner knew exactly what he was doing when agreeing to job share the Deputy Prime Minister role with ACT leader David Seymour during the Coalition Government's startup. He, Winston, would take the first 18 months, positioning himself as a senior statesman and Foreign Minister par excellence. And indeed, he has done a very good job as Foreign Minister. Then after that 18 months, he would step aside, making way for David Seymour, more importantly, making time to campaign right up to the next election, which is just a matter of months away. It's exactly what he's doing, stirring up xenophobia in the wake of the Government, or rather National and ACT, securing a Free Trade Agreement with India. A Foreign Minister that doesn't like foreigners, all of a sudden, just in the last year.  

As Toby Manhire says in his piece in The Spinoff, that Winston Peters and New Zealand First are opposing the Free Trade Agreement with India is no surprise. They also opposed the Free Trade Agreement with China 18 years ago. Then as now, says Manhire, Peters was Foreign Minister. Then as now, he said it was a bad deal for New Zealand. Then as now, he invoked an agree to disagree provision in the governing arrangement. So without New Zealand First support, National will need Labour to get the Free Trade Agreement across the line. Surely that should not be a problem – although you can't blame Chris Hipkins for playing hard to get and maximizing the political capital out of the situation. As far back as 2004 Helen Clark was leading trade delegations to India, although formal negotiations only began in earnest in 2010. It has taken a long, long time and much work from our trade delegates to get to this point. And Trade Minister Todd McClay says although it's inevitable that there will be politicking around the agreement, New Zealanders should understand that this is a very important, very big deal. 

“Number one, there was always going to be a bit of politics around this because it is a very big deal. It's 1.4 billion people. You know, I've seen a lot of speculation about tens and tens of thousands of Indians just having the absolute right to come to New Zealand. Mike, this is a trade deal, it's not an immigration deal. They do not have that ability. The New Zealand Government has reserved the right to change visa settings as we need to. And the final point would be, we have now a trade deal, one of the best India's done with anybody. We're 5 million people, they're 1.4 billion. This is a very good deal for New Zealand, and each party in Parliament's going to have to decide how they're going to make the case of where their support lies.” 

And on the point of Winston's claims that New Zealand will be overrun with Indian families, Todd McClay had this to say: 

TM: The debate at the moment has moved to students, whether or not we can cap the number of students. And actually, there has never been a cap on the number of students. We've never said we want them from Australia, we don't want them from the UK. And I don't think any future government would ever do that. It makes no sense to. But what we have always done is we have changed the visa settings, the conditions that you have to meet to be able to get a visa to come and study in New Zealand. If we jump back to when we were in government previously, there were a very large number of students in New Zealand. As a result of COVID, it went down, but the previous government and we have changed those settings to make sure that actually the number of places and students coming in matches our requirement and what we do. And we can continue to do that.” 

MH: But this is general, Todd, this is just immigration policy the way it's always been. Yes? 

TM: That's exactly right. 

Of course, we need to be aware of making sure the settings are right, that immigrants to New Zealand are coming to fill jobs and maximize opportunities. We don't need more Uber drivers. We need people who are able to come here and who are able to make most of the opportunities that New Zealand has to offer. But as Todd McClay says, if we feel things are getting out of whack, we can adjust settings accordingly. I mean, that happened when, remember all the hue and cry over far too many people arriving on the parent's visa, the parent category. All these people were arriving, didn't understand a word of English, were isolated, dependent on their families, some of whom we heard buggered off to Australia and left them here, isolated, alone, you know, it was a nightmare. So back in 2016, 2017 the number of people approved for residence fell by 8%, the decrease driven by parent category approvals, which fell 63% because the settings were getting out of whack. People realized there was a loophole and so it was plugged.  

It's election year, and I suppose you have to expect it. And those who have followed politics for a very, very long time, as Toby Manhire points out, have seen this happen before. This is what New Zealand First does. This is what appeals to their voters. From the outside looking in, the Free Trade Agreement with India is a very good deal for New Zealand. We are fundamentally a trading nation. From the outside looking in, this is Winston doing what Winston does, doing what he does best, coming up to an election with a sail full of hot air, pounding the populist drum of anti-immigration. Where do you stand on this one? Is the Free Trade Agreement with India a good deal or not? 

Ah, Winston. Winston, Winston, Winston. He is the embodiment, as his namesake Winston Churchill famously said of Russia, of a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. The canny campaigner knew exactly what he was doing when agreeing to job share the Deputy Prime Minister role with ACT leader David Seymour during the Coalition Government's startup. He, Winston, would take the first 18 months, positioning himself as a senior statesman and Foreign Minister par excellence. And indeed, he has done a very good job as Foreign Minister. Then after that 18 months, he would step aside, making way for David Seymour, more importantly, making time to campaign right up to the next election, which is just a matter of months away. It's exactly what he's doing, stirring up xenophobia in the wake of the Government, or rather National and ACT, securing a Free Trade Agreement with India. A Foreign Minister that doesn't like foreigners, all of a sudden, just in the last year. &nbsp;
As Toby Manhire says in his piece in The Spinoff, that Winston Peters and New Zealand First are opposing the Free Trade Agreement with India is no surprise. They also opposed the Free Trade Agreement with China 18 years ago. Then as now, says Manhire, Peters was Foreign Minister. Then as now, he said it was a bad deal for New Zealand. Then as now, he invoked an agree to disagree provision in the governing arrangement. So without New Zealand First support, National will need Labour to get the Free Trade Agreement across the line. Surely that should not be a problem – although you can't blame Chris Hipkins for playing hard to get and maximizing the political capital out of the situation. As far back as 2004 Helen Clark was leading trade delegations to India, although formal negotiations only began in earnest in 2010. It has taken a long, long time and much work from our trade delegates to get to this point. And Trade Minister Todd McClay says although it's inevitable that there will be politicking around the agreement, New Zealanders should understand that this is a very important, very big deal.&nbsp;
“Number one, there was always going to be a bit of politics around this because it is a very big deal. It's 1.4 billion people. You know, I've seen a lot of speculation about tens and tens of thousands of Indians just having the absolute right to come to New Zealand. Mike, this is a trade deal, it's not an immigration deal. They do not have that ability. The New Zealand Government has reserved the right to change visa settings as we need to. And the final point would be, we have now a trade deal, one of the best India's done with anybody. We're 5 million people, they're 1.4 billion. This is a very good deal for New Zealand, and each party in Parliament's going to have to decide how they're going to make the case of where their support lies.”&nbsp;
And on the point of Winston's claims that New Zealand will be overrun with Indian families, Todd McClay had this to say:&nbsp;
TM: The debate at the moment has moved to students, whether or not we can cap the number of students. And actually, there has never been a cap on the number of students. We've never said we want them from Australia, we don't want them from the UK. And I don't think any future government would ever do that. It makes no sense to. But what we have always done is we have changed the visa settings, the conditions that you have to meet to be able to get a visa to come and study in New Zealand. If we jump back to when we were in government previously, there were a very large number of students in New Zealand. As a result of COVID, it went down, but the previous government and we have changed those settings to make sure that actually the number of places and students coming in matches our requirement and what we do. And we can continue to do that.”&nbsp;
MH: But this is general, Todd, this is just immigration policy the way it's always been. Yes?&nbsp;
TM: That's exactly right.&nbsp;
Of course, we need to be aware of making sure the settings are right, that immigrants to New Zealand are coming to fill jobs and maximize opportunities. We don't need more Uber drivers. We need people who are able to come here and who are able to make most of the opportunities that New Zealand has to offer. But as Todd McClay says, if we feel things are getting out of whack, we can adjust settings accordingly. I mean, that happened when, remember all the hue and cry over far too many people arriving on the parent's visa, the parent category. All these people were arriving, didn't understand a word of English, were isolated, dependent on their families, some of whom we heard buggered off to Australia and left them here, isolated, alone, you know, it was a nightmare. So back in 2016, 2017 the number of people approved for residence fell by 8%, the decrease driven by parent category approvals, which fell 63% because the settings were getting out of whack. People realized there was a loophole and so it was plugged. &nbsp;
It's election year, and I suppose you have to expect it. And those who have followed politics for a very, very long time, as Toby Manhire points out, have seen this happen before. This is what New Zealand First does. This is what appeals to their voters. From the outside looking in, the Free Trade Agreement with India is a very good deal for New Zealand. We are fundamentally a trading nation. From the outside looking in, this is Winston doing what Winston does, doing what he does best, coming up to an election with a sail full of hot air, pounding the populist drum of anti-immigration. Where do you stand on this one? Is the Free Trade Agreement with India a good deal or not?&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: This is Winston doing as Winston does

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/f65f8595-ed2a-4529-9cfd-b3ed0175e3ed/transcript

The headline on one of the stories this morning said, "vital or bonkers?". Is the new liquefied natural gas terminal announced by the Government yesterday a vital piece of infrastructure that will save New Zealand households hundreds, shore up gaps in our energy supply, give confidence to our manufacturers, or as the Greens are saying, absolutely bonkers for the planet and for our country's energy resilience?  

Energy Minister Simon Watts announced yesterday that the new terminal to be built in New Plymouth should be ready by next year, and will mean that Kiwis no longer need to suffer through an endless series of winter bill shocks. The idea is that liquid natural gas can be imported in large volumes, we'll store it, and then it will be re-gasified to be used when shortages occur during dry years. It's expensive. It's an expensive way of doing it. An expensive “just in case”, but Simon Watts says, well we can't afford not to, otherwise it means the end of businesses.  

Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick says the decision to build a terminal is cooked. Well, you wouldn't be able to cook it unless there was some form of energy supply, so it's not a terribly good analogy because something can only be cooked when there's energy, and what they're doing is providing energy. She said Christopher Luxon has once again chosen to throw New Zealanders' money at fossil fuels, which is bad for power bills, energy security, and the planet. But as Simon Watts told the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning, this will quite literally power New Zealand's economy and we can't afford not to do it. 

“The reality is renewables are nice, but the sun doesn't shine during the night and that's when we need firming capacity and thermal capacity. In a dry year when we don't have enough water in those lakes, we have to make that from either gas, diesel, or coal. Coal only covers 50% of us, we've still got a massive gap. That's why there's a price premium in people's bills. Having the certainty of supply of gas to come into that market when we need it means that that risk is mitigated and therefore that price premium that's in people's bills comes off. That's the rationale of what we're doing here.  

“This is a strategic investment also for national security because guess what, if you can't have energy then other aspects of your economy is at risk and we've got to protect those industries that can't run on coal and surprisingly can't run on electricity. There's a lot of industry, heavy industry that needs gas and if we haven't got it domestically in the short term, we need to be able to import it.” 

Yeah. Like absolutely phase out fossil fuels, totally, let's do it and we've been talking about it since probably the 70’s – possibly earlier than that. I mean that's when I first started reading newspapers when I was at primary school and that's when I can remember talking about the need not to rely on fossil fuels. All for it. But you have to have a reliable alternative – a sustainable, inexpensive alternative. You can't just stop producing energy without providing another sustainable source of power. Hoping and wishing for something better and nicer and cleaner and greener is not a strategy.  

You can't just legislate sustainable energy out of thin air. Look at the disastrous result of various governments around the world legislating to force car manufacturers into producing more EVs to save the planet. Major automakers and EV startups have collectively incurred more than $114 billion , and those are real dollars, $114 billion in losses on EVs in the US and Europe, in basically three and a half years between 2022 and early 2026, driven by aggressive government electrification targets that outpaced consumer demand. People weren't convinced. Show me the electrical network that can sustain me being able to power these vehicles. Show me that they're safe. Show me that they're suitable for all terrains and all weather. As of February 2026, the cumulative financial hit from vaporised EV bets, write downs, and production cuts for the big three Detroit automakers GM, Ford, and Stellantis is estimated at roughly $52.1 billion. You might have heard Mike talking about Stellantis shares going down the toilet this morning.  

You can't just make people do things. This is a top down decision from the governments – we will not use fossil fuels. The people at the bottom who are making stuff, generating exports, providing jobs, driving to get from point A to point B, either driving their exports to different ports or driving to work to produce the exports, have to be convinced and confident that there's another source of energy that is reliable, sustainable, and relatively inexpensive that doesn't put their exports beyond the reach of buyers. And until such time, they're not going to they're not going to fall into line because it would be financial suicide.  

It's a nice idea, it absolutely is, and we make the most of what we have, the resources around us, where they're renewable, yes let's use them. But the Greens won't let us put in any hydro dams. Can you imagine? I think my grandchildren's grandchildren probably wouldn't live to see that. There's not enough sun, as Simon Watts said, it's dark at night. The wind is not consistent. It's pie in the sky. Until such time as we have sustainable, inexpensive alternative fuel sources, we need to shore up the energy supply we have now. Sure, save the planet, but if there's nobody bloody on it, what's the point? 

The headline on one of the stories this morning said, "vital or bonkers?". Is the new liquefied natural gas terminal announced by the Government yesterday a vital piece of infrastructure that will save New Zealand households hundreds, shore up gaps in our energy supply, give confidence to our manufacturers, or as the Greens are saying, absolutely bonkers for the planet and for our country's energy resilience? &nbsp;
Energy Minister Simon Watts announced yesterday that the new terminal to be built in New Plymouth should be ready by next year, and will mean that Kiwis no longer need to suffer through an endless series of winter bill shocks. The idea is that liquid natural gas can be imported in large volumes, we'll store it, and then it will be re-gasified to be used when shortages occur during dry years. It's expensive. It's an expensive way of doing it. An expensive “just in case”, but Simon Watts says, well we can't afford not to, otherwise it means the end of businesses. &nbsp;
Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick says the decision to build a terminal is cooked. Well, you wouldn't be able to cook it unless there was some form of energy supply, so it's not a terribly good analogy because something can only be cooked when there's energy, and what they're doing is providing energy. She said Christopher Luxon has once again chosen to throw New Zealanders' money at fossil fuels, which is bad for power bills, energy security, and the planet. But as Simon Watts told the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning, this will quite literally power New Zealand's economy and we can't afford not to do it.&nbsp;
“The reality is renewables are nice, but the sun doesn't shine during the night and that's when we need firming capacity and thermal capacity. In a dry year when we don't have enough water in those lakes, we have to make that from either gas, diesel, or coal. Coal only covers 50% of us, we've still got a massive gap. That's why there's a price premium in people's bills. Having the certainty of supply of gas to come into that market when we need it means that that risk is mitigated and therefore that price premium that's in people's bills comes off. That's the rationale of what we're doing here. &nbsp;
“This is a strategic investment also for national security because guess what, if you can't have energy then other aspects of your economy is at risk and we've got to protect those industries that can't run on coal and surprisingly can't run on electricity. There's a lot of industry, heavy industry that needs gas and if we haven't got it domestically in the short term, we need to be able to import it.”&nbsp;
Yeah. Like absolutely phase out fossil fuels, totally, let's do it and we've been talking about it since probably the 70’s – possibly earlier than that. I mean that's when I first started reading newspapers when I was at primary school and that's when I can remember talking about the need not to rely on fossil fuels. All for it. But you have to have a reliable alternative – a sustainable, inexpensive alternative. You can't just stop producing energy without providing another sustainable source of power. Hoping and wishing for something better and nicer and cleaner and greener is not a strategy. &nbsp;
You can't just legislate sustainable energy out of thin air. Look at the disastrous result of various governments around the world legislating to force car manufacturers into producing more EVs to save the planet. Major automakers and EV startups have collectively incurred more than $114 billion , and those are real dollars, $114 billion in losses on EVs in the US and Europe, in basically three and a half years between 2022 and early 2026, driven by aggressive government electrification targets that outpaced consumer demand. People weren't convinced. Show me the electrical network that can sustain me being able to power these vehicles. Show me that they're safe. Show me that they're suitable for all terrains and all weather. As of February 2026, the cumulative financial hit from vaporised EV bets, write downs, and production cuts for the big three Detroit automakers GM, Ford, and Stellantis is estimated at roughly $52.1 billion. You might have heard Mike talking about Stellantis shares going down the toilet this morning. &nbsp;
You can't just make people do things. This is a top down decision from the governments – we will not use fossil fuels. The people at the bottom who are making stuff, generating exports, providing jobs, driving to get from point A to point B, either driving their exports to different ports or driving to work to produce the exports, have to be convinced and confident that there's another source of energy that is reliable, sustainable, and relatively inexpensive that doesn't put their exports beyond the reach of buyers. And until such time, they're not going to they're not going to fall into line because it would be financial suicide. &nbsp;
It's a nice idea, it absolutely is, and we make the most of what we have, the resources around us, where they're renewable, yes let's use them. But the Greens won't let us put in any hydro dams. Can you imagine? I think my grandchildren's grandchildren probably wouldn't live to see that. There's not enough sun, as Simon Watts said, it's dark at night. The wind is not consistent. It's pie in the sky. Until such time as we have sustainable, inexpensive alternative fuel sources, we need to shore up the energy supply we have now. Sure, save the planet, but if there's nobody bloody on it, what's the point?&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Until we have sustainable, reliable alternatives, we need to stock up on fuel

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/07dc30ae-c8ad-4648-848c-b3ec0174cb71/transcript

Today, we thought we'd have a look at jury duty, given a story in the New Zealand Herald this morning. I've only been called for jury service once, a couple of years ago, before Covid, which isn't really a couple of years, is it? It's like six years ago. I was keen as mustard. Couldn't wait. 

Fortunately, I have a very supportive employer who's able to sustain me doing my jury service. So I was able to take the week off and I duly reported to the Auckland District Court on the Monday along with a million other people. So we sort of sat around for a while and then somebody with a clipboard called us all together and I was absolutely chuffed to be selected in the first pool of potential jurors, but I didn't make the final 12 We were sitting in the courtroom, but my name wasn't called. Really did feel like I'd failed an audition.

So we trooped back downstairs, those that didn't make it, and I found the person with the clipboard and said, "Look, if I do get called, can we make sure it's a short, sharp jury trial because I'm off to Europe at the end of the week?" And she said, "Oh, don't bother. It's fine. Don't bother coming back." Thanked me for my service and that was that. Couldn't have been easier.

There were a lot of people milling around waiting to do their jury service and I knew about three of them. Very convivial. I'd brought a book, but I didn't really need it. One of those who milled recently, though, a 57 year old Auckland chap, is in the Herald this morning. He said it was a terrible time. He's incredulous that we have such an inefficient, expensive way of administering justice. He added up the daily rate paid to would be jurors and the reimbursement for parking fees, and although to each individual it's a pittance, it all adds up. And he says given that it's taxpayer money, there needs to be a better way of doing things.

He didn't put this in his calculations, but could have. What about the lost productivity to companies that release their employees or for self employed people who have to give up their work to do their civic duty? Official Information Act figures from the Herald, they were supplied by the Ministry of Justice, shows that 7,138,000 was paid in fees and expenses to potential jurors who attended jury service in New Zealand in 2024 Like, it is an individual pittance, but man, he's right, it does add up. More than $7 million, and how much of that is wasted money? Help is on the way.

Acting Minister of Justice, Courts and Justice Services Policy Acting General Manager Megan Noyce said the Regulatory Systems Courts Amendment Bill includes two amendments aimed at making the jury selection process more efficient. The Justice Committee has examined it and it's recommended that it be passed. The first amendment will enable summoned jurors to attend court only when required by the court. It would allow multiple jury panels to be convened in a week, one for each trial, instead of all jurors summoned for that week attending every day.

The second amendment would allow the first part of jury selection to take place outside the court precinct, so you don't have to sit there and mill and catch up with old mates and read your book. It can be done electronically. Electronic balloting would be introduced in the future once the bill is passed and only jurors selected in the ballot would need to attend court. The remainder would only need to attend if they're selected for another trial during that week. So that bill's at the second reading stage.

Presumably, there would be no strong objections from any party to it passing. Should we take the savings we make on jury selection and pass them on to those who actually make it onto the jury? Defence lawyer John Munro told the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning that a decent fee might be a way to reinforce that it's important to do your civic duty.

Given the low figures, I'd actually like to see jury members get more money for sitting on juries because

You reckon that would fix it?

Not necessarily, not won't necessarily fix it, but I do shudder sometimes. I think it's something like $60 or $60 a day for a juror to sit on a jury and I think that's just not enough for people that are self employed. I think a lot of employers need to cover that cost and they should do so in their employment contracts.

Yeah, I mean, if you're self employed, how on earth do you justify it? How on earth can you justify doing your civic duty, which is really, really important, when it's $60 a day? You have to see it basically as a donation of your time because you're not going to see the money back. And employers take a big hit when they let their employees off. And yet it is vitally important.

You probably don't see it as vitally important when you turn up and see that kind of inefficiency. If you are somebody who's in business for yourself, that kind of inefficiency smacks you in the face, doesn't it? You look at that and think, What on earth's going on here? There's a million ways I could make this more efficient, less costly to the taxpayer, and still get the job done, and in fact possibly get the job done better." I would love to hear your experiences, especially if you have been on jury service in recent times. How would you make it better? Do the bills go far enough? Would you like to see an increase in the fee paid to those who actually make it onto juries? And when it comes to juries, do you trust them? Would you select trial by jury if you found yourself in court up on a serious charge? Do you have faith that your fellow New Zealanders would be able to reach a fair decision, would be unbiased, unprejudiced, understand the court proceedings? How much faith do you have in your fellow man?

LISTEN ABOVE

Today, we thought we'd have a look at jury duty, given a story in the New Zealand Herald this morning. I've only been called for jury service once, a couple of years ago, before Covid, which isn't really a couple of years, is it? It's like six years ago. I was keen as mustard. Couldn't wait.&nbsp;
Fortunately, I have a very supportive employer who's able to sustain me doing my jury service. So I was able to take the week off and I duly reported to the Auckland District Court on the Monday along with a million other people. So we sort of sat around for a while and then somebody with a clipboard called us all together and I was absolutely chuffed to be selected in the first pool of potential jurors, but I didn't make the final 12 We were sitting in the courtroom, but my name wasn't called. Really did feel like I'd failed an audition.
So we trooped back downstairs, those that didn't make it, and I found the person with the clipboard and said, "Look, if I do get called, can we make sure it's a short, sharp jury trial because I'm off to Europe at the end of the week?" And she said, "Oh, don't bother. It's fine. Don't bother coming back." Thanked me for my service and that was that. Couldn't have been easier.
There were a lot of people milling around waiting to do their jury service and I knew about three of them. Very convivial. I'd brought a book, but I didn't really need it. One of those who milled recently, though, a 57 year old Auckland chap, is in the Herald this morning. He said it was a terrible time. He's incredulous that we have such an inefficient, expensive way of administering justice. He added up the daily rate paid to would be jurors and the reimbursement for parking fees, and although to each individual it's a pittance, it all adds up. And he says given that it's taxpayer money, there needs to be a better way of doing things.
He didn't put this in his calculations, but could have. What about the lost productivity to companies that release their employees or for self employed people who have to give up their work to do their civic duty? Official Information Act figures from the Herald, they were supplied by the Ministry of Justice, shows that 7,138,000 was paid in fees and expenses to potential jurors who attended jury service in New Zealand in 2024 Like, it is an individual pittance, but man, he's right, it does add up. More than $7 million, and how much of that is wasted money? Help is on the way.
Acting Minister of Justice, Courts and Justice Services Policy Acting General Manager Megan Noyce said the Regulatory Systems Courts Amendment Bill includes two amendments aimed at making the jury selection process more efficient. The Justice Committee has examined it and it's recommended that it be passed. The first amendment will enable summoned jurors to attend court only when required by the court. It would allow multiple jury panels to be convened in a week, one for each trial, instead of all jurors summoned for that week attending every day.
The second amendment would allow the first part of jury selection to take place outside the court precinct, so you don't have to sit there and mill and catch up with old mates and read your book. It can be done electronically. Electronic balloting would be introduced in the future once the bill is passed and only jurors selected in the ballot would need to attend court. The remainder would only need to attend if they're selected for another trial during that week. So that bill's at the second reading stage.
Presumably, there would be no strong objections from any party to it passing. Should we take the savings we make on jury selection and pass them on to those who actually make it onto the jury? Defence lawyer John Munro told the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning that a decent fee might be a way to reinforce that it's important to do your civic duty.
Given the low figures, I'd actually like to see jury members get more money for sitting on juries because
You reckon that would fix it?
Not necessarily, not won't necessarily fix it, but I do shudder sometimes. I think it's something like $60 or $60 a day for a juror to sit on a jury and I think that's just not enough for people that are self employed. I think a lot of employers need to cover that cost and they should do so in their employment contracts.
Yeah, I mean, if you're self employed, how on earth do you justify it? How on earth can you justify doing your civic duty, which is really, really important, when it's $60 a day? You have to see it basically as a donation of your time because you're not going to see the money back. And employers take a big hit when they let their employees off. And yet it is vitally important.
You probably don't see it as vitally important when you turn up and see that kind of inefficiency. If you are somebody who's in business for yourself, that kind of inefficiency smacks you in the face, doesn't it? You look at that and think, What on earth's going on here? There's a million ways I could make this more efficient, less costly to the taxpayer, and still get the job done, and in fact possibly get the job done better." I would love to hear your experiences, especially if you have been on jury service in recent times. How would you make it better? Do the bills go far enough? Would you like to see an increase in the fee paid to those who actually make it onto juries? And when it comes to juries, do you trust them? Would you select trial by jury if you found yourself in court up on a serious charge? Do you have faith that your fellow New Zealanders would be able to reach a fair decision, would be unbiased, unprejudiced, understand the court proceedings? How much faith do you have in your fellow man?
LISTEN ABOVE

Kerre Woodham: Our jury system has an efficiency problem

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/c6375cfe-281b-465a-887c-b3eb0183b9da/transcript

Mike Casey: Rewiring Aotearoa CEO says we should burn our coal stockpile instead of importing LNG

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips