Leighton Smith Podcast #303 - September 24th 2025 - Muriel Newman

There’s a difference between criticising politicians just because you don’t like them, and drawing attention to a politician’s inadequacies when they are failing to deliver.

The same applies to a political party.

Then there’s the objection to being too negative, and effectively helping the other team win. The team that you disapprove of even more.

The problem is, if you don’t express dissatisfaction you encourage mediocrity.

From the New Zealand Centre for Political Research Dr Muriel Newman pulls no punches in Podcast 303

And, as always, we appreciate your contribution in The Mailroom with Mrs Producer.

File your comments and complaints at [e-mail]

Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide.

Listen here on iHeartRadio

Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:
To subscribe via iTunes click here

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from news Talks 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 now the Layton Smith
Podcast powered by news talks it B.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to Podcasts three hundred and three. So this is
Wednesday morning, September twenty four, and there is plenty of
change in the wind. American President Donald Trump overnight addressed
the United Nations and he performed this as always open
to the point, laying it on the line without fear

(00:48):
and giving the UN and the EU and others what
they deserve. But do you see that it does have
plenty to absorb with the government commentary and announcements due today,
if not already made on the Reserve Bank's new head,
immigration and some other important matters. And there is plenty
of advice coming from numerous quarters, including ENZED CPRS, the

(01:12):
New Zealand Seter for Political Research ENZED CPRS, Dodtor Muriel Newman,
who guests on Podcasts three three. Shortly, but first there
is another matter, an area of interest that I want
to cover, the founder of the Brownstone Institute. Jeffrey Tucker
published an opinion piece this morning by The Epic Times

(01:33):
that it's relevant to all of us. I've inspired to
share some of it after hearing commentary on American media,
commentary from the worst prime minister this country has ever
experienced or had to tolerate. I'll leave it to you
to decide on its relevance. So Jeffrey Tucker wrote, this
is how science works. Science is an area that's constantly

(01:58):
confronted with abuse from quarters that utilize it for less
than honest use. Here is how he started. The second
meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices was a
wild and woody wonder to behold. Scientists took on industry.
Industry fought back. Agencies spoke out. Sometimes the accused fell silent.

(02:22):
They dug into data, They made claims and counterclaims. Sometimes
the scientists fought with each other in real time for
all the world to see. Media reports described a scene
as chaos without precedent. Maybe so they were in shock
that such a thing was unfolding in real time, live
streamed and accessible from every device. We are blessed to

(02:44):
see it. Why, because this is how science actually works.
It requires debate, open sourced data, discussion of studies with
strengths and weaknesses by people who have mastery of the
subject matter. As it turns out, the experts do not agree.
For years now, public life has been about asserting that

(03:04):
science is one thing. Very often we've heard about the
scientific consensus, or the settled science, or the sole source
of truth. Exactly who defined that? Usually the consensus was
defined by industry. It could be the climate change industry,
the pharmaceutical industry, the financial industry, and so on. The

(03:27):
many people who resisted the COVID response were called anti science.
It took Anthony Fauci to explain precisely what it meant
it meant disagreeing with him. The biggest players have defined
what constitutes science. Debate, if it occurred at all, has
always been outside public purview. The rest of us have

(03:47):
been condemned only to accept the results of the experts.
Dissenting voices have been silenced, excluded from publishing in journals,
kicked out of professions, mocked and ridiculed for not holding
the right views. For five years, this has gone on
in the world of immunology and pertaining to vaccines in particular,

(04:08):
the science has been reduced to slogans. Safe and effective
has been the preferred incantation. Anyone who questioned either word,
or even added a caveat was treading on thin ice.
Outright dissent was punished. In other words, science had come
to mean the opposite of what Renee des Cartes had
to say. He wrote, the first rule was never to

(04:30):
accept anything as true unless I recognized it to be
evidently such, that is, carefully to avoid precipitation and prejudgment,
and to include nothing in my conclusions unless it presented
itself so clearly and distinctly to my mind that I
had no occasion to doubt it. This statement, from sixteen
thirty seven was considered the foundation of Enlightenment ideas on science.

(04:56):
The world came gradually to shred that view. The experts decided,
and the job of the rest of us was to
accept it. The second ACIP meetingdled what real science looks like.
The industry that made the COVID shots was there to
defend itself. This is where it gets interesting. Doctor Robert

(05:17):
Malone at some point became fed up with the constant
claims that the shots provide protection without identifying any corollary
end points. Finally, he challenged them directly, what are the
corrective protections for the shots? He waited, There was no answer,

(05:37):
so he said it. There is no established correlative protection
for COVID period, full stop and stop saying otherwise. WHOA
comments Tugger. At another point, he said the industry had
edited both data and images they submitted to the FDA.
That's the fruit Food and Drug Administration. This pertains to

(05:58):
where the potion goes in the body. We heard over
and over that the shot stays in the arm, but
that has proven over and over to be wrong. It
goes every whey where, crossing even the blood brain barrier,
and pervading all internal organs. The industry refused to respond
to the accusation. On another occasion, Chairman Martin Kohldorf congratulated

(06:21):
Peizer for running a randomized controlled trial for expected mothers,
even if it was a limited trial, but he noted
that the documentation revealed a fourfold increase in birth defects
following injection with the product. The industry spokesperson at first
deflected and then ultimately fell silent when confronted with evidence

(06:43):
from their own trial data. By the way, Martin Coldorff
was on the podcast back when. Now there is more
that let's just cut to the last short paragraph. So
much needs to be fixed about the system as it stands.
The process has just begun. We could expect much in
the way of protests, screams and objections, and that's just fine.

(07:06):
We're going to win this with the evidence, the doctrine.
That's exactly what this new committee is showing us. If
it's shocking, this is only because it has been so
long since we've been exposed to the scientific process. It's
a brilliant column, brilliant commentary, and it should be taken
on board by politicians and advisors and the medical profession

(07:30):
in this country. Will it be I don't know. Now
I've taken up much more time than I intended before
we got to Muriel Newman, but she will be here
in just a moment after a short break. Leverix is

(07:51):
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 decongestent action.
It's fast acting for fast relief and it works in
under an hour and lasts for over twenty four hours.

(08:12):
Leveris is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose, deals
with itchy eyes, and stops sneezing. Leverris is an antihistamine
made in Switzerland to the highest quality. So next time
you're in need of an effective antihistamine, call into the
pharmacy and ask for Leverix lv Rix Leverix and always

(08:34):
read the label. Takes directed and if symptoms persist, see
your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland. The doctor Muriel Newman

(08:59):
established the New Zealand Center for Political Research as a
public policy think tank in two thousand and five. Now
that followed nine in parliament as a member of the
Act Party. She's a former Chamber of Commerce president. Her
background is in business and education. She has multiple degrees
in mathematics and other unlikely things I think I'd say.

(09:24):
And she has been on this podcast on a number
of occasions and there's always a very good and very
strong reaction to her appearance. Muriel, it's great to have
you back, although what we're going to talk about isn't
so great. Are you well, yes, very well.

Speaker 3 (09:41):
Lason and thank you very much for inviting me on.
Really appreciate it.

Speaker 2 (09:45):
Well, it is a pleasure. I want to start with
making reference to something that you published back in January
State of the Nation twenty twenty five. Freedom, democracy, and
the rule of law are the cornerstone of a modern society.
So let's start twenty twenty five with a quick stock
take on how well these foundations are being defended. First

(10:06):
of all, it's important to remind ourselves that the Coalition
was elected on the promise of reversing Labour's destructive policy
agenda that was undermining all three pillars of our society.
And then you went into a bit of detail. Under Labour,
freedom was under threat as never before, like an authoritarian dictator.
The former Prime Minister Disinda A Dern used the pandemic

(10:29):
to declare that she was the single source of truth.
Anyone opposing her views not only risked being canceled, but
could end up with the police knocking on their door.
And so it goes. And we were all familiar with that.
Of course. The only place that it may have been
worse was in Victoria. Now in September you've written the

(10:51):
column Losing Trust on the NZCPR site. The latest polls
show the coalition is failing to capture the hearts and
minds of voters. Roy Morgan tells the story. Support for
National was down two percentage points from a month ago
to twenty nine percent, was unchanged on ten point five
and New Zealand first dropped two point five to seven.

(11:14):
Now the comparison was Labor increased three to thirty four,
the Greens were up two to thirteen point five, while
the Mary Party dropped one to two point five. In
other words, if the election was held tomorrow, Labor, the
Greens and the Mary Party would be in government with
fifty percent of the vote up four What's changed in
the time between January and September when those two articles

(11:37):
were published. What's changed? What's what's worsened, because obviously it's
not got better.

Speaker 4 (11:43):
I think what's happened is that.

Speaker 3 (11:47):
The government came in with a lot of promises, right,
and they had a lot of plans of action, you know,
one hundred day action plan here and thirty day action
plan there and so on, and so it was all go, go,
go go, and the promise throughout it all was that

(12:08):
they were going to kickstart economic growth. They were going
to undo the bad stuff that labor had done and
the country was going to be.

Speaker 4 (12:17):
Better off for it. And we all cheered them.

Speaker 3 (12:21):
On, really because you know, that's what the majority of
New Zealanders wanted. That's why we changed the government. But
the problem is that none of what they've said they
were going to do has actually panned out in the
way that probably the majority of voters thought. So when

(12:42):
they said things like they were going to stop hpur
poor right, which was that horrible labor agenda to get
rid of democracy and replace it with tribal control illegitimately, yeah,
we thought that it actually meant that it would stop
and blow me down.

Speaker 4 (13:01):
It hasn't stopped at all.

Speaker 3 (13:02):
It's probably worse now than it was back then because
a lot of the stuff that labor put in place
had a long gestation period and it's now starting to
spring and show leaves and flower and progress, and so
you know, a lot of people were very worried about that,
and that's a sleeper issue in New Zealand, and so

(13:24):
they remain worried about it and say, why the hell
isn't national doing more to stop all this stuff?

Speaker 4 (13:30):
And then there was the economy.

Speaker 3 (13:32):
You know, the big promises that you know, tax cuts
would kickstart the economy, and most of us were probably
right behind that move by the government that they'd get
rid of regulation, that they'd cut government spending, all this
stuff and blow me down. They've been too timid a
lot of the it's for example, the public service, right,

(13:55):
it was forty nine thousand people in twenty seventeen when
Labor first became the government, when they left, it had
blown out to sixty five thousand. And given the whole
emphasis on the woke agenda identity politics, you know, diversity, inclusion, equity,

(14:16):
all that stuff, a lot of those new hires would
have been activists put in place to help to drive
the agenda from within. And instead of getting rid of them,
instead of you know, peering back the numbers back to
what it was in twenty seventeen, virtually all of them
are still there. And so, you know, and that's one

(14:38):
point five billion dollars a year just in wages, and
you think to yourself, well, you know, if the government
was really serious about cutting spending and getting the country
back on track, wouldn't that be the first area that
you'd go to and wouldn't you do a line by
line review of all government policy and all government legislation

(15:01):
to see what could be cut to get the economy
going again and get rid of all this stuff that's
holding the country back.

Speaker 2 (15:08):
We lay something before you. They made a big fuss
about it. It was part of the campaign. And because
it's not something that's in the headlines every day, not
something that reflects in people's lives on an ongoing basis,
most people, I would think, have thought that that was

(15:28):
underway and it was what was taking place, and they
were making adjustments. Why is it then that we collectively
seem to be unaware of it.

Speaker 3 (15:41):
Look, I think that it is true that there is
some push back in some of these areas. Right, So
you've got to remember how complicated legislation and regulation actually is,
and when stuff is embedded, it's very difficult to unimbed.

Speaker 4 (16:02):
You know what I mean, It's difficult to get rid
of it.

Speaker 3 (16:06):
And so there were it will be loads and loads
of policy ideas that are being progressed, but instead of
happening tomorrow or next week or next month, it'll be
six or nine.

Speaker 4 (16:20):
Months down the track.

Speaker 3 (16:22):
So I think that there's a lot of stuff underway,
like I just saw, for example that the Inland Revenue
Department are disestablishing their Tari Ti Maori unit right now
that would have been put in under Desindra a Dern
And this whole thrust to get the treaty into everything

(16:44):
to change government departments from within, and so obviously the
IRD has wanted to get rid of it. But the
process of getting rid of people and you know, an
agency within your own department is not that easy and
so it's obviously taken them.

Speaker 4 (17:04):
You know, two years or most to.

Speaker 3 (17:07):
Get to the point where they can actually announce that
it's changing, all right.

Speaker 2 (17:13):
So the problem cast your mind back. You're a politician.
You're a politician for nine years, but you've been into
politics for much longer. So during that period that when
you were in Parliament or any other period that you
wish to choose, was it ever different with changing policies.

Speaker 3 (17:34):
I think things were done more quickly back then. I
think how it was probably to do with the fact
that right now, you know, if a minister wanted to
change something, he would probably be told hang on a minute.
You know you've got to worry about the employment. You know,

(17:55):
employment issues. You've got to worry about risk and safety issues.

Speaker 4 (18:00):
There's probably a.

Speaker 3 (18:02):
Myriad of complex, more complex factors to have to consider now,
because what we're going back, you know, twenty years, and
so there will have been untold regulations that have been
built up over those years. And so now you know,

(18:24):
the on off button is now buried beneath layers and.

Speaker 4 (18:27):
Layers of other stuff.

Speaker 3 (18:29):
So you've got to uncover, you've got to undo all
that other stuff to be able to get to the
actual button, is what I'm trying to say. And I
think that's the trouble. And also I think people.

Speaker 4 (18:40):
Are much more risk averse.

Speaker 3 (18:42):
They're really worried if it's anything to do with race,
are absolutely petrified of being called a racist if they
want to disestablish a position that somebody who's married descent holds.
And so, you know, it's all those things have made
and also the media, the media these days are really

(19:03):
happy to find any mistake that they can amplify that
the government might be making and turn it into a
major scandal and so and the opposition, of course, are
onto that, but they've always been onto that. So I
don't think that's changed, but I think the way it's
been reported has changed.

Speaker 2 (19:23):
Is there a lack of courage?

Speaker 4 (19:26):
I think that probably is a lack of courage.

Speaker 3 (19:28):
And I think there in fact there it's definitely a
lack of courage. But I'm just trying to think back
to whether it means the politicians at you know, at
the time also were they more courageous back then than.

Speaker 4 (19:43):
These guys or was it all these.

Speaker 3 (19:46):
Other factors like it, or has the courage been the same,
But there's a whole lot of other factors to consider now.
I think, to be honest, I think that National does
lack courage, and I think in comparison, I think act
in New Zealand first have shown courage, and I think
that the lack of courage by National is a real

(20:07):
weakness that makes them.

Speaker 4 (20:09):
Vulnerable in the future.

Speaker 3 (20:11):
If New Zealand suddenly gets the charismatic Reform Party going,
they would get wiped out like the Conservatives are in
England because of that lack of courage. And if I
was them, because politics hates a vacuum, if I was them,
I would be doing something about that.

Speaker 2 (20:28):
Now, courage doesn't come automatically, you can't switch it on.
It's something that you were either bored with or you've
developed during your life, and that lack of ability to
adjust to it is a damning thing, I believe. Is
it also because under an MMP things are considerably different

(20:53):
to First Pass the Post. I wasn't in favor of MMP.
I was totally against it for reasons. A week and
we do discuss and could discuss forever. But I'd go
back to first past the Post now, which wasn't which
wasn't my preference I was. I was very much in

(21:15):
favor of the Australian position, But I'd go back to
first past the Post very happily.

Speaker 3 (21:21):
I think I would too, and I think, to be honest,
if do you remember when MMP came in they promised
us a review.

Speaker 4 (21:28):
I think it was.

Speaker 3 (21:29):
After ten years, and when the review happened, they gerry
manded it in such a way that we could no
longer say we wanted first past the Post back. And
I think that was that was an absolute scandal.

Speaker 2 (21:45):
How did they remind me? How did they gerrymander it?

Speaker 3 (21:50):
What they did was that they they altered the questions.
They didn't just say would you like to have MMP
or first past the Post? They introduced some other versions
of first past the post from memory. Now I'm scratching
my memory banks too. But so the question wasn't what

(22:13):
we all wanted. It was a question that meant that
MMP was going to win again. And so they shifted
the debate. In other words, they didn't allow us to
have the debate we wanted, but they shifted.

Speaker 4 (22:29):
It and they gave us all this justification and everything else.

Speaker 3 (22:33):
And you were a lone voice in the wilderness saying, hey,
we wanted to, you know, test it against MMP because
that train had sort of they made sure the train
moved on.

Speaker 4 (22:42):
And yeah, so that was really bad because.

Speaker 3 (22:45):
I think by then a lot of people were really
starting to see the danger of MMP, which is, you
know clearly that you end up if you just have
to look at the lineup on the guys on the
other side, you know, Labor, the Greens, and the Maori Party,
and that tells you everything there is to know about

(23:07):
the dangers of MP with radical elements getting into Parliament
and being able to disrupt and destroy democracy from within.

Speaker 2 (23:18):
So let me suggest to you that there is a
worldwide When I say worldwide, i'm talking about the Anglo
speaking and Anglo based countries with the democracies, or as
somebody corrected me the other day and said, liberal democracies

(23:38):
are concerned. I want to quote you a few lines
from something that Roger Partridge right just a few days ago,
called an open society requires constant vigilance. Who is responsible

(23:59):
for defending liberal democracy when its norms come under attack?
Karl Popper, writing as fascist army swept Europe. I've understood
this was not an abstract question. Papa champion societies that
were fundamentally open, sustained by critical inquiry and peaceful disagreement

(24:19):
rather than imposed unity. But Papa grasped the paradox openness
could only survive if actively defended against those who would
exploit its openness to destroy it. Do you think that
we have those people in positions of power and authority

(24:41):
in New Zealand? Now?

Speaker 4 (24:43):
Yes, I do.

Speaker 3 (24:44):
I think that democracy in New Zealand is under threat,
and I don't think that as a society we do
nearly enough to sustain it and to promote it. You know,
it's like at the moment, you know, if anyone speaks
out in a way that the left doesn't lie, they

(25:10):
will be attacked. If they're in a position of employment,
their employment might be threatened. You know, it's very vicious
and very nasty to silence any voices that they don't
want the public to hear. And on our side, on

(25:33):
the sort of side of the center, right, we've got
this sort of quaint view that you know, everyone should
have the right to speak out, no matter how outrageous
their voices are. And sure we'll you know, defend our
side of the debate in a normally in a sort

(25:53):
of you know, reasonably sensible way, like we don't we
won't go to the lengths that the other side do
to silence those people. And you know, I think what
we're seeing now though, is that the actual importance of
things like democracy are being lost because it's not being

(26:16):
reinforced enough the you know, I mean, it's fundamental.

Speaker 4 (26:21):
Right to what we are as a country.

Speaker 3 (26:24):
And yet you know the number of people who probably.

Speaker 4 (26:29):
Side with again, if I come back to the Mari
sovereignty movement.

Speaker 3 (26:36):
You know, their view of ruling is our.

Speaker 4 (26:41):
Way or no way. You know, it's totalitarian.

Speaker 3 (26:44):
And in those areas where they were trying to get
co governance, you know, which was in as we know,
in Three Waters and the Mari Health authority ruling our
health system. It took no time at all before healthcare
was based on race instead of based on clinical need.
And when you try and speak out about it, you're

(27:06):
called a racist. So your democratic rights are taken away
under your nose if you're not careful and if you
don't fight against those people who want to undermine and
destroy your democracy. And that's the trouble. We haven't been
fighting that fight. We've allowed it to just carry on.

(27:27):
We haven't seen the need to do that in New Zealand.
And yet it's right there staring us in the face.

Speaker 2 (27:33):
Well, it's been building over a period of time, and
it's again a lack of courage. I'll tell you what
concerns me, just a little side issue, the number of
people leaving this country who are well qualified or talented
or will be sometime in the future depending on age

(27:54):
and experience. They're leaving because they don't see a future here,
or they don't like what they see as far as
they can see it. The situation in Australia, of course,
is that Australia is in diastrates itself, arguably in many cases,
just as bad as we are, except that we all

(28:15):
know that Australia comes out stronger in the end, although
on this particular occasion, I'm not sure that's going to apply.

Speaker 3 (28:22):
What do you say, Look, I think you're right. People
are voting with their feet. They're fed up in New Zealand.
They can't see the coalition making the gains or changes
that they'd hoped for. All they see is things getting worse.
And of course the specter of a change in government

(28:43):
is enough to drive most people out of the country,
and so yes they are going. And with Australia. I
think that no matter how bad things might be there,
the view that you get of Australia from New Zealand
is that it is a land of opportunity.

Speaker 4 (29:02):
You know, higher wages, greater.

Speaker 3 (29:05):
Chances for employment and housing. You know, it's it's seen
as a mecca, isn't it for Kiwis who don't want
to look overseas further? So America may provide more opportunity,
but you know, that's a long way away here. At
least if they've got family in New Zealand, it's not
a big deal to go backwards and forwards.

Speaker 2 (29:27):
So well, America is not providing a destination for too
many people at the moment.

Speaker 3 (29:33):
No, No, well they they're seem to be in a
state of change as well, aren't they in some sort
of turmoil And it's not easy to see, you know,
how they're going to emerge from it either.

Speaker 4 (29:46):
But again I think a.

Speaker 3 (29:47):
Lot of it where we have media that colors our
view in New Zealand, so you know it may be
a lot better and lots of places over there than
we're really aware of. So I just want to sorry,
I was just going to say in the UK, of course,
you know we hear a lot about that and and

(30:07):
things a looking rather poor there as well. So yeah,
it's not just New Zealand, is it.

Speaker 4 (30:14):
It's a lot of countries.

Speaker 2 (30:16):
Well, now is an appropriate time to ask your opinion
on the immigration policy that we operate under at the
moment and whether or not it's adequate.

Speaker 3 (30:30):
Look, I think that you know, in New Zealand, immigration
has always been seen as the way number one to
bring in skilled labor if we haven't been able to
produce it ourselves and unskilled labor these days, and also
to sort of fill the gap so that if a
whole bunch of New Zealanders leave, what you don't want

(30:53):
is a sort of depopulation where houses sit empty and
you know, things decay, and so they've always seen it
as a way of maintaining a sort of balance of
population as well. In the old days, of course, they
were very careful about who they brought in. They wanted

(31:13):
to ensure that they would assimilate into our society. I
think over recent times that's not so fashionable that view,
and so you know, we've ended up in some years
they get the.

Speaker 4 (31:27):
Numbers completely wrong.

Speaker 3 (31:30):
So in some years they've ended up with a massive
number of people coming in and not so many leaving,
and that's put a squeeze on health and education and
housing and everything else. Yeah, so it seems to be
a bit of a hit or miss policy. I think
when it's running well, it's doing okay.

Speaker 4 (31:49):
But when it's not.

Speaker 2 (31:52):
In the piece dismantling separatism again, you being the author
back in mid August, you're right. In his nineteen eighty
five book Shadows Over New Zealand, the former communist to
Jeff MacDonald revealed how the Marrie Sop movement was using
Marxist strategies to gain power. And then you quote Marxists

(32:14):
understand the key to destabilizing New Zealand is to show
how badly Mary is treated. The big lie must be
built up until enough people believe it to enable the
damage to be done. There is no Mari oppression at all,
but that would not stop them from going ahead with
their propaganda. Facts or truths have no relevance to Marxism.

(32:36):
Well that's the truth. Anything can be said to help
create the conditions amenable to the collapse of society, however
absurd or grotesque the charges being made against white New Zealanders,
if they are not answered, they will be believed. And
you say, that's exactly how it played out. Over decades,
separatists have gained positions of power and influence through division

(33:00):
and deceit. How has it happened.

Speaker 4 (33:04):
I think it's happened slowly to start with.

Speaker 3 (33:09):
So at the very beginning what the Maori Sovereignty movement did.

Speaker 4 (33:14):
And you've got to remember that they.

Speaker 3 (33:17):
Gained a lot of their ideas from the Palestinian Liberation
Front during early visits to Cuba in the late seventies,
where they developed their strategy for bringing to establishing a
Maori nation state. That was their objective and Maori sovereignty

(33:37):
was the goal, and essentially that's not only governing the
country their way, but it's also taking all the land back.

Speaker 4 (33:46):
That's one of their key policies.

Speaker 3 (33:49):
And if you look at the Maori Party website you'll
see that. You know, the Maori Party policy is they
want all government land, all conservation land, all local government land,
and they want first right of refusal.

Speaker 4 (34:04):
On all private land.

Speaker 3 (34:06):
And so that is simply a tiny step from saying
they want back or private land as well. And so
that is the goal of this movement. And so what
they did was they established people in key positions throughout institutions.
One of those early leaders who went to Cuba is

(34:28):
now the deputy chairman of Television New Zealand. One of
the other one, one of the other ones was a
member of Parliament for many years and now the Maori
Climate Commissioner. I mean, you know, these people with radical
ideas have embedded themselves in New Zealand's infrastructure, you know framework,

(34:51):
and they have manipulated policy agendas. You look at the
whole thing of Maori science, you know, mattaanga Maori replacing
or being equal to ordinary science. That was a policy
that was worked on in the late eighties, early nineties

(35:12):
and embedded in and so you know, now it's sort
of come into more prominence because people are now questioning it.

Speaker 4 (35:19):
But it's been there a long time.

Speaker 3 (35:22):
And so when a coalition government comes in, like National
Labor and National Act in New Zealand first comes in
and says, you know, we're going to undo this, they
have a huge job because it has been embedded in there.

Speaker 4 (35:40):
And that's the trouble latent, all of this stuff.

Speaker 3 (35:43):
That the Mari sovereignty movement have done he pur Poor
when Labor introduced he pur Poor. That was simply the
blueprint to ensure that by twenty forty we have Mari rule.
We no longer have democracy, we have Mari rule. And

(36:04):
it was predicated on a lot of these other changes
that had already taken place.

Speaker 4 (36:10):
And so we're now way down that track.

Speaker 3 (36:13):
And as I say, the government is trying to undo it,
but it is.

Speaker 4 (36:20):
A massive job.

Speaker 3 (36:20):
And I've realized in my mind the only way you
can undo all this stuff is to actually take all
references to Race out of all of our legislation, and
all references to treaty out of all of our legislation
except settlement legislation. And that's what other countries have done.

(36:41):
You've got France and Switzerland and Holland and Germany. All
these countries have removed race from their legislation because in
the end it's caused too much trouble.

Speaker 2 (36:55):
Okay, would it be fair to say that New Zealand
based on that. I'd invite everyone to just stop for
a moment and consider that what you just said, removing race.
We have race in our legislation and it's worse than
it used to be, and it's probably going to get
worse unless something's done about. We are a racist country.
I'm based on that.

Speaker 4 (37:17):
We are, and it's ridiculous.

Speaker 3 (37:19):
I mean, how many of us like having to tick
the box that tells some official somewhere what race we are.
We hate it, We've always hated it, and we should
not have to do it. And so it's being used
as a weapon to actually number one, divide the country
and number two, clever people use it to gain lots

(37:42):
of contracts and power and wealth and all the rest
of it. It's become a political weapon. And yet you know,
governments are blind to the fact that this is something
they could change, they should change it and they should
dam well change it now.

Speaker 2 (37:59):
Well it's only going to get worse if they don't. Yes,
like everything would How would a revolution in this country
take place?

Speaker 3 (38:07):
Do you think, oh gods sometimes that yeah, I sometimes
think a revolution did take place under Labor. That you
know when you go back to twenty twenty and Labor
was elected with a majority, and that's when all of
a sudden, you know, you had Nanaiya Mahuta coming out

(38:29):
and saying they were going to cancel petition rights and
local governments so you could no longer oppose mari wards
that water was suddenly going to be centralized and co governed.
As I said, with health, it was going to be
co governed. If you look at all government departments, you know, corrections, police,

(38:51):
they all ended up with a co governance body in
there where Maori were helping to make the decisions.

Speaker 4 (38:57):
Did you mention the councils, Oh, councils, man alive. Don't
get me going on councils.

Speaker 3 (39:03):
They are just about the worst of all. It's dreadful
what's happened. Of course, in two thousand and two you
can go back and point the finger at Helen Clark's
Labor government in two thousand and.

Speaker 4 (39:16):
Two because they brought in the four well.

Speaker 3 (39:19):
Beings right, that was economic, environmental, social and cultural wellbeings
and also the power of general competence. So they said
to counsels, here you are. You can spend your money
in whatever way you like, but you have to look
out for the wellbeings of our society. And that unleashed

(39:40):
them to become pawns if you like, for all the
activist groups to get in so they could start to
control budgets and control spending and all the.

Speaker 4 (39:51):
Rest of it.

Speaker 3 (39:51):
Until then, nobody had bothered, you know. The only people
who sort of put them forward for election were people
who wanted to do rubbish and footpaths and lighting better.
But then once they got the power of general competence,
it became a place where you could, you know, push
your agenda at a local level. And and and it's

(40:15):
it just has got worse. And of course mari have
seen it as a great way to push for their agendas.
And if you went through every council in New Zealand
and asked how much money has gone into Maori only initiatives,
you will find it would be horrifying. They have they
have taken over most councils in this country, either through

(40:39):
MARI wards or through advisory groups, which in many places
have got voting rights. And unless the government does something
to stop all that local government has been taken over,
it's been captured by MARI leadership. And so what the

(40:59):
government has to do to actually end that is to
parson edict which says that local councils cannot have advisory
groups permanent advisory groups full stop.

Speaker 4 (41:13):
They can have temporary ones.

Speaker 3 (41:14):
So if they needed help over I don't know, planning,
some planning decisions or economic decisions, whatever, they could have
temporary groups to help them, but no permanent advisory groups.
Do you know the Northland Regional Council has got an
advisor I think there's nine on the council. They've got
an advisory group of almost twenty five Maori different MARI groups,

(41:38):
and so of course the pressure on the council to
do things to satisfy them is enormous and that's what
has to stop.

Speaker 2 (41:51):
Has Erica Stanford as Minister of Education made any differences,
any positive differences.

Speaker 3 (42:00):
She's very focused on curriculum and what children actually learn
in the classroom and good on her for doing that.
She has faced criticism for not changing the Education and
Training Act, which has got a huge amount of treaty

(42:21):
clauses and Maori rights in the actual legislation, and of
course that legislation covers preschool right up to tertiary institutes
as well, and she was criticized for not taking out
the treaty clauses there, but she said that that is

(42:42):
part of the work of Paul Goldsmith, the Minister of Justice,
who is doing that review if you remember, of government
agencies with treaty clauses in to look at either firming
them up so they're not a general treaty clause anymore
but a specific thing, or taking.

Speaker 4 (43:02):
Them out altogether.

Speaker 3 (43:03):
And so she said, no, that's what the Minister of
Justices will working on. So I don't want to deal
with that in this review of this amendment bill. I
think that's passing the buck. I think that it would
have been helpful because a lot of these institutions, You've

(43:27):
got to remember, they've got their own agendas in this
area as well. A lot of key people are in
there pushing for these treaty rights, and so I think
she would have helped new Zealand, if she'd have actually
done the hard stuff there and then, and and remember
of course that it's never as simple as one treaty clause, right,

(43:50):
There's always other bits and pieces in legislation, especially big
legislation that empowers you know, TI, which I think is
hyper poor and disguise.

Speaker 4 (44:03):
And so but she would have.

Speaker 3 (44:05):
Been it would have been good if she'd have actually
tackled them. Main one because at the moment, at the moment,
the way it stands, boards of trustees for all levels
of education, primary secondary universities as well in preschool, they
all have to push Mari rights. They've got to prioritize

(44:28):
equity for Mari kids, which you know, you've got to
say that ensuring Mary kids do well is hugely important,
but it has other connotations. It means you have to
you know, drill in Maori language into your kids. You've
got to get them all doing harker, all doing wayata,
all doing karakre.

Speaker 4 (44:46):
In the morning.

Speaker 3 (44:47):
So you know, it's just gone overboard, and that's the trouble.
She's allowing that to continue on until the Minister of
Justice finishes his project.

Speaker 2 (44:56):
If he ever does, maybe somebody should ask him I'm
intrigued with your response to that. There are other matters
with regard to education that deserve a little attention in
considering what kids are being taught, and one of those

(45:19):
is climate change or global warning or whatever you want
to call it. What's interesting to me is that at
the moment across the Tasman there is a conference on
In fact, I think there might be a couple of
conferences on, but there's a conference on where where where
they're dealing with all this sort of stuff from shall
we say, a conservative perspective, a realistic expective. Adam Crichton,

(45:45):
who was well known to most people who listen to
this podcast because he was a journalist with The Australian
for a long long time. He went to Washington as
there Washington Correspondent as a matter of choice, because he's
an economist. He chose to do it. But he's now

(46:05):
back and he's I only saw this yesterday. He is
now Senior Fellow and chief Economist at the Institute of
Public Affairs. So in The Australian on Saturday, net zero
credibility is fantasy policy from the barely believable to the absurd.

(46:25):
Now most people won't be able to read this, so
I will quote it at the end of the podcast.
There's another one I want to quote as well, but
let me quote you just a little. Where there any
lingering doubts that we've entered a post rational world where
feelings and fantasies govern public policy, they were snuffed out
on Thursday when the government told voters that two plus

(46:49):
two equals five. In what must rank as one of
the most brazen public policy announcements in Australian history, Anthony Albanesi,
Jim Chalmers and Chris Bowen promised to radically restructure the
Australian economy within a decade at zero cost. Even said
aside the laughable notion that cutting Australia's one point one

(47:11):
percent share of global emissions would make a measurable dent
in global climate patterns. The claim was absurd. Not only
would a new plan to slash carbon dioxide emissions by
sixty two to seventy percent from two thousand and five
levels by twenty thirty five cost nothing, So going back

(47:32):
and picking that up, not only would a new plan
cost nothing, it would supposedly be a boon for jobs,
for growth, for incomes and the environment. We were told
now he's savage and cleverly so all the way through
that article. We lack that in this country. I wonder
your thoughts on the teaching of the and I will

(47:55):
call it the fakeness, the falseness of the policy that
this government or our governments have adopted is being taught.

Speaker 4 (48:06):
Well.

Speaker 3 (48:07):
I think it's you know, it really is ridiculous because
it is another example of a political agenda that's being
touted as the truth. Climate change is a hard left policy.
That's the end goal, of course, is the industrialization, I mean,

(48:31):
ruining our economy so that we're all poor again, and
you know, God knows what they actually want to achieve
from it all.

Speaker 4 (48:39):
It's just mind blowing. And what's worse latent is that.

Speaker 3 (48:47):
Governments like Labor you can sort of understand them going
along with it because you know, it is a hard
left policy, but governments like National for God's sake, I mean,
we would have expected common sense from those guys. And
it is deeply, deeply worrying that they are putting ahead

(49:07):
with all this stuff, ruining our economy on one hand
and trying to boost it on the other. I mean,
they're absolutely nuts. And so if you go back to
the basis of what is actually going on within our economy,
the fact is they put a price on carbon and
so every you know, every time you fill up your

(49:29):
car you're at the petrol station, you're spending ten bucks
on a carbon levee. Every time you pay your power bill,
it's about twenty dollars on the average household power bill.
Every time a tin of peaches comes from the Watties
factory to your supermarket, it's going on transport that's got

(49:50):
to pay industrial levees. And so everything is hyped up
in price. And if you know we've got a cost
of living problem, a lot of it is caused by
this damn net zero stuff. And as Adam Crichton said,
it won't make a blind bit of difference to to
the climate. But the worst thing is, if you think

(50:12):
of it, it was always sold. The Paris Accord was
sold on the basis of every country doing their bit right.
And there you've got the biggest emitters in the world
not doing anything. They're building coal fired power stations like
the snow tomorrow. You've now got the other big emitter,
America pulling out.

Speaker 4 (50:33):
And so why the hell, are we.

Speaker 3 (50:35):
Still squeezing our economy and driving it into the ground
when everyone else.

Speaker 4 (50:41):
Is waving goodbye New Zealand. You know you can go
to rack and ruin.

Speaker 3 (50:45):
We're going to go and grow our economies and do
well for our people and build prosperity on cheap power,
because that's what it's all about. And you know, so
we are absolutely nuts in this country and National deserves
a caning for carrying on with this agenda at least
act in New Zealand first, and now having second thoughts,

(51:08):
it's time National dam Will did it too. And the
other thing is that they could change the regulations overnight
to give relief to this economy and to actually help
to get us out of this economic slump we're in
because a lot of it is based on a false
blinking metric. Anyway, they've overblown the value of methane, and

(51:30):
of course half of our emissions from New Zealand our methane.
They've overblown the value of methane by four times. If
they just damn Will put in the correct value of methane,
our carbon emission problem would vanish overnight. We could get
rid of the emissions trading scheme and all that stuff,
and we'd actually all have more money in our back pockets.

Speaker 2 (51:51):
You have brilliantly summarized the exact situation. And I think
you use the word fools somewhere along the line too.
That's that endorses what you say.

Speaker 3 (52:03):
But you know, and it's worse that they're teaching this stuff.

Speaker 2 (52:05):
To kick well, that was where we started through the.

Speaker 4 (52:08):
Doctrinating them were propaganda. For God's sake. It's just wrong.

Speaker 2 (52:12):
And it doesn't stop there either. It continues into other areas,
such as the recognition of a fiction called Palestine. There
never was. There never was a Palestine ever. I want
to then draw your attention to something else. I'm going
to read the full version of Adam Crichton's piece, but

(52:33):
halfway through it, he says. As esteemed Canadian scientist Baklav
Schmil noted last year, the world's first energy revolution from
wood to fossil fuels, or from a less to a
more efficient energy source, took two centuries and still wasn't complete.
Almost three billion people today rely primarily on woodstore and
dried dung for cooking and heating. Believing we could replace

(52:56):
the entire energy foundation of modern civilization within twenty five years,
and this time from a more efficient to a less
efficient source of energy was delusional. Now that whole paragraph
just to introduce another subject, another matter. I quote you

(53:16):
welcome to Big Brothers Digital Prison, Part one. Central Bank
Digital Currencies, authored by Robert Williams via the Gatestone Institute.
This is linked with all the other things that we've
been talking about. Global leaders are working at full speed
to introduce central bank digital currencies. A CBDC is a
digital currency that's issued directly by a central bank, such

(53:39):
as the Federal Reserve in the US, the European Central Bank,
the Bank of England in the UK, and the Reserve
Bank in New zeal And. We know that the Reserve
Bank is working on it. A CBDC will be the
final straw that ensures that every dream of suppression and
control that the globalist nurture will come true. Several of

(54:00):
those dreams are already a reality, including shutting down dissent
and free speech, as in Europe, where people are routinely
fined and arrested saying things their governments don't like. A
host of other controlling measures are already in the works,
including herding people into fifteen minute cities. We've got those
underway where it's easier to monitor them. Keep tabs on

(54:21):
their use of private cars, decide what they can and
cannot eat, ideally ecologically preferable bugs and lab grown meat,
no beef or cheese, track their carbon footprints, determine where
and how they can travel, oversee their vaccines, and so on.
And then he quotes the Oxford educated German economist Richard
Werner in an interview last year, the push for CBDCs

(54:47):
is the final step in a multi decade program by
central planners to increase their power over people and over countries.
And he goes on at some lengths. Maybe I'll include
that at the end of the podcast too. Did I
make sense with that?

Speaker 3 (55:03):
Yeah, it's just a really really worrying trend. That's total
control of people, isn't it, And taking away all of
your freedoms and all of your ability to control your
own life away from those people who.

Speaker 4 (55:19):
Are trying to control you.

Speaker 3 (55:21):
And yeah, I just I mean I read the other
day where they're talking now, just as they took away
texts in New Zealand so we couldn't use texts anymore,
they're now talking about taking away our ATM machines, so
we can't get cash out anymore. And I'm thinking to myself,
where the hell is all this going? And what you've

(55:43):
just read is exactly where it's all going. And I think, key,
we should say no, bugger off, we don't want that.

Speaker 4 (55:50):
You know, we've got to start fighting back.

Speaker 2 (55:52):
How do we do that best?

Speaker 4 (55:54):
Oh god, how do we do it best? Well? First
of all, all.

Speaker 3 (55:58):
This stuff can only come in through politicians, right, so
it needs legislative changes. And so obviously the first protocol
has to be our politics. Find out where they stand
on it and what they're going to do to push
back against pressure from banks.

Speaker 4 (56:15):
Because the reason they.

Speaker 3 (56:17):
Were talking about getting rid of ATMs was apparently they.

Speaker 2 (56:20):
Cost too much rubbish.

Speaker 3 (56:21):
Well, ah, yeah, exactly, that's exactly what I thought when
I read it, And so you know, it's just an excuse.
So it's where they want things to go, and we
are meant to just fall in line with it. Well,
I think it's time we said no, this is our country,
our way of doing things, and if you guys want

(56:42):
to provide services to us, you've got to do it
in a way that keeps your customer happy and doing
all that stuff doesn't keep us very happy at all.

Speaker 2 (56:50):
You know, you've reminded me of something two things. First
of all, I don't know about where you live, but
where we live we've lost the Westpac EIGHTM for instance,
down down the village and in other places they've done
the same thing. And I'm not just talking Westpac, other
banks as well. And they and that's in their progressive plan.

(57:14):
Having been in Greece for a little while, and not
just Greece, but specifically Greece, there were ATMs everywhere. Now,
they weren't necessarily bank ATMs. They were free standing ATMs.
They were in stores, shops outside of welling, petrol stations

(57:37):
and cafes. And I didn't use one because I think
that the exchange rate was probably not to be admired
but or appreciate it. But I didn't use one because
A I didn't need to, and b because I think
the conversion rate would have been a ripoff. But if

(57:59):
you're a local and you're used utilizing it for your own, local,
normal purposes, they were everywhere, so why are we getting
rid of them? And they're not over in Central Europe?

Speaker 3 (58:11):
Well, actually, Laton, that brings up a very good point,
doesn't it that if the whole finance industry is so
tightly regulated that we can only have banks there that
are no longer looking out for the needs of the customer,
and they're doing us a disservice in the services that

(58:32):
they are offering us, then they damn will need to
loosen up the legislation so that other operators can come
in who will offer us the service we want. I
mean that, Actually I hadn't been aware of what you
just described, and it would seem to me that that
would be a perfect way to allow it to happen.

Speaker 4 (58:54):
In other words, what you'd be doing is bringing.

Speaker 3 (58:56):
In some competition into the banking sector, which might make
them decide, Hang on a minute.

Speaker 4 (59:03):
Maybe that wes PAC EIGHTM was.

Speaker 3 (59:05):
A good idea in your in your little town, after all,
do you know what I mean? And so we need
to have a way to fight back against this, either
through allowing in more competition or by talking to our
politicians and saying no way, Jose.

Speaker 2 (59:22):
Of course, that would for politicians to do that, that
would require them to adjust their approach, would it not
to a cb DC, And we know there's no secret
abouts on their website that the Reserve Bank is working
on it, and I believe that when I am led

(59:44):
to believe that they're far more advanced than they're making public.

Speaker 3 (59:50):
Yeah, but it's still the politicians who are the gatekeepers
of it all, aren't they.

Speaker 2 (59:54):
Well so well they are. But if it's the politicians
as we witness them in their behavior over net zero,
just as one example, then it's the controlled they're looking for.
And if you've got independent distributors of ATM machines, that

(01:00:14):
also removes that form of control of encouraging, if not enforcing,
people into compulsory central bank digital currency.

Speaker 4 (01:00:25):
I think not enough is being said about all of this.

Speaker 3 (01:00:29):
I know you've done a great job in raising awareness,
but it hasn't filtered down, I think, into the minds
of the general public, and we haven't really understood what
the implications of it all are. And so as far
as the politicians are concerned, they're probably thinking, oh, everyone's
happy with it, because no one's actually speaking out and

(01:00:51):
getting upset, and so, you know, I think the time
has come, with as I say, stories like the fact
that they're closing down ATMs, I think maybe the time
has come where we all need to get briefed up
on it and we start to we need to start
making noise.

Speaker 2 (01:01:09):
The interesting thing is, as we've touched on schools and kids,
is that the younger generation thinks it's a great idea.
They're easily sold on something like not having at ms
and having a digital currency because they don't have the
experience or the education in knowing what can happen when

(01:01:31):
you surrender what you have assumed so far in your
life is a is a right?

Speaker 3 (01:01:37):
No, that's very true, and of course you know they'll
be indoctrinated and the right way to look at all this,
won't they indeed, So that's a worry.

Speaker 2 (01:01:49):
Muriel. It's been a pleasure. We haven't covered everything that
we might have, but that only leaves it for another day.

Speaker 3 (01:01:56):
Well, thank you very much for inviting me. I've really
enjoyed it, and you know, good on you for the
great job that you do. You raise awareness on issues
that you know are very important to our future. And
I just wish you had a lot of clones out there,
Layton doing two more.

Speaker 2 (01:02:16):
Well to talk about these matters. There are some, but
not enough, not as good as you are. Well, that's appreciated,
but I accept it modestly. Let me let me close
then with what I said, what I quoted a little
earlier from Roger Partridge's opening paragraph of an open society
requires constant vigilance. This is something I think is worth

(01:02:38):
that's worth memorizing, quoting Karl Popper. Openness could only survive
if actively defended by those who would exploit its openness
to destroy it. And those destroyers are there, not just here,
but they're everywhere. So again, thank you, and I expect
to talk with you again sometime in the not too

(01:03:00):
distant future.

Speaker 4 (01:03:01):
Thank you, Laton.

Speaker 2 (01:03:03):
Now, as an addition to the interview with Muriel, I
want to recommend to you something that you should read,
you will want to read, and furthermore you must read.
It comes from her site NZCPR dot com and it's
written by retired judge Anthony Willie, whom we have interviewed

(01:03:24):
on numerous occasions. Anthony Willy is a barrister and solicitor
who served as a judge on four courts district, Environment,
tax and Valuation. He is a former lecturer in law
at Canterbury University. He presently acts as an arbitrator, a
commercial mediator, a Resource Management Act commissioner and is a

(01:03:45):
director of several companies. It's entitled The National Party Survival
and the Stolen Country. You must read it. I'm not
going to not on I've read it. I'm not going
to read it on the podcast because it's ten pages.
Ten pages. But you must read it, and then you
will write to me and say thank you so much.

(01:04:06):
Anthony Willie NZ CPR dot com. And you'll find it
very easily. Lightm Smith, missus producer. Here we are for
the mailroom for three three. Somebody else is having an
episode three three today too.

Speaker 4 (01:04:28):
Who's that?

Speaker 2 (01:04:29):
I can't remember? Oh but I saw it earlier. I'll
tell you if I think thank you. I just thought
it was coincidental. I can really wait, I'm sure. Just
breathe deeply. Off you go.

Speaker 5 (01:04:41):
Paul says, what an eloquent, educated and informative lady Louisa's
please invite her back as soon as possible, mussing over politics,
the climate and international finances. Are we in the West
having been have we been outsmarted by the Chinese yet again?
They're signed up to Paris twenty thirty. You obviously have

(01:05:03):
no intention of meeting the targets, thus saving a fortune
on production costs. How we in the West must be
seen to do the right thing to meet the nonsensical
net zero targets. Thus we are bringing so much debt
on ourselves. Our products will never be competitive, even allowing
for the slave workers.

Speaker 4 (01:05:20):
It's a joke.

Speaker 5 (01:05:22):
Oh, how the Chinese must be laughing at us. I'm
sure smarter people than me have considered this conundrum. But
until the West admits, China and India have no intention
of any real pollution reduction, we are just handicapping ourselves
to manufacturing oblivion. Have an awesome day here in Paradise
to you both and all the listeners, says Paul.

Speaker 3 (01:05:43):
Paul.

Speaker 2 (01:05:44):
That was very good, and of course after the discussion
you've just heard, you will realize that it's correct and
very much appreciated. It was a very good letter. Now
the next is from you and McQueen. We had him
on the podcast once. He has a substack and he
also wrote a book, and that's why we had him
on the podcast called The book was called One Son

(01:06:06):
in the Sky. He has written this, well, he's forwarded
this and I'm guessing it's from the substack, but I
accept it as a piece of genuine correspondence. Recognizing Palestine
feeds jihadist ideology. The New Zealand government must not recognize
the so called state of Palestine at the UN this week.

(01:06:29):
Doing so at this point would be a reward for
barbaric Hamas terrorism and their complete intransigence in refusing to
release the hostages that they continue to hold in utterly
appalling conditions and threaten to put them on the front line,
and they will. There is no doubt that the destruction
that is happening in Gaza is a tragedy. However, it's

(01:06:53):
a tragedy caused by the intransigence of Hamas at Every
time more international pressure is applied to Israel, the less
likely Hamasa to negotiate or surrender. The unconditional recognition of
Palestine this week by the UK, Canada and Australia and
as a couple of others too, without even requiring Hamas

(01:07:15):
to first release the hostages is incomprehensible. I don't actually
agree with you then, but nevertheless I'll take it. It
doesn't just represent a total loss of moral clarity, it
displays a complete naivety about dealing with terrorists jihadists. It
is not a practical plan toward peace. As the UK

(01:07:36):
Prime Minister described it, it's a free political gift to
the vicious barbarians in her mass that requires absolutely nothing
from them in return. New Zealand must not participate in
this futile virtue, signaling instead, we should be standing strongly
in support of Israel as the only truly democratic and

(01:07:59):
free nation in the Middle East. Only when the malevolent
influence of her Mass and other ji hardest forces is broken,
and from the hopes of the Arab people who live
in Gaza and the West Bank, will there be space
for genuine dialogue and negotiation, the sort of dialogue and
negotiation that Israel has been willing to engage in for decades,

(01:08:21):
but which has always been thwarted by the jihadists, the
ones who promote the genocidal slogan from rivers of the sea.
It's time to destroy this ideology, not feed it. Youwan,
very good. There are people in charge of in charge
of will attempting to be in charge of a number

(01:08:42):
of countries who simply are incapable of doing so.

Speaker 5 (01:08:48):
Watch this space, Laden Jin says, I love Luise Klegg's
novel Definition of a progressive as quote someone who is
a little bit malleable and fashionable, being inclined to jump
on the latest leftist bandwagon of climate, gender, trans and
cultural debates. But Jing goes on to say the greatest
definition of a progressive is found in how progressives responded

(01:09:11):
to the death of criminal George Floyd by inciting and
carrying out the violent Black Lives Matter, chaos and riots. Contrast,
as to the conservatives response to the assassination of Turning
Point USA leader Charlie Kirk, they united the country with
a peaceful, gospel message of love and hope. I'm sure
you've listened to Erica Kirk's heart wrenching but undeniably Christian

(01:09:35):
response to her husband's murder. I shed a tear when
Erica uttered those words through her deepest pain. My husband, Charlie,
he wanted to save young men, just like the one
who took his life. The answer to hate is not hate,
love for our enemies, and love for those who persecute us.
So that's from Jin.

Speaker 2 (01:09:56):
Well, I don't understand. I've never been able to understand
how people can be forgiving for something so serious. Is
this that's called this discussion. I just don't. I don't
get it. However, when I saw her through the tears
making that comment about forgiveness, I thought it was going

(01:10:18):
to be something I'm missing, so I'm looking for it.

Speaker 5 (01:10:22):
It's a wonderful gift that she has to be able
to do that, isn't it?

Speaker 2 (01:10:25):
My goodness me now from Nathan, I'm in the process
of listening to Louise Clegg on your latest podcast. Louise
is correct about how political titles can be confusing. According
to my understanding, different people might understand one label differently
to another, yet follow the political movement that claims to
have that label regardless of what their policy is. There

(01:10:49):
are many people who say they're liberal and misunderstanding that
the meaning of liberal to the far left is different
to their own, and the same can be said for
labels such as progressive, labor and Democrats. Liberal simply means
to liberally exercise one's free them to exercise personal beliefs.

(01:11:11):
When the far left use that method, a dark motive
is added. The far left will use all the freedom
they can muster to establish far left policy. It's a
similar scenario with the progressive label. The left will use
the progressive method to justify political shifting, progressing the country
further left to achieve far left goals. The far left

(01:11:34):
even try to use what they call democratic socialism to
progress people who support democracy further to the left. The
left knows that labels are important and recognize there are
many people who follow a label blindly, who do not
know or care too much about the policy, but will
blindly believe the party retric These people will regurgitate talking

(01:11:58):
points that have been drummed into them by their political
party members or media or their education. But I have
no idea why, or have any knowledge to back up
their claims. The left of views of the Misnowman method
for a long time over the last one hundred years.
Certain extreme groups that have risen with a gold to

(01:12:19):
take over countries and rule with the dictatorship often brand
their initial movement as a liberation organization, for example plo
ELN and so forth. Thanks for your time, Nathan, Thank
you for yours.

Speaker 5 (01:12:36):
Late Adam says I have disconnected with a New Zealand
family member over her disgusting posts, takes and ignorance over
the Charlie Kirk assassination, her hate for Christianity and open
debate without even looking at his debates is disgraceful. I
feel many Kiwis have an animosity towards Christianity in general.

(01:12:56):
The Ten Commandments were the bedrock for Western values. Kirk
stood for common sense and I don't know where New
Zealand lost its way in this respect. People are chastising
him without even looking at his debate, and it's approached unreal.
God bless Charlie Kirk, says Adam.

Speaker 2 (01:13:13):
New Zealand lost its approach to common sense through education,
through politics, through being bought by politicians, quite seriously, and
I can outline it for you anytime now. From Claire Layton.
Occasionally I'll read your email preview and think I wouldn't

(01:13:36):
be interested in your upcoming interview. Then I listened to
your intro, which piques my interest, and I listened to
the end. This happened today with Louise Klegg. When she returns,
I'll look forward to listening. And the letter about schools
in Maryland was nothing new to me. While I've lived
in New Zealand since nineteen eighty six, I grew up

(01:13:58):
in Baltimore when it was pretty nice. Even then, my
siblings and I went to parochial and private schools. As
with many states, Maryland has twenty three percent Republican registered voters,
but due to gerrymandering with eight congressional districts, has only
one Republican congressman. Statistically, that doesn't seem too bad, but

(01:14:23):
considering much of Maryland as rural and therefore more conservative,
there should be more Republican congressional delegates. Some states are
even worse, Massachusetts among them. Claire, appreciate your input and
your experience, and there's plenty more to be said about.

Speaker 5 (01:14:41):
It, Layton Chris says, further to discussion about Angler Merkel
and recent podcasts, it is hard to understand how she
opened Germany's borders in twenty fifteen, letting in over a
million migrants, mainly from Africa and Turkey, given that on
the sixteenth of October twenty ten, she said that multiculturalism

(01:15:02):
was a failure. Further to James Allen pointing out that
a number of mass murderers in the US are transpeople.
In an editorial in Sydney's The Catholic Weekly of the
seventh of September, it was pointed out that nearly all
mass shooters are from broken families. Finally, says Chris on
a happier note. Further to discussion about cinnamon tea and

(01:15:23):
cinnamon flavored foods and podcasts, three oh one, another cinnamon
product you might like has Biscoff biscuits and Biscoff spread,
both of which are cinnamon flavors.

Speaker 2 (01:15:34):
Do you know that?

Speaker 5 (01:15:35):
I thought no, I thought that had something to do
with bananas. I think it's or is it even biscoffy?

Speaker 2 (01:15:43):
I don't know.

Speaker 5 (01:15:44):
I first came across Piscoff when our local takeaway stores
started giving customers a free biscuit with coffee. This happened
about three years ago until we finally started to see
them on sale along with the spread. So that could
be your new obsession.

Speaker 2 (01:15:58):
Well, let me tell you something. I did a search
on it. When I pulled that course, I did a
search on it. Guess where you can get them? New
World the Warehouse. Yeah you can.

Speaker 5 (01:16:11):
You'll be apparently are you going after this.

Speaker 2 (01:16:13):
As soon as we've finished. I'll do the editing later.

Speaker 4 (01:16:16):
I actually bet you are.

Speaker 2 (01:16:18):
But let me tell you something. I will be going
up before the podcast comes out because I don't want
to get clean shelves.

Speaker 5 (01:16:26):
Actually, I'm going to go and make a cup of
cinnamon tea very shortly, very much new cinnamon tea.

Speaker 2 (01:16:32):
Let me look, I just want to have a word
with Gary, Gary Judd k C. Gary. It's a very
long piece that you've sent, and I'm going to save
it till next week for two reasons. One because I'll
have to skinny it down a bit, but the other
one because I've got to feature it now finally from Stewart.

(01:16:52):
For some reason, I look at this and I think,
did we broadcast this last week? And the answer is no.
We couldn't have because it was written two days after
the podcast. But I must have read it and or
glanced at it, and it looks familiar. So listen up.
Greetings to you both. I'm loving you podcasts and commentaries.
Well I've finally done it. After subscribing to the New

(01:17:13):
Zealand Herald for twenty five years, I've canceled my subscription.
Although I enjoy the politics and business writers of note
Thomas Coglan deserves praise, I have finally lost the plot.
The editorials are unfailingly economically left wing and tree hugging.
Green articles consistently promote a new name for our country

(01:17:35):
and insert Mari language throughout articles, often to the seemingly
deliberate detriment of non ter reo speaker's comprehension. The Herald's
letters page may well reflect the letters received, but having
had dozens of letters published over the years, I have
noted a decline in the quality of correspondence and a

(01:17:55):
reluctance to publish anything challenging our country's anti nucleus stants
net zero madness or suggesting electric power system does not
need nationalizing. Furthermore, an uncompromising pro Palestinian stance of the
editorial position and published correspondence is borderline anti Semitic. The

(01:18:18):
cartoonists are surely members of the Commonist Party and suffer
from intractable Trump derangement syndrome. Enough is enough, the spectator
at a straighted financial review will receive my dollars in future.
I read that because I think I think it's fair,
and I've heard many many people say it, and I'd
be very interested in receiving more correspondence of a similar

(01:18:41):
nature or a countering one, if you have feelings in
either direction anyway. Stewart goes on, I enjoyed the interview
with your son. I have three similarly aged children scattered
across the globe. Christian's perspectives were valuable, but as an
ex pom myself, I can tell that he has not

(01:19:03):
fully realized, or at least expressed, the nearest state of
civilizational war that the UK is facing. London is surprisingly
an oasis compared to vast swathes of the Midlands and
northern England. In particular, despite his recognition of the knife
crime epidemic and Great Britain's economic failure. He will reach

(01:19:24):
this conclusion as the demographic situation spirals out of control
and he his friends and family are subjected to Islamic sharia,
unbearable taxation, and street crime. By the type of questions
you asked, I know that you are fully cognizant of
the impending crisis, but I shall put Christian's hopefulness down

(01:19:46):
to youth. This may be the last decade in which
London has any attraction to young New Zealanders looking for
a oe. Eastern Europe, especially Poland and Hungary, seem far
more likely to offer a safe and enjoyable haven for
a few years of European work and traveling. Keep up,
keep it up, Laban eravans. Do you want to comment
on that at all.

Speaker 5 (01:20:07):
Well, I was just thinking I'm not sure about Poland
at the moment, but I think Stuart's right in a way.
It's youthful exuberance of life, really, and as you get older,
you do you can look at these things a bit
more objectively and kind of see what's wrong with the
city that you love the most. London's always been a
melting pot of cultures, whether or not it's worse now

(01:20:31):
we don't live there. I don't live there anymore so
but to me it always looks exactly like it was
when I left thirty years ago.

Speaker 2 (01:20:40):
When you've got a loser of a prime minister like
you have at the moment, They've had a string of them,
but this one is obnoxious. When you've got someone like
him in control, and please not for much longer, and
same for the mayor, then you know that you were
in strife.

Speaker 5 (01:20:57):
And I think the opposition isn't much stronger. I don't
think Kimmy Badden not's got much.

Speaker 2 (01:21:02):
Oh she's gone?

Speaker 5 (01:21:04):
Is that how you say her name?

Speaker 2 (01:21:05):
I think so that'll do, missus, producer, thank you, thank
you later, I think it's time for another learning trip
to London.

Speaker 5 (01:21:14):
I'm always game to.

Speaker 2 (01:21:17):
Verify yes, some of what we think and don't think.

Speaker 5 (01:21:20):
Can we plan one for next year?

Speaker 2 (01:21:22):
Walk to the bank.

Speaker 4 (01:21:24):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:21:42):
I said earlier that I would read this entire article
by Adam Crichton's three pages not that long, and it
was in The Australian over the last weekend. Keeping in
mind that Adam Crichton has a long history of journalism,
specifically regarding economics. He was The Australian's Economic editor for
some time, and he is now, as I mentioned, senior

(01:22:07):
Fellow and Chief Economist at the Institute of Public Affairs
in Sydney. And it goes like this net zero credibility
in fantasy policy, from the barely believable to the absurd.
Were there any lingering doubts that we've entered a post
rational world where feelings and fantasies govern public policy. Feelings

(01:22:27):
and fantasies govern public policy. They were snuffed out on
Thursday when the government told voters that two plus two
equals five in what must rank as one of the
most brazen public policy announcements in Australian history. Anthony Alberonizi,
Prime Minister, Jim Chalmers, Treasurer and Chris Bowen, climate Change Minister,

(01:22:52):
promised to radically restructure the Australian economy within a decade
at zero cost, even setting aside the laughable notion that
cutting Australia's one point one percent share of global emissions
would make a measurable dents in global climate patterns was absurd.
Not only would a new plan to slash carbon dioxide

(01:23:12):
emissions by sixty two to seventy percent from two thousand
and five levels by twenty thirty five cost to nothing,
it would supposedly be a boon for jobs, growth, incomes
and the environment. We were told the Treasurer unveiled modeling
asserting that the costs of not pursuing that zero would

(01:23:33):
be significant and consequential, and exceed the costs of following
the government's far more coercive plan, and affront to the
economic principles that suggest individuals and businesses should be free
to choose how to invest. Indeed, we are asked to
believe that forcing hundreds of billions ultimately trillions of dollars

(01:23:57):
into wind and solar, whose intermittency and inefficiency have consistently
pushed up power prices wherever they've been rolled out would
be cheaper than doing nothing. For all the talk at
the press conference of the Science, actual science based on
observation and evidence was nowhere to be found. In Treasury

(01:24:18):
fifty four pages of voodoo economics across all scenarios. Global
mitigation action is assumed to be sufficient to ensure global
temperatures are kept well below two degrees centigrade by the
end of this century. According to the document. In other words,
Treasury simply assumed the world will achieve net zero by

(01:24:38):
twenty fifty, a proposition that is patently and increasingly false.
You can tell that mister Crichton had a lot of
fun writing this. According to the International Energy Agency, global
carbon dioxide emissions have risen sixty three percent since nations solemnly,

(01:24:59):
solemnly agreed to cut them at Kyoto in nineteen ninety seven.
They have increased almost every year since, including rising by
almost one percent last year. Alban Easy offered a fun
fact since quotes a fun fact that China has almost
twice as much wind and solar under construction as the

(01:25:20):
rest of the world combined. But this trivia is meaningless.
China is big. The climate doesn't care about national trivia
or treasuries gushing over one sixty five net zero commitments,
it cares about total emissions, and China began building almost
ninety five gigawatts of new coal power plants last year alone,

(01:25:42):
the highest on record, at about four times Australia's coal
power fleet. Meanwhile, after trillions of dollars in investment and
endless hype, wind and solar together contributed just just I say,
just three point one percent of global energy supply in
twenty twenty two, according to the IEA. While global emissions

(01:26:06):
may soon plato, the idea that they will collapse to
net zero or near zero by twenty fifty is ludicrous. Indeed,
electricity demand from artificial intelligence data centers alone is expected
to double by twenty thirty two about nine hundred forty
five terra watt ours. Just settle for the fact that

(01:26:26):
it's huge, slightly more than all of Japan's electricity consumption treasuries.
Modeling hinges on heroic projections of booming demand for clean energy,
embedded export industries undefined, non existent, and perhaps too embarrassing
to call by their real name. Green Hydrogen, which had

(01:26:47):
failed repeatedly to deliver commercial returns despite billions billions in subsidies.
The Soviets would have been proud of Bowen's grandiose net
zero plan, unveiled alongside six sector plans. Quote to show
industry and investors what the government thinks is the most
feasible decarbonization pathway. Close quote. Not pursuing that zero, Treasury

(01:27:12):
warns would result in capital quote again in capital misallocation
as businesses invest without clear direction. Close quote. Heaven forbid,
businesses invest without government direction. An esteemed Canadian scientist Vaclav
Smill noted last year the world's first energy revolution from

(01:27:34):
wood to fossil fuels, or from a less to a
more efficient energy source, took two centuries, two hundred years,
and still wasn't complete. Almost three billion people, that's three billion,
almost half the planet today rely primarily on wood straw
and dried done for cooking or heating. Believing that we

(01:27:57):
could replace the entire energy foundation of modern civilization within
twenty five years, and this time from a more efficient
to a less efficient source of energy, was to illusional.
Climate Change Authority chair Matt Kean says Australia is positioning
itself as a global leader on climate ambition, even the

(01:28:19):
new York Times, bastion of fashionable internationalism, published the lengthy
piece this week, lamenting that the whole world has soured
on climate politics, noting the obvious collapse of interest in
net zero across societies and governments. In short, there will
be no net zero by twenty fifty, and there is

(01:28:39):
no transition. The central assumption underpinning the government's modeling is
simply wrong. Matt Kean, chair of the Climate Change Authority,
said the government was positioning Australia as a global leader
on climate ambition. If only Treasury had modeled the likely outcome,
if the world simply ignored Australia's supposed climate leadership, it

(01:29:03):
is sad to see our leaders spout such logical and
empirical nonsense. Achieving the emissions cuts that they propose would
require a carbon tax of hundreds of dollars a ton,
more than ten times the level briefly imposed by Julia
Gillard's government in twenty twelve. Even if the increasingly hysterical
climate forecast prove accurate, the rational strategy would be to

(01:29:27):
wait see if the fears are justified, and adapt if necessary,
as humans always have. The IPCC itself conceded in twenty
fourteen that changes in income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle regulation, governance,
and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an

(01:29:49):
impact that is large relative to the impact of climate change.
And finally flagging his new targets this week, Bowen said
he wanted emissions cuts that make Australians proud. He will
be right for a time. At least, pride may well
be the only positive off they deliver until the massive

(01:30:10):
economic damage becomes clear. Shall I repeat that pride may
well be the only positive payoff they deliver until the
massive economic damage becomes clear. So conclude us Adam Crichton.
Whenever you see his name as a byline, you should
read whatever it is he's writing on because he's He's

(01:30:32):
very good anyway. Having delivered that, it's time to go.
If you would like to write to us Latent at
NEWSTALKSIDB dot co dot nz. If you feel that you
can't do it well enough, whatever it is do you
want to write, do it anyway? Let me sort it
out if I can anyway. Latin at Newstalks ADB dot

(01:30:52):
co dot Nz or Carolyn at newstalksb dot co dot nz.
So we are at the end of podcast three oh three,
back with three oh four before you know it. Until then,
as always, thank you for listening. We will talk soon.

Speaker 3 (01:31:10):
M M.

Speaker 1 (01:31:16):
Thank you for more from News Talks at b Listen
live on air or online, and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio