I've got a couple of questions around Mike Smith. 

Mike is back in the news because of his court case against big polluters. His case got upended by the recent Government move to block what they call "tort-based litigation" over climate change. 

Roughly speaking, the Government didn’t like the uncertainty these sort of cases create for business, and also that the decision in such matters lies with the Government, not the Mike Smiths of the world and adventurist judges who like the idea of a bit of legal exploration and dabble. 

That should have been that. Except it isn't, because Smith is back in court looking to argue the argument. 

The questions: 

1) Who pays for Mike Smith to spend his life in court? 

2) What do we do about the judicial process that allows seemingly endless claim and counterclaim, to the claim and counterclaim? 

3) What happened to the idea that the Government is the ultimate court, and we might want to bow to that idea just a bit more often? 

For every Mike Smith, who presumably has a legal mind or two on tap to dabble, there will be genuine cases of importance that are not heard. 

The judicial wheels are already hopelessly slow and exploratory musings can't be helping. 

America should be all the warning sign we need to avoid, at virtually all costs, the idea that you can simply have a stab at an idea in the hope you can find some sympathetic judge to rubber stamp Lord-knows-how many years and how many millions of dollars of mind-bending ideology that ties up businesses, lives and people in a process that may well end up nowhere. 

Clearly there are people like Smith who are born agitators, probably slightly bored, perhaps a bit aggro, but nevertheless dedicated to the idea of upset and stirring. 

Equally there will be those who have passed the bar who find the intellectual idea of bouncing a few controversial concepts about the place stimulating, if not fun and perhaps profitable. 

But most of the rest of us have a life to get on with and that includes Z Energy and Fonterra and the Government of the day. 

If Mike Smith wants to make law let him run for Parliament, our ultimate court. 

But short of that, surely there should be some rules that prevent the professional legal menace from wasting our time? 

I've got a couple of questions around Mike Smith.&nbsp;
Mike is back in the news because of his court case against big polluters. His case got upended by the recent Government move to block what they call "tort-based litigation" over climate change.&nbsp;
Roughly speaking, the Government didn’t like the uncertainty these sort of cases create for business, and also that the decision in such matters lies with the Government, not the Mike Smiths of the world and adventurist judges who like the idea of a bit of legal exploration and dabble.&nbsp;
That should have been that. Except it isn't, because Smith is back in court looking to argue the argument.&nbsp;
The questions:&nbsp;
1) Who pays for Mike Smith to spend his life in court?&nbsp;
2) What do we do about the judicial process that allows seemingly endless claim and counterclaim, to the claim and counterclaim?&nbsp;
3) What happened to the idea that the Government is the ultimate court, and we might want to bow to that idea just a bit more often?&nbsp;
For every Mike Smith, who presumably has a legal mind or two on tap to dabble, there will be genuine cases of importance that are not heard.&nbsp;
The judicial wheels are already hopelessly slow and exploratory musings can't be helping.&nbsp;
America should be all the warning sign we need to avoid, at virtually all costs, the idea that you can simply have a stab at an idea in the hope you can find some sympathetic judge to rubber stamp Lord-knows-how many years and how many millions of dollars of mind-bending ideology that ties up businesses, lives and people in a process that may well end up nowhere.&nbsp;
Clearly there are people like Smith who are born agitators, probably slightly bored, perhaps a bit aggro, but nevertheless dedicated to the idea of upset and stirring.&nbsp;
Equally there will be those who have passed the bar who find the intellectual idea of bouncing a few controversial concepts about the place stimulating, if not fun and perhaps profitable.&nbsp;
But most of the rest of us have a life to get on with and that includes Z Energy and Fonterra and the Government of the day.&nbsp;
If Mike Smith wants to make law let him run for Parliament, our ultimate court.&nbsp;
But short of that, surely there should be some rules that prevent the professional legal menace from wasting our time?&nbsp;

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.

Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.

The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more.

The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show. Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda. The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more. The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion,...

The Mike Hosking Breakfast

Mike's Minute: Where are the rules protecting us from legal menaces?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/76dddd16-0c23-47ef-a387-b47b0175d37f/transcript