Leighton Smith Podcast #314 - December 10th 2025 - Mike Sabin - 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 sis, now the
Layton Smith Podcast powered by news talks it B.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to podcasts three hundred and fourteen December tenth, twenty
twenty five. Well, here we are at the end of
another year. It's the seventh year of this podcast and
as usual for most programs to take a look in
the rearview mirror regarding what's been achieved, and we do
that in a sense replaying over the next few weeks

(00:48):
interviews that we well, that we like. But this week
brings a fresh discussion on one of the most deplorable
aspects of life in New Zealand, drugs and their repercussions.
X Policeman Mike Saban has experience in almost every aspect
of the world of drugs, and that is of course
excluding their use. It's a very revealing discussion. But first,

(01:11):
another matter occupying many a mind a I artificial intelligence.
Yesterday I got into a discussion with someone very concerned
about the ultimate outcome of AI. So, just for fun,
I threw in a line that goes like this, does
AI lead to socialism? Now? Just so happens. That's the

(01:33):
title of an article that I had in my possession,
and I want to share some of it. I'll tell
you more about it at the end of it. I'm
not reading at all. There's an argument running through the
commentaria that goes something like this, Artificial intelligence has already
rendered some jobs obsolete and will continue this trend until

(01:54):
the human race is unemployed. Even now, it surpasses the
ability of most people to write an effective opinion essay
because it can create logic driven, elegant compositions in seconds.
Since government schools turn out illiterates, people will depend on
AI commentaries for intellectual expression. Combined with research functions that

(02:17):
are allegedly dependent on flawed databases, leading users to accept
falsehoods in areas such as medicine, government, and economic theory,
it renders them easy prey for a program of complete
statism such as socialism. So why socialism, the author asks,

(02:38):
because socialists promise to care for the downtrodden, which will
be every person left alive when AI achieves full robustness.
AI in the hands of a socialist government will feed
and house them, and will of course see that it's
done equitably. This leaves libertarians and conservatives with the urgent
need to stop AI in its tracts now while they

(03:02):
still can. The idea of AI overtaking humanity has a
distinguished pedigree. The website pause AI presents quotes from leaders
in their fields about the dangers of runaway AI. Physicists
and cosmologist Stephen Hawking he warned that the development of

(03:23):
full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.
It would take off on its own and redesign itself
at an ever increasing rate. Elon Musk, who is developing
his own AI called Grokipedia, said AI is a rare
case where I think we need to be proactive in

(03:43):
regulation than reactive. I think that digital superintelligence is the
single biggest existential threat that we face, and the most
pressing one. Microsoft co founder Bill Gates thinks super intelligent
AIS are in our future. There's the possibility that AIS
will run out of control now. The founder of computer

(04:06):
science and artificial intelligence Alan Turning predicted it seems probable
that once the machine thinking method has started, it would
not take long to outstrip our feeble powers, they would
be able to converse with each other to sharpen their
wits AI At some stage, therefore, we should have to

(04:28):
expect the machines to take control. Anthropic CEO Dardio Emodi
has said there's a long tail of things on varying
degrees of badness that could happen. I think at the
extreme end is the Nick Bostrom style of fear that
an AGI that's artificial general intelligence could destroy humanity. I

(04:50):
can't see any reason in principle why that could not happen. Now,
the foregoing experts have IQs far beyond ordinary, but they're
also human, subject to error. And let's not forget that
experts have been subjected to the same corrections they make mistakes.
Experts are not always right. Now. There is more in this,

(05:13):
but I want to jump to the end. A recent
poll shows more college students favor socialism than capitalism. This
is hardly surprising given the socialist orientation of universities and
their misrepresentation of capitalism. As Mesis wrote in Socialism, the
terms capitalism and capitalist production are political catchwords. They were

(05:35):
invented by socialists, not to extend knowledge, but to carp
to criticize, to condemn the economic system that has sent
students graduating with four year degrees saddled with mountains of
debt and little marketable skills. Is the Federal Reserve, income
tax warmongering, interventionist, big government monstrosity that is a gross

(05:59):
perversion of capitalism. Now, the article was written by George Smith,
who is a former mainframe and PC programmer and technology instructor,
the author of eight books, including a novel about a
renegade fed chairman, Flights of the Barbarous Relic. Now, I
suggest that the article is worth reading in its entirety.

(06:22):
And I did a search. This is the original came
from the Mesis Institute. So does AI lead to socialism?
And under that same heading you'll find lots of variations
on the theme. It's fascinating because people have different opinions. Now,
after a short break, Mike Saban. Leverix is an antihistamine

(06:50):
made in Switzerland to the highest quality. Leverix relieves hay
fever and skin allergies or itchy skin. It's a dual
action antihistamine. It has a unique nasal decongestant action. It's
fast acting for fast relief and it works in under
an hour and last for over twenty four hours. Leverix

(07:11):
is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose, deals with
itchy eyes, and stops sneezing. Levericks is an antihistamine made
in Switzerland to the highest quality. So next time you're
in need of an effective antihistamine, call into the pharmacy
and ask for Leverix l e v Rix Leverix and

(07:31):
always read the label. Takes directed and if symptoms persist,
see your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland Lighton Smith. Now,
I've known Mike Saban for a number of years, in fact,

(07:52):
at least a couple of decades, if not, if not more,
and over that period of time I've got to know
certain aspects about him. He joined the New Zealand Police
in nineteen ninety six, stationed in Auckland, Folli Ray and Kaitaia,
joining the Criminal Investigation branch Intow thousand and one at
achieving qualification to sergeant sergeant. Saban has a certain ring

(08:16):
about it. Early in his career he specialized in the
area of drug enforcement, developing particular expertise in the area
of mes amthetamine, but he was on the right side
of the law. Mike worked on a various Mike worked
on various drug squads involved in undercover electronic surveillance and
cannabis recovery operations across Auckland and Northland in particular, and

(08:40):
he was qualified as one of New Zealand's first Specialized
Clandestine Drug Laboratory Task Force members, whatever that means, responsible
for investigating and dismantling illicit pe labs. Let me just
try that again, one of New Zealand's first Specialized Clandestine

(09:01):
Drug Laboratory Task Force members. I'd hate to answer the
phone at your place. Was that was that interesting? We
welcome to the podcast by the way, Thank you. Was
that an interesting part of your life?

Speaker 3 (09:15):
Well, it was interesting and scary all at the same time, really,
because we within a year or two we saw methamphetamin
really explode into the scene. It was something we didn't
really know a lot about. And in fact, I remember
some detectives from Hawaii actually coming across to New Zealand
and talking to us about what they called ice and

(09:36):
how it did really just cut us sway through Hawaii
and warning us as to what was coming our way,
and some of us were perplexed but really had no
knowledge as to just how hard the stroke could bite.
But within a year or so we saw it and
we went from a couple of labs one year to

(09:56):
over two hundred the following So being the only hard
drug in the world that you can make on your
kitchen bench from retail chemicals seemed to take off, very
much so in New Zealand. So it quickly become quite scary,
even from a law enforcement perspective.

Speaker 2 (10:12):
Can you still do that? Can you still go and
buy ingredients and put it together?

Speaker 4 (10:17):
Yes, it can be.

Speaker 3 (10:21):
There's been a lot of diversion away from the retail chemicals,
so it's harder to get some of the retail chemicals.
They took set to drain out of cold and flu medication,
for example, which is one of the key ingredients, but
that's now come back in. But what we have seen
is a big change in the scenes, moved away more
to importation of finished product as opposed to people making

(10:43):
it domestically. Having said that, I was involved in an
investigation as a private investigator recently in one of New
Zealand's biggest labs, and that was just tucked away in a.

Speaker 4 (10:54):
Little rural area in the co Mice. It was a
huge lab.

Speaker 3 (10:58):
So it's still very commonly manufactured around New Zealand as well.

Speaker 2 (11:02):
When you say commonly compared with those days that we
just talked of, how would it to how to compare?

Speaker 4 (11:09):
Well.

Speaker 3 (11:09):
In the early days, there was a few people that
knew how to cook it, and they used to be kidnapped,
highed out and used by the gangs because they obviously
had knowledge that others didn't have. So there was a
few people that knew how to do it, and it
seemed like an intensely complex process, but very quickly key

(11:31):
ingenuity took over and methods quickly developed where you could
essentially make it with a a half dozen locally excessed
ingredients and literally make it on your kitchen bench overnight.
So that took hold very very quickly, and it's still
very commonly domestically manufactured. It's just harder to get the
suit eff dream. But now that it's illegal over the

(11:54):
counter drag again, we might see that pop up again.

Speaker 2 (11:58):
I remember sitting in a cafe underneath the Metropolis apartment
block in Auckland in I believe from memory two thousand
and seven. Yeah, it was arounding you, and you had,
at that point I think, quit the police. Why did

(12:19):
you do that?

Speaker 3 (12:20):
Well, I took leave without pay in two thousand and six,
I believe it was.

Speaker 4 (12:25):
And I'd spent.

Speaker 3 (12:27):
A lot of time looking at how this problem had
taken off overseas, because the warning we got on the
early two thousands had certainly come to fruition. And I
joined the police, obviously with all sorts of noble and
idealistic ambitions to make the community a safer place to
bring my kids up and live in, etc. But P
was changing that landscape very, very rapidly. And I remember

(12:50):
going to a triple homicide up in Rowany in the
far North, where a meth induced attack. A guy had
murdered his two children and his partner was badly stabbed
trying to defend that, and a neighbor who heard the
screams was stabbed in the chest when he came to
the front door. Horrific scene. But for a detective who

(13:12):
was now a specialist in this year, in understanding what
the problem was doing, you quickly worked out, you know
the cliched expression, you're never going to rest your way
out of the problem. So as I tend to do,
I think, well, what's the solution? Then, how are we
going to stop this problem? Because we're clearly not going
to stop it with enforcement alone. So I went looking

(13:32):
for answers and essentially started a company that really looked
at the policy focus around it, the education, and started
traveling overseas and going to similar jurisdictions looking for what
was going to help tackle the problem.

Speaker 2 (13:45):
Well, now that you mentioned going overseas, I remember bumping
into you once in the in the lounge at the
airport waiting you. We were both waiting for phones, phones,
we're both waiting for planes, but you were going somewhere different,
and I can't remember where.

Speaker 3 (14:04):
I went up to the States a lot, and to
Europe year. I went to Canada at one stage.

Speaker 2 (14:10):
Because that rings a bell anyway, it doesn't matter where
you were.

Speaker 3 (14:13):
Well, I did a lot of traveling over I'd sort
of drop in for two or three days, attended an
event or a conference or some sort of get together,
learn what I had to and head back on a
plane and take off. Because I was trying to run
a business as well as find answers, and the idea
was to put some sort of a solution package together
for our little country. Geographically isolated on an island. You

(14:36):
can't just drive across the border a lot you can
with Mexico in the United States. So I forgeed a
solution for us wouldn't be particularly difficult to arrive at.
It seems that the political will is the big issue,
not the drug itself.

Speaker 2 (14:50):
Why would there be a problem with political will.

Speaker 3 (14:54):
Well, it's interesting because I mean, if I look at it,
it's sort of twenty five years in this space now.
So I've met a few in the political arena over
the years and seen very similar answers. Jim Anderson was
one of the first I spoke to, and I remember
him sitting across the desk from me and the beehive,

(15:17):
telling me that it was just another drug FAED that
would come and go, so you know, we'll just treat
it accordingly. I was confident that wasn't going to be
the case. It was still in the early days of
the problem. But I think this issue, and the drug issue,
not just methamphetaman but drugs. It's kind of like the

(15:37):
smelly uncle at the Christmas party that no one really
wants to acknowledge or talk to or you know, it's
not something that anyone wants to.

Speaker 4 (15:48):
Really acknowledge.

Speaker 3 (15:50):
So in that situation, it's usually only when it makes headlines,
and it did do in the early days because there's
a lot of horrific murders and you know, labs were
relatively novel things, so we saw a lot of that
going on. But I think over the years it's just
become you know, the smelly uncles in the corner of
the Christmas party. That's easy to ignore the acknowledge. So

(16:12):
back then, what was what was the worst? What was
the worst drug that was available before p or well,
let's work our way through the through through the system
as as it's built over a lengthy period of time. Now,
I mean alcohol came first probably then then of course
you had pot, and I've always thought that pot was

(16:37):
going to be a big introducer to what eventually followed. Well,
it is because they talk about it again it's a
cliched phrase, but being a gateway drug, and it obviously
through the sixties and seventies it was very commonplace and
we just happened to be a country that grows it
pretty pretty avidly, pretty well. But back in the early days,

(16:58):
of course, the potency of cannabis was much lower, and
over the years the strains have been modified and genetically improved,
and so the potency becomes much high in a way
that it captures the parts of the brain that eventually
are damaged by it, particularly around memory and a sense of.

Speaker 4 (17:18):
Presence in the now.

Speaker 3 (17:20):
And so you know, the drugs sort of thirty forty
percent more potent than what it was back in the
early days, and it's a drug that typically makes you
want to fall asleep and sit in the corner and
eat biscuits and chocolate cake, as opposed to a drug
like methamphetamine, which of course is a stimulant, so it
makes you want to stay up and you feel energized,

(17:41):
and it just pumps a large amount of dopamine into
the system.

Speaker 4 (17:46):
So the drugs have a different effect.

Speaker 3 (17:48):
But once you open the door to the idea that
it's okay to smoke a bit of weed, then it's
not too far to putting a pipe in your mouth,
and obviously one has a lot more alluring effect than
the other. Arguably so New Zealand, you could argue, was
sort of set up ready for that situation because pot
had certainly become quite commonplace, and as it had done

(18:09):
in many other Western countries. But methampheta means an outlier
because it essentially kidnaps the reward pathways so effectively and
blinds people to the idea that they're actually becoming addicted.
And just to give you some sense of that, if
you look at if you look at normal pleasures, that

(18:29):
the dopamine and serotonin and neure adrenaline the pleasure chemicals
in the brain. So ordinary life pleasure is around one
hundred units of dopamine. Sex is around two hundred units
of dopamine. Cocaine's around four hundred units of dopamine. Methampheta
means about twelve dred twelve hundred and fifty units of dopamine,

(18:52):
and it lasts for a lot longer, so it lasts
for eighty hours. Cocaine might last half an hour to
an hour. So you've got something that gives twelve times
a level of normal life pleasure. Most people start using
a drug thinking, well, I'm different to everyone else, I'd
never become an addict.

Speaker 4 (19:09):
They take it, and of course they.

Speaker 3 (19:10):
Feel rewarded and acknowledged and empowered twelve times over and
so using it again is such a not such a
bad idea in the mind of the user. The trouble is,
the brain is very quickly adapts to the use of methamphetamine.
So what it does is the way the neurotransmitter dopamine

(19:33):
passes from one nerve cell to the other across the
gap and the two is known as a synapse. And
what happens as those chemicals move from one side of
the nerve, from one neuron to the next neuron, overstimulation
causes that the dopamine receptors that receive the dopamine and
on the other end of the neuron to shut down,

(19:56):
so that it it's experiencing more normal levels of pleasure.
So with each use, more dopamine receptors shut down. So
then three or four uses later or a few weeks later,
when you take either less of the drug or don't
take the drug, the normal experience of pleasure has disappeared
because all of the dopamine receptors have gone, and so

(20:16):
that's where the addiction really occurs overnight without people really recognizing.
It's because the brain compensates for overstimulation, shuts down normal
life pleasures, take the drug out of the equation no,
not no normal life pleasure. So put the drug back
in to feel the pleasure again, that's addiction, that's happened.
Question occurred to me the list that you just ran

(20:37):
through of neurotransmitters. Yeah, well, from what you got up
to up to methamphetam twelve hundred, what would you call that? Well,
that's that I'm not exactly sure what a school and
be honest, but it's a scale of of dopamine release essentially,
So it's a measure of dopamine.

Speaker 2 (20:58):
At least that's what I'm looking for. So I wonder
there are some drugs, including alcohol, that can make you
want sex. Correct, certainly, yes, As you go up that
scale and you get to methamphetamine at twelve hundred, which
is what a thousand over the sexual pleasure you get,

(21:20):
does that remove the desire for sexual connection? In other words,
what I'm really asking is is it a drug that
kills off the desire to well pillage and rape?

Speaker 4 (21:36):
Well?

Speaker 3 (21:38):
Interesting, it's a very interesting question because it does certainly
does affect the sexual pleasure centers the same as you know,
because that is obviously one area that dopamine plays a
high role in.

Speaker 4 (21:52):
Typically in the beginning.

Speaker 3 (21:54):
What it does is in gender a case of more
heightened sexual activity because it sort of adds, it adds
to the sexual experience. So high on methampheta mean plus six,
I guess you're you know, you're adding to the two
hundred units of dopamine with an extra twelve hundred units
of dopamine. But what it does do is very quickly
because the brain is constantly reregulating itself, is it strips

(22:18):
back the ability to feel the pleasure. So then sexual
pleasure actually disappears, and it's not uncommon for users after
a while to become actually impotent, so they lose all
sexual engagement and pleasure, which is where a lot of
sexual violence and things actually you know, does tend to
generate from. Because obviously more sexual drive and activity because

(22:41):
elevated because of the methamphetaming, that's all starting to fall away.
So you've got to take more myth or have more sex,
or the sex has to be something, you know, more engaging,
if you'd.

Speaker 4 (22:53):
Want to use that phrase.

Speaker 3 (22:54):
So sexual violence and metham fettering, there's definitely a nexus
between the two.

Speaker 2 (22:58):
It's want to run through the list of awards that
that you've achieved over the years. The Royal New Zealand
nay be sort of on a reward best all around
officer graduating Training nineteen eighty six. Amity in the class too,
me and myself.

Speaker 3 (23:16):
No, I think there was around twenty was the intake
back then.

Speaker 2 (23:21):
Royal New Zealand Police College Patrons Patrons prize best all
round recruit, first in physical training and defense tactics, first
in firearms, first in driving and third overall in the wing.
That was nineteen ninety six. What's the wing?

Speaker 4 (23:41):
The wing? Number third overall in the wing? Oh, there
was forty I think in that wing.

Speaker 2 (23:50):
So the wing is the class.

Speaker 3 (23:51):
Yeah, there's two sections, two sections of twenty. So there's
forty in the wing.

Speaker 2 (23:56):
Gotcha? I mean I don't know everything.

Speaker 4 (23:59):
No.

Speaker 2 (24:00):
Northland Chamber of Commerce Business of the Year meth Con
Group in two thousand and seven. Tell us about meth Con.

Speaker 3 (24:08):
Well, Methcon was the business that was generated out of
a desire to try and find solutions basically, so I
think it still is.

Speaker 4 (24:15):
But it was at the time certainly the only.

Speaker 3 (24:19):
Private company that was aimed at tackling a social problem.
And the reason that I structured it as a private
company was because if you reliant on government money, then
you reliant on the whim of government at the time,
and the smelly uncle on the corner doesn't always attract
a lot of funding. So I wanted to be free
of any government influence. I wanted to be able to

(24:40):
find policy and find solutions that were true to the
sort of outcomes that needed to be delivered. So I
set it up as a private company to deliver education.
Why because to reduce the demand you have to have,
you have to remove the ignorance. Ignorance is one of
the greatest enemies of not only this drug use, but

(25:03):
many a thing, isn't it.

Speaker 2 (25:04):
Well, it's also in platible supply it certainly.

Speaker 4 (25:07):
As as plenty of of it around.

Speaker 3 (25:09):
But so education and the two captive audiences are workplaces
in schools.

Speaker 4 (25:15):
And I'm a great believer that.

Speaker 3 (25:18):
You know, to change the culture, you really have to
start changing the attitudes of the younger minds, who are
more inclined to be able to pick up and lead
a revolution if you.

Speaker 4 (25:31):
Like, against the status quo.

Speaker 3 (25:32):
The status quo being the notion that recreational drug use
is a right of passage and it's just something that
you do, and there's no real issue with that, so
that culture needed to change. And workplaces of course another
captive audience, but generally they have children, so you're you know,
you're getting a message that crosses over. And while I

(25:52):
was essentially generating income out of delivering education seminars, I
was using that to then go looking for answers and
going and meeting people who are specialists in this area,
who'd been working in it for some time, worked out
what works well, doesn't work and why, and then try
and develop some solutions that we could implement here. Of

(26:15):
course that was the that was the aim, but the
achieving it was not quite as simple as i'd I
would have hoped.

Speaker 2 (26:24):
Two thousand and seven also brought Northland Chamber of Commas
Best Emerging Business, methcond Group and specifically Tall Poppy Business
Awards Gold Medal. Never heard of them. Do they still exist?
Tall Poppy Business.

Speaker 3 (26:42):
That might be, it might be called something slightly different
now I'm not too sure, but the Chamber of Commas
awards is still around. The Tall Poppy one was I
think one that one of the energy companies up north.

Speaker 2 (26:55):
And then and then in and eight the Sir Peter
Blake emerging leader? Were you still emerging at that point?

Speaker 4 (27:05):
Well, I still feel like I'm emerging some too.

Speaker 3 (27:08):
Hears on from there, to be honest, latent, but there
was because I'm an ex salor and you know, the
Sir Peter Blake was always seen as one of our
iconic leaders and still is in my mind.

Speaker 4 (27:23):
And I really.

Speaker 3 (27:26):
When I won that award for leadership in this space,
and I sort of thought, really, am I leader in
what does that all mean? So I actually it actually
caused me to reflect inwards and work out, well, what
is leadership? And you know, Sir Peter Blake famously said
it's easy to espouse worthy goals, values and policies. The
hard parts of the implementation, which is, you know, never a

(27:49):
truer word spoken, because lots of people have lots of
platitudes and ideas, but it's the doing that really matters,
and it's the doing that often doesn't get done. So
I guess leadership in my mind was applying the application
of ideas to implementation.

Speaker 2 (28:05):
Otherwise you go nowhere of interest up to this point
in the career that you had had to this point.
What was the most outstanding event that you recall outstanding,
and well, I was leaving that up to you, But
if you want me to nail it, then I'll say,

(28:26):
as far as as far as the drug business is concerned.

Speaker 3 (28:31):
Well, I guess this outstanding can be two sides of
the same coin, because some of them were outstandingly bad.

Speaker 2 (28:36):
That's what That's exactly what I'm driving at. When I
say outstanding, I mean the one that stands out from
all the others. What would have been the greatest, greatest, biggest,
biggest effect on you, biggest effect on other people whatever.

Speaker 3 (28:52):
Well, I think in the early in the very early
years between sort of two thousand and two thousand and two,
we went from it being a couple of cooks in
the country, no one really knowing what was going on
with it. I was doing electronic type operas or you know,
surveillance operations. We are listening to people bugging the houses,

(29:13):
et cetera. And we saw homebaked heroin go from the
sort of the drug of choice and commodity at the
time to this new drug, methamphetamine, and going from two
labs to two hundred within the space of a year
or two was quite frightening. But what I did see
was the shift in the in the crime scene. Suddenly

(29:37):
we had completely different levers being pulled. And the net
effect is the sort of violence that you start seeing
once use is embedded. It's completely changed New Zealand society.
And now you know, you see a lot of it
on the roads, people driving like madmen. You see a

(29:59):
lot of you know, significant violence, domestic violence that's gone
off the chart.

Speaker 4 (30:05):
I've already got that bad enough.

Speaker 3 (30:08):
But probably to answer your question, was there was a
few homicides involving children that where methamphetamine was clearly involved,
where it wasn't really understood what was likely driving a
lot of these changes in behavior, and when you see,
you know, innocent children that are the victims of essentially,

(30:31):
you know, a new wave of drug culture and no
one really recognizing that, no one really understanding what sits behind,
you know, what's causing these changes. And to me, it
was that drug and it was our very very very
quick obsession with it. So you know, that's why I

(30:54):
left a career that I enjoyed to try and find
some answers. And you know, it's pretty disappointing now twenty
five years on to see that that problem. Last year
was almost a doubling and wastewater supply of tripling in Northland.
So it's hardly it's hardly been tackled, that's for sure.

Speaker 2 (31:10):
Something that came about today in fact, was a reference
to so let's move to the to the present and
where you are after this what twenty five year period
that you that you mentioned and find out whether you

(31:32):
think the twenty five years that you've been following this
pathway has been worthwhile.

Speaker 3 (31:39):
Well, I've gone on to do various different things and
I'm still I mean, you know, this year I was
still quite heavily involved in trying to provide some experience
and policy now into the into the mix for this
new meth amphetamine sprint team that the Prime Minister put
together this year this year. But with the outcome of that,

(32:02):
Having said that, I went in with very low expectations
and wasn't disappointed later.

Speaker 2 (32:08):
But you better start at the beginning. Is this what
is this sprid?

Speaker 3 (32:11):
Well after the wastewater came in for the twenty twenty
four year being almost double the levels as per the
previous years. So the wastewater sampling they do now they
can pick up traces of myth and fetamine and tell
broadly how much use is going on, notwithstanding the fact
that a lot of us have sept the tanks, of course,
but it had doubled within a year and a big

(32:34):
change in the scene. It happened where there was methamphetamine
coming from Latinum Miracle, South America, not just Asia, where
a lot of myth and fetamine and products related to
have come from the Pacific Islands have been seen as
stepping stone in that equation. Mind you, they always have been.
Actually people just waking up to that idea now. But

(32:54):
the scene, you know, clearly there's a lot of demand
because of that much supply as being intercepted seen in wastewater,
and interceptions are so high it becomes a political problem,
right because people are talking about it. So a Prime
Minister Luxe and put together what he called a sprint
team back in March of twenty twenty five. Hardly a

(33:18):
sprint because the solutions they've come up with went delivered
until just a couple of weeks back.

Speaker 4 (33:26):
So more of a.

Speaker 3 (33:28):
Quick walk than a sprint, I would suggest. But it's
just more of the same, done harder, expecting a different result,
and I think pretty much describes the definition of insanity.

Speaker 4 (33:42):
Right there.

Speaker 3 (33:43):
So, in summary, in answering your question, after twenty five years,
it's disappointing that we still think that if we do
the same thing harder, we'll somehow get a different result,
when the problem now is so much more entrenched and
so much more widespread than what it ever was. If
doing more of the same was going to solve the problem,

(34:04):
we were to solve this problem ten to fifteen years ago.
So I don't anticipate any real change to it because
the fundamentally not really addressing the incontrovertible facts that underpin
this problem. And they are three things in my view
and my experience over these twenty five years.

Speaker 4 (34:24):
One is methampheta.

Speaker 3 (34:26):
Means an outlier, so it's an entirely you know, many
many years ago there was speed, which is a five
percent version of what P is, so it's a cut
down version of that drug. But the world has never
seen a stimulant drug like this. It's never seen a
stimulant drug that crosses all the social boundaries.

Speaker 2 (34:41):
What was the drug a few years ago at least
ten which went on legal sale in.

Speaker 4 (34:48):
There is oh synthetic cannabis. I can't party and party
pills et cetera.

Speaker 3 (34:55):
Party pills. Yeah, party pills. Party pills, yep, your opinion,
well a different to meth and feta meane, But.

Speaker 2 (35:03):
Oh certainly, But this was but putting them. I mean
I remember going in Hawks Bay and going into a
into a dairy and there they were sitting in a
box on the counter.

Speaker 3 (35:16):
In my opinion, crazy, just like vapes are crazy. Why
because you know, last time I checked, none of that's
healthy stuff to put inside your system. And it's just
a different way to have a mind altering experience. And
for a country that's already got an issue around us stuff.

(35:37):
So in other words, we've got a very sort of
enabling attitude towards mind altering substances. It seems to me
that adding alternate ways to do it is just it's
just broadening the amount of people who think, well, I've
taken that step, that didn't really take me very far.

Speaker 4 (35:54):
What's the next option?

Speaker 3 (35:56):
And when those next options are something as potent as meth,
you know, there's an issues. But the party pills came
and went, People made money out of it, some people
died out of it, and you know, we've seen the
same as someetic cannabis.

Speaker 4 (36:09):
The same thing happened there, you know, when the.

Speaker 3 (36:12):
Vapes come along as another example, Oh, it'll help people
stop cigarette smoking, but the tobacco companies have quickly worked
out people like puffing something into their lung. So let's
you know, make it candy floss flavor, you know, and
put a bit of nicotine in it as well.

Speaker 4 (36:27):
Boom where we go.

Speaker 3 (36:30):
So now they're trying to cut down on vapes and
trying to narrow you know, let narrow that down. So
it's it's like a fat man leading his belt out
all the time to fix his obesity problem. You know,
the problem actually just gets worse because it's not addressing
the attitude. And one of the frustrating things that I
find Latin, and I'm sure this will resonate with you,
is we're all running around talking about how to save

(36:52):
the planet and you know, climate change and global warming
or whatever you want to call it. But we're self
inducing biochemical warfare on our own brains. So we're losing
the power and control over our own minds willingly by
taking substances that deny us of the freedom of choice
that is fundamental to our function as a human as

(37:16):
a species.

Speaker 2 (37:17):
When you say willingly, would it be correct to say
or lest partially correct to say willingly but unknowingly.

Speaker 3 (37:24):
Well, that's the ignorant part of it. That's the ignorance
part of it.

Speaker 2 (37:27):
But there's two forms of ignorance ignorance. Ignorance a a stream.
Ignorance is you just don't know. The stream ignorance is
who cares?

Speaker 3 (37:40):
Yeah, well, you can combine the two because I think
they're intrinsically linked to one another either way, once people understand,
and that's what the education that we used to deliver
is all about, once they understand how this stroke capts
the reward pathways. So what's going on in a physiological
sense that you can't control. You can control whether you

(38:01):
put it in your gob or smoke it or stick
it in a needle and pop it in your arm,
you can't control what it's doing once it's in there,
and once you understand what's going on and how it
captures your ability to say no. So addiction has continued
use despite adverse consequences. It's using because you can't not use,

(38:22):
and people get captured in that blindly with ignorance for
both the reasons that you've that you've given and it
crosses all the social boundaries, so it is definitely it
is it's the outlier. It is definitely the outlier drug.
And I've seen people from all walks of society that
you would never expect to say, get into something like

(38:44):
heroin and be sticking a needle in their arm, who
lose lose their entire lives existence, sometimes their life to methampheta. Mean,
it just it sneaks up on people in a way
that you know, we just don't see. And coming back
to my original point, that is one of the things
that needs to be addressed in terms of policy. How
do you address a problem of that nature, because it's

(39:07):
not like it was thirty of forty years ago. This
is an outlier drug and it's widespread and its use.
And the second factor that we've in my view, gone
awry over the years is our drug policy philosophy or
ideology centers around harmonimization or harm reduction, which really says

(39:29):
drug use is inevitable, so we should manage the harm.

Speaker 4 (39:34):
That it causes more successfully.

Speaker 2 (39:37):
Even when I was young and stupid, I knew that
that was nonsense.

Speaker 3 (39:41):
Well, I don't think you have to be a rocket
scientist to work out that that is absolute nonsense, because
we don't do that with alcoholics. For example, I mean,
when was the last time someone went to AA and
they were told, we'll shivers.

Speaker 4 (39:54):
You know.

Speaker 3 (39:55):
All that wine you're drinking is causing you a substantial
amount of issue. All that vodka you're drinking is causing
you a substantial amount of issue. You know, Let's replace
that with another alcohol. Let's give you bear instead of vodka,
because it'll be so much better for you.

Speaker 4 (40:10):
That's what we typically do with drugs.

Speaker 3 (40:12):
You know, don't take heroine, take methadone, don't take methamphetamine,
use you know, I don't know. They all sorts of alternatives.
So it's a nonsense that people go for alcohol addiction
treatment and they're aiming to achieve and maintain sobriety, right,
So they're not saying replace one form of alcohol or another.

(40:32):
They say, well, no, alcohol is the best Alcohol is
the best form of alcohol for you.

Speaker 4 (40:36):
But with drugs, we don't do that, we have would.

Speaker 2 (40:39):
That be would that have anything to do though, with
the fact that alcohol's legal. Drugs that we're talking about
are not. Therefore you might need to deal with it
in a different way.

Speaker 3 (40:52):
Well, that would be the case were it not for
the fact that the drug, the chemical nature of a
drug is not in any way, shape or form impacted
by its legal or illegal status.

Speaker 2 (41:04):
Is it that.

Speaker 3 (41:06):
Let's if you step back, because there's a lot of
the arguments from the pro drug lobby, Well, it's the
laws that are the problem. You know, you're putting innocent
people in prison, and you know, and alcohol. Then they'll
cite in the same argument that alcohol is the most
evil drug, it is the most widely used, it's the

(41:26):
most damaging drug, and it's legal and it's an irregulated market.
But in the same breath they're talking about wanting to
put illicit drugs into the same regulated market. The reason
alcohol is used so widely is because it is an
irregulated market, say eighty five percent of population rough terms.

Speaker 4 (41:47):
But I've consumed the alcohol most of my life.

Speaker 3 (41:50):
Not a big drinker, but I do have a drink
here and there, and last time I checked, I haven't
become a sort of bloodthirsty murderer. You can't say that
for people that start using methamphetamine. So the chemical nature
of the drugs doesn't impact it isn't impacted by its
legal status. But it's important to understand that laws are

(42:10):
made for laura abiding citizens, so they guide those who
are willing to obey laws in terms of a direction,
provide consequences for those that don't.

Speaker 2 (42:18):
You know, that's probably the smartest thing I've heard anybody say.
Cut for some time. Laws are made for people who
oblige them.

Speaker 3 (42:27):
Yeah, so laws don't matter. And the smacking law is
a very good example. Got any less child abuse since
we've passed that legislation. No, Well, when you say no,
you don't hear about it as much, do you, No,
Because the idea of us murdering children is you know,
it comes and goes in terms of it being a

(42:49):
first ten minutes of the news bulletin. It trust me,
in the area that I work in, it's happening just
as much. And the fundamentals are really this. In terms
of laws, laws are there for law abiding citizens because
lawabiding citizens will follow laws. Laws are also there to
punish those and have consequences for those that don't by

(43:13):
abide by laws. So the laws have that effect. But
what effect do laws have in terms of parenting? Well,
they give you the ability to say, well, the government
says that's against the law, So I would think that
it's not a good idea for you son or daughter
to be doing these particular things. And if you look
at because some people think, oh, well, you know, everyone's

(43:35):
going to use drugs anyway, regardless, it doesn't matter what
the laws are. In fact, the laws are the real problem.
I totally disagree with that. If you look at the
bell curve, there we people who will never use drugs.
There will people who will always use drugs. But at
the middle of that bell curve is people that are
neither one way or the other. And the idea around
good policy should be that those people will be impacted

(43:59):
by those laws because largely that group of people will
fall into the law abiding citizen category. So you can
use the laws to help lever and guide and provide
parents with a platform to guide their children. Taking the
laws away doesn't take away the impact of the drug.

Speaker 4 (44:17):
So it would be.

Speaker 3 (44:17):
Just like letting riot run run wild if you were
to say, well, let's decriminalize it. And I was in
a debate recently on this exact subject where they talking
about a regulated market where you could access methamphetamine from
a you know, from a government sanctioned retailer. I mean,
is that not absolute insanity?

Speaker 2 (44:38):
It is. They proved it in King's Cross.

Speaker 4 (44:41):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (44:41):
Well, you look at any anywhere where the decriminalized drugs.

Speaker 2 (44:45):
And they site you know what I'm talking about in
King's Cross where they where they set up needle rooms
and you just had to roll along and get your turn.

Speaker 3 (44:56):
And that is that has now become stock standard. That's
a fundamental of harm reduction. Saying oh, well, people are
going to use dirty needles, so we should just give
them clean needles. We should give them a place to
go and take their drugs. Does it reduce the amount
drug use?

Speaker 2 (45:09):
No?

Speaker 4 (45:09):
Does it enable it?

Speaker 3 (45:10):
Well, of course it does because it's incredibly permissive and
at some point you have to acknowledge there will always
be those that are going to use, but the vast
majority of people either not going to use or are
neither one way or the other. So how do you
change the attitude or the culture? And as I come
back to the point, what is the point in trying
to save the planet if we're destroying our own minds

(45:33):
in the process. You know, there's no point having a
planet to live on. It's just to me, it's insanity.
So that's about attitude and culture change, which really comes
out of removing the ignorance, really comes out of understanding
what is going on and what the best options are
in terms of me having the maximum potential out of

(45:53):
my brain and the ability to have freedom of choice
in my life. Drugs don't provide freedom of choice. They
starve an individual of freedom of choice. And anyone listening
to this podcast that knows anyone that's been involved with
methamphetamine will know exactly what I'm talking about. It's just
a shame that it doesn't resonate to leave all nine

(46:13):
in Wellington.

Speaker 2 (46:15):
America has a problem, has had a big problem for
a fairly lengthy period of time, and it revolves around
fentanyl and the importation of it into the United States. Now,
you can make all sorts of commentaries on what's been
going on more recently, but my question for you is

(46:37):
Trump is blowing up boats in international waters that he
believes and I'm sure that the information is correct, on
the way to the States with another load of very
expensive and valuable pentanol. How do you feel about that? Well,
let me take it a step further. That's dealing with
something that nobody else has been able to do or

(46:59):
deal with and just not paid it, in fact, not
paid attention to it. For any number of presidential whoever
it's been, they just say, let them do it, so
it seems, and if they if they, if they die,
then they die and something it's up to them. That's
called freedom. I've even heard that said it's freedom. I

(47:23):
don't agree with that at all. I think that what
you need to do is take very affirmative action against
something like this when it gets to this level, phentanyl
or methamphetamine, and treat it very seriously. Do you think
that there is an argument for dealing with importation through

(47:46):
the Pacific in a similar manner?

Speaker 4 (47:49):
Well, I don't.

Speaker 3 (47:50):
I don't see anyone having the antestinal fortitude that Trump
has to blow up traffickers.

Speaker 2 (47:58):
Well, let's not worry about whether they do or they don't.
Would it be an appropriate thing to do?

Speaker 4 (48:02):
Don't?

Speaker 3 (48:03):
I don't think so, Although I don't certainly don't lose
any sleep over what he's doing there because they are trafficking,
and they are trafficking something that will kill hundreds and
thousands of US citizens. But the issue really comes back,
does that stop the problem or do they just find
another way, or do they run more boats and they

(48:24):
might lose a few, but they'll get a few more
through because the demand is ultimately still driving the problem,
and if you really want to tackle the problem, you've
got to tackle it at the demanding at the same
time as you're sending some fairly clear disincentives to be
trafficking the stuff. The Pacific Islands are absolutely being decimated
at the moment by cartels that are introducing methamphetamine. They're

(48:48):
trapping people in it by getting them hooked then they
can own them. And there is a lot of dark
stuff going on in the islands. It's ripping through there
at the moment.

Speaker 2 (48:58):
I've heard the same. Can you be more specific, more
specific about the Pacific about what they're doing and how
they're doing it and what the results are. Well, the
typical sorry, Fiji is the prime example that I'm aware of.
What are the Fijians doing? What's the government doing about.

Speaker 3 (49:18):
Well, they don't really know what to do about it,
and it's it's corrupting, you know, throughout government circles as
well as is quite common because there's large volumes of
money involved. There's child prostitution going on. So typically what
they'll do is they'll get people introduced into using the drug,
they'll get hooked, and then their addiction becomes a driver

(49:42):
for them to start committing the sort of crime or
behavior that that the cartels ultimately want to be able to. Okay,
well we'll look after you, but what we're we're going
to need is a plantation out the back of your
farm where we can park our methamphetamine as it's being
transited through and shipped, for example. So there's lots of

(50:04):
little examples of that going on, so you can you
can capture people literally using the drug and then secure
their use and their services in the in the transmission
of their drug throughout from the Pacific into the into
the Australia and into New Zealand. So we used to

(50:24):
be a stop off area ourselves, but now we're an endpoint.

Speaker 4 (50:28):
We're a destination now because.

Speaker 2 (50:30):
We're such big users, so we're a target.

Speaker 3 (50:33):
Yeah, yeah, well let's change because we pay We still
pay some of the highest prices in the world, although
it's a lot less than it used to be. So
and you've got a highly addicted population, so why wouldn't
you take the time to send it down here?

Speaker 2 (50:46):
What do you say, where we've got a highly addicted population,
give me a figure.

Speaker 3 (50:51):
Well, that's almost impossible to say. But because you know,
people don't readily sort of participate in surveys talking about
their methamfetamine use, you can only look at the wastewater sampling,
for example, or the levels of into so people don't
submite supply commodities to areas where there's no demand. And

(51:13):
if you look at over the last ten to fifteen years,
the amount of interdiction at the border has increased steadily.
You get huge shipments now that are being intercepted, which
means I don't know how much gets through. Maybe you know,
maybe ten percent of what comes in gets found. So

(51:34):
if you see the supply being intercepted rising, and you
see the wastewater levels rising, they've doubled last year, for example,
that says a lot more of your population are addicted.
How much I'd really be guessing?

Speaker 2 (51:48):
I couldn't say, all right, where is that happening? Norsefully,
do just my guess for a start.

Speaker 3 (51:53):
Well, Northland had a tripling of that wastewater test or
some else. Oh everywhere in New Zealand. I don't see
anywhere that's immune to it. I traveled all around New
Zealand speaking you know, anywhere from Gore to Kaitai, and
some areas are just more ignorant of it than others.

(52:14):
But the usage is I don't see any particular pockets
where it's immune, and some areas it's very, very entrenched,
and those will be the sort of areas we typically
see a.

Speaker 4 (52:25):
Lot more violence, a lot more alcohol abuse.

Speaker 3 (52:28):
You know, wherever there's a home for that, there's the
myth will be present as well.

Speaker 4 (52:34):
But I mean, look, we've seen plenty of.

Speaker 3 (52:36):
It in you know, Remy era and you know some
of the high streets in Auckland. It's not as I say,
it's not no one's immune.

Speaker 2 (52:45):
Is it still like that?

Speaker 4 (52:47):
Yeah, I don't.

Speaker 3 (52:48):
Think anything's changed other than there's more of it and
it doesn't make it headlines as much because it's sort
of commonplace.

Speaker 4 (52:55):
So you know, when it bleeds, it leads in.

Speaker 3 (52:58):
This has been bleeding for a long time, so maybe
it's not so so sexy to cover anymore. But but
this is one of the problems is that at the
highest end, So if you look at supply reduction, what
are the two things that in my view that suppliers
in this area and come from all walks of life.

(53:18):
They'll be business people. They're not just gangs. People sort
of think it's just the gangs. Well, the gangs are
a big part of the dealing circuit, but they rely
on a lot of people to.

Speaker 4 (53:28):
Launder a lot of money.

Speaker 3 (53:29):
They rely on you know, there's big dollars involved in it,
millions and millions and millions of dollars. So it reaches
parts of society that you wouldn't necessarily expect, and often
they're one step removed in terms of any any operations
to target a syndicate, and the people at the top
of the tree are often removed. So to me, that's

(53:49):
where you have to put a lot of new effort
and resources to get to those people.

Speaker 4 (53:54):
And those people.

Speaker 3 (53:56):
The penalty for methamphetamine supply manufacturer's life imprisonment, but people
don't go away for life. But if you really want
to send a clear message, you know, equivalent to the
Trump blowing up the trafficking boats type message, then people
at the highest end of this should be going to
prison at the age of forty and not coming out

(54:17):
until they're seventy or eighty. In my view, it shouldn't
be you know, basically, serve seven eighteen years and then
you're out, and we should not be stopping at In
terms of the proceeds of crime, everything that they have
that's an asset, whether it be cash or asset in
and of itself, should be taken and they should only

(54:41):
get it back if they can show that it's been
attained through legitimate means. In other words, there's two things
that these guys care about is their liberty and their money.
And it's no point in having money because a lot
of them think, well, I'll take the gamble, but i'll
come out to that ten million dollars have.

Speaker 4 (54:57):
Got buried out in the paddock, So that's not a problem.

Speaker 3 (55:01):
Take away their liberty, take away their money, and you've
only got to do that with a few people before
the incentives become well, it's high risk game. But at
the moment, we just don't. We don't penalize people sufficiently
at that top end. And we we too, we're too
we're too soft on taking away money. That is, you know,

(55:22):
I think there's a thirty thousand dollars limit on proceeds
of crime. Will Isn't it funny how every Harley Davison
now is valued at twenty and ninety five dollars.

Speaker 2 (55:31):
You've got to laugh. Let me coach you something. The
West's commitment to freedom, reason, and true liberalism has never
been more seriously threatened that it is today by the
stifling forces of political correctness. These This is referring to
a book by someone I've mentioned once or twice on

(55:51):
a couple of podcasts, Gad Sad. Doctor Gad Sad, the
host of the enormously popular YouTube show The Sad Truth,
exposes the bad ideas what he calls idea pathogens that
are killing common sense and rational debate, incubated in our
universities and spread through the tyranny of political correctness. These

(56:14):
ideas are endangering our most basic freedoms, including freedom of
thought and speech. Does that bring true at all to
You couldn't agree more, then I'll give you a little more.
The danger is gray. But as doctor Sard shows, politically
correct dogma is riddled with logical fallacies. We have powerful
weapons to fight back with if we have the courage

(56:35):
to use them. And that's really what I was what
I was striving at. If we have the courage to
use them, intriguingly. I bought that book earlier this year,
and three days ago I do a bit of listening
around in the States, and three days ago came across
a talk show that he just turned up on and

(56:56):
I never heard him speak, so I wanted to hear it,
and by George, he was good. I want him on
this podcast. We don't have the courage to take the
action it takes and needs to turn much of what
we know is wrong about we don't or should I

(57:16):
say around just to be clear, yeah, well we.

Speaker 3 (57:18):
Don't, not just in this in this area, but in
many areas where there's social decay, has A has a
big outreach. There is a distinct lack of political courage
in particular in my view.

Speaker 4 (57:33):
And look, if.

Speaker 3 (57:34):
You're going to make an omelet, you've got to break
a few eggs. But far too many politicians are trying
to make omelets without breaking eggs, and you can't. You
just simply cannot make the omelet without breaking the egg.
But what I don't think they necessarily recognize is there
are plenty of people out there who want them to
do just that. And you know, the rise and rise

(57:56):
of the Trump factor, I guess gives you some sense
that as much as he's pilloried by the left for
what good reason or bad, it doesn't really matter what
he has done to politics is actually said, you know what,
there's a there's a lot of people out there that
recognize the complete lack of political spine in Western society

(58:17):
is absolutely eroding the values that we share and that
and that we should that people have fought and died
for that we're now giving up. And now that's it's
a broader subject, but it all comes down to there
is a distinct lack of political courage to do what
ultimately the people really demand of leaders, to have courage

(58:38):
to stand up, to have fortitude and to accept sometimes
you will make some people unhappy in the greater and
the pursuit of the greater good, because medicine sometimes is
a bit bitter.

Speaker 2 (58:49):
Well, you've just opened the door to another another alleyway.
That is that we and you'll hear people say, doesn't
mean me I'm not included, but that we the voter
doesn't have the courage to shall we say, gamble to

(59:10):
some degree with looking for an outcome. And what I
mean by that is this idea that you vote for
you vote for somebody because the other team's worse, or
you vote for somebody because, well, I like what they
do there, but I don't like what they do there,
and therefore they justify to themselves because they don't want to.

(59:31):
In most cases, people don't want to change course, and
that is self defeating. If you've got if you've got
a party in power that is failing in some very
important areas like where you deal, and they won't pick
up their game, then they deserve to be punished.

Speaker 3 (59:52):
They do well you've just described as the core of
the failings of our MMP.

Speaker 4 (59:59):
Structure.

Speaker 3 (01:00:00):
And I know you've discussed this many times on the podcast,
and the sort of sugar hit, the three years sugarheit
of what's in it for me? And the way in
which political parties over time have essentially adopted the approach
to winning the center vote through that sugar hit. And
then once you get enough of that going on and

(01:00:22):
an expectation exists there, it's very hard to strip back.
And when you can't strip back stuff that ultimately might
be a short term fix or a short term hit,
but it has a long term negative implication. That's where
we're at now. That's why where the cupboards bear. Notwithstanding
the fact that during COVID and the use of fear

(01:00:44):
to essentially manipulate the voter and send us down a
highly destructive path in terms of our economic framework, put
that to one side, MP has still seen us heading
down a very bad path. And we are now a
population of people that largely say, well, what's in it

(01:01:05):
for me and.

Speaker 4 (01:01:06):
I'll give you my vote?

Speaker 3 (01:01:07):
And we we should not and cannot afford to be
thinking that way unless we want to keep exporting all
of the quality people, the brain power, and the initiative
and the skills offshore where the other opportunities are, because
we're diminishing our power as a country, as an economy,

(01:01:29):
as a people by taking the approach that it's what's
in it for me, And it's not what's in it
for me, it's where is what is the direction of
the country in which direction does it need to head?
And that's what, in my view, should be asking ourselves.
But then you've got to find the leaders that are

(01:01:49):
willing to actually make the decisions to take us in
that direction. And that direction will be uncomfortable for some people,
because we need to change from the path that we're
on and that means taking away some of the sugar
hit and I'm not sure as a population.

Speaker 4 (01:02:03):
We're really we're really up to that anymore.

Speaker 3 (01:02:06):
So we can blame a lack of political current, but
I think the first thing we need to do is
take a damn good look at ourselves in the mirror
and go But am I really doing what's in the
best interests of the direction of this country or the
best interests of the direction of my own back pocket?
Because it seems to me that we do a lot
of the latter.

Speaker 2 (01:02:25):
I think you described that very well.

Speaker 4 (01:02:27):
Well.

Speaker 3 (01:02:28):
It's a challenging situation because obviously we're all self interested,
but ultimately there's a relationship between the voter and those
who get voted in. And if the people were willing
to stand up and say, you know what, my country
needs to head in a particular direction, and enough of

(01:02:48):
us were saying that, but that's not a direction that
is really just simply about my self interest.

Speaker 2 (01:02:54):
It's interesting, you know, because there are while you were
talking just then, I was thinking of three or four
people with whom I'm familiar, who are of an age
and an attitude that would serve this country well. But
they're unlikely to do it simply because of what they
would be put through if they put their hand up.

(01:03:16):
You can say that that's lack of courage by the
same token, thinking one or two of them, it's not
lack of courage, it's actually using their brain power because
they know how stupid the whole system's got. Fair enough, Yeah,
well it is a.

Speaker 4 (01:03:32):
Very fair comment.

Speaker 3 (01:03:33):
And there's a lot of people that don't, I guess,
put their hands up in terms of any sort of
political leadership because of exactly that. It's like, you know,
you're swimming against a tide, and for some people it's not.
I wouldn't say it's necessarily a lack of courage. Well,
why wouldn't want to swim against that tide when I'm
not a hiding to nothing Because there are there's so

(01:03:57):
many fundamental structural issues that are wrong. You've got to
swim against a lot of tide to write that. And
not everyone has that clination, or they just don't. They
don't see it as an attractive option.

Speaker 2 (01:04:12):
You had a few years in the house, too late
to go back.

Speaker 4 (01:04:19):
I don't know if I'd survive in that place.

Speaker 3 (01:04:21):
Now it's become wokery has become so entrenched and everything
that seems to drive out of government these days. It's unbelievable.
But I mean, my motivations for being involved in that
were only ever because I felt I could contribute something.

(01:04:42):
Having lived at the bottom of the cliff and know
what happens, know what falls over the cliff and the
implications of it, you get a better sense of how
you can build a fence at the top of the
cliff and what needs to change in a policy sense.
So I had some lived in real will experience that
I thought could translate well into the policy making, because

(01:05:02):
ultimately government is that's what you expect. The government is
to ensure that all your infrastructure exists within community, to
have a well educated, healthy population that has opportunity, and
the government is responsible for ensuring that resources exist for
those fundamentals. And then over and above that ensure that

(01:05:24):
an environment exists to attract and retain and develop, you know,
people that can go out there and make wealth, create jobs,
create opportunities, et cetera, et cetera. But when you get there,
you stet. You very quickly understand that in that machine
you have to you have to conform to to particularly

(01:05:47):
in an MMP environment to the sort of the party approach,
the mechanics of parliament grind people up very very quickly
becomes quite disparating. Not that that ever puts you off,
but I mean I was had some certainly had some
particular knowledge in this Druggierrea for example, and even inside
the tent, arguably it's to make change inside the tenth

(01:06:10):
than it is outside the tenth. So you really need
to have leavers in the right place, and you only
get that if you're at the at the highest levels,
and you know, arguably someone like John Key, Bill English,
Stephen Joyce, you know, it was kind of a purple
patch in recent political years because they had the right

(01:06:31):
mindset and the approach and they were able to pull
a few leavers.

Speaker 4 (01:06:37):
Not everything that happened there was stuff that I would.

Speaker 3 (01:06:39):
Necessarily agree with because I think I think we just
went further down the same road of the sugar hit,
if you like. But there's very few opportunities I think
for people in positions of power to execute substantial change.
And we're at a stage now, I think where we

(01:06:59):
need substantial direction change in the way we're going as
a country.

Speaker 4 (01:07:03):
Where that's going to come from.

Speaker 3 (01:07:04):
I don't see the political will courage direction existing there
now myself, but change will be required at some point.

Speaker 2 (01:07:14):
It will. It'll be interesting to see when maybe maybe
we'll be lucky. Now, since we talked about your earlier,
earlier career, so let's wind this up with your present situation.
You established a business in twenty nineteen, private investigations business.

(01:07:35):
You've got a team of investigators working for you, and
this is based of course in Northland whereabout.

Speaker 4 (01:07:43):
We're at a farre rail though we do travel all
over the country doing our work.

Speaker 3 (01:07:47):
It's predominantly criminal defense work, which is largely born out
of the fact that with changes in the police and resourcing, etc.
There's a lot of investigations that aren't done anymore, and
that's quite an important thing for a jury when people
are facing a criminal charge. So we're a specialist even

(01:08:08):
in gathers all ex detectives and we simply do the
same thing as we used to do when we're in
the police. We're just gathering that evidence and hoping for
juries and judges to be able to make some just
outcomes as a consequence of that.

Speaker 2 (01:08:24):
So this is my interpretation of what you just said.
You're now replacing the police at certain levels of inquiry
and pursuit.

Speaker 3 (01:08:35):
Sadly, yes, and that's largely because there's a lot of
changes have gone on the police the last ten or
fifteen years. System changes, and there's a lot of churn
and a lot of need to make an arrest and
move to the next file, and so the power of
arrest becomes a dominant feature over top of the power

(01:08:55):
of investigation. And while you don't necessarily need corroboration to
gain convictions in a lot of matters, good investigators ensure
that there is a good evidential foundation for a charge
to proceed and succeed.

Speaker 4 (01:09:13):
A lot of that doesn't happen anymore.

Speaker 3 (01:09:15):
And so you know, we're essentially doing exactly the same work,
and we may interview ten or fifteen people and the
police have interviewed three or four in a particular matter. Well,
you know, back in the day, police would have interviewed
all of those people. That's not a criticism of the
police necessarily, although I think they should come in for
some criticism in terms of how they go about business.

(01:09:37):
I think recent events probably highlight that. You think, yeah,
but there are definitely some failings in the system, and
ultimately who really pays the price for that is you know,
New Zealand society. Because if the police aren't thoroughly investigating
things and putting things before the court because they are justified,

(01:10:00):
it is a bit of a lottery and I think
we're all the lesser for it. So the business se
when I got into this PI work. You know, it's
obviously very transferable skills from COB but we're not in
the business of confirmation.

Speaker 4 (01:10:20):
Bias.

Speaker 3 (01:10:21):
As defense investigators, we're saying, well, what's the whole picture
tell us? Versus what's enough of the picture to get
primer facing evidence to lock someone up or to charge them.
We're saying, well, okay, well that's what you're saying, but
what is the whole picture?

Speaker 4 (01:10:35):
Saying? What can we infer from their whole picture?

Speaker 3 (01:10:37):
So it's a much more evidence based approach to gathering information.
And one of the challenges with police work, I guess
is often I'm given a theory or I'm given an accusation,
and I'll simply look for evidence to support what I'm
being told as distinct from what does the evidence tell me,
and as a conclusion of that, I can then charge

(01:10:57):
or not charge, as the case may be, but political
correctness runs its mery role in that as well, and
there's a lot of people charged simply because people don't
want to have to answer questions as to why charges
weren't laid. So it's not necessarily justifiable, but that's the
system we're now living in.

Speaker 2 (01:11:16):
If this the moment's thought, if there was one thing,
one thing that you could influence and have altered in
the field that concerns you, or even even beyond it
in this country, one thing, what would it be? Well,
I think my list is probably too long to be one.
It's got to be one. I'll put this on hold

(01:11:37):
if you want. Why do you think you need to?

Speaker 3 (01:11:40):
I think one of the things that I've seen a
lot of that I don't think has has I think
has resulted in some very perverse and bad outcomes, is
political knee jerk reactions to law making. So I think,
and I've done some law making, and I've also been

(01:12:02):
at the receiving end of what bad lawmaking can do
in terms of, you know, seeing how that plays out
in our role now as private investigators.

Speaker 4 (01:12:11):
But when political decisions.

Speaker 3 (01:12:17):
That are very much based on knee jerk reactions. It's
often a case of the unintended consequence of the law
rather than what the law is actually intended to do.

Speaker 4 (01:12:29):
And I think we have a lot of law now
where the.

Speaker 3 (01:12:33):
Unintended consequences are far more dire than the problem they
are actually put there to serve. And I think there
is a big disconnect between a lot of lawmakers and
the reality of what happens when those unintended consequences tend
to play out on the street. And that disconnect is
it's hard for people to recognize, but it is there.

(01:12:56):
So I would say the one thing that I would
would if I could have any change in it, would
be it would be that that make political lawmaking for
political reasons as distinct for law making because it's in
the best interests of improving society.

Speaker 2 (01:13:18):
Mike, great, talking to you. Thank you, You're most welcome. Well,
here we are for podcasting number three hundred and fourteen,

(01:13:39):
which is the well the final mail room of the
year for twenty twenty five. Missus producer high later. Has
it gone fast or slow?

Speaker 5 (01:13:50):
Bits of it have gone fast, bits of it have
gone slowly.

Speaker 2 (01:13:53):
Yeah, I mean I would have life. I suppose I
would have said given the same borer answer.

Speaker 5 (01:13:57):
Action as with everyone. I'm sure yes.

Speaker 2 (01:14:01):
Anyway, we we've got a stack of mail which we've
had to carve back a little because there's a bit
more than we can handle. But the others can be left,
I think for twenty twenty six. Now, would you like
to beget yeah?

Speaker 5 (01:14:16):
I will Tony says. I was busy cutting firewood today
listening to you and William Happer, great podcast, by the way,
thank you. I realized that this great guy is in
my town and going to talk in about an hour,
and couldn't believe my luck. Listening to William, I was thinking,
he's all about science and very unusual looking symbols and equations,

(01:14:36):
and yes, he did form the presentation in a good
and understandable package. It seems to me that the climate
debarcle is more about philosophy ideas that have sought out
a scientific narrative that suits them and buggers all the
rest of us. I'm encouraged by the recent pushback against
the devolutionists. I'm a younger guy, thankfully not indoctrinated, probably

(01:14:58):
because of people like you. Thank you, and Merry Christmas
to you.

Speaker 2 (01:15:02):
He's got a business in taupo.

Speaker 4 (01:15:05):
Yes he does.

Speaker 5 (01:15:06):
What is it safe haven? Secure?

Speaker 2 (01:15:08):
He is limited, as security is important in life, he
deserves he deserves a primo. Yeah, very good from Steve.
Your chat with Will Happer was a perfect ord'uv to
actually meeting and listening to him at his seminar in
Clevesland on Thursday afternoon. That was the very first one

(01:15:29):
he gave and he only arrived that morning. He gave
a fascinating talk to a more than full house, an
eighty six year old dynamo with a piercing intellect, equally
piercing blue eyes, and he's one of those people who,
even in a thirty second conversation, gives you their full,

(01:15:49):
undivided attention, a rare quality and the sort of towering
mind that we just don't come across on more than
a handful of occasions in life. The so called climate scientists,
who spend their lives gazing at computer screens regurgitating the
garbage that they fed into them, would do well to
meet Professor and perhaps learn what real science is. And

(01:16:11):
on that note, it's telling that to my knowledge, no
current politicians in New Zealand have met him. Best wishes
from Steve ps I love the quip about before we
work on artificial intelligence, why don't we do something about
natural stupidity? Very busy past I.

Speaker 5 (01:16:33):
Yes, leyton Jen says, I chuckled when Dr William Happer
said of climate change that there's something funny about this
branch of science. Indeed, I found it funny that at
COP thirty this year the air conditioning malfunction, the toilets
were unable to flush toilet paper and the venue caught fire.
After thirty years of the annual UN climate drivel, it

(01:16:53):
appears that man made incompetence is more dangerous than any
change in climate. This is the thing. Climate alarmism DIVERTSS
from real problems, and these diversions can cost lives. In
his Spectator Australia article The End of the Climate Cult,
author Matt Ridley reminded us that weather events killed just

(01:17:13):
two two hundred people globally in the first half of
this year, a record low, whereas indoor air pollution caused
by poor people cooking over wood fires because they lack
access to gas and electricity, kills three million a year.
The climatastrophe has been a terrible mistake. It diverted attention

(01:17:34):
from real environmental problems, cost a fortune, poverished consumers, perpetuated poverty,
frightened young people into infertility, wasted years of our time,
undermine democracy, and corrupted science. Time to bury the parrot.
And then Jen goes on to say, have a well
deserved break later, you deserve it. Have a blessed Christmas

(01:17:55):
in New Year. Thank you so much.

Speaker 2 (01:17:57):
What no reference to you.

Speaker 5 (01:17:59):
We did, actually, but I just took me off because
it's all about you later.

Speaker 2 (01:18:02):
No, it's not now, Paul writes, greeting Slaton and Carolyn,
Hope you are well. I tried to send you a
fifteen second video clip, but it wouldn't go through. Here
is what DJ Trump said in his last cabinet meeting
for the year.

Speaker 4 (01:18:19):
Quote.

Speaker 2 (01:18:20):
I ended the Green new scam. They call it the
Green new Scam, one of the greatest scams in the
history of our country. They talked about global warming at
all that crap, at all they have done to this country.
Close quote I'm sure you've watched the entire meeting, not
short but phenomenal. No, I haven't, actually, but I may

(01:18:41):
very well do. At this point. What is there not
to like about Donald Trump? At his age, the energy,
and the logical leadership. People just have to watch different
media to get any sort of context. Read the man.
They that is his cabinet clearly have a culture. His
humor and charm just leaves me cracking up. This Trump

(01:19:02):
government is clearly getting the job done at Anyone who
sees it a different way is misinformed and perhaps delusional.
I love your work to yours, Paul.

Speaker 5 (01:19:13):
Leighton. Paul says this piece, and he attaches Brownstone a sewer,
not a swamp. This piece, Paul points to the ever
present storm that is raging in American political machinations at present.
I'm an optimist, so I still place trust in George
Friedman's forecast of a renaissance in America with the arrival

(01:19:35):
of his predicted calm. Nonetheless, this is a disconcerting time
in global history. I still have faith in Trump, but
also respect Marjorie Taylor Green. I hope Trump can self
correct as he has done before. PS. The podcast with
Dr William Happer was brilliant.

Speaker 2 (01:19:54):
Very good. Just with regard to Marjorie Taylor Green, I've
mixed and minced over her over the last few years,
and I'm in the end. I've just decided them go away.
I think that's what I've decided anyway. Now. The following
comes from one of the three authors of the two books.

(01:20:18):
Climate Actually New Zealand is all and the Book, of
Course was all. The books were published in New Zealand
and elsewhere through Amazon is from Alan Alan Trotter from Tawanger.
Congratulations on creating a most interesting and provoking interview with
leading USA climate academic Professor William Happer. You got most

(01:20:42):
significant issues covered, which is not easy. And because this
was written before he had been to a meeting he
ISSI attended TALPO. I'm going to suggest to Professor Happer
at talpo's presentation that he issued an invitation to the
New Zealand government on behalf of all rural and other

(01:21:03):
business owners New Zealand taxpayers that if the New zeald
government is not prepared to withdraw from the Paris Accord forthwith,
just like the US has recently done on Happer's advice
in light of the climate information about net zero emission
targets attainment, then the New Zealand government must issue an unconditional,

(01:21:29):
irrevocable undertaking to refund all ets taxes paid by any
New Zealander. Once his predictions are verified, I believe New Zealand.
I believe the New Zealand government then has to come clean.
Either admit their mistake and withdraw from the Paris Accord
to prevent billions being paid in ultimate error to Paris,

(01:21:51):
or stick with their decision and endure a contingent liability
into the future which ultimately will have to be refunded
to all New Zealand taxpayers. A government can't have it
both ways. It makes government put its money where its
mouth now is. Don't forget forget Allen that this money
is not the government's money. Actually it's our money, taxpayers money.

Speaker 5 (01:22:16):
Layden tim says, thank you for bringing us doctor William Happer.
He was a great listen. Unfortunately, the Green Party, Labor
Party and too many in the current government, alongside the
teacher unions and other aligned groups will not bother to
go and listen to him or encourage holidaying students to
a lost opportunity. One of the great frustrations of the

(01:22:37):
last ten years has been the vilification of primary industry,
especially cattle and sheep farming, by the socialists. The so
called representative bodies for New Zealand farmers let their levy
payers and members down by not standing up to the
government of the time. In my humble opinion, climate science
was devised by our elite overlords to invent another way

(01:23:00):
to taxis mere mortals. As for the supposed one hundred
and eighty degree U turn by Bill Gates and Tony Blair, again,
in my opinion, there's cynical control freaks who chase the money.
They're sensing the public mood is changing and want to
be ahead of the curve so they can clip the
ticket and maintain control. Their respective foundations need deep scrutiny,

(01:23:24):
and Tim says regards and compliments of the season. Anti
you Tim, Thank.

Speaker 2 (01:23:28):
You Tim Bagadgew have been catching up on your podcast
and in particular number three eleven with Lord David Wilson.
He recalls many occasions of the persecution of Jewish people,
not just in the Middle East, and that reminded me
of a memorial I saw whilst visiting York in England
recently see below. What what he's got below is a

(01:23:52):
photo that he's taken of it with the inscription which
is as you can see, missus producer on such an
angle and so I won't read it. I'll have a
go when I get there. It memorializes the sacrifice of
some one fifty Jews who sought protection within the Royal
Castle that is Clifford's Tower at York on sixteen March

(01:24:17):
eleven ninety eleven ninety from a mob incited by Richard Malabise,
one of the several of the city's noblemen, who noted
the rise of antisemitism within the community and saw this
as an opportunity to rid themselves of their debts owed
to the Jewish money lenders. He offered them free passage

(01:24:40):
if they renounced their faith, but they chose to take
their own lives rather than take up his offer. Those
that did and sought mercy from the Christians were slaughtered,
and the mobs subsequently destroyed the records of their debt
that were held at york Minster. The stone memorial plarque
was put in place in nineteen seventy eight. Here is

(01:25:02):
a link to more information about this event if you're interested.
It would seem that not all violent toward Jewish population
is born of the hatred of their faith, but also
by the greed of men. Now wish you and this
is producer the best for the approaching festive season. Thank
you for your work, missus producer, as it is a
great source of knowledge to me as well as comfort

(01:25:25):
that not all of this world is barking mad. But
it's a terribly ugly high figure on the night. This
is the plaque on the night of Friday, sixteen March
eleven ninety some one hundred and fifty Jews and Jewesses
of York, having sought protection in the Royal Castle on

(01:25:47):
this site from a mob incited by Richard Melabise and
others chose to die at each other's hands rather than
renounce their faith. Then there is a quote from Isaiah Anyway.

Speaker 5 (01:26:03):
Lake and I've got one more, Jan says, great interview
with Stephen Rowe, a very impressive young man. We need
more people like him in our world today.

Speaker 2 (01:26:12):
I'm Jane, short and sweet Jane. Thank you and missus producer.
That will do for twenty twenty.

Speaker 5 (01:26:18):
Five another year. Back at it next to you late.

Speaker 2 (01:26:21):
You're number eight. You realize that.

Speaker 5 (01:26:24):
What ridiculous isn't it in fact? And you're happy to
carry on doing it, and you love it so much.
Goodness knows what you'd do if you didn't do this podcast.

Speaker 2 (01:26:34):
Is that a question or a statement?

Speaker 5 (01:26:37):
It's a scary question.

Speaker 2 (01:26:39):
Missus producer. Merry Christmas, and to you and and a
really great twenty twenty six and to all.

Speaker 5 (01:26:47):
The wonderful people who still listen. To be honest with you,
late and after eight years, I didn't think it would
be as as well followed as it is now after
eight years away from the radio, But you continue to
have an enormous number of people who listen and communicate
wonderful and we're very very grateful for that.

Speaker 2 (01:27:08):
The reach and every one of you.

Speaker 6 (01:27:09):
Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas.

Speaker 2 (01:27:24):
Now. It just so happens that a couple of days
after we recorded with Mike Saban, he sent me an
email and I'm going to utilize it to exit twenty
twenty five, says I found Podcasts three hundred and twelve
featuring John Elcock to be timely and very much prophetic
our government and others across the world, and our pushing

(01:27:46):
ahead with digitizing our identifying credentials such as drivers' licenses,
passports and the like. As this happens, our banking institutions
are also driving ahead with digitizing our currencies. All of
which will be sold to us as more secure, more convenient,

(01:28:07):
and of great benefit to us. That's a two East billboard,
if ever I saw one. John succinctly highlighted the darker
side of what is at play and what I believe
will foster greater levels of mistrust and fear from the
populace as we see past the shiny veneer of convenience,

(01:28:29):
in the absence of a plausible alternative, a governments here
and abroad will be enabled to exert surreptitious overreach and
unsurpassed control and surveillance over us as citizens, when combined
with central control of digital finances or Whellian like control,
is but a key stroke away. So ask yourself a question,

(01:28:54):
how many other people do you think might think along
those similar lines? Can I suggest that there are many,
many more than most people would think. Here is an
earlier article written by Michael Snyder. It came out a few,
just a few. All of these appeared in the last
week or so, let's put it that way. But this
was before Mike Saban's letter eleven signs that our world

(01:29:18):
is rapidly becoming a lot more orwellian. Now, you might
be able to pick up a few of these yourself,
but here's the list without going into the explanation of each. Firstly,
UK authorities are rolling out a countrywide facial recognition system
that will use AI facial recognition cameras to watch the

(01:29:38):
entire population. Number two. Of course, the control freaks in
the UK also monitor everything that gets posted on social media.
One British man recently found out the hard way when
he was arrested for posing with a legally owned gun
in the United States. Number three. If you don't believe
that thought crime is real, just consider this next example.

(01:30:02):
Eleven police officers eleven of them recently barged in and
arrested a thirty four four year old woman they were
sitting naked in her own bathtub because she used offensive
words while texting another woman on her phone. Eleven of
them okay. Number four. French President Emmanuel Macron wants the

(01:30:24):
power to determine which media outlets will be allowed to
speak to the public and which media outlets would be silenced.
Number five. Because he's a champion of free speech. The
EU has been coming after Elon Musk for years, so
it shouldn't surprise any of us that the European Commission

(01:30:44):
just find his company one hundred and forty million dollars
for supposed violations of the Digital Services Act. Number six.
In recent years, we've seen so many controversial voices suddenly
have their bank account shut down. Shockingly, JP Morgan Chase
CEO Jamie Diamond is now publicly admitting that his company

(01:31:07):
does d bank people.

Speaker 4 (01:31:10):
Seven.

Speaker 2 (01:31:11):
India wants to require that phone location services are always
on so that the government can track people through their
phones wherever they go. Number eight. A journalist in the
Netherlands has tested AI powered glasses that can instantly identify
strangers in the street. Number nine. A nationwide digital ID

(01:31:34):
is being introduced in the UK and soon you will
not be able to get a new job without one.
Number ten. The digital ID program in France is moving
from pilot to scale. Now what does that mean. France's
national digital identity app, France Identity, has enabled the creation

(01:31:56):
of more than three point two million digital IDs, according
to new figures. And number eleven. In Illinois, there is
such overwhelming demand for digital IDs that some people are
being forced to wait. And let me conclude with the
rest of that. A number of residents trying to download
the digital ID to their Apple wallet received the following

(01:32:18):
message due to the high volume your state's service is
currently busy. Users can then answer the question do you
want to be notified when it becomes available? Now? This
is where the entire world is heading. As the big
Brother control grid gets tighter and tighter, the stage is
being set for unprecedented tyranny on a global scale. Tyrants

(01:32:41):
of the past could only dream of having the sort
of AI powered tools that we possess today. If you
do not submit to the digital goolag that's being constructed
all around us, eventually you will not be able to buy, sell,
get a job, open a bank account without proper digital identification.

(01:33:02):
What would you do then? And then there is a
final one that is headline or within the last few days,
Who Gates Who Dash Gates of World Health Organization Dashgates
unveils blueprint for global digital ID, AI driven surveillance and
long life vaccine tracking for everyone you want a little

(01:33:25):
more on It comes with points as well and a
document published in the October Bulletin of the World Health
Organization and funded by the Gates Foundation. The World Health
Organization that WHO is proposing a globally interoperable digital identity
infrastructure that permanently tracks every individual's vaccination status from birth.

(01:33:50):
And then there are the headings what the WHO document
admits in their own words sounds rominous a birth registered
digital identity and lifelong tracking. That actually was number one,
Number two linking vaccine records to income, ethnicity, religion and

(01:34:10):
social programs. Number three conditioning access to schooling, travel and
services on digital vaccine proof in other words, prove you've
got your digital vaccine. Number four. Using digital systems to
prevent wasting vaccine on already immune children. Five AI systems

(01:34:32):
to target individuals, identify unreached and combat misinformation. Six Global
interoperability standards for international data exchange. Seven surveillance expansion into
everyday interactions. Eight Behavior shaping through alerts, reminders, and social monitoring.

(01:34:57):
Acknowledging of global donor control includes the Gates Foundation. That's
number nine, and that's the final with the number but
then bottom line in the World Health Organizationation's own words,
digital transformation is a unique opportunity to address many long
standing challenges in immunization. Now is the time for bold

(01:35:19):
new approaches, and stakeholders should embrace digital transformation as an
enabler for achieving the ambitious Immunization Agenda twenty thirty goals,
and the article concludes this is a comprehensive proposal for
a global digital identity system permanently linked to vaccine status,

(01:35:42):
integrated with demographic and socioeconomic data, enforced through AI driven surveillance,
and designed for international interruptability. It is not speculative, but
written in plain language, funded by the Gates Foundation and
published in the World Health Organization's owned journal. Now, if

(01:36:04):
you're all for one of those things, then you're listening
to the wrong podcast. But I don't think there is
anybody that would fall into that category. And that's something
that we can all dwell on over the next few
weeks as we all take a break because that takes
us out for podcasts number three hundred and fourteen. It's
been a pleasure. If you would like to write to us,

(01:36:26):
correspond with us Latent at newstalksb dot co dot nzied
or Carolyn at newstalksb dot co dot nz. It has
been one of those years where when you look back,
as Carolyn was saying earlier in the mail room, you
look back and you think, Wow, that was some ride.
It certainly had plenty of ups and downs for some

(01:36:48):
of us. So we shall return in early February ish,
but we will of course be broadcasting or rebroadcasting if
you want some of the best of over the last
twelve months. I might even throw in one or two
others from earlier in the piece. We've got some collection
now and then may I wish you all again compliments

(01:37:10):
of the season. I hope you have a wonderful break
whatever you're doing. If you're having a break, of course,
not everybody does. And we shall look forward to making
contact yet again in twenty twenty six. Why don't you
try something interesting, Why don't you draw up a list

(01:37:30):
of events that you think might come to fruition in
twenty twenty six, whatever they have to do with with
international matters, with local matters, whatever. A drop a list.
I don't care how many you put in it, but
keep it to ten. If you can get that fire
and email it to me before we come back on

(01:37:53):
air next year, and we can have some fun with
that and see how people are feeling. But that would
be great if you did that. So latent at us
talks at e dot co dot Nzen Carol and at
us Talks at B dot co dot nz and we'll talk.

Speaker 1 (01:38:08):
So 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

All Episodes

Leighton Smith Podcast #314 - December 10th 2025 - Mike Sabin

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

Dateline NBC

.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 #314 - December 10th 2025 - Mike Sabin