Speaker 1: You're listening to a podcast from news Talks at B.
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 US Now the
Speaker 1: Leyton Smith Podcast powered by News Talks it B.
Speaker 2: Welcome to Podcasts two hundred and forty two. For June five,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four. Oliver Hardrich, Executive Director of the New
Speaker 2: Zealand Institute, on the twenty twenty four budget, the good
Speaker 2: and the disappointing. We have some basics and expand discussion
Speaker 2: to other realms such as Switzerland, the UK election and
Speaker 2: the future of the Tory Party, New Zealand, economic growth
Speaker 2: and productivity and will it really take fifteen years until
Speaker 2: twenty forty for the economy to be righted? And then
Speaker 2: from seemingly out of nowhere, we found ourselves talking about
Speaker 2: what is known as the delectable lives multiculturalism, and that's
Speaker 2: a very interesting little segment. Then at the back end
Speaker 2: of two forty two, we look at the lost generation,
Speaker 2: lost in the underbelly of a dysfunctional, fatherless society. A
Speaker 2: psychologist reports from two thousand and nine, when things were
Speaker 2: bad and with considerable foresight, predicts what will take place
Speaker 2: if nothing's done about it, and today we live with
Speaker 2: the consequences of inaction. Don't miss it. But first a
Speaker 2: quick word on something that I know that you're curious about,
Speaker 2: the next US president. The jury verdict in the Trump
Speaker 2: case came out the day after last week's podcast. That
Speaker 2: was frustrating, But there has been and there will be
Speaker 2: so much written and said on the case. It requires
Speaker 2: what you might call a record setting length podcast on
Speaker 2: my part in order to address it. But here is
Speaker 2: my brief take. The case will be studied in law
Speaker 2: classes forever. It will in the end go down as
Speaker 2: the most corrupt court room in American history, with the
Speaker 2: judge and the prosecutor setting new lows, and I mean
Speaker 2: really new lows in legal ethics. But I want to
Speaker 2: quote you a little bit of a little bit of
Speaker 2: detail there was. As we've heard since that decision was announced,
Speaker 2: we've heard how much money the Trump campaign has raised.
Speaker 2: But it doesn't stop there. Trump campaign says it raised
Speaker 2: fifty three million within a day of his New York verdict.
Speaker 2: The ultra wealthy Republican donors are rallying behind the former
Speaker 2: US President Donald Trump following his historical trial and criminal conviction.
Speaker 2: But there is much more. There was an announcement made
Speaker 2: on my phone as I as I was working this morning,
Speaker 2: and I'll get to that in a second, because it
Speaker 2: follows on from this. Among the billionaires who have been
Speaker 2: turning and supporting Trump are Silicon Valley investor David Sachs,
Speaker 2: who posted on X that there is now only one
Speaker 2: issue in this election, whether the American people will stand
Speaker 2: for the USA becoming a banana republic. And he's right
Speaker 2: on target, over and above what matters about Trump, That's
Speaker 2: the most important thing. On June sixth, mister Sachs and
Speaker 2: fellow investor Cheamus I don't know how to pronounce his
Speaker 2: second name, are planning to host a fundraiser for Trump
Speaker 2: in San Francisco. Attendees are reportedly being asked to contribute
Speaker 2: as much as three hundred thousand dollars each. Now, while
Speaker 2: I was while I was working, my phone came up
Speaker 2: with an X release that fundraiser had sold out not
Speaker 2: just for three hundred thousand an individual, but for five
Speaker 2: hundred thousand four a couple, and they expect during the
Speaker 2: course of the function to raise many many more millions.
Speaker 2: Now the list of billionaires who are racing to his
Speaker 2: support is shocking a lot of people because, especially when
Speaker 2: it comes to Silicon Valley, because they're turning in their
Speaker 2: droves because they realize finally that they were backing the
Speaker 2: wrong horse all along. Now there's another article I want
Speaker 2: to make a quick reference to, and and it's sort
Speaker 2: of personal, and it's a bit lighting and in its
Speaker 2: tone for this simple reason. From a site by James
Speaker 2: Howard Kunstler. It's almost as if the principles, the prosecutors,
Speaker 2: and the judge were performing for their political audience with
Speaker 2: a wink and a nod and a stage whisper. Watch
Speaker 2: this as they ignore yet another fundamental element of American
Speaker 2: due process. The ninnies of Biden world seem to not
Speaker 2: understand that by subjecting mister Trump to a kangaroo court,
Speaker 2: they've made him the kind of outdoor that Americans revere
Speaker 2: above every other archetypal hero. I just got to say
Speaker 2: here at this point, the first hero in my life
Speaker 2: was Robin Hood. He is the new Robin Hood, the
Speaker 2: people's outlaw, with Joe Biden relegated as the wicked sir guy,
Speaker 2: of Gisbon, master of foul play, and servant of the
Speaker 2: evil Regent Prince John in Braggan's Barack Obama. The galvanizing
Speaker 2: moment of this melodrama was not the verdict of the
Speaker 2: judge one Merchant's Kangaroo Corral of a Court, but the
Speaker 2: next day in the White House, when Joe Biden was
Speaker 2: asked to comment on it, as he shuffled away from
Speaker 2: the podium, halted, turned and smirked silently at the cameras,
Speaker 2: a gesture that is sure to live in infamy. If
Speaker 2: you didn't see that, you need to if you ever
Speaker 2: get a chance, because it's just picture has a million words.
Speaker 2: The fund should really kick in when the judge gets
Speaker 2: to sentenced Trump the outlaw on July eleven, a few
Speaker 2: days before the Republican Convention, et cetera, et cetera. Now,
Speaker 2: in a sane world, of course, the US Supreme Court
Speaker 2: would be entreated to adjudicate this gross insult to due process,
Speaker 2: as spelled out in Section one of the fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 2: And this is where I'm going to terminate it in
Speaker 2: a second, because this is just one example, but it's
Speaker 2: a prime example of the corruption of the court here
Speaker 2: is Section one of the Fourteenth Amendment. No State shall
Speaker 2: make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
Speaker 2: or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall
Speaker 2: any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
Speaker 2: with our due process of law, nor deny to any
Speaker 2: person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Speaker 2: Which you might have noticed that this is not a
Speaker 2: sane world, at least not these days. Now. The point
Speaker 2: being is the prosecution and the judge work together to
Speaker 2: smash Section one of the fourteenth Amendment. And that's only
Speaker 2: one example corruption beyond belief. Now in a moment, Oliver Hartwitch,
Speaker 2: now some words from a very happy customer of wet
Speaker 2: and forget on window which I purchased some window Witch recently,
Speaker 2: and I'm thrilled with the product. I cleaned the ground
Speaker 2: level of our home, the big conservatory and the glass
Speaker 2: balustrades in about forty five minutes, nothing short of brilliant results.
Speaker 2: Yet's another happy customer. And why are we surprised? Window
Speaker 2: which exterior glass cleaner is the Bears window cleaner? Ever
Speaker 2: it is streak free, no need to squeegee ever again
Speaker 2: because of the invisible liquid squeegee window which is your
Speaker 2: concentrate and garden sprayer all in one window which is
Speaker 2: a combination of smart surfucants that dissolve crime and window
Speaker 2: which has a unique formula that contains citrate water so
Speaker 2: ofteners and high performance additives to sheet water from the window,
Speaker 2: eliminating water spotting. So help yourself. Window Witch from wet
Speaker 2: and Forget over twenty company standalone stores nationwide Wetinforget dot
Speaker 2: co dot NZ or you can call them on a
Speaker 2: weight hundred and three zero three thousand window Witch from
Speaker 2: wet and Forget.
Speaker 1: Laighton Smith.
Speaker 2: Oliver Hartwich is the executive director of the New Zealand Initiative.
Speaker 2: He's been on the podcast on a number of occasions
Speaker 2: over the years and it's always a pleasure to say
Speaker 2: thank you if you're agreeing to discuss the budget with
Speaker 2: us and other matters, because this conversation won't be restricted
Speaker 2: just to the budget, but Oliver from your own perspective
Speaker 2: and or from the Initiative's perspective collectively, if you want,
Speaker 2: what is your overall take on this budget?
Speaker 3: But first of all, lighton. Great to be with you again.
Speaker 3: Always a pleasure to talk to you. And as for
Speaker 3: the budget, well, I wasn't disappointed, but that was only
Speaker 3: because I didn't have high expectations. The budget was disappointing,
Speaker 3: perhaps in one way, until we get back to twenty
Speaker 3: nineteen spending levels. Remember that was Grant Robertson's well being budget.
Speaker 3: This budget now reveals we'll have to wait until twenty
Speaker 3: thirty eight, and I think that sums up this budget
Speaker 3: in a nutshell. It is I would say, not very ambitious,
Speaker 3: which is also perhaps a bit disappointing if you consider
Speaker 3: that this is, of course the new government's first budget,
Speaker 3: and usually first budgets are the most ambitious of them all,
Speaker 3: because that's when they still think they have a mandate
Speaker 3: to be a bit more radical, to try a few
Speaker 3: more things, and then usually governments actually lose that ambition
Speaker 3: gradually over the years. So for a first budget, I
Speaker 3: would have liked to see a bit more ambition to
Speaker 3: bring spending levels back underc because right now they aren't.
Speaker 2: You've actually introduced something that I wasn't anticipating for a while,
Speaker 2: so now I will park it just for the minute.
Speaker 2: But where would you suggest they could have curbed the
Speaker 2: ambitions that they that they are exercising well.
Speaker 3: The thing is, if you just go back five years
Speaker 3: to that twenty nineteen Well Being Budget, that was when
Speaker 3: Jasinda Adern and Grant Robertson introduced their new vision for
Speaker 3: fiscal policy, and spending in that Well Being Budget was
Speaker 3: about twenty nine percent of GDP and it was celebrated
Speaker 3: as something progressive and ambitious from a kind of progressive
Speaker 3: side of politics perspective, and nobody would have accused Adirn
Speaker 3: and Robertson of being driven by austerity or by the
Speaker 3: wish to slash government spending. We now have a government
Speaker 3: budget delivered by a National led government that promises to
Speaker 3: spend thirty three percent of GDP, and yet people are
Speaker 3: going crazy over how austerity driven this budget is, when
Speaker 3: in fact they're spending four percent of GDP more than
Speaker 3: the Adern government did in their first Well Being budget.
Speaker 3: And that's what I find astonishing. Actually, So when Adurn
Speaker 3: spends twenty nine percent, people think this is really generous,
Speaker 3: and when Nicola Willis spends thirty three percent, people say
Speaker 3: this is actually quite austere. And what I would have
Speaker 3: liked to see in this budget now is actually a
Speaker 3: pathway back to where we were before overd and ideally
Speaker 3: where we were in twenty seventeen before Adurn took over.
Speaker 3: But the pathway to that physical normality is exceedingly long.
Speaker 3: So if you have to wait fourteen years just to
Speaker 3: go back to where we were in twenty nineteen, I
Speaker 3: don't think that is very ambitious. The other thing I
Speaker 3: would just mention is actually we have seen enormous spending
Speaker 3: increases over the last few years. We just looked into
Speaker 3: them the other day and found that in twenty nineteen
Speaker 3: we of course projected where we would be today, and
Speaker 3: so we could actually compare these figures now and realize that,
Speaker 3: for example, in health, we are currently spending eight billion
Speaker 3: dollars more then we would have anticipated just five years ago.
Speaker 3: And then you ask yourself, okay, so we're spending eight
Speaker 3: billion dollars more in health even compared to what we
Speaker 3: thought we would, And yet where is all of that
Speaker 3: money and what has it achieved? Because I haven't actually
Speaker 3: seen any great improvements in health delivery. What we have
Speaker 3: seen is of course a massive reorganization of the health sector,
Speaker 3: where we got ready for DHBs, where we created a
Speaker 3: new our Health authority, where we instituted a lot new
Speaker 3: kind of organizational structures without actually seeing any results. So
Speaker 3: if you're asking where I would have liked to see
Speaker 3: an emphasis in this budget is actually trying to curb
Speaker 3: all of these structures, all of this spending that doesn't
Speaker 3: yield any results, and in doing so then point a
Speaker 3: clearer pathway back to physical normality.
Speaker 2: So the obviously question is why didn't they do it.
Speaker 3: Well? And the obvious answer is because it's totally hard,
Speaker 3: because you're coming from a perspective where the budget is broken,
Speaker 3: and not because of their own faults, but because of
Speaker 3: everything that happened in the six years prior so. The
Speaker 3: previous government really tested the limits of spending to destruction.
Speaker 3: They created an almighty mess in fiscal policy. The left
Speaker 3: a lot of pistol cliffs in the budget, meaning they
Speaker 3: basically said we're going to fund stuff, but only really
Speaker 3: funded them for the next year or two, and so
Speaker 3: they left fiscal holes everywhere across government policy for the
Speaker 3: new government to clean up. So, coming into that situation
Speaker 3: now and with just a year actually in government, it
Speaker 3: is difficult for any government to turn this around. And
Speaker 3: I understand that a lot of the changes required will
Speaker 3: also take years to think welfare spending. The previous government
Speaker 3: did not actually enforce welfare rules, eligibility rules, and we
Speaker 3: filled the welfare roles with people who shouldn't have been there.
Speaker 3: That is enormously costly, and to turn that around will
Speaker 3: take a long time. You probably can't do that overnight.
Speaker 3: I mean, for all the things done over six years,
Speaker 3: you can't expect them to fix it in a couple
Speaker 3: of months. But I would have still liked to see
Speaker 3: a clearer pathway out of this mess and a clearer
Speaker 3: ambition to saying, look, we really want to go back
Speaker 3: to where we once were as a country.
Speaker 2: Okay, then let me ask you a reverse question. What
Speaker 2: would you would like to have seen done? What could
Speaker 2: they have done to head back in that direction that
Speaker 2: would have won them plowed it well?
Speaker 3: There are small line items in the budget where you
Speaker 3: can see that they probably didn't really go through the
Speaker 3: budget with a fine tooth code. For example, subsidies for
Speaker 3: the film industry. They are still running over forty million dollars.
Speaker 3: Now you ask yourself, is that really something that you
Speaker 3: want to do?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 3: The rest of the budget is deep in the I
Speaker 3: would have actually thought no, you can probably go a
Speaker 3: bit harder on that. Next thing is they have issued
Speaker 3: a blank target to government departments to cut between six
Speaker 3: and a half and seven and a half percent spending,
Speaker 3: and we have seen initial cuts of course to public
Speaker 3: sector employment public service employment to be more specific. Well,
Speaker 3: I think this could go a lot further, because we
Speaker 3: know we started from forty seven thousand public servants in
Speaker 3: twenty seventeen. We are now at a level of about
Speaker 3: sixty five thousand. They cut about two or maybe three thousand,
Speaker 3: but there's a long way to go on until we
Speaker 3: go back to the levels we previously had.
Speaker 2: Was it wise? I wonder to not take the big leap,
Speaker 2: but the small step at this particular point, because well,
Speaker 2: the best reason I can suggest for it is that
Speaker 2: by making all of those people unemployed, it would create
Speaker 2: an extra cost in welfare and put far too many
Speaker 2: people on the unemployment list in a country that is
Speaker 2: not really creating jobs.
Speaker 3: No, I don't think so for a moment. And I mean,
Speaker 3: you wouldn't seriously suggest that all those people now employed
Speaker 3: by the public service in Wellington are so poorly qualified
Speaker 3: that they wouldn't find jobs elsewhere, would you.
Speaker 2: Well, if I was going to be honest, I'd say
Speaker 2: that I'd question how employable they were, otherwise they might
Speaker 2: not be in the public service.
Speaker 3: There was a bit tongue in cheek anyway, but seriously,
Speaker 3: there is no justification for employing that many people here
Speaker 3: in Wellington. I mean, you look at individual departments and
Speaker 3: you can see how much they have ballooned. My favorite
Speaker 3: example is still the Ministry of Education that started its
Speaker 3: life after the Department of Education in the early two
Speaker 3: thousands on about four hundred people, and it's gone up
Speaker 3: to about four and a half thousand. So we have
Speaker 3: more bureaucrats in that ministry that we have schools in
Speaker 3: the country. And I think you would probably find it
Speaker 3: easy to cut back a little bit there.
Speaker 2: Okay, I mentioned you took took us somewhere that I
Speaker 2: wasn't going to go for a bit. The date of
Speaker 2: thirty eight, twenty thirty eight, The date that I saw
Speaker 2: that caught my attention and the really frustrated me was
Speaker 2: twenty forty. That figgure has been mentioned in a couple
Speaker 2: of opinion pieces. Twenty forty is when we are basically
Speaker 2: looking for the country to reappear on the international scene
Speaker 2: at any at any strength or level. Of strength twenty forty. Well,
Speaker 2: you mentioned fourteen years, So fourteen or fifteen years from now,
Speaker 2: that's what we're aiming at. And I couldn't agree with
Speaker 2: you more that if we're looking that far ahead before
Speaker 2: we can expect any real improvements. Then I repeat something
Speaker 2: that somebody said to me just recently in answer to
Speaker 2: a question. I said, how bad is it? And the
Speaker 2: answer was very very, very bad or words that meant
Speaker 2: the same. I don't remember exactly the quote, but extremely
Speaker 2: bad was the state of the.
Speaker 3: Country, Yes, and I would agree with that. I also
Speaker 3: think actually twenty forty or thirty eight, as shocking as
Speaker 3: it seems, is a realistic prospect for getting things back
Speaker 3: under control, because in some of our areas of government
Speaker 3: policy or problems are so enormous that it will take
Speaker 3: a long long time to fix them. Again, talk about education.
Speaker 3: So we have an education system that is currently plagued
Speaker 3: by low attendance rates. So only forty six percent of
Speaker 3: our school students are now attending school regularly, meaning at
Speaker 3: least ninety percent of the time. We have seen our
Speaker 3: results in international studies go back over decades. So think
Speaker 3: of PISA and Timson Pearls that's going backwards. And we
Speaker 3: now also have a new generation of teachers recently revealed
Speaker 3: in a study by the ends at IR in New
Speaker 3: Zealand Institute of Economic Research, where a huge proportion of
Speaker 3: our young teachers have actually failed maths in English in
Speaker 3: their own school time. So if you want to rebuild
Speaker 3: a system with that kind of personnel, it's going to
Speaker 3: be hard because we have plenty of teachers now in
Speaker 3: our schools who have probably never seen what a good
Speaker 3: school looks like, not even in their own experience. So
Speaker 3: all of these reforms that we're doing now that my
Speaker 3: colleague Michael Johnson is working on now as chair of
Speaker 3: Erica Stanford's Ministerial Advisory Group, they are the right things
Speaker 3: to do, except you can't expect results overnight. They will
Speaker 3: take years to work their way through the system. I'm
Speaker 3: not saying it will take until twenty forty, but you
Speaker 3: can't expect an overnight improvement in our education results. That
Speaker 3: will take a long time because the system is fundamentally broken.
Speaker 2: Which part of it is fundamentally broken the teaching?
Speaker 3: Do you say which part is fundamentally broken? I would
Speaker 3: say which part isn't Because practically everything in our education
Speaker 3: system is not fit for purpose. You look at some
Speaker 3: teacher training, well, we know actually from our own research
Speaker 3: here the Initiative, that our young teachers do not get
Speaker 3: the training that would actually prepare them for standing in
Speaker 3: front of a classroom. You look at the way we're
Speaker 3: teaching literacy and numeracy, and we know again from our
Speaker 3: own research that for decades we've been going in the
Speaker 3: wrong direction on both and we now have about forty
Speaker 3: to fifty percent of school leavers leaving school functionally illiterate
Speaker 3: and enumerate. What else of the system is not working? Well,
Speaker 3: we could talk about what students do after leaving school.
Speaker 3: Our vocational education system is broken after the forced amalgamation
Speaker 3: of the politics into poking on and what it is
Speaker 3: ours that has been We could then talk about a
Speaker 3: university system, and again we hosted a symposium just a
Speaker 3: few weeks ago at the Initiative we talked about the
Speaker 3: state of university education New Zealand, and it is broken
Speaker 3: on practically every level. You talk about free speech, academic freedom,
Speaker 3: and universities. You talk about the financial financial situation of universities.
Speaker 3: It is not a pretty picture. So no matter what
Speaker 3: aspect of the education system you're looking at. It is
Speaker 3: under enormous pressure and it will take a long time
Speaker 3: to fix it.
Speaker 2: You didn't actually use the word curriculum.
Speaker 3: Well, that's probably because I forgot to mention it, because
Speaker 3: there's so many other things that are wrong. I mean,
Speaker 3: the curriculum is another field which is fundamentally broken because actually,
Speaker 3: let's face it, we don't really have a proper curriculum
Speaker 3: right now. It is a flimsy document that doesn't actually
Speaker 3: give you any proper guidance on what students are supposed
Speaker 3: to learn our school. And the flip side of the curriculum,
Speaker 3: of course, is the assessment system that also needs to
Speaker 3: be reformed, because at the moment, the assessment system is
Speaker 3: geared towards ensuring that every students enough points to get
Speaker 3: a certificate at the end, whether they learned anything before
Speaker 3: or not. I mean, all of these areas are areas
Speaker 3: of reform right now. So Erica Stanford is doing exactly
Speaker 3: the right things across the whole board of education problems.
Speaker 3: But even with the best efforts, we shouldn't expect miracles
Speaker 3: from America Stanford. I'm a huge fan of Erica Stanford's work.
Speaker 3: Don't get me wrong, and I think she's doing exactly
Speaker 3: the right things. But I think it would be unfair
Speaker 3: to measure her by successes that she would have had
Speaker 3: in a year or two, because from where we are
Speaker 3: coming from, this is going to be a very, very
Speaker 3: long process.
Speaker 2: I interviewed somebody last week in the podcast Militia Grisola
Speaker 2: from a primary school in West Sydney. I was talking
Speaker 2: with some people yesterday about it, and the comment I
Speaker 2: got was how good she was, and they were very
Speaker 2: enthusiastic about what she had to say. And then one
Speaker 2: of them said, yeah, but it's all just come and sense,
Speaker 2: isn't it. And that created another discussion about the lack
Speaker 2: of common sense. Common sense is not common anymore, and
Speaker 2: for so many of those students who become teachers, they
Speaker 2: have no idea about basics and common sense lit alone
Speaker 2: getting a decent enough of education be able to teach
Speaker 2: the curriculum whatever it might.
Speaker 3: That's right, that's right. And I listened to your interview
Speaker 3: last week and I also came back with the same
Speaker 3: impression that this is just common sense. She reminded me
Speaker 3: very much of Katherine Berbertsing, another fantastic mistress. The head
Speaker 3: of mikhaela School in London in Wembley, and for years,
Speaker 3: of course Katherine Berbertsing has been on that mission to
Speaker 3: introduce common sense back into the British education system with
Speaker 3: enormously positive results. So it's probably now the best school
Speaker 3: anywhere you can find in England, and it's based on
Speaker 3: common sense, on actually teaching the basics and teaching them well,
Speaker 3: i'll give you another exam. But we visited Ireland last
Speaker 3: year with a delegation of the New Zealand Initiative and
Speaker 3: we had a session with the Irish Education Ministry in
Speaker 3: Dublin and they talked us through their basic strategies and
Speaker 3: what they're trying to achieve. They taught us how they
Speaker 3: measure success and how they're tracking their interventions, and you know,
Speaker 3: we all sat there and thought, well, wouldn't it be
Speaker 3: nice to hear something like that from our own education
Speaker 3: ministry because there was none of this kind of modernist
Speaker 3: nonsense that you often get, and none of the languages
Speaker 3: that you wouldn't even understand because they sounds so sociological.
Speaker 3: It was just good old common sense and trying to
Speaker 3: make sure that their students get a decent education that
Speaker 3: they learn how to read and write and do maths
Speaker 3: and get a basic science education, and then tracking the
Speaker 3: progress of their schools. It was just so refreshing to
Speaker 3: hear that from a ministry because we haven't had that
Speaker 3: kind of conversation with a ministry for years.
