MORENA. GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO Q+A. I'M GREG BOYED. TODAY ` THE WORLD DECLARED WAR ON DRUGS BACK IN THE '70S. DECADES LATER, THE DRUG BARONS ARE RICH, VAST NUMBERS OF PEOPLE ARE STILL USING ILLEGAL DRUGS. SO IS IT TIME FOR A NEW APPROACH? THE UN'S HOLDING A SPECIAL SESSION ON THE GLOBAL DRUG PROBLEM THIS WEEK, AND MANY NATIONS ARE SEEKING AN APPROACH THAT'S LESS PUNITIVE, MORE COMPASSIONATE. JESSICA MUTCH HAS OUR LEAD INTERVIEW THIS MORNING WITH ASSOCIATE HEALTH MINISTER PETER DUNNE, WHO'S IN NEW YORK. WHAT IS NZ'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEBATE? THEN DR LANCE O'SULLIVAN, KAITAIA GP AND NZER OF THE YEAR ` HE ONCE FAVOURED A HARD-LINE APPROACH TO THE DRUGS THAT HAVE DEVASTATED MANY COMMUNITIES IN THE NORTH; WHY HE'S CHANGED HIS MIND. THEN WHENA OWEN DIPS BACK INTO HER ONGOING INVESTIGATION INTO THE SORRY STATE OF SOME OF OUR WATER WAYS. TODAY ` THE HEALTH RISK FROM RISING NITRATE LEVELS. WE ARE DEFINITELY GOING TO SEE THINGS GET WORSE BEFORE THEY GET BETTER. AND YET MORE DOG ATTACKS THIS WEEK AND MORE DEBATE OVER WHAT SHOULD BE DONE. WE'RE SPEAKING TO AN EXPERT WHO SAYS EDUCATION'S NOT ENOUGH; IT'S TIME TO GET TOUGHER ON DOG OWNERS. DUE TO THE LIVE NATURE OF Q+A, WE APOLOGISE FOR THE LACK OF CAPTIONS FOR SOME ITEMS. AND WE'LL ANALYSE ALL OF THOSE ISSUES WITH OUR PANEL ` POLITICAL SCIENTIST DR RAYMOND MILLER FROM AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY; STEVE MAHAREY, MASSEY UNIVERSITY VICE-CHANCELLOR AND FORMER LABOUR MINISTER; AND HONE HARAWIRA, FORMER MP, LEADER OF THE MANA PARTY. SOME BELIEVE U.S. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA WILL DECLARE THE THE WAR ON DRUGS TO BE 'OVER' AT A SPECIAL SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS IN NEW YORK THIS WEEK. COLOMBIA AND MEXICO ARE JUST TWO OF THE COUNTRIES THAT WILL ATTEND THE SESSION. THEY'RE PLEADING FOR THE UN TO ARTICULATE A NEW VISION ON HOW TO TACKLE THE DRUG ISSUE AFTER YEARS OF THEIR OWN WAR ON DRUGS THAT HAVE CAUSED EXTREME VIOLENCE, CORRUPTION AND THE RISE OF POWERFUL DRUG CARTELS. OUR OWN PETER DUNNE IS IN NEW YORK TO ATTEND THE SPECIAL SESSION, AND HE JOINS JESS MUTCH NOW. Thank you for joining us this morning. Many countries are coming to this that worn drugs is now over. We need to have an approach that is more health centered and recognizing the people affected by drugs are primarily suffering from health conditions. The very aggressive and quite a vicious approach to the war on drugs has failed in its rhetoric. We need to focus on the individual health. We need to ensure that we can deal with the health issues. A methamphetamine strategy is an example. It was the first of this focus on shifting that we make sure we treat the victims of methamphetamine use as health problems rather than justice problems. Over the years that I've been coming to these international meetings, it has been noticeable than many countries are moving into the same space. I thing the majority coming to this Gen. Assembly this week will be of the same view as our own. Do you think this will be lower numbers and prisons for lower drug use? I'm not saying we scrape the law immediately. I'm just saying that the focus is shifting. I think the point you're making relates to the portion at issue of penalties imposed are ap�proportionate to the crimes committed. Most countries will say candidly they tried hard sentences and extremities and they haven't worked. It is time for new initiatives. Why haven't they worked, do you think? I think it is the same reason some of the really hard-line stance against alcohol haven't worked. People will try new things and like to experiment. You get people get to set a point in their usage and they can't control it as they are addicted. Addiction is a health problem that is what we need to focus on. The war on drugs actually let the drug cartels off the hook. No matter how harsh you are, the issues are still facing you. You can suddenly say we are changing our stance overnight, but our national drug policy released last August which is a five year strategy sets out a number of steps to achieve that policy. The discussion this coming week will focus on those sorts of things rather then who can be the harshest. It is very interesting that one of the big issues attention of difference New Zealand have with other countries will be the difficulty. * death penalty we take a strong view that the death penalty needs to be excluded in terms of fairness. This will be a residue of the tension over the war on drugs. There is no doubt that the mood of the majority of countries here would be strongly opposed to the potential of death penalty. When we were in Vienna last March around the time of the Bali nine story coming to its conclusion, not many countries were going anywhere near that rhetoric of the death penalty or viewing that kind of behavior as acceptable. Russia has taken off harsh zero-tolerance stance. How is that going to impact on the rest of the meeting? Do you need to have everyone on board? I think we will have a declaration that will encompass a range of views. That kind of harsh stance as shown by Russia and some Middle Eastern countries will be in the minority. We do take more of a compassionate approach which is reflected in our harsh judicial system. I think what they're trying to do is position themselves as shifting a little bit along the continuum as they know they are the minority stakes. Are we softening our stance on drugs in your opinion? We're shifting the emphasis. A harsh judicial stance isn't always going to be the way to do it. There will be some cases where that will be appropriate. Supply and manufacture of drugs will come into that. But in general, I think we need to take a more realistic and compassionate approach. The meeting begins on Monday and formal discussions haven't begun yet however. What we can to do at these sorts of discussions is to look at the overall situations. In New Zealand with a focus on our national drug policy is making sure that firstly the focus is health, which means that over the next couple of years will be doing work looking at proportion between criminal sanctions and health solutions in the case of individual use. That does not mean we're looking at decriminalizing. It is again part of a shifting emphasis and a part of change in direction. These things do take a little bit of time to achieve. You be walking around the corridors of power in New York. What he hearing on the ground but Helen Clark? I haven't bumped into her yet and I might get a chance to still tour on Tuesday. *get a chance to talk to her with the New York primary coming up here that seems to be dominating the news here. Will leave that there've this morning. WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE WAR ON DRUGS ` DOES NZ NOW HAVE THE RIGHT APPROACH? IS IT TIME TO GO FURTHER AND POSSIBLY DECRIMINALISE CANNABIS? SEND US YOUR THOUGHTS. WE'RE ON TWITTER @NZQandA. YOU CAN EMAIL US AT Q+A@TVNZ.CO.NZ. OR TEXT YOUR THOUGHTS AND FIRST NAME TO 2211. KEEP THEM BRIEF ` EACH TEXT COSTS 50C. AFTER THE BREAK ` DR LANCE O'SULLIVAN, NZER OF THE YEAR, ON WHY IT'S TIME TO STOP PUNISHING DRUG USERS AND FOCUS ON HEALING THEM INSTEAD. MY NEXT GUEST HAS SEEN FIRST HAND HOW ILLEGAL DRUGS CAN DESTROY LIVES AND DEVASTATE WHOLE COMMUNITIES. DR LANCE O'SULLIVAN, NZER OF THE YEAR, RUNS A HEALTH PRACTISE IN KAITAIA IN THE FAR NORTH. MOST RECENTLY, HE'S BECOME AN AMBASSADOR FOR 'SUPPORT, DON'T PUNISH', A GLOBAL CAMPAIGN CALLING FOR DRUG POLICIES WITH A HEALTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS FOCUS. GOOD MORNING. I want to start off by asking you about this UN meeting. If you can get one outcome from that, what would you like to see at this meeting of global leaders in this field? A couple conversations going on in terms of how this war on drugs will go on globally. We focus our resources we have on our efforts in addressing what we call our low-level drug crime around health support in social services support to ensure that good people don't end up being bad people. What made you change your stance? I don't want to see hash cafs opening up on the main streets of Kaitaia. I'm not in the business of supporting legalization. Legalization and decriminalizing drugs isn't the same. I'm still hard line on the fact that we shouldn't be legalizing. Particularly on supply and manufacture of these drugs. The manufacture and supply of drugs to kids should still be dealt with severely. My experience personally was out of 4 �-year-old was being at home with the 9-day old brother and some guy high on drugs invaded our home and beat up my mumm which is one of the first experiences of home invasion that I'd witnessed. I would raise the question of what could be done from a supporting measure. How did we fail this person to lead this person to get into that kind of a violent situation with us? Many people say after that kind of experience to say lock that person up and forget about it. How has your stance evolved over time? In many cases their mental problems aren't exactly dealt with as much as the drug problems. You can't just look at the problem and isolated as a drug problem. It is a global health issue going on. We are going to have children being born into drug addicted mothers or being raised by drug addicted parents. How much on a daily basis with drugs be part of your clinic when treating people? How dominant is drugs in that community? In any community like mine which is socially deprived or geographically isolated, it is a common problem. There is a fear of stigmatization. I don't think we see enough, because it is a criminal matter so they may fear their doctors are going to morally judge them. I don't recall referring a person to a drug counselor as a meaningful resource. If we have a significant resource and support, I think we'll see more people coming forward and asking for that help. I see people trying to reintegrate into society out of prison and it is a slippery path from the time they have been caught by police. It Is not that they are necessarily bad people but more to the bad history. The misuse of drugs act is not the crimes act. 40 years ago we had it right as viewing it as a health problem. I think we should go back and look at it in that way. The drug problem is not going to go away and we need to find a solution. Peter Dunne said decriminalization is not the way it they're looking at it. Politically, would you be interested in going to politics? That is something that I would be looking at. *THat is not something I think we need to have a conversation going on. It is going to cost our country money and cause our country harm. Personally how frustrating is this issue for you? I'm always frustrated by systems that do not change and are stagnated. I think it is frustrating and demoralizing. If we don't change what we do when it's clearly not working, it does not get me out of bed in the morning. We have to change. And we will leave it there this morning. LET'S BRING IN OUR PANEL ` POLITICAL SCIENTIST DR RAYMOND MILLER FROM AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY; STEVE MAHAREY, MASSEY UNIVERSITY VICE-CHANCELLOR, FORMER LABOUR MINISTER; AND HONE HARAWIRA, NGAPUHI, LEADER OF THE MANA MOVEMENT, FORMER MP. Let's start with what Peter DunnE have to say. Your little disappointed. I think he skirted around some very important issues. I think we can welcome the debate about putting more money into a public health. People with drug problem need therapy. But he really skirted around some more important issues of the decriminalization. It seems to be put into the too-hard basket. Medical use of cannabis, this has become a hot issue and 2/3 to � of New Zealanders a very sympathetic to the medical use of cannabis. This issue has been rejected by the Minister of health, by the Minister of Justice and most importantly by the Prime Minister. You're talking about very very sick people. It is purely black and white. I think Helen Kelly has put it home for many people. The decriminalization is a health issue to ensure people are in a place in a situation where they cannot get assistance. Peter addressed none of the issues of the the decriminalization or legalization. You have a pretty traditional stance on this. Did anything he say make you think any other approach practically up North is not right? I hate seeing young kids coming out of the courthouse and thinking they got off light. Five is later they like to go overseas and they can't go, and they're looking back at their one little mistake their life has been turned upside down. I like the decriminalization angle the people don't have the rest of their lives turned over. But I am also concerned about seeing you becoming normalized. I don't like what I'm seeing out of families trying to say to kids don't bring dope to school, And their parents and their eyes are dull. What the minister said is just typical politicians Talk. Decriminalization on a low level can be done immediately. There is a world of difference between decriminalization and legalizing. What's in between must be worked out properly. Colorado is an example of this. The problem with our industry is it is very gang driven and very informal and underground. Money drives drugs. War on drugs is driven by money. Unless we take on the question on the status of that drug, money stays a big driver. Decriminalization would take that Out of the equation. I emphasize again that I'm surprised these things are not being discussed. No one really wants to get a hold of it. Why not? I think is due to a having a conservative government on social issues. I think it is government that is heading towards next election and wanting to exploit hits on conservatism with voters on those sets of issues. And Labour want to stay on them middle of the political spectrum and not wanting to offend people. A labor-greens government is the only way this is possibly going to go anywhere. The Prime Minister is very influenced by public opinion, as we are aware. With Some of the cases of Helen Kelly and Martin Crowe, he may move slightly, but my guess is that he won't. I think the way to resolve this debate is to make cannabis as a drug and the problems come from it exactly as same as alcohol as a drug. You'll been to bar anywhere in the country and you find people drinking, it is no problem at all. If you recognize that the problems caused by alcohol outweighs the problems caused by cannabis, you instantly see a change in thinking. Once the country recognizes that we need to have a sensible drug control against alcohol, you'll see the change really really quickly. Most Mps do not smoke dope, so they would like to keep the criminalize. Problems are there with alcohol. The there are situations where people will get violent on alcohol. People are very laid-back and attitude towards alcohol. The alcohol lobby is very powerful. Whereas there isn't the same voice in the drug industry. Maybe more medical professionals must speak out as Lance has today on the importance of not stigmatizing on those who would occasionally take drugs. Saying someone like Lance, New Zealander the year, to say we need each shift and be innovative, this is what this Conservative government doesn't like to see. I imagine these gentlemen around here have smoked at some point in their lives. If they decriminalized tomorrow, it wouldn't change my attitude one bit. I still hate seeing the devastation in the minds and eyes of the families I deal with everyday. Teenagers are taking drugs less now than they were a few years ago. The trains are very much towards decriminalization. We'll leave that there. *trends LATER IN THE PROGRAMME ` AFTER ANOTHER WEEK OF DEBATE ABOUT SAVAGE DOG ATTACKS, THE VETERINARY PROFESSOR WHO SAYS IT'S THE OWNERS WHO MUST BE PUNISHED. AFTER THE BREAK ` WHENA OWEN INVESTIGATES HOW NITRATE LEVELS ARE RISING IN SOME OF OUR PUREST AQUIFERS. WHY HEALTH EXPERTS SAY SOME OF THE WATER WE DRINK COULD BE CONTAMINATED FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. HERE WE TURN TO THE SUBJECT OF WATER NOW. AND WE'LL LOOK AT THE WOEFUL STATE OF SOME OF OUR AQUIFERS IN A MOMENT. BUT FIRST TO A DIFFERENT WATER-BASED CONTROVERSY. AROUND 200 PEOPLE MARCHED IN ASHBURTON YESTERDAY TO PROTEST THEIR COUNCIL'S PLAN TO SELL A PIECE OF LAND WITH A RESOURCE CONSENT TO BOTTLE 1.4B LITRES OF WATER EACH YEAR. THE COUNCIL SAYS THE DEAL WON'T HAVE ANY EFFECT ON TOWN SUPPLY AND WILL CREATE JOBS, BUT MANY LOCALS DON'T BELIEVE IT. THE WATER THAT WE HAVE FOR OUR FUTURE IS BEING GIVEN AWAY, WASTED. YEAH, I'M PRETTY ANGRY. THE SALE'S EXPECTED TO BE FINALISED BY JUNE. THE SALE WILL GO THROUGH UNLESS THERE'S ANOTHER BIDDER FOR THE WATER, AND GIVEN SOMEONE IN ASHBURTON SCOOPED THE $22M LOTTO PRIZE POOL LAST NIGHT, PERHAPS THERE'S AN IDEA FOR ALL THAT SPARE MONEY. IN THE MEANTIME, ASHBURTON RESIDENTS, LIKE RESIDENTS IN MANY PARTS OF THE COUNTY, ALREADY CONTEND WITH A RURAL WATER SUPPLY CONTAMINATED WITH NITRATE. REPORTER WHENA OWEN TALKED TO EXPERTS ABOUT JUST WHAT NITRATE ` THE SO-CALLED QUIET POLLUTANT ` IS AND THE PROBLEMS IT'S LIKELY TO CAUSE FUTURE GENERATIONS. OURS IS AN IMPRESSIVE LANDSCAPE. BUT WHAT LIES BENEATH NZ'S LAND SURFACE IS ONE OF OUR GREATEST TREASURES ` A VAST NETWORK OF AQUA RESERVES, OR AQUIFERS, 200 OF THEM, SOMETIMES BUBBLING UP INTO SPRINGS AND SURFACING INTO RIVERS. SO FAR, SO GOOD, FOR 85M YEARS. ROCK MUSIC BUT WE'RE A FOOD-PRODUCING NATION. THINGS NEED NITROGEN TO GROW. NITRATE LEACHES FROM PASTURES AND HAS POLLUTED MANY OF OUR WATERWAYS. BUT NOW THERE'S GROWING AWARENESS OF A MUCH DEEPER PROBLEM IN MANY AREAS OF THE COUNTRY, AND MORE SERIOUSLY IN CANTERBURY, THE WAIKATO, AND SOUTHLAND. NITRATE HAS MADE ITS WAY INTO MANY OF OUR PURE AQUIFERS. I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD BE SURPRISED ABOUT THAT ` THAT IS HAD GONE THAT DEEP. I THINK THEY WOULD, BUT IT'S GETTING WORSE. DOCTOR ALISTAIR HUMPHREY, CANTERBURY MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, HAS COPPED SOME FLAK FROM THE FARMING COMMUNITY FOR DOING HIS JOB, WARNING CANTABRIANS ABOUT THE HEALTH RISKS OF DRINKING WATER CONTAMINATED WITH NITRATE. THERE'S NO DEBATE, HE SAYS, THAT THE DAIRY BOOM HAS AND WILL COMPROMISE OUR WATER. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF COWS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, WE'VE GOT BETWEEN, I BELIEVE, ABOUT 14, 15M COWS NOW IN NZ. THE AMOUNT OF EFFLUENT THAT COMES OFF THAT NUMBER OF COWS IS ABOUT 100M PEOPLE. NOW, 100M, WITHOUT A RETICULATED SEWAGE SYSTEM ` I DON'T THINK NZERS WOULD BE HAPPY. HE WORKS ALONGSIDE ENVIRONMENT CANTERBURY, WHO MONITOR WELLS ACROSS THE PROVINCE AND EMPHASISE THEIR TOWN SUPPLY MEETS HEALTH STANDARDS AND IS TOP QUALITY. IF YOU'RE ON A RETICULATED WATER SUPPLY` A TOWN WATER SUPPLY, IT'S THE TOWN, THE WATER SUPPLIER, THAT LOOKS AFTER THAT, BUT IF YOU'VE GOT YOUR OWN WELL, IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO GET THAT WATER TESTED, MAKE SURE IT'S SAFE. IN RURAL AREAS AROUND ASHBURTON, HINDS AND LINCOLN, PREGNANT MUMS ARE NOW GIVEN THIS PAMPHLET ABOUT THE RISK OF THE POTENTIALLY FATAL BLUE BABY SYNDROME, WHERE NITRATE IN THE DRINKING WATER CONVERTS TO NITRITE AND DEPRIVES THE BABY OF OXYGEN. THERE'S ONLY BEEN ONE POSSIBLE CASE OF A SYNDROME IN NZ, IN THE '90S, BUT MUMS IN THOSE RURAL AREAS ARE ADVISED TO USE BOTTLED WATER TO MAKE UP THEIR FORMULA. THE NUMBER OF AREAS WHERE NITRATE LEVELS EXCEED DRINKING STANDARDS IN CANTERBURY IS GROWING. THERE'S A` QUITE A LARGE AREA AROUND ASHBURTON ` REMEMBER, NOT THE ASHBURTON TOWN SUPPLIER, BUT THE PRIVATE SUPPLIERS AROUND ASHBURTON ARE AT RISK. THE REST OF THE PROVINCE IS OF MODERATE RISK. MOST OF THE PROVINCE NOW, A PREGNANT MUM SHOULD TEST HER WATER IF SHE'S ON A PRIVATE BORE. THERE ARE VERY FEW AREAS LEFT THAT WE KNOW WE CAN GUARANTEE ARE SAFE. NITRATE CAN CAUSE CANCER, AND IT'S WELL-KNOWN AS A CARCINOGEN, BUT THE LEVELS NEEDED TO CAUSE CANCER ARE VERY MUCH HIGHER ` WE THINK ` THAN THE LEVELS THAT YOU'D FIND IN GROUNDWATER. THE HEALTH OF OUR AQUIFERS IS ALSO A HUGE CONCERN FOR CANTERBURY UNIVERSITY TOXICOLOGIST, PROFESSOR IAN SHAW. I'M VERY WORRIED ABOUT THINGS IN OUR FOOD AND DIETS THAT WE HAVE LITTLE CHOICE ABOUT OUR EXPOSURE TO, THAT MIGHT CAUSE LONG-TERM PROBLEMS. THE PROBLEM IN BABIES IS A SIGNIFICANT ONE. THERE IS NOT QUESTION ABOUT THAT. BUT THE CARCINOGENIC EFFECT, THE CANCER-CAUSING EFFECT, IS VERY MUCH MORE UNKNOWN, AND WE'LL ONLY KNOW WHETHER THAT'S AN EFFECT WHEN WE LOOK AT POPULATION STATISTICS IN 20, 30 YEARS' TIME. ENVIRONMENT SOUTHLAND'S ONLINE INFORMATION ABOUT AQUIFER HEALTH ALSO SUGGESTS THERE MAY BE CANCER LINKS WITH HIGH LEVELS OF NITRATE. NOT SO, THE MINISTRY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. BUT IT IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE RISK OF BLUE BABY SYNDROME. IT ALSO EXPLAINS THAT HIGHER LEVELS OF NITRATE DOWN IN THE AQUIFER CAN INDICATE THE PRESENCE OF OTHER POLLUTANTS, LIKE FAECAL PATHOGENS OR PESTICIDES. IN OTHER WORDS, NITRATE IS THE CANARY IN THE COAL MINE. AROUND THE WORLD, AND IN NZ, WHERE INTENSIFICATION OCCURS, WHERE NITRATES ARE LEACHING, THERE ARE OCCASIONALLY OUTBREAKS AS WELL OF OTHER THINGS. A NITRATE SOURCE CAN ALSO BE INDUSTRIAL OR AROUND OLD SEPTIC TANKS, AND LEVELS ARE VERY HIGH AROUND THE BOMBAY AND PUKEKOHE MARKET GARDENING AREA. BUT WE'VE BEEN PUTTING NITROGEN ON OUR LAND FOR 60 YEARS. OUR EXPERTS SAY WE'RE A LONG WAY OFF PEAK NITRATE. THE NITRATE THAT IS ALREADY IN THE AQUIFERS, IN THE GROUNDWATER, IS GOING TO BE COMING THROUGH THAT SYSTEM FOR A LONG TIME TO COME ` DECADES, POSSIBLY EVEN CENTURIES IN SOME CASES. GEOCHEMIST DOCTOR JENNY WEBSTER-BROWN AT CANTERBURY UNIVERSITY SAYS AQUIFER CONTAMINATION LOOMS LARGE IN OUR FUTURE. THERE IS A THOUGHT OUT THERE THAT THE NITRATE THAT WE'RE SEEING NOW ` COMING OUT IN COASTAL SPRINGS, COMING INTO OUR LOWLAND STREAM SYSTEMS, THAT KIND OF THING ` THAT VERY LIKELY RELATES TO FARMING THAT WAS ON THE LAND 40 TO 50 YEARS AGO, SO IT ACTUALLY PREDATES DAIRY CONVERSIONS. WE KNOW THAT DAIRY AS AN INDUSTRY TENDS TO LEACH MORE NITROGEN INTO THE GROUNDWATER SYSTEMS, SO WE FULLY EXPECT TO SEE THE NITRATE IN IN THE GROUNDWATERS INCREASING MARKEDLY IN THE NEXT FEW DECADES. DESPITE THE BEST EFFORTS OF FARMERS LIMITING NUTRIENT LOADS, NITRATE LEVELS IN SOIL CONTINUE TO GROW. TURNING IT AROUND IS A BIT LIKE TURNING ROUND AN OIL TANKER. WHEN YOU TURN THE RUDDER ON AN OIL TANKER, IT TAKES A LONG TIME BEFORE YOU CAN TURN THE BOAT. THE SAME THING APPLIES TO NITRATES. IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO BUILD UP. IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO GET RID OF IT. CERTAINLY, LOOKING AT CANTERBURY'S DATA, THERE'S SOME GOOD ECAN DATA THAT SHOWS THAT EVEN OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS OR SO, WE'VE SEEN A MARKED INCREASE IN NITRATE GETTING INTO THE DEEPER AQUIFERS. I THINK AS A COUNTRY WE SHOULD BE TAKING THE HEALTH OF AQUIFERS EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY ` NOT ONLY WITH RESPECT TO NITRATE, BUT WITH RESPECT TO OTHER CHEMICALS, LIKE PESTICIDES. WE'RE PUTTING MORE AND MORE CHEMICALS ON OUR ENVIRONMENT AS WE GET MORE AND MORE INTENSIVE IN OUR FARMING, AND THEREFORE THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT IN A FEW YEARS' TIME WE'RE GOING TO GET HIGHER LEVELS OF OTHER CHEMICALS APPEARING IN THE AQUIFERS TOO. GNS HAS JUST COMPLETED RESEARCH ON THE HEALTH OF OUR AQUIFERS. THE MINISTRY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT WILL PUBLISH THAT NEXT APRIL. That is the second time we turned an oil tanker around this morning. AFTER THE BREAK ` THE DEBATE OVER DEALING WITH DOG ATTACKS. THE GOVERNMENT SAYS IT'S TOO HARD TO BAN DANGEROUS BREEDS, SO WHAT ELSE CAN BE DONE? AN EXPERT IN ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR IS NEXT. THE GOVERNMENT'S RULED OUT BANNING DANGEROUS DOG BREEDS AFTER ANOTHER SPATE OF ATTACKS THIS WEEK. THE PROBLEM IS THE OWNER, NOT THE DOG, ACCORDING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT MINISTER LOUISE UPSTON, WHO WASN'T AVAILABLE TO APPEAR ON TODAY'S PROGRAMME. BUT WITH DOG ATTACKS ON THE RISE, IT SEEMS THAT SOME OWNERS AREN'T TAKING THAT RESPONSIBILITY SERIOUSLY ENOUGH. I'M JOINED NOW BY PROFESSOR KEVIN STAFFORD FROM MASSEY UNIVERSITY'S INSTITUTE OF VET, ANIMAL AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES. Banning breeds - that is not going to happen by the sound of it. It is often crossbreed mongrels that are involved in dog attacks. We need to focus on dangerous dogs and get rid of them. It is a massive job. We already identify those dogs. Some of the dogs in the community are already classified as dangerous. I suggest the owners of those dogs should be made aware it is a privilege to own these dogs. They should be encouraged to have the dogs destroyed. If they keep them they should be made to go to a retraining programme for them and the dogs. They should have to pay three all four times the registration fees the everyone else pays. They are being given permission to have these dogs and they should be encouraged to have been destroyed. We don't need them in the community. The laws have never really been enforced even though they are harsh. The owner does gets fined $1000. They never get up to 3 years in jail. So they wonder why bother? Most of the victims are related to the dog owner. 40% of children get bitten by dogs in NZ. They usually know the dog. They usually think they have suffered enough. But I disagree with that. Some poor person gets attacked and they are in hospital The dog it is destroyed and that is the end of it. But then they have to deal with the rest of the lives. Exactly. And things continue to get worse. I am really irritated by people saying primary schools teaching children how to approach children. That is not the responsibility of the school. Is it dangerous dogs or owners that are creating the dogs? It is both. A miniature poodle will never be a dangerous dog. They have to have the capacity. And they usually have genetics that will show them to be aggressive. I want to help you with damage management. Many people say you are a terrible person and hate dogs. I have three dogs and love dogs. One dead child and it will become more and more difficult for people to have those dogs. The was a case in 2013 of a woman dying as a result of a dog attack in Northern Ireland. Someone dies in NZ every four or five years from a dog attack. How we stop that? We make the ownership of dangerous dogs a specific privilege. We make them pay for the privilege so the money can be spent on monitoring what those dogs are doing. Is micro-chipping any help at all? It is a Irrelevant. I think dangerous dogs should be desexing. But that can make a bitch more aggressive. Are there more dog attacks or are we more aware of it? No there are more. Crossbred dogs are easy to have been easy to get. They are dealing with a weapon and refusing to understand that. The genie is out of the bottle and we have left this one too late. He is pointing out something that is frustrating. We want to ban breeds that are aggressive but there are so many crossbreeds now. We have to rely on the dogs that we know are a dangerin the community. You are concerned about the owner not the job when you out in the community. You know the owner has no control over and so been you take your dog somewhere else. It is the people who insist on owning a dog that is dangerous and then not controlling it. You own a Labrador. You're A responsible dog owner? I like to think so. The dog control act of 1996, it lays out a lot of very useful regulations with respect to dog ownership. But the problem is enforcement. In Britain they have passed a dangerous dog act. There is much tougher on people that own dangerous dogs. The penalties are increased and the requirement for training is there. The power to ban dangerous dogs is there. A lot of these things happen behind the garden gate. They are not done in public. Small children are attacked by a relative's dog for instance. They are not highlighted in the NZ act. We need to protect people from dogs outside and inside the garden gate. Penalising people when they have had a dog rip someone to pieces does not stop the problem. I know people who have pig dogs, and you have to manage them well when you are not doing that. One of them killed chickens on a property once. You worry about those things. Some pig dogs have the run of the section. But they can jump a pretty high fence. You have to balance what people have dogs for. Everyone would say pig dogs are dangerous. But is a different world out in rural areas. I am concerned when I am out with my mokopuna and I do not know if they could be aggressive. WE TALKED ABOUT THE FAILURE OF THE GLOBAL DRUG WAR AT THE TOP OF THE PROGRAMME. DRUG ADDICTS IN ANY COUNTRY SHOULD ALWAYS BE TREATED AS MEDICAL CASES. THERE'S NOTHING TO STOP A DRUG ADDICT FROM COMMITTING A CRIME, OF COURSE. WE LOOK BACK IN HISTORY TO 1965 AND THE DEBATE OVER HOW TO DEAL WITH ILLEGAL DRUG USE THEN. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OF YOUR FEEDBACK, MOST OF WHICH WAS VERY MUCH IN FAVOUR OF A LESS PUNATIVE APPROACH TO DRUGS. WE TALKED ABOUT THE WAR ON DRUGS WITH PETER DUNNE EARLIER IN THE PROGRAMME, BUT THE DEBATE IS FAR FROM NEW. HERE'S A STORY FROM NZBC'S COMPASS PROGRAMME ON A NEW NARCOTICS BILL THAT CAME INTO FORCE IN 1965: THERE IS SOME DOUBT AS TO WHETHER THE STRONG MEASURES IN THE NARCOTICS BILL WILL PREVENT ADDICTION GROWING IN NZ. DOCTORS ESPECIALLY ARE SUSCEPTIBLE. DRUG ADDICTS IN ANY COUNTRY SHOULD ALWAYS BE TREATED AS MEDICAL CASES. THERE'S NOTHING TO STOP A DRUG ADDICT FROM COMMITTING A CRIME, OF COURSE, IN WHICH CASE HE SHOULD BE TAKEN AS A CRIMINAL. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY REASON WHY MARIJUANA SMOKERS SHOULD NOT BE LEFT ALONE TO LIVE THEIR OWN LIVES, AND CERTAINLY THIS NEW LAW, WELL, IT'S JUST DISGUSTING. REORGANISATION OF OUR VICE SQUADS IS AIMED AT THE CRIMINAL ADDICT, A MAN ONLY USES THE DRUGS TO ESCAPE INTO A SYNTHETIC WORLD THAT HE DOESN'T NEED TO GO TO, AND IN THAT SYNTHETIC WORLD, HE'S HARMING HIMSELF, HIS FAMILY AND SOCIETY. I THINK IT'S INEVITABLE THAT THE NUMBER OF DRUG TAKERS WILL INCREASE. BUT, UM... WHY DO YOU SAY THAT? WELL, IT'S HUMAN NATURE. MORE STRINGENT CONTROL BY POLICE AND CUSTOMS PREVENTING THE TRAFFICKING OF DRUGS INTO THIS COUNTRY MAY BE ONE ANSWER TO THE GROWING PROBLEM OF ADDICTION. BUT NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE NET TIGHTENS, A CERTAIN AMOUNT IS BOUND TO SLIP THROUGH. PROHIBITION OF ANY SORT DOESN'T STOP THE LAW BREAKERS; IT MAKES A TOUGHER BREED. THERE'S A DANGER THAT THE NARCOTICS BILL MAY FORCE UP THE PRICE OF ILLICIT DRUGS, MAKING IT TOUGHER ON THE ADDICT, CREATING A NECESSITY FOR HIM TO COMMIT CRIME TO PAY FOR HIS DRUGS. STRONG MEASURES SHOULD BE MADE TO PREVENT ADDICTS FROM OBTAINING SUPPLIES BY CANVASSING DOCTORS. AND MOST OF ALL, THERE APPEARS TO BE A NEED FOR A MUCH CLOSER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ATTITUDES OF THE MEDICS, CUSTOMS AND POLICE IN UNDERSTANDING AND COMBATTING THE PROBLEM BEFORE THE DOOR IS SHUT ON THE TRAFFICKER. WAKA HUIA IS NEXT. REMEMBER, Q+A REPEATS TONIGHT AT 11.35PM. THANKS FOR WATCHING AND THANKS FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. THOSE WERE THE QUESTIONS AND THOSE WERE THE ANSWERS. THAT'S Q+A. SEE YOU NEXT SUNDAY MORNING AT 9. CAPTIONS BY AMY PARK AND INGRID LAUDER CAPTIONS WERE MADE POSSIBLE WITH FUNDING FROM NZ ON AIR. COPYRIGHT ABLE 2016