You're listening to a podcast from news talks it be. 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 down the Layton Smith podcast powered by news talks it.
B Welcome to podcasts two hundred and sixty seven for twenty seven November twenty twenty four. You know when the New Zealand Parliamentary debating chamber was reduced to a comedic stage. Recently, the whole world took notice. Over the years, this country has been ridiculed on numerous occasions, more so during the adern administration. And come to think of it, there have been numerous counts of New Zealand politicians in particular making
this country appear as a non civilized backwater. But the latest event stands isolated in the ranks of stupidity. The target, David Seymour, deserves congratulating for his demeanor. The patience of mister Speaker was too much to bear. His inability to
enforce suspension of the perpetrator exemplifies many failings in our system. Unfortunately, surrender was the worst option I've had Inquiries from friends, family, and from listeners overseas as to what the heck is happening to New Zealand, and I would bet that many of you have also, So for those who don't understand the position we find ourselves in, David Seymour, the Act Party leader, provides answers to most of those questions. He is, after all the man of the moment with the Treaty
Principle's Bill. But first Cop twenty nine has just concluded in Maaku in Azerbaijan. As usual, there were a dramatic number of people there, far more than is necessary, and it cost megabucks, as it always does huge And I might touch on some of that the back end of the podcast, but I want to give you an example of why all this is a waste of time. It's one of many, many, many, but it's the most recent
that's come to the hand. It was published today November twenty seven, written by Frank Battini, who was a forester and environmental scientist, previously an adjunct professor of environmental science at a Murdoch College or the Murdoch University in Western Australia. It's published in Quadrant magazine and I'll give you a bit more detail. I remember at the end headed bad models and worse science in West Australia. Within government, academia
and the media. In Western Australia, it is now virtually an undeniable truth that rainfall in the southwest of the state is in permanent decline and that this is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The premise is that only net zero by twenty fifty will correct the situation. However, this is a deception based on flawed models and failure to consider long term rainfall records. Rainfall data collected over a period of one hundred and
sixty years support an alternative hypothesis. Rainfall patterns follow multidecadaled cycles, and there have been many periods in our history when the climate has been wetter or drier than average. As I will outline below, my attempt to discuss this alternative scenario with model makers and government have been fruitless. Simply put, climate modelers and proponents of climate change are in the ascendency and they choose to ignore the empirical data because
you're ready, because their models cannot explain it. In this discussion, I start with four things about which the model makers and I agree. I don't dispute the carbon dioxide SEE two is one of the greenhouse gases, although by far not the most dominant. I agree that rainfall has been generally below long term averages over the last or over recent decades. I also agree that without greenhouse gases, our earth would be inhospitably cold and humans would not have evolved.
And finally, CO two is not a dangerous pollutant. It is a key ingredient in the process of photosynthesis, without which all humans would die. Do they teach that to kids in school when they teach the other crap? He goes on. Where the model makers and I disagree, however, is with the assertion that our below average rainfall, which they call a drying trend since nineteen seventy, is a result of rising levels of CO two and increased temperature.
The WA Department of Water and Environmental Regulation reduced to dwer or clearly believe this. Indeed, they go even further. Their climate model makers project a trend line of further decreases in rainfall via up to fifteen percent by twenty thirty, and by a further twenty five to forty five percent by twenty ninety, depending on whether intermediate or high emission
scenarios of carbon dioxide are used in their model. The post nineteen seventy decline in rainfall in the southwest of West Australia is said to be the most extreme in Australia and likened by Duur to the Canary in the coal mine. It is receiving special attention and attracting funds. The WA government has recently funded a three million dollar climate change initiative study, the aim being to further refine climate models. This initiative can be traced back directly to
duurs dramatically pessimistic projections of future rainfall. One more little paragraph. There is an intriguing flaw in all of this. The climate modelers have overlooked one of the most basic principles in the science of trend analysis and projection. This is the choice of baseline, the starting point from which a trend is analyzed. Selection of baseline is critical, since an inappropriate selection will lead to incorrect conclusions and to flawed projections.
The baseline year that WA climate model makers have chosen is nineteen fifty. I shall leave it there. Bad models and worse science from quadrant dot org dot Au November twenty seven. Now at the back end of two sixty seven, after the mail room and possibly a little more on climate, there is a missive from someone known as a former National Party MP and I don't think you want to miss it, but in a moment David Seymour. Leverrix is an antihistamine made in Switzerland to the highest quality. Leverix
relieves hay fever in skin, allergies or itchy skin. It's a dual action antihistamine and has a unique nasal decongestent action. It's fast acting for fast relief and it works in under an hour and lasts for over twenty four hours. Leverrix is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose, deals with itchy eyes, and stops sneezing. Leverrix is an antihistamine
made in Switzerland to the highest quantity. So next time you're in need of an effective antihistamine, call into the pharmacy and ask for Leverrix lv Rix, Leverrix and always read the label. Take as directed and if symptoms persist, see your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland Layton Smith David Seymour, Act Party leader soon to be Deputy Prime Minister, Man of the moment. So it seems it's good to have you back on the Laton Smith podcast and thank you. I appreciate it.
No, thank you, Laton. That's always a good conversation.
Here, David. I have had lots of inquiries from people, including overseas, wanting to know what the story is that we're about to discuss the Treaty Principles Bill and the why it is causing such of us and how did we get here. I thought it appropriate to approach it from a historical point of view and go back to wherever you think might be the beginning of this and develop it, not necessarily in every detail, but in enough so that people can get a grasp on it. So
let me make a comment first. To me, the situation we find ourselves in is very largely the responsibility of administrations through the years, different administrations of both sides of the isle, who have handled things incompetently. Now, starting where you think the beginning should be, do you agree with that or where would you go?
I do, but I'll go right back. I think about sixty million years, New Zealand became a land mass very isolated from the rest of the world, one of the reasons we have such unusual bird life and flora and
flauna generally. And it wasn't until about thirteen hundred that some Polynesian explorers found New Zealand's and settled here and became the Maori people, and they lived in total isolation until sixteen forty two when Abel Tasman from the Netherlands staled past and lived without contact with Europeans until seventeen
six nine when Captain Cook actually landed. And throughout the late seventeen hundreds and early eighteen hundreds there was some settlement in some trading of Europeans, but only in the low hundreds, perhaps the low thousands. By eighteen thirty five there was a little bit of friction. A lot of Mari had traveled at least to Sydney, in some cases
to London. They started to think about what a nation state would look like, and some northern Maori issued Hefakaputia, or the Declaration of Independence, which they would regard as creating an independent and separate nation. By eighteen forty things were getting more difficult. The French were sniffing around the South Pacific. There'd been mass conflict amongst Maori due to being provided with muskets, which they used to settle old scores and kill almost ends of thousands of people in
the Musket Wars. And so the idea of this supposedly independent nation forming some sort of relationship with the British Crown seemed very appealing because, as I mentioned, some had
been to London, some had been to Sydney. They saw that the United Kingdom as being the superpower of its day, as they'd found out once they got hold of the muskets, and they were eager for the rights and duties of British citizens for the protection of the British Crown, partly from the settlers and partly from each other.
And so they signed this.
Treaty at Waititony on the sixth of February eighteen forty. I think what nobody at that time had anticipated was quite how rapidly Europeans would come. And so by the end of the nineteen hundreds you had over half a million Europeans here, and the Maori population had actually shrunk due to disease and conflict and so on, to a
tenth of that. And so I think, you know, there's probably a fair grievance that in that period, in the late nineteenth century to late eighteen hundreds, that is a lot of things that nobody could.
Have anticipated happened.
And through the twentieth century, you know, a rising movement came about to try and restore the Maru language and culture the place of Maori. Serapurana Nata, who was on the fifty dollar note, played an incredible role in really revitalizing a culture again. And by the sixties and seventies, just like around the world, you had a lot of revolts and a lot of people protesting and campaigning for
different movements all over the place. In New Zealand, you had the idea that they needed to a real reckoning in New Zealand's race relations and a change in our constitutional arrangement. And that gets you to nineteen seventy five
when the Treaty of White Tangy X was passed. It created the White Tangy Tribunal and it said that there were principles of the treaty, but nobody knew what they were and nobody really asked the question for another twelve years when Parliament passed a law saying that in order to privatize some hydro electricity companies, the government would observe
the principles of the treaty. So the Maori Council went off to the Court of Appeal and they said, well, we think the principles are that the treaty formed a partnership between races. It involves active care and protection on the part of the Crown towards Maori. And all of a sudden you had this idea that there was a group of people who were in partnership either with all Europeans or at least with the Crown, and all of
a sudden our country was divided into collectives. And over the ensuing fifty years, the White Hangh Tribunal, the courts, at some point the Public Service have tried to expand and define those principles. But where it got us to buy about twenty twenty twenty twenty one is that the partnership principle that New Zealand is an amalgam of two collectives based on ancestry.
Had really gone full flight.
So we had to have a separate Maori Health Authority because there's two partners we had to have co governance of three waters, the municipal infrastructure. We had to have two chief executives at the Human Rights Commission, one representing each side of the partnership.
Schools or school boards.
Were required to give effect to the treaty, meaning that they had to teach children to live in this bicultural way. And so all of a sudden, New Zealand had been transformed from a country that practiced liberal democracy with equal individual rights for each person to live and thrive in their own way. Instead, we had become this compact of two collectives defined by ancestry.
And at that point the government changed. And here we are.
I've never allowed, or nobody's ever taken such a length of time for an opening statement, but I let your roll because it was worthy. And even I picked up a couple of points I was unfamiliar with. I was of the opinion that it was Jeffrey Palmer who introduced the partnership plot.
Well, he certainly was involved in the State and Enterprises Act in nineteen eighty six, which was the subject of the nineteen eighty seven Court of Appeal Act. That's the thing I referred to with the hydroelectricity. And I know that Palmer has been found on the record saying well, you know, now that this has been decided by the.
Courts, that's out of reach of politicians.
I think Sir Jeffrey may have even practiced a certain element of self loathing, and that he was always eager for things to be dealt with by judges, lawyers and courtrooms rather than politicians.
Well that was contagious, of course, and it continues today. But we might get onto that a little later, although here I am sort of touching on it. Anyway, the assumption of different opinions some would like to call them facts, and the operation off the back of that assumption is something that has further got us into trouble. I feel the assumptions haven't been arrested on birth, and so they have grown. And I'll give you a prime example that of a tier rower, all of a sudden, a tier
rower who came into play instead of New Zealand. And it was first of all a tier row in New Zealand, and it has become on frequent occasions, many occasions simply a ti rower has replaced the name New Zealand. People have the assumption that that's what it now is, because it's it's been formally adopted, which it hasn't, of course, But that is only one example of probably many.
You say, well, it's a very good example of a change that has happened seemingly stealthily. I have to say, of all of the things that's happened, that's probably the one that bothers me the least. I suspect that if you take all the politics out and just ask yourself, if you've got two competing names, which one is likely
to succeed in the long term. And I suspect that just natural evolution of language will tend towards favoring the one that has got you know, an a at each and as symmetrical has quite a nice bounce to it. Enna's novel Versus New Zealand, which obviously is the country
I grew up I'm very proud of. But I suspect just as a sheer question of which word will be easier to say and outcompete the other, I suspect that will happen anyway doesn't really bother me, except for when people do it to prove a point, which is just irritating. But that kind of virtures are going behavior as everywhere.
Well, you're quite right about everywhere. But by the same token, if we're going to make a name change, and you're probably correct when you say that it's the least important, but nevertheless it is a prime example, as we've agreed. So if you're going to allow things to change and be adopted simply because of a bit of usage, but without people speaking about it, without there being I think there should be. If you're going to do that, it should be a referendum, same as it was to change
the flag. Change the flag, change the name. You need a referendum.
Well, I don't mind the idea of a referendum.
I just point out that a lot of the usage that you're concerned about is by private companies, so you know, Votera Phone or One New Zealand as they like to call themselves, the phone company. You know, I'd be one of the first to defend the rights of a private company to practice free speech or an individual. The Olympic Committee, you know, while it receives government funding, is not part of.
The government, and so you know, I suspect that you.
Can make the argument there should be restrictions around organizations that use public funds. But you know, ultimately, you know you do run into free speech issues.
Control what people call it.
This is the virtue signaling though that you just referred to private companies who adopt it because they want to be considered as progressive.
There's a difference between thinking someone's a bit tiresome and using legal force against them. You know, if we decided to lock up every tiresome virtue signaler and New Zealander josal.
Be full, well, that might be a good thing, all right for the guards. Yes, Now let's get back to the situation at hand, the treaty principles build. Why did you pursue this? First of all, why did you pursue it? And secondly why?
Now a couple of reasons why.
I believe that New Zealand has really, I think being weakened in the last five years especially, but actually it's been going on for a long liver map, and it's been weakened by a local brand of identity politics. Identity politics makes for weak people because it tells people that they're either a victim or a villain, and their role in society really depends on things that they have no
control over. So instead of telling children, you know, you can be anything, but you've got to put in the effort.
We say, well, actually.
You know, you've got a big problem, or you're oppressed or whatever because of things that happened long before you were born. And I look around the world, lots of countries have a version of this. It's divisive, it's disempowering, it weakens people. And what I'd like to see as a New Zealand based on strong people who have a sense of freedom under the law, responsibility for their actions,
no discrimination. Now, one of the biggest impediments to doing that in New Zealand at the moment is the set of three D principles that set up the partnership as I described earlier, where a person, before you know how to deal with them, you have to know what their ancestry is so you can work out which side of the partnership go on and then kind of go from there. It's very tiring, it's very divisive, it stops you getting things done, and it actually SAPs people's attitudes and energies.
So that's the key reason is that whether it's education and the economy, health, housing, all this transaction cost around different roles and responsibilities, all this disempowerment that comes from saying that your life is almost predetermined by historic events.
That's what I'm against.
And why now, Well, you know, in politics you don't get to choose your timing.
I've campaigned for years on issues like this.
I said in my maiden speech to Parliament as a thirty one year old and twenty fourteen that you know, it's strange that New Zealand, which is in many ways the freest, most equal society that has ever been created, is now desperately trying to reverse that as rapidly as possible.
And I guess the reason for now is that I'm in a political position to do it. I would have liked to have done it earlier. I'm glad I didn't have to wait later.
The reason that people are concerned about it happening now is because we've just come out of a six year crisis which continues. We're in very bad shape financially, people are fleeing the country. Things aren't well, let's put it
that way. And more than one person obviously has suggested me in one form or another that now wasn't the time to do it, simply because we've got enough on our plates and what we really should be doing is concentrating on lifting the country back to somewhere near normal.
Yeah, I mean, I think sometimes people mix up activity and attention, So certainly the Treaty Principles Bill has got far more attention.
Than anything else I'm doing. I mean, you know, wall to wall in the media.
Every day, but actually, you know, this week we're going to announce the first charter school contracts.
We've got that policy together in record times.
We've fixed up healthy school lunchers, and we've got a whole new plan for school boards to work on school attendance.
Now that that's just me, and that's just education.
I've also got finance, regulation, health, being in charge of farming and so on.
And then that's just one minister.
If you go across to brook Fan Valden, look at what she's doing with health and safety at work, and you know, contracting provisions, a holidays Act. I could go on, but you get the point, right, Like I've only mentioned two ministers, and one of them only half of what they're doing. And you know, while the Treaty Principal spills getting a lot of attention, it's not stopping us from addressing those other issues and almost everything I just talked about somehow comes back to the economy.
Well, that's very good, but what the problem is is the attention has been has come not from you so much as from the opposition to what you're doing. Go back to the event in Parliament the other day. Do they have a case that could be mounted successfully?
Well, they've got one thing on their side is that the way they would like us to live is the way that most humans in most places, for most of history have lived, and that is in a tribal order where your loyalty to the leader is what matters.
You play the role that you're born into and that's just your lot.
I on the other hand, in favor of weird people, and by weird people, I mean Western educated, industrialized, rich and democratic, and that's the society they live in, a society where each individual has equal and analienable rights to sue their dreams and in their own self chosen way.
So you know, that's basically the argument.
And they have a lot going for them because there is something instinctive about that tribal way of life, and you see it from people in the Mariu world, but also unlimited people who email me and opposition to my bill, and they always say I am a fifty six year old Pakiha male or something like that. And what stands out to me is that these are people who like to identify their affiliation.
It's usually the first thing they tell me in the email.
They can't wait to tell me about their identity politics. So certainly they've got a lot going for them, and that they've got, you know, one hundred thousand years of human instinct too, you know.
Bind and blind ourselves into tribes.
So let's turn to the legal side of it and the courts, because the courts have something to answer for. In the opinion of lady of people I know, including some very good lawyers, the courts are or have become a law unto themselves, except you're not allowed to criticize them, or not supposedly. But the establishment of the Supreme Court was just one thing, very important matter along the journey
to where we are at. And the Supreme Court has assumed currently the rights of the ultimate decision makers over and above even Parliament. And anybody who understands what Juju said knows that the rights remain with the people as expressed through their parliament. But the courts are behaving, shall we say badly?
Yeah, I mean certainly.
If you look at some of the recent decisions, for example, for the David Alice case where or Peter Alis case sorry, where they decided that takanor applied even though Alice had no real adherence to tea Kyger in his life, was quite extraordinary, and of course that now creates a precedent that all lawyers have to use. If it's an available defense, you've got a duty to give you a client the best defense they can, so you have to be.
Aware of it. And that, I would say as an example of how.
The court, and I'm not criticizing them for doing it. I'm just observing what they've done because I'm not allowed to criticize them. But they have certainly had an outsize approach on the culture and law of New Zealand by making that decision, Whereas I would have thought their job was simply to work out what the what the Parliament meant and apply it evenly unfairly to all citizens. That's what I thought it was. But they seem to have
a much more expansive view. And I commend to people the New Zealand Initiatives Report, who makes the laws, which provides a set of actions a government could take to remedy the situation, which I'm certainly encouraging people to take up within government.
Indeed, Roger Partridge was on the podcast a few weeks ago on precisely that. I'll also refer then to Professor mccunnock from Walklands University. Have you been reading his recent stuff.
I have a dosage limit for Robert's writings, so in small doses.
Yes, Well, I should ask you about Matthew Horton. Then his most well second, the last I think or very recent fifteen November. This has dated New Zealand's King's Councils don't understand constitutional law and amounts a very good case. So you've got an economist who's criticizing lawyers for not understanding their own their own business. But I think that he's I think that he's essentially right. There was a
second one that goes even that goes even further. But speaking of the Institute, Roger Partridge wrote on tools to reign in judicial overreach, which he refers really to Parliament and Parliament taking taking charge and putting things back in order. Now, undoubtedly that would have your consent an affirmation. Is it blankly to happen.
Well, that's entirely up to two people, Judith Colins, the Attorney General and Paul Goldsworth, the Minister of Justice, and I've certainly given them my view that they should be acting on it. But it's one of those leader horse to water situations. I mean a minister has to want to do with them in order for them to actually take the additionive and make it happen. So I don't know that those two have to decide, but they certainly had every expression.
Of intention from me.
Unfortunately, it's not something signed up in our coalition agreement, so everyone's just feeling their way on issues outside of that.
Well, this comes back to something we've sort of touched on earlier on and that is strength. If things are out of kilter in the administration of the country and the representation of the people, then surely it's something that should be should be dealt with with some urgency.
Well I don't disagree, but as I say, you know, I have things I'm responsible for in government.
I do my best at those.
And if they're in a coalition agreement, I know I argue strongly and ensure that they get done. If they're not, then I give people as much of my free advice as they'll take.
But ultimately they have to want to drink.
Based on the way things have shaped up, and we had a twenty two year old in Parliament leading the revolt, and there's plenty of others of a similar age group. Do you think that there is a generational issue that's involved here? Now, let me take it a step further. When I say a generational issue, I'm talking about life experience.
I'm talking about specifically education and either the lack of it or the incorrectness of it that has contributed to people of a different age group from being prepared for the decisions that they are applying themselves to based on the fact that they are short on detail.
Look, I think there's a couple of things. I absolutely agree with you it's generational. I think there's a couple of things going on. One is the classical economics analysis, if you like, and that is that if you're twenty two and you're sitting there looking at what you're likely to earn them the next ten years and what you need for a deposit for a house. A lot of people have come to a conclusion that if their parents aren't prepared to help them, they're not going to get there,
and they're often right. And I think in some ways the reason that the HKOI was so big, and the reason that so many younger people are voting hard left, and they always have, but that trend does intensify, is partly because if the market economy that we all love and cherish doesn't give the next generation a pathway to their own prosperity, then they will look for other answers. And I think that's a serious problem that we all
need to think about. And I watched Per poll Iff in Canada, the Conservative opposition leader who.
Will almost certainly be Prime minister next year.
He is leading a very sissful campaign because he's figured out that those young people are going to vote to whoever gets them a house, and he's somehow managing to carry all generations against Justin Trudeau. However, that's not the
answer that you were alluding to. I think you're alluding to a different answer, which I also happened to support, and that is that there's been an intellectual revolution in the last sixty years coming out of the likes of FUCO, the continental philosophers, the postmodern who have really switched the world on its heads and said there is no reality, there's just perception, and therefore the person perceiving the thing
is just as important as the thing itself. And that's why you hear people saying I'm speaking or writing from a blah blah blah perspective or as an identity insert here person. I believe you've created this whole idea that it's not what you do, but who you.
Are that matters. And I think that has.
Happened around the world, but it is mainly manifested in New Zealand as a Mari identity. So because I'm Mari, I have a totally different outlook on the world. That's the most important thing about me, and therefore everything that happens in the world has to be.
Seen through through that lens because that's.
How I look at them. That's that's become pervasive. And of course it's the complete opposite of the basic liberal idea, and I'm in the classical liberal idea that each of us is a thinking and valuing being with equal rights and dignity. There is an objective physical world, and we can all join hands and through the scientific method study it. That's that's the old view, but I agree postmodernism has marched through the institutions and I think influencing a lot of younger people's thinking.
Any suggestions how that can be corrected.
Well, on the economics of it, we've got to make markets work, so there's genuine economic opportunity, I think. On the more philosophical side, I mean, first of all, you know, it's always better to fight something that you can name. Once you've identified the problem and put a name on it,
it's much easier to fight. And then you've got to start pointing out to people the virtues of the enlightenment that you know, people want to say that Marie life expectancy on average is shorter than European I just make a few observations about that. Number One, everyone's life expectancy in New Zealand is about twice what it was two hundred years ago. Number two, why do you start by
grouping people into ethnicities in the first place. Number three, If you're going to group people by ethnicity, well I think that's pretty odious. But how do you explain Asians living longer on average? Is the answer that they're all racially oppressing white people who don't live as long as them. You know, you quickly get into absurdities when you play
this identity politics game. What would be better is to say, on the basis of good science and technology, we can overcome our problems and all of us can live even longer.
The situation in New Zealand at the moment, aside from what we started out discussing, is to you how serious.
Well, I think that there's always been a danger that New Zealand will go the way of most places that look like us on a map. So if you look at the globe and you look for places with nice beaches, nice weather, nice people, and a bit of isolation. You get to the g you get to Cuba, you get to Greece, you get to Jamaica, all kind of nice places to go, but ultimately, you know, not somewhere you'd want to live your whole life if you had a choice.
And I think we're, you know, in real danger that this she'll be right attitude will become the majority, especially with a number of people leaving at the moment and who have already left, that we will actually kind of become permanently second World.
I think that's a very real danger for.
New Zealand right now, and you'd you'd fix it.
By well, you can only fix it by but.
If you But if you were let's say you're let's say you were one of those leaders of strength that the world is sadly lacking. Hello, they've done pretty well in one big country at the moment. What would you if you were in a position to what would you what would you not be?
Well, first of all, would put in place a mantra that everything we do is about strong people, people who are able to take responsibility for their actions to solve their problems, so long as they provided a platform of equality before the law and basic education and public safety and infrastructure and services that work. So it's a deal between the government and the citizenry, and non discrimination is
at the heart of that deal. Then you said about saying, okay, how is it possible that we spend about three hundred and fifty thousand dollars per citizen on education and yet so many come out illiterate. So you've got to completely shake that up, and it would look something like, here's your account at the time you're born. The money drops into it, and you can use it to purchase the
service as you require, just like wealthy people do. Would effectively give poor people the same opportunities as wealthy people, and we'd bring a lot of entrepreneurship into education. We'd do something similar with health. We'd say thirty billion dollar health budget. That's six thousand dollars per citizen, and people
are getting bigger or quality out of that. So you can either stay in the system or you can take your six grand to Southern Cross or NIB and I guarantee you that they'll start solving problems and becoming more efficient. So major reforms and social services that are just not working despite huge amounts of money.
And major reform and regulation, which in.
Fairness, we are starting to do, but I'd do it a lot more aggressively and across government. I just say, right, we are applying these principles straight away. If it doesn't solve a well defined problem with benefits that exceed the costs, then this regulation is gone.
We're doing that, but on a smaller scale than i'd like.
Okay, so what you would like is at the moment is for your bill to be approved and to go ahead. It's got six months before the committee what goes now what happens.
So from now until the seventh of January, they are accepting public submissions, so you can find that on the Parliament website and it's well worth doing.
If you'd like a sort of an entry point to it.
We've set up our own site at Treaty dot n z where we have the bill, our case for it and helps you make submissions, So.
Www dot Treaty dot z.
The Select Committee will then hear some of the people in person making their submissions.
Through January February.
They'll then deliberate, they'll write a report and they'll report that back to Parliament and at that point, for the first time, we would have had a genuine democratic process about what the treaty means. At that point, the other parties will have to decide do they actually want to bring it up again, debate it and vote it down. I suspect they won't. I suspect they'll just leave it languishing on the order paper like the Kermit Eccentury Bill. Or they might do they might bring it up and
vote on it. And you've got to assume that you know what they're saying is true, that they'll vote against it, although I don't think they've heard quite what the public think about this issue yet and that could still change their mind. And at that point, you know, even if it's even if it doesn't go further than that, what we will have achieved is normalizing two ideas. The first is that the treaty gives us equal rights, and the second is we have an equal right to have a
say on what the treaty means. And those two ideas, that's what our opponents are trying to keep out of circulation. But it's too late for them.
I received this question from overseas actually wondering whether David Seymour might an act, might be prepared to take the government down.
Well, not on not on the Treaty Principal's Bill, because you know, partners have honored their obligations under the bill, and you know that's that's all we can ask from them. So we've got it as far as we could negotiate this time, and unless they do something really crazy in the next six months, then that's I've done their duty.
In terms of the.
Wider issues, Look, I think what New Zealand needs at the moment is a government that's saving money.
Cutting red tape and.
Trying to get the economy a bit more buoyant again, because man, it's tough for people out there right now.
It is, so how successful is the government at the moment?
Look, I think the government's done two things that are really important. One is that it's proven it can hang together. A lot of people were skeptical about the nature of the coalition, but actually it's very robust and it has been a very stable government despite what our opponents hoped for. The second thing that it's done is that it has unleashed a series of cost cutting and deregulation initiatives, not as big as ACTS would like, but you know, I'm proud to say that Actors has contributed.
It made it better than it would otherwise be.
So resource management Acts being replaced, not just fast tracked, it's been completely replaced. Government spending, we're down about six thousand public servants so far. I would have gone further, but you know, police with a contribution we've made to getting the size of governor under control. Little things, relatively minor, things like healthy school lunches was going to cost three hundred and forty million.
We got it down to one hundred and seventy.
So how did you do that?
You know, Well, we.
Looked at it and we noticed that they had about one hundred and fifty small scale providers. And you know, while my heart goes out to a lot of our small business people, nobody would design a system like that.
In the first place.
We've got one provider who buys in bulk eighteen tons of chicken every two weeks. And when you buy eighteen tons of chicken every two weeks, I'm told you get a considerable discount. In fact, they actually grow them to order when you're that science customer.
Wow.
So you know, whereas the previous guys in some cases they were going to the supermarket and buying a single chicken, Well, Dot.
You don't get a discount that way.
So yeah, there's a few things we've done that have just made just made sense and the way that a business would.
Do it if they had the same problem. So anyway, that's way off track.
But my point is that, you know, in terms of deregulating and cutting government waste, I think that we you know, we've been pretty successful so far, and there's a lot more to come.
I do want to before we finish. I do want to go back and cover a couple of things that have bypassed us to this particular point. When the Waitangi Act came in in the eighties, it was no hang on, I'm talking about I'm talking about the nineties, sorry, when when m MP was being debated, it was it was suggested very strongly that if we adopted m MP, then the Mary Streets, the married seats should should be dispensed with,
which was eminently sensible. They weren't. Now there is a suggestion that there should be more Marory seats because they're not being represented enough. Now that's a myth as far as I'm concerned, but that's what the that's what the claim seems to be. Is it too late to dispose of Mary seats?
Well, technically it could be done very easily.
Government would have to come in and either get three quarters off the Parliament to vote against the Marrow seats or take a bill to referendum and have a simple majority of the public vote against them. That's what would
have to happen. And I think there's some attraction to it because if you look at probably the most worrying event of the last two weeks was the fact that the Labor Party actually voted against suspending Hannah maypit Clark, and they actually undermined the Speaker when he tried to suspend her for her performance a couple of weeks back.
Now that tells you something about the Labor Party. They don't know where they are, but I suspect it's partly because they hope to one day win back the Mara seats and so those seats are actually distorting just about all of New Zealand politics as a result, and that that is I think really worrying.
So I'm very worried.
About that has the concerning the only question is, you know, are you going to get a majority in Parliament to get rid of them? And at the moment you'd never get it from the National Party. You might get it from New Zealand. First of all, I'm not sure. So you know, I think ACT is the only party that has a policy of getting rid of.
Them if there is enough representation. That's a strong representation, shall we say, at at the hearings upcoming, do you think that that could have an effect on the outcome?
Yeah?
I do, because the people who are opposed to the bill have a certain set of assumptions. They have assumptions about the bill, and they have assumptions about the reaction to it. So they assume that, you know, it's going to somehow change the treaty. You know, a lot of Mari, lot of young Maria being told it will take away their money, take away their language.
That's completely untrue.
People have been told it will undermine treaty settlements. That's completely untrue. So what it does to is give everyone equal rights. And you know, every time someone goes to Treaty dot m Z and reads what it actually says, though, so I can't see what all the fuss is about. This is eminently sensible. So there's the content of the bill.
But then there's also as more people have that experience their response to it, you know, as people start to think about what's really been talked about here, then they tend to change their mind. And I suspect that, you know, in the court of public opinion, that might be the thing that sways some of my colleagues in Parliament to change their vote.
I don't know whether you've given it any thought, but it's occurred to me that there are things going on here that parallel to some degree what's just gone on in the United States. Just I'm talking specifically of the opposition, the same sort of the same sort of indoctrination is showing itself. I wonder if, just finally, you would have any comment to make on what you will But I'm interested in your comment to make on what I'm about to say. Imagine this as a newspaper or an online article.
MMP is threatening democracy.
And how do they reason that?
Well, some of what some of what we've discussed tends in that direction that MMP is go back to the what amounted really to an instruction if MMP is introduced, the marriage seats should go. So you've now got MMP with various various political attitudes, and you've got one party in particulars based on race that is causing havoc and
very likely will cause more havoc. And therefore democracy itself is under is under some sort of threat, if for no other reason, then because of self censorship that this other approach brings, as in freedom of speech, where people self censor because they don't want they don't want to they don't want to be accused of this and that and something else, and so they don't speak up and they just shut up. And the same thing is, as far as I'm aware or concerned, is happening, as far
as some politicians are concerned. Don't want to rock the boat. Don't we want to get we want to get in into the next election. We don't make a stand. It's been going on for parliament after parliament. Now it's worse than ever. I think.
Yeah, well, first of all, I give you my allibi. I was in Standard three when MMP came in, so I have no responsibility for this. And I know there will be people say, well, you like MMP because that benefits from it. Well not really, I mean actors in parliament because of MMP. But I guess if it wasn't for MMP, then maybe you wouldn't need an act party.
I mean, I suspect that on balance we are better off because you know, people just have to look at how badly governed New Zealand was prior to the nineteen nineties. So we almost went completely broke in the eighties and you know, managed to really squander the enormous resource and agrarian wealth that the country was initially built on through
bad governance. So you know, I think it's always important to remember that all voting systems suck, and the one that we had before had a whole bunch of problems with it too. But the issues you're really talking about I think could exist in any voting system. I mean, the fact is that you know, you've got identity politics, which has swept the world.
I'd like to think it's now in decline or retreat.
And you've got people who you know, basically have grown up to disrespect what they regard as a colonizing parliament, as a Western European parliament, not a not a parliament of all people in New Zealand, and that problem you know, Yes, they got elected through the MARI seats. That's one reason why you know, maybe you shouldn't have seats based on ethnicity, because you end up with politics based on ethnicity. But that's sort of an issue with MMP, that's an issue with the mar seats.
And that is where we shall leave it, unless there is anything else you'd like to add, Only that I.
Look forward to a day when we will look back. I believe if my bill.
Doesn't pass this time, it will same time in the future, and we'll look back and say, well that the treaty is not a bad document if you actually read it. But man, it's a pity we have to waste fifty years being led down rabbit holes by lawyers, judges, and tribunalists who tried to tell us that the best way to live as a country was divided into two groups based on ancestry, with different rights based on who your forefathers were.
Man, good thing we got.
Rid of that and now we just live as a liberal, democratic society with equal and universal human rights for all.
That's how I believe we will look back on this at some point.
So for those people, and there will be some maybe a lot for those people who are listening to this now and thinking, well, what can I do? What would be your suggestion, what can I do? What can we do?
Well, I would say, read and submit the bill, and we've set up a website to do this. The deadline's January seventh. But you know, Treaty dot m Z allows you to do that, and you know, make your voice heard, because that's what's truly made this controversial is the idea that all people's voices will be heard. And you may be listening to this, You may be someone who disagrees
with me, you should still submit. What's really important is that you know, we have a debate on these principles that governor has the right to govern, governor has a duty to protect people's rights, and that all of those rights are equal before the law.
That's that's all this bill is about.
And if you believe in that, or if you question it, then you get along to treaty dot ins and go for a submission.
We'd love you to do so, well said, And of course it gave me a moment to come up with one last, real last question. You become Deputy Prime Minister in the not too distant future, what difference will that make a to you be, to what you do and c to any outcome.
At a practical level, it won't make a lot of difference.
I mean, you know, at the moment it's once that we both said in capnot and you know part really comes from the parties that we lead that are essential to the coalition. So in some ways it doesn't make a massive practical difference. But in another way, you know, act set out at the last election to represent really
what I call Jacinda's refugees. It was the farmers, the small business owners, the landlords, really anyone who thought differently, who didn't who was one of the groups that she chose to go after, licensed fire and owners I should add to that, and you know they all are in many cases decided to vote ACT.
And you know, I'm really proud to represent.
People who have some get up and go and like to think independently. And I think for us as a tribe, if you like change makers, I like to call us.
You know, I sort of accept the honor.
On behalf of being the Deputy Prime Minister because it means that you know, people like us, can you have some representation And I think I think you give that sort of spirit some some prominence in the country. Then actually, our country's got a lot of hope.
There's one more thing I'd add to a lot of hope. We could do with a few more intelligent in peace.
Oh yeah, a print.
And I can tell you I've been down here ten years and you know it's yeah, it's not easy to find.
Exactly, David. It's it's great to talk to you. I appreciate your times. Thank you, and I'll let you go.
Hi, thank you.
Then this is producer here. We are two hundred and sixty seven. We've got I think a couple more after this week to go before we break for a holiday.
Unbelievable late two hundred and sixty seven podcasts. That means five million hours worked on those two hundred and sixty seven.
Five billion I think you underestimate, but nevertheless, nevertheless, why don't you start?
Leyden Ab says, I'm a thirty two year old former mathematics teacher and a big fan of your podcast. I especially enjoyed this week's episode with doctor Michael Johnson and his insights on schools sharing resources. During my time at one of New Zealand's top performing academic schools, we noticed a worrying decline in the math skills of students coming from our feeder schools. To address this, our high school offered to send teachers to provide professional development for primary
and intermediate school teachers. Unfortunately, none of the schools took up the offer, a real missed opportunity in my opinion. Dr Johnson's mention of alternative teacher training methods resonated with me. I'm a graduate of an in house teacher training program based in Auckland, and I've since returned to my previous
role to manage the mortgage. The program allowed us to complete university studies remotely through Wikata University while teaching full time in the classroom for a year, quite different from the fourteen weeks of practice typical and the traditional system. Our principle set the tone early, emphasizing that the school would teach us to become the type of teachers they needed. The school covered my fees, provided a stipend, and supported
us every step of the way. This model has grown significantly and could be a great topic for your show. I'd recommend interviewing David Ferguson, the former Westlake Boys principal who now heads the Teacher Training Institute the Programs Provider. I think your listeners would find it encouraging to hear that there are innovative and effective approaches to improving education.
Very well put, and we may well follow up watch this space or have at least listen to this space from Malcolm. This is once again we so enjoyed your podcast. Doctor Michael Johnson talked such sense and we totally agree with him that there should be many more students trained in the trades, as there's going to be a huge shortage of skilled tradees. Interesting too, that universities have not
been training teachers how to control the classroom. I remember my brother saying, after five years at university to become a VET, that there hadn't been any lectures on how to interact with farmers. You always talk sense in a thank you add I such a pleasure to listen to double thank you, Unlike ninety nine percent of our present journalists, thank you for your podcasts and please keep them coming, Malcolm much appreciated. I only read what you say. I'm not responsible for it.
Leydon Paul says, at about fifty minutes into podcast two six six Dr Michael Johnson and mentions concern regarding Trump's ideological leanings creeping into his governance. You immediately chimed in with a confident statement that you hold no such fears. I am one hundred percent in agreement with you on that stance. The reasons for my solidarity with you on this position are entrenched in years of reading stuff you
have recommended to listeners. Such reading has allowed me to think a outside the square and B critically and by the way. Christian Smith's most recent podcast plus interview with George Friedman was outstanding in that Christian Smith showed a similar skill set to his dad, posing the correct line of questioning to bring forth answers that make the listener think things through. I'm looking forward to the next podcast, and that was from Paul.
I'm going to send that to the aforementioned Christian Smith and I'm sure he'll appreciate it. And I might have achieved something I was unaware of from James Jeffrey Sachs on the real and growing possibility of nuclear war with the Russian Federation. This alarming development is being caused by whoever is pretending to run the US government, and appears to be aimed at causing the utmost instability to Donald Trump's incoming administration, even possibly causing sufficient of an emergency
to prevent his inauguration altogether. Let us hope that a combination of President Trump's statesmanship and President Putin's restraint in brackets severely tested by now we are sure, has the effect of at least avoiding a nuclear confrontation, but the risk is real and increasing. Cheers from Jim and Jean in Colombia. Now, I would suggest to you that things have developed even further since that was written. On the
twenty first of November. Unquestionably, Look, you've raised something with regard to the current administration or what's left of it. I've said this a number of times to people like that, to remember whether I've ever said it on the podcast. I wouldn't put it past those bastards to do anything, to pull any stunt in order to stay in power. And the thought that you know they could postpone, cancel
whatever the inauguration is frightening. But again, while it's unlikely, I think, don't be surprised if something along those lines happens.
Laydon and Louise says, thank you for your work exposing the insidious left and ensuring opposing views are aired. I was horrified to hear you say you had little interest in AI and implore you to change that.
Ah, hold it, I didn't, if I remember correctly, I didn't say little interest in AI, said little interest into the way it works.
I had a very interesting conversation with an old friend of ours and very well revered journalist. He's doing a course next year on AI. His interest has turned to AI. He's doing a course at a very well known education institute Europe, and he's interested in not the way it's working now, but the ramifications on society. This man has always been at the forefront of technology, and it was
a very interesting and illuminating conversation. But he was right in the the worry about it for the future, but also the inevitability of it. And I look forward to having a conversation with him in six months or a year's time when he finishes that course.
No one, you must tell me who it is, and I might join him anyway. Where was I?
So?
Anne Luise goes on to say Gemini or chat GPT as examples of public facing artificial intelligence tools supply the answers which are then taken as fact. When people look things up on the Internet, you will find that they regurgitate without citations, whatever is being fed. Their sources include Wikipedia and mainstream as well as social media reports. As a result, they frame everything through a woke lens. This
is because AI doesn't know any better. Morally sound thinkers do not appear to be engaging sufficiently to balance the Left's dominance in this space. More than its propensity to offer skewed facts, there is the very serious issue of AI's moral position and the influence it yields now and
will wield over the next generation. Former chief business officer for Google and author Mogaudit likens AI to a Superman type child and as its parents, we society have a duty to teach it what it needs to know to make a positive contribution in the world. At the moment, it's a toddler sucking up data, indiscriminately learning from social media, so it thinks that most people are mean spirited, egotistical, narcissistic, complaining and generally vile to one another. It is learning
that this is appropriate behavior in human interaction. We need to teach it what humans really value. I would start with love, respect, integrity, connection, truth. So get your head out of the sand and engage with Ai. Demonstrate the good parenting skills you have. The future needs you. And that's from Anne, Luise and Louise.
I don't think that any contribution I made would go six inches.
Oh that was a very good email.
It was a very good email. And there is food for thought anyway from Brett. Just a thought. If a referenda were held today, how many would vote to remove Mary seats in maury role. The three parties in government have in the past had policy to remove the Mariy seats, but none of the guts to follow through. The need for such seats is long past, indeed, and most people know it. How many would vote to remove race from
legislation to put it to the public vote. What sort of country do the New Zealand people want to live in? Are the MPs and government even listening? Have a great week, Breadth. You've raised a couple of good points, and some of which was discussed in the discussion that we had the interview I did with David Seymour. I think this room for a follow up in that too. Sometime earlier in the new year, Lady.
Jin says I wrote down Michael Johnson's excellent definition of science being the ability to discuss ideas, to argue about ideas backed by evidence in a civil way without wanting to kill your opponent, and instead seeing disagreement as a chance to improve everybody's ideas. In other words, says Jen, science is the laboratory by which ideas are verbalized, tested, strengthened,
or discarded until we discover truths. At the recent Free Speech Union Age, I attended the Academic Freedom breakout session hosted by doctor Michael Johnson, Professor Natasha Hamilton Hart and Professor Grant Schofield. They gave three key reasons why academic freedom is stifled in New Zealand. Firstly, limited permissibility discourages the seeking and testing of truth. Secondly, research funding with strings attached restricts the scope of truth to those who
provide funding, usually the government or rich elitists like Soros. Thirdly, academic group thinks suppresses truth whenever it doesn't agree with their ideologies. In other words, the suppression of truth is the root cause of academic slavery. No wonder Jesus said the truth will set you free.
Just thinking about that might come back to it. I listened to your podcast, Actually, I listened to your excellent podcasts as clear today. Adam currently watching Matt wash on New Zealand. He's very funny, although it's deadly serious here, at least by the Mary Ravel. The Harker dubbed into jazz is hilarious. I was glad for the fast forward button during the news last week. This which is clear when she says when she refers to the Harker dubbed
into jazz. Matt Welsh actually puts the Harker that was done, the so called Harker that was done in the house to jazz piano, you know, old twenties jazz piano. And it's actually very clearer.
Lady John references episode two six five and he says, brilliant, just superb. The interview with David Bell was incredibly disturbing while being so informative and challenging. Another must listen to, and he needs greater exposure.
Well, I'm doing my best. He's a lovely, lovely man from will. I have long had interest in literacy standards in children from underprivileged backgrounds, and forty years ago, when I first got retired, I had time on my hands. I devised a scheme to teach such children to read
with free lessons. I got support from the local library at a couple of community groups, and had meetings with parents, parents who didn't have the ability, the time, or inclination to teach their kids to read, and they genuinely believed that the school would teach them to read. But things didn't work out. And I did write to you a long time ago, I think in the talkback radio days,
to tell you what happened. So I listened to Michael Johnson on your podcast last week, a well educated man with a good command of the language, who spent most almost the entire time talking towaddle, oh overthinking twaddle. There were a couple of instances where common sense glimpsed through, but when he began to outline the paper he intends
to present next year, I heard double toddle. It's a great shame that all our teachers now have been educated in a system which has been flawed for a long time. I started school at the age of four in nineteen thirty eight. We had forty two in the class, and I think most of them could read. At that time. Our parents taught us and taught us well. The world now is a vastly different place, but a lot of old methods of teaching would produce better results than we
are seeing today. I think you underestimate will, I think you underestimate Michael Johnson in what he's doing. And I think the toddle, if it is such to you, might unravel itself as time goes by.
Laden We sent you some homework last week. Mel wrote you this letter. My parents used to listen to your on talkback radio years ago, and as a kid I used to roll my eyes and think how stupid and boring it was to listen to talk back. I don't know how many times I heard Lighton said, now I find myself listening to talk back and podcasts all the time.
I guess I grew up. Anyway, Mel said, to you, your podcast two five seven with doctor Paul Merrick mentioned a book that Amazon banned and is no longer available. He mentioned that he would send you a PDF of the book, so I'm wondering if I can have a copy of that pdf to read and Mel also asked for information on treating COVID short and long.
HM. I made contact with Paul Merrick and he sent me a very short reply. He said the book has now been unbanned. It is now available on Amazon, so if you want a copy, just go to Amazon. Start with Amazon Australia, Amazon AU and do a search for because I can't think of the title of it off, then do a search for Paul Merrick. And I'm sure that you are. I tell you what I'm going to do. Just hold your horses there for a moment, right. I hope that wasn't too long. I did a quick check
online with Amazon Australia and the book is available. It's twenty two dollars. This is Australian twenty two dollars fifty five cents plus plus postage. I probably cost you thirty dollars, which is can Secure. It's called can Secures. That's a very reasonable price. So go for it. Am I off the hook?
Now you're off the hook with Meil anyway? Yes, sure, you're on the hook with many.
Others, all right, So that'll do. Oh No, I know what I wanted to say, and I needed to say. I'm sitting here on three long to very long commentaries that are just too long for me to do in the mail room. So I'm going to use one of them short and the other two will get a hearing at some stage in the very near future. That's the best. That's the best I can do. Well, do you understand what I'm saying? I mean, look out along that one. Yes, And it's in very tiny print too, it makes it harder.
Can I just make a request please that if you can adjust your print size up, because there's a lot of very small print mail today, if you can adjust your print size up to to say, at least fourteen and if not, fourteen eighteen would be even even better. If your system works like mine, those minds a MAC, then that would make it much easier at this end for elderly eyes. That's it later, I'm off, Yes, I know. We will see you next week. Thank you so much. Your time is appreciated. Thank you.
Now.
Finally to the submission from the individual known as former National Party MP. Most of us will recall in the seventies and eighties that the chance of dissatisfaction related to the Treaty of Whitegy was the Treaty is a fraud. At the recent Hickoi Who Parliament, the chant has gone one eighty degrees to become honor of the treaty. So what has caused such a change in the fifty years since The genesis in my view, was when Sir Jeffrey Palmer gave a speech in nineteen eighty nine titled Principles
for Crown Action on the Treaty of Whitegy. Not only did he claim that he was looking to clarify the Treaty principles, but he also introduced the concept of the treaty being a partnership, something that emerged in the eighties from the Mary Council cases. The speech outlined five principles for the government to act on in relation to the treaty, the principle of government, the principle of self government, equality, cooperation, redress.
Far from bringing clarification, though, it seems, history has shown us that the courts and all manner of organizations and individuals have chosen to adopt a multitude of different meanings and interpretations from these principles. However, the unilateral decision to declare that the treaty was in fact a partnership has in my view, been instrumental in the seismic shift in attitude from the treaty being a fraud to one that
must now be honoured. David Seymore's bill seeks to actually all in upper case, actually get clarity on the principles so that lawmakers can be far more explicit than courts have little room to interpret them as they see fit, running roughshod over what Parliament has determined. But based on the Mari party recruitment drive otherwise known as the HICICOI to Parliament, it seems wideer New Zealand is not even allowed to have a structured discussion on what, if anything,
needs to happen to achieve clarity. They want to kill the bill and deny us of having a say, of having a voice, and of having democratic rights. Of course, we've come to expect nothing less from the married Party, who are nothing more than well paid activists who champion separatism is the answer, and arrogantly disrespect the conventions and authority of the House of Parliament, behaving with contempt within
its chamber. So what would New Zealand look like if the likes of Debi, nari Wa Panka and Rawiri Waititi had their way, Well, it would look like what so many in this country protested about during the nineteen ninety one Spring Book Tour, apartheid. Just as the view of the Treaty has gone one to eighty degrees, as so has our acceptance of the type of separatism seen in South Africa that we stood against in the nineteen eighties.
Many married leaders, including married party politicians, see segregation about political and socioeconomic structures into mary and non marry as both a legitimate way forward but something that they're entitled to. I'm quite sure that when the Treaty was introduced into what was a fast growing but lawless nation that this sort of dystopian outcome could not have been envisaged. Far from it, you would think I now struggle to recognize
the country I was born into. On many levels, we are losing our way in fundamental areas that have the potential to unravel our nation to the core. The council culture is alive and well in New Zealand, but the fact that aiming to have a meaningful discussion about the treaty is literally yelled down as being divisive by the very people who want separatism based on race is almost comical.
It is so ironic, and all the while David Seymour is standing strong behind the importance of this discussion, his two coalition partners having already sidestepped it by saying that
they won't support it beyond the Select Committee. Prime Minister Deluction dances on the head of a pin about the whole subject and claims it's a divisive bill, clearly taking the duck for cover approach, while Seymour climbs out of the trenches to advance toward what I am sure he believes is in the best interests of our country's future. We as a nation need to take a damn good look at ourselves, like it or not. We should be mature enough as a nation to have a rational and
meaningful discussion on this subject. And by that I don't mean retiring all black halfbacks using the legacy of the black Jersey and the Harker as a platform to make political statements about the Treaty. Keep your politics out of our national game, mister Paranara. We are not growing up as a nation. We are growing apart, not because of the bill, but because some of us are so immature and entitled that we are incapable of debating and discussing
the bill. If David Seymour's stand on the Treaty Principal's Bill has shown us anything, it's that we are bereft of political fortitude and vision from other leaders in our parliament to stand alongside him and transcend the vitriolic noise in order to support our nation to grow and truly mature.
If David Seymour's stand on the Treaty Principal's Bill has shown us anything, it's that we are bereft of political fortitude and vision from other leaders in our parliament to stand alongside him and transcend the vitriotic noise in order to support our nation to grow and truly mature. Sadly this won't happen, and ultimately all of us will be worse off as a consequence, not because the bill is divisive, but because we are incapable of standing up against division
to have the discussion. Now, I would believe that nineteen nine point nine nine nine percent of you think that is a very good commentary and worthy of wider hearing. So share it with whoever you feel like, Send the podcast to other people, tell them where they listen, what to listen to, because I think it's very important. That's that's extremely good, and I thank the former National Party MP, and that will take us out for podcasts two hundred
and sixty seven. We shall return, of course, very shortly with podcast two one hundred and sixty eight, second last of the year and the last one of the year. By the way, I'll tell you is gonna be a fun one. Well, I think it'll be fun with Tony Astell from Antoine's Restaurant, with whom we used to speak on a regular basis on radio but haven't done so for a few years. But we are both keen he and I to do it, so we chose the last
of the year. The only other thing to say is if you'd like to write to us lat at news Talks ATB dot co dot nz or Carolyn with a y at news Talks ATB dot co dot NZID We shall return in a few days with sixty eight. Until then, as always, thank you for listening and we'll talk soon.
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 hard radio