Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talks. It be
follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Of theists, now.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
The Layton Smith podcast Coward by news Talks.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
It be Welcome to podcasts two hundred and sixty for
October sixteen, twenty twenty four. What do these subjects have
in common? Freedom of speech, censorship, rule of law, judicial activism, politics,
the administrative state, morality, and there's plenty more. They are
all part of an ongoing discussion, an important discussion over
(00:48):
where society is headed and what the social future of
the country, if not much of the world, will be like.
Politics has always been a scene of changing alliances. Law
and freedom have always gone together, but judicial activism now
casts a shadow over that connection. Rights have in the
past been a formulation of the essentials of freedom, but
(01:10):
utopians have learned to turn a vast range of rights
into the blueprint for some supposedly largest social perfection. That
is why vigilance and political connoisseurship are necessary in sustaining
the practices of our free world. The author of the
book was Kennethmanogue, Kywe born and bred, lived most of
(01:33):
his life in the Northern Hemisphere, specifically in London, where
he was a professor at the London School of Economics.
He was an economist, but he was also known very
widely as a philosopher, and a very good one. He
came back to New Zealand to do a speech. I
think it might have been a Sir John Graham's speech,
and that is where I met him, and memory serves
(01:54):
me correctly, I interviewed him. But that's beside the point.
The point is that we've reached the stage that men
like Kenneth Minogue, and there's a list of others could
see coming. The second quote I want I want to
utilize is by Robert Bork, a judge in America, and
he was a candidate for the Supreme Court, and he
(02:16):
was destroyed by the present President of the United States.
Robert Bork coercing virtue the worldwide rule of judges quick
quote judicial activism, the ordering of results not supported by
any reasonable interpretation of the constitution. They have their written constitution.
(02:36):
We have our unwritten constitution. May be rampant, but it
is completely unsupportable. Numerous attempts at justification have been made
by academic lawyers and by left wing activist groups such
as the American Civil Liberties Union, and more recently by
heated statements from the leaders of the American Bar Association
(02:57):
that swing should not be surprising. Some people will always
rally around the center of power, particularly if it is
the center most accessible to them and it produces the
results that they want. Now, as you would already be
aware because you've seen it in the notes or heard
it on the radio, this podcast centers around the New
(03:20):
Zealand Supreme Court. Tuesday afternoon, the fifteenth of October, which,
as this is being released on the sixteenth, was just yesterday,
the New Zealand Initiative add its chairman, released a paper
written by Roger Partridge, who is a lawyer and the
chairman of the New Zealand Institute. It's called Who Makes
(03:42):
the Law Reigning in the Supreme Court and the report
challenges the Supreme Court's recent decisions and their implications for
our constitutional balance. So, in the discussion that follows, how
the Supreme Court has adopted a loose approach to interpreting
laws passed by Parliament. The Court's reshaping of the common
law based on judge's perceptions of changing social values and
(04:04):
the consequences of judicial overreach for them, critic legitimacy and
the rule of law, and then provides some suggestions for
solutions to the above problems. So in just a moment
we'll talk with Roger Partridge. After which, of course there
is the mail room with Missus Producer, and there are
some advisories with regard to things that I think will
(04:25):
interest you which we have recently introduced. But next Roger Partridge.
(04:46):
Leverix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality.
Leverix relieves hay fever and skin allergies or itchy skin.
It's a dual action antihistamine and has a unique nasal
decongestant action. It's fast acting for fast relief and it
works in under an hour and lasts for over twenty
(05:07):
four hours. Leveris is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose,
deals with itchy eyes, and stops sneezing. Levericks is an
antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality. So next
time you are in need of an effective antihistamine, call
into the pharmacy and ask for Leverix l e v
Rix Leverix and always read the label, take as directed
(05:32):
and if symptoms persist, see your health professional. Farmer Broker
Auckland Layton Smith Roger Partridge was for twenty three years
a litigation partner at law firm Bell Gully. He is
now the chairman of the New Zealand Initiative and has
written numerous papers on matters of public importance. His most
(05:52):
recent was Prescription for Prosperity, a briefing to the incoming
government of twenty twenty three. He has now written and
released who Makes the Law reigning in the Supreme Court
While somebody needed to do it? Roger Partridge, great to
talk with you and I congratulate you on what you've done.
(06:14):
It's very impressive. What brought you to the point of
realizing you needed to do this well.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
I've spent nearly nine years now working with the team
at the Initiatives as well as sharing the organization, and
most of those nine years I've tried to pretend I
wasn't formerly a lawyer, and I've written on a range
of public policy matters, monitoring fiscal policy, New Zealand's culture health, energy,
(06:44):
anything really the team lets me. I was drawn back
into writing on the law by what I saw as
increasingly erratic decisions from the Supreme Court. It started three
years ago with the Make It sixteen case, that's the
voting age case, where the Supreme Court weighed in on
(07:07):
something that's obviously a political issue and and and in
its enthusiasm it made a really very basic error in
interpreting the Bill of Rights Act. The Minority there was
a minority judgment of Stephen Kosch which got the law
right justice coach, but it was an obvious flaw and
(07:31):
it belied a court very keen to intervene on on
on political matters and matter is that really should be
left to Parliament and to voters. Earlier this year then
another extremely erratic cases I saw at the Climate change case,
where the Court of Appeal had said civil proceedings between
a plaint of and a defendant couldn't couldn't really hope
(07:54):
to address the challenge that is climate change in it
that it required a complex regulatory regime and international treaties.
But the Supreme Court was having none of that and
granted granted leave for the for the unsuccessful plaintiff to
appeal the decision from the Court of Appeal striking out
the claim. So we're now going to have the judges
(08:14):
inserting themselves into into a show trial on climate change,
on an issue which many will think is best left
to Parliament. And then in I think it was early March,
it might have been late February, the CAC Jack Hodd
sent me a draft of an article he was going
(08:36):
to deliver at a conference run by the Legal Research
Foundation marking twenty years of the Supreme Court's anniversary. It
was written in very polite language, but it was at
trenchant criticism of a court that's really straight outside its
bounds and misunderstood its role. I wrote it up in
my herald column that Jack's criticisms confirmed some of my
(09:01):
own thinking. I wrote a follow up column with some
a couple of thoughts on what Parliament might do to
reign in the Court and kept thinking about it and
that led to the project which is released today.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
So the Supreme Court has adopted a loose approach to
interpreting laws passed by Parliament is one of the lead
lines of the email that I first received. Who decides
whether the Court is following what are perceived to be
the rules and what the rules are well.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
It's a mix of jurisprudential analysis by academics and the
politicians themselves. It is, after all, Parliament that's supreme in
the legal hierarchy. Parliament makes the laws, Parliament created the
Supreme Court. Parliament has laid down the guidelines that the
courts must follow when interpreting Parliament's words. And what we're
(10:00):
seeing now is a radical departure from those guidelines by
a court that has becoming increasingly unconstrained and increasingly inserting
itself into the role of lawmaker, which is traditionally Parliament's
role rather than just adjudicator deciding disputes between parties. And
(10:23):
when you become a lawmaker, you're making policy decisions, and
that inevitably politicizes the judicial role. And I think we
can see from the US the cautionary tale of what
happens when a Supreme Court becomes too activist, and the
erosion of trust in the impartiality of the judiciary and
(10:44):
in a sense, the erosion of the democratic legitimacy of
the law if the laws are being made by unaccountable
not politically accountable judges rather than accountable politicians.
