Today on Newshub Nation ` the Government wants to crack down on loan sharks. We talk to Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Kris Faafoi. British politician Nigel Farage tells us it's better to have friends who speak the same language and that Brexit will be good for New Zealand. And after this week's horror crash in Taranaki, we reveal details of an ambitious plan to install more median barriers on our deadliest roads. Kia ora, good morning. I'm Lisa Owen, and welcome to Newshub Nation. The Consumer Affairs Minister is circling loan sharks and predatory lenders with potentially tighter regulations to stop vulnerable people falling into debt traps. The Government's currently asking for submissions on how to improve the way that New Zealanders borrow money. Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Kris Faafoi joins me now. Good morning, Minister. Good morning, Lisa. Before we get on to predatory lending, you've got an update for us on the big Takata airbag recall. Now, let's remind people. This is the airbags that are at serious risk of exploding and causing injury. So how many cars do you now know that have the most dangerous versions of those airbags? So when we first started looking at this issue, we were advised that there are about 50,000 of these Alpha type airbags in New Zealand. It was difficult to get some solid numbers. Now that we've put a bit more sunlight on the issue, we now know that there are a total of 103,000 of these Takata airbags. About half of those have been fixed. So I think there are about 53,000 of the 103,000 still outstanding. And we've obviously got that compulsory recall for those to be repaired over the next 15 months now. That's massive numbers. It is. And that's why we decided to take action. There was a voluntary recall in place since 2013. And when we were first advised of the numbers, because the Australian competition watchdogs made a compulsory recall, and we looked at numbers. We were worried then. And that's when the numbers were 53,000` So how worried are you now? Still worried. But we've still got 53,000 outstanding. We're working very closely with the industry, both the Motor Industry Association ` the new car sellers ` and also the VIA, who represent those who are selling second-hand vehicles. They're still pretty confident that we can get to as close to 100% of those cars being repaired before December 2019. December 2019? Because here's the thing, what if there was a more imminent danger? Because it seems like we are not equipped to deal with something like this at speed. Yeah, and that was one of the issues with the voluntary recall as well. It just wasn't being` But even with a compulsory recall, you're still talking about next year. Yeah, and it's going to` 53,000 cars are a lot to repair. We don't know where all of those cars are. Some people won't even know they've got these cars. So we're still working behind the scenes to make that much easier, but as I say, we're working very closely with the industry to make sure that the deadline of December 2019, as it stands now, to make sure we can get those cars repaired. And as yet, still no reports of failures of these airbags in New Zealand? No, not yet. We do know that around the world, there have been 23 fatalities linked to these Alpha type airbags, but none, touch wood, here in New Zealand. All right. Well, let's move on to your discussion paper that's looking at loan sharks and predatory lenders. One option is to cap interest rates on loans. Now, some of these companies are charging up to 400% interest or more. What range do you favour for interest? Not necessarily favour, but I think if you look at the options, I think what runs through all those options is to make sure that you can cap the amount of interest and fees at 100% of the principal of the loan. So in plain English, if you borrow $1000, then the interest that you pay can't go over $1000. And I think that will prevent a lot of the situations where we're seeing a relatively small loan spiralling out of control into several thousands of dollars in which people aren't able to pay back. So there are a couple of options within that discussion document ` one is about somewhere between 200% and 300%, the other one is capping it at 30% or 40%. We want to make sure` But do you think 100% is realistic and where you would like to aim for? I think that fundamentally makes sure that those large balances don't spiral out of control. So at the moment, we've got a $1000 loan. If it's uncontrolled, it can turn into several thousand dollars. This way, if it's 100% of the principal borrowed, then we can roughly control the amount that someone has to pay back. Because that still sounds like huge numbers. So how many lenders do you think that that potentially would put out of business? I don't know if they would go out of business or not, but what we do know is about 150,000 Kiwis do use high-cost lenders every year. That's a lot of Kiwis. We're still trying to get our head around how many of those would fall into serious trouble, but certainly when we're visiting the likes of budget advisory services, Citizen Advice Bureaus around the country, it's a constant thing that they continue to see this kind of predatory behaviour. The thing is that a lot of borrowers who use the kind of services that you're talking about, they're desperate; they've got no other option, so they're forced to go there. It is a last resort. What obligation do you think there is on the Government to provide them with an alternative, in terms of emergency short-term loans or assistance, particularly if you're going to, you know, bring the lid down on this industry? I don't think it's necessarily an obligation of the Government alone. And I think there's already some private and not-profit people working in that space. If you look at the likes of Good Shepherd, who are working with the likes of the Salvation Army and Vaka Tautua, which is a Pacific mental health provider, they are already working in the space of either nil interest or no interest loans for people who are in this situation. We had Newtown Budgeting Services with us on Wednesday when we launched the discussion ` they offer nil interest. So I think it's about making sure that we can have an environment where more of that happens, and there are some banks that are interested in helping in that area. But there's also another part of this puzzle, and that's making sure that people who are in this situation are making wise and motivated financial decisions and have the financial capability to know whether or not it's a wise thing to take one of these loans out or not. Yeah. Well, there's a couple of things there. So for families that are already in debt to these kinds of predatory lenders, as you mentioned, so the likes of the Salvation Army, they will pay off a client's debt at a high interest rate, and then the client pays the charity back at zero interest. Can you conceive of the Government offering a scheme like that? I think the Government has to make sure that they have a part in making sure that those are available. And I think there is enough interest to make sure that the Government can help coordinate that or help what's already there. I don't think we want to` But you're relying on charities to provide that service at the moment. And they are quite happy to do that. And I think there's more possibility for that kind of action in that space. I think what it needs is a bit more coordination, because at the moment I think you've got pots of people assisting in those situations, but not necessarily a level of coordination, which I think could be needed. And that's where the Government can step in. All right, so if you over-regulate, there is a risk, and it's identified in your discussion document, that you could simply send the industry underground, and then it would be totally unregulated, cos it would be a black market, basically. How are you going to stop that happening? By making sure that we are assisting, as you've just mentioned, that there are safe places for people to borrow. They are in the community, they are again` But if they are there, Minister, why are all these people in debt up to their eyeballs to companies that are asking for up to 400% interest? And that's our job, as well as tightening the regulation, making sure that we can assist in those areas to make sure there is more responsible lending. There are, as I say, several organisations that are more than happy to be in that space, who, some of them ` many of them ` who are offering nil percent interest rates on their loans. We have to make sure we can encourage that as well as increasing the financial literacy and financial capability of the people in these situations. Yeah, well, you talk about that, because the thing is, legislation ` is it really the antidote to bad judgement or desperation? No, the regulation is one part of the triangle. We can help protect, in regulation, some of the behaviour that is seeing some of these vulnerable consumers being preyed upon by those loan sharks in truck shops. We've got to make sure that the other parts of the puzzle ` the financial capability ` making wise decisions ` and making sure that if people do need to borrow, there is a safe and responsible place to borrow. And as I say, I think there is enough capacity out there at the moment. It just might need a bit more encouragement and help from the Government. Let's move on to the banking sector. You've put them on notice in a couple of areas. Open banking ` you want banks to share customer data and account access, with the customer's permission. So, let's just make up an example here. For example, they might have to have all their accounts, regardless of what banks those accounts are with, loaded onto a single app where they could access the information. Things aren't going as fast as you would like them to go, are they, so what role does the Government play in nudging that along? We've given Payments New Zealand, who are responsible for a trial that's going on at the moment, to move things along. We've said that to them at their conference earlier this week. And what if they don't? Well, then obviously there's a chance for us to get in there and say, 'This is how we would like the system to work.' We are not at that stage yet. We are relatively happy with where things are at this stage, but we've told them by the end of the year, we want to see certain things. In 12 months, we want to see certain things to make sure` that are in the consumers' interest and in the interests of making sure that there's an ability for third parties, those app developers, to make sure that there's a platform for them to get on so they can get into that market too. What do you mean by 'get in there'? 'We will get in there if it doesn't move along'? What does that mean? Well, we can assist them in ways. Like what? Look, I think if we have to say to them` Force them? Is that what you mean, Minster? I'd prefer to work with them, to be fair, and I think we are working quite well together at this stage. But if there isn't progress in a timely manner, for a whole host of reasons ` we want to make sure we have a good platform in terms of third parties who want to get into there, who are making up front-tech apps; we want to make sure they've got good and affordable access to the framework, but also to make sure that for consumers, the system works in their interests. Because I think consumers are frustrated that the traditional banking systems haven't worked in their favour from time to time. All right. Also this week, you indicated that you don't want to see merchants' service fees go up on credit cards, and you've warned that you have options. So what would it take for you to step in and regulate those? If they went north. They've been given lots of signals that we want those fees to go down and be much more transparent` Down? You want them down? That's right. If they don't go down, will you regulate? We've told them again at the Payments New Zealand conference earlier this week that if they head north, we've got the tools, as has the EU and Australia, to make sure that we control the prices of those, because at this stage, Lisa` Sorry to interrupt you, Minister... ...becoming more ubiquitous, and if you've only got one way to pay, it's small merchants and consumers end up paying more. You've said two things there ` north and drop. So what is it? Do they have to stay where they are? We said to them very clearly earlier this week if they head north, then we won't be happy with that, and we have other tools available to us to make sure that we're protecting consumers from unfair charges. So you're okay if they stay at current levels? It's just if they increase? We also said to them as there's more competition in this payments space that we expect competition to bring prices down. That's how the market apparently works. So will you regulate if they don't go down? Well, we'll have to just wait and see. As I say, one of the companies dropped their prices earlier this year in April. We are happy about that. But as we see these kinds of payments become more ubiquitous, we want to make sure that it's fair to consumers and small retailers who end up paying the charge for this. All right. Thanks for joining us this morning, Minister Kris Faafoi. If you've got something to say about what you see on our show, do let us know. We are on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ Our panel on Twitter today is Jarrod Gilbert and Emma Espiner. They're using the hashtag #nationnz or you can email us at... Up next ` Julia Gerrard is the Prime Minster's new chief science adviser. We ask her about the risk of policies based on bad science. Plus, Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage says we have our very own version of Trump right here in New Zealand, and he likes him a lot. Welcome back. Professor Juliet Gerrard is about to step into the role of the Prime Minister's Chief Science Adviser. She's taking over from Sir Peter Gluckman who's held the role since it was created in 2009. His term officially ends today. Recent reports from the office have chided the justice policy makers for being driven by panic rather than data, and also sparked a backlash against the previous Government for it's handling of meth-contamination issues. Professor Gerard joins me now, good morning. Good morning. How do you see science helping to shape social policy? So that's a really big question. And lots of people have pointed out I'm not a social scientist. And at the outset, it's probably worth saying that no one person is going to be an expert across all policies. But happily, Peter Gluckman built a team of departmental science advisers including four really excellent social scientist, so they will be working with me. So, there's Richie Poulton who advises the Ministry of Social Development, there's Ian Lambie that does Justice, there's Stuart McNaughton who does Education and there's John Potter for health. And my first job is to work with them and really see where they see the advances could be made. I want to look at a recent example where science did shape policy, and this was the meth testing of houses. How concerned are you that bad science made it into social policy or shaped social policy? So, I think bad science is quite an emotive term. I think policy makers are trying to use the best information available. And the value of the Science Advisory Network is to make sure that they have that information. So I'm not going to comment on detail on the meth issue because that was something that Peter and his researchers did a lot of work on. But clearly the policy wasn't in line with the best scientific evidence and an over-precautionary approach was taken. Yeah, well, I assume you're interested in it in so much as you want to prevent it from happening again, so... So, it's been a really useful case study for me to see how the scientific evidence was turned into policy and how it was reviewed and the political reaction to that. So how did it go wrong and where did it go wrong? So it would have been helpful if the scientific evidence had been ahead of the policy decision-making. So my top priority is to understand the programme of government, see where the science advice is going to be needed, and to make sure we get that expert opinion ahead. Obviously that's going to be easier for some issues than others. So, what are you saying, that the policy around testing the levels, well, the levels that were set, how did policy come before science in this case? So, science is slow and methodical, traditionally. And policy has to be made in response to urgent issues. And so the challenge of science advice is to, really, marry those two timelines. So the policy makers, we hope, will ask for the best evidence, and sometimes the evidence isn't clear cut. And then what we can do as science advisors is honestly present the weight of evidence and give the essence of the debate, arguments for and against, and maybe the majority view. So do you think that science around that testing was still evolving at the time the policy was set, that there's more information to come? So, again, I haven't been briefed on the details of that, and Anne and Peter who did the research would be much better placed to answer that question. But it would be interesting for them to do a retrospective and see if there was a mistake that was made early on in terms of how the science evidence could have been presented at a different stage. So, you talked about the Departmental Science Advisors. How well do you think those positions are working currently? Well, that's my top priority, is to talk to them one-on-one, and I've already chatted to a couple of them. I think all of them have very different arrangements in their different Ministries. And I'm keen to really strengthen the group, and really use that group as a sounding board for issues that cut across different ministries, rather than focus on one. So are they being used enough, and are they being used in the right way? Because I know that Sir Peter Gluckman's report of 2017 said that he felt there was a failure to engage them appropriately, and he actually said that in some cases departments claimed to have the support of the Science Adviser, whereas that support had never actually been sought. So that's one of my first jobs, is to get their impressions of that, and to collectively look at where there might be weaknesses in the Science Advice Portfolio, and where we could add more value and help policy. And what are your initial thoughts? I only start on Monday, so come back to me on that one. I know. I'm sure you have done, as a scientist, a lot of research before you moved in, or you moved in and took this job up. So do you have any thoughts on where you might want to make changes in respect of those advisers? So, I think it would be really great if they functioned as a group rather than a collection of individuals. So my initial thoughts are to formalise that group so that it's a body of experts. And also to make sure that those experts are connecting into the rest of the scientific community. What will your role be? If you see bad science infiltrating social policy, what can we expect from you as the Prime Minister's Chief Science Adviser? So it's an independent role, and that independence is absolutely critical. So it's my job to speak out if we see that. But obviously in the area of social science, I'd be working with social scientists. Because I've looked at the job description and it's the same job description from when this position was first started `you're appointed by the Prime Minister and are, quote, 'terminable at the will of the Prime Minister'. Is that conducive, do you think, to a strong, independent voice? So, that's something we really need to look hard at, how this position's constituted. And I know there's been calls out there for science advice to be structured in a different way. My position is with the University of Auckland, which gives me some surety that I can still pay my mortgage if I get terminated, as you put it. But most of it's about the integrity of the individuals in those roles, and making sure that they're prepared to speak out. So your job also says that you may propose matters for inclusion in a work programme. How much say are you going to have on the work that gets done under the umbrella of your office? So, the first job, while the Prime Minister's on leave, is for me to go all around the country and talk to lots of different scientists from different institutions, and see what they think are the high priorities. So, I'm keen to start as many conversations as I possibly can. And then at the end of August, I'm scooping up all those issues, all my conversations with the Science Advisers from each Ministry, and we'll prioritise a programme of work. And I'm sure the Prime Minister has ideas, but I would expect that what comes out of those conversations would form a large part of that programme. Because previously we've had what's been called the 'Science Challenges', and there's 11 areas which have been identified, including stuff like focusing on obesity, housing supply. They're, currently, I think, under the five-year review. Do you think priorities have changed since those eleven areas were identified, and do you think that you would like to put other things into the mix? So, first of all, I'm not the Minister of Science. So that would be her decision to decide what the National Science Challenge priorities ultimately are, in conjunction with her officials. But you'd assume you'll offer some advice or have some input? If she calls for advice, yes. But it wouldn't be on where the funding went, it would be some sort of foresighting exercise about where we should be looking. And you would expect a series of National Challenges to evolve with time as new scientific issues pop up on the horizon. So, if they do, as you say, evolve over time, have you had a look at those, and can you see an area that we should be evolving into? That's not something that I've immediately looked at. So, those challenges are relatively new. But certainly, if there are areas, we'll be looking at that. One that often pops up is artificial intelligence, so, who in New Zealand is looking at that. So that would be one area where, as I go round the country, I would expect people to be saying, 'You know what? We need a group of people really thinking about the implications of this.' I was interested, this week the Supreme Court has ruled that South Taranaki can go ahead and fluoridate its water, and this is after a six-year court battle. The local Mayor has said that, you know, it was a battle and local council shouldn't have to deal with it, it should be a central government issue. Is that something that your office would be interested in looking at? So there's an enormous range of issues that we could look at, and we need to put those in priority order. Obviously the Prime Minister will have a say. From my perspective, I'll be looking at the places where there's still work to do in terms of science evidence. And I think there's a pretty good consensus on fluoride that the scientists are happy, and it's a political argument now. So we can probably add more value looking at an issue where the jury's still out on the science and we can come up with new information, rather than` And what do you think those things are? Where the jury is still out, where you can do more work? So, that's going to be my top priority. I don't have my personal shopping list of things. But obviously there's work to be done internationally in the space of clean energy, there's a lot of work on mental health, there's also whether we should focus on issues that are particular to New Zealand or international, so, obviously, earthquake resilience, things like that are going to be important. And then there's topics that bubble up all the time, my inbox is full already. One of them is waste, so how do we get rid of waste? People are very worried about that. So those are the sorts of issues we'll be thinking about, and the prioritisation will be the important part. Well, the best of luck. First day on the job on Monday, is it? Professor Juliet Gerrard, thank you for your time. And Nigel Farage's list of credits is long, right-winger, Brexit-backer, Trump supporter, Broadcaster. But one thing he is not is a fence-sitter. Mr Farage says UK stabbed New Zealand in the back 45 years ago, and the western world is now on the verge of fundamental change. Europe correspondent, Lloyd Burr, sat down with Mr Farage ahead of his speaking tour to New Zealand. We made June the 23rd our independence day when we smashed the establishment. (CHEERS, APPLAUSE) Farage is a self-proclaimed preacher man, his message, change is coming, to western world at least. A kind of 'me first' movement shunning globalisation. 45 years ago, we stabbed you guys in the back in the most dramatic way. Despite everything New Zealand had done to help us, support us ` at massive cost to yourselves ` we stabbed you in the back because we signed up for the globalist order. It was called the European Common Market. It then became the European Union. Brexit, which I was involved with, was the first real kickback against this move towards decisions being made at a high level, and now that revolution is rolling out across the whole world. 'America first!' is the cry from Donald Trump, and I think what you're going to see is a complete rebalancing of the West, where what people do unashamedly is put their own interests above that of the big multinationals and the global businesses. Our leaders chose to go in a European direction and turn our backs on you guys ` frankly, our own kith and kin, our own real friends around the world. That was an historical mistake this country made. Brexit is the opportunity to correct that mistake and to get us back on a better basis. The Brexit campaigner once hit the headlines for saying he'd be concerned if 10 Romanian men moved in next door. We're not against the Europeans, but our real friends in the world speak our language, have common law, shared histories, traditions ` as a joke, I used to say even play cricket as well. And Britain's real friends, he says, are in the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is based on the concept of individual nation states that run their own affairs, that cooperate together where they choose to cooperate. Now, that is the complete opposite of the globalist model. The globalist model is that we hand away our national democracy to higher international institutions. The Commonwealth is something I believe that we should all want to build on. There's something interesting about what you talk about ` claiming back Britain and claiming back Britain's sovereignty ` when Mother England, Great Britain, the British Empire, whatever you want to call it, has got such a big history of stealing other countries' sovereignty. Do you know, if you want to play the history game with me, you can. All right? Compare the relationship that the Germans have with their former colonies, the Belgians have with their former colonies, the Spanish have with their former colonies, the French have with their former colonies. They all hate each other. We've got the Commonwealth. And, yes, of course, cousins and people in close relationships always have frictions and always have difficulties. The very fact we have the Commonwealth, we have the Commonwealth Games, we've now got countries that want to join the Commonwealth that were never even part of the British Empire, tells you you've got something here that is of value. But what value does it bring? New Zealand pays, what, 5 million to be part of the Commonwealth every year, to pay for bureaucracy, pretty much. Australia pays 10 million. What do we get from it apart from being able to go to the Commonwealth Games or spending a whole lot of money at a talkfest called CHOGM? What do we get from it? What we get is the opportunity, now that Brexit is on the horizon, to have a new, different order ` an opportunity trade-wise for us to be a little bit fairer with you than we've been for the last 45 years, because we haven't been, and I'm sorry about that. And, look, we have shared values. When it comes to the threats that face the world, you may be further away from those threats, geographically, than we are, but don't think international jihadism and things like that ` don't think for one moment you're immune from that, because you're not. And these are our shared values; these are the things we can work on. We can work on that. We can work on trade. And I think we should grab the opportunity. So what's jihadism got to do with your tour to New Zealand? You may not have suffered jihadi attacks, but the Australians have, all right, just being next door to you, so let's just understand that there are a series of values that exist within the Commonwealth that it's worth fighting for together. And, please, you guys, maybe, just learn from us. Look at what we've got so badly wrong. We were lulled by big global businesses into surrendering our sovereignty, into forgetting the very basis of a nation state democracy is to put ourselves first. Learn from us and don't make those mistakes. The former leader of the UK Independence Party stepped down in 2016, right after the Brexit referendum. He says not only had he achieved his goal, but he knew he'd be frozen out of the Brexit negotiations. I have been the most mocked, derided figure in public life probably since 1945, and yet, I proved them all wrong. We did it; we got to the top of the mountain. I couldn't see anywhere else to go. But you could have stayed in Parliament, at the top of that mountain, and made sure that you got the Brexit deal that you wanted. Oh well. I'm still in the European Parliament. I'm still leading a group in the European Parliament. And causing trouble. And I'm delighted to see my Italian colleagues are now the government in Italy. My Swedish colleagues are heading on for a massive victory in September. My German colleagues may be on the verge of ousting Mrs Merkel. Oh, I'm still involved in politics. But when it comes to the Brexit deal and the Brexit negotiations, I'm sorry to say that it was clear to me immediately after the referendum that the snobby Conservative Party wouldn't even speak to me. My bit with British politics at that moment was done. And I think at the time you said if the Brexit didn't go the way that you wanted, if Theresa Mary didn't do the Brexit that was the right Brexit, you'd maybe enter back into politics. Is that something you're considering? If Brexit in the end became a forward pass. To a nation of great rugby players; I'm sure they'll understand that one. If there was a forward` then you'd come running on to the park. Absolutely. I'd be back on the park. But, look, of course I'm going to be frustrated with the deal, with the lack of clarity, with the delay. But do you know something? If I wake up on March the 30th next year, we've left these treaties and we're a sovereign, independent nation again, I'm going to be a very happy bunny. Just a few days ago, there were tens of thousands of people marching just around where we are now, calling for another referendum. Yes. Do you think the British people still want to leave? Nearly all called Lucilla or Hugo. Nearly all upper middle class, very comfortably off, many on trust funds, none of them actually living in the real world. Come on. We had 1.5 million marching against the Iraq War. We had nearly half a million marching against banning fox hunting. We've seen many demonstrations before. That doesn't prove a blooming thing. The fact is quite consistently, 70% of the country say, 'Can we please just get on with it?' At least, that's the polite interpretation of what many of them say to me, including over a third of people who voted remain ` people who say, 'Look, it was a democratic result. Let's just do it.' It's happening. It's happening. The biggest constitutional change for 300 years is happening. And while he's fond of his Commonwealth friends, his speaking tour here in September will be the first time he's visited New Zealand. I hope we're going to have a crowd. I'm sure we're going to have a crowd. I think people will be interested, they're going to want to know why Brexit happened. They're going to want to know why Trump happened. They're going to want to find out whether I'm really the demon that many have made me out to be. I've got some big calls and big predictions for the future as well. I'm sure we're going to have some fun. And I very much hope, if he's got time, Winston Peters turns up too. I think they're going to find that you're quite a likeable character. You're killing me with your charisma. Do you know something? What is so bizarre is that I've been characterised as some sort of extremist figure that's come on to the political scene. I'm basically a middle-class, southern Englishman who worked in the commodity business, played a bit of golf at weekends, had kids, went to the village pub, went to church; I just believed in national sovereignty, and so I fought against the globalist movement. And looking back on it, the fact that anyone's even called me extreme is bizarre. I've stood for what I believe to be normality and continuity, and I think now, maybe, a couple of years on from Brexit, people are beginning to understand that the reason these vile things were said about me is because big money controls the world, and it's time big money didn't. You mentioned Winston. You have a lot of similarities with Winston Peters. I know him, and I like him. I took him to a cricket match. He was over this year, earlier. I took him to a cricket match. He's a great character. You've got the same politics, same charisma, same passion. Yeah, no, he's a great character, and he finds himself in an extraordinary role in New Zealand politics right now. But, no, I think in a way`See, it's interesting, isn't it? In New Zealand, you maybe think, 'Oh gosh, what's happening in Europe and America's a long way away,' but you've got your own version of Trump in Winston Peters. And still to come, we dissect the week's political news with our panel, plus we reveal details of the government's ambitious plan to install hundreds of kilometres of median barriers in a bid to reduce road deaths. Welcome back. A horrific head-on collision in South Taranaki claimed seven lives this week ` New Zealand's worst crash in 13 years. It's tragedies like this the New Zealand Transport Agency is trying to prevent with an ambitious multi-million dollar median barriers project. The project is still in draft stage, but documents released to Newshub Nation reveal it could see barriers installed on nearly 1000km of road around the country. John-Michael Swannix reports. It's called the 'deadliest stretch of road in New Zealand'. And just over a year ago, Tina Jennen almost became one of its statistics. My first memory from afterwards is literally waking up in the hospital bed. So I had, I believe, a 24-hour memory loss. The head-on collision broke all four of her limbs. She's had three rounds of surgery and still needs two more. State Highway 2 between Katikati and Tauranga is a notorious crash spot. And infuriated local residents have started a campaign to get it upgraded. Since 2010, there's been 23 fatalities, but there's also been 80 serious accidents. And we consider a 'serious accident' to be a life-changing accident, like Tina Jennen. The driver who hit Tina fell asleep at the wheel. She's forgiven him, but says our roads need to be more forgiving too. If we design around the potential for human error, which we cannot mitigate, then we actually keep people safer. Head-on collisions account for one in four deadly crashes. Just this week, a horrific head-on crash in South Taranaki claimed the lives of seven people, including two children. There are around 650 head-on crashes in New Zealand every year. On average, 90 people are killed, and 320 are seriously injured. Almost all of those deaths could have been avoided with median barriers. Preventing those head-on crashes by putting median barriers to prevent that type of collision impact is a significant benefit that we can do to reduce death and serious injuries. It's something the New Zealand Transport Agency is now looking into. Since late last year, officials have been working on a programme they call 'Quick Wins', wanting to find where median barriers could be installed for the most benefit with the least cost and disruption. We should be targeting interventions to where they will be the most effective at reducing the numbers of deaths and serious injuries. It's part of Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter's Vision Zero approach to road safety, which is due to be finalised by August. Specific roads identified under the 'Quick Wins' programme have been redacted in documents obtained by Newshub Nation. However, we do have the estimated cost for the overall project. NZTA says around 480km of roads around the country qualify as potential 'Quick Wins'. It would cost an estimated $716 million to install median barriers on them. Based on last year's crash data, median barriers on those roads would have an impact on 97 deadly or serious crashes and stop 49 of them happening altogether. To be classified as a 'Quick Win', roads must be at least 10m wide and have fewer than two intersections and two driveways per kilometre. They must also have a high rate of head-on collisions, including at least three deadly or serious crashes in the past five years. Higher priority is given to busy roads, those with more than 10,000 vehicles a day. NZTA has confirmed one potential 'Quick Win' road is the Hawke's Bay Expressway from Napier to Hastings. Two months ago, a person died when they crossed the centre line into the path of an oncoming truck. If they are lucky enough to survive the impact, even if it's high speed, they're not going to be undamaged. It's not the kind of crash that you just walk away from. The previous National Government had designated the expressway a 'road of national significance'. No road of national significance has had a death on it since it's been built. The safety improvements for those roads has been huge. And so a four-lane expressway between Napier and Hastings would have ensured that there were fewer deaths. But Julie Anne Genter says the roads of national significance haven't stopped the road toll rising every year since 2013. Those are very short stretches of highway, so, you know, for $12 billion, they may have made 300km of state highway safe. What we're talking about is spending a fraction of that money ` two billion ` to cover an area more than 10 times as big. As well as those roads identified under 'Quick Wins', NZTA believes a further 500km of road could benefit from median barrier installation. This includes the stretch of State Highway 2 where Tina Jennen almost died. When I look at how traumatised we all were by this accident, had the median been there, I couldn't have been hit. Installing the barriers on these roads would cost an additional $1.3 billion, as the roads may need to be widened or straightened. That would impact a further 123 deadly or serious crashes each year and stop 45 of them from happening at all. Altogether, the plan would see just under $2 billion spent installing median barriers on 980km of road around the country. That's estimated to reduce the harm caused by 220 deadly or serious crashes a year and prevent almost 100 of them. That's going to be far more effective at reducing the total numbers of deaths and serious injuries than pouring all of the money into a few hundred kilometres of state highway. There are three different kinds of median barrier. Rigid barriers are made of concrete and often line the centre of major motorways. They cost about $700 a metre. Semi-rigid barriers are made of steel and are often installed in bad corners or other trouble spots. They cost about $200 a metre. Flexible barriers are made of wire rope and cost about $150 to $200 a metre. These have been labelled 'cheese-cutters' by motorcyclists. And in 2016, a petition was launched to ban them. But the Transport Agency says overseas evidence proves they actually reduce the number of motorcyclists killed. They do that because they prevent motorcyclists from striking immovable objects like trees or power poles, and they prevent them from, you know, being struck by oncoming vehicles. Flexible barriers are cheaper to install, but get dented more often and need replacing, so there are ongoing maintenance costs. However, Andrew Knackstedt says they also reduce the severity of crashes. They're designed to collapse and catch the vehicle and absorb that energy so that it doesn't have to be absorbed by the human body. Median barriers also come with complications. They can block access for emergency vehicles and restrict traffic flows if a car breaks down. And that's a concern for residents along the busy State Highway 2. So, medians in some places would be useful, but from Tauranga to Omokoroa, it really needs to have more lanes to deal with the volume of traffic as well. National had promised the region a four-way expressway with a median divider. That's a road that could have been started in the next few months. National released a list of highway projects that it was promising, but it's obvious that there's no way the transport budget could have paid for all of those projects. Fatal and serious crashes cost the country more than $4 billion in 2016. It's estimated that every fatal crash cost nearly $5 million. Every serious injury crash cost more than $900,000. And every minor injury crash, $100,000. You can't put a price on bringing those people back. And there's a far greater number of people who are seriously injured, who might never recover in quite the same way. Median barriers have a proven track record in reducing crashes. Up until late 1990, the Auckland Harbour Bridge had no dividers separating oncoming traffic. In the decade before the moveable barrier was introduced, there were 17 fatal crashes, 13 of them head-on collisions. Since then, there's been just four fatal crashes, none of them head-on collisions. More recently, a flexible barrier was installed along the Centennial Highway in Wellington. Centennial Highway is a great example of the effectiveness of wire-rope median barriers. They were installed on that stretch of road in 2005. Now since that time, we haven't had a single fatality or a single serious injury from a head-on crash on that road. The 'Quick Wins' plan is still in draft form. And the Minister admits the $2 billion price tag is just an estimate. I can't say what the exact number is going to be, but what I can say is that we can seriously reduce deaths and serious injuries with far less money than was planned on being spent on just 4.5km of highway in Auckland. But whatever the cost, Tina Jennen says it's an investment worth making. Let's spend that money proactively, instead of spending it over time just cleaning up a bunch of messes. And still to come ` Labour backbencher Tamati Coffey discusses bullying, Te Reo and parenthood in this week's Facebook Live. But first we catch up with our panel ` RNZ Morning Report presenter Susie Ferguson, former MP Laila Harre and Kim Campbell from the Employers and Manufacturers Association. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` RNZ presenter Susie Ferguson, former MP Laila Harre and Employers and Manufacturers Association CEO Kim Campbell. Good morning to you all. Morning. Morning. We were talking this morning to the Consumer Affairs Minister there, Kris Faafoi, and he's revealed that ` this is the airbag recall ` that there's actually` they know twice as many cars out there with these faulty airbags now in the 120,000-odd. So 53,000 still outstanding, Susie? That seems to be huge numbers, to me. Huge numbers, and also there are deaths associated with these airbags. It's not as if it's a fault that kind of doesn't matter if it goes a bit wrong. It seems extraordinary it's taking quite as long as it seems to be to actually get this fixed, to identify all the cars, and then to get them through the repair jobs. I think there need to be some questions asked about the reason for that. Well, systemic questions, yes. I mean, if there was some really high-risk thing that we had to call back in a hurry, are we confident that we could get the job done? Well, the problems are the skills in the workplace, but most importantly, let people know they've got a problem. So it is a matter of resourcing the advertising and making sure that people find those cars. It's going to cost the same no matter when you do it, so you might s well do it now. And maybe do a little bit of research to find out demographically where these cars are and make sure the people are in place to do it. But in fairness, given the millions of cars out there, there have been a relatively small number of deaths. But there have been deaths. It is a risk. But, I mean, don't panic out there. I mean, it's unlikely that you'll have a problem, but it is time to speed this thing up. Yep. Interesting. On another topic, Laila, we spoke to him about a discussion document that's out at the moment around predatory lending ` loan sharks, basically. He seems to be indicating cap interest at around 100% of the original debt. Do you think that would be going far enough? Well, I think obviously this is an enormous social issue and one that the previous government tackled with new legislation or tried to tackle with new legislation three years ago. First of all, there's a major issue around enforcement and monitoring of these loan sharks and truck stores. And so while the 100% total interest is a possibly really good initiative for essentially capping interest rates, the issue will be how long these loans are able to run for. So one of the really positive things I think in this discussion paper is that the loans cannot go on and on, and if there is a cap at 100%, then there is a strong incentive to resolve and complete the loans. I was a bit concerned to think about how the charity sector is engaging with this issue. There is the risk, it seems to me, that charities become the insurer, effectively, of loan sharks. So they begin to be roped into backing up the loan-sharking system, rather than as a real alternative to an elimination. What did you think of that, Susie? Because he seemed to be indicating` Because if you do get rid of a number of these loan sharks ` these people are desperate. Where do they get their money from? Who steps into the breach? And he seemed to be clearly and squarely putting that on charities. It does seem to be on charities, and I'm not sure, necessarily, that that's something that they will feel aware of, that they are going to be able to pick up. And these are people that are in desperate straits ` they're in dire straits already, at the point that you get to a loan shark. I'm not sure there's going to be a way of stopping people from going to multiple loan sharks to pay the first bill off. That's the other thing. And I have to say, reading that it's going to be 100% ` that that's the cap, there was a bit of a sharp intake of breath, just going, '100%?' That's still extraordinarily high. That's a lot of money when you haven't got any. But the mischief ` I understand why people are there. And I think there's some things he could do immediately ` for instance, WINZ is a good place to start. A lot of people end up at loan shark places cos they go to the agency that's supposed to be helping them, and for one reason or another, they get turned away or they feel insecure, or they've been` On your radio show, you've heard all the stories. So they can do something now about that mischief, and also we know what's behind this. A lot of people haven't got houses they can afford to live in. So those social issues sit at the core of the need for these people. The other thing is, there are a lot of regulations out there that they could enforce without actually dealing with the interest rate. The interest rate reflects the risk. And my view is that some of these people that are in this business are probably of a criminal element as well. And put some resources into controlling that, and you may find some of the problem goes away. But the point here is that the interest rate doesn't actually reflect the risk. It reflects the opportunity there is to exploit and conduct a predatory industry around poverty. I completely agree with the state responsibility that lies behind this, the responsibility of the community through Work and Income to provide more to people in need. But I'm not sure how you can reconcile that with a desire, for instance, on the part of your organisation, to keep the costs of government to a bare minimum. I mean, you can't have it both ways. You cannot protect the poor at the same time as impoverishing people, for instance, by opposing fair pay agreements. So these are larger social issues. Let's give Kim a wade in before we go to the break. Yeah, we have no problem with fair pay, but the market, in the end, sorts a lot of this out. But, frankly, we can make our institutions more efficient and deal with some of the things in a way` What I'm saying is you don't need more regulations; you need to make the regulations you've got work. All right. We'll leave it there. We'll be back after the break. Do stay with us. Welcome back, you're with Newshub Nation and our panel. Suzie, we were talking there to Juliet Gerrard. Professor Gerrard, who is literally just fresh to the job of Chief Science Adviser to the Prime Minister. Obviously, this is on the back of the fiasco over the meth testing of houses. She was saying there that science is slow and methodical and policy moves more quickly, do you think that whole thing would have undermined confidence in the Science Advisers position and science full-stop? Well, certainly, one of the great things about having that report into the meth houses was that it did actually put some really good science around it. The difficulty I have with this situation, though, is that there were already guidelines there. The Ministry of Health had guidelines, they were telling Housing New Zealand, both Ministries talking to each other, they were also telling them, essentially, via the media, because there were multiple reports on how the Ministry of Health was saying, 'No, these guidelines 'are being misused.' And, for whatever reason, still unclear to me, Housing New Zealand wasn't actually taking that on and wasn't listening, whether they weren't listening to official advice or whether they were not turning on their radios in the morning and hearing it that way. So you can have all the good science in the world, but if there's not a willingness to listen, for whatever reason, whether that's political or pressure or something else that's been brought to bare, you still end up with the situation that there was, with the meth houses, which was people being kicked out of their houses. Well, the science advisers job is to inform the debate, so that it gives a currency and credibility to the information. The Adviser can't possibly prosecute every possible piece of scientific evidence, but in the end, this particular meth situation illustrated the importance of having a Science Adviser. The problem is, so much data is out there now, and she mentioned, as she left the interview, artificial intelligence. Tremendous number of myths and misunderstandings. And it's important that we have a well-informed, scholarly reflection on what all this means. And it does worry me when we look at a number, across the public sector, of decisions that we make which are ill-informed or ignoring solid science. We've seen an earthquake situation and how we dealt with risk there, leaky homes in Auckland, which are costing billions, where the risk sits there. We've seen in road traffic, we've seen it in criminal justice system. And, you know, objective evidence-based scientific approach and a methodical approach in stuff is so important. Yeah. And it is often ignored. She talked about independence, Laila, and she said that` potentially touched on the idea of a look back at what went wrong. Do you think that that would be beneficial? Well, it seems, without even methodically looking back, that what went wrong here was a strong political desire on the part of the Government of the day, Paula Bennet and so on, to up the ante on the meth, kind of, panic, and there were, in fact, plenty of people in the public arena questioning the scientific basis for this, and then Russell Brown, several years ago, the New Zealand Drug Foundation, had been calling this issue for a while. So the Prime Minister's Science Adviser is responsive to requests for advice from the Government. It took Phil Twyford, I think, about two weeks in his job as Minister of Housing to call for a report from the Adviser, it took very little time then to, sort of, throw sunlight on this issue. So the science was there, the evidence was there, the knowledge was there, what you needed was politicians who actually weren't gonna play politics with this` Or a science adviser that feels that they can pursue an avenue that they feel needs to be investigated without someone telling them to. I think there is an obligation on Minister's and on Government, as Phil Twyford was prepared to take, to ask for that advice. I mean, we had a government that was flying in the face of publicly available evidence, a good public reporting and conversation about the issue, and was just doubling down on this ridiculously unscientific and socially pernicious policy. So, I mean, I'm not sure that a more independent Science Adviser would've been in any better position, what we needed was a change of Government. (LAUGHS) (LAUGHS) All right, well, let's move on to another Government department. And this relates to PSA, the fungal disease that attacked kiwifruits. So a court ruling this week, Suzie, that the Government, well, government department is liable for compensation because of omissions it made allowing this infection to get into the country. This is huge, isn't it? This is huge it's a lot of money, for a start. But also, people remember back a few years to the disease and how it spread, and I guess there are probably quite a few people seeing some parallels in the ripples that are currently being seen with M. bovis and where that came from, and questions being asked there. But, you know, literally, if you're job is to keep nasties out of the country, you need to do your job. Yeah, I mean it's close to the core of our prosperity. Biosecurity is New Zealand. And, you know, we have a very large, sprawling bureaucracy whose job is to do this. Now, if they've hollowed out of confidence, then somebody's got to answer for that. But, you know, when you travel into New Zealand, you bring a banana, they treat you like a common criminal. You know, we've all faced those indignities. And how on earth something that polluted an entire industry is an absolute outrage. And I think that the Government should pay handsomely to those people who've lost their money, and hopefully it's a lesson that we do the stuff that we have to do properly. And that goes across the entire public sector. Well, stage two of the court case will tell us exactly how much we do have to pay. Well, Labour Party MP Tamati Coffe joined us on Facebook Live this week to talk about his views on racism in New Zealand and whether Te Reo should be compulsory. We also asked him if he'll be the next MP to become a parent? I hope I am next, actually. Things are slowly moving in the background. As you'll probably understand, it's not easy to be a gay couple that are trying to embark on having a family. There's quite a few hoops that we need to jump through. But we feel ready. You know? We're` I'm 38 years old, and I'm not getting any younger. And I would like to have that opportunity. It's 2018, we have the wonders of modern science, you know? We've moved as a society into a place where, actually, being gay's not a terrible thing, it's not illegal any more, actually, you can be the person that you wanna be. And if you wanna have a family, you just need to make it happen. So, yeah, we're going through that now. And that's all from us for now. We'll see you again next weekend, thanks for joining us. Captions by Elizabeth Welsh, June Yeow and John Gibbs. Www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018