Leighton Smith Podcast #252 - August 21th 2024 - Dr Stephen Rainbow - The Leighton Smith Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from news talks it B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the Attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of the US Now the
Laighton Smith podcast Power by news.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Talks it B.

Speaker 3 (00:28):
Welcome to podcast two hundred and fifty two for August
twenty one, twenty twenty four. Centerpiece in two five to
two is a lengthy discussion with Stephen Rainbow, the newly
appointed Chief of the Human Rights Commission. Arguably the most
critical issue involves the right to freedom of speech based
on freedom of thought. Just how important freedom of speech

(00:52):
is is reflected in headlines and stories from all over
the planet, specifically those countries known as the West or
Democratic countries. Virtually every day you will find if you
go looking, and sometimes you don't even have to look for,
you'll find examples of the battles that are underway in
various parts of the world. For example, from this week's

(01:13):
Spectator Australia comes the story of Dave Pellow. Dave Pellow
is the founder of CSA Church and State Australia. He
faces a complaint put before the Queensland Human Rights Commission
accusing him of racism and vilification. He is being forced
into a legal battle after he replaced the Welcomed country

(01:36):
message with some twenty four to one church and state
conferences led by Pello open with the ode to God's
ownership of the land instead of the now common welcome
to country message. Explaining reasons for the allegations, he said,
I quote Psalm twenty four to one, which contradicts the
claims of Aboriginal religion that the spiritual entity it calls

(01:58):
country requires deceased ancestors to permit someone's arrival or travel
through it. If that's racist, he asks, isn't criticizing Christian
belief's racism too. The complaint also found fault with Dave's
thirty minute presentation. Pello allegedly failed to fall in line
and give voice and visibility to events such as invasion Day.

(02:23):
You get the picture. We seem to be in a
similar situation in New Zealand with regard to similar matters,
the status of water being the latest that is a
subject to shall we say, different opinions. But before we
get to David Rainbow, there is another matter that I
want to raise I received yesterday morning a press release,
a media release from the University of Auckland. Does climate

(02:45):
reporting make a difference? Let me quote Some of the
New Zealand's biggest companies submitted their first mandatory climate related
disclosures this year, but a new study shows disclosure does
not guarantee better behavior. This year, New Zealand became among
the first countries in the world to force note the
word force their largest companies and financial institutions, about two

(03:10):
hundred in all, to disclose their climate related risks and
opportunities in their annual reports and make regulatory filings. But
do these kinds of initiatives improve environmental outcomes? A new
study co authored by Professor Chald D. Villier from the
University of Auckland Business School finds that mandating social and

(03:31):
environmental disclosures does not improve business's performance. What a surprise.
Professor DeVillier and his fellow researchers examined the effects of
a prominent EU sustainability reporting initiative, which came into effect
in twenty seventeen. The legislation requires large companies to report
their performance on non financial matters, including environmental issues, social

(03:55):
and employee matters, human rights, anti corruption, and bribery. But
after analyzing a cross country sample of businesses between two
thousand nine and twenty twenty, the researchers found that social
and environmental outcomes did not meaningfully improve after the directive.
Despite the regulatory push, European companies did not exhibit substantial

(04:19):
improvements in their social and environmental performance. The findings are surprising,
says debilias It's important that we don't assume that if
we force companies to disclose information, they are actually going
to do better by the environment and people. One could
make many, many comments on this. This is a prime

(04:39):
example of the authoritarian tentacles that we're being subjected to
on a greater basis in all areas of life. It
is social activism when it comes to matters to do
with climate. Actually let me let me bypass that and
be more inclusive. The legislation requires large companies to report
their performance on non financial matters, including I'm repeating environmental issues,

(05:05):
social and employee matters, human rights, anti corruption, and bribery,
most of which, if not all, has very little to do,
if anything, with what a company's job is. What the
purpose of a company is There is much more to
be said on this, and I'm going to include it

(05:25):
at the end of the podcast because it will help
explain why this approach to life is a nonsense. And
by the way, Stephen Rainbow makes commentary on an aspect
of this as you'll see, not so much of business,
but an aspect of universities and what their role is

(05:47):
or is not, and where their failings are, of which
there are many. But let me leave you with a
headlined at the moment, want more freedom of speech, try
less government, Stephen Rainbow. Next, there are essential fat nutrients
that we need in our diet as the body cart

(06:09):
manufacture them. These are omega three and Amega six fatty acids.
Equisine is a combination of fish oil and virgin evening
primrose oil, a formula that provides an excellent source of
Omega three and Omega six fatty acids in their naturally
existing ratios. The omega six from evening primrose oil assists
the omega three fish oil to be more effective. Equisine

(06:32):
is a high quality fish oil supplement enriched with evening
primrose oil that works synergistically for comprehensive health support. Source
from the deep sea sardines. Anchovisa magrol provide essential Amiga
three fatty acids in their purest form without any internal
organs or toxins. Every batch is tested for its purity
before it's allowed to be sold. Equisine supports cells to

(06:54):
be flexible, so important to support healthy blood flow and
overall cardiovascular health. Equisine can support mood balance and mental
clarity and focus in children, all the way to supporting
stiff joints, mental focus, health and healthy eyes as we
get older. Equas in as a premium high grade fish
and evening primrose oil to be taken in addition to

(07:16):
a healthy diet and is only available from pharmacies and
health stores. Always read the label and users directed and
if symptoms persist, see your healthcare professional. Farmer Broker Auckland.
The Human Rights Commission is an independent Crown entity established
under the Human Rights Ack and the Crown Entities Act.

(07:37):
The Commission works with the government and civil society to
advocate and promote respect for human rights and to promote
harmonious relations in New Zealand. As set outs in Section
nineteen of the Human Rights Act, the Commission has a
duty to carry out its functions independently of the government.
Section five of the Human Rights Act provides that the

(07:58):
Commission's primary functions are no advocates and promote respect for
and understanding and depreciation of human rights in New Zealand society.
Encourage the maintenance and development of harmonious relations between individuals
and among the diverse groups in New Zealand society. To
promote racial equality and cultural diversity. To promote equal employment opportunities,

(08:21):
including pay equity. To promote and protect the full and
equal enjoyment of human rights by persons with disabilities. Functions
of the Chief Commissioner include chairing the Commission and leading
discussions of the Commission, except when it is the function
of a Commissioner to do so. Ensuring that the activities

(08:41):
undertaken in the performance of the Commission's functions are consistent
with the strategic direction and other determinations of the Commission,
which one presumes vary from time to time. And ensuring
that the Commission is effective and efficient in carrying out
its functions. Now I have to say that those functions

(09:02):
of the Chief Commissioner sound well open to interpretation, a
little vague maybe so. Stephen Rainbow, congratulations on your appointment
welcome to the Latensmith Podcast. I'm appreciative of the fact
that you made the time available. How do you, as
a first question, how do you interpret your role as
the Chief Commissioner of the New Zealand Human Rights Commission.

Speaker 2 (09:26):
First of all, thank you Layton for the opportunity to
appear on your podcast and to have this discussion. And
can I say it's probably something of a relief to
be able to talk about things in a little more
detail than the sound bites which have dominated discussion around

(09:47):
these appointments to date, So really look forward to that opportunity.
The Human Rights Commission was established in seventy seven and
so I hope it's not too use a response to
say that as it heads to its fiftieth birthday and

(10:07):
twenty twenty seven, when the new group of commissioners will
be in charge, I think it's a really good opportunity
to actually address precisely your question, which is what are
the strategic priorities of the Commission? What are the key
human rights issues that we are facing as a country,
And if I could just give you a couple of

(10:29):
immediate perspectives on that from where I come from. Apart
from the fact that there are real challenges around issues
like the impact on human rights from artificial intelligence. For example,
if you look at the international literature on human rights,
things like AI loom very large. My first point, my

(10:49):
second point. I suspect that the context for this review
of our strategic priorities and our work over the years
ahead needs ideally to be focused on how we go
about and what role we might have in fostering the
social cohesion which seems to have been lost. And I

(11:12):
say that because there is nothing that makes human rights
more vulnerable than a divided, polarized society. I've spent a
good part latent of my adult life exploring and researching history,
in particular the Holocaust, and it really alarms me to

(11:35):
see some of the patterns that occur in societies where
totalitarianism and authoritarianism flourish, because one of those patterns is
a polarized and divided society, whether it's the Soviets in
nineteen seventeen, or Russia, I shou'd say in nineteen seventeen,

(11:57):
whether it's a Nazis in Germany in the early thirties.
And I think we've got a real role, and I
can't see anyone else in such a strong position to
actually look at what we need to do as a
nation to foster social cohesion and perhaps to focus more
on what it is that we have in common rather

(12:18):
than what separates us.

Speaker 3 (12:21):
You, as I read the Commission, and your position as
chief is independent of the government and is meant to
operate that way. Where does it leave you with regard
to advice to the government, either when asked for or
even when not so.

Speaker 2 (12:41):
On the point of political independence, I just want to
tell you very briefly about my background later, which is
that I helped to form the Green Party in nineteen
ninety and I was the first person elected a New
Zealand and a Green ticket, and I was a Wellington
City councilor for nine years. Subsequently, I have worked with
people across the political spectrum to progress a range of issues, including,

(13:06):
for example, the funding of the City rail Link, Auban's
underground railway. All of these activities that I've been involved
in have been dependent on being able to work with
people across the political spectrum, and I would hope that's
one of the reasons I've been appointed to this role.
That doesn't answer your question. The fact is that this
is an independent statutory role and one of the things

(13:30):
that I will have to use very judiciously is the
potential to influence public debate around issues that I think
government should be addressing. And I might give you an
example of that if I may, although I need to
emphasize I haven't even met with the Commission yet and
I don't start in the role for a couple of

(13:52):
months yet. If we look at what's happened in Australia
as a result of the Middle East conflict, Prime Minister
Albanesi recently decried the fact that the level of social intolerance,
the destruction of social cohesion, the amount of violence and
protest I really have led to a most unfortunate situation

(14:14):
in Australia, and he has as one of the results
of that appointed and emissary on anti Semitism. If I
look at what's happening in New Zealand, I think it's
not far removed, at least in our major cities, from
what has happened in Australia. And I think one of
the things that I might, for example, want to pursue

(14:35):
when I get my feet under the desk is talking
an advert advocating to this government that we need to
do something more active in the space of fighting anti
Semitism as has occurred in Australia of late.

Speaker 3 (14:48):
As far as you're concerned, what has led to that
situation arising?

Speaker 2 (14:53):
That situation has arisen because of people's intense feelings about
what is happening in the Middle East, and I think
that's completely understandable. It's also arisen from the fact that
we now have a far more diverse society than we've
had in the past, with significant numbers of people from

(15:16):
communities that have a direct relationship to what's happening in
the Middle East. And I think that that helps to
explain why that has emerged. But there's also a sense,
perhaps if we were to try and look at this analytically,
that it's hard to identify at the moment a cause
that's perhaps more high profile and more immediate, with suffering

(15:41):
is so evident than what's happening in the Middle East.
It's far more understandable that people want to go out
and protest about that than about the fact that you
know that people are getting thumped in their shops in Auckland,
for example, when they turn up to work because of
the antisocial activities happening there. So I think that's I

(16:04):
think it is a result of those sorts of factors.
I guess the other thing is that we're possibly a
little selective about what it is that we do protest
about in the Middle East because it's been such a
long or seems like such a long conflict has exacerbated

(16:25):
these tensions. But I do note that at the moment,
for example, that Hindu villages and Bangladesh are being burned
to the ground, but we're not seeing protests about that.
So we have this because we're part of the Western world.
We have this intense interest in what's happening in Israel
in particular, and I don't think that's going to change,
but it has created a situation where, for example, the

(16:50):
increase in anti Semitic incidents in New Zealand has increased
somewhat dramatically since last October the seventh.

Speaker 3 (17:00):
You suggested that you didn't see a headline over the
top of all this. Let me make a suggestion of one.
You're not going to have a discussion like this without
being controversial to some extent, depending on the on the recipient,
of course, but I'm going to suggest to you that

(17:21):
the situation. Actually, I want to back up. Last night,
quite by accident, we came across a documentary on.

Speaker 1 (17:31):
This exacts.

Speaker 3 (17:34):
No on this exact situation in the Middle East on
Sky Australia, and it was it was basically it was
a documentary, but it was a Q and A and
the journalist was was doing an extremely good job of
talking to people on on of all of all attitudes

(17:54):
involved in the violence that now exists in Australia, that
you are rightfully concerned about happening here. And that led
me to confirm something that I that I'd formulated not
very long ago. And I'm going to suggest to you
that the countries that we both live in different to

(18:18):
different levels or different extremes at this point of time.
But the countries we both live in, Australia and New Zealand,
the days of multiculturalism are over. Once upon a time
it was possible to have a multicultural society that ran smoothly.
Now I don't believe it is anymore. That to me
is the result of immigration policies and people of fractured

(18:43):
cultures or fractured relationships to enter the country in increasing numbers.
And when you do that you're going to get yourself
from You're going to get yourself into trouble just very quickly.
I was quite young at the time, but growing up
in Sydney, I remember distinctly the Czechoslovakian division in Sydney

(19:05):
in particular, where there were where there were bombs planted
in various homes and offices, and there were people blown up, etc.
Because they came from the same background where this problem
exists in the first place.

Speaker 2 (19:22):
You say, well, later, and I need to be very
explicit about the fact that I think that multiculturalism brings
with it many advantages, not least of which is that
my partner, for example, is an immigrant. But I think

(19:42):
that the question might be perhaps better put as if
we are, and we indeed are multicultural societies, if we
are to have successful multicultural societies, then what is it
that we need to do to ensure the success of
that multiculturalism. And I guess one of the things that
I think we need to do a far better job

(20:04):
of is dialogue between the different commune nities who now
make up New Zealand. So I'll give you an example
if I may, and.

Speaker 3 (20:13):
Just before you do that, that'd lose your place, suggest
that importing the problems, and the problems only exist when
there's more than one attitude, if you like, importing the
problems that can't be settled from whence they came is
simply inviting the same issue to exist here or wherever

(20:37):
it may be.

Speaker 2 (20:38):
Well, I don't think we're going to change the fact
that we're a multicultural society, and so the question then
becomes not the question that you're asking, but rather how
do we make a multicultural society succeed? And I think
that's something that a Human Rights Commission, for example, can
play a role and fulfilling. I guess the example that
I was going to give of where these issues are

(21:02):
a challenge, and this is not to say that multicultural
is not desirable, is that we had as our neighbor
on the North Shore, my husband and I a Liberal
National MP who knew us personally and who voted against

(21:24):
same sex marriage. And I went up to Jonathan. I said, Jonathan,
what on earth are you doing? And he said, the
only issue that the Korean community in Northcote had mobilized
against in his years in parliament was against same sex marriage.
And there were six thousand I think there was the

(21:45):
figure Korean people there, and he needed to respect their views.
Now I'm not saying that's wrong, Please don't take it
that way. I'm just saying I wonder, given that we
have human rights progress for gay people, which has been
quite what there's been a complete transformation in my lifetime,
what effort are we making to talk to new immigrant

(22:06):
communities about issues like that going to make multicultural succeed.
We need more dialogue, more discussion about these kinds of issues,
you know, late and what the most anti gay city
in Britain now is. It's London, and it's London because
that's where most of the Muslim immigrants and the conservative

(22:26):
Christian immigrants. Now I'm not anti religion, by the way,
please don't take it this way. But this highlights the
fact that in the multicultural society it produces challenges, and
the challenges are around how to quote that key we
way of being, we learn to live and let live,
and how we foster the tolerance that is needed between

(22:51):
the different communities that are here, be they gay, be
they Jewish, for example.

Speaker 3 (22:57):
And again I'm going to back up. I came to
think a long time ago that if you don't understand.
If you have no knowledge of biblical matters of the time,
you have no chance of understanding why there is conflict
in the Middle East now which will probably endure forever,
however long that might be. And again, if you import

(23:21):
people who have that same conflict in their mind, deeply
rooted in their beliefs which are the most important to them,
and some of the comments that were made by imams
and others in this documentary last night, we're most telling
in this regard, then you're going to have even if

(23:44):
you settle it down for a period of time, as
it does in the Middle East, and then you're going
to have continued conflict nevertheless or by beating the same
old drum.

Speaker 2 (23:55):
Where you are, and it doesn't help to address the
issue of what is it that then needs to happen,
Because whether it's Europe, whether it's the United States, the
Western world has been a destination for people from many
cultures because the Western way of life is what actually
attracts and draws people. And so the question then becomes,

(24:19):
how do we make multicultural societies succeed? And one of
the things that a group like the Human Rights Commission
could do, I believe more aggressively is to actually encourage
dialogue between the different groups who now make up our society.
I mean, and that's talking about the Human Rights Commission.
But if we just go back to your Middle East example,

(24:42):
I have to say that I've been somewhat dismayed at
the lack of courage from our universities late in, for example,
facilitating debates and dialogue around the Middle Eastern situation. They
haven't had the hotspa to do that. And yet again,
I would be looking to our universities to be taking

(25:04):
a more aggressive role in terms of facilitating discussions and
debates around these critical issues which, at the end of
the day, whether whether we want to admit it or not,
deeply impact on certain communities here and about which there
is widespread interest. Why are the university is taking a
more active role in facilitating dialogue between different groups and opinions.

Speaker 3 (25:29):
I think the answer to that's fairly simple, and I'm
glad you've redirected, because we were going to get there eventually.
Let me suggest to you that what culture is the
is the real answer to that? Included in what culture,
of course, is a DEI that we're all now familiar with,
And I would imagine that considering your studies in politics

(25:52):
and your experience, et cetera. Like me, you've watched it
develop in America. That is what culture headquarters and transmit
itself to the rest of the world, and it's been
The most amazing thing to me is not that it's happened,
but how quickly it has happened and how it's taken
over the universities in this country the same as other universities. Now,

(26:14):
if anybody suggested in a university suggested they do that,
I think they would be swamped with objection, to put
it mildly, from other members of the university staff. If not,
it would transmit to the demonstrations from students and you
would have, as we've seen on television time and time

(26:37):
again from the States and Australia, you'd have violence in
the streets.

Speaker 2 (26:42):
And I wonder whether there is not here an issue
around leadership, because, for example, if a university were to
hold a function, let's say, exploring the Middle East conflict
and hearing from both sides of this dreadful suffering, and

(27:03):
the university was to shut that down, then one of
the things that I would consider doing as the chief
Human Rights commissioners to challenge the university about that, and
I think that there is a role for more muscular
leadership around actually saying we need to discuss and debate
and have dialogue around these issues if we're not to

(27:24):
be shut into our self perpetuating bubbles, regardless of what
that bubble might be, because we're not going to find
a way forward as a country if we're going to
be divided and polarized and not challenged on our views.
And I mean, I'll go back to my experience as
a gay man latent, but every bit of progress that's

(27:45):
been made in this remarkable transformation of the lives of
gay people in New Zealand has been the result of
people like fran Wilde standing up, advocating for a perspective,
building alliances, having dialogue with people. When I was involved
in the same sex marriage campaign, I had to go
and talk to people who I wouldn't normally be politically

(28:08):
or or value in any way around values be aligned with.
But you had to build alliances. And this is how
democracy works, this is how free society works, this is
how free speech works. And it seems that we've lost
courage around some of those qualities and I think that
we need more challenging of the dissipation of the courage

(28:32):
to have these difficult conversations and to explore differences and
to find a way forward. And I would hope that
in the role that I'm going to shortly begin, that
I might play some small part and facilitating that dialogue
that is actually underpinning of a free society that we
are so lucky to be living in.

Speaker 3 (28:53):
Want to quote you something. We need heroes, people who
can inspire us, help shape us morally, spur us onto
purposeful action, and from time to time were called on
to be those heroes leaders for others, either it a
small day to day weight or on the world's largest stage.

(29:14):
At this time in America and in the rest of
the world, we seem to need moral leadership especially, but
the need for moral inspiration is ever present. Are you
do you have hero in you?

Speaker 2 (29:28):
I would like to think so. And you know, this
is going to be my last big at my last gig, Layton,
and so I would certainly hope. So there's a huge
hole that goes with trying to step into those roles.
But if I look back, well, look, I'll take it

(29:49):
to extremes On the one hand, I had a grandfather
who fought because he was a working class Englishman every
day from September nineteen thirty nine through to nineteen forty
five for six years in the war, and he was
a working class autodidact. But he had a picture of
Churchill on his wall, and I I guess one of
the great sadnesses I think in recent times is that

(30:12):
the heroes that some of us have been inspired by,
like Churchill, have been derided as part of the attempt to,
I suppose, downplay the significance of significant figures like him.
So I have these figures in my mind and I
hope that they will give me the strength and the

(30:33):
hooks part to actually do what is needed in this role.
Because I think your quote is very apposite. I don't
obviously see myself and see myself as being the sole
player in that space. But if I could make even
a small contribution to that kind of leadership in New Zealand,
then I would feel that the role had been a success.

(30:55):
And if I can help reduce suffering, constrain evil, offering
encouragement to people, even in a small way on a
day to day basis, while in this role, then I
feel it will have been a success. What is evil, Well,
we've seen evil. We don't. Actually, it's not an abstract question.

(31:15):
We've seen evil later and as I said earlier, I've
spent much in laid out life studying what happens with
tyranny and oppression. And we might easily point to the
Holocaust and the essentially the industrialized massacre of Jewish people,

(31:35):
probably the greatest crime in human history. But then we
might also look at the fact that the Soviets, so
for example, my son's great grandfather was one of two
million people shot during the Great Terror under Stalin from

(31:57):
thirty seven to thirty nine in the Soviet Union. So
we know what evil is. We've seen it in the
twentieth century, and we need to be very vigilant about
it civilized and I guess the view that I bring
to this role is that civilization is very fragile and
it's not something we should be taking for granted.

Speaker 3 (32:18):
So you'd agree with Reagan that freedom democracy is only
one to think of the accuracy of it is only
one generation separated from barbarity will do.

Speaker 2 (32:32):
Well if we look at the number of people living
in free societies in the world, it's actually diminished in
recent years. So I think that living in a free
society and having the opportunity to express openly different views
and different opinions, you know, I constantly think about the
example of the Stazi in East Germany as recently as

(32:54):
the late eighties, where one in four people was an
informer for the Stasi, and if you said anything that
wasn't a part of the greed party line, you know,
you could well end up being incarcerated it or worse.
So I think that we are incredibly blessed to live
in a society where we're free to express our views,

(33:16):
and we need to capitalize on that to resolve some
of the real challenges that we face, and we need
to be more aggressive and actually having those debates and
those discussions to try and resolve some of the issues
that we are facing.

Speaker 3 (33:31):
To wrap this portion of it up, maybe let me
just go back to DEI diversity, equity and inclusion and
the culture. Give me a brief opinion on your part of.

Speaker 2 (33:46):
It, I guess rather than explicitly addressing that, Layton, I
would prefer to say that I think we need to
be very mindful of and pay far greater attention to
the values and views of the majority of people, the

(34:08):
common sense that ordinary people bring to their lives, the
fact that people in trades and skills have been considered
to be, as a result of education policy over a
long period, perhaps less worthy of listening to than people

(34:30):
who are university graduates. I think there's a great wisdom
and ordinary people, and I think we need to pay
far greater attention to that. And what's happening in societies now,
and I guess Britain would be an example, but possibly
in other parts of Europe as well, is that there's
a real backlash against the denigration of I guess the

(34:53):
people that Hillary Clinton called the deplorables, and we actually
do need to pay far more attention to ordinary people,
the majority of people, the silent people, because at the
end of the day, the society is made up of
of a huge range of people, and we mustn't only
think that there is one set of values and opinions

(35:16):
which are acceptable.

Speaker 3 (35:18):
I'd suggest to you that you could spend your entire
duration in this position when you uptake it on that
particular front, without having time for anything else, such as
the current situation.

Speaker 2 (35:34):
How about we actually take more time to tell stories
in this country about what it means to be a
New Zealander, about the stories of people with a Mildi
Paki pacifica, refugees from Afghanistan, and actually start to tell
these stories. And I know in places like Nelson they've
set up cultural conversations to try and facilitate some of

(35:56):
these discussions. Let's do more of that. Let's do more
of talking with each other and discussing and working out
what it is that we have in common, given that
there are only five million of us on these septed
aisles at the bottom of the world. World, Let's have
more stories, Let's have more conversations, and let's listen not
just to the to the the people who are more

(36:19):
inclined to express their views, for example, on social media,
but to actually listen to ordinary people going about their lives,
struggling with lives, great life's great challenges, and pay more
credence to the fundamental decency of New Zealanders and how
we might celebrate that and what it is that we

(36:41):
have in common.

Speaker 3 (36:43):
On that or off the back of that, do you
consider that education is part of your flock?

Speaker 2 (36:52):
In a word, not directly but I think that when
we look at the issues around the future of New
Zealand and the need for dialogue and discussion and debate
and research, then the universities have a critical role to play,
and I'm quite fascinated by how that they might be

(37:13):
better engaged in contributing to addressing some of the challenges
that we face later. So no, it's not part of
my brief but inasmuch as they have a role to
play when it comes to us addressing issues and facilitating discussions,
which is really what this is all about, then I

(37:34):
would like to think that the universities had a role
to play, and that I might engage with them about
the contribution they could make to that objective.

Speaker 3 (37:43):
You know, we've got this. We've got this far, Stephen,
and no one, no one, neither of us has mentioned
the word speech, specifically free speech. Well, how do you
define free speech? Are there limitations on it and what
role does it have to play?

Speaker 2 (38:02):
Well, at the risk of giving a rather simplistic view,
I think that free speech is the fundamental underpinning of
a free society and that any compromises on it need
to be extraordinarily well thought through and considered and so

(38:24):
I would be very much a champion of free speech
as the best way for society to discuss issues, to
bring issues, even that we might find quite deplorable, out
into the open, and to expose them to the sunlight,
and to debate them and to question them and to
challenge them for example. And I don't say I'm not

(38:46):
saying this with any value judgment. I'm just saying that
in response to recent events, I see Brian Tammocke, for example,
has said some anti gay comments. I am a gay man.
He is entirely entitled, in my opinion, to say those things.
But then I will challenge him to debate them or
not me personally. But although I could do, he needs

(39:09):
to be challenged and these issues debated, and that is
the way in which we will find the truth of
the matter. So I think once you start to compromise
free speech, you really start to chip away at one
of the fundamental underpinnings of a free society. And as
I have said repeatedly throughout this discussion, we are blessed

(39:33):
and privileged to live in a free society. Every advantage
that I have, for example, received as a gay man
as a result of living in a free society with
free speech, and I think any diminution of free speech
needs to be extraordinarily carefully thought about.

Speaker 3 (39:50):
Do you think that there is a global struggle developed
or developing over the erosion of free speech among countries
that helped define help define this right.

Speaker 2 (40:03):
Well, I think there's a lot of things happening globally.
I'm fascinated by what's happening globally, whether it be an Europe,
whether it be in the States. And when I say globally,
I'm talking about the free world. And I don't think
that the trends are universal in any of those places.
There's some competing trends, and I think they're utterly fascinating
in terms of what's happening. So, for example, and again

(40:27):
I need to emphasize, I'm saying this as someone who
studied politics for forty years. I did my PhD actually
on the emergence of green parties. Later, but in the
last European elections, for example, young the first voters swung
heavily to the right. So when we say that there
are these battles going on, there's actually micro trends and

(40:50):
or perhaps broader trends as well that seem quite generationally influenced,
and I think therefore it's while it might be easy
to say that there is a trend towards opposing free speech,
that in fact there are other trends going on as well. Look,
the reality is social media, as toxic as it can be,

(41:13):
arguably provides the greatest level of free speech that any
civilization and history has ever enjoyed. So we've got the
democratization of speech through social media, for example. So there
are a range of trends going on. I guess rather
than saying that there is any one particular thing happening,

(41:34):
I would come back to the fact that we have
a duty, and particularly at the Human Rights Commission, to
vigorously defend free speech because of the fact that that
is so essential to addressing the issues and finding a
way forward where there are competing views and interests on
the critical issues that we are facing.

Speaker 3 (41:55):
I think most people think that free speech is the
very foundation of freedom of liberty.

Speaker 2 (42:01):
I hope, I hope.

Speaker 3 (42:02):
So are you familiar with the satirist C. J. Hopkins.
No American has lived in Germany for quite a number
of years now, and satire is his main game. But
he comments on all sorts of other things, and he
substacks now and more recently, et cetera. But let me

(42:28):
just say that in some circles he's very well known,
other circles, not New Zealand being one of those latter circles.
But he is going through at the moment a scenario
that I'll describe to you as quickly as possible. In Germany,
he was charged. He was charged with a crime for
publishing a book that included a swastika on the cover.

(42:52):
It was satire, and a couple of other I think
social media comments that he made. He was charged with
a serious crime. The details I don't have in front
of me at the moment, but take my word for it.
He was convicted in the in the lower court, and
he won his appeal in the in the appeal court,

(43:14):
and that was that. So he thought, he's now going
through a second trial where they have they have charged
him a second time, even though being found innocent the
first time. In the end, and he's being he's being persecuted.
And there are other examples of similar similar shall we say,

(43:38):
usage of the swastika that have not been persecuted at all.
So he's being he's being targeted by the by the
by the German courts. Would you have any reaction to that?
I mean, if they start in Germany, then where might
it finish?

Speaker 2 (43:58):
Well, I think there's a reason why there would be
a particular sensitivity towards the use of the swastika in Germany.
Of course, Laighton, So I guess I manifested obvious the
point though I would, without knowing anything about the details
of that case, I would come back to the fact
that the freedom to openly discuss these things. But look,

(44:20):
this might seem to you as if I'm obfiscating, But
I think of greater concern to me is the fact, well,
let's just say, something which is of real concern to
me is the fact that when young Americans, for example,
and perhaps it would be no different here us, what
is the Holocaust? Most have no idea. So this is

(44:41):
what I think is a real issue. We have lost
a sense of these critical historical atrocities and what their
implications are now for the way in which society and
its freedoms have evolved, not least of which is the
Universal Declaration on Human Rights in nineteen forty eight. So

(45:03):
we might focus on the court case that you're talking about.
But I think perhaps the border issue is the loss
of any historical knowledge about what the significance of that
advance might be.

Speaker 3 (45:14):
I'll advance your statement. I'm aware of a young journalist
in a newsroom in this country who asked that question,
what what what? What's the what's the Holocaust? And that
that only adds weight to what you're saying, of course,
but why is it? So there's part of the education
system that I could attach to your future.

Speaker 2 (45:40):
It's looking like a very fullsome future.

Speaker 3 (45:42):
I think. I think I'm wondering whether you actually realize
what you've taken on. Look at this.

Speaker 2 (45:48):
I'm wondering that too.

Speaker 3 (45:51):
I do have to ask you this feel compulsed. I've
going to quote you and then I'll tell you who
made the comment. The US debt and money printing system
is collapsing. The West is heading into an economic wasteland.
The Middle East is on fire, Russia dominate Ukraine and
NATO bricks is ending US hegemony and the fake rules

(46:15):
based order US puppets are failing everywhere. Genocide, propaganda, censorship,
and rigged elections are the new normal. Humanity is facing
the abyss as World War III seems inevitable, and I
won't play games with you because that would be unfair.
It concludes. Oh, and the obedient US colony in the

(46:39):
South Pacific just decided to extradite me for what users
uploaded to mega Upload unsolicited and what copyright holders were
able to remove with direct delete access instantly and without question.
But who cares? That's justice these days? Would you consider
that situation with kin dot com to be if you

(47:02):
were currently in the position that you have been awarded,
would you consider that to be part of your realm?

Speaker 2 (47:12):
The short answer is, on a very practical level, that
immigration issues do come before the Human Rights Commission, and
in all the talk about abstract ideas and concepts, there
are My understanding is at least twelve hundred people last
year who used the Commission services for addressing particular issues,
and I think it's very important to stay focused on

(47:34):
those because this is one of the critical services that
the Commission provides. About twelve hundred. Of those of the
twelve hundred, about one hundred and fifty I understand go
to mediation, where one of our roles is quote unquote
community peacekeeping, and so I think that we've got a
big role to play in that space. I think the

(47:55):
so immigration issues, yes do come before the Human Rights
Commission number two. I just think when it comes to
painting this very bleak picture of the future, that we
also need to focus on some of the very positive
things that have happened in that are happening and have
happened in the world. It's not all bleak, and there
are many extraordinary things happening, whether they are technological, whether

(48:17):
they're to do with health, whether they're to do with
the doubling of life expectancy in the last one hundred
and fifty years, whether to do with the fact that
gay people can now lead a life in this country
without any legal impediment whatsoever. We've made enormous progress, and
there is enormous progress being made on many issues that

(48:39):
we might choose to focus on rather than painting such
a bleak picture of the future. What I do think
we do need to do, and this is again reiterating
what I hope has been a common theme, is that
we need to rigorously defend the freedoms that we have.
We need to be incredibly grateful and appreciative for the
sacrifices that have led us to where we are now,

(49:00):
and we need to recognize that human rights are fragile,
and that civilization is fragile, and we need to vigorously defended.

Speaker 3 (49:09):
That was a very diplomatic and eloquent statement, and I
find no fault with it. As somebody once said, I wonder, then,
could you give me an example, give us an example
of a freedom, a right that we are in short
supply of, that has been diminished for us, that needs attention.

Speaker 2 (49:30):
Well, we get into in answering that, we get into
the issue of defining what a human right is.

Speaker 3 (49:38):
But first of all, sorry, but first of all, can
you remember there was a question asked of a would
be judge what is a woman? Can you tell me
what a woman is? My question to you is what
is a human?

Speaker 2 (49:55):
Well, one of the interesting things about that is that
artificial intelligence is going to bring that question into very
stark relief later, which is why I mentioned it earlier
as one of the enormous challenges for human rights going forward,
because actually that seriously probably brings into very stark belief

(50:16):
the fact that that that question is going to have
a degree of significance now which it hasn't had for
a long time. Unless we were to go into the
spiritual realm. So that's an area that I think the
Human Rights Commission needs to do a lot of working,
and it is because of the impact of AI, and

(50:38):
I think that's going to bring the answer to your
question into very stark relief.

Speaker 3 (50:43):
Do you do you believe, as most people seem to,
that that AI is something really serious, really really prominent
or will be prominent. Yes, in our lives.

Speaker 2 (50:57):
Yes. If you read people like Uval Harari, arguably one
of the more intelligent commentators on what's happening in the
world today, he says that this is the number one
challenge facing humanity now. He's also very clear about the
fact that, you know, if we don't take control of
our lives ie personal responsibility, that the algorithms will. And

(51:19):
while that's not directly related to AI, I think it's
also very opposite point that really, you know, we're in
an age now with technology, whether it's AI or algorithms generally,
where basic human rights and the way that we've lived
to date are going to be under increasing challenge. Hence,
I go back to my point consistently reiterated that civilization

(51:43):
as fragile, we're going to be more and more easily manipulated,
and we need to rigorously defend free speech and freedoms
wherever we see them under attack.

Speaker 3 (51:54):
Which opens the door to about ten more different avenues
that that I could undertake. I'm looking at a headline
Pandemic Preparedness and the Road to International Fascism from the
American Journal of Economics and Sociology. I think that's self explanatory.
But there is a There is an attached headline New

(52:18):
Zealand codifies forced injections in martial law pandemic plan I
presume that you're familiar with that. Yes, I think that
if there is, if there is an example of a
diminished right, as we were discussing before, then that is

(52:38):
probably it. A friend of mine who's an American living
here texted me when that announcement came out very recently,
and he was explicit in his objection to it and
how he would deal with it, cope with it if

(52:58):
it ever came to pass that he was being forced into,
forced physically into an injection that he didn't want. Is
that is that? Does that fall into your into your
realm of areas that we need to protect because because
it's been abused like crazy over the last few years.

Speaker 2 (53:23):
I have no doubt that there will be people looking
to the Human Rights Commission if that situation occurs. I
don't know enough about what is proposed to make any
comment on that now, Laton, but what I would say
is that I was reading something from Chris Finleyson, the
former Attorney General recently, who talked about New Zealander's reaction

(53:49):
to the lockdown and how we were all too ready
to dB in a neighbor who stuck their head out. No,
I can't remember the example he used, but there were
certainly a lot of people reporting on their neighbors for
what were perceived to be infringements of the lockdown and
our willingness to do that. And I guess that highlighted

(54:09):
for me yet again that while we're having all these
abstract discussions that actually our individual behaviors, our individual responsibilities,
are absolutely critical to whether or not we have a
free society. Our willingness to dobbin people who are perceived
to be perhaps infringing on those requirements was a concerning

(54:32):
part of what we witnessed during the lockdown, as Christopher
Finlayson was reporting it. So again, these issues have a
lot of other implications which I think we need to
take responsibility for. But in terms of what you're actually asking,
I am no doubt that the Commission will be asked

(54:53):
about this, and I am not informed enough about the
full implications of this and what is planned to make
any meaningful comment on it. Now.

Speaker 3 (55:03):
As a matter of interest, will you be pursuing that information.

Speaker 2 (55:09):
I think it's inevitable that the Commission will be asked
and approached about this, and therefore I will need to
get up to speed with this issue. And you know,
I would reiterate I haven't actually taken up the role yet,
but I would certainly imagine that this will be on
the radar of the Commission.

Speaker 3 (55:28):
I can I just add a clip on that a
precursor to what I've just said. Really, if we were
starting from a different, a different angle, and that is
that the the moves of recent times by the World
Health Organization to formulate an international approach to this, there's

(55:51):
been there has been much discussion about it, and if
ever there was an example of the dangers of that,
then this latest codification here, I would suggest, fits it
slots into it and should and should should increase the

(56:12):
concern that some people have and I don't need it.
I don't need a response to that, really if you
don't want, I just wanted to make the comment going
back to the person thing, what is a human? This
to me is something that I think is an area
that is going to become increasingly important. I an Hersey

(56:35):
Ali wrote, wrote a column yesterday. You know of whom
I've speak. I won't even ask you wrote, wrote wrote
a piece yesterday the abortion election, and I'm not going
to go into it any any further than that. I
just use it as a use it as a hook,
because here's another one. California bill mandating pregnancy dignity for

(56:58):
birthing persons passes Health committee, and you can see where
I'm going with this. Add issue is Assembly Bill two
three one nine, introduced by Democratic assembly Woman Laurie Wilson
and sponsored by the California Attorney General Rob Mont, which

(57:18):
says the legislature recognizes all both in people, including non
binary persons and persons of transgender experience close quote. The
bill additionally mandates implicit bias training for existing medical professionals
by June one, twenty twenty five, and within six months
of those opening new practices, the point being that the

(57:43):
bill will allow abortion right up to the moment of birth,
and some are pushing for it beyond birth. So you've
got two aspects to it. One is the birthing person
one the other is the human being given birth. In
other words, sixty seconds before passing through the canal? Is

(58:08):
that individual a human? I'm not doing this purposely to
irritate you. I'm concerned with regard to definitions and where
the future lies.

Speaker 2 (58:24):
And the thing that we might take from that later
and is that this is a bill. Therefore, there is
the opportunity with a bill for all sides of this
discussion and this debate to be had, including contrary views,
including supportive views, because we have institutions within our society

(58:46):
that are designed specifically to facilitate that kind of dialogue
and debate. Now that doesn't exist in totalitarian societies, and
the fact that this bill will be vigorously debated, I
have no doubt, is something that we should be heartened
by because we actually have the opportunity to participate in

(59:08):
next frawing issues like that with all their contention and
all the divergent opinions. So you know whether it's courts,
whether it's councils, whether it's parliament. We've got the vehicles
in place to have those debates. Let's have those debates,
because there is clearly, as you've just indicated with that example,
there are movements pushing different agendas in the space. Let's

(59:34):
celebrate the fact we've got the institutions to explore those
in detail, to hear the divergent views, and to make
decisions without what's traditionally been the case, which is the
use of thuggery or tyranny to resolve these kinds of issues.

Speaker 3 (59:51):
I've got to add the California is a one party state,
but the running vice presidential candidates for the Democratic Party
in America is the governor of a state, and his
state has already introduced it. I leave that with you
for your consideration, because again I think I said mentioned

(01:00:11):
something like this earlier. We've both watched developments, especially in
a progressive environment like some of America is, and that's
where things start and they seem to spread fairly quickly
over a period of time. But I do want to
ask you that re ask you the question, though, in

(01:00:32):
your opinion, is a baby that's about is a fetus.
It's not a fetus anymore. Is it a human? Does
it fall into the category of human rights that that
child be born?

Speaker 2 (01:00:45):
Layton. I'm actually heading to the States shortly to observe
the American elections, and I'll be in California with my
daughter who lives in LA and so I'm going to
be exposed firsthand to some of these debates. I guess
that it highlights the fact that, you know, it's been
called the culture wars, call up what you will. We've

(01:01:07):
got these real contentious issues going on, and we've got
a variety of viewpoints on them, and we don't have
you talk about California as a one party state, but really,
you know, compared to one party states like the Soviet
block up until nineteen eighty nine or any other or

(01:01:28):
what's happening in Afghanistan at the moment, we actually still
have democratic debate and discussion. And I have no doubt
that the American election is going to be a graphical
illustration of how those competing views are going to be
tested out in the electoral arena, with everybody able to
have their say. And that's what we should be celebrating.

(01:01:49):
And I'm looking forward to observing that firsthand when I
head to observe the US elections later on the air.

Speaker 3 (01:01:58):
I was going to go, and I may still go,
but at the moment I'm not going.

Speaker 2 (01:02:03):
Anyway.

Speaker 3 (01:02:04):
Let us conclude with one short paragraph and a quick
reaction from you. Equality is in bad odor on the
right these days. This is hardly new. Traditionalists have always
had suspicions about America's theoretical foundation in equal natural rights,
although the feeling has become more widespread in recent years
as the cancer of diversity, equity, and inclusion seeps into

(01:02:27):
every organ of American society. The reigning ideology of the
ruling class contends that we are born unequal, either victims
or oppressors, and it is the duty of our scientifically
trained experts to correct this injustice by making us, at
their emphasis, making us all equal. Final comment, I.

Speaker 2 (01:02:56):
Am so grateful to be living in a society where
we can even have these kinds of discussions, and we
can have different views on them late And that's what
I really am grateful for, because for much of humanity
that's still not the case, and for much of human
history it hasn't been the case. For the vast majority
of people. So look, honestly, we've got huge challenge ahead

(01:03:18):
of us, and I look forward to playing some small
role at the Human Rights Commission to making sure that
these issues are debated and that we maintain that freedom
of speech which is so essential to reaching the truth
and as much as we can on these matters.

Speaker 3 (01:03:39):
Well, I look forward to you putting a headlock on
the universities in that regard the Human Rights new Chief Commissioner,
Stephen Rainbow. It's been a great pleasure talking with you,
and I will be very intrigued at the reaction that
we get, or that I get in particular. Thank you
so much for your time, and may it not be

(01:04:01):
the last.

Speaker 2 (01:04:02):
It's been a pleasure, latent, thank you so much.

Speaker 3 (01:04:11):
Light and Smith, missus producer. Welcome to the mail room
for podcast two hundred and fifty.

Speaker 4 (01:04:16):
Two late and how are you very well?

Speaker 3 (01:04:19):
I just I have to share with you something. I
was just lying in the sun in the back room
for ten minutes with my eyes closed and it was sinsational.

Speaker 4 (01:04:30):
I did I tell you last week that I was
sitting out the back reading a book and literally had
to come in. I think I mentioned this last week.
So we're so starved for sunshine and this time of
the year, aren't we But it's been fantastic winter. The
long on the short of that was that I actually
had to come in it was too hot. Exactly lovely,
we love the sunshine. Let me start late in Jin says,

(01:04:55):
I waited ages for this, so I was overjoyed when
I realized you were interviewing Professor Robert McCulloch. He is
especially good at turning the spotlight on the bad politicians.
In your podcast alone, he exposed utterly crap policies from
Jasinder r Dern, who granted a monopoly to the supermarket
duopoly during COVID, Adrian Or's engineering of three recessions, and

(01:05:18):
grant Robertson and Michael Baker's totalitarian COVID policies which resulted
in none of the promised good health outcomes nor good
economic outcomes. In fact, on roberts Down to Earth Kiwi blog,
he recently exposed Helen Clark and Jacinder r Dern's hand
in wrecking New Zealand's health system. I quote former pms

(01:05:41):
Helen Clark and Jacinder ar Durn should come clean about
how they were the chief architects of the omni shambles
that has become our health system. Health New Zealand has
succeeded only at being a large scale disaster. What seconds me,
he says, says Jin is that every single one of
these names mentioned continue to be rewarded for their failures.

(01:06:03):
In fact, our durn is off to the Democratic National
Convention to support compulsive liar and impostor KRMLA Harris.

Speaker 3 (01:06:12):
Look, you're going to be right at home.

Speaker 4 (01:06:14):
Birds of bad feather flocked together, so we need bird
hunters like Robert McCulloch to take aim at them and
remind people of the harm they have done to New
Zealand society. People like him, Des Gorman and Elizabeth Rater
give me hope that the University of Auckland has not
completely gone to the dogs. Thanks so much for getting
Robert on your podcast. He was so easy to listen to.

(01:06:36):
I think I'm actually going to listen to podcast two
fifty one again.

Speaker 3 (01:06:41):
Well, there is more of the same that's been and
is coming. I've promoted this letter to the top of
my grouping based on what you were just based on
what you were just reading, because it's touches on similar things,
but it comes with a different approach. High Layton, I

(01:07:02):
feel obliged to point out a delusion shared by you both.
When he says shared by you both, I refer to
the subject line at the top of the email Latest
podcasts with Robert McCulloch. So I repeat, I feel obliged
to point out a delusion shared by you both. In
talking about our abysmal productivity. You both rubbished the efforts

(01:07:23):
of Descinda and Robertson to introduce modern socialist methods to
run the country. Surely, surely you should acknowledge the facts
of history. To run a country on laissez faire capitalist
principles is an invitation to chaos. The lessons of recovery
from the Great capitalist Depression of the nineteen thirties, whereby

(01:07:47):
the US President Roosevelt reorganized the US economy along centrally
planned socialist as far as he was politically able lines,
or the lessons of post World War II in Britain
by the Attlee government, whereby the vast industries were nationalized
and put under expert direction with profit motives removed, or

(01:08:09):
on an even greater scale, where Stalin and later Mao
lifted their previously primitive economies up by their bootstraps. Is
set against these historical realities. How could you both bang
on about New Zealand's poor productivity and that more ad
hoc capitalism might save the day. Surely we must plan

(01:08:30):
at the highest political level to get rid of profit
and lead our people to a brighter, fairer future. Okay,
I acknowledge a few costs. Getting rid of the fat
cats is a small issue. And yes, as the peasants
of the old USSR and the People's Republic of China
might acknowledge the few millions who starved to death. But

(01:08:52):
after all, you can't make an omelet without breaking a
few shells. Viva the Revolution, comrades bring back to sender
only she will be able to explain by imprisoning the
wealthy and starving the peasants is really an act of
great kindness. I hope you accept this gentle economic lesson regards.
Great podcast, by the way, Robert, I love a good

(01:09:15):
piece of satire.

Speaker 4 (01:09:16):
That's cute, Leighton Dave says, I know you support the
efforts of the Taxpayer Union, as do I. I particularly
enjoyed your recent podcast with Jordan Williams. It is likely, therefore,
that you have seen their recent Taxpayers Union articles, which
highlight the utter nonsense which is contained in the description

(01:09:37):
of many of the so called research projects funded by
the Marsden Fund, an organization which seems to be overwhelmed
by its own importance and which splurges millions of dollars
annually on grants to projects whose applications are so full
of incomprehensible, woke rubbish at beggars belief. In two recent

(01:10:00):
emails to my local MP and a couple of government ministers,
I have asked who assessors the worth of these projects
and approves the fund, and who, if anybody, checks that
the research has produced any meaningful result that can be
used for any meaningful purpose. I've had no reply and
don't really expect to get one. Perhaps this is something

(01:10:22):
you might like to mention in your podcast, So there
we've mentioned it, Daveyi. The latest Taxpayers Union article can
be found at Taxpayers dot or. I have become an
avid listener, and while I may skip some of the
American commentators, I enjoy those who speak on matters close
to home. Robert McCulloch was great. I hope you have

(01:10:44):
one again in the future. Keep up the good work, Dave.

Speaker 3 (01:10:48):
Dave, I'm interested in your comment about the American commentators
because I've had two letters sort of along similar lines
in the last week. I think another one might have
been two weeks ago, or maybe a year ago. I
can't remember. There's not many of them, but I'm interested
to know why you feel that way, because I will

(01:11:08):
take it on as a personal ambition to change your mind.
Oh it's my turn.

Speaker 4 (01:11:15):
I was busy rolling my eyes.

Speaker 3 (01:11:16):
Sorry, got to be careful with this, but it was
forwarded to me by Brian Leyland from a friend of his.
He says it was catching up on my Layton Smith
podcast while driving today and had the pleasure of being
surprised by your recent peace on the show was very good.
I thought was great to hear the piece about the
market structure brought up again, as that does not get

(01:11:38):
mentioned too often, and the discussion about the market not
being a real market in elasticity, etc. Also some enjoyable
comments about general intelligence levels and lack of understanding about
how it all works, shared by yourself and Layton. Hope
all is well. And then there's a personal comment which
I'll leave out and I won't name him. I just

(01:12:00):
thought i'd throw that in because Brian said it to me,
so fair game, Layton.

Speaker 4 (01:12:06):
Chris is writing from Australia actually in the act camera
and he says, after hearing from Brian Leyland in podcast
two fifty, that the retail price of electricity in New
Zealand is thirty cents a killer?

Speaker 2 (01:12:19):
What hour?

Speaker 4 (01:12:20):
I went to my latest power bill to see what
we pay in the act we have three different rates.
Peak usage of thirty seven point five cents, shoulder usage
of twenty six cents, and off peak usage of twenty
three twenty three point one cents per killer? What our

(01:12:40):
shoulder usage of twenty six cents and off peak usage
of twenty three point one cents per killer?

Speaker 1 (01:12:46):
What hour?

Speaker 4 (01:12:46):
Which averages out to about twenty nine cents per killer?

Speaker 2 (01:12:50):
What hour?

Speaker 4 (01:12:50):
Not much different to the thirty cents In New Zealand.
Before the most recent increase in the tariffs, we were
paying an average for about twenty five cents per killer?

Speaker 2 (01:13:00):
What hour?

Speaker 4 (01:13:01):
That's from Chris.

Speaker 3 (01:13:03):
Okay, from Tim, I've just listened to your excellent episode
of August fourteen. Your guest was excellent and it was
so refreshing to hear an academic pushing back against the
woke nonsense of Saint Dame Jacinda Hipkins Robinson and their
partners in crime from twenty seventeen to twenty twenty three.

(01:13:26):
Your episode should be compulsory listening for all fifth, six
and seventh form us. Isn't it lovely to see that
the Sainted One is sharing her wisdom and knowledge with
the Democrats their convention this week, Kamala and whilst her
bizarre choice of running mate will benefit from her depth
of expertise in socialism aka progressivism. God save us from

(01:13:49):
the legacy media and their cheerleading and truth telling. After all,
the legacy media are never purveyors of misinformation. I should
bread that again with a different tone. I think below,
for your entertainment is an excellent article on the climate
emergency hoax from the Daily Skeptic, all of and I
look forward to to this week's podcast. Interestingly enough, I

(01:14:13):
had that piece out for use elsewhere and didn't get
round to it.

Speaker 4 (01:14:19):
So Laton, this is from Vincent and we've just had
an argument because I swear that I read this last week.
Laden you say no, I can't have done. Because the
date is the fifteenth of August, which is after last
week's podcast, but it just goes to remind us, sort
of proves it kind of reminds us, isn't it because
we read these a few days in advance, or read
them to each other as they come in and talk

(01:14:39):
about them. So, folks, if ever you hear one redone
one week, it's because we simply can't remember what we've done.

Speaker 3 (01:14:47):
And you're lucky and if you've missed one, then you get.

Speaker 4 (01:14:50):
To hear it twice.

Speaker 3 (01:14:51):
How good is that?

Speaker 4 (01:14:52):
So forgive me. I'm pretty sure. Layton tells me we
haven't read this, but Vincent, thank you for your email.
He says, this is just to let you know that
as I sit in a rooftop Paul here in Bermuda,
that's what reminded me that i'd read it before. Contending
with the over thirty degree temperatures, your podcast sounds as

(01:15:12):
amazing and as informative as it does anywhere on the globe.
Last week it worked in Marseille too. Your podcast also
works brilliantly at thirty thousand feet when traveling long haul,
as the topics and guests translate perfectly. No need for
airline movies and TV shows when you can pre download
your own favorite podcasts and listen at your leisure anyway.

(01:15:37):
I'll be listening in a couple of weeks time to
your latest edition as I mow the lawn on my
return to Auckland. Congratulations on the fifty years. We value
and depreciate your hard work. And then Vincent says, missus producers,
obvious support and encouragement. Please keep up the great work.
As I've said before, Vincent, he does it all himself.

(01:15:58):
I'm just here to make cups.

Speaker 2 (01:16:00):
Of tea, not.

Speaker 3 (01:16:07):
I used to do it for Even in the studio
he does.

Speaker 4 (01:16:11):
He's the team maker.

Speaker 3 (01:16:12):
Well, I learned from the best.

Speaker 4 (01:16:14):
Thanks oh Meryll.

Speaker 3 (01:16:15):
Yes, now from Harrison. This is a little long, but
I'm going to read it anyway. I want to share
an experience that I had recently after deciding to return
to university after a thirty year hiatus. So I enrolled
at my local university with the intention of exploring some
further education in the hope of generating an opportunity for

(01:16:36):
another career before I can no longer work. After experiencing
the initial culture shock and realizing that I was probably
the oldest guy in the lecture theater, I commenced my
re education well. The first lecture was introduced by a professor,
supported by the use of a visual presentation screen. The

(01:16:58):
professor went on to state that she was a Socialist
and further added that her father had been a great
admirer of Lenham. The lecture screen includes a picture of
the Russian Marxist of Vladimir Lenin, who was responsible for
the deaths of millions of Russians. Was that one earlier, Robert, Robert,

(01:17:19):
are you listening? I looked around the theater, seeing one
hundred or so students intently absorbed in the Lesson The
following day, I attended another lecture, this time on a
different subject, specializing in psychology and its connection to our
criminal justice system. Early into the lecture I realized that
the underlying theme of this education was underpinned by the

(01:17:42):
premise that our colonial passed a New Zealand disregard for
mary customary law were the reasons why mary were overrepresented
in our criminal justice system. This view was later reinforced
by the coarse reading material. Without a doubt, I believe
any counter argument in any reading assessment would have guaranteed

(01:18:03):
a failing grade. Anyway, on to another lecture, this time psychology,
where such as cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and echo chambers
were banded around, before moving on to gender based education,
where one professor even suggested that male and female babies
are born with exactly the same brain and that masculine

(01:18:25):
and feminine differentiation is a social construct anyway it goes
on all these experience, it is a he isn't it, Harrison,
I haven't made a mistake. All of these experiences began
to make me feel like an insurgent, a heretic who
had to watch his every thought and guard his every
opinion in an upside down world where left is right

(01:18:47):
and up is down. I felt that my common sense
and intuition were under assault. I can see without a
shadow of a doubt what this institution is all about.
It peddles in doctrination. It is an institution at the
center of society's drive toward collectivism or in other words, communism.

(01:19:08):
I lasted two weeks at my local university. I came
away deeply saddened by all the young people being exposed
to this indoctrination and a social ideology. I came away
feeling that New Zealand doesn't have a chance. But then
last night I watched the film Beneath Sheep's Clothing, a
documentary that explores the Commonist's takeover through educational indoctrination in

(01:19:31):
the former Soviet Union. Add its comparison to woke ideology
taught in our schools. It is very good and anyone
who cares about freedom needs to watch it. In fact,
pushing back against communism is an excellent career option, and
we have work to do. Also, your podcast is excellent,
so please keep doing what you're both doing. I have

(01:19:54):
to say that I have already adopted that career, Harrison.
I have already adopted that career, as you may have noticed,
and it's intensifying, missus producer.

Speaker 4 (01:20:04):
See you next week, lovely, Thanks Layton.

Speaker 3 (01:20:12):
Now it seems it's never ending. But another little example
of the war on free speech, this time from the EU,
and I quote. The latest salvo in the ongoing battle
between Elon Musk and the European Union came courtesy of
the X owner. He revealed that in a run up
to the European elections, X was offered quote an illegal

(01:20:36):
secret deal if the platform would agree to secretly censoring
online speech then the European Commission would not find it
for violations of its new online content moderation law, the
Digital Services Act. X refused to cooperate, but all the
other major platforms accepted the deal, so confirming that the

(01:20:58):
world is full of corruption and hypocrisy. So back to
the University of Auckland's media release, does climate reporting make
a difference? You may as well ask I think does
the nightly weather report change the weather? Just a thought anyway,

(01:21:18):
what I wanted to include because it deals with this
issue particularly appropriately, why corporate retreats from social activism is
good for everyone. In January, Axious reported axius is, a
news organization of sorts, reported a developing trend in corporate America.

(01:21:40):
Corporations across the United States were backing away from DEI diversity,
equity and inclusion. And by the way, that's what they're
calling Kamala Harris at the moment the DEI candidate. Actually
that goes back to the twenty twenty election. She was
the DEI candidate and then she was the DEI vice president.

(01:22:01):
Now she might very well be well now she won't
in fact, but she could be the DEI president. Anyway,
Where was I. In January, Axios reported a developing trend
in Corporate America. Corporations across the United States were backing
away from DEI, which had become a minefield for companies

(01:22:22):
following a multi year boom in diversity, equity and inclusion
space following the death in twenty twenty of George Floyd.
Corporations were pulling back on DEI initiatives. The risks were
too great, especially in what was expected to be a
politically charged election season amid growing attacks from conservatives targeting

(01:22:44):
woke corporations, of which there are many. Axius wasn't wrong
about the trend, which has only picked up steam this summer,
so here's some examples. In July, John Deere announced that
it was stepping away from DEI efforts and would cease
sponsoring social or cultural awareness events. The announcement came a

(01:23:06):
week after Business Insight reported that Microsoft had laid off
its entire DEITAM. Microsoft's action, in turn, had come just
weeks after Tractor Supply, a Brentwood, Tennessee based company, decided
to pull the plug on its social activism efforts in
the face of a social media campaign targeting the company.

(01:23:28):
The backlash against DEI has been so intense that the
term itself appears to be going the way of the DODO.
The Society for Human Resource Management recently announced it was
ditching the word equity from its acronym. DEI is just
one form of corporate social activism, which comes in various
forms and includes its cousin environmental social and governance ESG.

(01:23:54):
Both ideas fall under, to some degree, corporate social responsibility,
known as CSR, the idea that corporations have a duty
to take social and environmental actions into consideration in their
business models. Now, if you're wondering why Burger King has
commercials on climate change and cowfarts, and why bud Light's

(01:24:18):
commercials went from featuring Rodney Dangerfield and Bob Uker I
don't know his name, Bob Buker to transactivist Dylan mulvaney,
it's because of CSR. Corporate social responsibility, the idea that
corporation should fight for social causes, has skyrocketed in recent

(01:24:39):
years in such to such an extent that activism is
inhibiting companies in their primary mission. Well, who would have
guessed generating profits by serving customers. Bud Light's decision to feature.
I'm picking from this article as it's fairly lengthy. Bud
Light's decision to feature mulvaney costs them an estimated one

(01:25:03):
point four billion dollars in sales, and it revealed the
danger of corporation's leaning into social activism, particularly campaigns and
policies that alienate their own customer bases. I'm not alone.
I know every one of you would have thought the
same thing when you saw because we all saw them.

(01:25:23):
When we saw that idiotic ad with that idiotic individual,
you just knew it was going to blow the company apart. Anyway.
Not long ago, companies like Chick fil A faced backlash
from progressive activists for progressive activists you know of the
adernkind for supporting traditional marriage. Culture war advocates on the

(01:25:45):
right have responded in similar fashion. Conservative influences have made
a point in raising awareness around woke corporate initiatives, white
privilege campaigns, climate change goals, LGBTQ events. The most successful ones,
such as Robbie Starbuck, who pioneered the campaign against Tractor

(01:26:06):
Supply and John Deere, made a point targeting corporations with
conservative consumer bases. Starbuck recently told The Wall Street journal.
If I started a boycott against Starbucks now I know
it wouldn't get anywhere near the same result. One can
support Robbie Starbucks's tactics or oppose them. What's clear is

(01:26:26):
that corporations increasingly face risks for participating in social activism campaigns,
and the threats now come from both sides of the
political aisle CSR Corporate social responsibility can help business reach
the goals of social justice and economic prosperity by creating
welfare for a broad range of social groups beyond the

(01:26:49):
corporations and their shareholders. He wrote, this is a version
of stakeholder capitalism, an idea that says corporations must look
beyond serving customers to generate the profits for shareholders. Various
other stakeholders must be considered. No, they mustn't, and it's already,
as we're discovered, proving to be a huge failure. I

(01:27:11):
remember there was in New Zealand there was a situation
where something that was happening in the north of the
North Island from memory, got interfered with, if your pardon
the expression, got interfeed with by so called stakeholders in
the bottom of the South Island who had no investment
in the operation whatsoever. Other than this sort of attitude

(01:27:35):
gave them permission to be troublesome. Over time, other incantations
of stakeholder capitalism emerged, including ESG, which stemmed directly from
a two thousand and four report Who Cares Wins spearheaded
by the United Nations Asset Management Groups and Banks. Its
purpose was to develop guidelines and recommendations on how to

(01:27:57):
better integrate environmental, social, and corporate governance issues in asset management, securities,
brokeraage services, and associated research functions. These guidelines and recommendations
eventually morphed into a global ESG framework which graded publicly
traded companies on social responsibility. Now, while corporations are free

(01:28:21):
to inject values into the workplace and support social and
religious programs, they have no societal responsibility to do so.
In fact, there are compelling reasons why they should not
be doing so. The Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman
wrote what he is perhaps the most famous rebuttal to

(01:28:42):
CSR in a nineteen seventy New York Times article titled
a Freedman Doctrine. The social responsibility of business is to
increase its profits. Freedman accused champions of CSR of preaching
pure and unadulterated socialism and being puppets of the intellectual
forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society,

(01:29:06):
Which would probably be an appropriate place to terminate this.
But I shan't Freedman understood the corporations do not have
a social responsibility or a religious one beyond serving their
consumers and generating profits. This is their raison deetre at
how they best serve society. They don't have a responsibility

(01:29:28):
to spread religion, order champion diversity, or to stop climate change,
or to promote equity. These values might be good, might
be good, but it's not the responsibility of corporations to
promote them. This is the most famous element of Freedman.
Of the Freedman doctrine writes the order, but I don't

(01:29:49):
think it's the most important one. The most important line
is Friedman's warning on the dangers of straying from this model,
which he makes at the beginning of the same paragraph.
The doctrine of social responsibility, taken seriously, would extend the
scope of the political mechanism to every human activity. It

(01:30:11):
does not differ in philosophy from the most explicitly collective doctrine.
It differs only by professing to believe that collectivist ends
can be attained without collectivist means. This is the true
danger of CSR stakeholder capitalism, or any of the alphabet
soup acronyms that seek to replace capitalism with collectivist systems

(01:30:35):
that seek to undermine the rights of property owners. Its
risks extending politics into our private lives beyond its proper scope.
One of the hallmarks of a totalitarian society is that
public and private leavers of power are utilized to enforce
adherents to state dogmas, and Freedman was not the first

(01:30:55):
to recognize the potential dangers of corporate social activism, and
that shall do us. I think the article is extremely good,
extremely timely, and valid to hang on to, better to
put up in corporate boardrooms, and if you need to
know where it comes from, here are the details. The
author John Miltamore m I L T I m o ire.

(01:31:18):
He is the managing editor of pe dot org f
W and a senior writer at ai e R, the
American Institute of Economic Research. His writing and reporting has
been the subject of articles in Time Magazine, The Wall
Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune.
If you want to hang it on your corporate wall,

(01:31:41):
that's how you will find it, Leighton Smith. That will
take us out for podcast two five two do not forget.
Please that if you'd like to correspond, and we love
your correspondence, the pithia the better when appropriate Layton at
newstalksib dot co dot mz or Carolyn at newstalksib dot

(01:32:02):
co dot mz. We shall return shortly with podcast number
two hundred and fifty three in the meantime, As always,
thank you for listening and we shall talk soon.

Speaker 1 (01:32:20):
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 #252 - August 21th 2024 - Dr Stephen Rainbow

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Leighton Smith Podcast #252 - August 21th 2024 - Dr Stephen Rainbow