Leighton Smith Podcast #292 - July 9th 2025 - A Tribute to Professor Des Gorman - The Leighton Smith Podcast

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 B.
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 of the US Now the
Leyton Smith Podcast powered by news talks it B.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to podcasts two ninety two for June nine, twenty
twenty five. Let me take you back to podcast one
oh five April twenty twenty one. It was one of
the best that we've done. Maybe at that point it
was the best. It's still one of the most inspiring.
Take Away from Northland, New Zealand. Born in poverty, you

(00:48):
might say, who led a most interesting life, carving for
himself a career ending as a professor of medicine of
the highest order, with abilities in multiple fields, his talent
in much demand. One I five was the first of
my interviews with Professor Des Gorman. As the date indicates,
the pretext was COVID nineteen. But it was also a

(01:10):
discussion inclusive of so many things, some politics, for example,
the inadequacy of the administration, health reform, understanding human nature,
confirmation bias, the World Health Organization. He wasn't keen the
country's inadequate leadership and the media, and it was an

(01:31):
education in governance. In sixty five minutes one oh five
was and still is, the only interview that stood on
its own, nothing else but Dez Gorman. We both enjoyed it.
We agreed on that and followed it with a lunch,
and that led to more of the same. A week ago,
on July second, Dez died at the age of seventy one.

(01:56):
It wasn't unexpected, but was incredibly sad, and he was
way too young. This morning I listened to the full
discussion and I'd forgotten how good it was, and it
was good because of des Gorman. I hope it gets
shared and played relentlessly, so pass it on. There's plenty
more I'd like to say, but it's all in the

(02:17):
interview that you're about to hear at The next sixty
five minutes is a tribute to Professor des Gorman.

Speaker 3 (02:34):
Layton Smith.

Speaker 2 (02:36):
Des Gorman is a professor of medicine in the Faculty
of Medical and Health Sciences at the University of Auckland.
From two thousand and five to twenty ten, he was
head of the University School of Medicine, He's also a
member of the teaching faculty at Monash University in Melbourne,
Harvard Macy Institute at Harvard University, and he has more

(02:57):
qualifications than most people I've ever known. He has a
Bachelor of Science, a Bachelor of Medicine and of Surgery,
and Doctor of Medicine, those degrees from the University of Auckland,
as well as a doctorate in Philosophy from the University
of Sydney. During his undergraduate education at the University of Auckland,
he was awarded the W. W. Phillips Scholarship, the Sir

(03:18):
Garrick Robertson Prize for Surgery, and a Senior University Prize
in Medicine and Human Biology. His two doctorates were awarded
for in vivo research into embolic brain injuries that was
from the University of Sydney and brain pathophysiology from the
University of Auckland. Professor Gorman is clinically active in both

(03:40):
public consultant physician to the Widermata District Health Board and
to the Royal New Zealand Navy and private practice Gorman
Health Services. He founded the twenty four hour divers Emergency
Service in Australia, New Zealand, in the South Pacific and
for the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. He was awarded
a fellowship by the RACP in Occupational Medicine and has

(04:02):
had many leadership roles for the College. Professor Gorman has
more than three hundred publications and ongoing act Medical Journal
editorial roles. Among his many national and international invited keynote
and plenary presentations, he is a recipient of the Nordmeya
Memorial Lecture Medal, the Vernon Collins Memorial Oration Medal and

(04:23):
the Cultural Memorial Oration And quite frankly, there's too many
of these things to go into, but briefly in other roles,
he in addition to commissions from the World Health Organization
and government health system consultancies outside New Zealand, they include
by the Way, Australia, Southeast Asia and Western Pacific, China, Canada,
Middle East, the UK and the USA. But he's also

(04:45):
consulted to or leed programs in New Zealand for the
Civil Aviation Authority, District Health Boards New Zealand and the
Department of Veteran Affairs. His current roles include a number
of national and international commercial consultancies. And here is something
that I find fascinating. Professor Gorman served in both the
Royal Australian Navy, where he was awarded the Peter Mitchell

(05:07):
Prize for the Royal Australian Navy Officer of the Year
in nineteen eighty four, had awarded the Herbert Lot Award
for Ducks of the Royal Navy Submarine Officer's Course in
nineteen eighty two, and the Royal New Zealand Navy. During
his service in the RAN he trained as a submarine
officer and as a clearance diving officer. So having said

(05:29):
all that, Professor, let me quote you something from an
article thirty April last year in the New Zealand Herald
by Audrey Young. New Zealand was ill prepared for the
COVID nineteen pandemic and was caught with its pants down.
Leading academic Professor Des Gorman has told the Epidemic Response
Committee New Zealand should have closed this borders in mid February,

(05:52):
not at the end of March, but it didn't have
the resources to do. So what's happened or what might
have happened to rearrange your approach that you had then
to Now that's a very good question.

Speaker 3 (06:06):
I'll stand by the statement that we were with our
pants down. We knew we weren't ready. Our public health
units had been systematically underfunded for decades. And the reason
why I know that so well as we tried to
ship funds to them when I was on the National
Health Board and running Health Workforce New Zealand. And it
comes a great surprise to your listeners to find out

(06:26):
we were actively opposed by the Ministry of Health. He
was trying to capture our budget. We got no support
from the DHBs, who simply wanted the money given to
them as a bottom line right off of their operating losses.
And once my colleagues and the medical craft Gilds got
wind of the fact it was a zero sum game.
Some more money for public health meant more or less
money for them, they opposed it as well. So we

(06:49):
went into the pandemic with public health units that had
failed to address the meals outbreak, failed to address an
influenza outbroke, and failed around Contamina Water and Havelock North.
Our health system is in a very parless state. The
idea that we could actually accommodate something like COVID with
spare capacity as ludicrous as people are aware now, our

(07:11):
hospital systems overrun at the moment. So what spare capacity
is there for COVID patients ounce is none. We have
only we only had one third of the ventilators per
capita compared to Australia. We had short falls intensive care workforce.
For the only thing we had going for us was
our geography, and in two thousand and six there was

(07:32):
a plan to produce a plan which identified that, but
we had no pandemic plan. When I returned back from
the Middle East where i'd been working at Amman, because
I'd chair the Minister of Health Strategic Council there, I
knew what they were doing to gear up the pandemic.
I stopped off in Singapore, so I'd been with the

(07:53):
National Health Group in Singapore the year before. They were
getting ready and I came home late and it was
like coming back to a backyard barbecue, just this almost
spectacular casual indifference. And so I've been meeting regularly with
our Minister of Health up until COVID, in my recommendation,
has closed the border. Now sought out the logistics and

(08:13):
then let's get underway with proper pandemic management. But the
response was what do we do with all the people
coming home? And what about tourism and what about trade?
And the World Health Organization is still arguing against travel bands.
But by the way, I'm not a great fan of
Donald Trump, but his criticism of the WHO was absolutely
on the money in this regard. So, you know, eventually

(08:36):
the WHO got around to declaring a pandemic from the
twelfth of March, it still took us a week to
close our border. We didn't close the border until the
nineteenth March. And in that week between when the WHO
finally moved and when we moved, forty percent of all
the viral subtypes in our first lockdown were walked into
the country. So have I changed my mind about our

(08:59):
ill preparedness know anything?

Speaker 2 (09:00):
But so here's what I think is an interesting question.
Why is it that five million odd, well four and
a half million, apparently four and a half million people
think that the government and the Prime Minister in particular
have done a wonderful job.

Speaker 3 (09:13):
Yeah, it's interesting, probably best described in sort of behavioral terms.
We were frightened. We had that ridiculous modeling of just
over a year ago that there'd be tens of thousands
of deaths. The reason why I call it ridiculous is
where was the data to feed into the model. I mean,
the pandemic was in its infancy. Where on Earth did

(09:34):
that data come from? But it was sufficiently frightened that
we headed off to the supermarkets, bought our body weight
in toilet paper, and headed home to our arks to
wait out the flood. And in doing so, we left
behind us people to die in hospitals and women to
be alone after they gave birth. So given a sufficiently

(09:54):
large scare, we accepted authoritarian in humanity. I mean, if
I'd said to you a few years ago, they'd given
an appropriate scare about a respiratory virus, we'd require people
to die loan and women would be alone after they
gave birth. You'd say, that's not us. Well, it was us.
That's that's how we behave. But that fear, and that

(10:16):
culture of fear has persisted laden the whole political theater
of levels announcements. The way we're managing the pandemic is
a black box management rather than an open book. Management
generates fear, and when we become frightened, we become anxious,
and we manage our anxiety by faith and establishment figures

(10:37):
and in authority, and in that context we have placed
our faith in the Director Journal of Health, and in
the Prime Minister and in the government. And then the
behaviorism is that once we have put our faith into establishment,
we endow it. And it's called endowment theory. We're endow
our thoughts or the things we owd with more value

(10:58):
than they are worth. So we've endowed that thought and
then long comes confirmation by us, so that anything that
doesn't fit with our endowment we ignore. Anything that does
fit with our endowment we accept. And that's how you
get fringe groups like the anti the anti vaccination people
around the relationship between autism and measles vaccine. Once you've

(11:18):
endowed a particular theory, you almost become immune to anything
which is in conflict with that theory. So the reason
why the government remains so favorably viewed is that's how
people are managing their anxiety by faith through endowment and
then with the acting they overlaid on top of that
confirmation bias.

Speaker 2 (11:39):
That study of philosophy that you did in Sydney at
City University is that how much did that study that
degree contribute to what you've just said.

Speaker 3 (11:52):
I think late in my life has been a series
of exposures, experiences which have shaped the way I think.
I came from a very poor background. My mother was
the mother's mari ancestry. She trained its nurse. My father
was an Australian serviceman who was disabled by Japanese machine

(12:16):
gun rounds during the war. So I grew up in
a very poor environment with a and so that's a
shaking experience. I was very influenced by my time in
the Navy. In the Australian Navy, I dropped out of
medicine for a while because became disillusion by hospital medicine
and I trained as a sub mariner and a mine

(12:36):
warfare and Clarence dominent officer. And it was the Navy's
attention to leadership and followership and education, so that when
I came back to medicine later and I suddenly realized
the breathtaking arrogance of my profession. We assumed because we're
a good doctor with an at B lead and none
of that's true. So from when I came back to

(12:57):
medicine in the late eighties, I've had this view of
my profession, which has been which has led me to
be very open minded about my experiences and over last
as say two or three decades, is I've got more
and more into health systems and health system design. I've
become even more and more with the fundamental nature of

(13:17):
human behavior. For example, I've become fascinated by the aspects
of human behavior which underpin how we behave socially, and
in particular how our behavior is highly highly predictable, but
often quite irrational. And yet we design a health system

(13:39):
which requires all of various actors to behave rationally, and
the only way the system can work is if we
have consistent rational behavior. Well, that's not designed for a
species called sapiens, because that's not the how, that's not
the way we behave.

Speaker 2 (13:52):
When you say that people don't behave rationally, there must
be preconditions to that. It must be that must be overcomeable.

Speaker 3 (14:00):
Yes, people are capable of rational behavior and of deductive
reasoning and logic, but these are hugely energy can assuming activities,
and most of the time we operate on the basis
of drop off biases or stimuli or cues which induce
certain sorts of behaviors and predictably do so. I'll give
you an example. If we're confronted with a potential loss,

(14:24):
will work very very hard to protect what we have,
as compared to our hard will work for an equivalent gain,
and that's called loss a version. Humans predictably respond far
more aggressively to a potential loss than a gain. Yet
we design systems which assume that we can stimulate behavior
by providing rewards.

Speaker 2 (14:42):
Only does all of the above or is all of
the above affecting the governance of this country?

Speaker 3 (14:50):
Yes, I think it is. I think COVID is a
sort of a microchism of a much broader malaise that
the I mean, the assumption is that the government can
actually and undertake duties of governance, of course, is laughable.
When you look across the members of government and say
who of those have had actual experience in a governance role,

(15:12):
then the answer is almost none of them. And if
you look then at the way in which we've governed
COVID as a microchism of that larger picture, you'd say, well,
first of all, it's been heavily politicized. And that's a
problem because the minute you try to manage electoral risk
as well as health and well being risk, and economic

(15:33):
and livelihood risk, it becomes impossible. It's difficult enough balancing
off economic and health risk, let alone, once you impose
electoral risk. And my experience in thirty odd health reviews
or reforms around the planet is that the more politicized
they are, the more pear shaped they become. If you
consider our COVID management and the consequence that the fact

(15:57):
that it is politicized, which means it's partisan, you see
immediately why we don't have an explicit statement of risk
appetite and the reason why we can't predict what's going
to happen next, because in fact, it's been driven by
political optics, not by a discreete view of what risk
we should face. And if I go back to my
Navy days, if we were going to carry out a

(16:17):
task we're saying attacks swim, the first thing we do
is decide what our risk appetite was, and that would
drive our behavior from the beginning to the end. And
I think also, if you got the way we've governed,
sorry we've undergoone governance of COVID, We've allowed a couple
of quite malignant cultures to creep, and one of those

(16:39):
is the culture of fear, where we motivate people through fear,
and fear generates political capital because of the fact that
people manage their fear by putting faith in establishment. The
other malignant culture we've adopted is that of we're the
best in show with the envy of the world. Well, frankly,
we're not the best to show. Countries like Taiwan have

(16:59):
left us for DearS in terms of COVID management. But
the reason why it's malignant culture is it leads to
three things. When you decide you're the best in show,
you become complacent and we do too. You stop learning.
And you imagine how Michael Baker felt felt when you said, look,
we need to introduce mask squaring. For the next three months,
the Ministry of Health kept pushing back and pushing back,

(17:22):
saying there's no evidence for it, it wasn't necessary. I mean,
you imagine how he felt saying, well, I just can't
understand why I'm getting this pushback. And it's the fact
that we've been unable to learn. If you think about
our border management, we almost had one border breach per day.
It hasn't improved since last July, our contact tracing we
instead of hitting eighty percent of a four day outcome target,

(17:44):
we're around fifty percent best. It hasn't improved since last July.
There's no improvement because when you're best in show, it's
hard to learn. And I think the final aspect of
that culture laid, which perhaps worries me even more, is
that you fit the facts to the narrative, not the
narrative to the facts. And I don't know how many
times we've been misled. All the Russian see them that

(18:06):
have been tested, Know they haven't. They've all been a quarantine.
No they haven't. All the border workers have been tested.
No they're not. No one's leaving quarantine early, Yes they are.
There's no Mexican mingling, Yes there is. We've got plenty
of influenza vaccine. No we don't. The nurses are getting
plenty of ppe. No they're not.

Speaker 2 (18:25):
Hold it. This list is getting too long. It's frightening me,
is is it? How is it that you're sitting there
talking to me making these statements which I believe, and
yet no one's ripping the government's head off collectively.

Speaker 3 (18:41):
Yeah, I think we have a populist government with a
populist prime minister. We did also with John Key. I
think other than people such as yourself and people like
Michael Mora and Mike Costkings, I think we have a
populist media. I think media generally writes articles or produces

(19:01):
things which they know people agree with and like. So
when you have a prime minister and a government that's
navigating on a populis ste and a media navigating on
a popular star, there's that going to be a high
level of concordance and a low level of critical thinking
my own. If I think about academia, most of the
negative comments I've had laden about speaking out have come

(19:24):
from fellow academics saying you shouldn't speak out, We should
get behind the government. It's important that we all team,
one team of five million, I think. And then when
you have people who when the public is in this
fearful state, they simply ignore anything which doesn't fit with
their world view.

Speaker 2 (19:42):
For me, one of the greatest lies that has taken
place and is accepted by the majority of people is
the science is settled. Yes, find I find that incredibly
frightening because you just you just covered it. You when
you when you believe when you believe that, then you
become complacent. Yeah, it's absolutely right, and not only that,

(20:03):
you don't discover where it might be wrong, and in
many cases is and proper is wrong.

Speaker 3 (20:10):
Look, I think that's absolutely right. If you think about
the one of the negative outcomes of that we're the
best in show culture that I mentioned is it becomes
very difficult to learn and it becomes very difficult to adapt.
And even when you're confronted with clear evidence, for example,
that to contact tracing methodology has plateaueded level way below

(20:32):
what we need, you keep finding reasons to explain it.
I heard a government ministers say the other day, well,
we can't expect to do much better than fifty percent.
In other words, of all the people we should have identified, contacted,
tested and managed within four days each aver elseid it
should be north of eighty percent. I think it should
be north of ninety five percent myself. But we're heading

(20:54):
at best fifty two percent. And the response from this
government minister was yes, but it's particularly difficult population and
we're having and they're hard to manage. And I'm thinking,
so you've designed a system which doesn't account for humans.
Who was the system designed for automatons robots. So at
one level even the social science is deficient in terms

(21:17):
of the evolution of the virus, the impact that the
vaccines will have, the modern vaccines. Then, I think, with
all due respect, there's a lot of unknown sitting in there.
Will you get vaccinated? Yes, I will. First of all,
it's going to be almost certainly an obligation to travel.
I think it's as a vaccine. It's very clear the

(21:39):
fires a vaccine has a very low risk profile given
the millions of arms it's been injected into. But I
get vaccinated not thinking it's some sort of silver bullet laid,
and I get vaccinated on the understanding that this will
protect me against the viruses that existed to the date
the vaccine was produced, and I'm going to need boosters
to catch up on the new viruses. So our vaccine

(22:01):
effort is playing catch up. It'll never get ahead of
the virus.

Speaker 2 (22:05):
But for those who think who think differently, and there
are quite a number of them, I get correspondents, while
you say you're going to get this vaccine, that you'll
get this vaccination, but you'll have to have catch ups
along the way. Are you not exposing yourself to exactly
what they're saying. And I'm not arguing either way here
because I'm actually quite open minded, but reluctantly so that

(22:30):
you're exposing yourself to future changes, you're exposing yourself to hurt.
Mentality actually where you just accept it, you've got to
do it, and you don't worry. You stop worrying about it.
You become complacent about it because so far it's it's
been okay, and before you know it, you're being injected
with the sorts of things that scare the hell out
of people.

Speaker 3 (22:51):
Yeah. Look, I can understand that sort of concept of
a slippery slope and how you by making one decision
you lead yourself to another decision and you end up
losing both your intellectual and your moral com to sign
to stand that entirely. But I think we have to
see that vaccination has different logic and different countries and
hence the need for different sorts of vaccines. For example,

(23:15):
in the UK and in the US, the vaccine they
need is to reduce the number of people are getting
very sick and needing to go to hospital and reduce
the number of people of dying. So they will choose
a vaccine which attenuates the course of the illness, Whereas
if the New Zealand approach is look our health systems
on its knees, it simply can't accommodate any form of

(23:37):
increased patient load. We need a vaccine which can actually
produce very high levels of resistance to being infected. Hence
the choice of fires, which is probably a pretty good choice.
It's sophisticated vaccine, it's genetic material. Does that mean we
are eliminating the harmless forms of the virus and the

(24:00):
more newly emergent forms will then run rampant. That's not
the natural history of evolution of viruses. Actually, viruses find
an accommodation with their host. If you have a virus
which is lethal and kills its host, it doesn't survive.
So the natural history of evolution of viruses, they tend
to get more effective, but they tend to get less virulent.

(24:24):
So I think we I mean, I think vaccination is
a very complex issue and different countries have very different
needs and should choose very different vaccination approaches.

Speaker 2 (24:33):
Let me direct you immediately to Brazil, where there was
a report this very morning with regard to the new
version of the virus, and it's killing young people by
the thousands.

Speaker 3 (24:46):
Now I saw that there's certainly some of the new
variants seem to have a greater effect on younger people
than the original variants of the virus. Brazil's a post
the child for what happens when you don't take even
the basic public health measures. And also Brazil's a post
a child for what happens when you politicize any form

(25:08):
of health response. As I said to you before, if
I look at all the health systems I've reviewed or edit, audited,
or health reforms I've led, the more politicized they are,
the more pear shape they become. In Brazil's they sadly
oppost the child for them.

Speaker 2 (25:24):
And everything these days, practically everything has become politicized, has
it not.

Speaker 3 (25:28):
Yes, Look, any form of health reform is inherently political
because ultimately, in the country like New Zealand, the health
burden is on taxpayers. In New Zealand, of course, most
taxpayers don't even think about healthcare and they just assume
that when they need it in the future, it will
be there for them. So they regard it like insurance,
and so they don't actually critically look at how their

(25:50):
health system is operating. But the last semi successful reform
of our health system lateness in nineteen thirty eight by
another Australian called Michael Joseph Savat, who in the same
year that introduced social welfare, tried to introduce a universal
healthcare system into New Zealand. He did it in hospitals,
but the New Zealand chapter of the British Medical Association,

(26:13):
the GPS, opposed him and rolled him. And it's fascinating.
So you think about it. That guy had all the
political capital of the Great Depression and the GPS rolled him.
And that's a different subject, but it's the political economy
of health reform. And in the last eighty three years
we've had a succession of failed health reforms, and since
nine ninety three we've had an obsession with structural reform.

(26:36):
The two things that drive health reforms are equity and cost,
and because of a whole range of things, we've had
a succession of failed reforms. And at the cornerstone of
it is those reforms have been partisan. And because any
health reform will have winners and losers, all you hear
from is the losers, and there's no political will to
manage the losers, particularly when they're very strong advocacy groups

(26:59):
like the GPS or the various medical colleges or breast
cancer in New Zealand. That's not criticizing any of those groups.
It's in fact saying that they are fabulous advocates for
their particular communities.

Speaker 2 (27:10):
Speaking of the hospital system as it is now, that
takes me back to something you said a little earlier,
the state that it's in. I spent some time two
days ago on the weekend with somebody who had been
in hospital for two weeks, both Auckland's North Shore and
Auckland's Hospital, and this particular individual works in a form

(27:34):
of the health system, and I said, was what were
the conditions like? Because she had made a couple of
comments during the conversation, I said, well, what were the
conditions like? She said, third world? Didn't hesitate third world.
She said, the food acceptable, the staff are fabulous. The
system is third world.

Speaker 3 (27:55):
Sadly true, as I said, our health system's not fit
for purpose, but it hasn't been since nineteen thirty eight.
It's unaffordable, and ironically it's unaffordable because it's been sufficiently
six tessful in creating a large population of older people
who consume a lot of healthcare and don't pay tax
and instead of consuming a lot of healthcare in their

(28:17):
last year of life and are living ten or more
years with multiple comorbidity. So a bit like the National
Health Service which is now in the UK, which is
now chronically insolvent. It reflects the fact that pay as
you go health systems simply reach a point where they
create a demography which renders them unaffordable. It's unsustainable. We

(28:38):
have a reliance and overseas trained doctors and nurses which
the World Health Organization recognizes as being unsustainable, and it's
never been fit for purpose. And I'll give you just
one example of the problem of the primary observation you're
making you look at a health system, and that is
the observation of inequity. My sister died from a horrible

(29:02):
illness called multiple myeloma. She lived in Tokara. She died
a terrible death by her school teacher friends, and they
were mixing up her chemotherapy in the kitchen sink. That's
not even third world, that's worse than third world. But
at the same time, late in my next door neighbor
in Devenport was dying a respiratory illness and the pallative

(29:23):
care he received from White Matar was absolutely first class.
And there's dozens of paired examples. I can give you
how you experience our health system depends on who you are,
where you are and what you need, want or expect
you and I, if we have a stroke today in Auckland,
will be very well looked after. But if I look
at my mari relatives in Northland who are self medicating

(29:44):
their mental health problems, that's not even third world. So
our health system is absolutely characterized not by universalism but
by inequity.

Speaker 2 (29:53):
So you're saying that it's the basically a default class system.

Speaker 3 (29:59):
Yes, I am, and it goes it's not just ethnic,
and it's not just demographic, it's not just social. There
are some services which we provide in abundance and others
we don't. And this goes back to nineteen thirty eight
and that political economy of It's interesting you look at
these inequities which have existed for decades and you'd say, okay,
when health spend relative to GDP is stable or declining,

(30:23):
you can understand how the vested investment in the invested
groups with influence can maintain their status because it's a
zero sum game and any money shifted to the areas
of need is money from them, so they actively oppose it,
and they've been very successful in doing that. But what's
interesting when you look at there's a Treasury study from

(30:44):
nineteen seventy over last sorry, from nineteen fifty to two thousand,
a fifty year Treasury study, and it showed that even
when health spend relative to GDP has gone up, those
vested interest groups have captured all the new money because
the areas of inequity don't have advocacy, they don't have
a voice, they don't have a consumer group to actually

(31:05):
advocate on their behalf. And so what's fascinating that fifty
year period from nineteen fifty to two thousand is the
rich have got richer, the poor have got poorer, even
in times where health spend's gone up.

Speaker 2 (31:17):
I have had an opinion for a long time, at
a very simple opinion, and you'll tell me whether I'm
right or wrong, but that opinion is that management has
got way overstopped in relation to the actual services and
the front of line staff.

Speaker 3 (31:34):
I'm not going to disagree with you at all. I
think you're right.

Speaker 2 (31:36):
Then how does it happen?

Speaker 3 (31:39):
Well, Because since nineteen eighty three we've been trying to
solve in equity and a cost problem by structural reform,
we've just created more and more structures and more and
more layers of bureaucracy. The Ministry of Health, with all
due respect, is one of the weakest policy shops that
I've encountered in the health systems that I've worked with.

(32:01):
And yet it looks as though we're going to increase
the Wellington bureaucracy, not decrease it. We need fewer people
with better skills. For example, modern health funding is about
commissioning for outcomes where you are very tight on what
you want and very tight on how you're going to
measure it, but absolutely loose about how it's achieved. Because

(32:21):
if consumer providers sorry, have both outcome risk and financial risk,
they will be innovative. That's how the world's best l systems,
almost all of which are American by the way, in private,
that's how they operate. They operate through a perpetual search
for doing better. But if I look across our bureaucracy
and say how many people there actually understand actualism. How

(32:43):
many of them understand counterfactuals. How many of them actually
know how to create a structural alliance. The answer is
almost none of them. The reason for that is the
reason for that is that they are self serving bureaucracies
which exist to create policy which is very rarely ever
translated into action, and which if it is very rarely
translates into better experiences. If you look at the next

(33:06):
wave of reforms which are about receive, it's all about
plumbing and wiring late and it's not about how people
will experience their health care system. Differently, I was diagnosed
with a very rare form of lung cancer about a
year ago, and fortunately it's one of the more treatable
forms of lung cancer. And I'm looking at the new

(33:26):
health reforms saying, I don't give a flying toss about
how many new bureaucrats you create. How will it affect
the services that I'm going to receive? How will it
change my experience of the health system. If I'm one
of my Mari relatives in Northland self medicating for mental health,
I know what he wants. He or she wants a
place to live in a job. So they'll be saying,
with all this money you're throwing into the system and

(33:47):
all these reforms, how will it help me find a
place to live and get a job. These reforms aren't
consumer centric, They aren't looking at the requirements of the user.
They are driven by bureaucrats you think can't think beyond
their immediate needs.

Speaker 2 (34:03):
So how is your lung cancer treating you?

Speaker 3 (34:07):
I've been lucky because of who I am and who
I know to be able to navigate the system, and
so I have been on the receiving end of some
excellent care. But I was seeing a patient the other
day myself, and I saw her because she was confused,
and that's one of my interests, that sort of confusion.

(34:28):
And she said, I'm going off for my follow up
CT scan for my breast cancer. So that's fantastic. And
I said, what did the first scan show? She said,
I never had it. She she is eighteen months, two
years down her cancer treatment, having a follow up scan
to see how her cancers responded to the treatment she's received,
and she never even had the first scan. So it

(34:52):
comes back to who you are, where you are, and
what you need want to expect. It's a very very
unevil and even playing field.

Speaker 2 (35:00):
A lot of it must have to do with the
individuals involved. You've already mentioned their status, but their opinion
of them, their ability to think for themselves, to think
objectively and critically it set and know who they are
and what they're entitled to in their rights.

Speaker 3 (35:17):
Are Oh, you're actually right. If your experience of healthcare
is that you have had almost an intent of health
system which has not metual needs and never has mental needs,
then why would you expect any different?

Speaker 2 (35:29):
But that would be your attitude to everything in life
when it comes to bureaucracy in particular.

Speaker 3 (35:34):
Look, I think bureaucracies have to earn their keep. They
have to show that they add value. I think the
most important were in healthcare or any other form of
social services. Value? What value do you add? Where is
the value propositioning here? How do you make things better?
How are you materially improving the experience? And again I
come back to those twin factors in healthcare which drive

(35:56):
all our thinking, which is cost in equity?

Speaker 2 (35:59):
Is I going to say that having listened to some
of your comments in this interview with regard to structures
of committees and bodies and managem but etc. And politicians.
I was going to ask you, actually, but you've responded already.
I was going to ask you whether you fear for
your safety whenever you enter the hallowed halls.

Speaker 3 (36:21):
Some of the feedback I've had from some fellow academics
has been quite unpleasant, actually, and I think it's an
abrogation of the very thing which justifies why we have universities,
which is academic freedom, not from the senior hierarchy of
the university. I'm very impressed by the support I've had
from there, but from some of my fellow academics it

(36:42):
has been shameful. Universities don't exist for research. We can
do research cheaper and more efficiently outside universities. Universities don't
exist to teach people. There's more efficient ways of learning.
Universities exist as a large part because they are a
social conscience. Well, I'm not sure that we're actually fulfilling
that obligation anymore, particularly when in response to my decision

(37:06):
to speak out, the feedback I've had from so many
academics has been shamefully dismissive and saying you need to
pull your head in and not rock the boat and
you know, friends of government, not government, not any of
the cabinet ministers, but friends of government, and have got
hold of me to say, look, you're not going to
be appointed to any more committees. Well, let me tell

(37:27):
you I haven't lost any sleep about that. I think
your achievements to this point of your life speak for themselves.
And I'm stating the obvious. Let me go back to
something that you were saying, or things that you were
saying earlier on about the approach that was taken by
government caught with its pants down and didn't deal with

(37:48):
it and still isn't dealing with it well enough, and
it's all political. Can you suggest any other government or
possible government that you believe would have responded better? In
other words, aren't they all in the same boat? The
users know there are some Again, if you take the
post of child, which is Taiwan.

Speaker 2 (38:07):
I'm sorry, I mean here in New Zealand.

Speaker 3 (38:10):
Yes, I know, I know, you mean. Okay, if you
take a post the childlike Taiwan five times our population,
we've had three times as many cases, four times as
many deaths, and they've had no lockdowns. How did they
do that? Well, they created a pandemic governance group and
a management group which stood at arm's length from government.

(38:31):
I actually don't think the problem in governance is because
of the skill set that the current government has or
doesn't have. It's the fact that they've actually assumed they
can take on a governance role. Well, we don't do
that for the Reserve Bank, we don't do that for
acc us on the acc board for several terms. They
don't do that for the super Fund. I mean, when

(38:52):
we have a very complex organization, no one pretends that
politicians are capable of providing the necessary governance. What they
do as they go along to a board of professional
governors and say, these are our expectations, this is what
we want to see from you, So this is how
the sort of relationship we want to have. Then they
get out of the way and allow professional governors to

(39:13):
get on with the job of governance. And that's what
was exactly what's needed here. It's not a matter of
whether a blue or a blue, yellow or green government
would have done any better. Is the fact that what
was required was the courage from government to say we're
not going to seek political capital from this, We're not
going to seek the limelight from this. What we're going

(39:34):
to do is create a professional Governance group, and we're
going to stand up a professional management group too, which
unashamably picks the talent out of both the private and
the public sector. And what we've had instead is, you know,
from the very good report that Heather Simpson and Brian
Roach gave government in September, which wasn't released until the

(39:55):
Friday before Christmas, is that the Ministry has a sidiously
avoided any form of advice from outside and even from
other parts of government. So we've actually gone the other
way around. We've created a Wellington bubble which presumes it's actually.

Speaker 2 (40:08):
Competent and thinks it is believes it is.

Speaker 3 (40:12):
I think if you keep telling yourself how good you are,
eventually you begin to believe it yourself. Now having said that,
it's hard to imagine that anyone in that Wellington bubble
could seriously believe that it's contact tracing is good enough.
I mean, the reason why I believe we have reluctance
about a bubble with Australia as first of all the
issues of people being stranded. But I think the real
concern we have is that we can't contact trace. As

(40:36):
I said, to you before. If you look at that
four day measure of how many people in four days
who have you identified, contacted, tested and dealt with, we
should be, in my view, well over ninety five percent
where we're running. During the cold Store outbreak of last
year we ran thirty seven percent. That we got up
to fifty three percent during the North and outbreak it

(40:58):
was fifty two. During the Papatoto outbreak it was fifty two.
We're not even remotely close. And yet I keep hearing
from the Wellington bubble that is gold standard. Well, I
can say that's gold standard. Whoa behold us if we
ever go to Bronze.

Speaker 2 (41:15):
Well, if you keep kidding yourself, you eventually believe it.
You've been indicating I'm intrigued about your your cousins up north.
You your father was came from I've forgotten where now,
but he was from Europe somewhere.

Speaker 3 (41:29):
No Australia, who's far north Queensland And he was shot
by the Japanese in Bogainville and was disabled as a consequence.
Interesting story. The only job he could get in Australia
as a disabled serviceman was in an asbestos factory. And
that's eventually what killed him. Isn't that a bit of irony?

(41:50):
He met my mother in Sydney and her family members
here in New Zealand were able to organize work for
him at Hallaby's when the freezing works, and so there
was back in the days when the railroad workshops, the
freezing works, the wolves and so on actually create, not
created jobs, but they actively employed disabled or handicapped, either

(42:12):
handic if not word challenged people and provided them with
dignity of work.

Speaker 2 (42:17):
Your mother was quarter marry, yes, and she was a nurse.

Speaker 3 (42:23):
Yes. And I think her grandmother, who was fully Marie
by genealogy, I think she was one of the very
first women ever, first married woman ever to train as
a nurse.

Speaker 2 (42:38):
So you you came from a poor family, you ended
up being ducks of college, and you went from there.
And I was not stunned. I just intrigued that the
first time you ever went into a library was when
you went to university.

Speaker 3 (42:53):
Yes. Well, in fact, I remember it was very funny
late in retrospect that I went to it. Nineteen seventy one,
I went to an interview at Auckland Medical School. I'd
never heard of the place, I'd never been to a
careers advisor. I was on my way I think to
Rugby practice with a friend who has stopped off, and
I said, what are you doing? So I'm getting an

(43:14):
application form for Auckland Medical School and saw a grab
one for me. I'd never heard it, and so it
came as a surprise, and I was invited to an interview.
And I remember one of my interviewers was Felix Donnelly,
the Catholic priest, who said to me which New Zealand
artist that I think had made the greatest contribution to
New Zealand society. And I can tell you, except you

(43:35):
what I thought. I thought, bargain me New Zealand's got
artists I had. I had no idea. Years later I
told him to understand that question was profoundly classist, don't you.
You might have been looking to see how broadened and
enlightened these candidates were, but for someone from my background,
that was just absolute classism. No. I'd never been into
a library until I went to university.

Speaker 2 (43:57):
I had the privilege of meeting on two occasions, interviewing
on two occasions, dining with on one occasion, and sharing
a stage with on a separate occasion a fellow called
Ben Carson, and he impressed me on multiple fronts. At
that stage, he was thinking of running for the presidency,

(44:17):
and I said, well, if I'm coming to the inauguration,
he said, okay. I never made the trip, obviously, but
the point being that his mother was his inspiration, both
him and his brother. She was if you don't know
the story, very quickly. She was a solo mother. The
father was a drunken left She couldn't read, but fooled

(44:37):
them into thinking she was reading, so that they had
to submit her to her their homework and she would
look at it. And they didn't find this out for
some considerable time. And it was her attitude, her authority,
her discipline that she imposed on them, and Ben Carson
was ready to go down the drain according to his
school report at the time. That made all the difference.

(45:01):
So that was all a long lead in to say,
where did your inspiration come from?

Speaker 3 (45:06):
Yes, I think people of my grandmother's generation, who was
a beautiful mari woman, and people of my mother's generation.
The downside was that they were determined we'd be more
parky hard than the parky cars, and me having fair
hair and blue eyes. I was always considered a favorite
because I remember my grandmother saying to me, they'll never

(45:27):
know where you came from. So I think the downside
was that there was a determination to as I say,
it'd be more Parky hard than the Parkias, and to
deny our mari ancestry. That's the downside. The upside, though,
was that that generation of women had a fierce determination

(45:47):
that their children would be well educated. And my mother
worked both day and night shifts, and dad worked over time,
especially could it the freezing works to generate enough money,
so that the one thing that was never compromised in
our household was education. We didn't have much, and we
didn't expect much, but there was never any compromise of education.

(46:09):
So I think there was this fierce desire to do
better through education. And it's hard not to grow up
in a household like that and not be instilled with
that same sense of determination. And certainly in my time,
social mobility in New Zealand was certainly aided by education,

(46:29):
and I think it was more of a meritocracy. I
think now we're seeing both education and health in breach.
In other words, I think our birthright of universal education
and our birthright of universal health care both in breach,
and I'm not sure that we have the same level

(46:49):
playing field or meritocracy we had which enabled me.

Speaker 2 (46:53):
Then you know the next question, don't you? How am I?

Speaker 3 (46:58):
I think the failure of a whole range of socially
well intentioned reforms of education have actually created dumbing down
of the education process. And I think, look, I don't
believe that rampant competition is the answer, but there has

(47:20):
to be some sort of stimulation to do better. And
one of the greatest stimuli to do better is competition
that has to be managed. But to take achievement out
of the educational framework, to have open plan classes, and
to walk away from some of the if you like,

(47:41):
fundamental building blocks of logic, many of which are mathematical,
of course, means that we have one child and five
leaving school now who's essentially illiterate and enumerate. And what
worries me is how quickly many communities have lost that
fierce drive for education. I was talking to an education

(48:04):
outreach person in Northland, because I oversee the Ministry of
Social Development's health interventions in Northland, or some of them,
and I remember talking this education outreach person and they
went to talk to this forteen year old girl who
had suddenly dropped out of school and she was living
her living with her boyfriend in a trailer in the

(48:25):
back of their property, which of course constitutes statutory rape,
of course, and they said to the parents, look, this
kid's so bright, how do we encourage her to come
back to school? And the response when the parents was
well we didn't need to know education, why should she
And the education outreach person just drove away saying well,

(48:45):
where do you start? Where do you start when you've
had that sort of cultural shift. But I actually think
the origins of it are completely ideologically driven and very
misplaced reforms of education. In the case of healthcare laden
it's not been fit for purpose since nineteen thirty eight.

Speaker 2 (49:05):
I can only say, wow, welfare has had a that though,
has it not?

Speaker 3 (49:10):
Yes, it has. I was on the Welfare working group,
which was superbly chaired by Porler Rebstock, and I sat
there late in asking myself what does it mean to
be in New Zealand. It has to be more than
just a fascination of the all blacks. It has to
be more than just you know, and you get to
get past our inferiority complex and how do you like us?

(49:31):
And how are you're having a good time? And the
way in which we view ourselves, and I thought, well,
what is it that makes us New Zealanders? And we
kept having people coming to the welfare working groups saying
the fundamental basis of New Zealand is social warefrom I
thought that can't be right. No society can exist where
the cornerstone is welfare. Yes, we need a welfare system

(49:53):
to protect people who fall out of the system, but
surely our central social contractors work. What binds us together
as a society is work. Some of it's directly contributed,
some of it indirectly contributes, some of it's paid, some
of it's unpaid. But social contract is work and that
in return for that work, we have some expectations. We

(50:15):
expectations for services and security. We have expectations that there
will be some net to actually protect people who fall
out of that social contract. And I think we assume
some birthrights like health and education. So our welfare system's
gone from eighty odd years ago where it was seen
as a safety net to a work act, to now

(50:38):
being a very deep pit that I don't think people
ever emerge from. And if you look at some of
the statistics that terrified me, which is, if someone during
their adolescence goes on to welfare, the likelihood they'll ever
leave what welfare is very low, and that sort of
thing terrifies me. I think it's gone from being an
enabling protection to being a disabling social phenomenon, which is crippling.

Speaker 2 (51:03):
I formulated an opinion some long time ago, and I
think I think it was partly induced by a social
conscience of some kind. I can't describe it anymore any
better than that, but I came to the conclusion that
essentially there wasn't a race people on earth who couldn't

(51:23):
achieve things, or individuals from those races couldn't achieve things
if they were put in the right position to do so.
Am I wrong?

Speaker 3 (51:33):
No? I think you're right. If you think about our
history as a species, it's probable that we displace Neanderthal,
who was stronger than us and smarter than us, and
we did that because we had a far better social
construct and that as a species we operate socially extremely well,

(51:55):
and that when our societies are strong, we are as
individuals are strong, and that constructive societies have achieved most
extraordinary things. And the opposite's true too. When our society
is are corrupted and and evil, then in fact we've
also achieved things which are vile.

Speaker 2 (52:17):
But it seems inevitable that we achieve things, and we
raise our societies to a level, and there's no set predetermination,
but we get to a level, and then we undermine ourselves.

Speaker 3 (52:29):
Yes, if you look at the great referring to the
great empires of our history, they have all corrupted. They
have corrupted essentially politically, using the word politically in its
broadest possible context. And the obviously the challenge is how
do you reinvigorate a society, How do you bring forward

(52:49):
fresh ideas, how do you avoid complacency? How do you
develop a culture of perpetual learning as compared to one
of we're the best in show in the enview of
the world. And you can understand then why I've taken
such exception to the cultures I've seen manifest during our
COVID pandemic, because to me, they represent the seeds of

(53:12):
how humans undo themselves. Can you expand on that, yes,
I can. I think most societies corrupt when they become
politicized when they become complacent, when they actually move away
from learning where they don't accept new and novel ways
of doing things. And I think also when they start

(53:32):
changing facts to fit their particular perspective of the planet.
And I think those are sorts of sapiens traits, which
whenever we see them, we should identify them and do
our best to move in the opposite direction. So that's
the reason why I've taken the strong stance I have
about the culture that's been adopted for this pandemic. It

(53:52):
represents the various seeds I say, on the very things
which lead I think to human devolution.

Speaker 2 (53:59):
I sent you an article about an hour before we recorded,
and we haven't spoken about it since apart from the
say that you had to look at it. Yes, and
I want it quote from the opening of it, God sad.
I don't know whether that's the way it's pronounced. GA
double d SA, sorry G double ad S double ad.

(54:22):
A psychologist who specializes in applying evolutionary biology to the
study of consumer behavior, has written a book of great
value and moreover, it's a book that required great courage
to write. The book is filled with interesting ideas, and
I have space here to mention only a few of them,
says the author. What draws me most to the book
is that Sad has a philosophical turn of mind, and

(54:43):
as such he is concerned with fashionable attempts to deny
the existence of objective truths. And that's as far as
I'm going to take it. You want to comment on that.

Speaker 3 (54:55):
Oh, look, I agree, and I share his concern. I
don't have a singular view on the way in which
we behave. I am a very big fan of behaviorism,
which of course doesn't necessary rarely seek to understand why,
but just describes how we behave. I believe there are
some things which can only be explained in evolutionary terms.

(55:17):
For example, some of the ways in which our brain
responds to trauma very clearly is evolutionary. And the reason
why I say that is that you see exactly the
same responses in very dissimilar cultures with profoundly different health metaphors.
I think we now live in a world where, if
you know to use the cliche, styles becoming more important

(55:39):
than substance. We live in a world where my well established,
reasonably scientifically robust factors inferior to your ill conceived opinion.
If you have more followers than me. I think we're
using reductionists thinking, and I think we're using we're revising

(56:00):
history to explain particular political points of.

Speaker 2 (56:03):
View, and all of that is detrimental to the future.

Speaker 3 (56:07):
All of that leads to a corruption of free thought.
All of that leads to the opposite of what I seek.
What do I want to see in the way we
behave as a society, a perpetual search for doing better?
How can I do better tomorrow than I did yesterday?
How can I do better next week than I did
last week? And the requirement of us as individuals and

(56:29):
as a society to achieve that is that we have
an open mind and we actively engage with new ideas.

Speaker 2 (56:35):
Then you've partly answered this question over the course of
the conversation, but specifically the West's crisis of academic freedom.
How bad is it?

Speaker 3 (56:47):
I think it's got to the point now where it's
become crippling. I think, using another cliche, political correctness. While
I understand that hate speech is unacceptable, while I understand
that derogatory racism, for exace, is also factible, the basic

(57:11):
principles of freedom of speech are just that freedom of speech,
freedom of thought, freedom of and so that doesn't mean
that I should have been able to push theories for
which I have no evidence or no support other than
my own prejudices. I should have to defend my thoughts
and should have to defend them to a very critical audience.

(57:36):
But nevertheless, I still think the environment must exist where
we are able to express our points of view. And
that's the reason why when I look at the last year,
I'm so sad that the negative commentaries I've had have
been from fellow academics who have been prepared to sacrifice
that freedom of thought so quickly, and why I was

(57:57):
absolutely delighted to see the response from the senior members
of my university supporting that my willingness to speak out.
So I I find constraint of thought through socially determined
parameters and what's right and what's wrong abhorrent.

Speaker 2 (58:17):
Then there's a lot of abhorrence about.

Speaker 3 (58:19):
Yes, there's a lot of I mean, I forget who
said it late and I have said a long time ago,
but that expression about when you haven't really changed what
I'm thinking, you just simply credit an environment where I'm
not prepared to express my thoughts. I'm not sure that's
a healthy environment. No it's not, and it's spreading rapidly.

(58:42):
You mentioned political correctness sort of emerged. The beginning of
this trend emerged in the eighties, particularly the late eighties,
and it spread like the proverbial virus.

Speaker 2 (58:56):
And if you look back from where we are now
to where it was then when people were saying, oh,
that's just America, it'll never happen here, we can see
how quickly and how thoroughly it has a thing all
manner of lives and all aspects of life.

Speaker 3 (59:13):
Yeah, I think that's true. I mean, when those sorts
of movements began, I don't believe we understood just how
global we had become, and how globalism would overwhelm us,
and that would end up with greater and greater homogeneity,
and that our freedom of thought would be constrained in
the same way as our way we dress and behave

(59:36):
would be constrained. And we created a superclass of influencers
who are famous for no more than being influencers, who've
even created another class of people who we have some
morbid fascination of watching them go about their miserable lives.
I mean, the whole concept of reality, television and social

(59:58):
media has lent itself not to a diversity of thought,
in my view, it's led itself to a constraint of thought. Now,
I'm not defending hate speech, and I'm not defending race,
and I'm not defending sexism. What I'm defending is articulate,
well thought out speech and thinking which enters into the
arena of thought and layers itself open to criticism and debate.

Speaker 2 (01:00:23):
If there was one thing that you were in a
position to do to achieve one thing, what.

Speaker 3 (01:00:32):
I'd probably focus on health in this case in New Zealand, Layton,
and I would look for a reform which was driven
from the eyes and the voice and the experience of
the consumer.

Speaker 2 (01:00:46):
Let me hit on a few other things, and just
give me brief as brief answers as you can without
short circuiting. I've imagine.

Speaker 3 (01:00:55):
An observation and need of research.

Speaker 2 (01:00:58):
Have you heard at all any speeches comments from Thomas Brady.

Speaker 3 (01:01:04):
Yes, I have, and the laboratory research certainly warrants some
further investigation. So I'd say at the moment it's in
that area that science works by observation followed up by
rigorous research and observation has been made, a positive effect
has been demonstrated. It now needs to be translated into

(01:01:26):
more rigorous research. The media, I think we have a
populist media with one or two exceptions going to notable exceptions,
that no longer serves its purpose, which was to be
a critical voice on society and a way of keeping
our government accountable. I think our media now occupies the

(01:01:47):
range of occupies the realm of entertainment.

Speaker 2 (01:01:51):
What about the what we anticipate? And we're having this
discussion the day before the announcement is reputed to be made,
and I'm talking about the trans Tasment bubble. It seems
to be looming. What's your thought.

Speaker 3 (01:02:06):
I think it's essential from an economic point of view,
it's clearly going to have to be a fluid things
as outbroakes occur on both sides of the Tasman. I
think our real concern in New Zealand is that we
don't have adequate contact tracing and we're using a contact
app which is steam driven. So I think our problem
the problems are not Australian. The problems are are our

(01:02:26):
capacity and competency. So what would you replace our app with? Oh, Look,
there's a dozen different apps around the planet. Just choose
your best. It's a bit like how would you manage
vaccination in New Zealand? Just go and look what the
Israelis did and just copy them. What software would you use?
Go and flog their software? Why do we need to
have this obsession with invented here? Choose the best that's available,

(01:02:50):
adapt it and run with it.

Speaker 2 (01:02:51):
Well, speaking of these Raelis, we've had a very cruisy
run in the greater scheme of things in New Zealand
because of our geography as much as anything else.

Speaker 3 (01:03:00):
Yep, are more so.

Speaker 2 (01:03:02):
But the Israelis have been in and out and inundated,
and all sorts of aspects of COVID have affected them.
And I'm only mentioning them because it's true and because
you mentioned them. So why are we not better off
than they are in terms of vaccination now, in terms
of where we're at in the lack of suffering that

(01:03:24):
we have here as opposed to them.

Speaker 3 (01:03:26):
Look, I think, first of all, I know a fair
bit about the Middle East because I've been going several
times a year for the last thirty six years, and
I chair some important and important committees in the Middle
East and advise a range of jurisdictions. The Middle East
became largely unstuck because while they manage the risks amongst

(01:03:48):
their core communities, they didn't manage the risks amongst the
expatriate communities, and that really led to their undoing. And also,
of course they have land borders which are very hard
to manage. Why have we done well in New Zealand.
I think you've identified the major one, which is at
our geography. We are too We're an island nation at
the bottom of the South. Specific we have lots of sunshine,

(01:04:10):
we have lots of wind. We don't live we don't
live in high density, we don't have we don't live
in houses which have a single ventilation system for multiple occupants.
There are a whole range of geological, geographical, demographic and
sociological reasons why we are well placed to do well.

(01:04:31):
I think our first lockdown, while I think it was inhumane,
was highly effective. It was completely avoidable, but it was
highly effective. And I think the third reason late and
we'd have to concede, is something called dumb good luck.
You think about that air hosts the air air attend
and that went to that wedding and bluff and infected

(01:04:51):
eighty eight people. I think it was one or two deaths.
If we'd had one person like that in the last
fifteen outbreaks, we'd look a lot more like Victorian, a
lot less like Queensland.

Speaker 2 (01:05:02):
And you don't think that opening the bubble might lead
to the same.

Speaker 3 (01:05:09):
Yeah, I do actually think that. I think the bubble
being opened is essential economically, but there are risks which
sit there. First of all, if you fill up the
quarantine places with people from the UK and the US,
then you actually increase our risk at the border. My
view is we should be dialing back to the number
of people coming from the UK in the US. I

(01:05:29):
think we have a real problem with New Zealanders being
potentially stranded in Australia. And I think the other problem
is that, as I said to you, I think we
have problems in our contact tracing capacity. But it's time
I think for the government to stop talking about it's
going to listen to industry about logistics and so on,

(01:05:51):
and actively start engaging with them and taking on the
best that's available in society. But I think there are
real risks to opening the border. I think it's an
economic necessity, but there are some significant health risks which
underpin it.

Speaker 2 (01:06:05):
What about herd immunity.

Speaker 3 (01:06:08):
Immunity is probably achievable with the fires of vaccine, given
its efficacy against existing strains of COVID. I mean clearly
we're going to need top ups I don't know, annually,
second annually, in the same way we have of influenza
which address the newly emergent strains that are problematic. I

(01:06:28):
think heard immunity from a planetary point of view is many,
many years away. I think this pandemic has another five
to ten years to run.

Speaker 2 (01:06:37):
Wow. That's my second Wow. I want to throw this
term at you. Transhumanism. Just give it, give me a description.

Speaker 3 (01:06:47):
Definitely, Yeah. I think transhumanism is how we introduce some
form of automation or artificial intelligence, or we actually look
at tracking, or how we code information about individuals onto
their body. There's a whole range of possible manifestations of transhumanism.
At it's simplest level, where we have a chip which

(01:07:10):
is inserted which provides credit card details and basic health information,
you can see it would be a positive contributor to society.
At the point though, where it starts providing some form
of mobile intelligence. You begin to start worrying about are
we actually starting to fiddle with a very fundaments of

(01:07:31):
human nature? And I think we have to be very careful.

Speaker 2 (01:07:34):
Then think very close to it. Professor des Gorman, I
have to say that this has been so enjoyable I
could continue for as long again. So on that basis,
I expect you to come back sometime.

Speaker 3 (01:07:50):
Well, thanks lad, and I thoroughly enjoyed talking to you.
Let's do it again.

Speaker 2 (01:07:53):
Appreciate it very much.

Speaker 3 (01:07:55):
Aries.

Speaker 2 (01:08:11):
Buccolan is a natural oral vaccine in a tablet form
called bacterial l sate. It'll boost your natural protection against
bacterial infections in your chest and throat. A three day
course of seven Bucklan tablets will help your body build
up to three months of immunity against bugs which cause
bacterial cold symptoms. So who can take buccolan well, the

(01:08:32):
whole family. From two years of age and upwards. A
course of Buckelan tablets offers cost effective and safe protection
from colds and chills. Protection becomes effective a few days
after you take buccolan and lasts for up to three
months following the three day course. Buccolan can be taken
throughout the cold season, over winter or all the year round.
And remember Buckelan is not intended as an alternative to

(01:08:55):
influenza vaccination, but may be used along with the flu
vaccination for added protection. And keep in mind that millions
of doses have been taken by Kiwis for over fifty years.
Only available from your pharmacy. Always read the label and
users directed, and see your doctor if systems persist. Farmer Broker,
Auckland Light and swith I into the mail room for

(01:09:18):
two nine two with Missus producer. Good Morning, Layton, Good morning,
it is very good morning, beautiful. We've had some lousy weather,
but the weather faded. The weather when it was bad,
faded into something irrelevant. After listening to Des Gorman today.

Speaker 4 (01:09:33):
Yes, and let's just say we met Des a few
times and his lovely family and we are so thinking
of him at the moment. What a tragic loss.

Speaker 2 (01:09:42):
Indeed. Okay, Laydon, this.

Speaker 4 (01:09:45):
Is from Pam. I am a new listener to your podcasts.
They are always so topical and enlightening. I've never written
to you before, but I would just like to comment
on last week's podcast with Guy Hatchard. He speaks a
lot of truth I understand that AI technology can be risky,
but for me it's a game changer. I have low vision,

(01:10:05):
and the AI apps such as Seeing AI that have
the ability to change text to speech, along with many
other applications, have become an essential part of daily living
for me and also many others who are blind or
have low vision. Of course, it has its limitations. So
many thanks, and I look forward to hearing more from
you and your special guests. And that's from Pam.

Speaker 2 (01:10:28):
I thank you, appreciate it, and I expect you to
be there too. We've both got expectations now from Gin
and this is relevant. I googled Guy Hatchett, and sure enough,
just as Guy predicted, the very first search item was
a National Library synopsis of the stuff hit piece against Guy,

(01:10:49):
written by some random Keith Lynch. The synopsis alone contained
these words alternative facts, anti vaccination, alternative views, and super
spreader of misinformation. If this is not a defamation campaign
disguised as a news article, I don't know what it is.
I'm surprised Guy had ensued the pants off stuff thankfully.

(01:11:14):
The third Google search item pointed to the Latent Smith
podcast number two hundred and ninety one, which you did
last week, was Guy nice In an age where far
too many of us are increasingly adopting AI with reckless abandon.
I concur with Guy that the key is to rediscover
our humanity. I almost fell off my chair when you

(01:11:35):
read a piece about cl One computer that is powered
by lab grown brain cells. The CEO explained, we take
blood or skin and we can transform them into stem cells,
and from stem cells into brain cells or neurons that
we then use for computing and intelligence. Close quote. So

(01:12:01):
the matrix is real. There are some recent signs of hope, though.
Stuff published Ian Taylor's recent open letter to cinder Adern,
which chronicled her transformation from a warm blooded kindness and
moting PM into a cold blooded iron curtain pr machine.
Jaguars sales are down by ninety seven point five percent

(01:12:22):
across Europe after their recent idiotic, woke LGBTQ rebranding exercise.
I don't think you described that quite well enough. You
could have been a bit more vicious. And Trump's Big
Beautiful Bill might lead to the end of Planned Parenthood's
abortion and baby Part's trading program. I like Guy Hatchard's

(01:12:44):
solution to all this madness. He said, if we tap
into who we are as human beings, we're going to
get through this. Ultimately, we have to know ourselves. My
question is will we rediscover our humanity faster than we're
losing it? Very good way to put a good question, Ji,
Thank you. Oh PS. I was shocked to hear from

(01:13:06):
the New Zealand Initiative about the sudden passing of Professor
Des Gorman, whom you've had on your podcast on multiple occasions.
Very sad about this.

Speaker 4 (01:13:21):
Layton Steph says, since much has been said recently against
the lifting of GMO regulations, I thought I would add
a more positive opinion. Do people understand the way genetic
modification has been done in the past for crop improvement.
The technique used for decades involves applying chemicals to seeds
in order to make random mutations all over the DNA,

(01:13:44):
or by using radiation to do the same thing. There
is no control where the mutations occur, and it is
therefore blind hidden miss as to what happens to the plant.
Genetic engineering, however, can be done precisely on targeted genes
to get crop improvement. I would like to ask the
people who are opposed to GE why they have been

(01:14:07):
so silent on the clear really worse sledgehammer approaches. But
despite this, no disastrous ecological nightmares have come about. So
why would GE targeted approach now cause such fear mongering?
Why not bring an actual genetic engineer to discuss this
rather than people who do not work in the field.

(01:14:28):
I am worried that a certain negative bias is coming
across to your listener, says Steph. And actually Steph has
written before, because at the beginning she said, did my
last email get lost? Or did you choose not to
read it out? I'm curious as to why if it
was the latter, Steph, I think I can confidently say,
as one of a team of two here that our

(01:14:50):
filing system is pretty basic, so we've probably lost it,
did we not?

Speaker 3 (01:14:56):
Later?

Speaker 2 (01:14:56):
I don't know the reason why I was going to
try and find it online, and I suppose do so.

Speaker 4 (01:15:04):
She's got very busy, she's got she's got a very
salient point.

Speaker 2 (01:15:10):
With regard to LGE. Well, I'll put it to you
this way, apart from leave the no, I don't believe
it aside a guy Hatchett has a long life of
experience in working with such things. So that's point one.
Point two is that the ability to look on the
label of a can or a packet in a supermarket

(01:15:33):
and see what's in it and what you might want
to avoid. Therefore you won't buy it, or it's good
or it's better along with carbohydrates and sugars and amino
acids or whatever else they put on there. People do that,
they do it a lot, and changes that are being
made will prevent that from happening. You will not know
that your product has been fiddled with by people who

(01:15:56):
may or may not know what they're doing. And off
the back of that, you've got exports to take into
account where in other parts of the world they won't
have a bar of it with the only country sorry,
as I'm aware now from Jeff, Episode two ninety one
was predictably good. I have followed guy Hatchet for a
long time. Now let me get some hairs off my chest.

(01:16:19):
Some things that infuriate me are those who, and I'm
embarrassed to say it pretty much only happens in New Zealand,
but it's those who say dub dub dub as opposed
to www. Another thing which I'll come back to that
another thing which gets the hair on edge of those
and this is confined mainly to the media. It's those

(01:16:40):
who say t's and c's. This started some time back,
and it bugs me simply because I believe it is
based on the postmodernist theory where nothing has meaning. Of course,
it means terms and conditions, but how do the physically
challenged know that when they're signing sales documents unless someone

(01:17:01):
points it out. Another huge hate for me is the
constant usage of the name aat a rower. Now you're cooking,
now the gas is flowing, either attached to or instead
of our real name New Zealand, and the way businesses
feel the need to substitute English words for Mary words
at the drop of a hat, either in written correspondence

(01:17:22):
or verbally. I find it very condescending and it is
mongrelizing both languages. To be frank, I'm sorry to vent
to you this way, but my wife has given up
listening to me and my ventings, so rather than bang
my head against the wall, I write, LOL, that's funny, yes,

(01:17:44):
very Now go back to the dubww and the www.
I don't know anybody who says that anymore. Nobody you
don't need it.

Speaker 4 (01:17:53):
Well you don't, you don't use the that was right
at the beginning, I know, so.

Speaker 2 (01:17:57):
Why I mean, well I haven't heard that for ages.
And there was one other part there too, what was it?
T and CS seas and C's tell you one reason
teas and sees is utilized because when you're doing a
thirty second radio commercial, for instance, right, and you're recording
it and you're trying to jam in everything you can.

(01:18:20):
I'm talking about the advertising companies, the company they're advertising for,
trying to fit as much information as possible terms and
conditions takes up much more time than Te's and C's does.
Take my word for it, but it's one of.

Speaker 4 (01:18:36):
The reasons it's life, isn't it. I Mean, there are
things that all of us that grind all of our gears,
just personally.

Speaker 2 (01:18:43):
You've got the and he recognizes that he's just launching off.

Speaker 4 (01:18:49):
Layton Don says, sitting here listening to Guy Hatchett, I
pondered back to the UN resolution on the Earth's population
and their desire to do something to reduce it or
at least arrest its growth, as expounded by a number
of your very informed and fascinating podcasts, some of which
have sent shivers down my space. COVID and its subsequent

(01:19:11):
vaccine were derived from and I assume in the case
of Wuhan genetic Labs, I wonder if, as a conspiracist,
there could be a link here. Guys, optimism is a
panacea for the ills society faces. Keep up the great
I was going to say, good work, but it deserves better,

(01:19:31):
and keep bringing these fascinating podcasts to our doorstep.

Speaker 2 (01:19:36):
That's from don don appreciate that. Thank you all right now. Now,
I've gone through the emails after the podcast back in
twenty twenty one and pulled out just a few of
a number. And by the way, there's a whole lot
more in twenty three, in particular when dev was on

(01:19:56):
again more than once, missus producer, Why did you lead
off ladon?

Speaker 4 (01:20:01):
This is from Steve. What a brilliant and rational thinker
Professor des Gorman is. His knowledge and achievements outstanding, and
his delivery style is so engaging that I could listen
to him all day and learn something of value with
every sentence. I would go as far to say that
he was the best guest you've ever had.

Speaker 2 (01:20:19):
Well, I don't blame you for saying that. Now this
one is interesting. Hello, Layton, my brother Bryce from Brisbane.
It's the same one who I believe you know well,
has sent me the podcast that you ran this week
with Des Gorman. I found it very interesting and one
I agreed with in many places, if not all. I
feel New Zealand is sadly a country where she'll be

(01:20:41):
right and sadly she won't be right if it's not
done properly. We do not seem to have the capacity
or drive. Perhaps it's the finances and other drivers to
dot our eyes and cross our teas. I see this
is rampant across the food industry in which I work
as a supplier of equipment, and it drives me crazy.

(01:21:01):
Thank you for the informative podcast, Scott. Scott, I have
something from your brother in Brisbane, but I was going
to utilize it today, but I'm not because of the
nature of things. But you are quite right and I appreciate.

Speaker 4 (01:21:16):
It, Layton. Steve says, wow, just wow. Please keep doing
what you do. The relatively normal amongst us need to
be exposed to the good people you interview to broadcast
Professor Gorman for Prime Minister would be insulting the man.

Speaker 2 (01:21:32):
Now, this one is very special. So often enjoyment and
appreciation of webcasts depends on one's ability to relate to
the subject. Well, that's how it works for me, he says,
in listening to the Professor des Gorman interview, I can
relate one hundred percent of his comments and views, and

(01:21:52):
I am in awe of his clarity and the electricity
of his knowledge. I'll be playing it again and again.
A really great interview, Layton, classic and foreboding and right
on the button. And I have to tell you that
that is so. That was written by my closest friend
who preceded Dez by three years.

Speaker 4 (01:22:12):
Yes, Leighton Darling Ray Podcast one oh five says, Paul
is the highlight of twenty twenty one. Completely lost for words. Therefore,
we'll go back and listen to it again to try
and get my head around just how good Dez Gorman is.
I will add a wow to your.

Speaker 2 (01:22:29):
Two gus, listen to your interview with Dez gordman excellence.
You've had so many great interviews, this one is right
up there. He is such an accomplished individual. His talents
could be used too much greater effect In so many areas,
so many different areas for the betterment of policy and
outcomes in New Zealand. However, if you don't toe the

(01:22:51):
party line, you're ignored. Well done from someone I believe
has a sur in front.

Speaker 4 (01:22:58):
Of his name, Layton John says, too much to take
in in one session. I'd like it in written form
so that I could study the topics discuss more close.
I was very impressed with what was said, and that's
from a job John.

Speaker 2 (01:23:13):
The good news is, of course, because that was written
three four years ago. The good news is that now
everything is translated from the verbal into the written word
on the podcast. It's something I hadn't mentioned because I'd
actually forgotten about it until just then. So you can
read it and it's it's ai really working in both

(01:23:37):
directions anyway.

Speaker 4 (01:23:38):
Last one, last one lighton. Michael says, golly, that was
one hell of a podcast.

Speaker 2 (01:23:42):
Good stuff exactly, Thank you missus producing.

Speaker 4 (01:23:45):
That encapsulates what everybody thought.

Speaker 2 (01:23:47):
Of deares pretty much. So we shall see you next week.
You will, and no more bad news in the intervening
periods if you don't mind, and so that will take
us out for podcasts number two hundred and eighty two
if you want to write to us Layton at newstalks
ABE dot co dot mz or Carolyn with a y

(01:24:07):
C Arol y N at Newstalk ZB dot co dot
m z. And as always, there's only one thing left
to say, Thank you for listening and we'll talk soon.

Speaker 1 (01:24:27):
Thank you for more from News Talk zed B. Listen
live on air or online, and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio

All Episodes

Leighton Smith Podcast #292 - July 9th 2025 - A Tribute to Professor Des Gorman

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Leighton Smith Podcast #292 - July 9th 2025 - A Tribute to Professor Des Gorman