Speaker 3 (10:55):
So you raise the US scenario, and I'm glad you did.
What are the similarities and what are the differences between
the Supreme Court of New Zealand and the Supreme Court
of the US and how they both operate.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Well, the big difference is that the Supreme Court in
the US can strike down legislation. Because the US has
a written constitution, the Supreme Court in the US can
declare legislation passed by Congress to be unconstitutional and therefore invalid.
New Zealand's Supreme Court can't do that. It's given itself
(11:32):
the right to declare legislation inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.
But the Bill of Rights is just an ordinary piece
of legislation, doesn't result in legislation being invalidated. That's the
biggest difference. The biggest similarity now is that we've got
a Supreme Court that is increasingly keen to get involved
(11:57):
in political contentious political issues. The voting age is a
good example. Climate change is another good example. The sentence
in case the three strikes legislation. Whether you like the
three strikes legislation or not, I was never a fan
of it. But it was undoubtedly within Parliament's reavemant to
(12:18):
pass it. But it's the court took a hostile approach
to three strikes. So we're seeing a court increasingly involved
in making policy, in inserting itself into important policy decisions
which traditionally the courts would have left to Parliament.
Speaker 3 (12:37):
So it's referred to here mostly as judicial overreach. Is
there a difference in your to you? Is there a
difference between overreach and the activism?
Speaker 2 (12:50):
No? I no, I think the terms are pretty much interchangeable.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
So let me go, let me take you back to
the very beginning, if I can put it that way,
of how how a judge becomes a Justice of the
Supreme Court in this country.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Appointed appointed by the executive by the Prime minister. So
the judicial appointment process as either the either the Attorney
General or the Prime Minister in cabinet.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
And that's it.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
Yes, that's it.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
There is no interrogation, there's no cross examination, there's no
hearings like they have in the Senate.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
That's right. And I think we've got a pretty good
cross party track record of appointing judges based on on
quality and not based on their political leanings. But I
don't think what we haven't paid enough attention to is
(13:52):
whether judges are committed to parliamentary sovereignty, committed to judicial restraint,
and committed to ensuring and upholding the rule of law.
And it's probably worth dwelling from home on just what
the rule of law means. It's reasonably well understood by lawyers,
(14:13):
but most importantly, it means that laws are certain and predictable.
And if you've if you've got judges weighing in and
taking radical or perhaps even unreasonable views of what legislation means,
then the law becomes less certain and predictable. And that
challenge is the rule of law. So the report recommends
(14:34):
one of the five recommendations is that we sharpen up
judicial appointment processes to focus more on those qualities, the
qualities of judicial restraint, respect for the sovereignty of parliament,
and the rule of law.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
How much of a part would track record play on that.
Speaker 2 (14:51):
A huge part?
Speaker 3 (14:53):
Okay. The reason I'm pushing this line a little bit
is because we've witnessed in the United States lawyers, sorry, judges,
who have been appointed to the Supreme Court who, particularly
by Republicans presidents, have not necessarily lived up to expectations.
(15:13):
In fact, there are suggestions, if not accusations, that one
or two of them I have been dishonest in their
interrogation period.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Well, sorry, I jump in. I don't think you'd find
the Democrats feeling that. We've had a long period where
the US Supreme Court was dominated by Democrat Democrat appointments,
the Democratic Party appointment so social democrats or socially liberals
(15:45):
or the Americans like to call them progressives. So we've
had a progressive dominated bench. We've now got it and
quite an activist Supreme Court, and the Conservatives have railed
against that. Now we've got a conservative dominated Supreme Court
bench and that's also activist, and the Democrats are railing
(16:09):
against it. And it's a cautionary tale for us. We
don't want a judiciary that's overtly or subject overtly to
the charge that it's politically partial, because that undermines trust
and the judiciary and the democratic legitimacy of the legal
(16:30):
system and the law.
Speaker 3 (16:32):
So you're happy with the way that judges are appointed
here to the Supreme Court? Do you think there's not
advances we could make.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
I don't I wouldn't want to change the process of appointment.
I'd like I'd like more focus on judges demonstrated respect
for the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law
and the doctrines of precedents, President and the other. The
other suggestion, though, and this is not as radical as
(17:05):
it sounds, is to introduce term limits for Supreme Court judges,
so they'd spend they'd come up out of the Court
of Appeal and spend five to seven years perhaps in
the Supreme Court and then go back to the Court
of Appeal or retire, and that way we'd I think
we'd counter an Ivory Tower concern that spending too long
(17:25):
at the top in the palace that we've built for
the Supreme Court in Wellington gives the risks giving Supreme
Court judges hears above their station. Their role is to
adjudicate on disputes, not to be not to take over
Parliament's role. So I think Supreme Court terms for Supreme
(17:46):
Court judges would be a good idea, and a greater
focus on judicial restraint in their track record.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
The appointment to the superior courts, the retention of seventy
sorry that the tension of retirement at seventy Yes, retention
of that. Why is it that somebody who's had an
a lifelong experience in the legal system is necessarily useless
(18:15):
at Seventy's just a question that I've often pondered. Why
there isn't why there aren't other arrangements.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
I think anything else becomes too hard. So it's a
blunt rule to avoid having to deal with judges with
cognitive decline. And you want to put the cut off
point early enough so that you're not you're not running
into the risk of it. We've seen that with some
Supreme Court judges in the US. Perhaps it could be
(18:48):
seventy five, but I think you need a blunt rule
rather than an evaluation of a particular judges cognitive performance.
Speaker 3 (18:56):
You may mention of the Americans being a written constitution,
which of course is right. We don't our constitution is well,
is it a living constitution.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
It's not a living constitution in the sense that progressive
or activist judges in the US would claim it to be.
And this idea of living law the meaning and just
to explain it, that's generally the idea that the meaning
of legislation changes as society's values. Change. I think that's
(19:38):
a very dangerous concept. I think it's inconsistent with the
rule of law. I think legislation means what it meant,
including a constitutional document, means what it was meant when
it was enacted. And if society of voters the electorate
wants changes to us, then that should go through the
(19:59):
democratic process and so and we've seen that with the
US Constitution with a series of amendments. That's the democratically
legitimate way of changing both your founding constitution and any
other law that needs updating. Not the courts saying well,
Parliament might have meant one thing in nineteen ninety, but
(20:22):
in twenty twenty four it would have decided something else
because we think society's values are changed. Therefore we'll interpret
it in a different way. That's not the job for
the courts. That's a job for our democratically elected parliament.
The courts are not equipped to make social policy decisions.
They don't have the process of decisions. They don't have
(20:44):
the submission making process that occurs in Parliament with select committees.
They are dealing with issues in a very constrained way.
The issues come before the courts in a dispute between
two parties, so not everybody with an interest is represented,
and so they're not equipped to make social policy decisions.
(21:07):
And then they're not but obviously obviously they think they are.
Well they think they are. And that's the problem that
the report primarily addresses. How to reign in a court
that thinks that it's got a function that's beyond its remit.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
I know I'm retreading where we've already been, but the
suggestion that they are overreaching and the reasons that we've
discussed makes it makes it more difficult to accept the
appointment process. And I know that you've explained that. I'm
just expressing my frustration with it. Can I quote you something?
(21:48):
The living constitution argument usually proceeds from the observation of
that society's morality is involving and the Constitution should be
interpreted by the courts to reflect that. The argument is disingenuous.
When a court invalidates a statute, it invalidates the best
evidence available of what society's morality, and the evolving morality rationale,
(22:11):
which the Supreme Court has used a number of times,
is actually no more than a statement that the court
believes the morality it prefers should be enforced. The society
is not involving only the court is will. That summarizes here, well,
that's that is a central issue.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
But the living constitution concept is not really taken hold
in New Zealand except in some specific instances, and one
of the recommendations in the report is that to nip
it in its court. That's described in the report as
the ambulatory approach, so that the meaning of legislation changes
(22:51):
over time, the ambulatory approach or the living the living
constitution approach. In the US, the Parliament gives guidelines to
the courts on how they interpret legislation. It provides that
legislation is to be the meaning is to be determined
(23:14):
from the text of the legislation and in light of
its purpose and context. So that's the purpose that Parliament
had when it passed the legislation. Those last three words
and the context and its context I think could be
sharpened up. It does not make clear that the context,
(23:36):
the relevant context is the context when the law was passed,
and there are some suggestions that the court can look
to later context, so changing values. I'm suggesting that Parliament
sharpen up that wording to introduce some guardrails to make
it clear that we're talking about the context when the
(23:58):
law was enacted, and so that's designed to stop the
mischief you've described in that quote of the courts updating
the meaning of legislation without it going through Parliament simply
by interpreting it differently based on their perceptions of changing
society's values.
Speaker 3 (24:20):
The report runs forty six pages. It starts off with
the introduction Chapter one, which came from a New Zealander
I believe, originally.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
The reference to the Ford from Richard, Professor Richard Eakins. Yes, yes, yes,
Richard's the graduate of That's right. Richard's a graduate of
Auckland Law School. He was for a period, he was
for a period on the elector at Auckland and during
(24:56):
that time he was a council member of the Legal
Research Foundation, of which I was the executive director for
nearly a decade. And he's gone on to a glittering
career for a man of such a young age. I
don't want to put a name a figure on it,
but he must be in his early forties at most.
He's a King's Council in the UK and a full
professor at Oxford of Law and Constitutional government. So he's
(25:21):
a bright star in constitutional law.
Speaker 3 (25:25):
So chapter Chapter two is the problem and overreaching Supreme Court,
which we've covered of course, subverting Parliament the Supreme Court's
approach to statutes because there are two areas, statutes and
common law. That's right, and they are behaving the same
or tend to behave the same on both counts. Am
(25:46):
I right?
Speaker 2 (25:48):
Well, the same in the sense that the approach they're
taking is radical. So when it comes to interpreting statutes,
for most just to finish off on the statutory interpretation
peace first before moving to the common law. For most
of the last twenty years they've been relatively constrained when
(26:10):
interpreting statutes. They'd accepted that the license given to them
by Parliament didn't allow them to adopt an unreasonable interpretation.
But the Chief Justice in the three Strikes case, Fitzgerald
in twenty twenty one, was quite splicit and casting off
those shackles and saying the word reasonable didn't exist when
(26:32):
they were looking at laws that conflicted with rights protected
by the Bill of Rights, and that they could that
they weren't constrained by a reasonable interpretation. It follows from
that that they were willing to adopt an unreasonable interpretation
which could never have been Parliament's intent. So they became
they've become increasingly unconstrained in relation to the interpretation of legislation.
Speaker 3 (26:56):
Becawed.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
No, but they've given themselves license, that's what I mean.
Speaker 3 (27:02):
They've been allowed to make up their own rules.
Speaker 2 (27:06):
That's right. And another one of the recommendations and the
report is that Parliament may clear ed its guidelines on
how the court's approach to interpreting statutes. Again, to titan
up the guidelines to make it clear or not guidelines,
they're rules, to make it clear that they can't adopt
(27:27):
meanings of legislation that's inconsistent with Parliament's intent, or interpretations
that are unreasonable. So the report recommends changes to the
rules Parliament sets for the courts when interpreting legislation. Of course,
Parliament is supreme and so it can overturn and if necessary,
(27:51):
pass legislation clarifying its intent, but it shouldn't have to
do that. Sometimes Parliament can be careless with the words
it used, and sometimes they do need to be fine tuned,
but they shouldn't be facing a court that is insisting
on a meaning that is different from what Parliament clearly intended,
and that's what we saw in the Fitzgerald Fitzgerald case.
(28:15):
So I've dwelt a little bit on the legislation side
of things. Shall we come to the common law side now? Yes?
And perhaps the best place to start as a description
for your listeners of what the common law is, because
it is judge made law. Our law is very largely
made up of statutes passed by Parliament, but there's a
(28:39):
body of common law that we inherited from England in
eighteen fifty two when the English Laws Act was passed,
and these are the sets of laws, many of which
have been codified subsequently in statute, but these are the
laws that were created by the courts over many centuries,
for example, determining what sorts of promises are enforceable in
(29:03):
the courts as contracts. The taughts or civil wrongs like
negligence and slander and trespass all are originally part of
the common law, equitable notions of trust. So there's a
whole body of law that is judge made, that's the
(29:24):
common law, and from that body of law you can
draw principles and the courts on a conventional or traditional
orthodox approach to common law method will fill the gaps
in it to deal with new circumstances, drawing on those principles,
or make corrections when it's clear that courts in the
(29:45):
past have earred and they've taken an approach in one
part of the common law that's clearly inconsistent with the
body of the common law, and so they'll iron out
any wrinkles. So that's the traditional common law method. What
our Supreme Court has said repeatedly in cases and in
it's the judge's extrajudicial writings and lectures and speeches, is
(30:08):
that their approach involves reshaping established legal principles to match
judge's views of today's social values. So rather than taking
the common law and filling gaps in it or ironing
out wrinkles, they are willing to change its fundamental values
and take it on a journey by developing it having
(30:31):
regard to their views of social values. Now that's an
unquestionably radical approach, and it's inconsistent with the rule of
law because it throws the law into a state of chaos.
We've seen that with the Elis decision and the quagma.
They've left that they've left us in relation to the
(30:53):
role of Teacungor and the law. So your question, if
I track back, was that they're taking the same approach
in relation to the common Law as in relation to
this statutes, a disruptive and radical approach. So it's the
same in that sense, and it's the same in the
(31:16):
sense that it undermines the rule of law because it
creates uncertainty and unpredictability. It also undermines the sovereignty of Parliament,
quite directly in the case when the Court ignores Parliament's
intended meaning, but also in relation to the common Law,
where it's making big social policy decisions which are properly
(31:40):
the role for our elected representatives.
Speaker 3 (31:43):
Would you put this down to arrogance.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
I think there is a degree of disdain in some
parts of our legal elites for the democratic process, and
I think there is a degree of hubris involved in
the court's approach that they know better. Perhaps I'm just
(32:08):
using synonyms for the word you used.
Speaker 3 (32:11):
One way or the other. Some of them apply. Yeah, okay,
So with the common law, how is that? How is
that to be rectified?
Speaker 2 (32:22):
There are a few things Parliament can do, one of
which is to give more guardrails. When the Supreme Court
was created in two thousand and three, the Act of
Parliament affirmed New Zealand's ongoing commitment to the sovereignty of
(32:43):
Parliament and to the rule of law. And the rule
of law traditionally has been regarded as the formal elements
of laws, so clearly accessible, impartially applied, easily understood, predictable,
consistently applied and so forth. Yes, so the formal aspects
(33:05):
of laws, not their substantive content stand of contents up
to Parliament. It's become increasingly fashionable over the last so
since the middle of the twentieth century to argue for
a thicker or a more substantive version of the rule
of law. So the rule of law then connotes ideas
(33:27):
of social justice and economic entitlements or rights. And at
least one member of the Supreme Court adheres to what's
called the thick version of the rule of law compared
with a thin formal version of the rule of law.
And it's unhelpful that the term the rule of law
(33:48):
is undefined in what's now the Senior Courts Act. And
so against the risk that the courts embark on a
journey of developing the common law in the name of
a thick version of the rule of law that requires
social justice and addressing disadvantage and so forth, all matters
(34:14):
which most of us will think were properly for our parliament.
The report recommends that Parliament legislate the meaning of the
rule of law and specify that it just means the
thin components, the formal aspects of the law, so that
the courts can't go on this reforming crusade in the
(34:34):
name of the rule of law. So that's one thing.
Greater attention to greater attention to who's appointed as superior
court judges and the Court of Appeal in the Supreme
Court is another. And then a third is for Parliament
to exercise its legislative power when it thinks that the
(34:56):
courts have taken the common law off in the wrong direction.
Parliament shouldn't hesitate to pass law to put it back
on track. That is Parliament's prerogative, and it shouldn't hesitate
to use.
Speaker 3 (35:11):
It if it can.
Speaker 2 (35:16):
Well, no, well, it absolutely well if it can. In
the sense of whether it's that there's a political majority
for law change, yes, but we've got a our unicameral
system of parliament means that we often don't get bog
too bog down within passes. M MP of course changes that,
(35:41):
and perhaps it requires the passage of time, a change
of government, whether it's the left or the right, to
put things straight. But Parliament shouldn't hesitate to use its
power as the supreme law maker to ensure that the
law stays on track.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
What do then deal with an issue that is not
in the in the report, but to me it's a
very important one, and that is law legal education, in
other words, the law schools in this country and whether
or not they're doing an appropriate job. And I would
I would question, for instance, whether maybe the maybe the
(36:24):
time gap is too close, but whether the turnouts from
law schools are not not influencing the law as it is,
the common law, in particular because they want they want
social adjustment.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
Well, our university's studies show, certainly international studies show overwhelmingly
progressive or liberal left leaning. I think that's probably true
of law schools here as well as overseas.
Speaker 3 (36:56):
Can we can we can we can we accept that
left leaning means anti democratic.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
I know, not necessarily, but it can not necessarily. I
think on the left and the right you've got anti
democratic tendencies. But I think the I think generally the
political mix of academics, especially in the social sciences, is
(37:27):
dangerously skewed. So I think that that that's a separate issue,
and we're we're we're seeing aspects of that in debates
currently over freedom of speech and academic freedom. And I'm
sure that has an influence on the product from law
schools in the sense of the the legal methods law
(37:51):
students are being imbued with being quite different than perhaps
it was even twenty years ago. So I think that's
I think that's that an issue. It just means those
with differing views need to have the courage to debate.
And that's that's perhaps another issue, and an even broader
(38:13):
issue affecting our country, and that is a combination of
the tall poppy syndrome and the small size of the
country often leads to people not standing up and challenging,
and we need to see much more of that.
Speaker 3 (38:27):
I thought you were going to say freedom of speech.
Speaker 2 (38:30):
Yes, well, there's the freedom of speech issue, but there's
an important job for those to do with the contrarians
to speak out and I think generally not enough contrarians
speak out here. It is quite distinctively different in New Zealand,
even from Australia. Yes, in the business environment which I'm
(38:52):
most familiar with, Australian business leaders are much more outspoken.
But I think that's just true of New Zealand society.
A difference between New Zealand and Australian society generally. But
debate is healthy and we must have contrarians. I know
you've interviewed one legal contrarian, Jim Allen. I enjoyed that discussion.
Speaker 3 (39:16):
Yes, and you'll.
Speaker 2 (39:18):
See I quote, I quote, I quote Jim and you
did in the introduction, in the introduction to the report.
Speaker 3 (39:23):
Yes, he's he is. Here's a how can I put it?
He's a brilliant opinionist.
Speaker 2 (39:29):
He is, indeed, and but he but he not and
not at all cautious with the opinions the expresses, which
is refreshing.
Speaker 3 (39:38):
Absolutely so. I think that he and I may mention
of a Targo law school in our in our conversation,
but there is that is a law school for instance,
that at this point of time, I wouldn't I wouldn't
send my child, my son, Albeit that he went there
but got but escaped before the current spate of approaches
(40:04):
and attitudes set in.
Speaker 2 (40:06):
Yes, well, I think we're seeing a dangerous politicization of
our universities and the pendulum hasn't yet started to swing back.
It must do. Universities should be politically neutral institutions, and
they're not.
Speaker 3 (40:24):
They just jumped to politics for a moment. This is
a sidebar question, I suppose, But our Prime Minister has
in the last few days been been guarded with some
rather complementary opinions from across the Tasman from journalists, particularly
(40:47):
from the Australian journalists, and suggesting that New Zealand is
finally back on track and heading in the right direction successfully.
So the question I have is do you think that
our Prime minister has the capacity to approach these social
issues in the country in the with the appropriate attitude
(41:11):
to you and I are discussing, Yes.
Speaker 2 (41:19):
I'm going to I'm going to give a qualified years
only because the task in front front of the government
is an enormous one. But I think they have This
is almost an entirely different conversation. The political challenges facing
the country, political and economic and social, and they're they're vast,
(41:41):
But I think we have a government with a very
ambitious reform agenda on education, housing, transport, infrastructure policy, a
range of issues that are critical and health to an extent.
A health system needs much more of a shakeup than
it's going to be given this, but you can understand
(42:01):
the reluctance to shake up an organization that's reeling already.
Those range of reforms in housing, education, and improvements to
the health system are all critical to the good life
in New Zealand. And I think there's an ambitious reform
agenda that the government set itself. A lot of it
(42:26):
builds on research and recommendations made by the Initiative over
the last decade. And I can see why in Australia
they look favorably towards the New Zealand the current coalition
government because of the ambition of its reform agenda. Australia
is the lucky country. It's much more prosperous than New Zealand,
(42:47):
but it's track record of political reform over the last
twenty years is dire. So yes are qualified, Yes, Okay.
Speaker 3 (42:58):
I then am inspired to repeat to you something that
an Australian commentator said to me yesterday and this was
just in conversation, not for broadcast, but it will be
in the near future. Was that Australia is in very
(43:18):
deep trouble. And this is a guy who who is
very good at shall we say appropriate and you'll say
balanced comment.
Speaker 2 (43:29):
Yes, Well, if Australia is in very deep trouble, then
we're in deeper trouble. Our housing is at least as unaffordable.
Our government's books are in much dire shape. We have
deep social divisions. Our health system is teetering on the
(43:52):
brink of collapse. Our educational standards have been slipping for
twenty years and haven't yet turned the corner. But there
are promising signs where the government's reform agenda. So I
think Australia's got its challenges, but I think we are
further down the precipice cloring our way up.
Speaker 3 (44:13):
Then they are, well, maybe they're catching up. They made
his comment to be honest, His comment was basically to
do with the government of the day and specifically the
race scenario as it exists at the moment.
Speaker 2 (44:31):
Yes, well, that they are dangerous issues creating expectations that
can't be fulfilled in liberal democracy is a is a
slippery slope and and they're going down the same track
as the second term of the Durn government. A better
approach is to focus on lifting up. So focus on
(44:54):
the social policy problems, unequal education outcomes, poor health outcomes,
housing outcomes. That's the solution to lifting the disadvantaged up.
Is there anything that is It's almost entirely been the
work of the New Zealand Initiative over the last decade.
Speaker 3 (45:14):
Also, is there any particular reason why you haven't entered politics.
Speaker 2 (45:22):
I may have left my run too late. In doesn't
sound a long time. It doesn't sound like spending a
long time in the law. And then I've I've found
my niche role as a critic, and not just not
just as a as a providing criticism, but also in
(45:43):
an organization that is coming up with ideas. Best decision
I ever made was to was to recruit our executive director,
Oliver Hartwitch and and he's built a great team of
the initiatives. So it's it's New Zealand lacks diversity of
thought and an organization like the One Eyed Chair is
(46:08):
is able to challenge the status quo. We're lucky to
have the independence to be able to speak out and
then to come up with ideas that may not be
coming out of either our universities or out of our
bureaucracy in Wellington.
Speaker 3 (46:23):
And it's a shame that it has to be that way.
As in with reference to the universities, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (46:31):
It is it is, but we can only hope for
the pendulum to swing back. It can't happen soon enough.
Speaker 3 (46:40):
So in conclusion, or headed toward the exit door, shall we?
Shall we just recap on chapter three? How should Parliament
all the executive respond?
Speaker 2 (46:55):
Yes, So five recommendations. The first is the most blunt one,
which is legislative intervention. When the court errs, Parliament should
step in and correct the course. And we're seeing that
currently with the Coalition government in relation to the Marine
(47:16):
and Coastal Areas Act, the Coalition commitment between National and
New Zealand. First, when Parliament used the words exclusive and
continuous in the legislation, the courts decided it could be
shared exclusive and didn't need to be continuous. Well, it's
no surprise that Parliament's now saying, well, we're going to
(47:37):
make clear that the courts enforce the law as we
intended it but that's something that Labor did as well
in twenty sixteen in a case called d in the Police,
when the courts clearly didn't follow what was in Labor
intended with the Sex Offenders Registration Act, they jumped in
(48:02):
immediately and passed legislation under urgency to overrule what the
court had found. I think on both sides of the
of the political divide, governments have struggled with the Supreme Court.
They should intervene, and they should intervene more frequently than
they do to to correct the course of the law.
(48:25):
So that's the first thing. Legislative intervention. It's been used
really in the past, but courts in the past haven't
been so consciously radicals as the Supreme Courts being now,
and it can expect to be corrected more frequently. So
that's the first thing. The second thing is defining the
(48:46):
rule of law so that it's not seen by the
courts as a license to go off on a social
justice crusade. The third thing are tightening up the legisla
that the instructions from Parliament of the approach the courts
that are take in relation to interpreting its Parliament's words.
So making clear that we don't have this living constitution
(49:08):
idea that the courts can update the meaning of legislation
based on their sense of changing social values. And also
tweaking Section six of the Bill of Rights Act, which
is particularly problematic now. Section we haven't talked about the
Bill of Rights Act, but Section six provides that wherever
an enactment can be given a meaning that is that
(49:29):
is consistent with the rights and freedoms contained and the
Bill of Rights, that meaning shall be preferred to any other.
Until the Fitzgerald case, the Supreme Court had said it
had to be a reasonable interpretation the Supreme Court and
Fitzgerald said, well, we don't see the word reasonable in there.
The corollery of that is that they're willing to adopt
an unreasonable interpretation. That's certainly not what Parliament meant in
(49:52):
Parliament should make that clear, either by removing Section six
or tweaking it, and then finally tightening up judicial appointment processes.
Speaker 3 (50:04):
And that's obvious just talking the Bill of Rights. Jim
Allen's not in favor of it.
Speaker 2 (50:13):
No, and I've got mixed views on it too. The
risk is it encourages our courts down the path of
the US Supreme Court. I think the better process is
the Section seven process and the Bill of Rights, which
(50:35):
ensures that the Attorney General, as the highest lawyer other
than judges, reviews legislation and gives independent advice from Crown
Law on whether any legislation before the House infringes the
Bill of Rights. So the Parliament at least is aware
of that. But the risk of the risk of Bills
(50:57):
of Rights and constitutions is that they're a license to
the courts to enter the political fray, and that's what
we've seen all around the world, with the US Supreme
Court ending with a Canadian Supreme Court as well.
Speaker 3 (51:12):
So in conclusion, I want to quote you two paragraphs
of your own work, because well it'll be obvious why.
The most notorious instance of the Supreme Court's circumventing Parliament's
wishes is the Court's three strikes decision in Fitzgerald, discussed
in more detail in Chapter three. In a split decision
three judges to two, the Supreme Court allowed mister Fitzgerald's appeal.
(51:35):
The judges in the majority effectively rewrote the three strikes
maximum sentence provision in the Sentencing Act of two thousand
and two. The Fitzgerald decision, you write, may be remembered
as the high watermark of judicial activism. It suggests that
not even clear wording is enough to override what the
(51:56):
Court regards as basic rights. Instead, it seems the Court
will insist on clear evidence that Parliament has deliberately confronted
the possibility of these base rights being set aside before
it will follow Parliament's words. And I've written under that
my notation is unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (52:17):
What yes, yes, now what yeah? It's even more unbelievable
than that to have the Chief Justice saying an interpretation
the Court's adopted doesn't have to be a reasonable one.
That's the that's the most unbelievable part of the case.
Speaker 3 (52:37):
Is the Chief Justice fit for purpose?
Speaker 2 (52:41):
I don't want to comment on that. I think the
Chief the Chief Justice, well at least until this report
comes out, has been a close personal friend for for
more than forty years. But I think the Court erred
in that in that decision.
Speaker 3 (53:02):
Okay, well, I wouldn't want to be responsible for the
bust up of a forty year friendship, so on that.
On that note, I can suggest a good a good
wine to share. Why do you discuss these things?
Speaker 2 (53:15):
It is.
Speaker 3 (53:16):
It's with great appreciation that I thank you for your time.
You've been generous with it. It's going to be a
busy day for you and I look forward to further
work from you in well along the same lines are
in a similar manner. Thank you later, much appreciated, and
I wish you the very best of luck with the.
Speaker 2 (53:37):
With the results. Many thanks, and I've enjoyed the discussion.
Speaker 3 (54:02):
Now missus producer will be here in just a moment
for the mail room for podcast number two hundred and sixty,
So why don't I entertain you with a short email
from Grant from a long time listener. You mentioned Cuddle's costa, or,
as he's known by his colleagues, the lantern in brackets,
not very bright and has to be carried close bracketts.
(54:25):
Remember he was handpicked and directed by a Deern. He
spent time with the heavily politicized British Police, learning their ways,
then returning to New Zealand to take up the role
of Commissioner. I was very surprised the new government retained him.
I think it was a big mistake by the police
minister who criticized Caster when in opposition. Grant I agree
(54:47):
with you pretty much in all one, two, three, four
lines That was following a comment I made. I don't
know how he held his job under the under the
new regime, but thank you for the feedback, missus producer
las Let's go. How are you better than I look?
Speaker 4 (55:06):
No, you look great as usual, Leyton Steve says, as
always an interesting discussion with Patrick Basham, it was particularly
enlightening to hear his comments of how the mainstream media
in the USA has ignored or at least downplayed the
impact of Hurricane Helene on the Southeast States, probably to
(55:26):
avoid having to expose the ineptitude of the current Biden
Harris government disaster response. It reminds me of one of
Oscar Wilde's quips, which, when asked about the newspapers in America,
declared that they were full of rubbish, that if people
read them and are satisfied with them, then this must
be a nation of lunatics. Personally, I would say the
(55:47):
same from a New Zealand perspective. We all know that
liberals in America are no longer liberal. They've been replaced
by the left, the hard left at that. So it
seemed to me that America is on a knife edge.
If Trump wins, there could well be a civil war
because the left will go ballistic. If Harris and the
deep State, when I believe we will, will almost certainly
(56:09):
see a catastrophic war in Europe, if not the entire world,
because the aforementioned Deep State, all sorts of historical reasons,
is determined to deal to Russia once and for all.
Fingers crossed for us all we must all keep going.
You too too, from Steve, Thank you, Steve.
Speaker 3 (56:29):
Steve good, thank you. Grace writes. I take umbrage to
the comment by Chris in Brackett's Surgeon because I said
it was he was a surgeon in last week's mail room.
Actually it was the second of October last week's mail
room that common childhood vaccines should be mandated and parents
(56:49):
should not have the choice to withhold them from their children.
He has just had a revelation on the dangers of
the COVID shots. Has it occurred to him that some
parents have known there is more going on with the
vaccines than parents have been led to believe by information
put out by the Ministry of Health. Perhaps he should
(57:10):
do a bit more investigation himself into the history of
vaccines and follow the money. I suggest you might consider
interviewing a Roman Bizarinsky. No, that's not right, author of
the book Dissolving Illusions with Suzanne Humphrey's MD. It covers
the history of vaccines, including polio. If you have suffered
(57:31):
polio or are a child of someone who has, and
you are told that this is the vaccine that prevents it,
of course you would say that everyone should be getting
the vaccine, but what if this is not true? Thanks
for continuing your show. I look forward to it always, Grace.
I look forward to your company also.
Speaker 4 (57:50):
And Laton Bronwin says thank you for reading Jeffrey Tucker's
piece about the cellist. I found it very moving. I
am thankful there was one in the audience who truly
appreciated the gift the cellist offered.
Speaker 3 (58:01):
Who wrote that, Ronwin, I appreciate that because you're the
only one who I think responded to it, which really
surprised me. I was moved by that. I expected to
get floods of tears all over pages or something. Anyway,
appreciate it from Vincent. I can't believe the story I'm
reading this weekend of Kamala Harris calling for Donald Trump
to release his medical records for all to see. This
(58:25):
is the woman who blatantly ignored the state of health
of the current president and downright lied about his mental
state or that he was actually even breathing. Add to
the fact that the MSM even runs this story as
if everything is normal. I'm nervously waiting for the next
few weeks to be over and the US election to
(58:47):
have concluded. Really enjoyed your last podcast with Patrick Basham.
I hope we hear from him again soon. You will
on election date and keep up the great work. Latin
and Carolyn.
Speaker 4 (59:00):
Leighton. Rod says, it's all later people, It's all lateron.
Rod says, I really enjoyed Dr Paul Marrick. I always
appreciate keeping the COVID genocide alive. I've been silent commentary wise, however,
still enjoying your Wednesday morning podcasts and Rod. Forgive me, Rod,
(59:21):
your email is lengthy, but you understand that we just
can't get through all of everybody, so I'll take bits
of it out. We both agree on having disdain for experts.
To me, an expert as a surgeon who can go
into an o R and put an accident patient back together,
a rescue lead hand who can rescue a stranded climber,
and a builder you can send to a stalled work
(59:44):
site to quick quickly solve a problem. Doctorates are a
good memory for secondhand information and a cozy relationship with
the granting professors. He says, I don't know about the
New Zealand medical system. Hope it's not the same as
here and so rod as the guy who lives in Kennedy.
Speaker 3 (01:00:04):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (01:00:05):
Since my wife and I returned back to the East
Coast fifteen years ago, we've gone through three family doctors
with two year gasps in between. Two years ago our
last physician escaped to Western Canada. What we have now
is blood test appointments by phone community clinics which are
all staffed by nurse practitioners. There's also a walk in
(01:00:26):
clinic in North Sydney three days a week where you
can see a doctor, which opens at seven am, but
you have to line up outside before six am to
get in line because they only take fourteen patients. They
start interviewing patients at eight thirty. This is the seniors
gift for paying taxes over a lifetime and it's pretty
(01:00:46):
ghastly here these days because we have a we have
a system paucity of doctors.
Speaker 3 (01:00:52):
We have a system that is close to collapse. Now,
just on that note, it doesn't matter where you go
in the Western world, Written, Canada, Australia, America, New Zealand,
there's your five eyes, and everyone's complaining of the same.
Even the politicians themselves are saying that in some cases
(01:01:16):
we're close to collapse. You tell me. Ashley Rinsburg and
Patrick Masham were highly informative. They gave outside the square
observations and analysis that I'm sure the listeners benefited from
as much as I did. Ashley Rinsberg's big picture view
of the Arab Israeli conflict, dubbed dovetails very nicely into
(01:01:39):
what the analyst team at Geopolitical Futures has been documenting
since the start of the current phase of the Arab
Israeli conflict. On that awful day, he was outstanding in
his praise and endorsement of Benjamin Netanyahoo and was wonderfully
correct in emphasizing President Trump's bold and enormously consequential push
(01:02:00):
for the Abraham Accords. I have attached a piece that
I believe is profoundly important to all who value freedom
was posted on browns Stone Institute, a site that just
keeps getting better and better, and I'll add my better
on the end of that. Thank you, Paul. I might
dig that out and include it.
Speaker 4 (01:02:21):
Layton Ross says interesting developments in exposing dreadful mRNA vaccines
in Australia. Who's going to lead the charge here? And
he cites thewdubthegatewaypundit dot com. So if anybody wants to
look into it, and you have.
Speaker 3 (01:02:40):
I'm prepped. Port Headland Council votes to expose DNA contamination
in mRNA vaccines, demands immediate suspension of COVID nineteen shots nationwide.
A special meeting had been by the port Headland Council
on October eleventh, marked watershed moment in the ongoing national
debate surrounding DNA contamination in mRNA COVID nineteen vaccines, particularly
(01:03:04):
Pfizer and Maderna's products. This highly anticipated session was called
in response to mounting evidence of DNA contamination presented by
experts such as Dr David's Speecher, alongside a series of
letters from M P Russell Broadbend. The gravity of the
concerns raised, along with the Council's proactive stance, has drawn
(01:03:27):
attention not only within Western Australia but across the entire nation.
Now that is only the introductory paragraph, and i'll tell you.
I'll tell you after the mail room when I'm giving
you some other information where you can find it. This
is producer. I have a very long letter. You might
(01:03:47):
recall it. Last week. I put one aside, make mention
of it the author that that I would read it
thoroughly and then decide very long. So I'm going to
utilize it. But after you've gone, love, because I know
that you have another appointment this week in half an
hour and that's not even here.
Speaker 4 (01:04:07):
And it's not even that's right. I'm off you are
all right later, and thank you.
Speaker 3 (01:04:11):
So much, No, thank you even more.
Speaker 4 (01:04:13):
Keep writing, guys.
Speaker 3 (01:04:15):
And before I read it. This is the follow up
after what I said last week. Craig dropped the note
and said, I heard your comment on Wednesday. Your call,
your call if you choose not to use my email. Yes,
it is somewhat controversial, and I understand why you may
choose not to use it. That's totally your call, and
I am okay either way, but I'm going to read
(01:04:36):
it because there's no reason why I shouldn't now that
I have. Now that I've inspected it, shall we say
thoroughly great writes that when the madness erupted, my wife
and I I just completed a six weeks South Island
road trip, pretty much covering the whole island, enjoying brilliant
weather at a fantastic time of enjoying the beautiful scenery
(01:04:59):
which that island affords. We were in Picton for the
last couple of days before catching the ferry and driving
up the North Island heading home. Because of the number
of others doing the same, we struggled to get a booking.
Remember those days when everyone was racing to get back
to wherever they lived before lockdown. We struggled to get
a booking and meet the lockdown requirement and ended up
(01:05:23):
driving up the North Island on the extra day afforded
travelers heading to your home quite an amazing feeling with
very very few vehicles on the road. The early days
were somewhat surreal developing a new regime of living. Being
Boomers the target of the virus, we were fortunate in
having the support of immediate family for shopping, etc. Early on,
(01:05:47):
we as a family were interested in being safe and
following the rules and generally doing what was expected of us.
As time went on, we were starting to query the
information and data that was being spouted daily from the
podium of truths. We decided to adopt a weight in
sea regime around the vaccine development, particularly when there was
(01:06:10):
a pharmaceutical company planning on producing a conventional vaccine and
different to the mRNA JAB which was close to release. Also,
was the info becoming available and suggesting the likely vulnerable
group were older people with health issues. While Carol and
(01:06:31):
I were both in our seventies, we fortunately were in
very good health. One family member was Slash Is, a
journalist who has an investigated event started spending time looking
into the matter, and as time went on he started
looking into alternative thinking on the subject and eventually this
led to considering other treatment options as an alternative to
(01:06:56):
the proposed JAB introduction. Through the process, Mark which obviously
is not his real name, was introduced to people like
Robert Clancy, doctor Robert Malown, Peter McCulloch, Gert van Vandenbosch,
Brett Weinstein, David Bell, Pierre Corey and others, which led
(01:07:18):
him to develop a very open mind on the whole subject.
He became very skeptical about the MR and A technology.
Fortunately for our Hamley, early on in his investigation he
started to focus on finding treatments to help provide immunity
to the disease. The natural immune system featured high on
the radar and providing support to this system seemed to
(01:07:41):
be a no brainer. Remarkably, very early on he came
across ivermecton. This, along with zinc and vitamins D and C,
were seen as an alternative to the emerging JAB which
was being developed and close to being introduced. Sourcing was
a challenge and locally was virtually impossible. However, in the
early days it wasn't too bad to purchase from offshore.
(01:08:04):
As time went on, the source was starting to become
difficult and eventually impossis. Our last shipment was in alternative packaging. However,
unfortunately the shipment was picked up in customs and we
never saw it other which they stole it. The good
news is this shipment was for a rainy day and
we have managed to have enough to still today have
(01:08:27):
good supplies This was during the actual introduction of the JAB.
Like everyone, our daily lives were impacted by the continued
input of government politicians, bureaucrats and health experts. The government's
failure to use the numerous qualified professionals with expertise in
their fields was pathetic and spoke slash speaks to the
(01:08:50):
arrogance of those who chose to ignore that advice. I
could expand here, but suffice it to say the management
of the whole COVID issue by the Labor government, bureaucrats
and other government officials was pure and simply corrupt and criminal.
A particular frustration was the fact that the New Zealand
government were absolutely aware that the JAB did not prevent
(01:09:13):
transmission prior to the repeat. Prior his emphasis to the
New Zealand rollout, another government letdown. As things settled down
and the ability to move around became somewhat easier if
you were jabbed, we of course, were left stuck indoors
and isolated from the masses. We were prepared to accept
(01:09:35):
the restrictions, believing in our decision. The sideways glances from
extended family and friends not all were obvious, but we
as a family three generations but only six of us
stuck together and became a closer unit and aside I
decided to try and circumvent the system and managed with
some help, to replicate a COVID pass. The result was
(01:09:58):
two passes, one to view true details and one to
scan a copy. Managing to visit many places restaurants, cafes
and bars, etc. Just proved another flaw in the government's plan. Today,
three to four years on, none of the family have
had COVID. The daily dose of vitamin C and D,
along with zinc supporting the immune system, has seemed to
(01:10:21):
do the trick. We are still convinced of the decision
we made back then and would certainly follow the same
or a similar regime in the future. I enjoy your
weekly podcasts and have developed a habit of listening every
Saturday morning. Probably listened to around ninety five percent of
the podcast. Your balanced approach to the subjects is refreshing
(01:10:41):
given the woky, lefty narratives we are now constantly subjected to.
Kind regards, Craig, I can't find anything wrong with what
you've said. Some people would probably say that you were
wrong in your replication of a COVID pass because at
the time, Well, you knew, and a lot of people knew,
(01:11:05):
but not everybody did. Apart from that little adventure, You're
to be congratulated on your whole attitude and there were
many many people who fell into a footstep with you.
And let's hope we don't have to go through anything
like that again in the foreseeable future or beyond.
Speaker 2 (01:11:23):
Right.
Speaker 3 (01:11:24):
So that's the mail room for this week, with the
additional that was fairly long. If you want to write
to us Latent at newstalksb dot co dot inz or
Carolyn at newstalksb dot co dot in z. Now I
have some recommendations and we'll get into that in just
a second. Leighton Smith to what we might call the
(01:11:53):
final segment of podcast two sixty and some references that
I hope that some of you at least will find
interesting in what to follow up on. Entirely up to you,
I will never know. That is the better one, the
main one. Put that aside for a moment. We tad
about Hillary Clinton and her warning. Very quickly. This is
(01:12:18):
from This is from zero Hedge. If you want to
find it as Empire of Lies crumbles, Hillary Clinton warns,
is all you need as empire. Do a search on
it and you'll find it. I'm sure as empire of
lies crumbles, Hillary Clinton warns will lose total control if
(01:12:38):
social media stops censoring content. This is a woman that's
been telling us for ages about how Donald Trump is
going to ruin America. Donald Trump is going to be
a totalitarian tyrant. I think he can be a totalitarian
tyrant amongst other things, etc. I have not a word
(01:13:03):
that I can use that describes Hillary Clinton, to be honest.
About nine months ago, the Wall Street Journal editor in
chief admitted to Davos Elites that the legacy media outlets
no longer had a monopoly on information and narratives. In
other words, misinformation and disinformation campaigns to brainwash the masses
(01:13:25):
were no longer working. We owned the news, We were
the gatekeepers, and we very much owned the facts as well. Nowadays,
people can go to all sorts of different sources for
the news, and they're much more questioning about what we're saying.
This is according to the Wall Street Journal editor Emma Tucker,
(01:13:45):
this is why the fake news media is attacking Elon
and the X platform. They have lost control of the
narrative they once had we owned the news. We were
the gatekeepers and we were very much and we very
much owned the facts as well. So there's six pages
on that. If you're interisted next misinformation laws will feed
(01:14:08):
attacks on Western history. Now this is from the Spectator
Australia and it's not something that you can hunt down
and read in its entirety unless you are a subscriber
of which I am. So this is a little unfair,
but it's to do with Tucker Carlson has a unique
ability to blow up the Internet, and he did so
(01:14:29):
again recently. When History podcast host Daryl Cooper appeared on
his show, Cooper made some controversial comments, primarily about Winston
Churchill on the Second World War. Throughout the episode, Cooper
asserted that Churchill was the chief villain of the Second
World War. He accused Churchill of wanting war with Germany
(01:14:49):
when hit the only wanted piece with Britain. He suggested
Churchill may have been influenced by his Zionist finances to
wage war on Germany and that it was Churchill who
was the first to start fire bombing cities. The culpability
of the Germans, in contrast, was downplayed, with Cooper suggesting
that the deaths of millions of Russian POWs on the
(01:15:11):
Eastern Front resulted more from a lack of planning and
logistics than a concerted effort to mass murder. There are
some insane people in this world. You can't eliminate them.
I don't know. I don't know what Carlson was doing
with him on Maybe he was having fun at his expense.
But for get a chance or have a look. Now.
(01:15:31):
This is the no, it's not, yes, it is. This
is the article that is the most important this week.
I think it runs fourteen pages. Central Bank Digital Currencies
Accelerating toward Dystopia, and you can find that simply by
(01:15:53):
doing a search on Central bank Digital Currencies Accelerating toward
Dystopia by Ronan Manly. In fact, you'd probably be better
off looking up Ronan Manly, Rona m an l Y
Ronan Manly fourteen pages of interest. When it comes to
banking and the future, the dangers of CBDCs. All major
(01:16:18):
banks are planning a CBDC. I've read most of this
CBDC bridges for those who believe that their own countries
CBDC could be a dangerous tool of surveillance and control.
They must also stay aware of the fact that the
global plans for these financial globalists are to link all
of these national CBDCs together in a global network of
(01:16:41):
tightly knit mesh that will envelop the human population trilling
unelected elites, the vis unelected elites, the Atlantic Council, unelected elites,
the International Monetary Fund, and US Republicans push back against
cbdc's push harder. And then there is the conclusion, a
(01:17:06):
touch of the conclusion. Whatever the outcome, it looks set
that this CBDC issue will cause lots more debate and
wrangling between Republicans and Democrats over the months and years
to come, and could even be a major policy issue
to debate if the mainstream media, the US mainstream media,
bothered to ask the right questions. I think it's worthy
(01:17:28):
of anybody who listens to this podcast should find it
of some value. And then finally, I want to make
mention of these two books that I have that I
have discussed with one of the one of the authors,
Andrew Hollis, Climate Actually Nothing to Fear. And then the
(01:17:50):
second volume, which has now come out finally in its
own right, Climate Actually the science behind it. So the
difference Climate Actually nothing to fear is Volume one Climate
actually the science behind it. Volume two speaks for itself,
ordinary language explaining the science is associated with climate for
everyone to understand by retired lawyer and the man who
(01:18:14):
in his law degree did some climate stuff or associated
Andrew Hollis and Mike sank And we've done an interview,
as I say, and you've probably heard it. But now
that I've got the books in their final form, let
me just give you an idea of what caught my attention.
(01:18:39):
These arrived last Saturday. The alleged harm from CO two.
CO two is a pollutant question mark, Did you know
that the Supreme Court of the United States legislated that
CO two was a pollutant and needs to be eradicated.
What part of the planet are you from? How delusional
are you? It is not a plant destroying toxin. It
(01:19:01):
is the food upon which they survive and thrive. Such
is the madness of this climate alarmist hysteria that even
the highest court in the United States has seemingly gone bonkers.
There were the Democrat appointees that caused that. And you
can get these two books from Amazon Australia and they're
well priced, I might add, and they're worthy of being
(01:19:24):
in your library, especially if you've got young people in
your house, especially if you've got kids at school. Let
them educate themselves and take on the teachers, because the
teachers deserve to be taken on. And that will take
us away for podcasts or from podcast two hundred and
sixty later in that News Talks AB dot co dot
(01:19:46):
NZ and Carolyn at Newstalks ADB dot co dot in Z.
We shall return with podcasts two hundred and sixty one
very shortly. Until then, as always, thank you for listening
and we shall talk soon.
Speaker 1 (01:20:05):
Thank you for more from News Talks, there'd be listen
live on air or online and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio