Speaker 1: You're listening to a podcast from News Talks. It be
Speaker 1: follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 1: It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
Speaker 1: the information, all the debates.
Speaker 2: Of theists, now.
Speaker 1: The Layton Smith podcast Coward by news Talks.
Speaker 3: It be Welcome to podcasts two hundred and sixty for
Speaker 3: October sixteen, twenty twenty four. What do these subjects have
Speaker 3: in common? Freedom of speech, censorship, rule of law, judicial activism, politics,
Speaker 3: the administrative state, morality, and there's plenty more. They are
Speaker 3: all part of an ongoing discussion, an important discussion over
Speaker 3: where society is headed and what the social future of
Speaker 3: the country, if not much of the world, will be like.
Speaker 3: Politics has always been a scene of changing alliances. Law
Speaker 3: and freedom have always gone together, but judicial activism now
Speaker 3: casts a shadow over that connection. Rights have in the
Speaker 3: past been a formulation of the essentials of freedom, but
Speaker 3: utopians have learned to turn a vast range of rights
Speaker 3: into the blueprint for some supposedly largest social perfection. That
Speaker 3: is why vigilance and political connoisseurship are necessary in sustaining
Speaker 3: the practices of our free world. The author of the
Speaker 3: book was Kennethmanogue, Kywe born and bred, lived most of
Speaker 3: his life in the Northern Hemisphere, specifically in London, where
Speaker 3: he was a professor at the London School of Economics.
Speaker 3: He was an economist, but he was also known very
Speaker 3: widely as a philosopher, and a very good one. He
Speaker 3: came back to New Zealand to do a speech. I
Speaker 3: think it might have been a Sir John Graham's speech,
Speaker 3: and that is where I met him, and memory serves
Speaker 3: me correctly, I interviewed him. But that's beside the point.
Speaker 3: The point is that we've reached the stage that men
Speaker 3: like Kenneth Minogue, and there's a list of others could
Speaker 3: see coming. The second quote I want I want to
Speaker 3: utilize is by Robert Bork, a judge in America, and
Speaker 3: he was a candidate for the Supreme Court, and he
Speaker 3: was destroyed by the present President of the United States.
Speaker 3: Robert Bork coercing virtue the worldwide rule of judges quick
Speaker 3: quote judicial activism, the ordering of results not supported by
Speaker 3: any reasonable interpretation of the constitution. They have their written constitution.
Speaker 3: We have our unwritten constitution. May be rampant, but it
Speaker 3: is completely unsupportable. Numerous attempts at justification have been made
Speaker 3: by academic lawyers and by left wing activist groups such
Speaker 3: as the American Civil Liberties Union, and more recently by
Speaker 3: heated statements from the leaders of the American Bar Association
Speaker 3: that swing should not be surprising. Some people will always
Speaker 3: rally around the center of power, particularly if it is
Speaker 3: the center most accessible to them and it produces the
Speaker 3: results that they want. Now, as you would already be
Speaker 3: aware because you've seen it in the notes or heard
Speaker 3: it on the radio, this podcast centers around the New
Speaker 3: Zealand Supreme Court. Tuesday afternoon, the fifteenth of October, which,
Speaker 3: as this is being released on the sixteenth, was just yesterday,
Speaker 3: the New Zealand Initiative add its chairman, released a paper
Speaker 3: written by Roger Partridge, who is a lawyer and the
Speaker 3: chairman of the New Zealand Institute. It's called Who Makes
Speaker 3: the Law Reigning in the Supreme Court and the report
Speaker 3: challenges the Supreme Court's recent decisions and their implications for
Speaker 3: our constitutional balance. So, in the discussion that follows, how
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court has adopted a loose approach to interpreting
Speaker 3: laws passed by Parliament. The Court's reshaping of the common
Speaker 3: law based on judge's perceptions of changing social values and
Speaker 3: the consequences of judicial overreach for them, critic legitimacy and
Speaker 3: the rule of law, and then provides some suggestions for
Speaker 3: solutions to the above problems. So in just a moment
Speaker 3: we'll talk with Roger Partridge. After which, of course there
Speaker 3: is the mail room with Missus Producer, and there are
Speaker 3: some advisories with regard to things that I think will
Speaker 3: interest you which we have recently introduced. But next Roger Partridge.
Speaker 3: Leverix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality.
Speaker 3: Leverix relieves hay fever and skin allergies or itchy skin.
Speaker 3: It's a dual action antihistamine and has a unique nasal
Speaker 3: decongestant action. It's fast acting for fast relief and it
Speaker 3: works in under an hour and lasts for over twenty
Speaker 3: four hours. Leveris is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose,
Speaker 3: deals with itchy eyes, and stops sneezing. Levericks is an
Speaker 3: antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality. So next
Speaker 3: time you are in need of an effective antihistamine, call
Speaker 3: into the pharmacy and ask for Leverix l e v
Speaker 3: Rix Leverix and always read the label, take as directed
Speaker 3: and if symptoms persist, see your health professional. Farmer Broker
Speaker 3: Auckland Layton Smith Roger Partridge was for twenty three years
Speaker 3: a litigation partner at law firm Bell Gully. He is
Speaker 3: now the chairman of the New Zealand Initiative and has
Speaker 3: written numerous papers on matters of public importance. His most
Speaker 3: recent was Prescription for Prosperity, a briefing to the incoming
Speaker 3: government of twenty twenty three. He has now written and
Speaker 3: released who Makes the Law reigning in the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: While somebody needed to do it? Roger Partridge, great to
Speaker 3: talk with you and I congratulate you on what you've done.
Speaker 3: It's very impressive. What brought you to the point of
Speaker 3: realizing you needed to do this well.
Speaker 2: I've spent nearly nine years now working with the team
Speaker 2: at the Initiatives as well as sharing the organization, and
Speaker 2: most of those nine years I've tried to pretend I
Speaker 2: wasn't formerly a lawyer, and I've written on a range
Speaker 2: of public policy matters, monitoring fiscal policy, New Zealand's culture health, energy,
Speaker 2: anything really the team lets me. I was drawn back
Speaker 2: into writing on the law by what I saw as
Speaker 2: increasingly erratic decisions from the Supreme Court. It started three
Speaker 2: years ago with the Make It sixteen case, that's the
Speaker 2: voting age case, where the Supreme Court weighed in on
Speaker 2: something that's obviously a political issue and and and in
Speaker 2: its enthusiasm it made a really very basic error in
Speaker 2: interpreting the Bill of Rights Act. The Minority there was
Speaker 2: a minority judgment of Stephen Kosch which got the law
Speaker 2: right justice coach, but it was an obvious flaw and
Speaker 2: it belied a court very keen to intervene on on
Speaker 2: on political matters and matter is that really should be
Speaker 2: left to Parliament and to voters. Earlier this year then
Speaker 2: another extremely erratic cases I saw at the Climate change case,
Speaker 2: where the Court of Appeal had said civil proceedings between
Speaker 2: a plaint of and a defendant couldn't couldn't really hope
Speaker 2: to address the challenge that is climate change in it
Speaker 2: that it required a complex regulatory regime and international treaties.
Speaker 2: But the Supreme Court was having none of that and
Speaker 2: granted granted leave for the for the unsuccessful plaintiff to
Speaker 2: appeal the decision from the Court of Appeal striking out
Speaker 2: the claim. So we're now going to have the judges
Speaker 2: inserting themselves into into a show trial on climate change,
Speaker 2: on an issue which many will think is best left
Speaker 2: to Parliament. And then in I think it was early March,
Speaker 2: it might have been late February, the CAC Jack Hodd
Speaker 2: sent me a draft of an article he was going
Speaker 2: to deliver at a conference run by the Legal Research
Speaker 2: Foundation marking twenty years of the Supreme Court's anniversary. It
Speaker 2: was written in very polite language, but it was at
Speaker 2: trenchant criticism of a court that's really straight outside its
Speaker 2: bounds and misunderstood its role. I wrote it up in
Speaker 2: my herald column that Jack's criticisms confirmed some of my
Speaker 2: own thinking. I wrote a follow up column with some
Speaker 2: a couple of thoughts on what Parliament might do to
Speaker 2: reign in the Court and kept thinking about it and
Speaker 2: that led to the project which is released today.
Speaker 3: So the Supreme Court has adopted a loose approach to
Speaker 3: interpreting laws passed by Parliament is one of the lead
Speaker 3: lines of the email that I first received. Who decides
Speaker 3: whether the Court is following what are perceived to be
Speaker 3: the rules and what the rules are well.
Speaker 2: It's a mix of jurisprudential analysis by academics and the
Speaker 2: politicians themselves. It is, after all, Parliament that's supreme in
Speaker 2: the legal hierarchy. Parliament makes the laws, Parliament created the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court. Parliament has laid down the guidelines that the
Speaker 2: courts must follow when interpreting Parliament's words. And what we're
Speaker 2: seeing now is a radical departure from those guidelines by
Speaker 2: a court that has becoming increasingly unconstrained and increasingly inserting
Speaker 2: itself into the role of lawmaker, which is traditionally Parliament's
Speaker 2: role rather than just adjudicator deciding disputes between parties. And
Speaker 2: when you become a lawmaker, you're making policy decisions, and
Speaker 2: that inevitably politicizes the judicial role. And I think we
Speaker 2: can see from the US the cautionary tale of what
Speaker 2: happens when a Supreme Court becomes too activist, and the
Speaker 2: erosion of trust in the impartiality of the judiciary and
Speaker 2: in a sense, the erosion of the democratic legitimacy of
Speaker 2: the law if the laws are being made by unaccountable
Speaker 2: not politically accountable judges rather than accountable politicians.
Speaker 3: So you raise the US scenario, and I'm glad you did.
Speaker 3: What are the similarities and what are the differences between
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court of New Zealand and the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: of the US and how they both operate.
Speaker 2: Well, the big difference is that the Supreme Court in
Speaker 2: the US can strike down legislation. Because the US has
Speaker 2: a written constitution, the Supreme Court in the US can
Speaker 2: declare legislation passed by Congress to be unconstitutional and therefore invalid.
Speaker 2: New Zealand's Supreme Court can't do that. It's given itself
Speaker 2: the right to declare legislation inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.
Speaker 2: But the Bill of Rights is just an ordinary piece
Speaker 2: of legislation, doesn't result in legislation being invalidated. That's the
Speaker 2: biggest difference. The biggest similarity now is that we've got
Speaker 2: a Supreme Court that is increasingly keen to get involved
Speaker 2: in political contentious political issues. The voting age is a
Speaker 2: good example. Climate change is another good example. The sentence
Speaker 2: in case the three strikes legislation. Whether you like the
Speaker 2: three strikes legislation or not, I was never a fan
Speaker 2: of it. But it was undoubtedly within Parliament's reavemant to
Speaker 2: pass it. But it's the court took a hostile approach
Speaker 2: to three strikes. So we're seeing a court increasingly involved
Speaker 2: in making policy, in inserting itself into important policy decisions
Speaker 2: which traditionally the courts would have left to Parliament.
Speaker 3: So it's referred to here mostly as judicial overreach. Is
Speaker 3: there a difference in your to you? Is there a
Speaker 3: difference between overreach and the activism?
Speaker 2: No? I no, I think the terms are pretty much interchangeable.
Speaker 3: So let me go, let me take you back to
Speaker 3: the very beginning, if I can put it that way,
Speaker 3: of how how a judge becomes a Justice of the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court in this country.
Speaker 2: Appointed appointed by the executive by the Prime minister. So
Speaker 2: the judicial appointment process as either the either the Attorney
Speaker 2: General or the Prime Minister in cabinet.
Speaker 3: And that's it.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's it.
Speaker 3: There is no interrogation, there's no cross examination, there's no
Speaker 3: hearings like they have in the Senate.
Speaker 2: That's right. And I think we've got a pretty good
Speaker 2: cross party track record of appointing judges based on on
Speaker 2: quality and not based on their political leanings. But I
Speaker 2: don't think what we haven't paid enough attention to is
Speaker 2: whether judges are committed to parliamentary sovereignty, committed to judicial restraint,
Speaker 2: and committed to ensuring and upholding the rule of law.
Speaker 2: And it's probably worth dwelling from home on just what
Speaker 2: the rule of law means. It's reasonably well understood by lawyers,
Speaker 2: but most importantly, it means that laws are certain and predictable.
Speaker 2: And if you've if you've got judges weighing in and
Speaker 2: taking radical or perhaps even unreasonable views of what legislation means,
Speaker 2: then the law becomes less certain and predictable. And that
Speaker 2: challenge is the rule of law. So the report recommends
Speaker 2: one of the five recommendations is that we sharpen up
Speaker 2: judicial appointment processes to focus more on those qualities, the
Speaker 2: qualities of judicial restraint, respect for the sovereignty of parliament,
Speaker 2: and the rule of law.
Speaker 3: How much of a part would track record play on that.
Speaker 2: A huge part?
Speaker 3: Okay. The reason I'm pushing this line a little bit
Speaker 3: is because we've witnessed in the United States lawyers, sorry, judges,
Speaker 3: who have been appointed to the Supreme Court who, particularly
Speaker 3: by Republicans presidents, have not necessarily lived up to expectations.
Speaker 3: In fact, there are suggestions, if not accusations, that one
Speaker 3: or two of them I have been dishonest in their
Speaker 3: interrogation period.
Speaker 2: Well, sorry, I jump in. I don't think you'd find
Speaker 2: the Democrats feeling that. We've had a long period where
Speaker 2: the US Supreme Court was dominated by Democrat Democrat appointments,
Speaker 2: the Democratic Party appointment so social democrats or socially liberals
Speaker 2: or the Americans like to call them progressives. So we've
Speaker 2: had a progressive dominated bench. We've now got it and
Speaker 2: quite an activist Supreme Court, and the Conservatives have railed
Speaker 2: against that. Now we've got a conservative dominated Supreme Court
Speaker 2: bench and that's also activist, and the Democrats are railing
Speaker 2: against it. And it's a cautionary tale for us. We
Speaker 2: don't want a judiciary that's overtly or subject overtly to
Speaker 2: the charge that it's politically partial, because that undermines trust
Speaker 2: and the judiciary and the democratic legitimacy of the legal
Speaker 2: system and the law.
Speaker 3: So you're happy with the way that judges are appointed
Speaker 3: here to the Supreme Court? Do you think there's not
Speaker 3: advances we could make.
Speaker 2: I don't I wouldn't want to change the process of appointment.
Speaker 2: I'd like I'd like more focus on judges demonstrated respect
Speaker 2: for the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law
Speaker 2: and the doctrines of precedents, President and the other. The
Speaker 2: other suggestion, though, and this is not as radical as
Speaker 2: it sounds, is to introduce term limits for Supreme Court judges,
Speaker 2: so they'd spend they'd come up out of the Court
Speaker 2: of Appeal and spend five to seven years perhaps in
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court and then go back to the Court
Speaker 2: of Appeal or retire, and that way we'd I think
Speaker 2: we'd counter an Ivory Tower concern that spending too long
Speaker 2: at the top in the palace that we've built for
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court in Wellington gives the risks giving Supreme
Speaker 2: Court judges hears above their station. Their role is to
Speaker 2: adjudicate on disputes, not to be not to take over
Speaker 2: Parliament's role. So I think Supreme Court terms for Supreme
Speaker 2: Court judges would be a good idea, and a greater
Speaker 2: focus on judicial restraint in their track record.
Speaker 3: The appointment to the superior courts, the retention of seventy
Speaker 3: sorry that the tension of retirement at seventy Yes, retention
Speaker 3: of that. Why is it that somebody who's had an
Speaker 3: a lifelong experience in the legal system is necessarily useless
Speaker 3: at Seventy's just a question that I've often pondered. Why
Speaker 3: there isn't why there aren't other arrangements.
Speaker 2: I think anything else becomes too hard. So it's a
Speaker 2: blunt rule to avoid having to deal with judges with
Speaker 2: cognitive decline. And you want to put the cut off
Speaker 2: point early enough so that you're not you're not running
Speaker 2: into the risk of it. We've seen that with some
Speaker 2: Supreme Court judges in the US. Perhaps it could be
Speaker 2: seventy five, but I think you need a blunt rule
Speaker 2: rather than an evaluation of a particular judges cognitive performance.
Speaker 3: You may mention of the Americans being a written constitution,
Speaker 3: which of course is right. We don't our constitution is well,
Speaker 3: is it a living constitution.
Speaker 2: It's not a living constitution in the sense that progressive
Speaker 2: or activist judges in the US would claim it to be.
Speaker 2: And this idea of living law the meaning and just
Speaker 2: to explain it, that's generally the idea that the meaning
Speaker 2: of legislation changes as society's values. Change. I think that's
Speaker 2: a very dangerous concept. I think it's inconsistent with the
Speaker 2: rule of law. I think legislation means what it meant,
Speaker 2: including a constitutional document, means what it was meant when
Speaker 2: it was enacted. And if society of voters the electorate
Speaker 2: wants changes to us, then that should go through the
Speaker 2: democratic process and so and we've seen that with the
Speaker 2: US Constitution with a series of amendments. That's the democratically
Speaker 2: legitimate way of changing both your founding constitution and any
Speaker 2: other law that needs updating. Not the courts saying well,
Speaker 2: Parliament might have meant one thing in nineteen ninety, but
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty four it would have decided something else
Speaker 2: because we think society's values are changed. Therefore we'll interpret
Speaker 2: it in a different way. That's not the job for
Speaker 2: the courts. That's a job for our democratically elected parliament.
Speaker 2: The courts are not equipped to make social policy decisions.
Speaker 2: They don't have the process of decisions. They don't have
Speaker 2: the submission making process that occurs in Parliament with select committees.
Speaker 2: They are dealing with issues in a very constrained way.
Speaker 2: The issues come before the courts in a dispute between
Speaker 2: two parties, so not everybody with an interest is represented,
Speaker 2: and so they're not equipped to make social policy decisions.
Speaker 2: And then they're not but obviously obviously they think they are.
Speaker 2: Well they think they are. And that's the problem that
Speaker 2: the report primarily addresses. How to reign in a court
Speaker 2: that thinks that it's got a function that's beyond its remit.
Speaker 3: I know I'm retreading where we've already been, but the
Speaker 3: suggestion that they are overreaching and the reasons that we've
Speaker 3: discussed makes it makes it more difficult to accept the
Speaker 3: appointment process. And I know that you've explained that. I'm
Speaker 3: just expressing my frustration with it. Can I quote you something?
Speaker 3: The living constitution argument usually proceeds from the observation of
Speaker 3: that society's morality is involving and the Constitution should be
Speaker 3: interpreted by the courts to reflect that. The argument is disingenuous.
Speaker 3: When a court invalidates a statute, it invalidates the best
Speaker 3: evidence available of what society's morality, and the evolving morality rationale,
Speaker 3: which the Supreme Court has used a number of times,
Speaker 3: is actually no more than a statement that the court
Speaker 3: believes the morality it prefers should be enforced. The society
Speaker 3: is not involving only the court is will. That summarizes here, well,
Speaker 3: that's that is a central issue.
Speaker 2: But the living constitution concept is not really taken hold
Speaker 2: in New Zealand except in some specific instances, and one
Speaker 2: of the recommendations in the report is that to nip
Speaker 2: it in its court. That's described in the report as
Speaker 2: the ambulatory approach, so that the meaning of legislation changes
Speaker 2: over time, the ambulatory approach or the living the living
Speaker 2: constitution approach. In the US, the Parliament gives guidelines to
Speaker 2: the courts on how they interpret legislation. It provides that
Speaker 2: legislation is to be the meaning is to be determined
Speaker 2: from the text of the legislation and in light of
Speaker 2: its purpose and context. So that's the purpose that Parliament
Speaker 2: had when it passed the legislation. Those last three words
Speaker 2: and the context and its context I think could be
Speaker 2: sharpened up. It does not make clear that the context,
Speaker 2: the relevant context is the context when the law was passed,
Speaker 2: and there are some suggestions that the court can look
Speaker 2: to later context, so changing values. I'm suggesting that Parliament
Speaker 2: sharpen up that wording to introduce some guardrails to make
Speaker 2: it clear that we're talking about the context when the
Speaker 2: law was enacted, and so that's designed to stop the
Speaker 2: mischief you've described in that quote of the courts updating
Speaker 2: the meaning of legislation without it going through Parliament simply
Speaker 2: by interpreting it differently based on their perceptions of changing
Speaker 2: society's values.
Speaker 3: The report runs forty six pages. It starts off with
Speaker 3: the introduction Chapter one, which came from a New Zealander
Speaker 3: I believe, originally.
Speaker 2: The reference to the Ford from Richard, Professor Richard Eakins. Yes, yes, yes,
Speaker 2: Richard's the graduate of That's right. Richard's a graduate of
Speaker 2: Auckland Law School. He was for a period, he was
Speaker 2: for a period on the elector at Auckland and during
Speaker 2: that time he was a council member of the Legal
Speaker 2: Research Foundation, of which I was the executive director for
Speaker 2: nearly a decade. And he's gone on to a glittering
Speaker 2: career for a man of such a young age. I
Speaker 2: don't want to put a name a figure on it,
Speaker 2: but he must be in his early forties at most.
Speaker 2: He's a King's Council in the UK and a full
Speaker 2: professor at Oxford of Law and Constitutional government. So he's
Speaker 2: a bright star in constitutional law.
Speaker 3: So chapter Chapter two is the problem and overreaching Supreme Court,
Speaker 3: which we've covered of course, subverting Parliament the Supreme Court's
Speaker 3: approach to statutes because there are two areas, statutes and
Speaker 3: common law. That's right, and they are behaving the same
Speaker 3: or tend to behave the same on both counts. Am
Speaker 3: I right?
Speaker 2: Well, the same in the sense that the approach they're
Speaker 2: taking is radical. So when it comes to interpreting statutes,
Speaker 2: for most just to finish off on the statutory interpretation
Speaker 2: peace first before moving to the common law. For most
Speaker 2: of the last twenty years they've been relatively constrained when
Speaker 2: interpreting statutes. They'd accepted that the license given to them
Speaker 2: by Parliament didn't allow them to adopt an unreasonable interpretation.
Speaker 2: But the Chief Justice in the three Strikes case, Fitzgerald
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty one, was quite splicit and casting off
Speaker 2: those shackles and saying the word reasonable didn't exist when
Speaker 2: they were looking at laws that conflicted with rights protected
Speaker 2: by the Bill of Rights, and that they could that
Speaker 2: they weren't constrained by a reasonable interpretation. It follows from
Speaker 2: that that they were willing to adopt an unreasonable interpretation
Speaker 2: which could never have been Parliament's intent. So they became
Speaker 2: they've become increasingly unconstrained in relation to the interpretation of legislation.
Speaker 3: Becawed.
Speaker 2: No, but they've given themselves license, that's what I mean.
Speaker 3: They've been allowed to make up their own rules.
Speaker 2: That's right. And another one of the recommendations and the
Speaker 2: report is that Parliament may clear ed its guidelines on
Speaker 2: how the court's approach to interpreting statutes. Again, to titan
Speaker 2: up the guidelines to make it clear or not guidelines,
Speaker 2: they're rules, to make it clear that they can't adopt
Speaker 2: meanings of legislation that's inconsistent with Parliament's intent, or interpretations
Speaker 2: that are unreasonable. So the report recommends changes to the
Speaker 2: rules Parliament sets for the courts when interpreting legislation. Of course,
Speaker 2: Parliament is supreme and so it can overturn and if necessary,
Speaker 2: pass legislation clarifying its intent, but it shouldn't have to
Speaker 2: do that. Sometimes Parliament can be careless with the words
Speaker 2: it used, and sometimes they do need to be fine tuned,
Speaker 2: but they shouldn't be facing a court that is insisting
Speaker 2: on a meaning that is different from what Parliament clearly intended,
Speaker 2: and that's what we saw in the Fitzgerald Fitzgerald case.
Speaker 2: So I've dwelt a little bit on the legislation side
Speaker 2: of things. Shall we come to the common law side now? Yes?
Speaker 2: And perhaps the best place to start as a description
Speaker 2: for your listeners of what the common law is, because
Speaker 2: it is judge made law. Our law is very largely
Speaker 2: made up of statutes passed by Parliament, but there's a
Speaker 2: body of common law that we inherited from England in
Speaker 2: eighteen fifty two when the English Laws Act was passed,
Speaker 2: and these are the sets of laws, many of which
Speaker 2: have been codified subsequently in statute, but these are the
Speaker 2: laws that were created by the courts over many centuries,
Speaker 2: for example, determining what sorts of promises are enforceable in
Speaker 2: the courts as contracts. The taughts or civil wrongs like
Speaker 2: negligence and slander and trespass all are originally part of
Speaker 2: the common law, equitable notions of trust. So there's a
Speaker 2: whole body of law that is judge made, that's the
Speaker 2: common law, and from that body of law you can
Speaker 2: draw principles and the courts on a conventional or traditional
Speaker 2: orthodox approach to common law method will fill the gaps
Speaker 2: in it to deal with new circumstances, drawing on those principles,
Speaker 2: or make corrections when it's clear that courts in the
Speaker 2: past have earred and they've taken an approach in one
Speaker 2: part of the common law that's clearly inconsistent with the
Speaker 2: body of the common law, and so they'll iron out
Speaker 2: any wrinkles. So that's the traditional common law method. What
Speaker 2: our Supreme Court has said repeatedly in cases and in
Speaker 2: it's the judge's extrajudicial writings and lectures and speeches, is
Speaker 2: that their approach involves reshaping established legal principles to match
Speaker 2: judge's views of today's social values. So rather than taking
Speaker 2: the common law and filling gaps in it or ironing
Speaker 2: out wrinkles, they are willing to change its fundamental values
Speaker 2: and take it on a journey by developing it having
Speaker 2: regard to their views of social values. Now that's an
Speaker 2: unquestionably radical approach, and it's inconsistent with the rule of
Speaker 2: law because it throws the law into a state of chaos.
Speaker 2: We've seen that with the Elis decision and the quagma.
Speaker 2: They've left that they've left us in relation to the
Speaker 2: role of Teacungor and the law. So your question, if
Speaker 2: I track back, was that they're taking the same approach
Speaker 2: in relation to the common Law as in relation to
Speaker 2: this statutes, a disruptive and radical approach. So it's the
Speaker 2: same in that sense, and it's the same in the
Speaker 2: sense that it undermines the rule of law because it
Speaker 2: creates uncertainty and unpredictability. It also undermines the sovereignty of Parliament,
Speaker 2: quite directly in the case when the Court ignores Parliament's
Speaker 2: intended meaning, but also in relation to the common Law,
Speaker 2: where it's making big social policy decisions which are properly
Speaker 2: the role for our elected representatives.
Speaker 3: Would you put this down to arrogance.
Speaker 2: I think there is a degree of disdain in some
Speaker 2: parts of our legal elites for the democratic process, and
Speaker 2: I think there is a degree of hubris involved in
Speaker 2: the court's approach that they know better. Perhaps I'm just
Speaker 2: using synonyms for the word you used.
Speaker 3: One way or the other. Some of them apply. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 3: So with the common law, how is that? How is
Speaker 3: that to be rectified?
Speaker 2: There are a few things Parliament can do, one of
Speaker 2: which is to give more guardrails. When the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: was created in two thousand and three, the Act of
Speaker 2: Parliament affirmed New Zealand's ongoing commitment to the sovereignty of
Speaker 2: Parliament and to the rule of law. And the rule
Speaker 2: of law traditionally has been regarded as the formal elements
Speaker 2: of laws, so clearly accessible, impartially applied, easily understood, predictable,
Speaker 2: consistently applied and so forth. Yes, so the formal aspects
Speaker 2: of laws, not their substantive content stand of contents up
Speaker 2: to Parliament. It's become increasingly fashionable over the last so
Speaker 2: since the middle of the twentieth century to argue for
Speaker 2: a thicker or a more substantive version of the rule
Speaker 2: of law. So the rule of law then connotes ideas
Speaker 2: of social justice and economic entitlements or rights. And at
Speaker 2: least one member of the Supreme Court adheres to what's
Speaker 2: called the thick version of the rule of law compared
Speaker 2: with a thin formal version of the rule of law.
Speaker 2: And it's unhelpful that the term the rule of law
Speaker 2: is undefined in what's now the Senior Courts Act. And
Speaker 2: so against the risk that the courts embark on a
Speaker 2: journey of developing the common law in the name of
Speaker 2: a thick version of the rule of law that requires
Speaker 2: social justice and addressing disadvantage and so forth, all matters
Speaker 2: which most of us will think were properly for our parliament.
Speaker 2: The report recommends that Parliament legislate the meaning of the
Speaker 2: rule of law and specify that it just means the
Speaker 2: thin components, the formal aspects of the law, so that
Speaker 2: the courts can't go on this reforming crusade in the
Speaker 2: name of the rule of law. So that's one thing.
Speaker 2: Greater attention to greater attention to who's appointed as superior
Speaker 2: court judges and the Court of Appeal in the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court is another. And then a third is for Parliament
Speaker 2: to exercise its legislative power when it thinks that the
Speaker 2: courts have taken the common law off in the wrong direction.
Speaker 2: Parliament shouldn't hesitate to pass law to put it back
Speaker 2: on track. That is Parliament's prerogative, and it shouldn't hesitate
Speaker 2: to use.
Speaker 3: It if it can.
Speaker 2: Well, no, well, it absolutely well if it can. In
Speaker 2: the sense of whether it's that there's a political majority
Speaker 2: for law change, yes, but we've got a our unicameral
Speaker 2: system of parliament means that we often don't get bog
Speaker 2: too bog down within passes. M MP of course changes that,
Speaker 2: and perhaps it requires the passage of time, a change
Speaker 2: of government, whether it's the left or the right, to
Speaker 2: put things straight. But Parliament shouldn't hesitate to use its
Speaker 2: power as the supreme law maker to ensure that the
Speaker 2: law stays on track.
Speaker 3: What do then deal with an issue that is not
Speaker 3: in the in the report, but to me it's a
Speaker 3: very important one, and that is law legal education, in
Speaker 3: other words, the law schools in this country and whether
Speaker 3: or not they're doing an appropriate job. And I would
Speaker 3: I would question, for instance, whether maybe the maybe the
Speaker 3: time gap is too close, but whether the turnouts from
Speaker 3: law schools are not not influencing the law as it is,
Speaker 3: the common law, in particular because they want they want
Speaker 3: social adjustment.
Speaker 2: Well, our university's studies show, certainly international studies show overwhelmingly
Speaker 2: progressive or liberal left leaning. I think that's probably true
Speaker 2: of law schools here as well as overseas.
Speaker 3: Can we can we can we can we accept that
Speaker 3: left leaning means anti democratic.
Speaker 2: I know, not necessarily, but it can not necessarily. I
Speaker 2: think on the left and the right you've got anti
Speaker 2: democratic tendencies. But I think the I think generally the
Speaker 2: political mix of academics, especially in the social sciences, is
Speaker 2: dangerously skewed. So I think that that that's a separate issue,
Speaker 2: and we're we're we're seeing aspects of that in debates
Speaker 2: currently over freedom of speech and academic freedom. And I'm
Speaker 2: sure that has an influence on the product from law
Speaker 2: schools in the sense of the the legal methods law
Speaker 2: students are being imbued with being quite different than perhaps
Speaker 2: it was even twenty years ago. So I think that's
Speaker 2: I think that's that an issue. It just means those
Speaker 2: with differing views need to have the courage to debate.
Speaker 2: And that's that's perhaps another issue, and an even broader
Speaker 2: issue affecting our country, and that is a combination of
Speaker 2: the tall poppy syndrome and the small size of the
Speaker 2: country often leads to people not standing up and challenging,
Speaker 2: and we need to see much more of that.
Speaker 3: I thought you were going to say freedom of speech.
Speaker 2: Yes, well, there's the freedom of speech issue, but there's
Speaker 2: an important job for those to do with the contrarians
Speaker 2: to speak out and I think generally not enough contrarians
Speaker 2: speak out here. It is quite distinctively different in New Zealand,
Speaker 2: even from Australia. Yes, in the business environment which I'm
Speaker 2: most familiar with, Australian business leaders are much more outspoken.
Speaker 2: But I think that's just true of New Zealand society.
Speaker 2: A difference between New Zealand and Australian society generally. But
Speaker 2: debate is healthy and we must have contrarians. I know
Speaker 2: you've interviewed one legal contrarian, Jim Allen. I enjoyed that discussion.
Speaker 3: Yes, and you'll.
Speaker 2: See I quote, I quote, I quote Jim and you
Speaker 2: did in the introduction, in the introduction to the report.
Speaker 3: Yes, he's he is. Here's a how can I put it?
Speaker 3: He's a brilliant opinionist.
Speaker 2: He is, indeed, and but he but he not and
Speaker 2: not at all cautious with the opinions the expresses, which
Speaker 2: is refreshing.
Speaker 3: Absolutely so. I think that he and I may mention
Speaker 3: of a Targo law school in our in our conversation,
Speaker 3: but there is that is a law school for instance,
Speaker 3: that at this point of time, I wouldn't I wouldn't
Speaker 3: send my child, my son, Albeit that he went there
Speaker 3: but got but escaped before the current spate of approaches
Speaker 3: and attitudes set in.
Speaker 2: Yes, well, I think we're seeing a dangerous politicization of
Speaker 2: our universities and the pendulum hasn't yet started to swing back.
Speaker 2: It must do. Universities should be politically neutral institutions, and
Speaker 2: they're not.
Speaker 3: They just jumped to politics for a moment. This is
Speaker 3: a sidebar question, I suppose, But our Prime Minister has
Speaker 3: in the last few days been been guarded with some
Speaker 3: rather complementary opinions from across the Tasman from journalists, particularly
Speaker 3: from the Australian journalists, and suggesting that New Zealand is
Speaker 3: finally back on track and heading in the right direction successfully.
Speaker 3: So the question I have is do you think that
Speaker 3: our Prime minister has the capacity to approach these social
Speaker 3: issues in the country in the with the appropriate attitude
Speaker 3: to you and I are discussing, Yes.
Speaker 2: I'm going to I'm going to give a qualified years
Speaker 2: only because the task in front front of the government
Speaker 2: is an enormous one. But I think they have This
Speaker 2: is almost an entirely different conversation. The political challenges facing
Speaker 2: the country, political and economic and social, and they're they're vast,
Speaker 2: But I think we have a government with a very
Speaker 2: ambitious reform agenda on education, housing, transport, infrastructure policy, a
Speaker 2: range of issues that are critical and health to an extent.
Speaker 2: A health system needs much more of a shakeup than
Speaker 2: it's going to be given this, but you can understand
Speaker 2: the reluctance to shake up an organization that's reeling already.
Speaker 2: Those range of reforms in housing, education, and improvements to
Speaker 2: the health system are all critical to the good life
Speaker 2: in New Zealand. And I think there's an ambitious reform
Speaker 2: agenda that the government set itself. A lot of it
Speaker 2: builds on research and recommendations made by the Initiative over
Speaker 2: the last decade. And I can see why in Australia
Speaker 2: they look favorably towards the New Zealand the current coalition
Speaker 2: government because of the ambition of its reform agenda. Australia
Speaker 2: is the lucky country. It's much more prosperous than New Zealand,
Speaker 2: but it's track record of political reform over the last
Speaker 2: twenty years is dire. So yes are qualified, Yes, Okay.
Speaker 3: I then am inspired to repeat to you something that
Speaker 3: an Australian commentator said to me yesterday and this was
Speaker 3: just in conversation, not for broadcast, but it will be
Speaker 3: in the near future. Was that Australia is in very
Speaker 3: deep trouble. And this is a guy who who is
Speaker 3: very good at shall we say appropriate and you'll say
Speaker 3: balanced comment.
Speaker 2: Yes, Well, if Australia is in very deep trouble, then
Speaker 2: we're in deeper trouble. Our housing is at least as unaffordable.
Speaker 2: Our government's books are in much dire shape. We have
Speaker 2: deep social divisions. Our health system is teetering on the
Speaker 2: brink of collapse. Our educational standards have been slipping for
Speaker 2: twenty years and haven't yet turned the corner. But there
Speaker 2: are promising signs where the government's reform agenda. So I
Speaker 2: think Australia's got its challenges, but I think we are
Speaker 2: further down the precipice cloring our way up.
Speaker 3: Then they are, well, maybe they're catching up. They made
Speaker 3: his comment to be honest, His comment was basically to
Speaker 3: do with the government of the day and specifically the
Speaker 3: race scenario as it exists at the moment.
Speaker 2: Yes, well, that they are dangerous issues creating expectations that
Speaker 2: can't be fulfilled in liberal democracy is a is a
Speaker 2: slippery slope and and they're going down the same track
Speaker 2: as the second term of the Durn government. A better
Speaker 2: approach is to focus on lifting up. So focus on
Speaker 2: the social policy problems, unequal education outcomes, poor health outcomes,
Speaker 2: housing outcomes. That's the solution to lifting the disadvantaged up.
Speaker 2: Is there anything that is It's almost entirely been the
Speaker 2: work of the New Zealand Initiative over the last decade.
Speaker 3: Also, is there any particular reason why you haven't entered politics.
Speaker 2: I may have left my run too late. In doesn't
Speaker 2: sound a long time. It doesn't sound like spending a
Speaker 2: long time in the law. And then I've I've found
Speaker 2: my niche role as a critic, and not just not
Speaker 2: just as a as a providing criticism, but also in
Speaker 2: an organization that is coming up with ideas. Best decision
Speaker 2: I ever made was to was to recruit our executive director,
Speaker 2: Oliver Hartwitch and and he's built a great team of
Speaker 2: the initiatives. So it's it's New Zealand lacks diversity of
Speaker 2: thought and an organization like the One Eyed Chair is
Speaker 2: is able to challenge the status quo. We're lucky to
Speaker 2: have the independence to be able to speak out and
Speaker 2: then to come up with ideas that may not be
Speaker 2: coming out of either our universities or out of our
Speaker 2: bureaucracy in Wellington.
Speaker 3: And it's a shame that it has to be that way.
Speaker 3: As in with reference to the universities, et cetera.
Speaker 2: It is it is, but we can only hope for
Speaker 2: the pendulum to swing back. It can't happen soon enough.
Speaker 3: So in conclusion, or headed toward the exit door, shall we?
Speaker 3: Shall we just recap on chapter three? How should Parliament
Speaker 3: all the executive respond?
Speaker 2: Yes, So five recommendations. The first is the most blunt one,
Speaker 2: which is legislative intervention. When the court errs, Parliament should
Speaker 2: step in and correct the course. And we're seeing that
Speaker 2: currently with the Coalition government in relation to the Marine
Speaker 2: and Coastal Areas Act, the Coalition commitment between National and
Speaker 2: New Zealand. First, when Parliament used the words exclusive and
Speaker 2: continuous in the legislation, the courts decided it could be
Speaker 2: shared exclusive and didn't need to be continuous. Well, it's
Speaker 2: no surprise that Parliament's now saying, well, we're going to
Speaker 2: make clear that the courts enforce the law as we
Speaker 2: intended it but that's something that Labor did as well
Speaker 2: in twenty sixteen in a case called d in the Police,
Speaker 2: when the courts clearly didn't follow what was in Labor
Speaker 2: intended with the Sex Offenders Registration Act, they jumped in
Speaker 2: immediately and passed legislation under urgency to overrule what the
Speaker 2: court had found. I think on both sides of the
Speaker 2: of the political divide, governments have struggled with the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: They should intervene, and they should intervene more frequently than
Speaker 2: they do to to correct the course of the law.
Speaker 2: So that's the first thing. Legislative intervention. It's been used
Speaker 2: really in the past, but courts in the past haven't
Speaker 2: been so consciously radicals as the Supreme Courts being now,
Speaker 2: and it can expect to be corrected more frequently. So
Speaker 2: that's the first thing. The second thing is defining the
Speaker 2: rule of law so that it's not seen by the
Speaker 2: courts as a license to go off on a social
Speaker 2: justice crusade. The third thing are tightening up the legisla
Speaker 2: that the instructions from Parliament of the approach the courts
Speaker 2: that are take in relation to interpreting its Parliament's words.
Speaker 2: So making clear that we don't have this living constitution
Speaker 2: idea that the courts can update the meaning of legislation
Speaker 2: based on their sense of changing social values. And also
Speaker 2: tweaking Section six of the Bill of Rights Act, which
Speaker 2: is particularly problematic now. Section we haven't talked about the
Speaker 2: Bill of Rights Act, but Section six provides that wherever
Speaker 2: an enactment can be given a meaning that is that
Speaker 2: is consistent with the rights and freedoms contained and the
Speaker 2: Bill of Rights, that meaning shall be preferred to any other.
Speaker 2: Until the Fitzgerald case, the Supreme Court had said it
Speaker 2: had to be a reasonable interpretation the Supreme Court and
Speaker 2: Fitzgerald said, well, we don't see the word reasonable in there.
Speaker 2: The corollery of that is that they're willing to adopt
Speaker 2: an unreasonable interpretation. That's certainly not what Parliament meant in
Speaker 2: Parliament should make that clear, either by removing Section six
Speaker 2: or tweaking it, and then finally tightening up judicial appointment processes.
Speaker 3: And that's obvious just talking the Bill of Rights. Jim
Speaker 3: Allen's not in favor of it.
Speaker 2: No, and I've got mixed views on it too. The
Speaker 2: risk is it encourages our courts down the path of
Speaker 2: the US Supreme Court. I think the better process is
Speaker 2: the Section seven process and the Bill of Rights, which
Speaker 2: ensures that the Attorney General, as the highest lawyer other
Speaker 2: than judges, reviews legislation and gives independent advice from Crown
Speaker 2: Law on whether any legislation before the House infringes the
Speaker 2: Bill of Rights. So the Parliament at least is aware
Speaker 2: of that. But the risk of the risk of Bills
Speaker 2: of Rights and constitutions is that they're a license to
Speaker 2: the courts to enter the political fray, and that's what
Speaker 2: we've seen all around the world, with the US Supreme
Speaker 2: Court ending with a Canadian Supreme Court as well.
Speaker 3: So in conclusion, I want to quote you two paragraphs
Speaker 3: of your own work, because well it'll be obvious why.
Speaker 3: The most notorious instance of the Supreme Court's circumventing Parliament's
Speaker 3: wishes is the Court's three strikes decision in Fitzgerald, discussed
Speaker 3: in more detail in Chapter three. In a split decision
Speaker 3: three judges to two, the Supreme Court allowed mister Fitzgerald's appeal.
Speaker 3: The judges in the majority effectively rewrote the three strikes
Speaker 3: maximum sentence provision in the Sentencing Act of two thousand
Speaker 3: and two. The Fitzgerald decision, you write, may be remembered
Speaker 3: as the high watermark of judicial activism. It suggests that
Speaker 3: not even clear wording is enough to override what the
Speaker 3: Court regards as basic rights. Instead, it seems the Court
Speaker 3: will insist on clear evidence that Parliament has deliberately confronted
Speaker 3: the possibility of these base rights being set aside before
Speaker 3: it will follow Parliament's words. And I've written under that
Speaker 3: my notation is unbelievable.
Speaker 2: What yes, yes, now what yeah? It's even more unbelievable
Speaker 2: than that to have the Chief Justice saying an interpretation
Speaker 2: the Court's adopted doesn't have to be a reasonable one.
Speaker 2: That's the that's the most unbelievable part of the case.
Speaker 3: Is the Chief Justice fit for purpose?
Speaker 2: I don't want to comment on that. I think the
Speaker 2: Chief the Chief Justice, well at least until this report
Speaker 2: comes out, has been a close personal friend for for
Speaker 2: more than forty years. But I think the Court erred
Speaker 2: in that in that decision.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, I wouldn't want to be responsible for the
Speaker 3: bust up of a forty year friendship, so on that.
Speaker 3: On that note, I can suggest a good a good
Speaker 3: wine to share. Why do you discuss these things?
Speaker 2: It is.
Speaker 3: It's with great appreciation that I thank you for your time.
Speaker 3: You've been generous with it. It's going to be a
Speaker 3: busy day for you and I look forward to further
Speaker 3: work from you in well along the same lines are
Speaker 3: in a similar manner. Thank you later, much appreciated, and
Speaker 3: I wish you the very best of luck with the.
Speaker 2: With the results. Many thanks, and I've enjoyed the discussion.
Speaker 3: Now missus producer will be here in just a moment
Speaker 3: for the mail room for podcast number two hundred and sixty,
Speaker 3: So why don't I entertain you with a short email
Speaker 3: from Grant from a long time listener. You mentioned Cuddle's costa, or,
Speaker 3: as he's known by his colleagues, the lantern in brackets,
Speaker 3: not very bright and has to be carried close bracketts.
Speaker 3: Remember he was handpicked and directed by a Deern. He
Speaker 3: spent time with the heavily politicized British Police, learning their ways,
Speaker 3: then returning to New Zealand to take up the role
Speaker 3: of Commissioner. I was very surprised the new government retained him.
Speaker 3: I think it was a big mistake by the police
Speaker 3: minister who criticized Caster when in opposition. Grant I agree
Speaker 3: with you pretty much in all one, two, three, four
Speaker 3: lines That was following a comment I made. I don't
Speaker 3: know how he held his job under the under the
Speaker 3: new regime, but thank you for the feedback, missus producer
Speaker 3: las Let's go. How are you better than I look?
Speaker 4: No, you look great as usual, Leyton Steve says, as
Speaker 4: always an interesting discussion with Patrick Basham, it was particularly
Speaker 4: enlightening to hear his comments of how the mainstream media
Speaker 4: in the USA has ignored or at least downplayed the
Speaker 4: impact of Hurricane Helene on the Southeast States, probably to
Speaker 4: avoid having to expose the ineptitude of the current Biden
Speaker 4: Harris government disaster response. It reminds me of one of
Speaker 4: Oscar Wilde's quips, which, when asked about the newspapers in America,
Speaker 4: declared that they were full of rubbish, that if people
Speaker 4: read them and are satisfied with them, then this must
Speaker 4: be a nation of lunatics. Personally, I would say the
Speaker 4: same from a New Zealand perspective. We all know that
Speaker 4: liberals in America are no longer liberal. They've been replaced
Speaker 4: by the left, the hard left at that. So it
Speaker 4: seemed to me that America is on a knife edge.
Speaker 4: If Trump wins, there could well be a civil war
Speaker 4: because the left will go ballistic. If Harris and the
Speaker 4: deep State, when I believe we will, will almost certainly
Speaker 4: see a catastrophic war in Europe, if not the entire world,
Speaker 4: because the aforementioned Deep State, all sorts of historical reasons,
Speaker 4: is determined to deal to Russia once and for all.
Speaker 4: Fingers crossed for us all we must all keep going.
Speaker 4: You too too, from Steve, Thank you, Steve.
Speaker 3: Steve good, thank you. Grace writes. I take umbrage to
Speaker 3: the comment by Chris in Brackett's Surgeon because I said
Speaker 3: it was he was a surgeon in last week's mail room.
Speaker 3: Actually it was the second of October last week's mail
Speaker 3: room that common childhood vaccines should be mandated and parents
Speaker 3: should not have the choice to withhold them from their children.
Speaker 3: He has just had a revelation on the dangers of
Speaker 3: the COVID shots. Has it occurred to him that some
Speaker 3: parents have known there is more going on with the
Speaker 3: vaccines than parents have been led to believe by information
Speaker 3: put out by the Ministry of Health. Perhaps he should
Speaker 3: do a bit more investigation himself into the history of
Speaker 3: vaccines and follow the money. I suggest you might consider
Speaker 3: interviewing a Roman Bizarinsky. No, that's not right, author of
Speaker 3: the book Dissolving Illusions with Suzanne Humphrey's MD. It covers
Speaker 3: the history of vaccines, including polio. If you have suffered
Speaker 3: polio or are a child of someone who has, and
Speaker 3: you are told that this is the vaccine that prevents it,
Speaker 3: of course you would say that everyone should be getting
Speaker 3: the vaccine, but what if this is not true? Thanks
Speaker 3: for continuing your show. I look forward to it always, Grace.
Speaker 3: I look forward to your company also.
Speaker 4: And Laton Bronwin says thank you for reading Jeffrey Tucker's
Speaker 4: piece about the cellist. I found it very moving. I
Speaker 4: am thankful there was one in the audience who truly
Speaker 4: appreciated the gift the cellist offered.
Speaker 3: Who wrote that, Ronwin, I appreciate that because you're the
Speaker 3: only one who I think responded to it, which really
Speaker 3: surprised me. I was moved by that. I expected to
Speaker 3: get floods of tears all over pages or something. Anyway,
Speaker 3: appreciate it from Vincent. I can't believe the story I'm
Speaker 3: reading this weekend of Kamala Harris calling for Donald Trump
Speaker 3: to release his medical records for all to see. This
Speaker 3: is the woman who blatantly ignored the state of health
Speaker 3: of the current president and downright lied about his mental
Speaker 3: state or that he was actually even breathing. Add to
Speaker 3: the fact that the MSM even runs this story as
Speaker 3: if everything is normal. I'm nervously waiting for the next
Speaker 3: few weeks to be over and the US election to
Speaker 3: have concluded. Really enjoyed your last podcast with Patrick Basham.
Speaker 3: I hope we hear from him again soon. You will
Speaker 3: on election date and keep up the great work. Latin
Speaker 3: and Carolyn.
Speaker 4: Leighton. Rod says, it's all later people, It's all lateron.
Speaker 4: Rod says, I really enjoyed Dr Paul Marrick. I always
Speaker 4: appreciate keeping the COVID genocide alive. I've been silent commentary wise, however,
Speaker 4: still enjoying your Wednesday morning podcasts and Rod. Forgive me, Rod,
Speaker 4: your email is lengthy, but you understand that we just
Speaker 4: can't get through all of everybody, so I'll take bits
Speaker 4: of it out. We both agree on having disdain for experts.
Speaker 4: To me, an expert as a surgeon who can go
Speaker 4: into an o R and put an accident patient back together,
Speaker 4: a rescue lead hand who can rescue a stranded climber,
Speaker 4: and a builder you can send to a stalled work
Speaker 4: site to quick quickly solve a problem. Doctorates are a
Speaker 4: good memory for secondhand information and a cozy relationship with
Speaker 4: the granting professors. He says, I don't know about the
Speaker 4: New Zealand medical system. Hope it's not the same as
Speaker 4: here and so rod as the guy who lives in Kennedy.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 4: Since my wife and I returned back to the East
Speaker 4: Coast fifteen years ago, we've gone through three family doctors
Speaker 4: with two year gasps in between. Two years ago our
Speaker 4: last physician escaped to Western Canada. What we have now
Speaker 4: is blood test appointments by phone community clinics which are
Speaker 4: all staffed by nurse practitioners. There's also a walk in
Speaker 4: clinic in North Sydney three days a week where you
Speaker 4: can see a doctor, which opens at seven am, but
Speaker 4: you have to line up outside before six am to
Speaker 4: get in line because they only take fourteen patients. They
Speaker 4: start interviewing patients at eight thirty. This is the seniors
Speaker 4: gift for paying taxes over a lifetime and it's pretty
Speaker 4: ghastly here these days because we have a we have
Speaker 4: a system paucity of doctors.
Speaker 3: We have a system that is close to collapse. Now,
Speaker 3: just on that note, it doesn't matter where you go
Speaker 3: in the Western world, Written, Canada, Australia, America, New Zealand,
Speaker 3: there's your five eyes, and everyone's complaining of the same.
Speaker 3: Even the politicians themselves are saying that in some cases
Speaker 3: we're close to collapse. You tell me. Ashley Rinsburg and
Speaker 3: Patrick Masham were highly informative. They gave outside the square
Speaker 3: observations and analysis that I'm sure the listeners benefited from
Speaker 3: as much as I did. Ashley Rinsberg's big picture view
Speaker 3: of the Arab Israeli conflict, dubbed dovetails very nicely into
Speaker 3: what the analyst team at Geopolitical Futures has been documenting
Speaker 3: since the start of the current phase of the Arab
Speaker 3: Israeli conflict. On that awful day, he was outstanding in
Speaker 3: his praise and endorsement of Benjamin Netanyahoo and was wonderfully
Speaker 3: correct in emphasizing President Trump's bold and enormously consequential push
Speaker 3: for the Abraham Accords. I have attached a piece that
Speaker 3: I believe is profoundly important to all who value freedom
Speaker 3: was posted on browns Stone Institute, a site that just
Speaker 3: keeps getting better and better, and I'll add my better
Speaker 3: on the end of that. Thank you, Paul. I might
Speaker 3: dig that out and include it.
Speaker 4: Layton Ross says interesting developments in exposing dreadful mRNA vaccines
Speaker 4: in Australia. Who's going to lead the charge here? And
Speaker 4: he cites thewdubthegatewaypundit dot com. So if anybody wants to
Speaker 4: look into it, and you have.
Speaker 3: I'm prepped. Port Headland Council votes to expose DNA contamination
Speaker 3: in mRNA vaccines, demands immediate suspension of COVID nineteen shots nationwide.
Speaker 3: A special meeting had been by the port Headland Council
Speaker 3: on October eleventh, marked watershed moment in the ongoing national
Speaker 3: debate surrounding DNA contamination in mRNA COVID nineteen vaccines, particularly
Speaker 3: Pfizer and Maderna's products. This highly anticipated session was called
Speaker 3: in response to mounting evidence of DNA contamination presented by
Speaker 3: experts such as Dr David's Speecher, alongside a series of
Speaker 3: letters from M P Russell Broadbend. The gravity of the
Speaker 3: concerns raised, along with the Council's proactive stance, has drawn
Speaker 3: attention not only within Western Australia but across the entire nation.
Speaker 3: Now that is only the introductory paragraph, and i'll tell you.
Speaker 3: I'll tell you after the mail room when I'm giving
Speaker 3: you some other information where you can find it. This
Speaker 3: is producer. I have a very long letter. You might
Speaker 3: recall it. Last week. I put one aside, make mention
Speaker 3: of it the author that that I would read it
Speaker 3: thoroughly and then decide very long. So I'm going to
Speaker 3: utilize it. But after you've gone, love, because I know
Speaker 3: that you have another appointment this week in half an
Speaker 3: hour and that's not even here.
Speaker 4: And it's not even that's right. I'm off you are
Speaker 4: all right later, and thank you.
Speaker 3: So much, No, thank you even more.
Speaker 4: Keep writing, guys.
Speaker 3: And before I read it. This is the follow up
Speaker 3: after what I said last week. Craig dropped the note
Speaker 3: and said, I heard your comment on Wednesday. Your call,
Speaker 3: your call if you choose not to use my email. Yes,
Speaker 3: it is somewhat controversial, and I understand why you may
Speaker 3: choose not to use it. That's totally your call, and
Speaker 3: I am okay either way, but I'm going to read
Speaker 3: it because there's no reason why I shouldn't now that
Speaker 3: I have. Now that I've inspected it, shall we say
Speaker 3: thoroughly great writes that when the madness erupted, my wife
Speaker 3: and I I just completed a six weeks South Island
Speaker 3: road trip, pretty much covering the whole island, enjoying brilliant
Speaker 3: weather at a fantastic time of enjoying the beautiful scenery
Speaker 3: which that island affords. We were in Picton for the
Speaker 3: last couple of days before catching the ferry and driving
Speaker 3: up the North Island heading home. Because of the number
Speaker 3: of others doing the same, we struggled to get a booking.
Speaker 3: Remember those days when everyone was racing to get back
Speaker 3: to wherever they lived before lockdown. We struggled to get
Speaker 3: a booking and meet the lockdown requirement and ended up
Speaker 3: driving up the North Island on the extra day afforded
Speaker 3: travelers heading to your home quite an amazing feeling with
Speaker 3: very very few vehicles on the road. The early days
Speaker 3: were somewhat surreal developing a new regime of living. Being
Speaker 3: Boomers the target of the virus, we were fortunate in
Speaker 3: having the support of immediate family for shopping, etc. Early on,
Speaker 3: we as a family were interested in being safe and
Speaker 3: following the rules and generally doing what was expected of us.
Speaker 3: As time went on, we were starting to query the
Speaker 3: information and data that was being spouted daily from the
Speaker 3: podium of truths. We decided to adopt a weight in
Speaker 3: sea regime around the vaccine development, particularly when there was
Speaker 3: a pharmaceutical company planning on producing a conventional vaccine and
Speaker 3: different to the mRNA JAB which was close to release. Also,
Speaker 3: was the info becoming available and suggesting the likely vulnerable
Speaker 3: group were older people with health issues. While Carol and
Speaker 3: I were both in our seventies, we fortunately were in
Speaker 3: very good health. One family member was Slash Is, a
Speaker 3: journalist who has an investigated event started spending time looking
Speaker 3: into the matter, and as time went on he started
Speaker 3: looking into alternative thinking on the subject and eventually this
Speaker 3: led to considering other treatment options as an alternative to
Speaker 3: the proposed JAB introduction. Through the process, Mark which obviously
Speaker 3: is not his real name, was introduced to people like
Speaker 3: Robert Clancy, doctor Robert Malown, Peter McCulloch, Gert van Vandenbosch,
Speaker 3: Brett Weinstein, David Bell, Pierre Corey and others, which led
Speaker 3: him to develop a very open mind on the whole subject.
Speaker 3: He became very skeptical about the MR and A technology.
Speaker 3: Fortunately for our Hamley, early on in his investigation he
Speaker 3: started to focus on finding treatments to help provide immunity
Speaker 3: to the disease. The natural immune system featured high on
Speaker 3: the radar and providing support to this system seemed to
Speaker 3: be a no brainer. Remarkably, very early on he came
Speaker 3: across ivermecton. This, along with zinc and vitamins D and C,
Speaker 3: were seen as an alternative to the emerging JAB which
Speaker 3: was being developed and close to being introduced. Sourcing was
Speaker 3: a challenge and locally was virtually impossible. However, in the
Speaker 3: early days it wasn't too bad to purchase from offshore.
Speaker 3: As time went on, the source was starting to become
Speaker 3: difficult and eventually impossis. Our last shipment was in alternative packaging. However,
Speaker 3: unfortunately the shipment was picked up in customs and we
Speaker 3: never saw it other which they stole it. The good
Speaker 3: news is this shipment was for a rainy day and
Speaker 3: we have managed to have enough to still today have
Speaker 3: good supplies This was during the actual introduction of the JAB.
Speaker 3: Like everyone, our daily lives were impacted by the continued
Speaker 3: input of government politicians, bureaucrats and health experts. The government's
Speaker 3: failure to use the numerous qualified professionals with expertise in
Speaker 3: their fields was pathetic and spoke slash speaks to the
Speaker 3: arrogance of those who chose to ignore that advice. I
Speaker 3: could expand here, but suffice it to say the management
Speaker 3: of the whole COVID issue by the Labor government, bureaucrats
Speaker 3: and other government officials was pure and simply corrupt and criminal.
Speaker 3: A particular frustration was the fact that the New Zealand
Speaker 3: government were absolutely aware that the JAB did not prevent
Speaker 3: transmission prior to the repeat. Prior his emphasis to the
Speaker 3: New Zealand rollout, another government letdown. As things settled down
Speaker 3: and the ability to move around became somewhat easier if
Speaker 3: you were jabbed, we of course, were left stuck indoors
Speaker 3: and isolated from the masses. We were prepared to accept
Speaker 3: the restrictions, believing in our decision. The sideways glances from
Speaker 3: extended family and friends not all were obvious, but we
Speaker 3: as a family three generations but only six of us
Speaker 3: stuck together and became a closer unit and aside I
Speaker 3: decided to try and circumvent the system and managed with
Speaker 3: some help, to replicate a COVID pass. The result was
Speaker 3: two passes, one to view true details and one to
Speaker 3: scan a copy. Managing to visit many places restaurants, cafes
Speaker 3: and bars, etc. Just proved another flaw in the government's plan. Today,
Speaker 3: three to four years on, none of the family have
Speaker 3: had COVID. The daily dose of vitamin C and D,
Speaker 3: along with zinc supporting the immune system, has seemed to
Speaker 3: do the trick. We are still convinced of the decision
Speaker 3: we made back then and would certainly follow the same
Speaker 3: or a similar regime in the future. I enjoy your
Speaker 3: weekly podcasts and have developed a habit of listening every
Speaker 3: Saturday morning. Probably listened to around ninety five percent of
Speaker 3: the podcast. Your balanced approach to the subjects is refreshing
Speaker 3: given the woky, lefty narratives we are now constantly subjected to.
Speaker 3: Kind regards, Craig, I can't find anything wrong with what
Speaker 3: you've said. Some people would probably say that you were
Speaker 3: wrong in your replication of a COVID pass because at
Speaker 3: the time, Well, you knew, and a lot of people knew,
Speaker 3: but not everybody did. Apart from that little adventure, You're
Speaker 3: to be congratulated on your whole attitude and there were
Speaker 3: many many people who fell into a footstep with you.
Speaker 3: And let's hope we don't have to go through anything
Speaker 3: like that again in the foreseeable future or beyond.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: So that's the mail room for this week, with the
Speaker 3: additional that was fairly long. If you want to write
Speaker 3: to us Latent at newstalksb dot co dot inz or
Speaker 3: Carolyn at newstalksb dot co dot in z. Now I
Speaker 3: have some recommendations and we'll get into that in just
Speaker 3: a second. Leighton Smith to what we might call the
Speaker 3: final segment of podcast two sixty and some references that
Speaker 3: I hope that some of you at least will find
Speaker 3: interesting in what to follow up on. Entirely up to you,
Speaker 3: I will never know. That is the better one, the
Speaker 3: main one. Put that aside for a moment. We tad
Speaker 3: about Hillary Clinton and her warning. Very quickly. This is
Speaker 3: from This is from zero Hedge. If you want to
Speaker 3: find it as Empire of Lies crumbles, Hillary Clinton warns,
Speaker 3: is all you need as empire. Do a search on
Speaker 3: it and you'll find it. I'm sure as empire of
Speaker 3: lies crumbles, Hillary Clinton warns will lose total control if
Speaker 3: social media stops censoring content. This is a woman that's
Speaker 3: been telling us for ages about how Donald Trump is
Speaker 3: going to ruin America. Donald Trump is going to be
Speaker 3: a totalitarian tyrant. I think he can be a totalitarian
Speaker 3: tyrant amongst other things, etc. I have not a word
Speaker 3: that I can use that describes Hillary Clinton, to be honest.
Speaker 3: About nine months ago, the Wall Street Journal editor in
Speaker 3: chief admitted to Davos Elites that the legacy media outlets
Speaker 3: no longer had a monopoly on information and narratives. In
Speaker 3: other words, misinformation and disinformation campaigns to brainwash the masses
Speaker 3: were no longer working. We owned the news, We were
Speaker 3: the gatekeepers, and we very much owned the facts as well. Nowadays,
Speaker 3: people can go to all sorts of different sources for
Speaker 3: the news, and they're much more questioning about what we're saying.
Speaker 3: This is according to the Wall Street Journal editor Emma Tucker,
Speaker 3: this is why the fake news media is attacking Elon
Speaker 3: and the X platform. They have lost control of the
Speaker 3: narrative they once had we owned the news. We were
Speaker 3: the gatekeepers and we were very much and we very
Speaker 3: much owned the facts as well. So there's six pages
Speaker 3: on that. If you're interisted next misinformation laws will feed
Speaker 3: attacks on Western history. Now this is from the Spectator
Speaker 3: Australia and it's not something that you can hunt down
Speaker 3: and read in its entirety unless you are a subscriber
Speaker 3: of which I am. So this is a little unfair,
Speaker 3: but it's to do with Tucker Carlson has a unique
Speaker 3: ability to blow up the Internet, and he did so
Speaker 3: again recently. When History podcast host Daryl Cooper appeared on
Speaker 3: his show, Cooper made some controversial comments, primarily about Winston
Speaker 3: Churchill on the Second World War. Throughout the episode, Cooper
Speaker 3: asserted that Churchill was the chief villain of the Second
Speaker 3: World War. He accused Churchill of wanting war with Germany
Speaker 3: when hit the only wanted piece with Britain. He suggested
Speaker 3: Churchill may have been influenced by his Zionist finances to
Speaker 3: wage war on Germany and that it was Churchill who
Speaker 3: was the first to start fire bombing cities. The culpability
Speaker 3: of the Germans, in contrast, was downplayed, with Cooper suggesting
Speaker 3: that the deaths of millions of Russian POWs on the
Speaker 3: Eastern Front resulted more from a lack of planning and
Speaker 3: logistics than a concerted effort to mass murder. There are
Speaker 3: some insane people in this world. You can't eliminate them.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I don't know what Carlson was doing
Speaker 3: with him on Maybe he was having fun at his expense.
Speaker 3: But for get a chance or have a look. Now.
Speaker 3: This is the no, it's not, yes, it is. This
Speaker 3: is the article that is the most important this week.
Speaker 3: I think it runs fourteen pages. Central Bank Digital Currencies
Speaker 3: Accelerating toward Dystopia, and you can find that simply by
Speaker 3: doing a search on Central bank Digital Currencies Accelerating toward
Speaker 3: Dystopia by Ronan Manly. In fact, you'd probably be better
Speaker 3: off looking up Ronan Manly, Rona m an l Y
Speaker 3: Ronan Manly fourteen pages of interest. When it comes to
Speaker 3: banking and the future, the dangers of CBDCs. All major
Speaker 3: banks are planning a CBDC. I've read most of this
Speaker 3: CBDC bridges for those who believe that their own countries
Speaker 3: CBDC could be a dangerous tool of surveillance and control.
Speaker 3: They must also stay aware of the fact that the
Speaker 3: global plans for these financial globalists are to link all
Speaker 3: of these national CBDCs together in a global network of
Speaker 3: tightly knit mesh that will envelop the human population trilling
Speaker 3: unelected elites, the vis unelected elites, the Atlantic Council, unelected elites,
Speaker 3: the International Monetary Fund, and US Republicans push back against
Speaker 3: cbdc's push harder. And then there is the conclusion, a
Speaker 3: touch of the conclusion. Whatever the outcome, it looks set
Speaker 3: that this CBDC issue will cause lots more debate and
Speaker 3: wrangling between Republicans and Democrats over the months and years
Speaker 3: to come, and could even be a major policy issue
Speaker 3: to debate if the mainstream media, the US mainstream media,
Speaker 3: bothered to ask the right questions. I think it's worthy
Speaker 3: of anybody who listens to this podcast should find it
Speaker 3: of some value. And then finally, I want to make
Speaker 3: mention of these two books that I have that I
Speaker 3: have discussed with one of the one of the authors,
Speaker 3: Andrew Hollis, Climate Actually Nothing to Fear. And then the
Speaker 3: second volume, which has now come out finally in its
Speaker 3: own right, Climate Actually the science behind it. So the
Speaker 3: difference Climate Actually nothing to fear is Volume one Climate
Speaker 3: actually the science behind it. Volume two speaks for itself,
Speaker 3: ordinary language explaining the science is associated with climate for
Speaker 3: everyone to understand by retired lawyer and the man who
Speaker 3: in his law degree did some climate stuff or associated
Speaker 3: Andrew Hollis and Mike sank And we've done an interview,
Speaker 3: as I say, and you've probably heard it. But now
Speaker 3: that I've got the books in their final form, let
Speaker 3: me just give you an idea of what caught my attention.
Speaker 3: These arrived last Saturday. The alleged harm from CO two.
Speaker 3: CO two is a pollutant question mark, Did you know
Speaker 3: that the Supreme Court of the United States legislated that
Speaker 3: CO two was a pollutant and needs to be eradicated.
Speaker 3: What part of the planet are you from? How delusional
Speaker 3: are you? It is not a plant destroying toxin. It
Speaker 3: is the food upon which they survive and thrive. Such
Speaker 3: is the madness of this climate alarmist hysteria that even
Speaker 3: the highest court in the United States has seemingly gone bonkers.
Speaker 3: There were the Democrat appointees that caused that. And you
Speaker 3: can get these two books from Amazon Australia and they're
Speaker 3: well priced, I might add, and they're worthy of being
Speaker 3: in your library, especially if you've got young people in
Speaker 3: your house, especially if you've got kids at school. Let
Speaker 3: them educate themselves and take on the teachers, because the
Speaker 3: teachers deserve to be taken on. And that will take
Speaker 3: us away for podcasts or from podcast two hundred and
Speaker 3: sixty later in that News Talks AB dot co dot
Speaker 3: NZ and Carolyn at Newstalks ADB dot co dot in Z.
Speaker 3: We shall return with podcasts two hundred and sixty one
Speaker 3: very shortly. Until then, as always, thank you for listening
Speaker 3: and we shall talk soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you for more from News Talks, there'd be listen
Speaker 1: live on air or online and keep our shows with
Speaker 1: you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio