Today on Newshub Nation ` if petrol companies really are fleecing New Zealanders, what can the government do about it? We ask Energy Minister Megan Woods. Waiting years for justice ` we look at whether the proposed Criminal Cases Review Commission could speed up the process for overturning wrongful convictions. And why one expert says there are gaps, cracks and chasms in our mental health system. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018 Kia ora, good morning. I'm Simon Shepherd. And I'm Emma Jolliff. Welcome to Newshub Nation. There was some good financial news from the government's books this week with a budget surplus bonus. It's now expected to be $5.5 billion, instead of $3.1 billion. It means the government has already hit its target of reducing Crown debt below 20% of GDP four years earlier than expected. But Finance Minister Grant Robertson says he's not tempted to go on a spending spree. It is important that we have money set aside for the classic rainy day. Tougher penalties on are on the way for loan sharks. The new measures will place a cap on total interest and fees charged, with fines of up to $600,000 for breaking the rules. There will also be a fit and proper person test for lenders, door-to-door salespeople and truck shops. And petrol company profits are in the government's sights. The prime minister this week said margins had doubled, costing consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't think that is acceptable. New Zealand consumers, in my book, are being fleeced. Legislation will go to parliament next week, giving the Commerce Commission new powers to demand data from petrol companies to determine whether pricing is reasonable. Meanwhile, National has launched a petition calling on the government to axe its fuel tax hikes. And this morning, the average price for 91 octane ranged from $2.31 in Hawke's Bay, $2.40 in Auckland to $2.45 in Christchurch. So are consumers being fleeced? The petrol companies say their pricing is fair, and the Commerce Commission investigation will prove that. Instead, fuel companies are blaming the price hikes on increased oil prices and the weak Kiwi dollar. I asked Energy Minister Megan Woods why she doesn't believe them. Well, I think one of the things that we have to do is get all the information. When MBIE undertook its study, which the previous government initiated and reported to me at the end of last year, a couple of companies wouldn't play ball. So that is why we're looking to make these changes so that, actually, we can look at this, and we can test those. But what we do know is that we have a huge price differential across the country, which that MBIE study found wasn't wholly accounted for in transport costs. So there's a lot of unanswered questions here that we need to delve deeper in to. Okay. Which is why the Commerce Commission's going to be given the power to do a market study. If the Commerce Commission does find that profit margins are unreasonable, what could you actually do about it? So one of the things that we can do is we can have a look at both the wholesale and the retail market, because one of the things that earlier MBIE report found was that we couldn't wholly account for everything that we did see. There was a massive transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars from consumers' pockets to the fuel companies. So having a look at how it is that market operates. And what we know that in the South Island and the Wellington region, where we don't have the same number of players able to enter the market, that we're paying higher prices. So, looking at terminal access ` so one of the things that` we only have a couple of companies that can access the terminal at Lyttelton ` and whether there is other ways in which entrance can enter the market in the South Island` So could you force other entrance into the South Island? Can you regulate for that? Well, that's one of the things that we can look at, but one of the things we'll also need to look at is the fact that, actually, construction has begun on a new terminal at Timaru, which will allow more entrance to come in so that, hopefully, things will be advanced by that stage and be able to look at whether or not the presence of that terminal has basically opened up the market and allowed for that more competitive environment. Could you actually regulate, though? Could you step in and set the price? Well, I think, people were talking about price regulation, but I think it's important to remember there's other ways to look at that. And that's about both the wholesale and the retail market and that terminal access and making sure that actually` So that's a 'no', is it? No, I'm saying that it's an option, but, look, we won't be making any decisions until we get the Commerce Commission reporting back to us. But what I am saying is that where we have more competition ` ie in the upper North Island ` that you are seeing lower prices, that there is a huge differential across the country, so allowing more in does alter the price. Okay. I understand that. It seems to be a perfect storm at the moment. Not only are there rising oil prices, a weakening dollar, but also increasing petrol taxes being put on by your government. Why not just give motorists a break and say, 'OK, we're just going to postpone future taxes for the moment'? Because of the .39c increase in the price of a per litre of petrol that we've seen in the last 12 months, only a fraction of that has been an increase in excise. And let's remember, excises go on all the time. And one of the things that we do know that since 2008, New Zealand has gone from having one of the lowest pre-tax prices of petrol to the highest in the OECD so that we've seen that as increasing. So I have absolutely no faith ` and, certainly, the prime minister has absolutely no faith ` that if we were to simply remove the excise, that we wouldn't see that. And that just gobbled up in one simple shift that the fuel companies did. All right, Minister. I just want to move on to our next topic, which is the proposed ban on future offshore oil and gas exploration. Now, that goes to the select committee next week. Why was it only two weeks for submissions for this? Well, one of the things in the advice that I got from officials is that in order for us to proceed in an orderly fashion with Block Offer 2018, that, actually, we needed to do this under a quickened process. And I was determined that we would have a select committee process, that we wouldn't do all of this under urgency. I didn't think that would be right or fair. But I think one of the things to realise with this is that we are doing the bare minimum of changes to the act, in order to put into place the changes that the prime minister announced on the 12th of April, that what we have committed to with all the stakeholders, the industry and New Zealanders is that the long-term changes around the purpose of the act ` all those kind of things ` will be done under a consultative arrangement where we can have a much longer conversation. The industry has told us that they ` and they've told you as well ` that they're happy to skip the Block Offer for 2018, move past that so the review is done in an orderly fashion. So why the urgency to get this ban through? Look, the oil industry aren't the only stakeholders here. And we have responsibilities as a government. We wanted to ensure that we can get Block Offer 2018 progressing through, and that we can see that. One of the things that is really important is that we're sending very certain signals. We've announced a long-term managed transition. That represents the change. And it's really important that we demonstrate to the world that things are proceeding in an orderly fashion. And I think it's important to remember that the industry is only one of the stakeholders available here. Sure. Is it an orderly fashion though? That's the question here. Is it an orderly fashion? It seems to be rushed. The industry is saying it's a poor process. MBIE, which gave you advice initially, said, 'Don't do it. It goes against policy objectives. 'And it doesn't actually reduce greenhouse gases.' Well, actually, I take it` I don't agree with a number of those statements. If I start with the last one ` in terms of 'doesn't reduce greenhouse gases and emissions' ` that's just not something I agree with. A lot of that assumption is premised on some quite outmoded thinking now. What it assumes is that if you cease production in New Zealand, that producers will just move production to a country where you can just burn fossil fuels without any controls over it ` ie China. And that simply isn't the case. If you have a look what's happened in China in the last couple of years, they've got a more rigid ETS than we have coming in to play. They've got a cap and trade system, so production that moves there means that other production has to come offline. So what is the premise that you're basing it on that it does reduce greenhouse gases? Where is that research, because nobody's seen that? Look, that's all the information that's available around what China is doing, and it's very common knowledge. But in New Zealand? In New Zealand? Look, there are a number of people that agree with this analysis. Apart from Greenpeace, who? It's widely held. You just need to look at what China is doing with its ETS. It's not an interpretation. It's a matter of fact. What I would like to point out that MBIE did say in its regulatory impact statement that it included with the bill is they pointed out that they hadn't been able to take into account either technological change or what other countries were doing. This is very much an example of where the analysis that the regulatory impact statement did couldn't take into account the rapid change that is happening around the world. But MBIE said in its initial report that it could possibly raise global emissions by shipping off production for various things to China, which burns coal, and it had negligible effects on greenhouse gases in New Zealand in its initial report. In the second report, it said it would affect the economy between $1.8 billion and $23.5 billion. You have gone against both of those reports, haven't you? You've dismissed them. Look, I don't agree with them. It's not the first or last time that a minister won't agree with all the advice they receive. Let's remember, this is advice, not instruction. Let's have a look at that number that's been given ` the full range, if you take the extremities of all the numbers that were in that report that MBIE produced, it ranges from a couple of hundred million through to tens of billions of dollars, which I think actually shows what we said at the time that we made this announcement. That, actually, we're dealing with unknown unknowns. Let's bear in mind that we are respecting all the expiration permits that exist out there. You may be honouring those permits, but there is no guarantee that there's anything going to be found, and, as MBIE has stated, there's only 10 years of gas left. What is the plan B if we don't find anything else, and we run out of gas in 10 years? Look, what I will point to ` that 10 year prediction of gas is actually what we've always said. For the last few decades, we've always said there's 10 years of gas. It's just the way the calculations work, and that gets routinely updated. We can point to people like Genesis that have said that they've got certainty of gas through to the 2030s. We can see other decisions that have been made from industry ` like, for example, Todd investing in $100 million peaking plant post our announcement ` that shows they have far greater certainty than the 10 years. That that's just a routine assessment. Why put out the 10 year figure? Why would MBIE tell you about that 10 year figure? The industry has to go on something. Every year, it's either been between 10 and 14 years. At the moment, it's at 10 years ` that's the lower end of the predictions. So you need a plan B, in case we don't find anything else. What is it? Do we have to burn more coal? No, no, definitely not. In terms of the other part of the answer to that is that we have 100,000km2 off the coast of New Zealand currently under exploration permit. That's the size of the North Island. It's factors times bigger than what is currently in production. I think if we're going to hit something else or find something else, it will be in what we've already got consented` sorry, that we've got under permit and is eligible to go through to a drilling permit. In terms of the plan B, in terms of what the alternatives are, we are blessed as a country with alternatives. Most countries look at us with a huge amount of envy. Not only do we have hydro that we've invested in, we have access to wind and solar, but we also have` But that's only 80%. We still rely on coal and gas to get us through the dry years, and, yes, we do have access to those, but we don't have enormous reserves in terms of reservoirs. We do have dry years. We need this stuff to get us through. Yeah, and, look, that's where we have options. We have a large amount of consented but not built thermal capacity through our geothermal capacity. Most countries in the world can't point to that ` the fact that you can have non-weather dependent renewable forms of electricity. Will that fill the gap? If the gas runs out, are you saying that that consented stuff that hasn't been built yet will fill the gap and make sure that we have security of energy supply? Yeah, and, look, there's a range of things that will come into that security of supply. There's not only our thermal capacity, which puts us in a unique position globally, but there's also if we look at the technology in the way that's changing again. I go back to the fact that the regulatory impact statement wasn't taking into account those technological changes. Things like a couple of months ago, I opened the battery storage facility at Penrose, which means that we can store solar and wind ` things that we've traditionally had to use only when they're produced, which, obviously, for a country that has its peaks at night-time and in the winter, provides some challenges. But batteries change everything, when we do have the ability to store that and use it at times when consumption's higher. Technology is moving along at a rapid rate like this. And that Penrose facility is entirely scalable. Minister, finally, will you water down the ban in response to submissions? Look, we'll listen to all the submissions. I don't know how many have come in. I'm sure I'll find that out next week. 2000 have come in. 2000? And I'm sure they'll represent a range of views. One of the things that select committees are absolutely critical for, and why I was so keen to ensure that we did have a select committee process, is to stress test the legislation to make sure that it actually functions in a way that it's meant to. Okay, Energy Minister Dr Megan Woods, thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Well, if you've got something to say about what you see on our show, let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ Our Twitter panel this week is Tim McCready and Simon Wong. They're using the hashtag #nationnz. Or you can email us at nation@mediaworks.co.nz. The address is on your screen now. After the break, we're joined by our panel ` Newsroom Pro Bernard Hickey and Fran O'Sullivan from the New Zealand Herald. Plus, what if you were found guilty of a crime you didn't commit? We look at the government's plans to set up an independent commission to investigate questionable convictions. Welcome back. We're joined now by our panel, Managing Editor of Newsroom Pro, Bernard Hickey, and NZME's Business Editorial Director Fran O'Sullivan. Good morning to you both. Thanks for joining us. Bernard, the inquiry into petrol prices started last year under the former government, so why is the government pushing it now? Is this just a good way to deflect criticism from the petrol tax hikes? Well, the basic problem, which is an increase in profit margins, has continued. There's actually been a doubling of profit margins over the last 10 years or so, because of the entrance of Z Energy into the market, and because of a bunch of things around the difficulties of competitors getting access to space and to terminals and particularly Wellington in the South Island. There's an issue to deal with there. They're not quite sure how much of an issue. The inquiry last year didn't get co-operation from everyone. They need the power to do market studies, and the government, rightly, is pushing ahead with that. The previous government was too, but incredibly slowly. And it's interesting to see Jacinda Adern using this as an opportunity, you're right, to deflect attention from these big increases in excise taxes, which are happening at the same time as a big increase in actual fuel prices, because of the New Zealand dollar's fall and the big rise in oil price. So, supermarkets are next in the sights of the government. Are these easy consumer-related hits for them? Yeah, and there's some real issues there. We've got a duopoly in the supermarkets. We have three big players, including one with nearly 50% of the market, in fuel. And actually the Commerce Commission should look itself pretty hard in the mirror ` it let through the Z Energy takeover of Caltex in 2016, which at least one of its commissioners said would worsen competition. We do have a competition issue in New Zealand in some areas, and it's good to see the government giving the Commerce Commission the sorts of powers they have in Australia to really shake the cage and see if we can make New Zealand more competitive. Ultimately, we don't get rich and more productive until we have competitive markets. Fran, the Energy Minister seemed to say that regulation was an option but not a very likely one. Will the government be able to force an increase in competition, do you think? Well, look, she made the point that what they can do is make sure that the barriers to entry are open. In other words, where fuel comes into ` and she gave the instance of Timaru and also Littleton ` by making sure than owners of those particular points don't actually lock out other people. They can, actually, work on that. It's pretty analogous ` like other people play on Transpower's lines, that sort of thing. They can make sure that that is open entry, but I don't think you can get away from the real issue why everyone's complaining ` and that's because oil prices are up again, essentially, and the dollar's shifted. We're in the same position that's happening in South Africa, where there the rand has slipped against the US dollar. You've had Brent oil price around 54 cents` sorry, dollars a barrel, last year now trending around 85. With a lot of speculators in the commodities market, trying to see whether it will hit that hundred US dollar a barrel again. We've been in a sweet spot, really, for about four years. Did used to be back up there, now it's up again. Couple that with the slide in the dollar, and that is the major push. Fran, you mentioned Timaru, there, the terminal coming online. I mean, I wonder whether there's a chance that this could all self-correct itself, anyway, in terms of competition when you get that in the South Island. This is just a political move by the government. To say, you know, 'We're taking control of it.' But they don't actually need to do it. There is, certainly, a chance in Wellington and the South Island that these new competitors ` the Waitomos, the Gulls ` will come in. My understanding is that Gull and Waitomo are on the verge of announcing that they are going to have sites in Wellington. That will remove some of the incentive to cross-subsidise. You've got this crazy situation now, where it's more expensive to buy fuel in Wellington, in the South Island, than it is in Auckland. They've just had an 11.5cl increase in excise duties, which Wellingtonians haven't. You can see the national fuel companies, the big three, are smearing some of their prices across the country, at the expense of Wellingtonians and South Islanders. Some of the problem will be resolved when Gull and Waitomo find some sites and get in there and start competing in Wellington. As a Wellingtonian, I'd love it. (ALL LAUGH) You and me both. And, certainly, the government will hope that that helps take some of the pressure off. They could also throw the blame around somewhere else as well ` Jacinda Adern got her Shane Jones on this week, when she was criticising the supermarket companies and the fuel companies, but she could also, frankly, blame Donald Trump who's hammering away at Iran, introducing those sanctions which are pushing up the fundamental price of oil. Don't think she's going to do that. Look, I just think we're going to have to get used to that we may be moving back a high fuel price environment again. As I said, I think the big shifts are in the dollar and in the price of Brent crude oil on the index. When you look at that, look at where we've been ` a pretty sweet spot. The government's come and slammed its taxes on at a time when everything else is going up. You're getting squealing all round. I think Bernard's right, I think they do need to look at the competitive elements in the market, but to expect that that will suddenly get us into a nirvana of low fuel prices again, I think is dreaming. And the other side of the coin, here, is maybe we want high fuel prices. Exactly. We had an IPCC report` Force us out of our cars. Zero Carbon bill. Walking and` That's what they're hoping for this government. ...trams. The bigger political issue, here, for the government around cars and fuel is this issue of bringing in a feebate scheme to try and encourage people out of these big, heavy double cab utes and into the electric vehicles. That is a political risk for them that they eventually subsidise rich people in the suburbs` Well, you've also got to have enough electricity to do all this as well, if you're going to make the switch. You get into that whole energy security issue, which you started to probe with the Minister as well. Fran, on to the oil and gas issue ` the oil and gas industry says the offshore exploration ban has been rushed and poorly handled. Did Megan Woods do enough in that interview to convince you otherwise? No, she didn't. It's very hard to backtrack on a decision that shouldn't have been made with the haste it was. I mean, they were on the verge of getting their productivity commissions report, which would have led you to a transition to a low-emissions economy. They should have consulted with the industry. There are big issues around energy security for us as a nation. The question of whether we're going to need more hydro in years to come as well, because we're taking various other fossil fuels out of the system. What happens if there's an earthquake in the South Island which destroys the lakes? At the moment we have a fairer degree of redundancy built in to the system, but that evaporates when you pull out all the other mechanisms. Simon, Megan Woods says she doesn't agree with her ministry's advice on the climate impact of the oil and gas ban, but she couldn't point to the research that backs that up, could she? Well, the Minister didn't seem to agree with anything that MBIE gave her, in terms of this decision. Yeah, when I asked her, 'On what basis did you make this decision about the effect on climate change?' She said, 'It's common knowledge and it's widely held. A number of people agree.' It seems that it's the political decision over data, is that right, Bernard? Well, the Greens really wanted this through, and it happened at the same time as government needed the Green support to get the Waka Jumping bill through Parliament. That was a dead rat the Greens had to swallow. Also on the eve of that big trip that Jacinda Adern did to Europe, so she was able to go and talk to Macron and others about what she'd done in New Zealand. And then she did it at the United Nations again. Yeah. But it does highlight that this move to a carbon neutral economy is not some relaxed thing, there are going to be interests for and against it. They are going to clash hard, and also the bigger issue is that the government is grappling with making that transition in a just way. The danger here is that you make all these changes, and a whole bunch of poor people bear the burden of a fundamental shift in your economy ` in the same way that they did in the mid-late 80s. This fuel cost issue, electricity cost issue is one that many countries are dealing with. How do you increase the cost of it without punishing poor people the most who use so much of it as a percentage of their total income? OK, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you both very much. Up next we look at whether New Zealand needs an independent commission to investigate questionable criminal convictions. And later, Employment Minister Willie Jackson reveals some big ambitions in this week's Facebook Live. Welcome back. Teina Pora, David Bain, Arthur Allan Thomas ` they all spent years in prison fighting convictions that were eventually quashed. Now a bill has been introduced to set up an independent commission to review possible miscarriages of justice. It's hoped the criminal cases review commission will make the process faster and more effective, but will it work? I'm joined now by private investigator Tim McKinnel and criminal barrister Nick Chisnall. Good morning to you both, thanks for joining me. Nick, you've said that the case for an independent commission is irresistible. Why do you say that, and what's wrong with what we have now? It's not a criticism of, so much, the people involved, but the fact that at the moment the system's very much reactive rather than proactive. It relies upon, really often, happenchance about who is approached to undertake a potential appeal. It requires, really, what I'd describe as 'white knights' ` people like Tim ` who are able to see the issues and to proactively investigate them and get to the bottom of it. And so for that reason, I suspect there are a number of people out there who don't have access to those kinds of people who can help them. And really, that's what the light needs to be shined on. So, Tim, cases you were involved in like Teina Pora and Terri Friesen took years, didn't they? What were the main blockages in trying to reinvestigate those cases? It was really difficult to obtain information and collect evidence. That was the primary frustration. You enter into an adversarial process where you're saying one thing, the police, for example, are saying another thing, and then you have a battle over getting access to information and files. Trying to use the Privacy Act and the Official Information Act as tools to obtain information ` they're incredibly blunt tools. And so those sorts of things are very difficult and mean that these types of cases stretch out over many years. But, Nick, would an independent commission necessarily speed up the process, do you think? I don't think speed's necessarily the main issue. It may well do ` particularly, we see cases which have taken years and years to get to court. But speed is an issue, surely, if you're languishing in prison for a wrongful conviction. Very much so, and that must be one of the drivers. But it's more about actually being able to access information, being able to collate it, being able to ask the right questions. That compulsion to give the evidence? Yes. Tim, what difference would the review commission have made in a case like Teina Pora's, for example? Well, it would have provided access to information that, to be honest, we probably still haven't seen. There were a number of frustrations we had in terms of obtaining that information. We had to issue proceedings to go to the High Court on a couple of occasions. It will eliminate those. It would have made a difference to Teina's case of, I suspect, two or three years. And so when you're sitting in prison, innocent of what you're convicted of, that means quite a lot. That's a long time, isn't it? Why is it so important to have cases reviewed by people not connected to the original investigations and trials? I mean, it's quite a challenge in a country the size of New Zealand, isn't it? Again, I think it often comes back to the lens through which you look at it. If you've invested in the case yourself, you obviously have a strong view about what's happened and who's responsible. It's a form of myopia. I'm not suggesting that it's necessarily an intent to deceive, but having people, and a number of people, who are independent, who can bring a fresh set of eyes, is a very important consideration. What about separate to any political interference? Do you see that as an issue? Less so in New Zealand. Again, like I said at the beginning, I don't think that this is about the individuals involved. The current people at the ministry who look at these things I think do the job well and with the resources and limited scope that they have available. But it is very important, I think, that there be that degree of independence. Reasonable apprehension of bias is often what these things are about. It's not that people are actually pushing in a particular direction. It's just simply that there's that impression. So it's a perception thing? Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So the UK already has a commission. It's found the single biggest cause of miscarriages of justice there is failure to disclose vital pieces of evidence. In your experience, is that likely to be the same here? Yeah, I think that will be one of the issues. And the disclosure regime in New Zealand has changed over a period of years, so there are those types of issues, but also I think there are` there have been some changes in the way we conduct interviews ` you know, police interviewing people. Forensic science and the way technology is used has changed the way criminal investigations are done. And so all of those things have brought to light some of the flaws in the system and the techniques that we've used up till this point. So, Tim, you're involved in what's alleged in Alan Hall's case ` you know, perhaps, withholding some of that vital evidence. And he was convicted of the 1985 murder. Would that be a good case for the commission? Yeah, potentially, it would be. There are all sorts of issues that date back, like you say, to 1985 ` the disclosure regime then is very different to what it is now. There have been a number of appeals and applications and petitions made on Alan's behalf, but I am far from convinced, from what I've seen, that Alan and his lawyers have seen all of the material that's available that might help him. So a criminal case review commission eliminates those problems. They're independent, and they're able to obtain and compel, where they need to, ways of getting that information and evidence in. And not just from public bodies either, is that right? Also from private individuals. That's right. That's right. And so they're going to be able to order documents or evidence, as well as have people give evidence under oath. These cases have been quite all-consuming for you, haven't they? Yeah, they have a tendency to be like that. And it's difficult. You try and be objective, but once you've invested a certain point` a certain amount of energy in a case, it does become personal. And so you have to find ways to manage that, because the last thing you want is your subjectivity and personal feelings creeping in and complicating what you're doing. Nick, you've got a lot of experience in appeals. Will there have to be something new and different to the original case in order to apply under an independent commission? In most cases, there will need to be. I imagine the standard will stay the same as what we've currently got, which is deference to the appellate court that's already heard the case. And so with that decision in place, it's usually necessary to show something new and fresh. And that could be a point of law or a piece of evidence or what sort of things are they likely to be? Most likely going to be fresh evidence. Sometimes, in limited cases, it can be because there's been a change in law. But, again, courts tend to be fairly deferential where the law's changed. And so that in most cases, I expect it will be very much ` like in Teina's case ` issues of fresh evidence and things which need to be looked at afresh where the court didn't originally consider them. In reinvestigating cases, how do you avoid adding to the stress and trauma of the victims throughout this process going through that again? Well, it's one of the more challenging parts of this type of work. And I think it needs to be at the forefront of the commission or anybody who does this sort of work is the people that are impacted the most by this type of work. You're dredging it all up again, sometimes from a case that was dealt with decades ago. And I know in the Teina Pora case, for example, Susan Burdett's family was severely impacted by what we were doing. We were aware of that. There's only so much you can do to mitigate it, but you need to be aware of it, and you need to do what you can to help families. How much weight should be given to the victim's rights to move on and heal? It's a balance, isn't it? It is a balance. And one of the issues I think we've had in criminal justice is that desire for finality, for the end of it so that the victims can move on with their lives. And I think that's really important. But the other side of that coin, of course, is if the wrong person has been convicted, it's not right that that stays in place. And so there needs to be, I think, some good processes put in place that families feel like they're being consulted with and understand what's happening and why it's happening. Nick, are you confident that the bill in its current form ` it's gone before parliament late last month ` will set up a commission that's significantly better than what we have now? Yes, I think so. I think it's certainly, overall, looking very positive. So some of the language in that is quite passive at the beginning of the bill, you know? It talks about receiving applications. But it does, further down, talk about initiating investigations as well. How do you get that balance right? And will the commission have the resources to do that? Well, that'll be where it's probably going to be most important to see what its funding is, to see who the commissioners are, to see what kind of investigative responsibilities it will have and, most importantly, to see what kind of powers it has to compel evidence. That's my primary concern at the moment is whether, in fact, it's gone far enough to ensure that the issues that Tim mentioned about being able to actually obtain the information to ensure that there isn't anything being withheld are there. And compared to the UK, for example, that's had a commission since 1997, it's had more than 20,000 applications, it's overturned more than 370 convictions, you know? That's quite significant. Do you think our bill is going to be strong enough? As worded, it should be. Like I say, I would hope that perhaps the powers to get information are strengthened. That's maybe a difference at the moment between what appears to be in our bill and what the UK and Scotland have ` that power of compulsion. But, ultimately, it'll be a matter of time and seeing what cases come through to see how it's working. Any idea of the, kind of, appetite for this? It's a very difficult thing to measure, the number of likely miscarriages of justice, isn't it? I suspect there'll be a flurry of cases. One of the concerns that always exists in these types of situations is whether those who most need it are too disenfranchised to actually approach the right people and ask. But I think with a body like this in place, the chances of those people having their cases ventilated are much better. Tim, on that compulsion issue, how do you think this bill, or the commission, will be received by prosecutors and police? I think, hopefully, that they will be accepting of it. Certainly, the discussions I've had have indicated that they will be. I think it helps that there's a real sense of independence around what's being set up. It's a little bit different than having a lawyer or somebody like myself chipping away at the background, sometimes necessarily working with media to try and gather the information. To have an independent body that is bound by rules around privacy and a certain degree of secrecy, whilst maintaining a degree of transparency, I think is going to be a really positive step. And I think prosecutors and police, when they see it up and operating, will be relatively happy with it. What are some of the other cases that you've worked on, Tim, that a commission would help with? Well, there are a number of cases. The Alan Hall case you've mentioned is one that I'm working on. There was also recently a podcast that focused on a woman called Gail Maney and her conviction for murder. I think that that's a really troubling case. Those cases are being looked at now. Whether they transfer over and across to something like the Criminal Case Review Commission is something that we'll need to look at. Both Nick and I are working on Gail's case, and so how we progress that over the next few months in the lead up to the commission will be something we discuss. Justice Minister Andrew Little has indicated he'd like this enforced by August next year. Is that going to be in time for you? I think so. I think so. There's nothing to prevent work continuing in the meantime, and then an informed decision can be made when the commission is introduced. Should the commission also be able to look at systemic problems, such as the use of prison informants, Nick, like the witnesses in the David Tamahiri trial? Well, I imagine those types of issues will ultimately end up being heard as a part of a case, anyway. It's certainly a major issue, and one that needs to be looked at. So for me, it's a very positive thing to see that it will potentially have the powers to do that. Between three and seven commissioners are likely; is that enough? Yes, I think that's probably` Seven, I'd prefer to see it towards the seven end of the scale, rather than three. I think it's important that there be a variety of experiences on the panel. Ok, we'll leave it there, gentlemen. Thank you very much for coming in. Thank you. Still to come ` Professor Max Abbott on the cracks in New Zealand's mental health services and what needs to be done to fix them. Plus, Employment Minister Willie Jackson reveals his political ambitions in this week's Facebook Live. Welcome back. It's Mental Health Awareness Week this week, but New Zealand's statistics are nothing to be proud of. Suicide rates have been climbing over the past four years with 668 in the year to June. Last year alone, police responded to 35,000 police callouts and there's been a 71% increase in people using mental health and addiction services over the past decade. John-Michael Swannix asked AUT mental health and addiction specialist Professor Max Abbot how we got to this point. Well, I think a number of factors. We have had growing problems with housing, and wages are very low for some people, with increased inequality, a lot of lonely, isolated people, particularly older people. So these are sort of contributing factors, and there's also the issue of having ready access to certain services. A lot of people can't get the services when they need them, you know, long waiting lists, and that sort of thing. And in primary care it's difficult, unless you've got money, to get access to the psychological therapies. Is there anything New Zealand is doing particularly well when it comes to addiction and mental health? Well, yes, around 80% of people who access services rate them as, you know, satisfactory. They'd recommend them to other people. So, people that get access, most of them are satisfied with what they get. However, those 20% that aren't, and many people, and this is the critical point, don't get access when they need it. And that is concerning. That's partly because the stigma and people not necessarily being aware or understanding, and it's partly because the services aren't there. In the speech from the throne, Jacinda Ardern called New Zealand's high suicide rates shameful and promised a special focus on improving mental health services. There's a mental health review underway, so will we see any real improvements, do you believe? Well, I'm very pleased that that review is as wide-ranging as it is. It's both a plus and a negative. It's very, very wide. I think it's timely to do that and take stock, right across the system. The proof of the pudding will be what happens subsequently. They will need to prioritise and they will need to pull some things out that they give emphasis to. And I think you're looking at a 5, 10, 15, 20-year period, you know, to actually create the range of services that we need. They've flagged that they're going to look at mental health promotion and prevention. So, that means you go further upstream and look tat the causes, the contributing factors, address them and, of course, most of them are outside the health sector. It's in the broader social-economic sphere. So, that's important. But it's` Probably to me, one of the biggest shortfalls is that our primary care services, um, you can't` They don't generally include mental health practitioners. And whilst people are much more aware now of anxiety and depression, and I'm including health professionals, the response is primarily pharmaceutical. And pharmaceuticals often have adverse side effects and some of them are addictive themselves, and incorrect for the problems. And that also is the case with chronic pain treatment. A lot of opioid addiction comes from inappropriate prescription. Pharmaceuticals have a role to play, but they really, for many people, should be either not used at all or an adjunct. I think we massively over-prescribe psychotropic medication. And what effect does that have on life-spans, for example? Well, people who have severe mental disorders. I'm thinking of the, sort of, psychotic-type disorders, their life expectancy is about 20 years less than people matched for demographics. Partly, it may well relate to the medication, tends to be associated with obesity and diabetes. And if that's not managed appropriately, then, of course, that contributes to a shortened life-span. Let's go back to the mental health enquiry. How important is it that the Government follows through on the recommendations? Well, it's critically important. The previous National-led government also saw shortcomings and injected some extra funding in. The present Government has already made a small start with some initiatives, including increasing access to people for counselling, so some other funding, increase in alcohol and drugs. But it's really, it's a huge undertaking. The scale of this I see as comparable to what we did 35, 40 years ago when we closed the large psychiatric hospitals where we had over 10,000 people incarcerated, often against their will. It's of that magnitude. And a lot of good things have happened, and we've built a wide array of community mental health services The stigma is reducing, and these things are more out in the open. Most people, I'm sure, have a far better outcome than back in the days when they were locked away, out of site, out of mind. So, we've come a long way. But we've got to the point now where there are cracks in the system, obvious signs of dysfunction. And I believe that it will need an effort similar to that massive reform carried out 20-30 years ago. What are the barriers to getting mental health support? I mean, who misses out? People tend to miss out who are actually oftentimes the people most in need. People in low socio-economic groupings, Maori, Pacific people. There's also needs in some recent migrant, refugee groups and younger people, often times. But again, I'll remind you that a lot of people do have access and a lot of people are satisfied with it. So, part of it is doing more of what we do well now, but part of it is actually making some quite fundamental changes, such as having mental health professionals in the front line in primary care settings. And that wouldn't just be helping people relate to mental health; it would also relate to physical health outcomes. Should it be as easy as going to see your GP, for example? Well, it should be. And, in fact, you should have mental health professionals in those settings. In that way, you know, in terms of the stigma, it's not such an issue, I think. And a lot of people do present, and a lot of GPs do very well, and nurses. But they generally don't have ready access to people with expertise in other areas of dealing with mental health issues. Well, let's turn to police. They responded to 35,000 mental health callouts last year. What do you think of the decision to scrap National's proposed pilot of psychiatric nurses accompanying police on mental health callouts? Yeah, I think that that proposal was a good one. And I think it is unfortunate that it was stopped. But it's something I expect will be picked up by the review that's, you know, being carried out. I think that the police actually often deal with very challenging situations, and often deal with it, I think, very well. But it would be much more appropriate to have mental health workers there in support. And if crisis teams were more available, then they would be able to deal with a lot of those situations anyway. But if you get into that issue, the broader issue of the criminal justice system, we also have a review underway there. And there are significant numbers of people who are actually going through the criminal justice system who have significant mental health and addiction issues. Absolutely, I mean, 91% of inmates have mental health or addiction issues. To what extent do you believe the criminal justice sector is picking up the pieces? I think to some extent it is. The criminal justice system also creates problems too, by criminalizing, say, cannabis use for example. And also in response to other substances. There are other places where a health response is taken, you know, the criminalised actual use of all substances, for example, Portugal. And then there's a health response. And I think we've had ministers, even Peter Dunne relatively recently, calling for a mental health response rather than a harsh criminal justice response. So that's actually a mental health hazard, the courts and the law. What does an effective mental health system look like, in your eyes? Well, to me, it would have a very strong focus on prevention and mental health promotion. Now, mental health is more than being free of a mental disorder. You know, it's positive well-being, it's connection to other people, you know, a sense of control. And that's an important thing in it's own right. And it can actually be a benefit in terms of building resilience in that sense. So, that's a very important, fundamental part of it. And some of that's in the public health system and some of it's in other areas. And then it's having ready access when you need it to a range of interventions, not just pharmaceutical interventions. So, I think that's absolutely fundamental, through primary healthcare and community settings and organizations, linking in with online therapies, they are available. But people need to be linked to them and connected. And that's a very cost-effective way of reaching, you know, vast numbers of people. So that needs to be strengthened and connected to primary care. And you need very good specialist back-up services. And there are some people with long-term, enduring mental health problems at the very serious end of the spectrum ` I think there is still a place for sheltered, supported communities, small-scale. And this happens through NGOs, it's not that it doesn't happen. But I think there are people homeless, there are people who are falling between the cracks, and the most vulnerable, I think, have to be a priority as well. How far away are we from that ideal system? I don't wanna overdramatize, you know, the negatives. You know, thousands and thousands of people, you know, do get access to support and care and they rate it well. But there are signs of gaps, cracks, chasms all over the place. And so, I think we're looking at almost a doubling of resource and doing things differently in some areas, in other areas holding the good practice that's there now. Can you clarify what you mean about doubling the resource? Well, that's just, sort of, off the top of my head. But the scale of it I think is huge. If you're looking at the criminal justice system alone, we do have psychological services and mental health support there, but it's, you know, hardly touching the edges. So you'd need a very large investment there. But there would be savings in terms of imprisonment rates. So there would be benefits to offset the initial investment, I think, in that area. But certainly in primary care, if you were gonna have, well, like we have in University, we have mental health professionals, doctors, nurses, physios and some other health professionals. But the mental health number of the staff is similar to the others. Well, if you were to do that throughout the community, you're talking about a lot of money. OK, stay with us, we're back after the break. Welcome back. We're back with our panel Fran O'Sullivan and Bernard Hickey. Bernard, to the surplus ` the small issue of the surplus this week. The government's revealed a surprise $5.5 billion surplus, and it's already hit its self-imposed debt targets, so do we spend or continue to save? Well, it look like having hit that debt target four years early, the government has quite a bit of borrowing headroom. They can continue to get that target and borrow around $12.5 billion, if they wanted to. It's clear that Grant Robertson is eyeing up some sort of infrastructure spending or maybe some new social spending measures in the December half-yearly update, if he continues to get the economic growth forecasts that are around the 2.5-3% mark. Because the economy, and our IRD, is so good at hoovering in cash when the economy is growing, I think he should do more than that. I still think that 20% debt target was a mistake. The government should be using the clauses in it to invest much more heavily in infrastructure, particularly in Auckland. We really have had a 10% population shock in the last five years, that the government should be treating the same way they treated the GFC or the Christchurch earthquakes. It is creating infrastructure chaos, really, across Auckland, and it is restricting our productivity. The thing everyone should know ` is that our economy grew 2.7% last year, sounds good, but we actually did 4.1% more hours work. So, we actually` our productivity fell. That is in large part because of these infrastructure problems, which could be solved by the government using its very, very strong balance sheet. So, Fran, the infrastructure deficit, public sector workers striking, homelessness, petrol tax hikes ` there's a lot of demand for that money, isn't there? Yes, there is, and what I do like is the fact that Grant Robertson has gone to Treasury, has looked at other ways of, shall we say, busting the debt target by ensuring that other organisations, like Housing New Zealand and others, can borrow on their own balance sheets. I think, getting past that ideological straitjacket and doing that is a big step in the right direction. Also, too, getting Super Fun ` though it's complaining this week that it got belted by the share price drop ` but the Super Fund, iwi, ACC, KiwiSaver funds and others also to invest in New Zealand infrastructure. I mean, there is a wall of cash sitting out there that really isn't tapped sufficiently in New Zealand, in my view, and he sought advice on that. Doing that, you know, bringing other revenue to the table would also preserve some of that surplus to be used in other areas where the economy is hurting and people are hurting ` like the homeless. So how patient will people be with Robertson's claim that he wants to save for a rainy day? Well, he has to save for a rainy day, but the point is he can use other levers to ensure other people who have cash invest in the economy. That's a switch, because at the moment, the rules around KiwiSaver, people have not invested into infrastructure projects, for instance. Iwi is starting to do that now. There's joint ventures where the Super Fund and the Canadian Institutional Investor is keen to pick up the tab for doing Auckland Light Rail. That's billions of dollars that could be shifted off the government balance sheet, from the point of view of an immediate call. He can do all of that. I think they need to think a little bit more freely. So, Simon, is the suggestion that this surplus is likely to someway to business confidence, do you think? Oh, well, business confidence has obviously been an issue that's been promoted by the National Party as, you know, lack of confidence in the Labour party. And we did have a bounce in the ANZ outlook in September, the previous ones were all flat to disapproving, and now there's a bounce in confidence. And Business New Zealand have come out and said, yes, this surplus will improve business confidence. But it does sort of take the heat out of National's, sort of, political ploy in saying business doesn't believe in this Labour Government, doesn't it Bernard? Well, so much for the fiscal black hole. Yeah, well, that's right. It just didn't happen. But also, I think the Government has to realise that it's part of a system. And that the Reserve Bank will actually need some monetary policy mates over the next six to twelve months. Gotta remember that inflation is still well below 2%, and if the economy is slowing towards 2.5% growth, the Reserve Banks own forecasts say it would need to cut the official cash rate by 100 basis points to 0.75%. That leaves very little buffer if we actually have another GFC or whatever it is. So, the Government is gonna have to step up and be a mate for the Reserve Bank over the next 6-12 months, and Grant Robertson can use some of this space this strong surplus has given him to do that. And as Fran said, help encourage others into the tent to invest in infrastructure. New Zealand, unfortunately, over the last 30 or 40 years, has become averse to think big. We thought that infrastructure investment was something that big old politicians who wanted to create white elephants did. Actually, no. If you look at the successful economies, they are the ones who invest in their infrastructure, particularly for an economy which is growing very fast and it's population. Do you know, we have the second fastest population growth in the developed world last year? And we don't see ourselves as a fast-growing population, but we really are. And we need to adapt to that with lots of infrastructure spending. Fran, on the issue of predatory lending which the Government has in it's sites this week, it says its gonna cap loan costs to 100% of the original loan. Does that go far enough to protect our vulnerable borrowers? No, not in my view. I mean, it's a step in the right direction. And I guess they can look at what the fallout is from that. But, I think personally, they need to crank it further. I find it just absolute usury that predatory lenders, finance companies can lend in this way. Pay-day loans, all the rest. I guess the interesting thing would be looking also at the failure rate. I mean, I would imagine people would be very, very careful with that sort of, you know, impost out there, that they would pay very quickly. But there's another underlying issue is the access certain people get to credit. And there are a bunch of people that really aren't on the system to the extent where they've been looked after by banks, by other savings institutions. And, in some cases, that's why they've been diverted towards this marginal end of the market. Fundamentally, she'd know this, the Government needs to make sure that these people who are vulnerable actually just have more money in their pockets and are not dealt with as vulnerable people who can be ripped off with extra fees. Yeah. And I think also, you know, bailiffs sent round, you know, obviously property is frequently furniture, that sort of thing given as security. There needs to be some sort of pause in the system so that, you know, when it comes to crunch time it's not, you know, are they put out on the street? What happens? OK, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you both very much. Employment Minister Willie Jackson joined us on Facebook Live this week, so we thought we'd ask him some classic job interview questions, from his greatest professional achievement too his biggest weakness. He even told us what his dream job would be. Wouldn't mind Jacinda's job. (BOTH LAUGH) Oh, you heard it first here. Jacinda, he's coming for your job. I wouldn't mind Jacinda's job. But not much chance of that. No chance there. I mean, you know, she's got it for the next 10-20 years, you know? She's just a phenomenon. I haven't always said good things about Labour over the years. But right now it's a privilege to serve and to support someone like Jacinda Ardern who's, well, you'd have to agree, a political phenomenon. Absolutely. And I know that upsets all those right-wingers out there who keep saying terrible things about her, but here's the thing, Finn, no one cares on the street. They don't care what these nut-jobs on the right say, you know? They don't care. They don't care what a lot of the media say, who, if you watch them and listen to them, you know, they'll rubbish us or they rubbish Jacinda at the drop of a hat. You know, they don't watch question time. That's all from Newshub Nation for now, thanks for watching and we'll see you again next weekend. Captions by Ella Wheeler, Elizabeth Welsh and John Gibbs www.able.co.nz Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018 This programme was made with the assistance of the New Zealand On Air Platinum Fund.