Speaker 1: You're listening to a podcast from news talks it be.
Speaker 1: Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1: It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
Speaker 1: the information, all the debates of the down the Layton
Speaker 1: Smith podcast powered by news talks it.
Speaker 2: B Welcome to podcasts two hundred and sixty seven for
Speaker 2: twenty seven November twenty twenty four. You know when the
Speaker 2: New Zealand Parliamentary debating chamber was reduced to a comedic stage. Recently,
Speaker 2: the whole world took notice. Over the years, this country
Speaker 2: has been ridiculed on numerous occasions, more so during the
Speaker 2: adern administration. And come to think of it, there have
Speaker 2: been numerous counts of New Zealand politicians in particular making
Speaker 2: this country appear as a non civilized backwater. But the
Speaker 2: latest event stands isolated in the ranks of stupidity. The target,
Speaker 2: David Seymour, deserves congratulating for his demeanor. The patience of
Speaker 2: mister Speaker was too much to bear. His inability to
Speaker 2: enforce suspension of the perpetrator exemplifies many failings in our system. Unfortunately,
Speaker 2: surrender was the worst option I've had Inquiries from friends, family,
Speaker 2: and from listeners overseas as to what the heck is
Speaker 2: happening to New Zealand, and I would bet that many
Speaker 2: of you have also, So for those who don't understand
Speaker 2: the position we find ourselves in, David Seymour, the Act
Speaker 2: Party leader, provides answers to most of those questions. He is,
Speaker 2: after all the man of the moment with the Treaty
Speaker 2: Principle's Bill. But first Cop twenty nine has just concluded
Speaker 2: in Maaku in Azerbaijan. As usual, there were a dramatic
Speaker 2: number of people there, far more than is necessary, and
Speaker 2: it cost megabucks, as it always does huge And I
Speaker 2: might touch on some of that the back end of
Speaker 2: the podcast, but I want to give you an example
Speaker 2: of why all this is a waste of time. It's
Speaker 2: one of many, many, many, but it's the most recent
Speaker 2: that's come to the hand. It was published today November
Speaker 2: twenty seven, written by Frank Battini, who was a forester
Speaker 2: and environmental scientist, previously an adjunct professor of environmental science
Speaker 2: at a Murdoch College or the Murdoch University in Western Australia.
Speaker 2: It's published in Quadrant magazine and I'll give you a
Speaker 2: bit more detail. I remember at the end headed bad
Speaker 2: models and worse science in West Australia. Within government, academia
Speaker 2: and the media. In Western Australia, it is now virtually
Speaker 2: an undeniable truth that rainfall in the southwest of the
Speaker 2: state is in permanent decline and that this is caused
Speaker 2: by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The
Speaker 2: premise is that only net zero by twenty fifty will
Speaker 2: correct the situation. However, this is a deception based on
Speaker 2: flawed models and failure to consider long term rainfall records.
Speaker 2: Rainfall data collected over a period of one hundred and
Speaker 2: sixty years support an alternative hypothesis. Rainfall patterns follow multidecadaled cycles,
Speaker 2: and there have been many periods in our history when
Speaker 2: the climate has been wetter or drier than average. As
Speaker 2: I will outline below, my attempt to discuss this alternative
Speaker 2: scenario with model makers and government have been fruitless. Simply put,
Speaker 2: climate modelers and proponents of climate change are in the
Speaker 2: ascendency and they choose to ignore the empirical data because
Speaker 2: you're ready, because their models cannot explain it. In this discussion,
Speaker 2: I start with four things about which the model makers
Speaker 2: and I agree. I don't dispute the carbon dioxide SEE
Speaker 2: two is one of the greenhouse gases, although by far
Speaker 2: not the most dominant. I agree that rainfall has been
Speaker 2: generally below long term averages over the last or over
Speaker 2: recent decades. I also agree that without greenhouse gases, our
Speaker 2: earth would be inhospitably cold and humans would not have evolved.
Speaker 2: And finally, CO two is not a dangerous pollutant. It
Speaker 2: is a key ingredient in the process of photosynthesis, without
Speaker 2: which all humans would die. Do they teach that to
Speaker 2: kids in school when they teach the other crap? He
Speaker 2: goes on. Where the model makers and I disagree, however,
Speaker 2: is with the assertion that our below average rainfall, which
Speaker 2: they call a drying trend since nineteen seventy, is a
Speaker 2: result of rising levels of CO two and increased temperature.
Speaker 2: The WA Department of Water and Environmental Regulation reduced to
Speaker 2: dwer or clearly believe this. Indeed, they go even further.
Speaker 2: Their climate model makers project a trend line of further
Speaker 2: decreases in rainfall via up to fifteen percent by twenty thirty,
Speaker 2: and by a further twenty five to forty five percent
Speaker 2: by twenty ninety, depending on whether intermediate or high emission
Speaker 2: scenarios of carbon dioxide are used in their model. The
Speaker 2: post nineteen seventy decline in rainfall in the southwest of
Speaker 2: West Australia is said to be the most extreme in
Speaker 2: Australia and likened by Duur to the Canary in the
Speaker 2: coal mine. It is receiving special attention and attracting funds.
Speaker 2: The WA government has recently funded a three million dollar
Speaker 2: climate change initiative study, the aim being to further refine
Speaker 2: climate models. This initiative can be traced back directly to
Speaker 2: duurs dramatically pessimistic projections of future rainfall. One more little paragraph.
Speaker 2: There is an intriguing flaw in all of this. The
Speaker 2: climate modelers have overlooked one of the most basic principles
Speaker 2: in the science of trend analysis and projection. This is
Speaker 2: the choice of baseline, the starting point from which a
Speaker 2: trend is analyzed. Selection of baseline is critical, since an
Speaker 2: inappropriate selection will lead to incorrect conclusions and to flawed projections.
Speaker 2: The baseline year that WA climate model makers have chosen
Speaker 2: is nineteen fifty. I shall leave it there. Bad models
Speaker 2: and worse science from quadrant dot org dot Au November
Speaker 2: twenty seven. Now at the back end of two sixty seven,
Speaker 2: after the mail room and possibly a little more on climate,
Speaker 2: there is a missive from someone known as a former
Speaker 2: National Party MP and I don't think you want to
Speaker 2: miss it, but in a moment David Seymour. Leverrix is
Speaker 2: an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality. Leverix
Speaker 2: relieves hay fever in skin, allergies or itchy skin. It's
Speaker 2: a dual action antihistamine and has a unique nasal decongestent action.
Speaker 2: It's fast acting for fast relief and it works in
Speaker 2: under an hour and lasts for over twenty four hours.
Speaker 2: Leverrix is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose, deals
Speaker 2: with itchy eyes, and stops sneezing. Leverrix is an antihistamine
Speaker 2: made in Switzerland to the highest quantity. So next time
Speaker 2: you're in need of an effective antihistamine, call into the
Speaker 2: pharmacy and ask for Leverrix lv Rix, Leverrix and always
Speaker 2: read the label. Take as directed and if symptoms persist,
Speaker 2: see your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland Layton Smith David Seymour,
Speaker 2: Act Party leader soon to be Deputy Prime Minister, Man
Speaker 2: of the moment. So it seems it's good to have
Speaker 2: you back on the Laton Smith podcast and thank you.
Speaker 2: I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: No, thank you, Laton. That's always a good conversation.
Speaker 2: Here, David. I have had lots of inquiries from people,
Speaker 2: including overseas, wanting to know what the story is that
Speaker 2: we're about to discuss the Treaty Principles Bill and the
Speaker 2: why it is causing such of us and how did
Speaker 2: we get here. I thought it appropriate to approach it
Speaker 2: from a historical point of view and go back to
Speaker 2: wherever you think might be the beginning of this and
Speaker 2: develop it, not necessarily in every detail, but in enough
Speaker 2: so that people can get a grasp on it. So
Speaker 2: let me make a comment first. To me, the situation
Speaker 2: we find ourselves in is very largely the responsibility of
Speaker 2: administrations through the years, different administrations of both sides of
Speaker 2: the isle, who have handled things incompetently. Now, starting where
Speaker 2: you think the beginning should be, do you agree with
Speaker 2: that or where would you go?
Speaker 4: I do, but I'll go right back. I think about
Speaker 4: sixty million years, New Zealand became a land mass very
Speaker 4: isolated from the rest of the world, one of the
Speaker 4: reasons we have such unusual bird life and flora and
Speaker 4: flauna generally. And it wasn't until about thirteen hundred that
Speaker 4: some Polynesian explorers found New Zealand's and settled here and
Speaker 4: became the Maori people, and they lived in total isolation
Speaker 4: until sixteen forty two when Abel Tasman from the Netherlands
Speaker 4: staled past and lived without contact with Europeans until seventeen
Speaker 4: six nine when Captain Cook actually landed. And throughout the
Speaker 4: late seventeen hundreds and early eighteen hundreds there was some
Speaker 4: settlement in some trading of Europeans, but only in the
Speaker 4: low hundreds, perhaps the low thousands. By eighteen thirty five
Speaker 4: there was a little bit of friction. A lot of
Speaker 4: Mari had traveled at least to Sydney, in some cases
Speaker 4: to London. They started to think about what a nation
Speaker 4: state would look like, and some northern Maori issued Hefakaputia,
Speaker 4: or the Declaration of Independence, which they would regard as
Speaker 4: creating an independent and separate nation. By eighteen forty things
Speaker 4: were getting more difficult. The French were sniffing around the
Speaker 4: South Pacific. There'd been mass conflict amongst Maori due to
Speaker 4: being provided with muskets, which they used to settle old
Speaker 4: scores and kill almost ends of thousands of people in
Speaker 4: the Musket Wars. And so the idea of this supposedly
Speaker 4: independent nation forming some sort of relationship with the British
Speaker 4: Crown seemed very appealing because, as I mentioned, some had
Speaker 4: been to London, some had been to Sydney. They saw
Speaker 4: that the United Kingdom as being the superpower of its day,
Speaker 4: as they'd found out once they got hold of the muskets,
Speaker 4: and they were eager for the rights and duties of
Speaker 4: British citizens for the protection of the British Crown, partly
Speaker 4: from the settlers and partly from each other.
Speaker 3: And so they signed this.
Speaker 4: Treaty at Waititony on the sixth of February eighteen forty.
Speaker 4: I think what nobody at that time had anticipated was
Speaker 4: quite how rapidly Europeans would come. And so by the
Speaker 4: end of the nineteen hundreds you had over half a
Speaker 4: million Europeans here, and the Maori population had actually shrunk
Speaker 4: due to disease and conflict and so on, to a
Speaker 4: tenth of that. And so I think, you know, there's
Speaker 4: probably a fair grievance that in that period, in the
Speaker 4: late nineteenth century to late eighteen hundreds, that is a
Speaker 4: lot of things that nobody could.
Speaker 3: Have anticipated happened.
Speaker 4: And through the twentieth century, you know, a rising movement
Speaker 4: came about to try and restore the Maru language and
Speaker 4: culture the place of Maori. Serapurana Nata, who was on
Speaker 4: the fifty dollar note, played an incredible role in really
Speaker 4: revitalizing a culture again. And by the sixties and seventies,
Speaker 4: just like around the world, you had a lot of
Speaker 4: revolts and a lot of people protesting and campaigning for
Speaker 4: different movements all over the place. In New Zealand, you
Speaker 4: had the idea that they needed to a real reckoning
Speaker 4: in New Zealand's race relations and a change in our
Speaker 4: constitutional arrangement. And that gets you to nineteen seventy five
Speaker 4: when the Treaty of White Tangy X was passed. It
Speaker 4: created the White Tangy Tribunal and it said that there
Speaker 4: were principles of the treaty, but nobody knew what they
Speaker 4: were and nobody really asked the question for another twelve
Speaker 4: years when Parliament passed a law saying that in order
Speaker 4: to privatize some hydro electricity companies, the government would observe
Speaker 4: the principles of the treaty. So the Maori Council went
Speaker 4: off to the Court of Appeal and they said, well,
Speaker 4: we think the principles are that the treaty formed a
Speaker 4: partnership between races. It involves active care and protection on
Speaker 4: the part of the Crown towards Maori. And all of
Speaker 4: a sudden you had this idea that there was a
Speaker 4: group of people who were in partnership either with all
Speaker 4: Europeans or at least with the Crown, and all of
Speaker 4: a sudden our country was divided into collectives. And over
Speaker 4: the ensuing fifty years, the White Hangh Tribunal, the courts,
Speaker 4: at some point the Public Service have tried to expand
Speaker 4: and define those principles. But where it got us to
Speaker 4: buy about twenty twenty twenty twenty one is that the
Speaker 4: partnership principle that New Zealand is an amalgam of two
Speaker 4: collectives based on ancestry.
Speaker 3: Had really gone full flight.
Speaker 4: So we had to have a separate Maori Health Authority
Speaker 4: because there's two partners we had to have co governance
Speaker 4: of three waters, the municipal infrastructure. We had to have
Speaker 4: two chief executives at the Human Rights Commission, one representing
Speaker 4: each side of the partnership.
Speaker 3: Schools or school boards.
Speaker 4: Were required to give effect to the treaty, meaning that
Speaker 4: they had to teach children to live in this bicultural way.
Speaker 4: And so all of a sudden, New Zealand had been
Speaker 4: transformed from a country that practiced liberal democracy with equal
Speaker 4: individual rights for each person to live and thrive in
Speaker 4: their own way. Instead, we had become this compact of
Speaker 4: two collectives defined by ancestry.
Speaker 3: And at that point the government changed. And here we are.
Speaker 2: I've never allowed, or nobody's ever taken such a length
Speaker 2: of time for an opening statement, but I let your
Speaker 2: roll because it was worthy. And even I picked up
Speaker 2: a couple of points I was unfamiliar with. I was
Speaker 2: of the opinion that it was Jeffrey Palmer who introduced
Speaker 2: the partnership plot.
Speaker 4: Well, he certainly was involved in the State and Enterprises
Speaker 4: Act in nineteen eighty six, which was the subject of
Speaker 4: the nineteen eighty seven Court of Appeal Act. That's the
Speaker 4: thing I referred to with the hydroelectricity. And I know
Speaker 4: that Palmer has been found on the record saying well,
Speaker 4: you know, now that this has been decided by the.
Speaker 3: Courts, that's out of reach of politicians.
Speaker 4: I think Sir Jeffrey may have even practiced a certain
Speaker 4: element of self loathing, and that he was always eager
Speaker 4: for things to be dealt with by judges, lawyers and
Speaker 4: courtrooms rather than politicians.
Speaker 2: Well that was contagious, of course, and it continues today.
Speaker 2: But we might get onto that a little later, although
Speaker 2: here I am sort of touching on it. Anyway, the
Speaker 2: assumption of different opinions some would like to call them facts,
Speaker 2: and the operation off the back of that assumption is
Speaker 2: something that has further got us into trouble. I feel
Speaker 2: the assumptions haven't been arrested on birth, and so they
Speaker 2: have grown. And I'll give you a prime example that
Speaker 2: of a tier rower, all of a sudden, a tier
Speaker 2: rower who came into play instead of New Zealand. And
Speaker 2: it was first of all a tier row in New Zealand,
Speaker 2: and it has become on frequent occasions, many occasions simply
Speaker 2: a ti rower has replaced the name New Zealand. People
Speaker 2: have the assumption that that's what it now is, because
Speaker 2: it's it's been formally adopted, which it hasn't, of course,
Speaker 2: But that is only one example of probably many.
Speaker 4: You say, well, it's a very good example of a
Speaker 4: change that has happened seemingly stealthily. I have to say,
Speaker 4: of all of the things that's happened, that's probably the
Speaker 4: one that bothers me the least. I suspect that if
Speaker 4: you take all the politics out and just ask yourself,
Speaker 4: if you've got two competing names, which one is likely
Speaker 4: to succeed in the long term. And I suspect that
Speaker 4: just natural evolution of language will tend towards favoring the
Speaker 4: one that has got you know, an a at each
Speaker 4: and as symmetrical has quite a nice bounce to it.
Speaker 4: Enna's novel Versus New Zealand, which obviously is the country
Speaker 4: I grew up I'm very proud of. But I suspect
Speaker 4: just as a sheer question of which word will be
Speaker 4: easier to say and outcompete the other, I suspect that
Speaker 4: will happen anyway doesn't really bother me, except for when
Speaker 4: people do it to prove a point, which is just irritating.
Speaker 4: But that kind of virtures are going behavior as everywhere.
Speaker 2: Well, you're quite right about everywhere. But by the same token,
Speaker 2: if we're going to make a name change, and you're
Speaker 2: probably correct when you say that it's the least important,
Speaker 2: but nevertheless it is a prime example, as we've agreed.
Speaker 2: So if you're going to allow things to change and
Speaker 2: be adopted simply because of a bit of usage, but
Speaker 2: without people speaking about it, without there being I think
Speaker 2: there should be. If you're going to do that, it
Speaker 2: should be a referendum, same as it was to change
Speaker 2: the flag. Change the flag, change the name. You need
Speaker 2: a referendum.
Speaker 3: Well, I don't mind the idea of a referendum.
Speaker 4: I just point out that a lot of the usage
Speaker 4: that you're concerned about is by private companies, so you know,
Speaker 4: Votera Phone or One New Zealand as they like to
Speaker 4: call themselves, the phone company. You know, I'd be one
Speaker 4: of the first to defend the rights of a private
Speaker 4: company to practice free speech or an individual. The Olympic Committee,
Speaker 4: you know, while it receives government funding, is not part of.
Speaker 3: The government, and so you know, I suspect that you.
Speaker 4: Can make the argument there should be restrictions around organizations
Speaker 4: that use public funds. But you know, ultimately, you know
Speaker 4: you do run into free speech issues.
Speaker 3: Control what people call it.
Speaker 2: This is the virtue signaling though that you just referred
Speaker 2: to private companies who adopt it because they want to
Speaker 2: be considered as progressive.
Speaker 4: There's a difference between thinking someone's a bit tiresome and
Speaker 4: using legal force against them. You know, if we decided
Speaker 4: to lock up every tiresome virtue signaler and New Zealander josal.
Speaker 2: Be full, well, that might be a good thing, all
Speaker 2: right for the guards. Yes, Now let's get back to
Speaker 2: the situation at hand, the treaty principles build. Why did
Speaker 2: you pursue this? First of all, why did you pursue it?
Speaker 2: And secondly why?
Speaker 3: Now a couple of reasons why.
Speaker 4: I believe that New Zealand has really, I think being
Speaker 4: weakened in the last five years especially, but actually it's
Speaker 4: been going on for a long liver map, and it's
Speaker 4: been weakened by a local brand of identity politics. Identity
Speaker 4: politics makes for weak people because it tells people that
Speaker 4: they're either a victim or a villain, and their role
Speaker 4: in society really depends on things that they have no
Speaker 4: control over. So instead of telling children, you know, you
Speaker 4: can be anything, but you've got to put in the effort.
Speaker 3: We say, well, actually.
Speaker 4: You know, you've got a big problem, or you're oppressed
Speaker 4: or whatever because of things that happened long before you
Speaker 4: were born. And I look around the world, lots of
Speaker 4: countries have a version of this. It's divisive, it's disempowering,
Speaker 4: it weakens people. And what I'd like to see as
Speaker 4: a New Zealand based on strong people who have a
Speaker 4: sense of freedom under the law, responsibility for their actions,
Speaker 4: no discrimination. Now, one of the biggest impediments to doing
Speaker 4: that in New Zealand at the moment is the set
Speaker 4: of three D principles that set up the partnership as
Speaker 4: I described earlier, where a person, before you know how
Speaker 4: to deal with them, you have to know what their
Speaker 4: ancestry is so you can work out which side of
Speaker 4: the partnership go on and then kind of go from there.
Speaker 4: It's very tiring, it's very divisive, it stops you getting
Speaker 4: things done, and it actually SAPs people's attitudes and energies.
Speaker 4: So that's the key reason is that whether it's education
Speaker 4: and the economy, health, housing, all this transaction cost around
Speaker 4: different roles and responsibilities, all this disempowerment that comes from
Speaker 4: saying that your life is almost predetermined by historic events.
Speaker 3: That's what I'm against.
Speaker 4: And why now, Well, you know, in politics you don't
Speaker 4: get to choose your timing.
Speaker 3: I've campaigned for years on issues like this.
Speaker 4: I said in my maiden speech to Parliament as a
Speaker 4: thirty one year old and twenty fourteen that you know,
Speaker 4: it's strange that New Zealand, which is in many ways
Speaker 4: the freest, most equal society that has ever been created,
Speaker 4: is now desperately trying to reverse that as rapidly as possible.
Speaker 3: And I guess the reason for now is that I'm
Speaker 3: in a political position to do it. I would have
Speaker 3: liked to have done it earlier. I'm glad I didn't
Speaker 3: have to wait later.
Speaker 2: The reason that people are concerned about it happening now
Speaker 2: is because we've just come out of a six year
Speaker 2: crisis which continues. We're in very bad shape financially, people
Speaker 2: are fleeing the country. Things aren't well, let's put it
Speaker 2: that way. And more than one person obviously has suggested
Speaker 2: me in one form or another that now wasn't the
Speaker 2: time to do it, simply because we've got enough on
Speaker 2: our plates and what we really should be doing is
Speaker 2: concentrating on lifting the country back to somewhere near normal.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, I think sometimes people mix up activity
Speaker 4: and attention, So certainly the Treaty Principles Bill has got
Speaker 4: far more attention.
Speaker 3: Than anything else I'm doing. I mean, you know, wall
Speaker 3: to wall in the media.
Speaker 4: Every day, but actually, you know, this week we're going
Speaker 4: to announce the first charter school contracts.
Speaker 3: We've got that policy together in record times.
Speaker 4: We've fixed up healthy school lunchers, and we've got a
Speaker 4: whole new plan for school boards to work on school attendance.
Speaker 3: Now that that's just me, and that's just education.
Speaker 4: I've also got finance, regulation, health, being in charge of
Speaker 4: farming and so on.
Speaker 3: And then that's just one minister.
Speaker 4: If you go across to brook Fan Valden, look at
Speaker 4: what she's doing with health and safety at work, and
Speaker 4: you know, contracting provisions, a holidays Act. I could go on,
Speaker 4: but you get the point, right, Like I've only mentioned
Speaker 4: two ministers, and one of them only half of what
Speaker 4: they're doing. And you know, while the Treaty Principal spills
Speaker 4: getting a lot of attention, it's not stopping us from
Speaker 4: addressing those other issues and almost everything I just talked
Speaker 4: about somehow comes back to the economy.
Speaker 2: Well, that's very good, but what the problem is is
Speaker 2: the attention has been has come not from you so
Speaker 2: much as from the opposition to what you're doing. Go
Speaker 2: back to the event in Parliament the other day. Do
Speaker 2: they have a case that could be mounted successfully?
Speaker 4: Well, they've got one thing on their side is that
Speaker 4: the way they would like us to live is the
Speaker 4: way that most humans in most places, for most of
Speaker 4: history have lived, and that is in a tribal order
Speaker 4: where your loyalty to the leader is what matters.
Speaker 3: You play the role that you're born into and that's
Speaker 3: just your lot.
Speaker 4: I on the other hand, in favor of weird people,
Speaker 4: and by weird people, I mean Western educated, industrialized, rich
Speaker 4: and democratic, and that's the society they live in, a
Speaker 4: society where each individual has equal and analienable rights to
Speaker 4: sue their dreams and in their own self chosen way.
Speaker 3: So you know, that's basically the argument.
Speaker 4: And they have a lot going for them because there
Speaker 4: is something instinctive about that tribal way of life, and
Speaker 4: you see it from people in the Mariu world, but
Speaker 4: also unlimited people who email me and opposition to my bill,
Speaker 4: and they always say I am a fifty six year
Speaker 4: old Pakiha male or something like that. And what stands
Speaker 4: out to me is that these are people who like
Speaker 4: to identify their affiliation.
Speaker 3: It's usually the first thing they tell me in the email.
Speaker 4: They can't wait to tell me about their identity politics.
Speaker 4: So certainly they've got a lot going for them, and
Speaker 4: that they've got, you know, one hundred thousand years of
Speaker 4: human instinct too, you know.
Speaker 3: Bind and blind ourselves into tribes.
Speaker 2: So let's turn to the legal side of it and
Speaker 2: the courts, because the courts have something to answer for.
Speaker 2: In the opinion of lady of people I know, including
Speaker 2: some very good lawyers, the courts are or have become
Speaker 2: a law unto themselves, except you're not allowed to criticize them,
Speaker 2: or not supposedly. But the establishment of the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: was just one thing, very important matter along the journey
Speaker 2: to where we are at. And the Supreme Court has
Speaker 2: assumed currently the rights of the ultimate decision makers over
Speaker 2: and above even Parliament. And anybody who understands what Juju
Speaker 2: said knows that the rights remain with the people as
Speaker 2: expressed through their parliament. But the courts are behaving, shall
Speaker 2: we say badly?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean certainly.
Speaker 4: If you look at some of the recent decisions, for example,
Speaker 4: for the David Alice case where or Peter Alis case sorry,
Speaker 4: where they decided that takanor applied even though Alice had
Speaker 4: no real adherence to tea Kyger in his life, was
Speaker 4: quite extraordinary, and of course that now creates a precedent
Speaker 4: that all lawyers have to use. If it's an available defense,
Speaker 4: you've got a duty to give you a client the
Speaker 4: best defense they can, so you have to be.
Speaker 3: Aware of it. And that, I would say as an
Speaker 3: example of how.
Speaker 4: The court, and I'm not criticizing them for doing it.
Speaker 4: I'm just observing what they've done because I'm not allowed
Speaker 4: to criticize them. But they have certainly had an outsize
Speaker 4: approach on the culture and law of New Zealand by
Speaker 4: making that decision, Whereas I would have thought their job
Speaker 4: was simply to work out what the what the Parliament
Speaker 4: meant and apply it evenly unfairly to all citizens. That's
Speaker 4: what I thought it was. But they seem to have
Speaker 4: a much more expansive view. And I commend to people
Speaker 4: the New Zealand Initiatives Report, who makes the laws, which
Speaker 4: provides a set of actions a government could take to
Speaker 4: remedy the situation, which I'm certainly encouraging people to take
Speaker 4: up within government.
Speaker 2: Indeed, Roger Partridge was on the podcast a few weeks
Speaker 2: ago on precisely that. I'll also refer then to Professor
Speaker 2: mccunnock from Walklands University. Have you been reading his recent stuff.
Speaker 4: I have a dosage limit for Robert's writings, so in
Speaker 4: small doses.
Speaker 2: Yes, Well, I should ask you about Matthew Horton. Then
Speaker 2: his most well second, the last I think or very
Speaker 2: recent fifteen November. This has dated New Zealand's King's Councils
Speaker 2: don't understand constitutional law and amounts a very good case.
Speaker 2: So you've got an economist who's criticizing lawyers for not
Speaker 2: understanding their own their own business. But I think that
Speaker 2: he's I think that he's essentially right. There was a
Speaker 2: second one that goes even that goes even further. But
Speaker 2: speaking of the Institute, Roger Partridge wrote on tools to
Speaker 2: reign in judicial overreach, which he refers really to Parliament
Speaker 2: and Parliament taking taking charge and putting things back in order. Now,
Speaker 2: undoubtedly that would have your consent an affirmation. Is it
Speaker 2: blankly to happen.
Speaker 4: Well, that's entirely up to two people, Judith Colins, the
Speaker 4: Attorney General and Paul Goldsworth, the Minister of Justice, and
Speaker 4: I've certainly given them my view that they should be
Speaker 4: acting on it. But it's one of those leader horse
Speaker 4: to water situations. I mean a minister has to want
Speaker 4: to do with them in order for them to actually
Speaker 4: take the additionive and make it happen. So I don't
Speaker 4: know that those two have to decide, but they certainly
Speaker 4: had every expression.
Speaker 3: Of intention from me.
Speaker 4: Unfortunately, it's not something signed up in our coalition agreement,
Speaker 4: so everyone's just feeling their way on issues outside of that.
Speaker 2: Well, this comes back to something we've sort of touched
Speaker 2: on earlier on and that is strength. If things are
Speaker 2: out of kilter in the administration of the country and
Speaker 2: the representation of the people, then surely it's something that
Speaker 2: should be should be dealt with with some urgency.
Speaker 4: Well I don't disagree, but as I say, you know,
Speaker 4: I have things I'm responsible for in government.
Speaker 3: I do my best at those.
Speaker 4: And if they're in a coalition agreement, I know I
Speaker 4: argue strongly and ensure that they get done. If they're not,
Speaker 4: then I give people as much of my free advice
Speaker 4: as they'll take.
Speaker 3: But ultimately they have to want to drink.
Speaker 2: Based on the way things have shaped up, and we
Speaker 2: had a twenty two year old in Parliament leading the revolt,
Speaker 2: and there's plenty of others of a similar age group.
Speaker 2: Do you think that there is a generational issue that's
Speaker 2: involved here? Now, let me take it a step further.
Speaker 2: When I say a generational issue, I'm talking about life experience.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about specifically education and either the lack of
Speaker 2: it or the incorrectness of it that has contributed to
Speaker 2: people of a different age group from being prepared for
Speaker 2: the decisions that they are applying themselves to based on
Speaker 2: the fact that they are short on detail.
Speaker 4: Look, I think there's a couple of things. I absolutely
Speaker 4: agree with you it's generational. I think there's a couple
Speaker 4: of things going on. One is the classical economics analysis,
Speaker 4: if you like, and that is that if you're twenty
Speaker 4: two and you're sitting there looking at what you're likely
Speaker 4: to earn them the next ten years and what you
Speaker 4: need for a deposit for a house. A lot of
Speaker 4: people have come to a conclusion that if their parents
Speaker 4: aren't prepared to help them, they're not going to get there,
Speaker 4: and they're often right. And I think in some ways
Speaker 4: the reason that the HKOI was so big, and the
Speaker 4: reason that so many younger people are voting hard left,
Speaker 4: and they always have, but that trend does intensify, is
Speaker 4: partly because if the market economy that we all love
Speaker 4: and cherish doesn't give the next generation a pathway to
Speaker 4: their own prosperity, then they will look for other answers.
Speaker 4: And I think that's a serious problem that we all
Speaker 4: need to think about. And I watched Per poll Iff
Speaker 4: in Canada, the Conservative opposition leader who.
Speaker 3: Will almost certainly be Prime minister next year.
Speaker 4: He is leading a very sissful campaign because he's figured
Speaker 4: out that those young people are going to vote to
Speaker 4: whoever gets them a house, and he's somehow managing to
Speaker 4: carry all generations against Justin Trudeau. However, that's not the
Speaker 4: answer that you were alluding to. I think you're alluding
Speaker 4: to a different answer, which I also happened to support,
Speaker 4: and that is that there's been an intellectual revolution in
Speaker 4: the last sixty years coming out of the likes of FUCO,
Speaker 4: the continental philosophers, the postmodern who have really switched the
Speaker 4: world on its heads and said there is no reality,
Speaker 4: there's just perception, and therefore the person perceiving the thing
Speaker 4: is just as important as the thing itself. And that's
Speaker 4: why you hear people saying I'm speaking or writing from
Speaker 4: a blah blah blah perspective or as an identity insert
Speaker 4: here person. I believe you've created this whole idea that
Speaker 4: it's not what you do, but who you.
Speaker 3: Are that matters. And I think that has.
Speaker 4: Happened around the world, but it is mainly manifested in
Speaker 4: New Zealand as a Mari identity. So because I'm Mari,
Speaker 4: I have a totally different outlook on the world. That's
Speaker 4: the most important thing about me, and therefore everything that
Speaker 4: happens in the world has to be.
Speaker 3: Seen through through that lens because that's.
Speaker 4: How I look at them. That's that's become pervasive. And
Speaker 4: of course it's the complete opposite of the basic liberal idea,
Speaker 4: and I'm in the classical liberal idea that each of
Speaker 4: us is a thinking and valuing being with equal rights
Speaker 4: and dignity. There is an objective physical world, and we
Speaker 4: can all join hands and through the scientific method study it.
Speaker 4: That's that's the old view, but I agree postmodernism has
Speaker 4: marched through the institutions and I think influencing a lot
Speaker 4: of younger people's thinking.
Speaker 2: Any suggestions how that can be corrected.
Speaker 4: Well, on the economics of it, we've got to make
Speaker 4: markets work, so there's genuine economic opportunity, I think. On
Speaker 4: the more philosophical side, I mean, first of all, you know,
Speaker 4: it's always better to fight something that you can name.
Speaker 4: Once you've identified the problem and put a name on it,
Speaker 4: it's much easier to fight. And then you've got to
Speaker 4: start pointing out to people the virtues of the enlightenment
Speaker 4: that you know, people want to say that Marie life
Speaker 4: expectancy on average is shorter than European I just make
Speaker 4: a few observations about that. Number One, everyone's life expectancy
Speaker 4: in New Zealand is about twice what it was two
Speaker 4: hundred years ago. Number two, why do you start by
Speaker 4: grouping people into ethnicities in the first place. Number three,
Speaker 4: If you're going to group people by ethnicity, well I
Speaker 4: think that's pretty odious. But how do you explain Asians
Speaker 4: living longer on average? Is the answer that they're all
Speaker 4: racially oppressing white people who don't live as long as them.
Speaker 4: You know, you quickly get into absurdities when you play
Speaker 4: this identity politics game. What would be better is to say,
Speaker 4: on the basis of good science and technology, we can
Speaker 4: overcome our problems and all of us can live even longer.
Speaker 2: The situation in New Zealand at the moment, aside from
Speaker 2: what we started out discussing, is to you how serious.
Speaker 4: Well, I think that there's always been a danger that
Speaker 4: New Zealand will go the way of most places that
Speaker 4: look like us on a map. So if you look
Speaker 4: at the globe and you look for places with nice beaches,
Speaker 4: nice weather, nice people, and a bit of isolation. You
Speaker 4: get to the g you get to Cuba, you get
Speaker 4: to Greece, you get to Jamaica, all kind of nice
Speaker 4: places to go, but ultimately, you know, not somewhere you'd
Speaker 4: want to live your whole life if you had a choice.
Speaker 4: And I think we're, you know, in real danger that
Speaker 4: this she'll be right attitude will become the majority, especially
Speaker 4: with a number of people leaving at the moment and
Speaker 4: who have already left, that we will actually kind of
Speaker 4: become permanently second World.
Speaker 3: I think that's a very real danger for.
Speaker 2: New Zealand right now, and you'd you'd fix it.
Speaker 3: By well, you can only fix it by but.
Speaker 2: If you But if you were let's say you're let's
Speaker 2: say you were one of those leaders of strength that
Speaker 2: the world is sadly lacking. Hello, they've done pretty well
Speaker 2: in one big country at the moment. What would you
Speaker 2: if you were in a position to what would you
Speaker 2: what would you not be?
Speaker 4: Well, first of all, would put in place a mantra
Speaker 4: that everything we do is about strong people, people who
Speaker 4: are able to take responsibility for their actions to solve
Speaker 4: their problems, so long as they provided a platform of
Speaker 4: equality before the law and basic education and public safety
Speaker 4: and infrastructure and services that work. So it's a deal
Speaker 4: between the government and the citizenry, and non discrimination is
Speaker 4: at the heart of that deal. Then you said about saying, okay,
Speaker 4: how is it possible that we spend about three hundred
Speaker 4: and fifty thousand dollars per citizen on education and yet
Speaker 4: so many come out illiterate. So you've got to completely
Speaker 4: shake that up, and it would look something like, here's
Speaker 4: your account at the time you're born. The money drops
Speaker 4: into it, and you can use it to purchase the
Speaker 4: service as you require, just like wealthy people do. Would
Speaker 4: effectively give poor people the same opportunities as wealthy people,
Speaker 4: and we'd bring a lot of entrepreneurship into education. We'd
Speaker 4: do something similar with health. We'd say thirty billion dollar
Speaker 4: health budget. That's six thousand dollars per citizen, and people
Speaker 4: are getting bigger or quality out of that. So you
Speaker 4: can either stay in the system or you can take
Speaker 4: your six grand to Southern Cross or NIB and I
Speaker 4: guarantee you that they'll start solving problems and becoming more efficient.
Speaker 4: So major reforms and social services that are just not
Speaker 4: working despite huge amounts of money.
Speaker 3: And major reform and regulation, which in.
Speaker 4: Fairness, we are starting to do, but I'd do it
Speaker 4: a lot more aggressively and across government. I just say, right,
Speaker 4: we are applying these principles straight away. If it doesn't
Speaker 4: solve a well defined problem with benefits that exceed the costs,
Speaker 4: then this regulation is gone.
Speaker 3: We're doing that, but on a smaller scale than i'd like.
Speaker 2: Okay, so what you would like is at the moment
Speaker 2: is for your bill to be approved and to go ahead.
Speaker 2: It's got six months before the committee what goes now
Speaker 2: what happens.
Speaker 4: So from now until the seventh of January, they are
Speaker 4: accepting public submissions, so you can find that on the
Speaker 4: Parliament website and it's well worth doing.
Speaker 3: If you'd like a sort of an entry point to it.
Speaker 4: We've set up our own site at Treaty dot n
Speaker 4: z where we have the bill, our case for it
Speaker 4: and helps you make submissions, So.
Speaker 3: Www dot Treaty dot z.
Speaker 4: The Select Committee will then hear some of the people
Speaker 4: in person making their submissions.
Speaker 3: Through January February.
Speaker 4: They'll then deliberate, they'll write a report and they'll report
Speaker 4: that back to Parliament and at that point, for the
Speaker 4: first time, we would have had a genuine democratic process
Speaker 4: about what the treaty means. At that point, the other
Speaker 4: parties will have to decide do they actually want to
Speaker 4: bring it up again, debate it and vote it down.
Speaker 4: I suspect they won't. I suspect they'll just leave it
Speaker 4: languishing on the order paper like the Kermit Eccentury Bill.
Speaker 4: Or they might do they might bring it up and
Speaker 4: vote on it. And you've got to assume that you
Speaker 4: know what they're saying is true, that they'll vote against it,
Speaker 4: although I don't think they've heard quite what the public
Speaker 4: think about this issue yet and that could still change
Speaker 4: their mind. And at that point, you know, even if
Speaker 4: it's even if it doesn't go further than that, what
Speaker 4: we will have achieved is normalizing two ideas. The first
Speaker 4: is that the treaty gives us equal rights, and the
Speaker 4: second is we have an equal right to have a
Speaker 4: say on what the treaty means. And those two ideas,
Speaker 4: that's what our opponents are trying to keep out of circulation.
Speaker 4: But it's too late for them.
Speaker 2: I received this question from overseas actually wondering whether David
Speaker 2: Seymour might an act, might be prepared to take the
Speaker 2: government down.
Speaker 4: Well, not on not on the Treaty Principal's Bill, because
Speaker 4: you know, partners have honored their obligations under the bill,
Speaker 4: and you know that's that's all we can ask from them.
Speaker 4: So we've got it as far as we could negotiate
Speaker 4: this time, and unless they do something really crazy in
Speaker 4: the next six months, then that's I've done their duty.
Speaker 3: In terms of the.
Speaker 4: Wider issues, Look, I think what New Zealand needs at
Speaker 4: the moment is a government that's saving money.
Speaker 3: Cutting red tape and.
Speaker 4: Trying to get the economy a bit more buoyant again,
Speaker 4: because man, it's tough for people out there right now.
Speaker 2: It is, so how successful is the government at the moment?
Speaker 4: Look, I think the government's done two things that are
Speaker 4: really important. One is that it's proven it can hang together.
Speaker 4: A lot of people were skeptical about the nature of
Speaker 4: the coalition, but actually it's very robust and it has
Speaker 4: been a very stable government despite what our opponents hoped for.
Speaker 4: The second thing that it's done is that it has
Speaker 4: unleashed a series of cost cutting and deregulation initiatives, not
Speaker 4: as big as ACTS would like, but you know, I'm
Speaker 4: proud to say that Actors has contributed.
Speaker 3: It made it better than it would otherwise be.
Speaker 4: So resource management Acts being replaced, not just fast tracked,
Speaker 4: it's been completely replaced. Government spending, we're down about six
Speaker 4: thousand public servants so far. I would have gone further,
Speaker 4: but you know, police with a contribution we've made to
Speaker 4: getting the size of governor under control. Little things, relatively minor,
Speaker 4: things like healthy school lunches was going to cost three
Speaker 4: hundred and forty million.
Speaker 3: We got it down to one hundred and seventy.
Speaker 2: So how did you do that?
Speaker 3: You know, Well, we.
Speaker 4: Looked at it and we noticed that they had about
Speaker 4: one hundred and fifty small scale providers. And you know,
Speaker 4: while my heart goes out to a lot of our
Speaker 4: small business people, nobody would design a system like that.
Speaker 3: In the first place.
Speaker 4: We've got one provider who buys in bulk eighteen tons
Speaker 4: of chicken every two weeks. And when you buy eighteen
Speaker 4: tons of chicken every two weeks, I'm told you get
Speaker 4: a considerable discount. In fact, they actually grow them to
Speaker 4: order when you're that science customer.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 4: So you know, whereas the previous guys in some cases
Speaker 4: they were going to the supermarket and buying a single chicken, Well, Dot.
Speaker 3: You don't get a discount that way.
Speaker 4: So yeah, there's a few things we've done that have
Speaker 4: just made just made sense and the way that a
Speaker 4: business would.
Speaker 3: Do it if they had the same problem. So anyway,
Speaker 3: that's way off track.
Speaker 4: But my point is that, you know, in terms of
Speaker 4: deregulating and cutting government waste, I think that we you know,
Speaker 4: we've been pretty successful so far, and there's a lot
Speaker 4: more to come.
Speaker 2: I do want to before we finish. I do want
Speaker 2: to go back and cover a couple of things that
Speaker 2: have bypassed us to this particular point. When the Waitangi
Speaker 2: Act came in in the eighties, it was no hang on,
Speaker 2: I'm talking about I'm talking about the nineties, sorry, when
Speaker 2: when m MP was being debated, it was it was
Speaker 2: suggested very strongly that if we adopted m MP, then
Speaker 2: the Mary Streets, the married seats should should be dispensed with,
Speaker 2: which was eminently sensible. They weren't. Now there is a
Speaker 2: suggestion that there should be more Marory seats because they're
Speaker 2: not being represented enough. Now that's a myth as far
Speaker 2: as I'm concerned, but that's what the that's what the
Speaker 2: claim seems to be. Is it too late to dispose
Speaker 2: of Mary seats?
Speaker 3: Well, technically it could be done very easily.
Speaker 4: Government would have to come in and either get three
Speaker 4: quarters off the Parliament to vote against the Marrow seats
Speaker 4: or take a bill to referendum and have a simple
Speaker 4: majority of the public vote against them. That's what would
Speaker 4: have to happen. And I think there's some attraction to
Speaker 4: it because if you look at probably the most worrying
Speaker 4: event of the last two weeks was the fact that
Speaker 4: the Labor Party actually voted against suspending Hannah maypit Clark,
Speaker 4: and they actually undermined the Speaker when he tried to
Speaker 4: suspend her for her performance a couple of weeks back.
Speaker 4: Now that tells you something about the Labor Party. They
Speaker 4: don't know where they are, but I suspect it's partly
Speaker 4: because they hope to one day win back the Mara
Speaker 4: seats and so those seats are actually distorting just about
Speaker 4: all of New Zealand politics as a result, and that
Speaker 4: that is I think really worrying.
Speaker 3: So I'm very worried.
Speaker 4: About that has the concerning the only question is, you know,
Speaker 4: are you going to get a majority in Parliament to
Speaker 4: get rid of them? And at the moment you'd never
Speaker 4: get it from the National Party. You might get it
Speaker 4: from New Zealand. First of all, I'm not sure. So
Speaker 4: you know, I think ACT is the only party that
Speaker 4: has a policy of getting rid of.
Speaker 2: Them if there is enough representation. That's a strong representation,
Speaker 2: shall we say, at at the hearings upcoming, do you
Speaker 2: think that that could have an effect on the outcome?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 4: I do, because the people who are opposed to the
Speaker 4: bill have a certain set of assumptions. They have assumptions
Speaker 4: about the bill, and they have assumptions about the reaction
Speaker 4: to it. So they assume that, you know, it's going
Speaker 4: to somehow change the treaty. You know, a lot of Mari,
Speaker 4: lot of young Maria being told it will take away
Speaker 4: their money, take away their language.
Speaker 3: That's completely untrue.
Speaker 4: People have been told it will undermine treaty settlements. That's
Speaker 4: completely untrue. So what it does to is give everyone
Speaker 4: equal rights. And you know, every time someone goes to
Speaker 4: Treaty dot m Z and reads what it actually says, though,
Speaker 4: so I can't see what all the fuss is about.
Speaker 4: This is eminently sensible. So there's the content of the bill.
Speaker 4: But then there's also as more people have that experience
Speaker 4: their response to it, you know, as people start to
Speaker 4: think about what's really been talked about here, then they
Speaker 4: tend to change their mind. And I suspect that, you know,
Speaker 4: in the court of public opinion, that might be the
Speaker 4: thing that sways some of my colleagues in Parliament to
Speaker 4: change their vote.
Speaker 2: I don't know whether you've given it any thought, but
Speaker 2: it's occurred to me that there are things going on
Speaker 2: here that parallel to some degree what's just gone on
Speaker 2: in the United States. Just I'm talking specifically of the opposition,
Speaker 2: the same sort of the same sort of indoctrination is
Speaker 2: showing itself. I wonder if, just finally, you would have
Speaker 2: any comment to make on what you will But I'm
Speaker 2: interested in your comment to make on what I'm about
Speaker 2: to say. Imagine this as a newspaper or an online article.
Speaker 2: MMP is threatening democracy.
Speaker 3: And how do they reason that?
Speaker 2: Well, some of what some of what we've discussed tends
Speaker 2: in that direction that MMP is go back to the
Speaker 2: what amounted really to an instruction if MMP is introduced,
Speaker 2: the marriage seats should go. So you've now got MMP
Speaker 2: with various various political attitudes, and you've got one party
Speaker 2: in particulars based on race that is causing havoc and
Speaker 2: very likely will cause more havoc. And therefore democracy itself
Speaker 2: is under is under some sort of threat, if for
Speaker 2: no other reason, then because of self censorship that this
Speaker 2: other approach brings, as in freedom of speech, where people
Speaker 2: self censor because they don't want they don't want to
Speaker 2: they don't want to be accused of this and that
Speaker 2: and something else, and so they don't speak up and
Speaker 2: they just shut up. And the same thing is, as
Speaker 2: far as I'm aware or concerned, is happening, as far
Speaker 2: as some politicians are concerned. Don't want to rock the boat.
Speaker 2: Don't we want to get we want to get in
Speaker 2: into the next election. We don't make a stand. It's
Speaker 2: been going on for parliament after parliament. Now it's worse
Speaker 2: than ever. I think.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, first of all, I give you my allibi.
Speaker 4: I was in Standard three when MMP came in, so
Speaker 4: I have no responsibility for this. And I know there
Speaker 4: will be people say, well, you like MMP because that
Speaker 4: benefits from it. Well not really, I mean actors in
Speaker 4: parliament because of MMP. But I guess if it wasn't
Speaker 4: for MMP, then maybe you wouldn't need an act party.
Speaker 4: I mean, I suspect that on balance we are better
Speaker 4: off because you know, people just have to look at
Speaker 4: how badly governed New Zealand was prior to the nineteen nineties.
Speaker 4: So we almost went completely broke in the eighties and
Speaker 4: you know, managed to really squander the enormous resource and
Speaker 4: agrarian wealth that the country was initially built on through
Speaker 4: bad governance. So you know, I think it's always important
Speaker 4: to remember that all voting systems suck, and the one
Speaker 4: that we had before had a whole bunch of problems
Speaker 4: with it too. But the issues you're really talking about
Speaker 4: I think could exist in any voting system. I mean,
Speaker 4: the fact is that you know, you've got identity politics,
Speaker 4: which has swept the world.
Speaker 3: I'd like to think it's now in decline or retreat.
Speaker 4: And you've got people who you know, basically have grown
Speaker 4: up to disrespect what they regard as a colonizing parliament,
Speaker 4: as a Western European parliament, not a not a parliament
Speaker 4: of all people in New Zealand, and that problem you know, Yes,
Speaker 4: they got elected through the MARI seats. That's one reason
Speaker 4: why you know, maybe you shouldn't have seats based on ethnicity,
Speaker 4: because you end up with politics based on ethnicity. But
Speaker 4: that's sort of an issue with MMP, that's an issue
Speaker 4: with the mar seats.
Speaker 2: And that is where we shall leave it, unless there
Speaker 2: is anything else you'd like to add, Only that I.
Speaker 3: Look forward to a day when we will look back.
Speaker 3: I believe if my bill.
Speaker 4: Doesn't pass this time, it will same time in the future,
Speaker 4: and we'll look back and say, well that the treaty
Speaker 4: is not a bad document if you actually read it.
Speaker 4: But man, it's a pity we have to waste fifty
Speaker 4: years being led down rabbit holes by lawyers, judges, and
Speaker 4: tribunalists who tried to tell us that the best way
Speaker 4: to live as a country was divided into two groups
Speaker 4: based on ancestry, with different rights based on who your
Speaker 4: forefathers were.
Speaker 3: Man, good thing we got.
Speaker 4: Rid of that and now we just live as a liberal,
Speaker 4: democratic society with equal and universal human rights for all.
Speaker 3: That's how I believe we will look back on this
Speaker 3: at some point.
Speaker 2: So for those people, and there will be some maybe
Speaker 2: a lot for those people who are listening to this
Speaker 2: now and thinking, well, what can I do? What would
Speaker 2: be your suggestion, what can I do? What can we do?
Speaker 4: Well, I would say, read and submit the bill, and
Speaker 4: we've set up a website to do this. The deadline's
Speaker 4: January seventh. But you know, Treaty dot m Z allows
Speaker 4: you to do that, and you know, make your voice heard,
Speaker 4: because that's what's truly made this controversial is the idea
Speaker 4: that all people's voices will be heard. And you may
Speaker 4: be listening to this, You may be someone who disagrees
Speaker 4: with me, you should still submit. What's really important is
Speaker 4: that you know, we have a debate on these principles
Speaker 4: that governor has the right to govern, governor has a
Speaker 4: duty to protect people's rights, and that all of those
Speaker 4: rights are equal before the law.
Speaker 3: That's that's all this bill is about.
Speaker 4: And if you believe in that, or if you question it,
Speaker 4: then you get along to treaty dot ins and go
Speaker 4: for a submission.
Speaker 2: We'd love you to do so, well said, And of
Speaker 2: course it gave me a moment to come up with
Speaker 2: one last, real last question. You become Deputy Prime Minister
Speaker 2: in the not too distant future, what difference will that
Speaker 2: make a to you be, to what you do and
Speaker 2: c to any outcome.
Speaker 3: At a practical level, it won't make a lot of difference.
Speaker 4: I mean, you know, at the moment it's once that
Speaker 4: we both said in capnot and you know part really
Speaker 4: comes from the parties that we lead that are essential
Speaker 4: to the coalition. So in some ways it doesn't make
Speaker 4: a massive practical difference. But in another way, you know,
Speaker 4: act set out at the last election to represent really
Speaker 4: what I call Jacinda's refugees. It was the farmers, the
Speaker 4: small business owners, the landlords, really anyone who thought differently,
Speaker 4: who didn't who was one of the groups that she
Speaker 4: chose to go after, licensed fire and owners I should
Speaker 4: add to that, and you know they all are in
Speaker 4: many cases decided to vote ACT.
Speaker 3: And you know, I'm really proud to represent.
Speaker 4: People who have some get up and go and like
Speaker 4: to think independently. And I think for us as a tribe,
Speaker 4: if you like change makers, I like to call us.
Speaker 3: You know, I sort of accept the honor.
Speaker 4: On behalf of being the Deputy Prime Minister because it
Speaker 4: means that you know, people like us, can you have
Speaker 4: some representation And I think I think you give that
Speaker 4: sort of spirit some some prominence in the country. Then actually,
Speaker 4: our country's got a lot of hope.
Speaker 2: There's one more thing I'd add to a lot of hope.
Speaker 2: We could do with a few more intelligent in peace.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, a print.
Speaker 4: And I can tell you I've been down here ten
Speaker 4: years and you know it's yeah, it's not easy to find.
Speaker 2: Exactly, David. It's it's great to talk to you. I
Speaker 2: appreciate your times. Thank you, and I'll let you go.
Speaker 3: Hi, thank you.
Speaker 2: Then this is producer here. We are two hundred and
Speaker 2: sixty seven. We've got I think a couple more after
Speaker 2: this week to go before we break for a holiday.
Speaker 5: Unbelievable late two hundred and sixty seven podcasts. That means
Speaker 5: five million hours worked on those two hundred and sixty seven.
Speaker 2: Five billion I think you underestimate, but nevertheless, nevertheless, why
Speaker 2: don't you start?
Speaker 5: Leyden Ab says, I'm a thirty two year old former
Speaker 5: mathematics teacher and a big fan of your podcast. I
Speaker 5: especially enjoyed this week's episode with doctor Michael Johnson and
Speaker 5: his insights on schools sharing resources. During my time at
Speaker 5: one of New Zealand's top performing academic schools, we noticed
Speaker 5: a worrying decline in the math skills of students coming
Speaker 5: from our feeder schools. To address this, our high school
Speaker 5: offered to send teachers to provide professional development for primary
Speaker 5: and intermediate school teachers. Unfortunately, none of the schools took
Speaker 5: up the offer, a real missed opportunity in my opinion.
Speaker 5: Dr Johnson's mention of alternative teacher training methods resonated with me.
Speaker 5: I'm a graduate of an in house teacher training program
Speaker 5: based in Auckland, and I've since returned to my previous
Speaker 5: role to manage the mortgage. The program allowed us to
Speaker 5: complete university studies remotely through Wikata University while teaching full
Speaker 5: time in the classroom for a year, quite different from
Speaker 5: the fourteen weeks of practice typical and the traditional system.
Speaker 5: Our principle set the tone early, emphasizing that the school
Speaker 5: would teach us to become the type of teachers they needed.
Speaker 5: The school covered my fees, provided a stipend, and supported
Speaker 5: us every step of the way. This model has grown
Speaker 5: significantly and could be a great topic for your show.
Speaker 5: I'd recommend interviewing David Ferguson, the former Westlake Boys principal
Speaker 5: who now heads the Teacher Training Institute the Programs Provider.
Speaker 5: I think your listeners would find it encouraging to hear
Speaker 5: that there are innovative and effective approaches to improving education.
Speaker 2: Very well put, and we may well follow up watch
Speaker 2: this space or have at least listen to this space
Speaker 2: from Malcolm. This is once again we so enjoyed your podcast.
Speaker 2: Doctor Michael Johnson talked such sense and we totally agree
Speaker 2: with him that there should be many more students trained
Speaker 2: in the trades, as there's going to be a huge
Speaker 2: shortage of skilled tradees. Interesting too, that universities have not
Speaker 2: been training teachers how to control the classroom. I remember
Speaker 2: my brother saying, after five years at university to become
Speaker 2: a VET, that there hadn't been any lectures on how
Speaker 2: to interact with farmers. You always talk sense in a
Speaker 2: thank you add I such a pleasure to listen to
Speaker 2: double thank you, Unlike ninety nine percent of our present journalists,
Speaker 2: thank you for your podcasts and please keep them coming,
Speaker 2: Malcolm much appreciated. I only read what you say. I'm
Speaker 2: not responsible for it.
Speaker 5: Leydon Paul says, at about fifty minutes into podcast two
Speaker 5: six six Dr Michael Johnson and mentions concern regarding Trump's
Speaker 5: ideological leanings creeping into his governance. You immediately chimed in
Speaker 5: with a confident statement that you hold no such fears.
Speaker 5: I am one hundred percent in agreement with you on
Speaker 5: that stance. The reasons for my solidarity with you on
Speaker 5: this position are entrenched in years of reading stuff you
Speaker 5: have recommended to listeners. Such reading has allowed me to
Speaker 5: think a outside the square and B critically and by
Speaker 5: the way. Christian Smith's most recent podcast plus interview with
Speaker 5: George Friedman was outstanding in that Christian Smith showed a
Speaker 5: similar skill set to his dad, posing the correct line
Speaker 5: of questioning to bring forth answers that make the listener
Speaker 5: think things through. I'm looking forward to the next podcast,
Speaker 5: and that was from Paul.
Speaker 2: I'm going to send that to the aforementioned Christian Smith
Speaker 2: and I'm sure he'll appreciate it. And I might have
Speaker 2: achieved something I was unaware of from James Jeffrey Sachs
Speaker 2: on the real and growing possibility of nuclear war with
Speaker 2: the Russian Federation. This alarming development is being caused by
Speaker 2: whoever is pretending to run the US government, and appears
Speaker 2: to be aimed at causing the utmost instability to Donald
Speaker 2: Trump's incoming administration, even possibly causing sufficient of an emergency
Speaker 2: to prevent his inauguration altogether. Let us hope that a
Speaker 2: combination of President Trump's statesmanship and President Putin's restraint in
Speaker 2: brackets severely tested by now we are sure, has the
Speaker 2: effect of at least avoiding a nuclear confrontation, but the
Speaker 2: risk is real and increasing. Cheers from Jim and Jean
Speaker 2: in Colombia. Now, I would suggest to you that things
Speaker 2: have developed even further since that was written. On the
Speaker 2: twenty first of November. Unquestionably, Look, you've raised something with
Speaker 2: regard to the current administration or what's left of it.
Speaker 2: I've said this a number of times to people like that,
Speaker 2: to remember whether I've ever said it on the podcast.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't put it past those bastards to do anything,
Speaker 2: to pull any stunt in order to stay in power.
Speaker 2: And the thought that you know they could postpone, cancel
Speaker 2: whatever the inauguration is frightening. But again, while it's unlikely,
Speaker 2: I think, don't be surprised if something along those lines happens.
Speaker 5: Laydon and Louise says, thank you for your work exposing
Speaker 5: the insidious left and ensuring opposing views are aired. I
Speaker 5: was horrified to hear you say you had little interest
Speaker 5: in AI and implore you to change that.
Speaker 2: Ah, hold it, I didn't, if I remember correctly, I
Speaker 2: didn't say little interest in AI, said little interest into
Speaker 2: the way it works.
Speaker 5: I had a very interesting conversation with an old friend
Speaker 5: of ours and very well revered journalist. He's doing a
Speaker 5: course next year on AI. His interest has turned to AI.
Speaker 5: He's doing a course at a very well known education
Speaker 5: institute Europe, and he's interested in not the way it's
Speaker 5: working now, but the ramifications on society. This man has
Speaker 5: always been at the forefront of technology, and it was
Speaker 5: a very interesting and illuminating conversation. But he was right
Speaker 5: in the the worry about it for the future, but
Speaker 5: also the inevitability of it. And I look forward to
Speaker 5: having a conversation with him in six months or a
Speaker 5: year's time when he finishes that course.
Speaker 2: No one, you must tell me who it is, and
Speaker 2: I might join him anyway. Where was I?
Speaker 3: So?
Speaker 5: Anne Luise goes on to say Gemini or chat GPT
Speaker 5: as examples of public facing artificial intelligence tools supply the
Speaker 5: answers which are then taken as fact. When people look
Speaker 5: things up on the Internet, you will find that they
Speaker 5: regurgitate without citations, whatever is being fed. Their sources include
Speaker 5: Wikipedia and mainstream as well as social media reports. As
Speaker 5: a result, they frame everything through a woke lens. This
Speaker 5: is because AI doesn't know any better. Morally sound thinkers
Speaker 5: do not appear to be engaging sufficiently to balance the
Speaker 5: Left's dominance in this space. More than its propensity to
Speaker 5: offer skewed facts, there is the very serious issue of
Speaker 5: AI's moral position and the influence it yields now and
Speaker 5: will wield over the next generation. Former chief business officer
Speaker 5: for Google and author Mogaudit likens AI to a Superman
Speaker 5: type child and as its parents, we society have a
Speaker 5: duty to teach it what it needs to know to
Speaker 5: make a positive contribution in the world. At the moment,
Speaker 5: it's a toddler sucking up data, indiscriminately learning from social media,
Speaker 5: so it thinks that most people are mean spirited, egotistical, narcissistic,
Speaker 5: complaining and generally vile to one another. It is learning
Speaker 5: that this is appropriate behavior in human interaction. We need
Speaker 5: to teach it what humans really value. I would start
Speaker 5: with love, respect, integrity, connection, truth. So get your head
Speaker 5: out of the sand and engage with Ai. Demonstrate the
Speaker 5: good parenting skills you have. The future needs you. And
Speaker 5: that's from Anne, Luise and Louise.
Speaker 2: I don't think that any contribution I made would go
Speaker 2: six inches.
Speaker 5: Oh that was a very good email.
Speaker 2: It was a very good email. And there is food
Speaker 2: for thought anyway from Brett. Just a thought. If a
Speaker 2: referenda were held today, how many would vote to remove
Speaker 2: Mary seats in maury role. The three parties in government
Speaker 2: have in the past had policy to remove the Mariy seats,
Speaker 2: but none of the guts to follow through. The need
Speaker 2: for such seats is long past, indeed, and most people
Speaker 2: know it. How many would vote to remove race from
Speaker 2: legislation to put it to the public vote. What sort
Speaker 2: of country do the New Zealand people want to live in?
Speaker 2: Are the MPs and government even listening? Have a great week, Breadth.
Speaker 2: You've raised a couple of good points, and some of
Speaker 2: which was discussed in the discussion that we had the
Speaker 2: interview I did with David Seymour. I think this room
Speaker 2: for a follow up in that too. Sometime earlier in
Speaker 2: the new year, Lady.
Speaker 5: Jin says I wrote down Michael Johnson's excellent definition of
Speaker 5: science being the ability to discuss ideas, to argue about
Speaker 5: ideas backed by evidence in a civil way without wanting
Speaker 5: to kill your opponent, and instead seeing disagreement as a
Speaker 5: chance to improve everybody's ideas. In other words, says Jen,
Speaker 5: science is the laboratory by which ideas are verbalized, tested, strengthened,
Speaker 5: or discarded until we discover truths. At the recent Free
Speaker 5: Speech Union Age, I attended the Academic Freedom breakout session
Speaker 5: hosted by doctor Michael Johnson, Professor Natasha Hamilton Hart and
Speaker 5: Professor Grant Schofield. They gave three key reasons why academic
Speaker 5: freedom is stifled in New Zealand. Firstly, limited permissibility discourages
Speaker 5: the seeking and testing of truth. Secondly, research funding with
Speaker 5: strings attached restricts the scope of truth to those who
Speaker 5: provide funding, usually the government or rich elitists like Soros. Thirdly,
Speaker 5: academic group thinks suppresses truth whenever it doesn't agree with
Speaker 5: their ideologies. In other words, the suppression of truth is
Speaker 5: the root cause of academic slavery. No wonder Jesus said
Speaker 5: the truth will set you free.
Speaker 2: Just thinking about that might come back to it. I
Speaker 2: listened to your podcast, Actually, I listened to your excellent
Speaker 2: podcasts as clear today. Adam currently watching Matt wash on
Speaker 2: New Zealand. He's very funny, although it's deadly serious here,
Speaker 2: at least by the Mary Ravel. The Harker dubbed into
Speaker 2: jazz is hilarious. I was glad for the fast forward
Speaker 2: button during the news last week. This which is clear
Speaker 2: when she says when she refers to the Harker dubbed
Speaker 2: into jazz. Matt Welsh actually puts the Harker that was done,
Speaker 2: the so called Harker that was done in the house
Speaker 2: to jazz piano, you know, old twenties jazz piano. And
Speaker 2: it's actually very clearer.
Speaker 5: Lady John references episode two six five and he says, brilliant,
Speaker 5: just superb. The interview with David Bell was incredibly disturbing
Speaker 5: while being so informative and challenging. Another must listen to,
Speaker 5: and he needs greater exposure.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm doing my best. He's a lovely, lovely man
Speaker 2: from will. I have long had interest in literacy standards
Speaker 2: in children from underprivileged backgrounds, and forty years ago, when
Speaker 2: I first got retired, I had time on my hands.
Speaker 2: I devised a scheme to teach such children to read
Speaker 2: with free lessons. I got support from the local library
Speaker 2: at a couple of community groups, and had meetings with parents,
Speaker 2: parents who didn't have the ability, the time, or inclination
Speaker 2: to teach their kids to read, and they genuinely believed
Speaker 2: that the school would teach them to read. But things
Speaker 2: didn't work out. And I did write to you a
Speaker 2: long time ago, I think in the talkback radio days,
Speaker 2: to tell you what happened. So I listened to Michael
Speaker 2: Johnson on your podcast last week, a well educated man
Speaker 2: with a good command of the language, who spent most
Speaker 2: almost the entire time talking towaddle, oh overthinking twaddle. There
Speaker 2: were a couple of instances where common sense glimpsed through,
Speaker 2: but when he began to outline the paper he intends
Speaker 2: to present next year, I heard double toddle. It's a
Speaker 2: great shame that all our teachers now have been educated
Speaker 2: in a system which has been flawed for a long time.
Speaker 2: I started school at the age of four in nineteen
Speaker 2: thirty eight. We had forty two in the class, and
Speaker 2: I think most of them could read. At that time.
Speaker 2: Our parents taught us and taught us well. The world
Speaker 2: now is a vastly different place, but a lot of
Speaker 2: old methods of teaching would produce better results than we
Speaker 2: are seeing today. I think you underestimate will, I think
Speaker 2: you underestimate Michael Johnson in what he's doing. And I
Speaker 2: think the toddle, if it is such to you, might
Speaker 2: unravel itself as time goes by.
Speaker 5: Laden We sent you some homework last week. Mel wrote
Speaker 5: you this letter. My parents used to listen to your
Speaker 5: on talkback radio years ago, and as a kid I
Speaker 5: used to roll my eyes and think how stupid and
Speaker 5: boring it was to listen to talk back. I don't
Speaker 5: know how many times I heard Lighton said, now I
Speaker 5: find myself listening to talk back and podcasts all the time.
Speaker 5: I guess I grew up. Anyway, Mel said, to you,
Speaker 5: your podcast two five seven with doctor Paul Merrick mentioned
Speaker 5: a book that Amazon banned and is no longer available.
Speaker 5: He mentioned that he would send you a PDF of
Speaker 5: the book, so I'm wondering if I can have a
Speaker 5: copy of that pdf to read and Mel also asked
Speaker 5: for information on treating COVID short and long.
Speaker 2: HM. I made contact with Paul Merrick and he sent
Speaker 2: me a very short reply. He said the book has
Speaker 2: now been unbanned. It is now available on Amazon, so
Speaker 2: if you want a copy, just go to Amazon. Start
Speaker 2: with Amazon Australia, Amazon AU and do a search for
Speaker 2: because I can't think of the title of it off,
Speaker 2: then do a search for Paul Merrick. And I'm sure
Speaker 2: that you are. I tell you what I'm going to do.
Speaker 2: Just hold your horses there for a moment, right. I
Speaker 2: hope that wasn't too long. I did a quick check
Speaker 2: online with Amazon Australia and the book is available. It's
Speaker 2: twenty two dollars. This is Australian twenty two dollars fifty
Speaker 2: five cents plus plus postage. I probably cost you thirty dollars,
Speaker 2: which is can Secure. It's called can Secures. That's a
Speaker 2: very reasonable price. So go for it. Am I off
Speaker 2: the hook?
Speaker 5: Now you're off the hook with Meil anyway? Yes, sure,
Speaker 5: you're on the hook with many.
Speaker 2: Others, all right, So that'll do. Oh No, I know
Speaker 2: what I wanted to say, and I needed to say.
Speaker 2: I'm sitting here on three long to very long commentaries
Speaker 2: that are just too long for me to do in
Speaker 2: the mail room. So I'm going to use one of
Speaker 2: them short and the other two will get a hearing
Speaker 2: at some stage in the very near future. That's the best.
Speaker 2: That's the best I can do. Well, do you understand
Speaker 2: what I'm saying? I mean, look out along that one. Yes,
Speaker 2: And it's in very tiny print too, it makes it harder.
Speaker 2: Can I just make a request please that if you
Speaker 2: can adjust your print size up, because there's a lot
Speaker 2: of very small print mail today, if you can adjust
Speaker 2: your print size up to to say, at least fourteen
Speaker 2: and if not, fourteen eighteen would be even even better.
Speaker 2: If your system works like mine, those minds a MAC,
Speaker 2: then that would make it much easier at this end
Speaker 2: for elderly eyes. That's it later, I'm off, Yes, I know.
Speaker 2: We will see you next week. Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Your time is appreciated. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: Finally to the submission from the individual known as former
Speaker 2: National Party MP. Most of us will recall in the
Speaker 2: seventies and eighties that the chance of dissatisfaction related to
Speaker 2: the Treaty of Whitegy was the Treaty is a fraud.
Speaker 2: At the recent Hickoi Who Parliament, the chant has gone
Speaker 2: one eighty degrees to become honor of the treaty. So
Speaker 2: what has caused such a change in the fifty years
Speaker 2: since The genesis in my view, was when Sir Jeffrey
Speaker 2: Palmer gave a speech in nineteen eighty nine titled Principles
Speaker 2: for Crown Action on the Treaty of Whitegy. Not only
Speaker 2: did he claim that he was looking to clarify the
Speaker 2: Treaty principles, but he also introduced the concept of the
Speaker 2: treaty being a partnership, something that emerged in the eighties
Speaker 2: from the Mary Council cases. The speech outlined five principles
Speaker 2: for the government to act on in relation to the treaty,
Speaker 2: the principle of government, the principle of self government, equality, cooperation, redress.
Speaker 2: Far from bringing clarification, though, it seems, history has shown
Speaker 2: us that the courts and all manner of organizations and
Speaker 2: individuals have chosen to adopt a multitude of different meanings
Speaker 2: and interpretations from these principles. However, the unilateral decision to
Speaker 2: declare that the treaty was in fact a partnership has
Speaker 2: in my view, been instrumental in the seismic shift in
Speaker 2: attitude from the treaty being a fraud to one that
Speaker 2: must now be honoured. David Seymore's bill seeks to actually
Speaker 2: all in upper case, actually get clarity on the principles
Speaker 2: so that lawmakers can be far more explicit than courts
Speaker 2: have little room to interpret them as they see fit,
Speaker 2: running roughshod over what Parliament has determined. But based on
Speaker 2: the Mari party recruitment drive otherwise known as the HICICOI
Speaker 2: to Parliament, it seems wideer New Zealand is not even
Speaker 2: allowed to have a structured discussion on what, if anything,
Speaker 2: needs to happen to achieve clarity. They want to kill
Speaker 2: the bill and deny us of having a say, of
Speaker 2: having a voice, and of having democratic rights. Of course,
Speaker 2: we've come to expect nothing less from the married Party,
Speaker 2: who are nothing more than well paid activists who champion
Speaker 2: separatism is the answer, and arrogantly disrespect the conventions and
Speaker 2: authority of the House of Parliament, behaving with contempt within
Speaker 2: its chamber. So what would New Zealand look like if
Speaker 2: the likes of Debi, nari Wa Panka and Rawiri Waititi
Speaker 2: had their way, Well, it would look like what so
Speaker 2: many in this country protested about during the nineteen ninety
Speaker 2: one Spring Book Tour, apartheid. Just as the view of
Speaker 2: the Treaty has gone one to eighty degrees, as so
Speaker 2: has our acceptance of the type of separatism seen in
Speaker 2: South Africa that we stood against in the nineteen eighties.
Speaker 2: Many married leaders, including married party politicians, see segregation about
Speaker 2: political and socioeconomic structures into mary and non marry as
Speaker 2: both a legitimate way forward but something that they're entitled to.
Speaker 2: I'm quite sure that when the Treaty was introduced into
Speaker 2: what was a fast growing but lawless nation that this
Speaker 2: sort of dystopian outcome could not have been envisaged. Far
Speaker 2: from it, you would think I now struggle to recognize
Speaker 2: the country I was born into. On many levels, we
Speaker 2: are losing our way in fundamental areas that have the
Speaker 2: potential to unravel our nation to the core. The council
Speaker 2: culture is alive and well in New Zealand, but the
Speaker 2: fact that aiming to have a meaningful discussion about the
Speaker 2: treaty is literally yelled down as being divisive by the
Speaker 2: very people who want separatism based on race is almost comical.
Speaker 2: It is so ironic, and all the while David Seymour
Speaker 2: is standing strong behind the importance of this discussion, his
Speaker 2: two coalition partners having already sidestepped it by saying that
Speaker 2: they won't support it beyond the Select Committee. Prime Minister
Speaker 2: Deluction dances on the head of a pin about the
Speaker 2: whole subject and claims it's a divisive bill, clearly taking
Speaker 2: the duck for cover approach, while Seymour climbs out of
Speaker 2: the trenches to advance toward what I am sure he
Speaker 2: believes is in the best interests of our country's future.
Speaker 2: We as a nation need to take a damn good
Speaker 2: look at ourselves, like it or not. We should be
Speaker 2: mature enough as a nation to have a rational and
Speaker 2: meaningful discussion on this subject. And by that I don't
Speaker 2: mean retiring all black halfbacks using the legacy of the
Speaker 2: black Jersey and the Harker as a platform to make
Speaker 2: political statements about the Treaty. Keep your politics out of
Speaker 2: our national game, mister Paranara. We are not growing up
Speaker 2: as a nation. We are growing apart, not because of
Speaker 2: the bill, but because some of us are so immature
Speaker 2: and entitled that we are incapable of debating and discussing
Speaker 2: the bill. If David Seymour's stand on the Treaty Principal's
Speaker 2: Bill has shown us anything, it's that we are bereft
Speaker 2: of political fortitude and vision from other leaders in our
Speaker 2: parliament to stand alongside him and transcend the vitriolic noise
Speaker 2: in order to support our nation to grow and truly mature.
Speaker 2: If David Seymour's stand on the Treaty Principal's Bill has
Speaker 2: shown us anything, it's that we are bereft of political
Speaker 2: fortitude and vision from other leaders in our parliament to
Speaker 2: stand alongside him and transcend the vitriotic noise in order
Speaker 2: to support our nation to grow and truly mature. Sadly
Speaker 2: this won't happen, and ultimately all of us will be
Speaker 2: worse off as a consequence, not because the bill is divisive,
Speaker 2: but because we are incapable of standing up against division
Speaker 2: to have the discussion. Now, I would believe that nineteen
Speaker 2: nine point nine nine nine percent of you think that
Speaker 2: is a very good commentary and worthy of wider hearing.
Speaker 2: So share it with whoever you feel like, Send the
Speaker 2: podcast to other people, tell them where they listen, what
Speaker 2: to listen to, because I think it's very important. That's
Speaker 2: that's extremely good, and I thank the former National Party MP,
Speaker 2: and that will take us out for podcasts two hundred
Speaker 2: and sixty seven. We shall return, of course, very shortly
Speaker 2: with podcast two one hundred and sixty eight, second last
Speaker 2: of the year and the last one of the year.
Speaker 2: By the way, I'll tell you is gonna be a
Speaker 2: fun one. Well, I think it'll be fun with Tony
Speaker 2: Astell from Antoine's Restaurant, with whom we used to speak
Speaker 2: on a regular basis on radio but haven't done so
Speaker 2: for a few years. But we are both keen he
Speaker 2: and I to do it, so we chose the last
Speaker 2: of the year. The only other thing to say is
Speaker 2: if you'd like to write to us lat at news
Speaker 2: Talks ATB dot co dot nz or Carolyn with a
Speaker 2: y at news Talks ATB dot co dot NZID We
Speaker 2: shall return in a few days with sixty eight. Until then,
Speaker 2: as always, thank you for listening and we'll talk soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you for more from News Talks at b Listen
Speaker 1: live on air or online, and keep our shows with
Speaker 1: you wherever you go with our podcasts on hard radio