Boris Johnson is unapologetic about taking his country out of the European Union.

He's in New Zealand for a speaking event and to promote his book 'Unleashed'.

The former British Prime Minister says while there was panic about Brexit at the time, in the long term it's been good for the UK.

He told Kerre Woodham that the split from the EU came in handy during the Covid pandemic.

He says it allowed the country to get early access to vaccines before other European countries.

Johnson says the massive Conservative loss in this year's UK General Election can't be blamed on him.

The Conservative Party's defeat by Keir Starmer's Labour was one of its worst-ever losses.

Johnson told Woodham had he and Rishi Sunak teamed up, it would have been a different result.

He says if they'd been able to put into action some things they'd planned, they would have wiped the floor with Starmer.

He's denied any responsibility for the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, and says progress has been slow since he left office.

The former Prime Minister says it's "absolute bollocks" to suggest the UK could have a role in negotiating peace between Ukraine and Russia.

Johnson says the West has a pathetic paranoia about humiliating Vladimir Putin - and is too half-hearted in helping Ukraine.

He says he's fed up with hearing the nonsense idea we'd risk a nuclear confrontation.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Here’s how I would sum up the Government’s changes to the free speech rules for universities.

It wants more Posie Parkers and less posey political statements.

Which I’ve got no problem with - but I don’t think it should stop at universities. I think the Government also needs to look at other public entities, such as local councils, which actually seem to be making more posey political statements than universities.

Because, if the Government doesn’t want universities taking positions on things like the war in Gaza because - whatever position they take - won’t reflect the views of all staff and students, then the same could apply to local councils, couldn’t it?

If a council boycotts Israel, for example, there’s no way everyone who works for these councils or who pays rates to these councils will agree, is there?

Let me come back to that. But the gist of all this is that the Government wants two changes to the way universities deal with free speech.

For starters: It wants them to stop being so antsy about having guest speakers coming onto campus who might upset a few people with their views.

Which has seen some universities pull the plug on certain events. Massey University, for example, stopped Don Brash from giving a speech there once because of what one person described as his "separatist and supremacist rhetoric".

A more recent example is Victoria University cancelling a freedom of speech debate this year because of concerns it would turn into a cesspit of hate speech.

So the Government wants no more of that. Because it thinks universities are places where all sorts of ideas and thoughts should be shared and debated. And I agree with that.

So that’s what I mean when I say it wants more Posie Parker.

The other change it’s making to the regulations that universities operate under, is to stop them taking positions on matters that don’tdirectly relate to their core business of research and teaching.

Now this is not something that is going to impact academics who enjoy what’s known as academic freedom - which pretty much means they can think and say what they want. Although some academics have questioned that in recent years, saying that they don’t feel as free to think and say what they want as they used to.

But, essentially, what the Government wants to stop is universities - as institutions - taking a view or a stance on international issues, for example.

Some of our universities have been under pressure to condemn Israel for what’s going on in Gaza and the Occupied Territories. But, as far as I’m aware, none of them have given-in to that pressure.

The closest example I could find here in New Zealand is an announcement three months ago by Victoria University's fundraising arm - the Victoria University Foundation - that it would be getting rid of its Israeli government bonds and its shares in companies listed in Israel.

So maybe this is a pre-emptive move by the Government, as much as anything. And it says the reason it’s doing this, is that if a university takes a stand on something - it doesn’t reflect the views of all staff and students, and that is unfair.

So, if that’s the motivation, then I reckon the Government needs to come down just as hard on other public entities. Public entities which, at the moment, seem to be going harder on this thing than any of our universities.

And I’m thinking, specifically, about local councils around the country which have been more than happy to pile-in on Israel this year, with decisions to boycott companies which operate in Israeli settlements on Palestinian land.

Christchurch City Council has done it. Environment Canterbury regional council has done it. And Nelson City Council’s done it. They’re the ones I’m aware of. There might be others.

But, if we apply the argument the Government’s using to stop universities taking positions on global issues - because they won’t necessarily represent the views of all staff and students - then the same can be said of these local councils, can’t it?

In Nelson, for example, after the council there voted to go with a boycott - there were some pretty fired-up locals. The mayor Nick Smith, who voted against it, got a whole lot of abuse too.

And who says everyone working at these councils agrees with the position their employers have taken? They won’t. And who says everyone paying rates to these councils agrees with their anti-Israel positions? They don’t.

Which is why I think the Government should be telling councils not to take political positions on issues outside their core business, just like it's telling the universities.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Some people think the Government’s offer of a $150,000 rapid payment to Lake Alice torture survivors is an insult, but I think it’s a mistake.

Not because I don’t think compensation should be paid. It’s just that I don’t think the Government should be offering it right now for people who went to Lake Alice between 1972 and 1977 and went through electric shock treatment or had paraldehyde injections. And here’s why.

Remember last month when the Prime Minister formally apologised to the victims of abuse in state and religious care?

On the day that happened, some survivors of that terrible time in our country’s history weren’t happy that the Government didn’t say anything at the same time about redress or compensation.

As Christopher Luxon explained it, the Government needed to take the time to make sure it got the compensation scheme right and wouldn’t be making any announcement until early next year.

Which I thought was perfectly reasonable. I acknowledged at the time that it was probably easy for me to say that, given I hadn’t been through the living nightmare that those 200,000 people went through.

But I genuinely believed that the Government was taking the right approach. I still do for the simple reason that compensating people for horrific abuse isn’t something that can be rushed. Because, whatever the Government decides to do, it will be setting a precedent.

There will be more survivors coming forward - as they should. So, this abuse in care compensation scheme isn’t going to be a one-off. It’s going to be something that will determine the scale of government compensation for abuse ongoing.

Which is why I think it’s making a mistake offering money to the Lake Alice survivors right now. Even though some compensation has already been paid to some and that this money specifically relates to the torture that was done to them.

Because, just as some of them are saying the $150,000 is pitiful, there’ll be others who think it sounds alright, they’ll take the money and get on with their lives.

People like Robyn Dandy who is in the news today saying that she’s going to take the rapid payment of $150,000 because it will mean she can buy a house bus and travel around the South Island with her pets.

She’s saying today: "I'm happy. I'm glad it's going to come to an end now and we can just all relax and concentrate on the rest of our lives and a bit of happiness which I really believe we deserve now.

"I just think $150,000, why fight it? That's a lot of money for us now. We're all elderly. I can have my dream.”

So I imagine that she’ll be taking up the Government’s invitation to register for the payment this week. The money should be in her bank by March.

Whereas another survivor also in the news today, Malcolm Richards, feels very differently.

He says: “It’s pathetic. I’ve spent more than that fighting to this point.”

He says the compensation guidelines for wrongful imprisonment say someone could receive up to $150,000 per year of wrongful imprisonment. And he thinks the Government should be offering Lake Alice survivors millions of dollars each.

Now, of course, different people will feel differently about whatever compensation offer is made - but, in this case, I think we need to see it as something of a canary in the mine.

The government Minister responsible, Erica Standford, says this is completely different and separate from the abuse in care compensation and most of the victims have received compensation but this is a new offer because the State has acknowledged that they were tortured.

Nevertheless, I still think the Government is jumping the gun making this offer to Lake Alice victims before it’s said anything about compensation or redress for abuse in care victims.

Because, while Robyn Dandy —who I mentioned earlier— might think that $150,000 is perfectly fine right now - what if the abuse in care survivors are offered more?

What if the likes of the guy who thinks $150,000 is pitiful manages to, eventually, get himself a better deal from the Government?

See what I mean? What’s being offered now might sound good, but she may feel differently down the track when she sees what other people start getting. And that’s why I think the Government is making a mistake doing what it’s doing.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.