Speaker 2: Okay, I want to stay with Militia Grizzuola just for
Speaker 2: a moment longer. There are teachers who have no idea
Speaker 2: about the way that she approaches things as a principal
Speaker 2: of a school, but she outlines the way that she
Speaker 2: trained some of those teachers that came to her school,
Speaker 2: And the best part of it all, as far as
Speaker 2: I was concerned, was right at the very end of
Speaker 2: the discussion where she said the first thing she says
Speaker 2: to a new teacher that arrives, sits them down and
Speaker 2: talks to them and says, everything you learned at university,
Speaker 2: forget it, and then retrains them. Famili, Do we not
Speaker 2: just need a handful even of principles who are capable
Speaker 2: of taking that approach.
Speaker 3: Yes, we need these principles, and principles play a massive
Speaker 3: role in our education system, but it shouldn't be up
Speaker 3: to the principles to undo the damage done by university
Speaker 3: education departments. I mean, ideally, you wouldn't want to have
Speaker 3: any damage to correct in the first place, So we
Speaker 3: should probably go back to proper teacher education as we
Speaker 3: once had it. I mean today, when you look at
Speaker 3: teacher education that happens predominantly at our universities, these teachers
Speaker 3: are getting sociology lessons basically, but they're never really taught
Speaker 3: practically what it means to stand in front of a classroom.
Speaker 3: So we produced a report at the initiative last year
Speaker 3: that was by my colleague Michael Johnston with his or
Speaker 3: researcher Stephanie Martin. And Stephanie is a teacher herself, and
Speaker 3: she writes up in that introductory chapter of the report,
Speaker 3: which you can find on our website, her experience of
Speaker 3: studying to become a teacher at the University of Auckland
Speaker 3: and then realizing how useless that all education was once
Speaker 3: she actually stood in front of first students for the
Speaker 3: first time. So we've got a problem. It shouldn't be
Speaker 3: actually left to the principles to undo the damage. Ideally
Speaker 3: we would actually provide our teachers a decent education in
Speaker 3: the first place.
Speaker 2: Yes, but you've got to start somewhere and working in
Speaker 2: reverse is probably going to get you the fastest result. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Well, but what you can also do is, of course
Speaker 3: you can establish an alternative teacher education system training system,
Speaker 3: and we have some parts of that already operating in
Speaker 3: the country. There is one training college in christ Church
Speaker 3: that does it that way in cooperation with the schools
Speaker 3: where the teacher's actually in practical experience. And from what
Speaker 3: I've heard, a number of Auckland schools are now thinking
Speaker 3: about pulling out of university teacher education by organizing their
Speaker 3: own training courses.
Speaker 2: That's the best news I've heard today. Education is something
Speaker 2: we spend so much time on and yet and yet
Speaker 2: the results of the old discussion and the nitpicking seems
Speaker 2: to have got us nowhere to date. But your confidence
Speaker 2: in the new minister, I think is probably quite valid
Speaker 2: and I'm looking forward to those results.
Speaker 3: Cars I'm optimistic, I would say, because I can see
Speaker 3: it on a daily basis here in the office. My
Speaker 3: colleague Michael Johnston chairs Erica Stanford's Minister Advisory Group, and
Speaker 3: therefore every now and then I get a bit of
Speaker 3: an insight into what's happening and the amount of reform
Speaker 3: work they're doing, and I'm hugely impressed. It's the kind
Speaker 3: of education reforms that for years we've only been talking
Speaker 3: about and now they're happening. So for the first time,
Speaker 3: really in twelve years of doing education, working at the initiative,
Speaker 3: I'm really optimistic.
Speaker 2: Let's look at some of the other aspects of the budget,
Speaker 2: I think, just briefly, because it's had so much coverage already.
Speaker 2: Tax changes. Is there anything worthwhile in the tax changes?
Speaker 3: Oh, let's talk about this in parts. I mean, I
Speaker 3: understand why the government went ahead with the tax cuts
Speaker 3: simply for political reasons. I've had this discussion with ministers
Speaker 3: and actually with the Prime Minister themselves, and I argued, actually,
Speaker 3: you probably shouldn't look at text cuts while the budget
Speaker 3: is in such a big structural deficit, because you only
Speaker 3: make your pistal consolidation job harder for yourselves. And the
Speaker 3: answer I always got from the government was, look, promises
Speaker 3: when we campaigned, we now have to deliver because otherwise
Speaker 3: we'll lose all our credibility or political credibility just half
Speaker 3: a year into the job. And I understand that political
Speaker 3: calculus to a degree. I would say though that I
Speaker 3: think most people would be understanding if you told them, Look,
Speaker 3: we just took over. We found all the physical cliffs
Speaker 3: and physical rules, and yes we promised you tax belief,
Speaker 3: but we found a situation that is much much worse
Speaker 3: and even we anticipated, and therefore we can't deliver it
Speaker 3: just yet. This will have to wait maybe until next
Speaker 3: year or the year after. I think people would have
Speaker 3: understood that. So that's the political side of things. On
Speaker 3: the economic side of things, I think it's clearer. We
Speaker 3: are running the second largest structural deficit in the developed world.
Speaker 3: There's only one country that has a higher structural deficit
Speaker 3: than us in that's the United States. There's a small
Speaker 3: difference between New Zealand and the United States because the
Speaker 3: United States can print US dollars and somehow the world
Speaker 3: things that US dollars are still useful. Therefore they get
Speaker 3: away with this fiscal perflicacy. When Easiland, the situation is different.
Speaker 3: We can't get away with structural deficits. And I should
Speaker 3: probably explain what structural deficits are. So basically, a structural
Speaker 3: deficit is a deficit. Yet you would have in a
Speaker 3: normal year, So when the economy is not particularly booming,
Speaker 3: when it's not in particular in a particular recession, but
Speaker 3: just in a normal year, whether your taxes and your
Speaker 3: spending actually end up. And on that measure, we are
Speaker 3: currently running a massive structural deficit, and that is just
Speaker 3: not sustainable because it would mean that if you do
Speaker 3: this long enough, the country will go broke. Therefore, I
Speaker 3: would have prioritized consolidating the budget, consolidating our finances and
Speaker 3: basically closing this fiscal deficit and the structural deficit before
Speaker 3: even contemplating any text cuts. So that's one thing to
Speaker 3: look out. There is another way of looking at it economically,
Speaker 3: which again perhaps makes the government's case a bit more
Speaker 3: and that is the text inaxation issue, because actually, let's
Speaker 3: face it, what we got now wasn't even a real
Speaker 3: tax cut in that sense. It was basically just restoring
Speaker 3: the tax brackets to a state where they would have
Speaker 3: been had they been adjusted to normal inflation. And that
Speaker 3: I think makes good sense in principle, and I think
Speaker 3: we should probably make this a general rule that every
Speaker 3: year the tax brackets automatically get adjusted by say, the
Speaker 3: consumer price index. And that would also make this less
Speaker 3: political because everybody would know this is happening on an
Speaker 3: annual basis, and every year we get them adjusted just
Speaker 3: in line with inflation. So I think that would make
Speaker 3: sense to actually move to such a system in the
Speaker 3: long run, well in the medium term hopefully, But right
Speaker 3: now I would have on balance come down to keeping
Speaker 3: the tax brackets just for this year as they are
Speaker 3: because of his Scoo. Situation is so dire and we
Speaker 3: probably can't afford as if tax adjustments, even they are
Speaker 3: not even amounting to much of a tax cut.
Speaker 2: Let me approach a couple of other aspects, the forecasts
Speaker 2: that we've already discussed, and as I read through them
Speaker 2: again in a couple of opinion pieces as well as
Speaker 2: I read as I read through them, I thought, this
Speaker 2: is all guesswork. The last few years have shown us
Speaker 2: on two major fronts. COVID secondly, but the irresponsibility of
Speaker 2: the administration that was in for three years before before
Speaker 2: that ever happened. We don't know what's around the corner.
Speaker 2: How do we how do we? I mean, how can
Speaker 2: how can you as a Prime minister, mister of finance,
Speaker 2: as part of the government, how could you say this
Speaker 2: is what we're going to do, This is how we're
Speaker 2: going to achieve it, and by twenty forty we should
Speaker 2: be back on track. When you have no idea what's
Speaker 2: going to come between now and then, and maybe you
Speaker 2: should be taking precautionary measures to cover for that makes.
Speaker 3: Sense, Ye, makes perfect sense. That's exactly how I feel
Speaker 3: as well. So there are many assumptions, of course in
Speaker 3: the budget, and both of them strike me as relatively optimistic.
Speaker 3: So they have inflation go down relatively quickly. They have
Speaker 3: or financing costs for government debt staying moderately as at
Speaker 3: around four and a half percent. They don't, of course
Speaker 3: model what would happen after an earthquake is an army
Speaker 3: of volcanic eruption, and yet we know that these events
Speaker 3: occur quite regularly in New Zealand. So I think there
Speaker 3: are lots of risks on the downside. On the upside,
Speaker 3: I mean, what could happen that really surprised us? I mean,
Speaker 3: I think suddenly getting a splurge of productivity, probably not.
Speaker 3: Are we suddenly seeing all the conflicts in the global
Speaker 3: economy disappear between the West and China, Russia and the others.
Speaker 3: Probably not. So I think there are way more risks
Speaker 3: actually on the downside and or modeling doesn't take that
Speaker 3: into account properly. And by the way, I also think
Speaker 3: we should always leave a bit more room for maneuver
Speaker 3: for these external shocks when they occur, because they are
Speaker 3: of course from memory. I think we spend about twenty
Speaker 3: thirty percent of GDP on the cleanup of the Canterbury earthquakes.
Speaker 3: So just imagine the Wellington Ford line goes off or
Speaker 3: the Alpine fault, and then you would look at an
Speaker 3: event of similar magnitude, if not larger. So I would
Speaker 3: ideally like to leave some buffer for such events. And
Speaker 3: that's another reason why we should actually try to keep
Speaker 3: government debt as a percentage of GDP much lower than
Speaker 3: it is in countries like the US or Europe, because
Speaker 3: they don't have these extra risks added to their economies.
Speaker 3: And that's why we I think, have to be even
Speaker 3: more cautious here.
Speaker 2: But it's rather a small spanner in the works with
Speaker 2: regard to the makeup of this country. There is growing
Speaker 2: division at the moment. Fact it's never gone away. It
Speaker 2: might calm down in better times, but it shows itself
Speaker 2: with higher profile at a time like this. This is
Speaker 2: the disagreement between races, to put it simply, and the
Speaker 2: spin offs from those if we continue on this particular path.
Speaker 2: If we had continued on the path that they put
Speaker 2: us on, or they were intending to put us on
Speaker 2: back in the previous administration, I fear the country would
Speaker 2: have been lost forever. But at the moment I'm questioning
Speaker 2: whether or not there need needs to be far more
Speaker 2: done to overcome this son, far more done on a
Speaker 2: if necessary, confrontational level, to overcome the issues.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the problem is actually that the genie is also
Speaker 3: a bottle. It's really difficult to get it back in
Speaker 3: after six years of having that as government pollus. It
Speaker 3: scares me the development were on and it has actually
Speaker 3: turned the country into a completely different country to the
Speaker 3: one that I migrated to in twenty twelve. So when
Speaker 3: I arrived here coming from Australia, I thought, actually Nsiven
Speaker 3: was fortunate to be in race relations where it was
Speaker 3: at the time, especially VIISA of the Australia. Were there
Speaker 3: many more unsolved problems, I would say, And it seemed
Speaker 3: to me, at least in contrast with Australia much more
Speaker 3: harmonious as it was in twenty twelve, where everybody got
Speaker 3: on and where the basic issues were resolved, they were
Speaker 3: of course some still lingering injustices, because you could actually
Speaker 3: look at, for example, education rates and compare them across
Speaker 3: different ethnic lines and find that Mari and Pacific Our
Speaker 3: students were on average far less successful at school than
Speaker 3: Parking Are students, and especially Asian students. But I think
Speaker 3: in order to fix these discrepancies, you would have focused
Speaker 3: on the issues at hand, namely the education system. Instead,
Speaker 3: what the government did from twenty seven onwards was to
Speaker 3: turn every such socioeconomic problem into a race issue, and
Speaker 3: I think in doing so it actually divided the country enormously,
Speaker 3: and that is really difficult to mend together again. Know
Speaker 3: that we've had a change of government, but in principle
Speaker 3: I agree with you, this country is divided. I'm just
Speaker 3: not sure whether a direct confrontational approach would help us,
Speaker 3: or whether this would actually drive the country even further apart.
Speaker 3: I wish we could just work on issues where there
Speaker 3: are discrepancies, like education, fix these issues, and I hope
Speaker 3: that by doing that we would make the overlying race
Speaker 3: issues slowly disappear.
Speaker 2: It's a nice it's a pleasant thought. I I have
Speaker 2: serious doubts if you've.
Speaker 3: Got I'm not saying that I'm confident that it will work,
Speaker 3: but I would like to see a path to resolving
Speaker 3: these issues that seize the least amount of confrontation and
Speaker 3: polarize session, because we've got enough of that already.
Speaker 2: Well, certainly I agree, which leads me on to the
Speaker 2: situation in another part of the world, Switzerland, and there
Speaker 2: has been a small campaign over a number of years
Speaker 2: to try and introduce the Swiss system to the hundred
Speaker 2: Days into New Zealand. Just before I go on, would
Speaker 2: you approve of that? Do you think that would be
Speaker 2: a good idea?
Speaker 3: Well, as you know, Laton, I'm a huge fan of Switzerland.
Speaker 3: Switzerland is one of the most fascinating countries on Earth
Speaker 3: because they are doing so many things differently, and they're
Speaker 3: doing so many things much better than us. So anything
Speaker 3: that Switzerland does I think is worth studying. And I've
Speaker 3: really always admired Switzerland and a power from that. I mean,
Speaker 3: as a German, you look at Switzerland think well, the
Speaker 3: Swiss are just like the Germans, but nobody hates them,
Speaker 3: so that's great. And when I look at Switzerland, what
Speaker 3: I particular like is the way the country runs from
Speaker 3: the bottom up. There's hardly anyone in the Swiss federal government.
Speaker 3: Do you know how many ministers they have in burn.
Speaker 2: Next to none? Seven. Yeah, that's it.
Speaker 3: And the presidency of Switzerland rotates among the ministers. And
Speaker 3: the ministers, by the way, are drawn from all political parties,
Speaker 3: and it has been like that for decades, so they've
Speaker 3: got a permanent all party coalition. The only reason why
Speaker 3: that works is because everything in the end is subject
Speaker 3: to the threat of a referendum. That's the one hundred
Speaker 3: days you're talking about. So you collect enough signatures, you
Speaker 3: take it to the people, and then the people will
Speaker 3: have the final word. And I think that's a wonderful model.
Speaker 3: But the other thing that works well about Switzerland is
Speaker 3: the decentralization. The decentralization. We're in a country the size
Speaker 3: of Canterbury with just over nine million people. They have
Speaker 3: twenty six cantons and two thousand councils, and each and
Speaker 3: each council has its own income tax system, so in effact,
Speaker 3: you have more than two thousand different income tax systems
Speaker 3: and Switzerland and our sounds crazy, of course when you
Speaker 3: talk about it here in New Zealanders typically say, oh,
Speaker 3: this must be a recipe, recipe for disaster. Actually it
Speaker 3: is not, because it works. It has actually kept taxes
Speaker 3: quite low in Switzerland. It has made sure that Swiss
Speaker 3: local government is responsive to the population and that people
Speaker 3: are actually treated like customers by their councils, which you
Speaker 3: couldn't say of council's relationships with New Zealanders. And so
Speaker 3: I think structurally Switzerland works so much better. So I
Speaker 3: think we should study this system a lot more and
Speaker 3: try to figure out what we could copy from them.
Speaker 3: I would just say one word of caution, you cannot
Speaker 3: copy Switzerland because Switzerland has grown like this over centuries literally,
Speaker 3: and there are some structural elements of the Swiss experience
Speaker 3: that you can't replicate here either. So, for example, in Switzerland,
Speaker 3: you have a society that is maybe not polarized, but
Speaker 3: definitely fragmented. So you have German speakers, you have French speakers,
Speaker 3: Italian speakers, and Romance speakers, so you've got four languages
Speaker 3: in the country. You have different religious affiliations, so you've
Speaker 3: got strong Catholic parties still in strong Protestant parts, and
Speaker 3: then you've got other who are not even Christian at all.
Speaker 3: And then of course you've got the typical political divisions
Speaker 3: left wing, right wing, centrist, green, whatever, and so you
Speaker 3: put all of these different identities together and what you
Speaker 3: have is a country that is fragmented in so many
Speaker 3: different lines. Again, sounds like a recipe for disaster, but actually,
Speaker 3: in a Swiss case, what it has done is it
Speaker 3: is ensured that things are decided locally because you could
Speaker 3: never find agreement among all of them at a central level.
Speaker 3: And that has actually created a system of political governance
Speaker 3: that has worked extremely well for Switzerland. But it's really
Speaker 3: based on these factors. When you look at New Zealand,
Speaker 3: yes we have different ethnic clients, but probably not quite
Speaker 3: to the degree that the Swiss habits as a totally
Speaker 3: fragmented society. And nevertheless, as I said, it is a
Speaker 3: system worth learning from, and.
Speaker 2: It's probably not the only one, but it's certainly a
Speaker 2: very a very good one. So while we're talking about
Speaker 2: the makeup of a country, migration, immigration is a very
Speaker 2: important thing.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: I read something a little earlier this morning, before we
Speaker 2: before we sat down to talk. I read that the
Speaker 2: level of migration looks like it's going to be maintained
Speaker 2: for the foreseeable future. Now, I've got a couple of
Speaker 2: back questions off that one I've been asking for a while,
Speaker 2: just throwing it out, rather than asking one hundred and
Speaker 2: forty thousand people that came into this country last year,
Speaker 2: where did they come from, what qualifications did they have?
Speaker 2: What contribution to the country can they possibly make? Because
Speaker 2: I'm a believer in the fact that a country is
Speaker 2: and should have control of who comes into it, and
Speaker 2: they should be people that are worthy of it, who
Speaker 2: can contribute to the country and the rest of the population.
Speaker 2: And I'm certainly aware that there are a lot of
Speaker 2: people here who can't you say.
Speaker 3: I say that I have asked myself exactly the same
Speaker 3: question and passed it on to our colic Bryce Wilkinson
Speaker 3: a few weeks ago, and I asked Bryce to actually
Speaker 3: look into these migration statistics and tell me who's coming,
Speaker 3: because I had the same look at the statistics that
Speaker 3: you probably had, and I thought, well, that's extraordinary. We
Speaker 3: had a net loss of fifty thousand New Zealand citizens
Speaker 3: to Australia, and at the same time we had a
Speaker 3: net migration intake of one hundred and forty thousand. So,
Speaker 3: by the way, these are net figures. I mean, there
Speaker 3: are way more people arriving, but there are also people leaving.
Speaker 3: But the net intake is one hundred and forty and
Speaker 3: I wanted to know, actually, how does this work. You
Speaker 3: occasionally read stories in the newspapers where they say this
Speaker 3: is a massive net brain drain. So we're losing our
Speaker 3: best qualified people and they are taking over across the
Speaker 3: tessment to have a new career in Australia, and at
Speaker 3: the same time we're getting relatively poorly qualified migrants in.
Speaker 3: And so what we actually have as a net movement
Speaker 3: as a net brain drain. And Bryce is looking into
Speaker 3: this right now, but I haven't got the final figures
Speaker 3: from him yet, but from everything that he has told
Speaker 3: me so far, it does look, indeed like the loss
Speaker 3: of skills is there and we are not getting the
Speaker 3: same qualifications back into the country. Bryce is also looking
Speaker 3: into the source of our new migrants and memory I
Speaker 3: think in the last year the number of migrants from
Speaker 3: European countries was I think only twelve percent of the total,
Speaker 3: and the majority, the vast majority of our migrants now
Speaker 3: are originating from Asian countries, and I mean, that seems
Speaker 3: to be the experience anyway when you're looking around, especially
Speaker 3: Auckland Auguland is slowly turning into a more ethnically Asian
Speaker 3: sy team. It's not the same, of course in other
Speaker 3: parts of the country, and especially the South Island is
Speaker 3: still a bit of a different story. But there seems
Speaker 3: to be definitely a changing ethnic composition of parts of
Speaker 3: the country and as also from our early research, a
Speaker 3: change in the skill set of the population that is
Speaker 3: linked to our migration patterns.
Speaker 2: It's not the race, it's the it's the culture that
Speaker 2: I mean, I've maintained for a long time. I'm not
Speaker 2: a racist, but I am certainly a culturalist. If you
Speaker 2: if you if you put people together from alien cultures
Speaker 2: that have a history of not fitting, then taking them
Speaker 2: in is something not to be not to be encouraged.
Speaker 3: You can throw can I can I can I respond
Speaker 3: to that? Yeah, I think I'm going a long way
Speaker 3: with you on that one. In fact, I think we
Speaker 3: should probably not talk about a multicultural society. We should
Speaker 3: talk about a multi ethnic society, and that's a different thing.
Speaker 3: So I did write a short paper for the Australian
Speaker 3: Productivity Commission when I worked there arguing that actually, when
Speaker 3: you're looking at Australia, lots of Australians are claiming that
Speaker 3: Australia is a multicultural society, and I actually, no, it
Speaker 3: isn't it is a multi ethnic society because there is one,
Speaker 3: or at least at the time, there was one Australian
Speaker 3: culture where people are told, no matter where you're from,
Speaker 3: you leave all that baggage behind. You become Australian, you
Speaker 3: become one of us. You live in the suburbs, your
Speaker 3: kids will be intermarry with each other, and after two
Speaker 3: or three generations you will be basically indistinguishable from anyone
Speaker 3: else in this country because you have all kind of
Speaker 3: lived together, and you've had your kids had children together,
Speaker 3: and therefore you become Australian. And by the way, on
Speaker 3: arrival will make you sign an Australian value statement where
Speaker 3: you sign up to our basic roots. And so I
Speaker 3: thought this whole idea of Australian multiculturalism was a misnomal
Speaker 3: Becauseustralian culture, at least at the time I wrote this paper,
Speaker 3: I think around twenty nine or ten, it was defined
Speaker 3: that there was such a thing as an Australian culture,
Speaker 3: and then it doesn't matter was ethnic community you belong to.
Speaker 3: You can have your ethnic community and your ethnic identity,
Speaker 3: but the culture was clearly defined as that of a
Speaker 3: Western liberal democracy and I liked that concept. And by
Speaker 3: the way, this was how Australia at least always worked.
Speaker 3: So think back even to the times Australian settlement. I mean,
Speaker 3: Australia got migrants mainly from the United Kingdom, but people
Speaker 3: who in the United Kingdom wouldn't have got on. So
Speaker 3: you got Catholics and Protestants and Irishmen and Englishmen. And
Speaker 3: basically the only way that Australia could work at the
Speaker 3: time was to tell all of them, look, we know
Speaker 3: about your conflicts you had back home, but they belonged
Speaker 3: to where you came from, and you are not allowed
Speaker 3: to parade them around here. Your idea is to become Australian.
Speaker 3: And it's worked again. And after the war, think of
Speaker 3: the Greek migration wave into Australia. I saw statistics at
Speaker 3: the time about the prevalence of Greek orthodox as a
Speaker 3: denomination in Australia, and that basically lasted about two generations
Speaker 3: of Greek migration into Australia and then the integration, they
Speaker 3: became indistinguishable from the rest of society. So I think
Speaker 3: we should really be careful how we are calling these things.
Speaker 3: Is it multiculturalism. I think if it's really multiculturalism and
Speaker 3: you've got different cultures living side by side, it's a
Speaker 3: recipe for disaster. There is something that all people in
Speaker 3: the country should agree on, and these are the foundations
Speaker 3: of society. That we've got equal rights for men and women,
Speaker 3: that we have no problem no matter what sexual orientation
Speaker 3: you have. You can have any religion or none. This
Speaker 3: is all part of living in a free Western society.
Speaker 3: And if you can sign up to that, you're welcome.
Speaker 3: But you are not allowed to bring any other culture
Speaker 3: that is incompatible with these basic values, because that would
Speaker 3: be a recipe for disaster and for driving societies apart.
Speaker 2: So do I take it that you were agreeing with
Speaker 2: as far as I.
Speaker 3: Went, Yes, but I would be careful in how we
Speaker 3: call this. I think this is actually multicultures is a
Speaker 3: bit of misnoma. I think we should talk about multi
Speaker 3: ethnic societies, but with a clear, clearly defined national culture
Speaker 3: which is based on enlightenment, on Western civilization, on the
Speaker 3: rule of law, on property rights, and there are some
Speaker 3: things that I believe should not be subject to debate,
Speaker 3: such as such as the ones that I mentioned. These
Speaker 3: are the basic pillars on which our society rests. And
Speaker 3: then it doesn't matter the color of your skin or
Speaker 3: what you believe. And when you come into the country,
Speaker 3: you basically sign up to that. And the Australians actually
Speaker 3: literally make you sign up to these values by putting
Speaker 3: this Australian value statement to every migrant. You have to
Speaker 3: sign this to get a visa, and that I think
Speaker 3: sends a very clear signal to newcomers that yes you
Speaker 3: have come and yes you're welcome here, but there are
Speaker 3: some basic rules that we would expect you to live by.
Speaker 2: Do you think that is still the same with the
Speaker 2: same success now as it was over the periods that
Speaker 2: you mentioned.
Speaker 3: No, it has changed, and that worries me. But at
Speaker 3: least that's how it was traditionally practiced in Australia, and
Speaker 3: I believe in New Zealand too.
Speaker 2: So where did the practice go wrong?
Speaker 3: The practice goes wrong when people think, oh, there is
Speaker 3: basically an equivalence of cultures, and we can't actually say
Speaker 3: that one culture is better than the other. And maybe
Speaker 3: you can't say that one culture is better than the other,
Speaker 3: but you can definitely define what culture you live under.
Speaker 3: And I think it becomes really difficult and dangerous when
Speaker 3: that is no longer clear, when anything goes because it
Speaker 3: just leads to the segregation of society. And by the way,
Speaker 3: if you want to see an example of where that's
Speaker 3: gone wrong, just look at Europe, look at what's happening
Speaker 3: in France, look at Germany, look at parts of Britain.
Speaker 3: The segregation of society that we see in parts of
Speaker 3: Europe is something that I wouldn't want to see replicated here.
Speaker 2: And I would certainly join you on that.
Speaker 3: By the way, can I say one more thing about that?
Speaker 3: I think it is also in part it's not just
Speaker 3: the fault of the migrants in these countries, looking at
Speaker 3: the German experience that I'm quite familiar with, still, it
Speaker 3: is also a fault of German society of never having
Speaker 3: actually walken up to the fact that Germany is a
Speaker 3: country that attracts migrants. What I have in mind are
Speaker 3: the so called guest workers that started arriving in the
Speaker 3: nineteen fifties, initially from countries like Spain and Italy, and
Speaker 3: then over the years I extended to especially Turkey. So
Speaker 3: these people came in. They were called guest workers, and
Speaker 3: the idea was, as the name suggests, that there are
Speaker 3: guests in the country and after a few years they
Speaker 3: would leave and disappear and go back home to their
Speaker 3: countries where they had come from. And they didn't, and
Speaker 3: in fact they had children and their children had children.
Speaker 3: So suddenly, by the nineteen eighties nineties there was serious
Speaker 3: talk in German of guest workers of the third generation.
Speaker 3: And I think it is ludicrous. If your family has
Speaker 3: been in a country for fifty or sixty years, and
Speaker 3: if you're now the third generation of those so called
Speaker 3: guest workers, you're no longer a guess at that stage
Speaker 3: you should belong to society. But mainstream society had never
Speaker 3: signaled to them that they were supposed to be there
Speaker 3: for the long term, and therefore they were always told, well, actually,
Speaker 3: you're not really one of us, and we don't expect
Speaker 3: you to become one of us, because in the end
Speaker 3: you're guests and we expect you to leave again. And
Speaker 3: I think that was again the wrong policy to take,
Speaker 3: because you would have ideally practiced, for example, what the
Speaker 3: Australians do, where they say, okay, you have arrived now,
Speaker 3: and now we're making sure that you become Australian. In
Speaker 3: the same way, the Germans could have said, actually, you
Speaker 3: have arrived now and we're trying to make sure that
Speaker 3: you actually learned German and become part of mainstream society here.
Speaker 3: But they didn't. They always pretended and kept up this
Speaker 3: fiction that at some stage she would just disappear. And
Speaker 3: while they kept up the fiction, they allowed them to
Speaker 3: form parallel societies. So you've got whole suburbs now of
Speaker 3: German cities where they basically have their parallel infrastructure, where
Speaker 3: everything is Turkish and where you wouldn't find it a
Speaker 3: word of German spoken. What I find interesting, by the way,
Speaker 3: is when you look at this experience, you can find
Speaker 3: that the first generation was perfectly integrated, because that was
Speaker 3: a generation that worked. They find found jobs in the factories,
Speaker 3: they had German colleagues, They learned the language because they
Speaker 3: wanted to interact with their colleagues. And so the first
Speaker 3: generation of Turkish Mirgrants was by some measures better integrated
Speaker 3: than their children and grandchildren are today because mainstream society
Speaker 3: allowed them to segregate and form parallel social structures. And
Speaker 3: again it just shows you what you have to do
Speaker 3: to integrate newcomers. The best form of integration for newcomers
Speaker 3: is through the labor market because it forces people to
Speaker 3: learn the language of their colleagues. It forces them to
Speaker 3: actually pay for their own households, so they're not aligned
Speaker 3: on benefits and in that way they become part of
Speaker 3: mainstream society. Once you give up on that, and once
Speaker 3: you actually push them away out of mainstream society, you
Speaker 3: are asking for trouble down the liner. That's where many
Speaker 3: European countries are.
Speaker 2: You mentioned Switzerland, you mentioned France, and you mentioned Germany
Speaker 2: and Turkey, but you haven't mentioned the UK.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I've lived in the UK two for four
Speaker 3: and a half years. What do you want to talk about?
Speaker 2: Well, the politics of the UK at the moment, the
Speaker 2: scenario there, what's your interpretation?
Speaker 3: I mean, the real question is actually will the Conservative
Speaker 3: Party survive. It's not a question of whether they might
Speaker 3: win the election. I think that will not happen, but
Speaker 3: it's just a question of how bad that election result
Speaker 3: will be for the Tories after fourteen years in government.
Speaker 2: Can I reimate can I rearrange that how bad it is,
Speaker 2: how bad it will be for the country, not just
Speaker 2: the story party, the country.
Speaker 3: Well, yes, I mean we can take that almost as
Speaker 3: a given that we will have a strong labor government
Speaker 3: with a strong majority in the Commons, but they might
Speaker 3: not even be any meaningful opposition left. So, especially after
Speaker 3: Nigel Farage declared that he's now entering as the new
Speaker 3: leader of Reform, he will probably take enough percentage points
Speaker 3: off the Tories to really reduce the Tories to maybe
Speaker 3: where the Canadian Conservatives were in the nineteen nineties stay
Speaker 3: I think they finished with just two MPs. It might
Speaker 3: not be that bad, but I wouldn't be surprised if
Speaker 3: in the end we just have maybe thirty or forty
Speaker 3: Conservative MPs left. Now he can't really run a proper
Speaker 3: opposition all of that, and they will be crushed by
Speaker 3: perhaps more than five minute Labor MPs. So this will
Speaker 3: be an extraordinary situation that we haven't really hadn't Britain
Speaker 3: for a long time.
Speaker 2: What would be the reaction to it? Do you think?
Speaker 3: Well? I think we will probably see the most left
Speaker 3: wing government that Britain has had in a long time.
Speaker 3: I mean Margaret Thatcher was once asked after leaving office
Speaker 3: what was her biggest achievement, and her response was Tony Blair,
Speaker 3: because she argued that she had actually forced the British
Speaker 3: Labor Party so much to the right to accept most
Speaker 3: of her basic settings of the British economy that it
Speaker 3: didn't really matter that there was a change of government
Speaker 3: in nineteen ninety seven from John Major to Tony Blair
Speaker 3: and Ny Margaret Thatcher was right. But what has happened
Speaker 3: since is, of course that the Labor Party has had
Speaker 3: a massive shift to the left, especially of course previously
Speaker 3: under Jeremy Corbyn as later, but even now with Kiir Starmer.
Speaker 3: It is a far cry from where it used to
Speaker 3: be under Tony Blair and even under Gordon Brown. So
Speaker 3: I think we are now looking at the prospect of
Speaker 3: a seriously left leaning government governing Britain over the next
Speaker 3: five years, and that will be quite a turning point
Speaker 3: for the country.
Speaker 2: Let me ask you a tourism question, given that that's
Speaker 2: the result, and give it six months to a year.
Speaker 2: Based on the experience that we've witnessed with the Mayor
Speaker 2: of London, do you think a parliament of five hundred
Speaker 2: labor labor rights with no opposition would change the country
Speaker 2: enough to say to some of us, at least Britain's
Speaker 2: off the travel list.
Speaker 3: Lloyd might have to do the opposite. And because we
Speaker 3: could see sterling collapse and then your holiday becomes a
Speaker 3: lot cheaper.
Speaker 2: Some people are so selfish, just trying to be a
Speaker 2: little bit optimistic. Though I wasn't referring to you, I
Speaker 2: was referring to the people that you referred to. No,
Speaker 2: it's and I understand that, I understand that completely. But
Speaker 2: the country itself. Look at what's happened in the United
Speaker 2: States with the non existent southern border, the amount of
Speaker 2: crime that exists all across America now from an extra
Speaker 2: ten or the last figure I heard was twelve million
Speaker 2: illegals in there just on this occasion in the last
Speaker 2: three years. The country is very unsafe. Look. I watched
Speaker 2: a video, short video that somebody took on their camera
Speaker 2: of a guy in San Francisco the middle of the
Speaker 2: day walking down what looked like a main street. There
Speaker 2: weren't a lot of people, about plenty of traffic walking
Speaker 2: down on main street. Who got jumped on by four
Speaker 2: It could have even been five I couldn't quite make
Speaker 2: it out. Gangsters who were dressed in hoodies and the
Speaker 2: whole thing who kicked the proverbial out of him and
Speaker 2: took everything he had, jumped in, jumped in their car
Speaker 2: and drove off the middle of the day.
Speaker 3: But it could have been Central Auckland.
Speaker 2: Too, My point exactly if you want, mm hmm yep.
Speaker 2: But what I was, what I was really relating to,
Speaker 2: I suppose I was using that as an example to
Speaker 2: say where London could end up.
Speaker 3: Sure, and I mean in parts of Britain you probably
Speaker 3: already have these problems. So yeah, that is a prospect
Speaker 3: and it won't get much better, or it might get
Speaker 3: a lot. Boy is actually under that Labor government. But
Speaker 3: we should probably talk a little bit about the Tories too,
Speaker 3: because they've been in power for fourteen years and I
Speaker 3: have now read I like reading comments to newspaper columns
Speaker 3: from British newspapers because you get a bit of a
Speaker 3: sense of what their readers think, and especially in the
Speaker 3: Daily Telegraph, which is one of my favorite papers. I
Speaker 3: read comments now under practically every article saying things like
Speaker 3: I'm a lifelong Tory voter and I've had it with
Speaker 3: that party and I've been voting for the Tories for
Speaker 3: forty or fifty years, but in this coming election they
Speaker 3: will not have my vote. The Tory parties fourteen years
Speaker 3: in office have been disastrous, with few exceptions. I think
Speaker 3: the one exception being Michael Gove's education reforms is probably
Speaker 3: the only positive legacy that they're leaving behind. But the
Speaker 3: rest of those fourteen years, starting with David Cameron and
Speaker 3: then continuing with Teresa May, then Boris Johnson, List Trusts
Speaker 3: Bishi Sonak, it's been a disaster for the country. Actually
Speaker 3: they did nothing. Actually their spending went up. They are
Speaker 3: spending more than Tony Blair ever did. They didn't do
Speaker 3: any of the things that they promised. They are still
Speaker 3: going on with high speed railway links to Birmingham and
Speaker 3: other places. What is the legacy of the Tory government? Yes,
Speaker 3: and what was the promise when they started? So they
Speaker 3: started with all sorts of wonderful marketing slogans under David Cameron.
Speaker 3: And I mean I worked there until two thousand and
Speaker 3: eight when Cameron was opposition leader and we were in
Speaker 3: a thing than quite closely linked to him, and even
Speaker 3: at the time I thought, well this is all a
Speaker 3: lot of marketing talk, but not much substance because they
Speaker 3: were not actually talking much policy anymore these days. They
Speaker 3: were focused on just rebuilding the image of the party.
Speaker 3: They gave it a new logo. Gone was market such
Speaker 3: as torture Freedom, and it was replaced by a left
Speaker 3: leaning tree that children could have painted. It was all
Speaker 3: it was all appearance, it was all pr it was
Speaker 3: all marketing, and I think basically that's what gutted the
Speaker 3: Tory Party and led to them spending fourteen years in
Speaker 3: government not really knowing who they are anymore. And I
Speaker 3: see that as a problem not just for the Tory
Speaker 3: Party but for many center right parties around the world,
Speaker 3: where they have actually put the slogans ahead of decent
Speaker 3: policy development. And that worries me.
Speaker 2: It should worry all of us. What should worry all
Speaker 2: of us is the decline of government in practically every
Speaker 2: Anglo country, namely one where they're booming, namely one where
Speaker 2: everything is going really well.
Speaker 3: And not just Anglo countries. I can tell you that
Speaker 3: the situation is not much better, if at all, on
Speaker 3: the continent in Europe. So I think it's a decline
Speaker 3: that we see in governance or government across developed countries
Speaker 3: around the world, and it is frightening, as absolutely frightening.
Speaker 2: I've got a couple of books. I can't see that
Speaker 2: of them at the moment, but I've got a couple
Speaker 2: of books that I've had for some time. One I
Speaker 2: remember was published in nineteen ninety seven, Why the West
Speaker 2: Leads for Now, and the other one was even more provoking.
Speaker 2: It's interesting to keep books that make predictions to see
Speaker 2: just how the authors have, how successful they've been, how
Speaker 2: good they are, and whether they're worth willing and you
Speaker 2: learn you actually learn something from the approach that authors
Speaker 2: take when you when you see a history of correct
Speaker 2: predictions or even one major one. We don't teach history
Speaker 2: in schools, and here we are back on education while
Speaker 2: I am so, let's give it a miss. RBNZ governor
Speaker 2: says eventually monetary policy will win the day end quote,
Speaker 2: beating ordinary kiwi's and blames overseas factors. On the very
Speaker 2: same day, inflation fell in the UK to two point
Speaker 2: three percent. Now that's Robert McCulloch from the University of Auckland,
Speaker 2: but there are others making similar comments. There's been a
Speaker 2: bit of a bit of a sour taste in the
Speaker 2: mouth lately from the governor of the Reserve Bank, and
Speaker 2: you are well familiar with it.
Speaker 3: You say, well, at a time when we have our
Speaker 3: tradeables inflation running at relatively law levels and un non
Speaker 3: tradable inflation still running it close to six percent, I
Speaker 3: think it would be wiser for the Reserve Bank governor
Speaker 3: to just acknowledge his own contributions, or that are the
Speaker 3: contributions of his bank that he leads towards some our
Speaker 3: inflation crisis. Because a lot of our inflation problems in
Speaker 3: New Zealand are homemade. They are still the result of
Speaker 3: the extraordinary amount of money that the Reserve Bank created
Speaker 3: during the OVID years fifty five billion dollars that flooded
Speaker 3: our markets, that drove up domestic prices, and I think
Speaker 3: that is the main story behind. On the other thing,
Speaker 3: where the Reserve Bank should probably just acknowledge some responsibilities
Speaker 3: and the enormous losses to the taxpayer that they have
Speaker 3: caused in pursuing these policies. So we are currently looking
Speaker 3: at about eleven billion dollars that the taxpayer has to
Speaker 3: spend on recapitalizing the Reserve Bank of New Zealand because
Speaker 3: for all the money printing activities, the Reserve Bank was
Speaker 3: indemnified from by the Minister of Finance at the beginning,
Speaker 3: meaning that any losses that they incurred could be passed
Speaker 3: on to the taxpayer. And that's what's happening right now.
Speaker 3: So the Reserve Bank's performance actually in these COVID years,
Speaker 3: I think deserves much closer stroordiny and I think maya
Speaker 3: kulpa from the Reserve Bank governor would be appropriate.
Speaker 2: Can I just raise with you the fact that the
Speaker 2: Reserve Bank seems to have turned itself into a forest,
Speaker 2: or at least the start of a forest, that other
Speaker 2: aspects of the banks, I should probably say the governor's
Speaker 2: approach to life questionable for a Reserve Bank governor.
Speaker 3: Yes, you're probably referring to the articles that we saw
Speaker 3: the end of last week about the conflict that we've
Speaker 3: had with the Reserve Bank here the initiative. Well, it
Speaker 3: was all an unfortunate episode, an incident that played out
Speaker 3: when our chair Roger part Which wrote a column for
Speaker 3: the New Zealand Herald in which he once again dealt
Speaker 3: with capital requirements for banks. And that's a technical disagreement
Speaker 3: that we've had with the Reserve Bank for many years.
Speaker 3: Roger wrote a column and once again asked whether the
Speaker 3: Reserve Bank's policies on prudential regulations the regulations for the
Speaker 3: banks were properly argued. And I would have thought, under
Speaker 3: normal circumstances, it was such a mild column. There was
Speaker 3: nothing polemical about it. Nothing should have followed from it. Instead,
Speaker 3: what happened, and it was revealed by Jeanne Tripsheney in
Speaker 3: the Herald. The Reserve Banks governor then brought Nima to
Speaker 3: the CEOs and chairs of our largest banks and complained
Speaker 3: about that column and basically told the banks you are
Speaker 3: members of the New Zealand Initiative and why are you
Speaker 3: supporting an organization that writes columns for the Herald like that?
Speaker 3: And he wrote a letter to the editor which was
Speaker 3: some then printed in the New Zealand Herald last Saturday,
Speaker 3: and he made the same points publicly as well, referring
Speaker 3: back to the membership of the banks of the Initiative.
Speaker 3: And when I saw all of that and read this
Speaker 3: in a herald, I was alarmed because I thought, first
Speaker 3: of all, you're the Reserve Bank governor. You should be
Speaker 3: able to live with criticism, and especially if it's not polemical.
Speaker 3: It was not personal, it was just a disagreement on
Speaker 3: a policy matter, So why are you not able to
Speaker 3: live with that level of public debate? And secondly, and
Speaker 3: perhaps was disturbing. The banks that he sent the letter
Speaker 3: to are the same banks, of course, that are being
Speaker 3: regulated by the Reserve Bank, So to send them a
Speaker 3: letter and tell them, look, we've just been criticized by
Speaker 3: the initiative. You are members of that initiative. And then
Speaker 3: between the lines, do you think it's a wise idea
Speaker 3: to be members of the initiative when they're writing articles
Speaker 3: that are so critical of us? I thought that at
Speaker 3: a sour aftertaste, a Reserve Bank governor shouldn't behave like
Speaker 3: But I mean, you have to be careful when you're
Speaker 3: regulating an industry, when you're then telling the industry what
Speaker 3: they have to do things that you are actually not
Speaker 3: responsible for. I mean, he's not regulating them for the
Speaker 3: articles that we write. And therefore I was concerned. And
Speaker 3: then on Friday last week, the Minister of Finance revealed
Speaker 3: in a press conference that I had sent her and
Speaker 3: the chair of the Reserve Bank a letter to just
Speaker 3: make these points and now we will see what happens
Speaker 3: and what follows after that. But I was not impressed
Speaker 3: by the approach taken by the Reserve Bank on that matter.
Speaker 2: There was a column headline five or six years ago
Speaker 2: in the Herald referring to the Governor of the Reserve
Speaker 2: Bank genius or zombie. Is it too early to say?
Speaker 3: I wouldn't characterize him with either of these terms. I
Speaker 3: want him to do his job and I want him
Speaker 3: to do his job in accordance with the Reserve Bank
Speaker 3: of New Zealand Act twenty twenty one and with the
Speaker 3: Reserve Bank's own Court of Conduct. It's a beautiful document,
Speaker 3: by the way. When you read the Court of Conduct,
Speaker 3: it says we treat everybody with respect, we are all
Speaker 3: for big debates, we take on board alternative viewpoints. Basically,
Speaker 3: we're open minded and we are not engaging in name calling. Roughly,
Speaker 3: that's what the Court of conducts as well. Then I
Speaker 3: would like to see the Reserve Bank behave like that,
Speaker 3: and by actually putting pressure on members of the Initiative
Speaker 3: to effectively withdraw their membership from an organization that criticizes
Speaker 3: the Reserve Bank. I don't think it complies with their
Speaker 3: own court of conduct and actually should be unacceptable in
Speaker 3: a rule of law based democracy to have a regulator
Speaker 3: behave like.
Speaker 2: That well spoken. So finally, last question, growth and productivity.
Speaker 2: If you were in a position to wave your magic
Speaker 2: wand what would what move would you make to aid
Speaker 2: and abid those two things?
Speaker 3: Even with a magic wand, it wouldn't be easy because
Speaker 3: some productivity draw are things that result from getting your
Speaker 3: whole set of policies right. And currently I think we've
Speaker 3: got a whole set of policies wrong. So it will
Speaker 3: take more than just one abracadabra until we get the
Speaker 3: economy growing again. But if I could just single out
Speaker 3: a couple of things I would like to do immediately.
Speaker 3: The first thing I would do, I would open New
Speaker 3: Zealand to international capital. We are one of the most
Speaker 3: restrictive countries when it comes to capital imports to foreign
Speaker 3: liked investment, and we are shooting our in the foot
Speaker 3: because we need that capital and we need that investment
Speaker 3: not just because we need the money, but we need
Speaker 3: to be linked into international value chains. We need to
Speaker 3: have access to these value chains in order to lift
Speaker 3: on productivity and by the way, once we've got the
Speaker 3: capital here, that will create growth, opportunities, jobs, And if
Speaker 3: you want to see an example of a country that
Speaker 3: works along those lines, look at Ireland. They became rich
Speaker 3: out of foreign direct investment, and I think we should
Speaker 3: be trying to do the same. And that means basically
Speaker 3: getting rid of Overseas Investment Office and our Overseas Investment Act.
Speaker 3: If you want to keep any of this just limited
Speaker 3: to national security concerns, but otherwise open the floodgates to capital,
Speaker 3: that's what New Zealand needs. The second thing I would do,
Speaker 3: and that links us back to the discussion we had
Speaker 3: earlier on Switzerland. I would love to abolish or counsel
Speaker 3: rights system and replace it with a local income tax.
Speaker 3: The way that would work for growth and productivity is
Speaker 3: input because currently councils will always get the same amount
Speaker 3: of tax revenue council rates revenue, because it doesn't matter
Speaker 3: whether the council performs, whether the council's economy performs, whether
Speaker 3: the businesses in the council's area are successful, you will
Speaker 3: always get the same revenue regardless. There are no incentives
Speaker 3: for the council to be good for its local economy
Speaker 3: under that system. Once you replace this with a local
Speaker 3: income tax, you get a completely definit incentive structure. Then
Speaker 3: a council would get more tax revenue if people have
Speaker 3: higher incomes, if they generate more growth, if they generate
Speaker 3: more wealth. And therefore, I think once you change the
Speaker 3: system towards a Swiss tile local income tax, you will
Speaker 3: see councils bending over backwards to make it possible for
Speaker 3: companies to grow and invest. I have some very practical
Speaker 3: examples in mind. I recently spoke to a CEO of
Speaker 3: a small company that tried to build a small factory,
Speaker 3: and they've been trying that since twenty eighteen. Cost the
Speaker 3: Council's been an absolute nightmare. So practically every step along
Speaker 3: the way, the council asks for twenty more clarifications than
Speaker 3: each time they ask for twenty clarifications, you spend an
Speaker 3: average of ten thousand dollars on each bullet point answering
Speaker 3: it with consultants. Now, imagine the council at an incentive
Speaker 3: an interest in getting this company this new factory off
Speaker 3: the ground. I think the council would ask fewer questions,
Speaker 3: they would streamline the whole process because they would have
Speaker 3: an interest in getting the factory up and running so
Speaker 3: that they could generate text revenue for the council. And
Speaker 3: I think in that way we would create a lot
Speaker 3: more growth, would probably create a lot more housing as well.
Speaker 3: And if I had this magic wand I would do
Speaker 3: these two things at once. So abolish any rules on
Speaker 3: FDI or a direct investment and changing the way that
Speaker 3: we find as councils so that they have a reason
Speaker 3: to go for growth.
Speaker 2: That would be the next mayor of Oakland, do you.
Speaker 3: No, I don't think I've got the charm The office requires.
Speaker 2: Oliver Hart, which it is always a pleasure, and this
Speaker 2: one was supremely so thank you for your time and
Speaker 2: keep your thinking.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 2: One last question, one last question.
Speaker 3: Now called lumber, right, I have the lumber, always had
Speaker 3: the last question.
Speaker 2: I've asked you this before on at least one, but
Speaker 2: I think more occasions. Would you consider leaving this country
Speaker 2: at the moment?
Speaker 3: No, because I've got its shop to them.
Speaker 2: Still, it's a good answer and I'll take it. Thanks again,
Speaker 2: thank you, and it won't be the last time.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Lateon, there are essential fat nutrients that we need in
Speaker 2: our diet as the body can't manufacture them. These are
Speaker 2: Omega three and Amiga six fatty acience. Equisin is a
Speaker 2: combination of fish oil and virgin evening primrose oil, a
Speaker 2: formula that provides an excellent source of Omega three and
Speaker 2: Omega six fatty acids in their naturally existing ratios. The
Speaker 2: Omega six from evening primrose oil assists the Omega three
Speaker 2: fish oil to be more effective. Equisine is a high
Speaker 2: quality fish oil supplement enriched with evening primrose oil that
Speaker 2: works synergistically for comprehensive health support. Source from the deep
Speaker 2: sea sardines Anchovisa Magril provide essential Amiga three fatty acids
Speaker 2: in their purest form without any internal organs or toxins.
Speaker 2: Every batch is tested for its purity before it's allowed
Speaker 2: to be sold. Equisine supports cells to be flexible, so
Speaker 2: important to support healthy blood flow and overall cardiovascular health.
Speaker 2: Equisine can support mood, balance and mental clarity and focus
Speaker 2: in children, all the way to supporting stiff joints, mental focus,
Speaker 2: brain health and healthy eyes as we get older. Equisine
Speaker 2: is a premium, high grade fish and evening primrose oil
Speaker 2: to be taken in addition to a healthy diet. It
Speaker 2: is only available from pharmacies and health stores. Always read
Speaker 2: the label and users directed, and if symptoms persist, see
Speaker 2: your healthcare professional. Farmer Broker Auckland. Welcome to the mail
Speaker 2: room for podcast two hundred and forty two, missus producer,
Speaker 2: I would like you to lead. If you don't mind.
Speaker 4: Lateon, I will. Kevin says, listening to your weekly podcasts
Speaker 4: and many times re listening to them, is a pleasant
Speaker 4: diversion and thankfully reminds me the whole world hasn't transformed
Speaker 4: into absurdity. I rather suspect you have a deeper understanding
Speaker 4: of the nature of the world's state of affairs, maybe
Speaker 4: not apparent to those interviewees who miss your obvious clues
Speaker 4: and dispersed amongst the insightful questions you ask. I'm usually
Speaker 4: in a state of anticipation as you poke holes in
Speaker 4: the fabric of current reality and tease out and expose
Speaker 4: the pieces of information each guest may have to further
Speaker 4: unpick the powers that Bee's masterful plan to continually enslave
Speaker 4: mankind in a beehive mentality. For this and the information
Speaker 4: imparted by your refusal to embrace a woke or meronic
Speaker 4: dumbed down, politically correct narrative.
Speaker 2: I thank you.
Speaker 4: More recently John or Cock, Muriel Newman and Anthony Willie
Speaker 4: I have shared with many friends, but the real tour
Speaker 4: of forse without doubt was the letter from Leon Hill,
Speaker 4: the assie from Iceland. Being on the fringes of a
Speaker 4: loosely organized freedom movement of New Zealand, I was aware
Speaker 4: of the conspiracy theory pertaining to a proposed population wide
Speaker 4: digital idea which is to be implemented overseas and here.
Speaker 4: But the shock of realizing Australia just now legislated for
Speaker 4: its implementation galvanized me into sharing that letter with as
Speaker 4: many people as possible for being that watchman for encroachments
Speaker 4: on our freedom. Again, I thank you from Kevin.
Speaker 2: Kevin, very nice of you. Thank you. And there's a
Speaker 2: couple of things to comment on, specifically where he says,
Speaker 2: I rather suspect you have a deeper understanding of the
Speaker 2: nature of the world's state of affairs, maybe not apparent
Speaker 2: to those interviewees who miss your obvious clues blah blah.
Speaker 2: I've decided what the problem is the problem is that
Speaker 2: there are too many people who have no idea what
Speaker 2: really is going on because they restrict themselves to their
Speaker 2: own particular format without and I've had this discussion with
Speaker 2: so many people over over a long period of time.
Speaker 2: If you're reading material that comes via media that shuts
Speaker 2: down any objection to the narrative of the day or
Speaker 2: the moment, or the year or the lifetime, then you're
Speaker 2: going to be ignorant of what might really be going
Speaker 2: on because you can't make a judgment call. All you're
Speaker 2: doing is group thinking and being spoon fed, which is
Speaker 2: really done. And I've had a couple of those in
Speaker 2: interviews in the not too distant past. If I may
Speaker 2: say from Chester Laateon just wanted to say I listened
Speaker 2: to Uriel Newman last week and thought that she was
Speaker 2: truly brilliant. It just saddens me that she is ignored
Speaker 2: by mainstream media in this country as she delivers her
Speaker 2: message intelligently and thoughtfully. She covered the issues read the
Speaker 2: treaty and general topics around it with great clarity. When
Speaker 2: the Herald were running their radio ads about how they
Speaker 2: quote told both sides of the story those quote, I
Speaker 2: put in a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority suggesting
Speaker 2: that no, they didn't it attached several of Muriel's newsletters
Speaker 2: as proof, only to be told that my complaint did
Speaker 2: not reach the threshold where they would or could take action.
Speaker 2: Spare me. You're up against it, aren't.
Speaker 4: You, Leake Jen says. Just a month ago, Channel nine
Speaker 4: Australia reported that Minisha Grizoo had been dubbed Australia's strictest
Speaker 4: Principle and the success of the Marsden Road Public School
Speaker 4: was mostly due to her strict implementation of her behavior
Speaker 4: curriculum in her school. Menisha explains, we are teaching children
Speaker 4: how to address an adult, how to enter the classroom
Speaker 4: and correctly look after your books when you teach. This
Speaker 4: is a lesson from when the child is five. They
Speaker 4: don't see it as a discipline by the time they
Speaker 4: are twelve years old, because it is something that is
Speaker 4: ingrained in them right from the time they enter the school.
Speaker 4: The article detailed four pillars of the Marsden Way. The
Speaker 4: first pillar is the standardized core syllabus which all teachers follow.
Speaker 4: The second pillar is the systematic way in which all
Speaker 4: teachers are to teach. The third pillar is the structured
Speaker 4: system by which all students are assessed and the fourth
Speaker 4: pillar is the consistent drumming of good civics and citizenship
Speaker 4: into all students. These four pillars show that Manisha Grizzuola's
Speaker 4: success is due to the clarity and uniformity of expectations
Speaker 4: she has set for all teachers, students and parents. I
Speaker 4: loved it when she said in your podcast that we
Speaker 4: need to train and discipline kids while they are young
Speaker 4: because quote that little defiance becomes swearing tomorrow. How true.
Speaker 4: Just recall those disrespectful New Zealand students brazenly swearing at
Speaker 4: David Seymour in public. We need more Miniesia Grizzolas, not
Speaker 4: just in Australia, but in New Zealand too.
Speaker 2: Excellent, Paul writes, thanks for discussing digital ideas. Sadly it's
Speaker 2: something we will likely have to contend with due to
Speaker 2: public apathy and low IQ or conniving globalist politicians combination
Speaker 2: of all. I'd say New Zealand, a small country at
Speaker 2: the bottom of the world, needs to diversify what it
Speaker 2: does to pay the bills. Too often we have followed
Speaker 2: along and copied what larger nations have done, even after
Speaker 2: it had failed. Offshore gives an example of the firearms Register.
Speaker 2: We don't have to do this, It's not in our
Speaker 2: best interest. Look how we copied the deregulated power market
Speaker 2: and now we have expensive power and limited generation. When
Speaker 2: the Ministry of Electricity was closed, it was planning on
Speaker 2: building a nuclear reactor. We need to work smarter, not harder.
Speaker 2: We could be one of the countries offering the electronic
Speaker 2: id haven for poor souls stuck in socialist hellholes around
Speaker 2: the platter. We could be the New Switzerland of the
Speaker 2: South Pacific and the lifeboat of personal freedom. If only
Speaker 2: cheers from Paul Paul, very good suggestions, good comments the
Speaker 2: New Switzerland. While we've bandied that one around for some time,
Speaker 2: going all the way back to the eighties and the
Speaker 2: changes wrought by Roger Douglas Attel. But the commentary we
Speaker 2: just enjoyed with Oliver Hartwich, I think has made a
Speaker 2: contribution to the discussion. There just isn't enough of it.
Speaker 4: Laken Colin says the last government in New Zealand, using
Speaker 4: identity politics and guidance from the UN has left us
Speaker 4: with a lot of people feeling a sense of victimization. Therefore,
Speaker 4: some are resorting to a sense of entitlement, and others
Speaker 4: are sick of it all and are leaving the country.
Speaker 4: We even have one political party wanting to legitimize something
Speaker 4: like a Part eight because of their sense of entitlement.
Speaker 4: One hopes that Mary King can use his king e
Speaker 4: Tunga to steer a better path. Otherwise we are going backwards.
Speaker 4: People should realize the monetary and social damage needs some
Speaker 4: time to be corrected. In the last podcast, Minisha Grizzuola
Speaker 4: optimized the way of thinking we need to get back
Speaker 4: to where people have a sense of decency and want
Speaker 4: to contribute to society.
Speaker 2: That's from Colin, Colin, thank you. From Chris, I have
Speaker 2: a feeling. I read this last week. I just have
Speaker 2: a feeling, but I woult to include it anyway because
Speaker 2: worthy of a second reading. It comes from Chris. It
Speaker 2: comes as no surprise that primary teachers are failing maths
Speaker 2: and science. This is because both these subjects explore reality
Speaker 2: and facts, and changing the answer doesn't alter truth, but
Speaker 2: only makes the answer wrong. The reason for teachers failing
Speaker 2: subjects based on truth and reason is candidates who are
Speaker 2: strong in these areas will self select out of teacher training.
Speaker 2: The problem is not the teaching of math and science,
Speaker 2: but the type of system that favors candidates with flexible
Speaker 2: ideas on how the world works. If in a teacher
Speaker 2: training and school system that tells you what to think
Speaker 2: and prohibits reason discussion, the situation will not imp until
Speaker 2: candidates who value a fact based approach to life are
Speaker 2: welcome to bag in. For the record, I'm married to
Speaker 2: a school teacher who understands the system and the politics
Speaker 2: of keeping your job, and then there's a ps at
Speaker 2: the bottom. I homeschool our kids and the biggest champion
Speaker 2: of this continuing is my school teacher's.
Speaker 4: Spouse, Layton George says. This week we were treated to
Speaker 4: a wonderful example of apology, acknowledgment and gracious acceptance, where
Speaker 4: the mutual act of goodwill to parties agreed to a
Speaker 4: settlement which goes some way to address historical wrongs and
Speaker 4: allow both sides to move forward and look to the future.
Speaker 4: The mood in Parliament was profound. Unfortunately, there was a
Speaker 4: misunderstanding around the protocols of both parties. At the end
Speaker 4: of proceedings, Predictably, Mari members of the opposition seized upon
Speaker 4: the opportunity to make political capital of the oversight. As
Speaker 4: a result, the positive mood became tainted by unseemly political posture.
Speaker 4: The budget was presented the following day. The Marie Party
Speaker 4: was present only for the time required for their speech.
Speaker 4: In reply, their co leader's address was full of acrimony
Speaker 4: and vitriol, with demands for separate governance and large portions
Speaker 4: of taxpayer funds. The contrast with the previous day could
Speaker 4: not have been more stark. From a day of respect
Speaker 4: and forgiveness to one of rancor and threats of revolt.
Speaker 4: Questions arise on whether some of the Marie political leadership
Speaker 4: is serving the best interests of their constituents or simply
Speaker 4: preferring self serving histrionics. That's from George.
Speaker 2: George, appreciate it now, Peter Wrights. Firstly, I send my
Speaker 2: condolences over Carolyn's mother's death. I don't really know what
Speaker 2: else to say other than it hurt like hell when
Speaker 2: my mum died, so I can only presume that Caroline
Speaker 2: is hurting too very much. I have to say I
Speaker 2: hope that she theres plenty of support around her at
Speaker 2: this time. She did have plenty and still does. Secondly,
Speaker 2: how refreshing it was to hear your interview with Miniitia Gazula.
Speaker 2: I found her approach to be forthright, clear, honest and
Speaker 2: no nonsense, all qualities which I think any leader must possess.
Speaker 2: While she didn't come out and use the it's my
Speaker 2: way of the highway cliche, that is what her actions
Speaker 2: amounted to, and I can only presume that her teachers
Speaker 2: must at least have appreciated her direct communication, regardless of
Speaker 2: whether they liked it or not. I only wish that
Speaker 2: the last Labour led government had behaved more like this.
Speaker 2: It is all very well being inclusive, but when you're
Speaker 2: running a country, I think that clear, direct and unambiguous
Speaker 2: language is needed, and lord knows there was precious little
Speaker 2: of that during the adern Hipkins years. Was it only years,
Speaker 2: not like centuries? From the actions of the current coalition,
Speaker 2: it seems that they are at least being far more
Speaker 2: directed an upfront with their language, and long may it continue.
Speaker 2: I was going to suggest that we your podcast listeners,
Speaker 2: passed the hat around and raise money to send Erica
Speaker 2: Stanford to Minesia Gazoula's school for some lessons of her
Speaker 2: own Stanford's that is, but then it occurred to me
Speaker 2: that I am already a taxpayer of which Erica Stanford
Speaker 2: is a recipient. Therefore, as I am directly paying her
Speaker 2: wages as her employer, I direct her to I direct
Speaker 2: her to make this trip. She could learn a lot. Well.
Speaker 2: I wonder if you changed your mind or modified your
Speaker 2: thoughts a little bit after the discussion with Oliver because
Speaker 2: he was singing her praises some highly in whiting, was
Speaker 2: he not, missus producer? Your mother was a wonderful person,
Speaker 2: an even greater woman actually, and she was somebody that
Speaker 2: everybody I know, she was somebody that they all loved,
Speaker 2: or if they didn't know well enough, they thought admirably
Speaker 2: of her. Very intelligent woman. And you've been telling me
Speaker 2: that for years.
Speaker 4: Well, I'm so proud of my mum. She died at
Speaker 4: the age of ninety two. And you know, you kind
Speaker 4: of think that once somebody gets to that great old age,
Speaker 4: it becomes easier because you know that they have had
Speaker 4: a wonderful breadth of life. But it doesn't get easier
Speaker 4: at all. She was highly intelligent. She was one of
Speaker 4: those first women at university. She went to university in
Speaker 4: London and then to the Sorbonne, Paris. Apparently she just
Speaker 4: narrowly managed to not get into Oxford or Cambridge, and
Speaker 4: in the would have been fifties, No forties, wouldn't it
Speaker 4: forties and fifties, That would have been quite the achievement.
Speaker 4: She was by far the most intelligent one in my family,
Speaker 4: and right up until the day she died, she was
Speaker 4: doing crosswords.
Speaker 2: And blakes gravel.
Speaker 4: Her breadth of the English language was ridiculous. I'm going
Speaker 4: to miss her so terribly, but I am so thankful
Speaker 4: to have my family around me. And it happens to
Speaker 4: us all, does it not? And thank you Layton.
Speaker 2: Unfortunately does happen to us all. And she was a wonderful,
Speaker 2: wonderful woman. I loved it dearly. Thank you, thank you,
Speaker 2: and we shall see you next week, Yes you will.
Speaker 2: I made mentioned earlier of the Lost Generation, written by
Speaker 2: a psychologist who forwarded it to me in two thousand
Speaker 2: and nine, written and read on news talks at me
Speaker 2: in two thousand and nine. Back then, there was some
Speaker 2: lots of issues, lots of trouble with kids, young kids,
Speaker 2: undisciplined kids, et cetera. It is only worse today because
Speaker 2: it hasn't been addressed appropriately. So the proof is in
Speaker 2: the interim period from two thousand and nine to now
Speaker 2: as to what should have been done and what could
Speaker 2: have been done but wasn't. And this is what she wrote,
Speaker 2: the last generation lost in the underbelly of a dysfunctional
Speaker 2: fatherless society. The saddest aspect of recent events, particularly amongst
Speaker 2: young men, is that it's unlikely to stop in the
Speaker 2: near future. Why because no one or no organization or
Speaker 2: social agency or government department is doing anything to address
Speaker 2: the deepening chaos. It is a multi layered problem, not
Speaker 2: just the domain of responsibility of one group of people,
Speaker 2: but that of a collective of people, organizations, and yes,
Speaker 2: especially government departments. The problem pheps Almost half of the
Speaker 2: Y generation, that is, those born after nineteen eighty were
Speaker 2: raised in a single parent family, mainly mothers. The absent
Speaker 2: father syndrome is now epidemic, and the result more destructive
Speaker 2: than could ever have been imagined. Keep in mind this
Speaker 2: is two thousand and nine. Now it's worse. A generation
Speaker 2: full of extremely angry young men has been the result.
Speaker 2: Then in bracket she puts, there are also many very
Speaker 2: angry adolescent girls, with few of these adolescents having a
Speaker 2: positive male role model. The outcome will soon border on
Speaker 2: anarchy by this displaced group, and they don't know how
Speaker 2: to behave or what acceptable behavior is because it's never
Speaker 2: been role modeled or taught to them in their formative years.
Speaker 2: Mothers can only do so much and nothing at all
Speaker 2: if they suffer from any addictions or dependence on alcohol
Speaker 2: or drugs. Who has any teeth to stop them doing
Speaker 2: exactly what they like? Not parents, not the police, not teachers.
Speaker 2: They despise and defy authority, why because they can. Years
Speaker 2: of PC crap has brought about a breed of uncivilized
Speaker 2: little monsters, some of whom terrorize their parents on a
Speaker 2: regular basis. Kids from age ten and up are inflicting
Speaker 2: untold pain and agony on their parents, from diabolical behavior
Speaker 2: to physical assault. Some parents feel helpless and fearful. Does
Speaker 2: this necessarily point to bad parenting? In some cases? It does,
Speaker 2: In others, it simply points to excessive indulgence and no boundaries.
Speaker 2: The despair that afflicts these kids and the perceived futility
Speaker 2: of their lives, coupled with anger and low self esteem,
Speaker 2: is what drives some of them to drugs and suicide.
Speaker 2: Some never had a chance. Some have had plenty of
Speaker 2: chances and not had the common sense to grab them.
Speaker 2: So possible solutions. All primary schools must have at least
Speaker 2: fifty percent male teachers who are paid a decent professional salary.
Speaker 2: Scrap NCEEA and bring back sc A and O levels
Speaker 2: as in the UK reintroduce a realistic minimum entrance level
Speaker 2: to any tertiary institution and not a free for all.
Speaker 2: I'm biding my tongue because I want to add to
Speaker 2: all this, but I don't need to. Competition and genuine
Speaker 2: achievement made a goal and not something to be modest about,
Speaker 2: but recognized and praised. Police and teachers to be given
Speaker 2: more power, reasonable force included in controlling defiant adolescence. This
Speaker 2: is the only way to restore any respect for authority.
Speaker 2: Political correctness must be dispatched immediately to the scrap heap
Speaker 2: where it belongs with all the other garbage in the world.
Speaker 2: A bostal system for the encouragible young men under at
Speaker 2: where they're supported, educated and rehabilitated back into society and
Speaker 2: not in training for a life of crime. Much tougher
Speaker 2: penalties for the eighteen plus group, particularly for crimes of
Speaker 2: violence and drug dealing. The minimum age for driving raised
Speaker 2: to eighteen and only for four cylinder cars, and directing
Speaker 2: age raise back to twenty. No doll or benefits other
Speaker 2: than sickness or invalids for anyone under twenty. They then
Speaker 2: become their parents' responsibility. All of these changes require cooperation
Speaker 2: from many government departments and social agencies, more so in
Speaker 2: the areas of education and justice. Revising legislation should clearly
Speaker 2: be no hardship for the current government two thousand and nine.
Speaker 2: Who is going to be first to put their hands
Speaker 2: up badger your MP relentlessly if nothing is done to
Speaker 2: address the worsening problem of suicide street violence, and nothing
Speaker 2: will change, and dozens more young people will die needlessly
Speaker 2: and tragically. No one is safe. You too, or a
Speaker 2: family member can become a statistic or victim. So again,
Speaker 2: I say this was written in two thousand and nine.
Speaker 2: I read it on radio, but it didn't go any
Speaker 2: further than that. It's a damn fine piece. It's short,
Speaker 2: it's sharp, it's honest, and it's truthful. And here we are,
Speaker 2: fifteen years down the track. And as the author says,
Speaker 2: if nothing's done, it'll only get worse, much worse, and
Speaker 2: so it has. Back in two thousand and nine, they
Speaker 2: didn't have ram raiders, they didn't have a lot of
Speaker 2: other things. Now they do and there's more coming. Now.
Speaker 2: You tell me who is responsible, My suggestion is it's
Speaker 2: the authorities, the people who should have been leading, should
Speaker 2: have been introducing all of the above and didn't. Why
Speaker 2: because we have been putting up with a range of
Speaker 2: politicians who in some areas in particular, are gutless or
Speaker 2: haven't got a clue, take your choice, and the last
Speaker 2: six years is only promoted it much further, of course,
Speaker 2: because when you are a sop to this age group,
Speaker 2: you'll pay the price. And we all are still have
Speaker 2: I overstated that the psychologist overstate in neither cases the
Speaker 2: answer yes. So that will take us out for podcasts
Speaker 2: two forty two. If you would like to write to us,
Speaker 2: love getting email latent at news Talks AV dot co
Speaker 2: dot nz or Carolyn Newstalks AV dot co dot nz.
Speaker 2: We'll return with two forty three very shortly. Until then,
Speaker 2: as always, thank you for listening and we'll talk soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you for more from News Talk set b listen
Speaker 1: live on air or online and keep our shows with
Speaker 1: you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio,