• Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

  • By: Newstalk ZB
  • Podcast

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

By: Newstalk ZB
Listen for free

  • Summary

  • 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.
    2024 Newstalk ZB
    Show More Show Less
Political Science
Show More Show Less
activate_samplebutton_t1
Episodes
  • Kerre Woodham: Should juries be reserved for the big-ticket crimes?

    Kerre Woodham: Should juries be reserved for the big-ticket crimes?
    Sep 20 2024
    There's an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied. It's a legal maxim that means if legal redress to an injured party is available, but it's not forthcoming in a timely fashion, that's effectively the same as having no remedy at all. I don't think it's entirely true - a conviction and a prison term would bring some relief for victims of serious crime, but the stress of waiting years to see that justice delivered would be a heavy burden for the victim and their families. The Government's looking for feedback on ways to speed up the court process. Currently, people can choose a jury trial if they're charged with an offence that has a maximum penalty of two years or more in prison. The discussion document from the Government is requesting feedback on whether that threshold should be extended to three years or more, five years or more, or seven years or more. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith told Heather du Plessis-Allan last night how the changes might work: PG: There will be arguments around three years, five years or seven years. Seven years would be a big change, and it would certainly have a huge impact on the overall efficiency of the courts, but of course you’ve got to balance that against, you know, the ancient right. And so I think it would be an interesting discussion. I certainly think we should lift it, it's just a question of how far. HDPA: What kind of a crime we're talking about that carries seven years in jail? PG: Well, things like tax evasion and arson. HDPA: Indecent assault? PG: Yes, and so five years for thinking of things like aggravated assault and three years, it would be things like, you know, driving while disqualified or with excess breath alcohol. HDPA: I don't think you should go for a jury if you've just been pinged boozing behind the wheel, do you? PG: Well if you lift it to three years you'd exclude those and so yeah, I think that's a very reasonable starting point. That was Heather talking to Paul Goldsmith last night. Law Association Vice President Julie-Anne Kincade told Mike Hosking this morning that right now in the Auckland District Court, you'll get a jury trial faster than a judge-alone trial. And we need to be careful about using a “blunt tool” to try to solve the problem of the backlog within the courts. And certainly, there are improvements to the court process she outlined that have come into play just this year. Category 1 and 2 offences are heard in the district court before a judge alone. You don't have the choice of a jury trial. Category 3 offences that carry a maximum penalty of two or more years in prison, you do get the choice right now. Category 3 offences could include aggravated assault, threatening to kill, dangerous driving, or a third or more drunk driving conviction - that boozed behind the wheel one that Heather was talking about. So that's Category 3 where you do get the choice of judge-alone or jury. They are serious offences, but do we really need a jury of our peers to sit in judgment of those crimes? Shouldn't we save the jury trials for the most serious crimes, the ones that are heard in the High Court -the murder, the manslaughter, the rape, the aggravated robbery? Jury trials are vitally important, they date back to Athens. Chief Justice Sian Elias and her colleague in the Supreme Court, Justice McGrath, summed up the importance of the jury in the case of Siemer v Heron in 2012: "In exercising that function, jurors bring a diverse range of perspectives, personal experience and knowledge to bear in individual cases, which judges may lack. As fact finders, jurors determine which of the admissible evidence presented at trial is to be believed and acted upon. Juries ultimately decide whether the facts fit within a particular legal definition, according to community standards. In this way, they reflect the attitude of the community and their determination of guilt or innocence. The right to trial by jury is also generally seen as providing a safeguard against the arbitrary or oppressive enforcement of the law by the government." They go on to say that in cases where they feel the government or the forces of government through the prosecutor and through the police are using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, then juries will acquit. They'll go no, this is oppressive, this is unfair, you've been way too heavy-handed. We, the community think this is wrong and it's a way for the community to say to the state you've overstepped the mark. So vitally important. But should juries be reserved for the big-ticket crimes? Intuitively, I think yes, you know it should be for the big-ticket ones. But we don't want judges clearing up the backlog in the courts by whipping through cases without due thought and process. I'm not saying they would, and they don't at the moment. Judges seem to be a little bit too thoughtful, a little bit too considered for my liking from time to time. But if you're told...
    Show More Show Less
    7 mins
  • John MacDonald: Learning the hard way is the best way

    John MacDonald: Learning the hard way is the best way
    Sep 19 2024
    I am —and always have been— a huge believer in on-the-job training. When I left school, I wanted to be a journalist. But I didn’t go to polytech or university, I went and did a newspaper cadetship at the Otago Daily Times, in Dunedin. 1986 this was. And, even though day one was horrific, it was the best thing I could have done. Even though I turned up on day one thinking I was Christmas and went home that night feeling like Good Friday - despite that, I’m in no doubt that learning on-the-job was absolutely THE BEST way. The best way for me then, and the best way for anyone now. Which is why I’m loving the talk we’re hearing today from the Civil Contractors Association and the Motor Trade Association - who are both saying that we need more on-the-job training, more apprenticeships, and less theoretical stuff in the classrooms and lecture rooms. Let’s start with the civil contractors. We’re hearing today that if the Government is going to have any hope in hell of delivering the big infrastructure projects it’s promising to deliver, then the number of extra civil engineering and construction workers that are going to be needed is the same as the number of people who live in Ashburton. So, percentage-wise, we need about 50% more people working in roading and civil construction. And the timeframe is pretty tight, with government officials saying it needs to happen within the next two-to-three years. So we’re in a bind. The Government —which is talking a big game on new roads and infrastructure— is in even more of a bind. You might have heard the civil construction guy talking to Mike Hosking a couple of hours ago about this. He was saying that it’s probably going to mean they have to bring-in more workers from overseas. But he also said that we need to be doing much more to train more of our own people. And that was when he said the magic words - apprenticeships and on-the-job training. Fraser May is his name - and he was saying to Mike that they want to see more money going into work-based training, because that’s the best way for people to learn the skills they need to build the roads and put water pipes under the ground. He said companies do on-the-job training under their steam, but he reckons the Government needs to come to the party and put apprenticeships and work-based training on more of a pedestal. And I couldn’t agree more. Call me old hat or old school, but there is no way someone who learns in a classroom can be as good as someone who learns on the job. So hallelujah for the civil constructors wanting to see more apprenticeships and less essay-writing. The other outfit extolling the virtues of apprenticeships and work-based learning today is the Motor Trade Association. In fact, it’s one of about 20 organisations involved in the automotive sector that want to see a return to new mechanics being taught on-the-job. Lee Marshall, who is the chief executive of the Motor Trade Association, was also on with Mike earlier. And he says that when it comes to training people to be mechanics and auto electricians, the education sector has done a hopeless job keeping up with the pace of changes in the likes of motor vehicle technologies. Which is meaning people are coming out of these polytech programmes not as work ready as they would be if they had learnt on the job doing something like an old-school apprenticeship. He says the technology we see in cars is changing at an exponential rate, and the education sector needs to keep up with that —or should have kept up with that— and it hasn’t. So these motor industry organisations have written a big document and sent it through to the Ministry of Education and the Tertiary Education Commission telling them they’ve dropped the ball. Not only that, they’re also demanding that the Government takes training for the automotive industry away from the polytechs and put it back in the hands of the automotive industry itself. And just like I do with the civil contractors, I couldn’t agree with the people in the automotive industry. Because there is nothing better than learning on-the-job. Nothing better. I know from my experience - on-the-job training keeps it real; it knocks you down a peg or two if you need to be knocked-down a peg or too. Like I said earlier, I thought I was the bees knees when I left school to become a cadet newspaper reporter. I’d been editor of the school newspaper, I’d been a debater, I thought I knew it all. And, chances are, if I’d gone and done a journalism course at a polytech or a university, they would’ve allowed me to keep thinking that I was Christmas. But I didn’t go to university or polytech. I learned the hard way. Which, as it turned out, was the best way. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
    Show More Show Less
    5 mins
  • Liam Dann: NZ Herald Business Editor on the GDP falling 0.2% in the three months to June

    Liam Dann: NZ Herald Business Editor on the GDP falling 0.2% in the three months to June
    Sep 18 2024

    New Zealand's economy has barely escaped another technical recession.

    New Stats NZ figures show our Gross Domestic Product contracted 0.2% in the three months to June.

    Its revised figures downgrade the March quarter to show the economy grew just 0.1%, not the 0.2% initially estimated.

    Herald Business Editor at Large Liam Dann told John McDonald that minimal growth kept us out of another technical recession but doesn't change reality.

    He says with a lot of migration gains and population growth, on a per capita basis we're still in a recession.

    LISTEN ABOVE

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
    Show More Show Less
    5 mins

What listeners say about Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Average customer ratings

Reviews - Please select the tabs below to change the source of reviews.

Audible.co.uk reviews

Amazon reviews
No Reviews are Available