March 13, 2025 • 11 mins
Tonight on The Huddle, AUT chancellor Rob Campbell and Jordan Williams from the Taxpayers' Union joined in on a discussion about the following issues of the day - and more!
Is it time to change how we vote in local elections? Kiwi mayors are pushing for an end to postal voting? Do we think we need a change?
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians is warning that the changes to the free bowel screening programme aren't based on good evidence - and put Māori and Pacific lives at risk. What do we make of this?
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The huddle with New Zealand Southeby's International Realty Find You're
one of the kind. Rob Campbell, aut chancellor and former
Boss of Health, ends edits with us tonight. Hey Rob, Hey, Ryan,
how are you good? Thank you? Jordan Williams is here
two Taxpayers Union evening. Jordan.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Get a Ryan.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Now let's start with I don't even know whether well, yeah,
the local election thing, just because we're talking to next Smith.
For me, it's a no brainer, and I would rather
I didn't even ask him how much it costs, because honestly,
I just don't care. I think local government is the
neglected poor cousin of central government, and that's because no
one bothers to vote for it, and we should be.
(00:38):
So anything they can do to help robody reckon.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Yeah, I think anything we can do to get those
numbers up is really good. Obviously, Postal voting is a
thing of history. Really, as long as they make a
real effort to get out into communities to make it
easy for people to get to vote and explain it, well,
I'm fully in favor of making that change. I understand
(01:02):
Marise are quite good at collecting votes. Ryan that much.
Another way to go about it and.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
To copy them. Wait, was that a joke, Rob, I'm without.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
Oh you know me, Ryan, it was partly a no.
A are actually very good at doing that kind of thing.
And one thing I did object to about what Nick
Smith was saying was that orange man and his dog
annoyed the hell out of me. I prefer to have
the stick man that does the supermarket ads personally do.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
I'm not even sure we can call it a man
these days either, because it didn't have any genitalia. So
it's very unsure, very uncertain, Jordan, what do you reckon?
Speaker 2 (01:39):
This is getting a bit intellectual for me.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Of course, my understanding was we moved postal voting to
increase turnout. I think it's a strange argument that al
Jean's in are making, but I actually support the measure.
The bigger question around postal voting the integrity and security
(02:03):
of the system. I suspect requiring people to turn up
like national elections may actually reduce turnout, but if it
means you've got more confidence in the end result. And
there's been a few examples in recent years where real,
just private facing, you know, things really haven't looked right,
(02:23):
and there's been suspicions of funny business.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
That's worthwhile.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
But of course it's logical that local body turnout would
be lower because until you own property, you don't really
have the main interface with local government, and that is
paying right.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
No, I get that, But you're saying, if it's take
away the postal and go into your local town hall,
that would lower turnout. I think it would. I would
anything it would increase turnout, or at least stay the
same moment. I can't think of anyone in my life
like my grandma. She does voting, but she would just
go into the town hall.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
You know.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
The idea was that it gave you longer to vote.
You know that you got it in the mail. You
could do it at any time. The thing is having
an election day, we have to go along and on
a certain day. The idea was when we moved to
postal voting, that it would increase turnout. I think it's
strange to make the same argument going back, although having
(03:24):
said that, I mean, you're right, we post.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
This conflicted today, Jordan, don't you.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Of course, Jordan, I guess if we prioritize the post
office should be happy because it'll be generating income for it.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Wouldn't there we go. We'll come back in a second
because I want to ask you both about I'm really
genuinely interested to get to the bottom of what's going
on with our bows screening program and whether the role
of the health system is to try and save the
biggest number you know, that have the best impact on
the largest number of people or not. Rob Campbell and
(04:00):
Jordan Williams. Next the huddle with.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
New Zealand Southeby's International Realty the ones with Local and
Global Reach.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
News Talk ZB. It is quarter to six. Now the
government is lowering the age for everybody for bow screening,
for bow cancer screening to fifty eight. Now, that is
an expensive thing to do. To do that, they have
a cutting a program that had lowered the age for
Marty and Pacifica down to fifty. I asked Simeon Brown
(04:30):
last week. Are Marty and Pacifica more predisposed to bow cancer?
And this is what he said.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
No.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
The advice is that bow cancer risk is similar similar
across all population groups at the same age, so that
that's the even right that we've presented by the Ministry
of Health.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Now, Rob Campbell, aut Chancellor, the former Health and Z
Boss Jordan Williams. Taxpayers in there on the huddle tonight, guys,
welcome back. So we've had physicians come out today and
say the Royal Australia College A physicians say that's not
the case. What do you make of this, Rob.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Well, either the Minister has misinterpreted what the Ministry was saying,
or the ministry was not telling him the truth. There's
only those two possibilities. The idea and the policy which
was adopted of the lower age for mary and Pacifica
came as a result of years of research across a
(05:28):
whole wide range of researchers. It was not an ideological thing.
It was a health decision that we now know that
if Maria Pacifica are not getting that earlier bowl screening
more mari and Pacifica people will die. That's a fact.
That's just a fact. There's no guesswork in that, there's
(05:48):
no modeling involved in it. I don't know what piece
of modeling the Minister got the Ministry to do. I
hope that the Ministry didn't pander to him in terms
of the policy he wanted to adopt, although we are
seeing signs of that across the public service. But there's
no question at all, there would be no reputable health
professional who will argue that the change that has been
(06:11):
made does not lead to more Mari and pacifica men
dying in bell cancer.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
Now, well that's the interest, so Jordan, the question is
whether that's a genetic predisposition. I think we all all
agree on that, and I don't clearly. I mean, I
push a pen run for a living on a lawyer
by background, I don't know the.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Answer to that.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
I asked Ai before coming on here, knowing this would
come up. And the evidence does look pretty mixed, less
so with Mara, but particularly with Pacific communities according to
a chap GBT. But I mean, you would certainly hope
that the advice the minister is getting isn't politicized. I
suspect though. The issue is there are areas of health
(06:54):
where there's not genetic predispositions, but still some racial preference
is and I think that drives a bit of a
mistrust in this issue, which is why we have the
sitt of debate, because I think most people would agree that,
you know, in the health is one of the few
areas where race can make a difference in terms of
(07:16):
the necessity or eligibility to public services. That is an
evidential question though, and I mean you would hope you
What can the minister do other than rely on officials?
Speaker 2 (07:30):
And that's a bit the minister asking the ministry is
a bit like the way you asked chatch Pete question,
doesn't it. And if he framed the question the right
way anticipating the well.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
We don't know that, I mean, and why would you
frame him?
Speaker 2 (07:48):
Some of the ministry suddenly reverse years of research and
years of its own advice.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
Well, we have asked the come back to us and
tell us, you know, to explain themselves basicly. But what
one thing he did save?
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Having some difficulty, aren't they?
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Yeah, Rob, What he did say is that their modeling
showed that you would save an additional by making it
lower for everyone. You would save an additional one hundred
and seventy six lives over twenty five years. So it's
possible that that you're both right, that you are that
you might be costing more Maori and Pacifica lives, but
(08:23):
overall you are saving more lives. Now that the question
is is that what a health system should do?
Speaker 2 (08:32):
We know what a health system should do is what
people always keep telling us that people should be treated
according to their health needs. And we know that in
respect to bowel cancer and screening, the health needs of
different groups of people are different. You do not create
equity by treating people all the same when their circumstances
are not the same. That's the whole skill in clinical treatment,
(08:54):
it's the whole skill in a GP's office, is to
know what kind of treatment what should be offered people
in different situations. So this whole idea that people are
just numbers, that we're all absolutely equivalent and it's the
best just to treat us all the same way is
really just outrageously against everything with healthcare, rob you or not.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
You may you may differ, though the degree to which
race can be quite a blunt instrument on that, and
that's why it depends on what condition you're talking about
and whether there is a genuine predisposition. Ryan, Just in
relation to your question about sort of saving more lives,
Health has quite a good I haven't actually dealt with
(09:38):
them much in recent years, but they used to have
a very good economics team in the quite a sophisticated modeling,
a lot like ACC in terms of determining these sorts
of trade offs between years of life and quality of life.
That's unfortunately, you know, bread and butter of public policy
people and health they do have they do model that
(10:01):
and they do it every day.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
All right, we'll leave it there. Go Rob. Did you
go down to the investment summit today?
Speaker 3 (10:09):
No?
Speaker 2 (10:10):
I didn't get my invite. But I mean, that's I'm
finding it extremely amusing. I mean, the idea that it's
some kind of victory to have people come here. If
you put an a out and say we'd like to
sell things, typically people turn up who like buying things.
And so of course there are lots of people there
with lots of money. They're scouring the world every day
to find good investment opportunities. So they would have come,
(10:31):
as they do, to look at these sorts of things,
and it's no surprise that some of them will light
up and but on things of the government office, and
of course they will else would.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
It's not well, then it's not a bad thing, is it, Jordan?
Speaker 3 (10:45):
No, No, wait and see what comes out the other
end of it. I mean, if it looks to be
really a focus just around PPPs, which is really just
that the devil is always in the detail as to
who carries what risks and whether that's There are clearly
upsides of well managed PPPs, but look, they also can
(11:06):
go wrong.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
Yeah, you think Jordan and I have one slogan we
can agree on, which and this idea that somehow governments
can avoid the cost of things by creating PPPs is
what it's called a free lunch and it doesn't exist.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Unless you're at school.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
Well, if it's a finance, it's a financing tool and
you got guaranteed revenue going for there are I disagree
with that. There are some advantages, especially if you are
able to deliver the same piece of infrastructure for cheaper
than what the government can do if it manages itself.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
All right, and we can't go into the ins and
outs of PPPs right now, we're running out of time,
but fascinating discussion. Guys, really appreciate you coming on, especially
the talk chat about how
Speaker 3 (11:48):
For more from Hither Duplessy Alan Drive Listen live to
news talks it'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
The huddle with New Zealand Southeby's International Realty Find You're
one of the kind. Rob Campbell, aut chancellor and former
Boss of Health, ends edits with us tonight. Hey Rob, Hey, Ryan,
how are you good? Thank you? Jordan Williams is here
two Taxpayers Union evening. Jordan.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Get a Ryan.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Now let's start with I don't even know whether well, yeah,
the local election thing, just because we're talking to next Smith.
For me, it's a no brainer, and I would rather
I didn't even ask him how much it costs, because honestly,
I just don't care. I think local government is the
neglected poor cousin of central government, and that's because no
one bothers to vote for it, and we should be.
(00:38):
So anything they can do to help robody reckon.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Yeah, I think anything we can do to get those
numbers up is really good. Obviously, Postal voting is a
thing of history. Really, as long as they make a
real effort to get out into communities to make it
easy for people to get to vote and explain it, well,
I'm fully in favor of making that change. I understand
(01:02):
Marise are quite good at collecting votes. Ryan that much.
Another way to go about it and.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
To copy them. Wait, was that a joke, Rob, I'm without.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
Oh you know me, Ryan, it was partly a no.
A are actually very good at doing that kind of thing.
And one thing I did object to about what Nick
Smith was saying was that orange man and his dog
annoyed the hell out of me. I prefer to have
the stick man that does the supermarket ads personally do.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
I'm not even sure we can call it a man
these days either, because it didn't have any genitalia. So
it's very unsure, very uncertain, Jordan, what do you reckon?
Speaker 2 (01:39):
This is getting a bit intellectual for me.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Of course, my understanding was we moved postal voting to
increase turnout. I think it's a strange argument that al
Jean's in are making, but I actually support the measure.
The bigger question around postal voting the integrity and security
(02:03):
of the system. I suspect requiring people to turn up
like national elections may actually reduce turnout, but if it
means you've got more confidence in the end result. And
there's been a few examples in recent years where real,
just private facing, you know, things really haven't looked right,
(02:23):
and there's been suspicions of funny business.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
That's worthwhile.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
But of course it's logical that local body turnout would
be lower because until you own property, you don't really
have the main interface with local government, and that is
paying right.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
No, I get that, But you're saying, if it's take
away the postal and go into your local town hall,
that would lower turnout. I think it would. I would
anything it would increase turnout, or at least stay the
same moment. I can't think of anyone in my life
like my grandma. She does voting, but she would just
go into the town hall.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
You know.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
The idea was that it gave you longer to vote.
You know that you got it in the mail. You
could do it at any time. The thing is having
an election day, we have to go along and on
a certain day. The idea was when we moved to
postal voting, that it would increase turnout. I think it's
strange to make the same argument going back, although having
(03:24):
said that, I mean, you're right, we post.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
This conflicted today, Jordan, don't you.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Of course, Jordan, I guess if we prioritize the post
office should be happy because it'll be generating income for it.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
Wouldn't there we go. We'll come back in a second
because I want to ask you both about I'm really
genuinely interested to get to the bottom of what's going
on with our bows screening program and whether the role
of the health system is to try and save the
biggest number you know, that have the best impact on
the largest number of people or not. Rob Campbell and
(04:00):
Jordan Williams. Next the huddle with.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
New Zealand Southeby's International Realty the ones with Local and
Global Reach.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
News Talk ZB. It is quarter to six. Now the
government is lowering the age for everybody for bow screening,
for bow cancer screening to fifty eight. Now, that is
an expensive thing to do. To do that, they have
a cutting a program that had lowered the age for
Marty and Pacifica down to fifty. I asked Simeon Brown
(04:30):
last week. Are Marty and Pacifica more predisposed to bow cancer?
And this is what he said.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
No.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
The advice is that bow cancer risk is similar similar
across all population groups at the same age, so that
that's the even right that we've presented by the Ministry
of Health.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Now, Rob Campbell, aut Chancellor, the former Health and Z
Boss Jordan Williams. Taxpayers in there on the huddle tonight, guys,
welcome back. So we've had physicians come out today and
say the Royal Australia College A physicians say that's not
the case. What do you make of this, Rob.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Well, either the Minister has misinterpreted what the Ministry was saying,
or the ministry was not telling him the truth. There's
only those two possibilities. The idea and the policy which
was adopted of the lower age for mary and Pacifica
came as a result of years of research across a
(05:28):
whole wide range of researchers. It was not an ideological thing.
It was a health decision that we now know that
if Maria Pacifica are not getting that earlier bowl screening
more mari and Pacifica people will die. That's a fact.
That's just a fact. There's no guesswork in that, there's
(05:48):
no modeling involved in it. I don't know what piece
of modeling the Minister got the Ministry to do. I
hope that the Ministry didn't pander to him in terms
of the policy he wanted to adopt, although we are
seeing signs of that across the public service. But there's
no question at all, there would be no reputable health
professional who will argue that the change that has been
(06:11):
made does not lead to more Mari and pacifica men
dying in bell cancer.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
Now, well that's the interest, so Jordan, the question is
whether that's a genetic predisposition. I think we all all
agree on that, and I don't clearly. I mean, I
push a pen run for a living on a lawyer
by background, I don't know the.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Answer to that.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
I asked Ai before coming on here, knowing this would
come up. And the evidence does look pretty mixed, less
so with Mara, but particularly with Pacific communities according to
a chap GBT. But I mean, you would certainly hope
that the advice the minister is getting isn't politicized. I
suspect though. The issue is there are areas of health
(06:54):
where there's not genetic predispositions, but still some racial preference
is and I think that drives a bit of a
mistrust in this issue, which is why we have the
sitt of debate, because I think most people would agree that,
you know, in the health is one of the few
areas where race can make a difference in terms of
(07:16):
the necessity or eligibility to public services. That is an
evidential question though, and I mean you would hope you
What can the minister do other than rely on officials?
Speaker 2 (07:30):
And that's a bit the minister asking the ministry is
a bit like the way you asked chatch Pete question,
doesn't it. And if he framed the question the right
way anticipating the well.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
We don't know that, I mean, and why would you
frame him?
Speaker 2 (07:48):
Some of the ministry suddenly reverse years of research and
years of its own advice.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
Well, we have asked the come back to us and
tell us, you know, to explain themselves basicly. But what
one thing he did save?
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Having some difficulty, aren't they?
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Yeah, Rob, What he did say is that their modeling
showed that you would save an additional by making it
lower for everyone. You would save an additional one hundred
and seventy six lives over twenty five years. So it's
possible that that you're both right, that you are that
you might be costing more Maori and Pacifica lives, but
(08:23):
overall you are saving more lives. Now that the question
is is that what a health system should do?
Speaker 2 (08:32):
We know what a health system should do is what
people always keep telling us that people should be treated
according to their health needs. And we know that in
respect to bowel cancer and screening, the health needs of
different groups of people are different. You do not create
equity by treating people all the same when their circumstances
are not the same. That's the whole skill in clinical treatment,
(08:54):
it's the whole skill in a GP's office, is to
know what kind of treatment what should be offered people
in different situations. So this whole idea that people are
just numbers, that we're all absolutely equivalent and it's the
best just to treat us all the same way is
really just outrageously against everything with healthcare, rob you or not.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
You may you may differ, though the degree to which
race can be quite a blunt instrument on that, and
that's why it depends on what condition you're talking about
and whether there is a genuine predisposition. Ryan, Just in
relation to your question about sort of saving more lives,
Health has quite a good I haven't actually dealt with
(09:38):
them much in recent years, but they used to have
a very good economics team in the quite a sophisticated modeling,
a lot like ACC in terms of determining these sorts
of trade offs between years of life and quality of life.
That's unfortunately, you know, bread and butter of public policy
people and health they do have they do model that
(10:01):
and they do it every day.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
All right, we'll leave it there. Go Rob. Did you
go down to the investment summit today?
Speaker 3 (10:09):
No?
Speaker 2 (10:10):
I didn't get my invite. But I mean, that's I'm
finding it extremely amusing. I mean, the idea that it's
some kind of victory to have people come here. If
you put an a out and say we'd like to
sell things, typically people turn up who like buying things.
And so of course there are lots of people there
with lots of money. They're scouring the world every day
to find good investment opportunities. So they would have come,
(10:31):
as they do, to look at these sorts of things,
and it's no surprise that some of them will light
up and but on things of the government office, and
of course they will else would.
Speaker 1 (10:41):
It's not well, then it's not a bad thing, is it, Jordan?
Speaker 3 (10:45):
No, No, wait and see what comes out the other
end of it. I mean, if it looks to be
really a focus just around PPPs, which is really just
that the devil is always in the detail as to
who carries what risks and whether that's There are clearly
upsides of well managed PPPs, but look, they also can
(11:06):
go wrong.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
Yeah, you think Jordan and I have one slogan we
can agree on, which and this idea that somehow governments
can avoid the cost of things by creating PPPs is
what it's called a free lunch and it doesn't exist.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Unless you're at school.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
Well, if it's a finance, it's a financing tool and
you got guaranteed revenue going for there are I disagree
with that. There are some advantages, especially if you are
able to deliver the same piece of infrastructure for cheaper
than what the government can do if it manages itself.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
All right, and we can't go into the ins and
outs of PPPs right now, we're running out of time,
but fascinating discussion. Guys, really appreciate you coming on, especially
the talk chat about how
Speaker 3 (11:48):
For more from Hither Duplessy Alan Drive Listen live to
news talks it'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com