Leighton Smith Podcast #351 - October 28th 2026 - Ramesh Thakur

00:00:00
Speaker 1: It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all the information, all the debate. Now, the Leighton Smith Podcast, powered by Newstalk ZB. Welcome to Podcast 351 for 28 October 2026. Well, the election gets ever closer. This is the second to last. It almost didn't happen.
00:00:24
Speaker 2: Yesterday, at the arranged time, 10 o'clock in the morning New Zealand time, I rang Ramesh, who lives in Australia, and discovered that he was in the middle of a major power crisis. And there was no indication whatsoever of what caused it or how long it would be to be returned. So we said we'd wait for an hour and went about our days separately. And I eventually got online and looked up their address and found out that there was no reason for this given, and they didn't know when it was going to be fixed. Turned out it was fixed about four o'clock yesterday afternoon, and neither of us felt up to it at that point. So we transferred it to today, Wednesday, which is podcast day, and I am running what you might call a little late. Podcast 351 is full of Ramesh Thakur, And I'm not going to say any more about it because it's about an hour 15 and it was enjoyable and we covered so much. You're about to find out. At the end of the podcast, after the mail room, there is something that I've included that you might find somewhat challenging, somewhat scary, but certainly to give you something to think about. But after the break, Ramesh Thakur. Leverix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality. Leverix relieves hay fever and skin allergies or itchy skin. It's a dual action antihistamine and has a unique nasal decongestant action. It's fast-acting for fast relief, and it works in under an hour and lasts for over 24 hours. Leverix is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose, deals with itchy eyes, and stops sneezing. Leverix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality. So next time you're in need of an effective antihistamine, call into the pharmacy and ask for Leverix. L-E-V-R-I-X.
00:02:38
Speaker 1: Leverix.
00:02:39
Speaker 2: And always read the label, take as directed, and if symptoms persist, see your health professional. Pharma broker Auckland. Music Ramesh Thakur needs no formal introduction, not on this podcast. He has made numerous appearances over a lengthy period of time. He is very active all over the world and has been for, well, as long as I can remember. But just in case, let me remind you of his activity, his association at the top level of the United Nations. And even if you don't like the United Nations, I think you might have something in common with him these days. There was the United Nations and, of course, he was a professor at numerous universities, a number of years at Otago, the Australian National University he is renowned. So it is very good to have you back on the podcast, particularly at this time, Ramesh, because there are so many aspects to life. It's actually very difficult to stay on top of them. Welcome back.
00:03:51
Speaker 1: It is indeed. Thank you.
00:03:53
Speaker 2: So I just want to start with something that I found a couple of days ago. It goes back to 2010, and it regards you and Thomas Weiss, who were publishing articles together by the look of it. In the 21st century, you're right, in the 21st century, the world is faced with threats of global scale that cannot be confronted without collective action. Although global government as such does not exist, formal and informal institutions, practices and initiatives together forming global governance bring a greater measure of predictability, stability and order to trans-border issues that might be expected. Yet there are significant gaps between many current global problems and available solutions. And I'll stop there because my question is what you were writing about then has certainly eventuated, but where does it fall in the scheme of things? And I'm talking about where we're at at the moment, what's going on. Where does it fall in the area of expectation?
00:05:14
Speaker 1: I think there's been... A considerable backlash against aspects of global governance which need to be addressed and corrected, course correction if you like, while still recognizing the underlying premise that we need forms of global governance both to mute conflict between countries and to promote cooperation between them. balance right. And I think the balance has tilted far too away from state sovereignty, sovereign governments, and far too away from the institutional manifestations of democratic governments as opposed to governments by the elite on behalf of everyone.
00:06:05
Speaker 2: Would you agree with what I'm about to say, and that is that when discussions are held these days, democracy itself is It doesn't get mentioned all that much.
00:06:16
Speaker 1: It doesn't. And polls record a growing disenchantment for democracy, growing loss of support for it from the younger cohorts in particular, and attractions to quasi-authoritarian, if not outright authoritarian, instincts. But I think that's part of the symptom of a larger syndrome, where particularly in the Western democracies, we seem to have lost faith and confidence in the West's cultural and civilizational heritage and are attracted to others. whose record is far worse than that of the West, put it that way.
00:06:57
Speaker 2: Okay, so why then is the attraction of the others that you've just described, why is that gaining momentum? If it's not as good, why would we want to go there?
00:07:11
Speaker 1: I think that's a... Well, the answer to that is a very complex one that I suspect we will unpick as we go along. But at root... I would actually blame the university sector more than any other because it's we, the professors, who end up teaching and training future school teachers, future university teachers, lawyers, the financial elite, the cultural elite, the bureaucratic elite, and so on. And what the elites have done is form an international coalition even against their own citizens. And again, there'll be aspects of that that we will be going through which symbolize this. And it's something that's worth contemplating. particularly with respect to the populist reactions across the Western world. One nation here, AFD in Germany, reform in the UK. Trump himself is an expression or manifestation of that. Marine Le Pen in France, et cetera. So this is not an isolated phenomenon. And I think, in a sense, it bears out that whole 2010 quote with Tom Beach about the interconnectedness between events around the world and common threads of trajectories, including reactions to things that have happened in the past.
00:08:38
Speaker 2: Is it, in your opinion, the direction that what I'll refer to as the deep state and its associated organisations is looking for, or is... is the reaction that we're getting at the moment in the opposite direction for what they want?
00:08:57
Speaker 1: You know, the standard polling question that pollsters ask within countries, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the direction of your country? I think if you had an equivalent at the global level, world affairs, I think you get a majority dissatisfaction, net dissatisfaction rather than approval or satisfaction. And that's where we are at. So we need to redress the balance, hang on to the good parts that promote cooperation and mute conflict, but not hand over control of our destiny to unelected bureaucrats, whether national or international. And the point you mentioned, I think, is part of the trajectory where We have gone away from accountable, responsive, parliament-led, democratic, sovereign states to more and more power, legislative, administrative, executive, and even judicial in many cases, being handed over to technocrats who... is tribunals and judges who are effective rulers and court aspects of governance going through parliament and actions implemented by executives. So again these are issues that they're going to go through with regard to energy policy, immigration policy, cultural issues. And I think they all are tied in together. And there's this underlying sense of dissatisfaction and, as I said, loss of control over our own identity, over our destiny, and over our freedom of choices as sovereign peoples and nations to decide what sort of future we want. And efforts by the elite, by the way, to tie us on even further. proposed eu australia free trade agreement because our worrying aspects there and the thing we discussed earlier about the wso pandemic treaty where again we are going to tie in constrained choices of future governments by entering into formal agreements now which will influence our policy choices at the behest of international elites rather than our own people.
00:11:10
Speaker 2: It might be appropriate if I now refer to a letter that I have sent you with regard to the news that is, what, 24 hours old or thereabouts now, an open letter to the University of Sydney regarding the appointment of Jacinda Ardern as Professor of Practice. And it's written by Aaliyah Bland, co-founder of Voices of Freedom in New Zealand. Now, it's a lengthy letter. as you're aware. So I'm just going to extract from it as briefly as possible. She writes to dear Professor Scott, I read with absolute disgust that the University of Sydney has appointed Jacinda Ardern as Professor of Practice, where she will apparently be sharing her wisdom on empathetic leadership, social cohesion and civic trust. You cannot be serious. You're quoted as saying, Dame Jacinda led New Zealand through events of profound consequence and her leadership demonstrated that empathy and resolve do not compete with one another. Each can strengthen the other. Appointing Jacinda Ardern to teach social cohesion is rather like appointing Jeffrey Dahmer to teach a course of well-being or Jimmy Savile to run the local daycare centre. The sheer absurdity would almost be funny if the consequences of her leadership weren't so hideously tragic. So I'll turn to the end of it. I wonder whether you have considered why this internationally celebrated former Prime Minister now lives in Australia rather than the country she once led. The depths of hostility toward her among many New Zealanders should give you pause, because I can assure you there is another side to that story, and there are hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who live with the consequences. Some of those people will never recover what they lost. And the woman who presided over it all gets a professorship in empathy? What an absolute disgrace. Yours sincerely. Now, I've left out a lot, most of it, in fact, but that summarises the situation. You have any comment?
00:13:33
Speaker 1: We've discussed it in terms of what this person, Alia Bland, is writing about in many conversations between the two of us for the last four or five years. And you'll know that my sympathies are entirely with Alia Bland rather than Jacinda Ardern. It is very much symptomatic of the disconnect between elite and the people, even in democratic governments. But there's a second phenomenon at work, and that's the point towards the end where the difference between perceptions in country of their former leader and international perceptions. We saw this with Mikhail Gorbachev, who remained immensely popular internationally, especially in the West, long after he became reviled in Russia's former Soviet Union. I have seen that phenomenon with Rajiv Gandhi from India, who retained an international image completely out of sync with the way Indians thought of him. We've seen with others, and I think Jacinda Ardern is perhaps the most recent manifestation of that. At the opposite end, of course, you have Donald Trump, who was elected with a majority vote and yet is a figure of fun and contempt internationally. So you've got this peculiar phenomenon where people's international image can be completely at odds with what their own citizens think of them in terms of the leadership. And that's worth varying. In fact, you remember that question that was asked of Anthony Albanese last month when he got the Global Citizen Award in the US and one of the reporters said, Do you not feel that you're a fraud considering your plummeting popularity back at home, et cetera? So this is not unique to Jacinda Ardern, but I think the letter writer makes some good points. And there's a comment on that. Someone wrote a letter, I think, to The Australian on the same issue saying, A lefty lovey appointed by a lefty lovey lecturing to lefty loveys as an example of inclusion. Again, the implied thing being you cannot be serious. So I think there is that stroke and certainly... There is no indication that the Vice-Chancellor and the leadership of Sydney University were even aware of the extent of hostility towards Jacinda Ardern within New Zealand, which has contributed to her desire to spend more time overseas, the modern equivalent of spending time with family.
00:16:05
Speaker 2: What would you say to those people who don't grasp the scenario as you've just expressed it and we have? What would you say to them? about waking up?
00:16:18
Speaker 1: That's a very good question because their position is they are in a position of moral superiority. And the reason we don't support them is because we don't understand. We are not enlightened enough. And that makes them impervious to reason and logic. And there is an element of ideological worldviews determining their policy preferences and we saw that again in Australia with the voice referendum where the fact that there was a 60-40 rejection despite the unanimity across the elites Where there's not a single university that said, recommended no. Some stayed silent. Those who spoke out said yes. There was unanimity across the financial elite, the cultural elite, the intellectual elite, the media, in terms of the money being given to it as well. was 60-40 against it and the response was well that's because the people are either racist or they don't understand the issues but we'll proceed through stealth anyway and you see that with a lot of issues including at the moment ignoring the backlash to climate change commitments internationally and legislating that or implementing that in national policies it has It has led to deindustrialization. It has led to outsourcing jobs and without making any practical difference to national or global emissions, really. And yet they maintain that commitment, none more than Australia and our energy minister. So that contempt for popular opinion that authoritarians and tyrants have has now infected the elite. And it's something that's very worrying because the entire premise of democratic governance is that ultimately the people get it right. If not this time, then next time around. And you see that reflected, you know, the people voted for Trump. It's the people's fault. And we're just going to ignore that. And we're going to tie up the administration in weaponized lawfare domestically and in laughter and contempt internationally. And that's, again, not restricted here. One other thing in this is that the assault on institutional guardrails seems to be applauded if done by the right side, meaning this is the left side of politics, and it becomes a threat if done by the other. But if you ally that to what we were saying about the university's being overwhelmingly left of center and you can document that very easily with regard to and contributions to funds by American university people, professors and administrators. Because these things, as you know, are public knowledge. They have to be reported. And that is common across the West. It's 90% plus lean to the left of center parties. And that means by now they have succeeded in the long march to the institutions. And so even if you get something through in terms of elections and vote for your parties, they can be tied up in courts and frustrated again and again and again. We see that with the European Convention on Human Rights. at the European Court, and you see that with international efforts as well. So, that's all part of the growing backlash, not just against globalism, but loss of faith in democratic outcomes, the whole phenomenon of uniparty, where no matter who you vote for, you get the same policies. And so, the switch to alternative so-called populist parties. Well, they're populists because they're popular, and they're popular because they actually listen to and respond to voters' concerns. And somehow that is anti-democratic.
00:20:35
Speaker 2: I want to refer you to something that you were responsible for, along with another individual, Thomas Weiss. Back in 2010, where you wrote.
00:20:49
Speaker 2: In the 21st century, the world is faced with threats of global scale that cannot be confronted without collective action. Although global government as such does not exist, formal and informal institutions, practices and initiatives together forming global governance bring a greater measure of predictability, stability and order to trans-border issues that might be expected, or then might be expected. Yet, there are significant gaps between many current global problems and available solutions. That's as far as I need to go. How is the present compared to what you were writing about and what you expected as a direction?
00:21:35
Speaker 1: We did discuss this initially a little bit. Let me give two comments about the other examples. You and I have travelled internationally back and forth, fair bit. We are not alone in that. In order to travel internationally, we assume a measure of order and stability in the system of international travel. That is part of the overlay of global governance. In simple terms, that's what you're talking about. When you buy a ticket for travel either next week or next month or even next year, And it's a complicated set of travels and connecting flights and changing flights, changing terminals, etc. We assume that things will fall in place, and most of the time they do. That applies to financial transactions, that applies to trade, it applies across the board. Now, at the same time, we have seen a growth of more and more control at airports, not just with regard to immigration and customs, but even when you enter airports, when you get ready to board, when you check in, with regard to security protocols, where security requirements are prioritized over possible inconvenience to passengers. I think it has become a theater of the absurd. I don't think they have the balance right. And gradually, I think they're starting to express themselves. But By spreading alarm and fear about what might happen, governments have managed to successfully assert a degree of control over us that we do not accept, for example, with domestic travel by car, which would actually save many more lives than are saved every year by this airport theater that we go through. That's just one small example, but we saw that at a bigger level, a more serious level. with regard to COVID in terms of travel, lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and the letter that you read out from Alia Bland, which drew the human cost of that to the attention of elites because they still indulge their luxury beliefs and have no conception of what this means for the ordinary people having to experience controls and dictates from their own government, supposedly democratic governments. So there is that aspect there as well. I think the balance has shifted. We are requiring more and more subservience of individual conduct through national policy to international consensus on a number of issues. And in the search for that, we have forgotten the importance of freedom. We have forgotten the importance of individual identity tied to our own culture and civilization. and the importance of national identity. And it seems more and more countries fear that their core identity is being changed, not just without their permission, but against their expressed wishes as expressed through elections, where parties, both parties or the two main parties, promised curbs on immigration and then if they are in power they ignore all that anyway we've seen that in Europe we've seen that in the UK we've seen that in Australia and I think you've also seen that in New Zealand and the idea that we have no right to even argue that there are core values that unite us the insult and criticism that is heaped on Pauline Hanson here, for example, when she says that she doesn't believe in multicultural values, she believes in monocultural values. She has problems expressing herself very elegantly, but I think most people know what she means, and that's why that public support for her has not dimmed that much. But these phrases are taken and used to attack her. And there's a slide over the criticism now because people expect this from the elite, from the media, and from commentators, and they ignore it. And that is, again, documented in the loss of faith in pretty much all the leading institutions, which failed us during COVID, by the way. The biggest assault on individual freedoms and civil liberties in human history. the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich and from, you know, wealth from the future generations to sustain the lapses of this generation. All done by parties from both sides of the politics in various Western countries. And yet there has not been a reckoning. There has been no accountability. There have not even been open, genuinely open impartial scrutiny and commissions of inquiry in So that feeling of alienation from the political system and from all the institutions, as I said, is documented in poll after poll and country after country. And that is a reality that the elite refuses to acknowledge, let alone address the causes of that.
00:27:05
Speaker 2: Let me make a comparison or draw a comparison between the two examples you used. First of all, with the interference in life at airports. It all happened, of course, after 9-11. Now, the question that bothers me a little bit about it is, so they got carried away and they still are, but is there not an argument that the thought processes go, if we back off, all we do is issue invitations to those who want to blow up planes and create issues. So we have to maintain it. Is that not an appropriate argument?
00:27:55
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, the balance means there are two sides to the argument. The balance doesn't mean that you only give attention to one side, ignore the other. So, of course, there is an argument to be made. We all want safety, not just for ourselves, but for our family and friends and other people also. We don't want them to be at undue risk. But, you know, the phrase from Benjamin Franklin, I think one of the American founders, one of the early presidents, If you sacrifice liberty to safety, you end up with neither safety nor liberty, or worse to that effect. I think there is a lot to be said for that. And we need to bear in mind, I'll start with human dignity. The way we handle airport security, there is no respect for human dignity in many cases. And I feel sorry for some of the Other people will not see the way in which airport security people react to them or deal with them. There is no need for that. I'm not saying this is a standard thing. Most experienced people are good and they're handled professionally and they're fine. But there are the occasional things you see and you think this is not right and there are ways of handling that. saying. Now, in a sense, you can tie that, you know, we've just had elections in Israel yesterday. It looks like it's a very close-run thing in terms of the exit polls, and we still don't know which of the two sides is going to end up in government and whether Netanyahu will survive or not. But tie this also to what we were saying earlier at the start about the difference between national perceptions and international perceptions. For most Israelis, 7th October 2023 was the wake-up call. And again, their polls indicate a collapse in support for a two-state solution. because it wasn't just a large group of terrorists who came across and committed these mass atrocities. But the real shock was the extent to which these were applauded, cheered and supported by huge numbers of the civilian population when, for example, hostages were paraded through the streets of Gaza and the outbursts of elation and celebration and joy before Israel retaliated, even while the atrocities were still going on, on our own streets. We had that example of the Sheikh in Australia saying, I am elated. This is a day of celebration, etc. And that made them realize that dream of a two-state solution where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side is an illusion and they need secure borders. Now, of course, the argument goes that by focusing solely on their security, the Israelis have ignored the impact on others and have made the situation worse. Now, that's a political argument. But the point is, you do have to look at overreach and that potential for overreach exists even with regard to the institution of a global governance. It exists with regard to the judiciary, both national and international. It's something that the elites have not been prepared to accept that they can overreach because they're convinced of the moral superiority. And there's a reaction to that. Yes, we want to live in a certain way. And if that means cooperation with others, we want to do that. but not at the expense of sacrificing our own core interests and our own core values. And you see that question for balance even with regard to, take the culture wars, the question of trans activism. Of course, we don't want people who genuinely are conflicted about their gender identity to be discriminated against, or to be made fun of, or to be ridiculed, let alone jailed and executed as happens in some countries in terms of gender identity. But it doesn't mean we want to sacrifice hard-won rights of the majority of women with respect to rights, to safety, to dignity, and to fairness, sacrificed at the altar of this ideology, especially when it is clear that some go down this route because it's convenient for them to indulge their predatory instincts on this. So it's this ability to strike a compromise, to have a respectful debate, to maintain civility in the debate, to accept the democratic outcome, and if you don't like it, to try to change it again peacefully within the democratic process. All those core values that previously united us have been lost today. They've been lost under the impact of demonizing our own heritage and civilization values. And at the same time, mass immigration, particularly from cultures that are inhospitable to our core democratic values. And that's the thing that that challenging but necessary conversation that no Western country has been prepared to have. And if you don't have it, you're going to continue to suffer.
00:33:33
Speaker 2: I want to refer to something I got from Brownstone Institute. With regard to policy, because policy has been, I think, the core of your career, am I wrong? Policy articles provide in-depth analysis of social and public policy, examining their wide-ranging impacts on economics, social life, public health, individual liberty, evidence-based decision-making, and institutional accountability. And then he goes on to describe very briefly what they concentrate on and basically why. You've got a professor who concentrates a lot on policy. And I wonder whether people understand, when I say people, I mean most people actually understand the importance of that. Because I didn't at one stage. I'm going back decades, but I didn't really appreciate it as being of any worth. Not that I dwelt on it, but I realise that now. But it is incredibly important. And I was very pleased to see that in the list of impacts, wide-ranging impacts, economics was first of all, because that's my, along with history, my favourite, well, pastime. Would you agree that being a professor of policy is not automatically obvious to people, or a lot of people, as to its importance?
00:35:12
Speaker 1: I would agree with some feeling on that because, again and again, the question raised to me was, well, you're not a doctor. Why should we listen to you on what you're saying in relation to COVID? Now, when it comes to evidence-based, I think... The qualified people, medically qualified people, are better placed to evaluate evidence and competing experiments and studies and the results. But as a policy person, at the end of the day, governments are responsible for policy. And by policy, we don't mean a policy to solve a problem. We're talking essentially about trade-offs. And one of the early open letters in Australia was a group of eminent and prominent economists denying that there was any trade-off between health and economics in terms of COVID policy, which was a really silly thing to say because economics in particular is about policy trade-offs. And there's educational trade-offs, there's labor trade, employment trade-offs. You know, early on, The best example of how to handle COVID remains Sweden internationally. And one of the things they did towards the end of the first year was they lifted their restrictions on family members being able to visit elderly people being held in isolation. Because they said at the end of the day, a lot of these people simply on actual tables are going to die while in care. They deserve a measure of comfort and solace and familiarity rather than the indignity of dying, lonely death, all confused. And I thought that was a very humane policy in relation to a genuine dilemma of how you deal with this, the risk of infection and contagion, even if a lot of it was unknown. with a reasonable measure of comfort and dignity rather than confused and worried and anxious. So it does go back to all that. Any policy that a government outlines and implements has consequences across the range of issues that a government deals with, starting with the allocation of resources within health, between health and education, education, You get this with regard to your incarceration policy. What are the acts of illegality that deserves prison time? How severe should they be? When should you let them out? And across the board, there is always trade-offs. And the art of governance is about making trade-offs in the larger interest for the longer term for the biggest number of people while protecting the minimum essential rights of everyone. So, The trade-offs are always there, and that is the job of the policy analyst. That is why people with technical expertise are advisors. They give their advice. They should be in the room which has the table that contains decision-makers around it, but they should not be sitting at the head of the table making decisions on behalf of the government. This is one of the mistakes we made during COVID, because too many prime ministers and governments abdicated their responsibility and handed over control to the expert advisors and only one expert advisor. The idea that your chief medical officer became essentially the premier of the state or the prime minister of the country was absurd. And we're still paying the price for that. And the long-term price in terms of the amount of borrowing and subsidy. But now we know that essentially the outcomes of COVID were policy invariant, no matter what the policies you ran. The outcomes are remarkably similar across the different jurisdictions. So we could have gone in for this traditional idea of you identify the high-risk targets, you protect them, and let life go on as normal for most of the others. and herd immunity would have worked much better than all the other measures draconian measures that we instituted as you got to lockdown shutdowns mask mandates vaccine mandates where we you know played this game of well It's not compulsion. You still have the choice. But if you exercise the choice one way, you'll just lose your job.
00:39:52
Speaker 2: Yes, there were a lot of people who fell into that category. So before we leave it, is it appropriate to divide the path that was followed with COVID into two categories? One is financial, and I'm talking about money passing hands at the highest of levels. And I'm not inferring to this country. I'm talking specifically about America. And the second platform is take the World Economic Forum for what it is, and that is power and what in control. And here was their chance, and I think they're still hoping to benefit from it.
00:40:38
Speaker 1: I think the World Economic Forum is, forum's role and influence was always exaggerated. At the same time, I think there is an informal network that brings together the elites in different forums in different ways. They exchange ideas, they exchange lessons, they try to influence policy processes in different countries, and they use their access for that purpose. Now, it's a fact of life. that Bill Gates is going to have access to leaders of the country at a qualitatively different level compared to people like you and me. I'm going to live with that. But it's the job of leaders to be aware of that and not to prioritize that over the concern of their own people. Now, just by way of example, I think the latest poll in Australia shows that four-fifths of working-class people no longer support the Labour Party. And when you consider the origins of the Australian Labour Party, as in these Labour Parties in most countries, that was meant to give voice to the workers as an alternative to the Marxist revolution idea of where workers go and where they should unite to what purpose, then that's an astonishing turnaround. But in fact, you see that again, you talked about America, in America as well, The wealthy elite, if you do an electoral map of America, the wealthiest elite now, quite significantly, vote Democrat rather than Republican. And that was one of Trump's attractions as well. He spoke up for the workers who were being put on the unemployment heap as manufacturing was outsourced and the country was deindustrializing. So that is something that needs to be borne in mind. Also, one other thing, going back to the COVID example, and I do want to emphasize that as well in terms of the loss of trust. I've always argued for this reason that we do need accountability. We do need the people responsible for inflicting these disasters on us in country after country to be identified, shamed, and held accountable. We need that because that is necessary to satisfy INH's sense of justice. We need it in order to bring emotional closure to the victims and their families, and I think that letter from Alia Bland that we keep coming back to is a very good example of that. And we need it finally because that's the only way in which we prevent a repetition of this in the future. If elites know that decisions that they make will come back to them and they will be held accountable for them and they will pay individual price for that while they're still alive. then they are more likely to be a lot more careful. If, on the other hand, you get a blanket presidential pardon, as Anthony Fauci did, then a future Anthony Fauci will have no reason to fear being held accountable. So I think that, again, is something that should extend to other places as well. All the Vast amounts of public money being thrown as subsidies for the climate change agenda. Well, they're treating taxpayers' money as though it's just free and it's come from the magic money tree. People have worked hard. The people are struggling, struggling to make ends meet. And yet you're taking their money and throwing even more amounts to indulge your liberal fantasies. I forget what it is, you know, $ 35 million for a pre-COP summit in the South Pacific to which not a significant, not a single significant world leader came in the end.
00:44:44
Speaker 2: How much did you say?
00:44:45
Speaker 1: And they just struck the shoulders. The out-of-control Snowy 2 scheme, the out-of-control NDIS, another well-meaning initiative. That wasn't thought through and sufficient protections were not put in place to protect against out-of-control spending on that. Okay. And within a couple of years, it's going to be beyond Medicare as well. Sorry, go on.
00:45:05
Speaker 2: That latest meeting in Fiji, how much did you say?
00:45:08
Speaker 1: I think it was $ 35 million.
00:45:12
Speaker 2: Sorry, say again.
00:45:12
Speaker 1: $ 35 million Australian dollars. Yeah.
00:45:16
Speaker 2: Well, the reason I asked is because it was only last night that I saw– on one of the shows, that it was quoted by the minister as being 20 million?
00:45:33
Speaker 1: Yep.
00:45:33
Speaker 2: And then they discovered, whoever it was that discovered it, that it was the extra amount that you've just mentioned, yes. So, I mean, you've got in Australia, if I may say so, and I may because of my heritage, you've got a bunch of liars running the country.
00:45:54
Speaker 1: Starting at the top. Oh, dear. I mean, look, the Prime Minister has been caught out yet again lying in Parliament. Yes. There used to be a time when parliamentary democracy, that was a resigning offence.
00:46:10
Speaker 2: Well, I was going to head off in a slightly different tangent just as a result of this conversation. You've mentioned the founding fathers or one or two of them. When it comes to morality, which gets mentioned occasionally these days that we're lacking it, but when it comes to morality, how would you say the founding fathers scored overall?
00:46:38
Speaker 1: You need someone much more deeply versed in American history to answer that. But in the general sense, to me, again, as a public policy analyst, more important than morality in a sense is is integrity. There will be times when leaders are required to be, how shall we put it, you know the phrase, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Of course. As leaders, you have to be given latitude to play around with that a little bit. So you may not necessarily let the whole truth out because, you know, are your motivations... in the public interest or in a private interest. Take a definition of corruption, the abuse of entrusted power for personal gain rather than the public interest as a loose definition, which is much more accurate than looking at financial corruption and stuff like that. So if your intention is to protect your party and win the next election, and you utter a deliberate untruth with that as your primary motivation, then that's a lack of integrity. If, on the other hand, you're trying to advance the national interest and you fear that letting some things out at the moment would be damaging, I can live with that. Now, you know, at the time, if you go back to 1956, I think it was, maybe it was something, a Suez crisis, a Pongo crisis, there was one of these crises that the UN was dealing with at the time of Dag Hammarskjöld as a Secretary-General. and he would probably be rated by most UN analysts as the best SG we've had, and Kofi Annan probably the next one. But during the crisis, he said something, and he was buttonholed outside the Security Council well by the British ambassador. I think it may have been Sir Percy Dixon or someone of such name. who said, you know, maybe you should soften your opposition to what we are doing a little bit. And the Secretary General refused to commit to that. And at some stage, the ambassador reminded him that the UK was a permanent member and therefore held certain powers over the SG's future, particularly if it came to re-election. And he said there is such a thing as a larger political reality. And Hammershul just said, yes, and there is such a thing as integrity. And I remember that, and I think it's impossible for me to imagine a current sector General replying like that to a P5 member. And that's how far we have fallen in the UN system. But that is the point I was trying to make, that I think what is more important than morality in a leader is integrity. And if they... are satisfied they're acting in the national interest and they have to do something that they don't like for that, I can live with that.
00:49:47
Speaker 2: Don't disagree with you at all, really. But I just want to make clear that when I was talking morality, I wasn't referring to that forever failing of human nature with regard to matters sexual. I was meaning more to do with justice, with... with putting together the rules and regulations that they did in the Constitution and keeping things on the levels will have to suffice. And the bottom line is, I don't think it exists now. So we get to the same conclusion.
00:50:30
Speaker 1: Okay. Let me give you two comments in regard to that version of morality that you want to answer to. Firstly... leaders cannot be separated from the times they live in and the people's attitudes. I think compared to then, there has been a dramatic fall in public standards, in ethics, in courtesy, in civility, in the way we speak and behave in the public sphere. And that is reflected in the leadership as well. Second, Take that, I refer to the Australia-EU free trade agreement. What we have is a twofold problem there. One is the European Union has hobbled itself with a number of regulations and rules that have made it dysfunctional and the outcomes, shall we say, suboptimal and are holding it back. But now what it is trying to do is to globalize those rules and regulations through international treaties and commit Australia, and by that I mean all future governments of Australia, to binding climate change targets to industrial relations policies, to human rights provisions that will reflect their values of international or global governance, if you like, and we will be unable to change, and takes power and authority and responsibility and accountability away from the Australian government and the Australian parliament. So that is another symptom of where, and by the way, the point of that being in terms of the morality, I think that is, in fact, the primary motivation of the Albanese government. They fear that the backlash to some of these, immigration is another example, the backlash to some of these will weaken the existing policies and provisions. And they want to guard against that by writing it into international treaty commitments, which then becomes a way of circumventing our constitutional provisions with regard both to parliamentary sovereignty and with regard to federalism. Because you can't do this The international treaty obligations of the federal government have been one of the main routes through which high courts have intruded upon state rights and consolidated the centralizing tendency of government in Australia as a federation. So all these, I think, are part of the motivation of the government to write into law these commitments to write into international treaties and thereby to make it more difficult for future governments to change it, to go away from that, to back away from these. And in that sense, yes, there has been an erosion of morality in terms of trying to advance the interests or the policy preferences of the electorate as opposed to what you believe to be good and you think the people are just stupid.
00:53:49
Speaker 2: What's the answer?
00:53:51
Speaker 1: Take back control. both individually as voters and nationally as countries. So, you know, anything that can be done, well, again, the health easy is a good example. All decisions that can be made in the clinic in consultation between the patient and the physician should be left to the clinic. The government sets out norms and training standards and certification standards. But the decision is left to the patient and the physician, bearing in mind the standard principles of do no harm, informed consent, patient confidentiality, all the existing principles, which have given us the best health outcomes we have ever had in the ministry. And the government's job is, as I said, to provide the infrastructure, to provide the training, and then They exchange information and they exchange practices and lessons with counterparts from other parts of the world, but do not abdicate their responsibility for the health of their citizens to an international health organization like the WHO or whatever, whose job is to, again, advise and collate information and transmit information between different parts of the system. So return power to the individuals, to the states, use the principle of subsidiarity and protect the rights and dignity of the individuals and the rights and responsibilities of the sovereign state and use global governance to cooperate through the response to friction, mute the chances of conflict, promote collaboration and cooperation, but not hand over authority to unaccountable, unelected technocrats and bureaucrats working with them.
00:55:50
Speaker 2: Well, if I was your professor marking your honours, I'd give you first class with that response.
00:55:56
Speaker 1: I'd always be glad to have you as my professor then.
00:56:01
Speaker 2: I see the rank of professorship has dropped somewhat undesirably. Look, I wasn't going to introduce this, but I'm going to now, briefly at least. Guy Hatchett published this on 11 October. Last week we published an article, the latest figures show the alarming depth of the New Zealand health crisis, in which we reported a massive 33% rise in serious conditions at New Zealand EDs. since the use of COVID mRNA vaccines. The rise in sickness has not plateaued. It is accelerating. This article examines crucial factors that are influencing the record rise in medical emergencies and the reasons behind Health New Zealand's lack of an effective response. And then if I may, I'll go a little further. Almost all the political parties competing for our vote in November have put up a united front, pretending that the health crisis is solely due to mismanagement and lack of resources. This shows a complete misunderstanding of the depth of the crisis and its timing, which coincided with the vaccine rollout. Our health service, its managers, consultants and GPs have failed to appreciate that the unique extent and timing of sickness requires proper They have failed to undertake a comprehensive assessment of health crisis outcomes by vaccine status, disease type and age using statistical methods such as panel regression analysis that can identify causal factors. That's the beginning of a lengthy, lengthy submission. Any fault in that?
00:57:52
Speaker 1: I agree with Guy completely on that. I think the way COVID was handled and the way we are handling the climate issues is very similar. We exaggerate the benefits of the policy interventions we are undertaking. We downplay, we be exaggerate the alarmism of the fears that we don't take action. If you don't do anything, then you're a denier or you're risking the complete collapse. We are risking human extinction, et cetera. And we downplay the side effects and the damage. And we refuse to engage in the cost-benefit analysis as part of the policy before we set on the policy. and as looking at the consequences of the policies in terms of the results and efficacy of interventions and the damage of interventions. So it's back to the policy trade-offs. You can do something in good faith, but I don't accept it was done in good faith if you're not prepared to be open in looking at the evidence with regard to how effective it is. and what are the collateral damage as well as potentially collateral benefits of that. And the vaccine injury is part of that. We have had documents released under freedom of information in Australia which showed that the government and the regulators were telling doctors not to mention some things even if they are true because they might feed vaccine hesitancy. And so you downplay the risk of injury and the reality of injury. And even someone mentioning something that is true can see the certification withdrawn by the regulators. So yes, I think it goes back to what I was saying. I think we need a true accounting. It's difficult to see your health outcomes improving without an honest accounting of what went wrong, why that happened, and what can be done to protect it. The idea of silencing contrarian opinions and dissenting opinions as opposed to encouraging it, I think is very flawed. And what you might want to do if you can get him You mentioned Brownstone. There's a recent article by Jayantabhattacharya, Jayabhattacharya, who, if you remember, was one of the three co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration. And as it turned out, he became the most prominent. Joint degrees from medicine and a PhD in economics and statistics, in particular health statistics, from Stanford University. So excellent academic credentials and ability to speak with great clarity. And because of the prominence he achieved in that, he ends up now being the director, head of the National Institute of Health, which is by far the biggest public spending outfit in the world in terms of driving medical research. He has a recent article on the second scientific revolution in Boston. Have you read that? If you haven't, you should read it and you should promote it to your listeners. Yes.
01:01:14
Speaker 2: No, I haven't.
01:01:14
Speaker 1: It's very solid. I actually … Yeah, go on.
01:01:18
Speaker 2: I actually have it printed and waiting in a pile. I'll put it up right at the top after that.
01:01:27
Speaker 1: You should.
01:01:27
Speaker 2: That's all you need to do. At the time, I scored a good interview with his compatriot, not the woman, but the third one who was involved.
01:01:45
Speaker 3: And having the Scandinavian guy yeah and having scored that there was little point at the time of chasing down Bhattacharya but nevertheless.
01:01:55
Speaker 1: I he probably wouldn't do it now as well he's an official but oh.
01:01:59
Speaker 2: Absolutely look Ramesh, I want to revert back to, we touched on this earlier on, but I want to revert back to it and do it in a little more detail. That is the situation in Europe, France and Germany, for instance, the UK, and then there's the US. Now, there are a number of different aspects to what we could discuss, but immigration is one. The situation in France is a huge one. And, of course, you've got the election in the US coming up, the election in Australia, the election in New Zealand. I'd like to just get a word or three on all of those things. Shall we start with France?
01:02:53
Speaker 1: Sure.
01:02:54
Speaker 2: So what's the story?
01:02:57
Speaker 1: Well, France is a symptom of a larger Western thing. And I'll come to France in a minute, but a couple of days ago, the day before yesterday, I told a story in the Daily Mail in the UK. And you have much deeper connections to the UK than I have, which is zero. But there's a story that, I don't know if you saw it, veterans are being refused entry to a Weatherspoon pub if they wear a remembrance poppy. because the staff of Red Spoons have deemed them, the poppies, to be too political. Now, we are not that far away from, sorry, the way you wear poppies. Just think about that for a minute. People wearing a remembrance poppy are being refused entry to a pub in the UK. If that is not a symptom of the malaise that is deeply afflicting people, all western societies and putting us on the path to the civil war that has broken out in France on the streets of France contributed to by immigration it's not the sole factor behind it but it is symptomatic of much broader deeper structural causes that is affecting all of us and I think In that sense, what is happening in France is a red flag, a warning to where we might end up if we are not careful in terms of this collapse of social cohesion, the taking to the streets instead of taking to the ballot box for democratic outlets for differences of opinion and policy. the demonization and vilification of our own values and heritage, the willingness to tear down the symbols, the destruction of the city hall in Limoges, I think that was where it happened, and the collapse of effective government control over the streets of its capital city as well as other places. So in that sense, France is a warning to other countries places as well and there's a very powerful article by the great Douglas Murray in the current issue of the spectator which I know you subscribe to again which you haven't if you haven't read you should read where he goes through examples after example of terrorists including terrorists who have beheaded British hostage on TV and broadcast this to the world and people who belong to that terrorist organization are now part of the group that live in the UK. And he gives several examples from other places. Now, Britain was open to people who were left to be responsible for terrorist acts in foreign lands. I know, for example, the Indian government used to complain that you have these people who are terrorists, whether it was with regard to Kashmir or the Khalistan movement that spread briefly in India. And now it's people who are accused of having ties to terrorist acts against the British themselves, who nonetheless end up in the UK and the government is either unwilling or unable to do anything about it. And Douglas goes through a number of examples of that. And then you have responses to that where They say, you know, we have proven terrorists allowed into the country illegally and legally. And the state not only refuses to deport them or jail them, but actually gives them cash and shelter. And the people don't seem to care enough to vote these people out. You've certainly seen... There's another person who made you. You want to globalize the inter-fiber as a present pet cause. France shows you what globalizing the inter-fiber means. You've got this alliance between the hard-left Marxists and the virulent Islamists who take to the streets in a peculiar, odd alliance. Third element, we say, well, this is a popular revolt against the managerial elite, which believes that its commitment to progress and enlightenment entitles it to disregard public opposition. So that is something that is common across the Western world as well. And all these tie together in France. So I think the significance, long-term and broader significance of what's happening in France is whether That is a harbinger of things that we might expect unless we go in for dramatic course correction in other Western countries as well. And I think the line that Schreiber used, the phrase, what you have in France is, on the one hand, a corpulent government. In other words, a government that's addicted to spending and therefore raising taxes rather than controlling spending. and an entitled populace, people who believe that they're entitled to more and more government help and not worry about where the money is going to come from. That, again, is a symptom all over the world. Sorry, go on.
01:08:50
Speaker 2: I think I quoted some of that Lionel Shriver piece on the podcast at the time. She's a very good writer.
01:08:59
Speaker 1: She is incredible. Well, she's a writer by profession. So, yeah. So, that is there. I think all those factors are there. And the way the quotes just … ignore outbreaks of violence and free the people in the final Soviet court.
01:09:18
Speaker 2: Well, at the moment we're experiencing, are we not, a very fine balance in different parts of the world, in America with their midterms, Europe, of course, covers itself.
01:09:33
Speaker 1: Where else?
01:09:34
Speaker 2: I think Australia and, quite frankly, New Zealand. There is the opportunity this far away because I think we are the least impacted by what has been going on or is going on. But it will eventually hatch itself. And we've got some lunatics here who belong to the Green Party. And would you believe, by the way, that in the rankings– The Green Party is running third with 15%. I can believe it. Well, I think to believe it, you've got to understand why it happens or how it's happened everywhere pretty much, but it's the education they're getting right from primary school.
01:10:30
Speaker 1: Well. and the reason they're getting the education is the teachers are being trained in universities, which goes back to what I was saying. But one thing, let me ask you a question in response to that. You said that New Zealand is one of the least impacted. Could that be one explanation for why New Zealand is so far being exempted from the rights of a populist party like One Nation, Pauline Hanson's One Nation here, Reform UK, AFT, Marine Le Pen, etc.
01:10:59
Speaker 2: Well, you'd say that the The Green Party would be as close to it as you're going to get. But there is another party that you may not have heard of. They are not represented in Parliament. They are outside of Parliament, and they're called TOP, T-O-P. You familiar with it?
01:11:21
Speaker 1: No, but what is the level of support for them?
01:11:24
Speaker 2: It got up to, I think, 8% on– what's today– Two days ago, I think they had dropped to 6%. Okay. It could have even been yesterday.
01:11:38
Speaker 1: Yeah.
01:11:38
Speaker 2: That's the difference with Australia, though.
01:11:40
Speaker 1: In the latest News 24 YouGov poll, one nation is at 27%, Labour at 24%, and Coalition at 23%. This is the primary vote. Yeah. And in that poll... Albanese has a net minus 30 satisfaction rating, 32 to 62. This is a poll that said four percent of workers no longer identify with the Labour Party. Yes. So in the UK, you've got, you know, essentially you've got three-way tie now between conservative Labour and reform. You have the same in Australia between One Nation, Labour and Coalition. The Greens are still there, Independents are there, Teens are there, but at the leadership level or at the top level is the three-way tie for popularity, which goes up and down a little bit, but it seems fairly stable. We'll see how that goes in Victoria, which has historically been the most Labour-friendly thing in recent times, but we'll see.
01:12:50
Speaker 2: Let me ask you one last question.
01:12:52
Speaker 1: Sure.
01:12:54
Speaker 2: And it comes now in various forms. Once upon a time it was just socialism. Now it's socialism bar one or whatever. Socialism has caught on undoubtedly with a very large number of young people. What's the best way, do you think, or how best to put a stop to that and to help young people realise that the facts of life.
01:13:26
Speaker 1: It does go back to education. I'm all in favor of being honest about the bad things that European empires in particular were responsible for in history. But I think that should be alongside the much more important, significant, and long-lasting good that they did through the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. I think we need to emphasize the extent to which fossil fuel-based economic policies and growth have benefited humankind with regard to health outcomes, education, democratization, equality, the whole lot. I think at the same time, we need to make sure that the education system includes an examination of the damage done caused by socialism, wherever it has been tried and implemented, including in communist countries, both historically and today, and why it has been a failed economic system. We don't study that enough. Instead, we spend too much time on, as I said, vilifying Western civilization and culture, glorifying others, and ignoring the... I mean, how can you have things like gaze for Gaza when you know what they do to gaze in that place to open to gaze that who have come out of the closet it has to be a level of romanticizing ignorance about what they're talking about and we need to start with that and point out you know the Margaret Thatcher line you eventually run out of other people's money. I think, I mean, to be honest, I think there's an element of racism in the belief that because we are white, we can escape economic reality forever. Well, you can't. You're going to pay the price. Reality is going to come and bite you. And we are starting to see that. More and more, we are taking away the future. of our present young generation and the next generation in order to sustain a lifestyle that is not sustainable because we think we are entitled to government largesse without having to work for it, without addressing key productivity measures. And I think it's Australia that has actually suffered the worst fall in per capita income over the past decade in the entire OECD. And that reality hasn't still gotten through. But now that we are struggling with grocery, we are struggling with electricity prices, we are getting used to accepting that the governments have lied to us and saying that, you know, renewables are cheap because they are free. You don't have to pay a price for the sun, you don't have to pay a price for the wind, etc. These things are getting their end of perception. that the government have been lying to us is getting deeply entrenched. And that is a problem, I think, when it comes to voting. I suspect there will be a political reality check for labor as well. So let's see what happens in Victoria. But for the globe, of course, it's the Israeli election and the U.S. midterms that are going to be much more significant. If, in fact, the Republicans regain control of both houses, or even one house, will that free President Trump to do what he wants, regardless of consequences, because he's no longer up for re-election? Or will it hobble him with a newly empowered Democratic Party controlling Congress, going after him with a vengeance, with yet another attempt at impeachment? We shall see.
01:17:41
Speaker 2: Oh, there'll be the attempts at impeachment. Trust me, I'm not a politician. Anyway, you know something? That was one of the best discussions I've had for a while, and we left many things untouched. So I'll leave you alone for the rest of the year, but come the new year.
01:18:10
Speaker 1: You should come back to some of these issues in the new year. Exactly.
01:18:13
Speaker 2: Once again, I just say thank you. You are much appreciated, and there will be considerable feedback from it.
01:18:22
Speaker 1: Thanks, Leighton, and take care. I'm glad we finally managed it.
01:18:26
Speaker 2: I haven't told that story yet, but I shall.
01:18:29
Speaker 1: You should, because it's, again, a symptom in its own way. I spent three weeks in India. You just come back from there, as you know. And I had a seven- to eight-hour power blackout at home back in Australia. Nothing like that happened while we were in India. If that is not a comment in its own way on the trajectory in which we are today, I don't know what is.
01:18:54
Speaker 2: No, spot on. Thank you, Ramesh.
01:18:57
Speaker 1: Take care. Bye.
01:19:12
Speaker 2: I went to the mailroom for 351 with Mrs Producer. Are you feeling a bit weary of it?
01:19:18
Speaker 4: Of the election?
01:19:19
Speaker 2: No, of the 351.
01:19:22
Speaker 4: I've just been listening to election stuff, so that's what I thought you were talking about. Not at all late, and every week's a fabulous week.
01:19:28
Speaker 1: All right. Kick it off. Ready to start? Yep. Okay.
01:19:31
Speaker 4: Joy says, thanks for your great interview with Shane Jones this week. Towards the end, you asked how people decided between the ACT or New Zealand First Parties for their party vote. I like many of the policies of both parties, but my make or break point is the moral stance, especially the sanctity of life. That is why I will be giving my party vote to New Zealand first. Plus the fact both Winston and Shane support the Judeo-Christian heritage in New Zealand. Thanks again, Leighton, for continuing to give us such informative podcasts.
01:20:02
Speaker 2: Joy, thank you. Chris writes, voting is the purchase of services for the next three years, but I predict low voter turnout. What would you say to that, low voter turnout?
01:20:15
Speaker 1: Well, with the.
01:20:17
Speaker 4: Changes that have happened, maybe it's going to be a lower voter turnout.
01:20:20
Speaker 1: Who knows?
01:20:21
Speaker 2: Interesting.
01:20:22
Speaker 1: All right.
01:20:23
Speaker 2: I hadn't even given it a thought. The person with the most compelling story wins, says Chris. Donald Trump had a clear message, make America great, but his opponents had the message, I'm not Donald Trump, and we know who won there. Martin Luther King created action with I Have a Dream. Winston Churchill inspired a nation with, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight them on the landing ground, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender. Compelling messages create action. The messages from our political parties are, we're not Labour, I'm not Jacinda. Immigration is the enemy. Bicycles are better, white people make me angry, more tax will fix it, Less tax will fix it. In the words of Donald Miller, if you confuse, you lose. I hope enough people turn up on polling day, but I don't think that motivation will come from a clear description of a future worth voting for.
01:21:29
Speaker 4: Leighton Brett, forgive me, Brett, it was a wonderfully long and thoughtful email, but I might just have to give it a bit of a slice.
01:21:37
Speaker 1: For time.
01:21:38
Speaker 4: New Zealand First appear confident New Zealand can create a sovereign wealth fund like Norway. Between that, doubling the economy and the Cullen Fund, they are confident we can support New Zealand super into the future and improve our ability dealing with some of the country's problems. Then he goes on to say he watched online the fact that Winston was in Palmerston North a couple of days ago, and he outlines a few other things he likes the look of. But he says numerous other policies covering a range of issues. What flies, what doesn't is anyone's guess, given there will be two other parties to deal with, each with their own agendas. At least New Zealand First has ambition, vision and a plan for the nation to change its fortunes. They have stated their position on race matters. What that will mean in reality, we will have to wait and see. As for family violence, he hasn't minced his words. The cultural change has to come from within the culture itself. If New Zealand first get the level of support to be in the driver's seat, the bureaucracy might just get a wake-up call they can't ignore. And that's from Brett.
01:22:44
Speaker 2: Brett, thank you. From, I'm not sure who this is from, actually. There's two names at the bottom of it. So we'll say Mike, even though it's in, I presume, his wife's name. Here is an article about an audit on NIWA showing misleading temperature records. Now, the reason for that was because last week I made mention after the podcast, sorry, after the mailroom, I think from memory, with regard to the Australian equivalent, MOB, because they've got caught out lying about the history of temperatures and weather conditions, etc. And it's got worse for them now too. They've discovered more. And this one is NIWA. And as you can see, Mrs. Producer, it's a lengthy one. But a spot audit of NIWA's 2023 flagship annual climate summary report and some of its predecessors over the past five years has uncovered multiple major errors that cumulatively exaggerate the impact of climate change and drive public fear. Based on a detailed analysis of historic newspaper reports containing temperature, rainfall and other weather data and comparing them to NIWA's published climate summaries, the audit has found, now very quickly, claimed temperature records that were never real records, claimed rainfall records that were never real records, NIWA published false information on New Zealand's biggest historic cyclone, creating a false narrative that Cyclone Gabriel was bigger and driven by climate change. Cherry-picked data is being used to exaggerate the apparent frequency of climate records being broken. The list goes on and on. A year ago, the original Climate of Fear study on New Zealand historic storms found huge gaps in NIWA's knowledge of our pre-industrial climate. Now, that's about a quarter of the whole thing. But it's full of detail.
01:24:52
Speaker 4: Leighton Ginn says, Shane Jones has spot New Zealand is no longer a prosperous country. And Douglas Kruger, someone I'd never heard of until last week, argues that New Zealand fell from being one of the world's wealthiest nations to one of the poorest because of one thing and one thing alone, excessive government legislation. Labour announced so-called digital duty of care legislation, which introduces the internet police to control what Kiwis can say and see online. The Green Party want to extend hate speech laws. The Maori Party want to entrench Te Tiriti racism in all legislation. TOP wants to push its so-called tax reset. or as John Banks calls it, the cat party, which I really like, which is really a land value tax that would impose more taxes on people who've worked hard to pay for the land they own. If we thought New Zealand was already a poor nation, just wait until these four horsemen of dictatorship cement our nation's abject poverty in the annals of history through their excessive government legislation. Isn't that gorgeous from Jim?
01:26:00
Speaker 2: Yes, very nice. Well, Gin wrote a second one. In fact, I think it was the first one after last week. Now, this is short, but I'm looking forward to you reading it.
01:26:13
Speaker 4: Man, you guys got to stop tempting me with new books. After you, Leighton, read from Simon Sebag Montefiore's book in the last podcast, I looked into it and, man, that guy makes history sound interesting through narrative form. I ended up ordering a couple of his physical books from Amazon. My wife won't be happy I keep buying books like this. I've run out of shelf space, so putting them in boxes. No, your wife won't be happy, Jen. I understand that feeling, tell your wife. Thanks, though. Very much appreciate you introducing some good books, Leighton. Hope you both are having a good weekend.
01:26:48
Speaker 2: There you go. Jen, don't hesitate. Get your hands on a good bookcase, you know, a really good bookcase, and then stash it. I recommend it.
01:26:58
Speaker 4: At least Jim's probably not buying two of the same book just in case he wants to give one away or just because he likes the look of two of the same book nestled together on a bookshelf. Sorry, Leighton, I'm not.
01:27:10
Speaker 1: Picking on you.
01:27:11
Speaker 2: And you've read how many of them, so how would you know?
01:27:14
Speaker 1: How many have you read?
01:27:15
Speaker 2: That's not the point. They're my books and I'm not being critical of myself.
01:27:19
Speaker 1: Fair enough.
01:27:20
Speaker 2: Now, Alistair has written, and Alistair's my last one, I think, and it's a very long one.
01:27:26
Speaker 3: How many.
01:27:27
Speaker 2: Words on that page?
01:27:28
Speaker 1: 600. You reckon?
01:27:32
Speaker 2: Let's give it a bash, shall we? They're all in short paragraphs, so I'll tackle each one. Firstly, as we endure perhaps the most nauseating election campaign in decades, can I extend a sincere thank you to yourself and Carolyn for bringing some content worthy of the magnitude of this election. I have thoroughly enjoyed your recent episodes with Rodney Hyde, John Banks, and most recently with Shane Jones. All of them are articulate and interesting speakers that are not afraid to let us know what they stand for and what they believe in. Your show is a welcome reprieve from the mundane cycle of utter rubbish that is dished up as election campaign coverage. Mind you, it's hard to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. Well, I'll go with that. The quality of campaigning from the parties is merely a reflection of the quality of or lack thereof, that they bring to the table in terms of a vision for our once great country. Case in point would be national. The sum of their campaign is vote for us because the other lot are worse. All Luxon and Willis can do is go on ad nauseum about how bad Labor et al.
01:28:48
Speaker 1: Are.
01:28:50
Speaker 2: We know that. What we don't know is what National stands for now. What is their bold vision for our country or will they simply continue to serve upsteady as she goes, with minor tweaks. Now, let's have a look. I want to balance this. You asked at the end of the podcast with Shane, how are we going to decide between ACT and New Zealand First, as clearly national are no longer an option. Now, Alistair, you've done a very interesting appraisal of your life. I'll pass it over for the moment, but I will put it aside and maybe sometime... Later, we'll get to it. But, so I'll pick it up here. These days I've become somewhat of a political refugee. National are a vacuous hollow of what they once were. ACT has betrayed us. Any on the left are so utterly devoid of any commercial acumen that they will financially ruin us. So that leaves New Zealand first. I was never a huge fan of Winston, but increasingly his party is the only one that's prepared to speak out without fear of public outcry. or offending the woke brigade, and it seems the only party prepared to stand up to the absurdity of Luxembourg's bottom line on net zero. New Zealand First are now building a party with some depth that will prosper beyond the career of Winston. Experienced candidates like Shane Jones, Ron Mark, etc. are being joined by fresh faces like Tane Randall and Craig Stobbo. to build a party that can endure and prosper beyond Winston and so this year I will be throwing my support behind NZF with both ticks. I have to say this conviction was severely tested when they announced Stu Nash as a candidate. I actually wrote to them and suggested this was a terrible mistake. I shouldn't have worried as true to form Stu shot himself in the foot, I think both, And I hope the NZF board have learnt that it is possible to have a severe lapse of judgment of character. Leighton, Carolyn, thank you for listening to my ramblings and may you keep up the great work from Alistair. A lot of effort in that, mate. Thank you.
01:31:00
Speaker 1: Thank you.
01:31:02
Speaker 4: Leighton, lastly from me, Gerard says, so once again we are facing an election and once again the left is attacking National and the Coalition with all barrels, strikes, polls and media criticism of everything they can. whilst ignoring all the positives achieved over the past three years. At the same time, they're waxing lyrical about the left block. Top is a gift for the left. And then he goes on, Gerard, to say, for some years I have taken part in surveys from a few survey companies, but there was one in particular that I favoured. In March, to my surprise, they presented me with a survey on the media, and particularly television. I happily completed it with honesty, and at the end I was asked why I held my views. I replied that the media was female-centric, Maori-centric, and profoundly biased to the left. In April, I found that I couldn't complete surveys for that company anymore, and I asked why, and he received, says the Gerard, an email saying that he no longer qualified for their surveys and his membership had been cancelled. So he goes on to say, I approached this election looking at the rest of the world and how so many populations are now rebelling against their left-wing governments. By the way, just another little addendum to the surveys that he did. He says, so he no longer trusts the results of the polls. He said, I believe they're designed to promote the left bloc. and denigrate all the others. And finally, he goes on to say, kind regards, and for what it's worth, I never miss a podcast. I especially like listening to Rodney High, Don Brash, Richard Prebble, and Oliver Hartwich.
01:32:45
Speaker 2: We'll bring them back next year, maybe.
01:32:48
Speaker 1: Mrs.
01:32:48
Speaker 2: Producer, would you say that was done under a little pressure?
01:32:55
Speaker 4: Done under a little pressure?
01:32:56
Speaker 1: Yeah.
01:32:56
Speaker 4: Well, there was a lot of editing going on, wasn't there? It's just trying to get it all into time. But, guys, thank you so much for your communication. And don't stop, but sometimes we just have to make it a little bit tighter.
01:33:08
Speaker 2: And a little reminder that coming up next is something that I think will disturb you and get you thinking at the same time.
01:33:18
Speaker 1: Can't wait.
01:33:33
Speaker 2: Let me explain just quickly why I'm about to quote something of a little length. It is because of what's going on in the world without having to run through it all again, because it's all over the place and we know it and we're saturated with it. So the headline stole my attention and this is how it goes. In 1200 BC, worldwide civilization fell into ruins. That is only partially an overstatement. The Americas and Asia were on a separate path, but the Mediterranean complex of civilisations, the known world, was all but destroyed. It was laying the foundation of Western civilisation, which is the modern worldwide standard for science, technology, human rights and self-government, and critically, an enduring monotheistic society. The title of the article is... Is it time for another worldwide civilizational collapse? Spooked yet? The Bronze Age collapse took about a century, but that is sudden in terms of history. Before 1300 BC, there was a network of prosperous, stable kingdoms. Then, shortly after, everything went wrong and wrong at once. Volcanoes and invasions were the headline causes, but numerous other factors came into play. The result was the destruction of mighty empires, thriving cities fell into ruin, trade routes were cut, barbarians massacred entire populations. Recovery took centuries, but here we are, enjoying yet another golden age of worldwide prosperity. Yes, there are dark spots and open sores in the picture, but day to day, most people awaken to indoor plumbing and controlled temperatures. They enjoy breakfast and they thrive within family, career and comfort. It could all come crashing down in a lifetime or less. In the 1980s, cultural revolutionaries chanted, hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Sim had got to go. Gosh, it got boring too. If no one took them seriously at the time, we do now because they're getting their wish. Witness Europe. The aforementioned modern worldwide standard for science, et cetera, is being eroded. Invaders who once were repelled at the walls have now been invited in through the gates and given food and shelter and medical care and freedom. In return, they plunder, rape and murder their benefactors. The revolution continues. Now, all of this was not only eminently predictable, but actually predicted. Hungary and Poland sounded the warning loud and clear, as did classic liberals throughout Europe and the Anglosphere. Today, those two nations are the safest and most stable countries in Europe. Yet they're exhoriated by the others for practising the very policies that make them the shining examples of what the continent could be. The lepers are screaming at the healthy. Be like us. Is a reversal of the currently unfolding self-destruction possible? Yes, but the bandage must be painfully ripped off. Mass deportation. previously unthinkable to the leftist mind, is now being seriously discussed as a necessity. Painful solutions, however, are not something ignorant populations accept or even understand. As our founders understood, evils will be suffered while they're sufferable, but eventually they become neither tolerable nor tolerated. What happens when the evils are so deeply embedded that removing them is not merely painful but but destructive of the institutions of power. And embedded they are. Western Europe, which was once the bastion of all that is valuable in a free society, has fallen into a state of what can only be called terminal madness. A state in which the cure is deemed to be the disease and vice versa. Worse yet, Canada and Australia, legendary allies and partners of the United States, are falling headlong into the same mire. Myers, almost by definition, only get worse, pulling their victims ever downward, the more they struggle to extricate themselves. Canada will soon discover this, courtesy of its new friends in communist China. In the 1940s, European civilisation was on the brink of final collapse. The economies of Italy and Germany had become so distressed that brutal dictatorships were installed as a solution, bringing even more ruin. Will history repeat itself? Now there is hope. Bronze was never the best metal. Iron is better, but iron is more difficult to forge than the copper tin alloy of bronze. Only when the supply of tin were cut off were the metalsmiths forced to resort to the more abundant and stronger element, iron. It had been there all along, available the whole time. In brackets, does this give greater meaning to the word irony? By analogy, multiculturalism is the weak alloy of various incompatible cultures. The values of Western civilization are the iron, difficult to practice but superior values to which we must return. Europe can survive, but it'll have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, and worse, the whole way. Viva Hungary and viva Poland, is the way it concludes. And that is where we sit at the moment. Now, if you're anything like me, you might want to listen to that again.
01:39:18
Speaker 1: Why?
01:39:18
Speaker 2: Because one often learns more the second time around, and it'll create a desire to follow not just the news, but what's behind the headlines. And never forget that forewarned is forearmed. So, all that remains to be said is thank you for listening, and we shall talk soon.
01:39:42
Speaker 1: Thank you.