Today on Newshub Nation ` we ask Justice Minister Andrew Little why he believes abortion law reform is needed and if he thinks he can get enough MPs to agree. Calls for radical reforms of our drug laws, we find out why the Global Commission on Drug Policy says decriminalising all drugs is the way to go. And experts say GPS technology could make police pursuits safer. So why won't our police force use it? Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. Copyright Able 2018 Kia ora, good morning. I'm Emma Jollif. And I'm Simon Shepherd. Welcome to Newshub Nation. The coalition Government this week marked it's first anniversary in power. Jacinda Ardern surged to her highest rating as preferred Prime Minister, while National's Simon Bridges slumped to his lowest poll rating as party leader. It was also the week where the Government was accused of making policy on the run after Jacinda Ardern ruled out any further regional fuel taxes while she's Prime Minister. I can give this guarantee to this house and to consumers ` there will be no other Regional Fuel Taxes while I am Prime Minister, which at the moment feels like it might be for a while. What we're seeing from the Prime Minister Ardern is that she does have a tendency to make policy up on the hoof. Teachers and principals voted overwhelmingly to strike again next month, with a week of rolling strike action. That follows a national strike of 30,000 teachers and principals in August. Teachers want smaller classes, more resources and a pay increase of 16% over two years. And a High Court Judge ruled former Conservative Party Leader Colin Craig did sexually Harass his former Press Secretary Rachel McGregor. It was part of a ruling on Craig's defamation case against Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater. Justice Toogood ruled that while two claims later published on his blog did defame Craig, any damage to Craig's reputation resulted almost entirely from his own actions. Well, earlier this year, the Law Commission was tasked with reviewing the 40-year-old abortion laws to see whether abortion should be treated as a health issue, not as a crime as it currently is. The Commission has now come back with three options ` first, the decision to abort will be made by the Woman after consulting her doctor. Second, the doctor would sign it off if they agreed if it was appropriate due to the woman's physical or mental health and well-being, or third, it's a woman's choice until the foetus is 22 weeks old, after that, a doctor would need to sign it off. Justice Minister Andrew Little ordered the review and joins us now. good morning, Minister. Good morning, Simon. So, there are about 13,000 abortions performed in New Zealand each year, and over the past few years, fewer than 2% of requests have been declined by a consultant. So why do we need the reform? Well, because, at the moment, the whole legal framework around abortion is that it is a crime in the first instance. And then, providing an abortion is carried out in accordance with the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act, that is effectively a defence to the crime. It attaches a pretty heavy stigma to a woman who is considering an abortion and taking advice about it for her to think that she's actually committing a crime ` but she just has to go through these hoops, and she's okay. That's not a good starting point. So it's about removing the stigma. But abortion rates have actually been falling; they're the lowest in 26 years. So is it a pressing need to reform? Look, I think it's an issue that has been put off and put off. The law is 40 years old. We do review all our laws eventually. This is one that should come up for review ` has been reviewed now by the Law Commission. You're right that the number of abortions is falling; the abortion rate is falling. And actually, most abortions happen well before the 22-week threshold that appears in the report. But the reality is that we know that the stories of women who are seeking abortions is because of the various hoops they have to go through. It is pushing out the time at which they get their abortion, sometimes pushing them into that second trimester. And that's not good for women who are seeking that support and advice. Okay. You say there's no other health issue where a woman would be subject to these kinds of restrictions. But should abortion really be treated like another medical procedure? It's not quite the same. Well, it is... A woman who is seeking advice about an abortion, considering an abortion after she's become pregnant ` like any other question about her health that she seeks advice on, this is the one where two certified consultants get involved. There are statutory thresholds. There's the risk of falling into criminal territory if it's not done right. I mean, a woman should not have to be put in that position when seeking advice and help for this sort of situation. But is there enough in these proposals? Abortion carries with it so much more than a routine medical procedure, like getting your tonsils out. You need counselling, maybe, and those kinds of things. It's a much bigger decision. Yeah, but look, everybody has the potential to have quite significant medical procedures done on them, and sometimes they need counselling. They always need good advice. You need a registered health practitioner to do the work, if you like. You want expertise, medical expertise to do that. All of that can be provided for a woman who is considering an abortion or wants to get an abortion when she goes to her GP. It should not require going to two certified consultants, going through a range of other things before she gets that procedure. So, you asked the Law Commission to look at whether it should be a health issue rather than a criminal issue. 3400 public submissions ` only 18% expressed support for decriminalising abortion. So do you think voters actually support this? Yes, I do. I mean... Not on those numbers, though. Well, a poll carried out by Family First, of all organisations, showed that actually the majority of New Zealanders support the idea of access to abortion. So people do want it. The submission process for an exercise like the one that the Law Commission carried out ` it's going to attract those with a particular interest in it. And yep, there were some very vocal and vociferous submissions made to it. Equally, there were organisations representing hundreds or, you know, dozens of people who made submissions for their particular part of the community too. So I don't think those numbers help. In the end... What do you mean, 'they don't help'? Well, just looking at raw numbers of submissions doesn't help. Some submissions were by organisations representing hundreds of people. So you're saying that those submissions aren't representative of opinions? If you look at a scientific opinion poll of the general public, conducted by Family First, actually it showed there's a majority of support for the idea that woman should be entitled to get an abortion. So the submissions don't reflect the polling? The Law Commission does an exercise where they're examining a particular part of the law with a particular perspective ` in this case, shifting from criminal to a health perspective. Naturally, you're going to attract people who have an interest in it ` perfectly legitimate, valid interest ` whether as health professionals or as interested members of the community. That is not the same as a general representation of the public. So I don't agree with the conclusion that if you just analyse the submissions made to the Law Commission for the purposes of this exercise, that reflects the general public opinion of New Zealand. Okay. So, the Commission has put forward three proposals, as we outlined. Which one do you favour? Look, bearing in mind that abortion is an issue when lawmakers get to deal with it in Parliament. It is a conscience vote, so it's a personal issue for MPs. So whatever my view is isn't necessarily the view that might win the favour of Parliament. My personal view is option C, which I think covers the right of women to get advice from their GP and to make a decision in consultation with her GP. But bearing in mind that when a foetus enters a period of viability, that there are other public policy considerations that come into play, and I think having a threshold as laid out by the Law Commission is appropriate. Okay. Under the second and third option, where a statutory test is needed, the Commission says that a new offence could be introduced for people who perform abortions without meeting that legal requirement. What sort of offence could that be? Well, that's the case now. Certainly if the statutory tests aren't met, then arguably, an abortion carried out is being carried out in contravention of the law. So that is there at the moment. I think the point is that if the test, or the threshold test, is to have any meaning, there's got to be consequence if an abortion is carried out without that test. So, what would that consequence be? I mean, they're talking about injuring by unlawful act or manslaughter. I mean, do you have any sort of preference if there was going to be an offence created for this? Well, if there is an offence. I mean, the other way we uphold medical professional standard is, of course, through medical professional bodies, through the Health and Disability Commission and the work that they do. So there's approaches through there. But if it's deliberately flouting the law, where there is a threshold test required and it hasn't been applied, then there is resort to the criminal law. It could be assault. It could be, you know, those standard, existing criminal offences that exist. Right, okay. And is there a risk of unlicensed people performing abortions if you don't have a criminal charge, if you don't go through with that? Well, I think at the moment, any medical procedure has to be carried out in accordance with a set of standards. The Ministry of Health sets those standards; DHBs set those standards; professional health bodies set those standards. There is a lot of standard-setting and guidance already for any medical procedure to be carried out. There's no reason why that shouldn't apply and those standards can apply to carrying out an abortion. So, enough safeguards already ` is that what you're saying? Yeah. All right. Under the first option, where there is no legal standard, no statutory test to have an abortion, could we end up with abortions being performed for reasons like gender selection? Um, look, I think that when we start to get into arguments like that, what we're effectively saying is that we don't trust women in consultation with their doctor to make a decision. Actually, women are quite capable of weighing up the variety of issues. Some will, you know... What will be weighing on their minds will be moral issues as well as their mental and physical health. For other women, it will be a set of other issues. I mean, women are quite capable of making these judgements themselves. I don't quite buy into this argument that we should start working through a checklist of potential things, reasons why a woman might seek an abortion. Everybody knows that this is a sensitive issue. It's a difficult issue for women. But, you know, we just have to have a law that reflects the fact that women can and should be trusted to make that decision in consultation with their GP. But the Law Commission says that maybe the government should do some more work on this area, because it cites some evidence from Canada and Victoria where immigrant women seem to be having more male babies than female babies. And it says that it could be a possibility of sex selection through abortion. Yeah, and they raised the issue too about consent and genuine consent and informed consent and the idea that, you know, the decision is the woman's decision, and she's not being coerced or overborne by her partner or somebody else who's wanting a particular sort of outcome. But that is the role of the medical professional who the woman consults is to make sure that she's making that decision for herself. Okay. This is going to be a conscience vote, so how confident are you that you actually get this over the line? Well, we made a commitment that we would look at what it would take to shift abortion from a criminal framework to a health framework. We now have some suggestions by the Law Commission. I'll work up a cabinet paper. Cabinet's role will be to decide on a process. And we'll get a draft law in front of Parliament at some point. In the end, it will be up to enough MPs in Parliament deciding we want to make this change. I couldn't predict where that's going to go at the moment. Because we've heard some Labour MPs are planning to vote against it, some National MPs. Sure. And that will happen. Equally, I've spoken to National MPs who say they are keen to support a move; they want to see what the detail looks like. So, look, there's a lot of work to do before that happens. In the end, it'll be the collective will of Parliament or enough MPs in Parliament to make a decision to make a change. All right. I wanna move on to electoral reform. Now, you've instructed justice officials to look at laws around the transparency of election donations. What exactly concerns you, to make that request? Look, this is the perennial issue that comes up periodically. We've had it before. But the idea` And we saw it recently with the stories about the possibility that a large donation might have been broken up in order to come under the disclosure rule or avoid the disclosure rules. That's Jami-Lee Ross' allegation you're talking about? Yeah. So, I think we need to make sure that the laws we've got are effectively preventing that kind of device, that kind of trickery. And I'm not suggesting that it is happening, but if our laws aren't robust enough to avoid that happening, then we need to make sure that the law is fit for purpose. Okay. Well, in the electoral returns from the last elections, National had $3.5 million in undeclared donations. Your coalition partner New Zealand First had almost half a million in total donations and not one donor declared. So there is no transparency there, is there? Well, because the law says if it's a donation to the party under $15,000, then you don't have to disclose who the donor is. So, should you, in your view? I mean, should you have to declare? I mean, the Greens want any donation over $1000, you have to declare the donation. Yeah. So the debate is often where that threshold should sit. And in the end, this all comes down to, people want to know ` is there anybody in the political system or sitting outside the place of politicians trying to seek influence and conceal that influence in an unhealthy way? We need to make sure we have an election donations regime that avoids at least the inference being drawn that there is unhealthy influence being wielded. Sure. So to get away from that, the Prime Minister says that it would be easier if parties didn't have to fundraise. So should the taxpayer have to foot the bill for campaigns? Look, from time to time, the issue of state funding of political parties comes up. It's not our tradition; it's not our culture. I think it's a healthy thing for parties to have to go out and do their fundraising and, kind of, earn their keep. There is some state funding of political parties. We see that with the broadcasting allocation each election. But this is all ground for fertile debate, and maybe it is timely for us to have that debate. And changes by the next election or before the next election? Look, I've asked justice officials to have a look at that. There are some changes I am keen to see in the Electoral Act, more technical ones, before the 2020 election. Whether we get on to changing the laws around electoral donations, I mean, there's a lot of discussion to have with all political parties before we get down that path. All right. Pike River decision is coming up. So, the Pike River Recovery Agency has done the risk assessments. Three options for re-entering the mine, and they've told you their preferred option. Can you tell us what that is? No, I can't. I formally get their report next week. We know almost certainly it is going to entail more funding required. I've got to go to Cabinet to get that funding. That'll take a couple of weeks before I get any decision on that. Once I have the agency's report, Rob Pfeifer my independent ministerial adviser's report and the decision on Cabinet on the funding, then I'll make a decision. That'll be mid-November. Justice Minister, thank you very much for your time this morning. Thank you. All right, if you've got something to say about what you see n our show, let us know. We're on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, @NewshubNationNZ. Our twitter Panel this week includes Graeme Edgeler and Tracey Barnett, 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 check in with our panel, Tania Sawicki Mead, Vernon Tava and Peter Dunne. Plus, have we lost the war on drugs? Former Prime Minister Helen Clark thinks so. We find out how decriminalization could work in New Zealand and ask her why she thinks it's a good idea. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel ` Tania Sawicki Mead from criminal justice advocacy group Just Speak; former United Future leader Peter Dunn; and business consultant Vernon Tava. Thank you very much for joining us this morning. Peter, let's start with you on abortion law reform. This is going to be a conscience vote. Do you think that Labour will have the numbers to get it through? It's not clear at this stage. I think they will have the numbers to get something through. What the something is remains to be seen. But I think the big issue they've got is a timing one. This is going to be a lengthy debate, and they'll have to program time in the legislative timetable for a bill that's going to be inevitably controversial. So it may well be something that gets introduced and mightn't get passed before the election. Vernon, just 18% of the submissions expressly wanted decriminalisation of abortion. Is there an appetite for this, do you think? It's difficult to tell just from a number of submissions. There are issues, particularly the moral issues like this, that attract a huge number of submissions and attention from certain groups in society. So it can be hard to judge just from the sheer volume of submissions. But there's certainly something to be taken from that. But one point that I think is really worth picking up is the language of decriminalisation, which, if you're advocating for a change, it sounds very powerful. But I think it's worth mentioning ` and I think this escapes a lot of people's attention ` section 183 of the Crimes Act actually specifically says that no woman or girl shall be prosecuted under that section. So it's not the women who are being criminalised in the process. So it sounds great, the idea of removing criminal stigma and so on, but it's not really technically true. The only people who can be prosecuted are people who provide unauthorised` or, you know, the classic back street kind of abortion. Tania, is there anything that concerns you about decriminalising abortion? No, absolutely not. I think that this law change is absolutely necessary. I think, like others have mentioned, the number of public submissions does not really reflect the strong feeling for women's right to choose, women's right to have a say over their own bodily autonomy. When the National Council of Women recently did a proper public survey about how people felt, 66% supported women's right to choose, so I think that's a much more accurate reflection of how people feel about this really important issue that is` in which our laws are so outdated. And I think this question of whether it's decriminalisation or not is kind of missing the point. The issue here is that women are denied access to abortions in a timely manner because of where they live in some cases, or because the doctors that they initially go to refuse to serve them on the basis of conscientious objection. That's not fair; that's not reasonable. OK, moving on to electoral law reform. Vernon, Andrew Little's predecessor, Amy Adams, said the current electoral law is working just fine and it doesn't need changing. Does she have a point? Well, I think the system broadly is OK. I think where there's capacity for mischief that we've seen is with where the thresholds are, you know, cos there's a really big gap between what has to be declared as a donation to a candidate ` $1500 ` and then $15,000 as the line for a party. I do think we've gotta ask, though ` do we want every single person who exercises their own political and private or moral choice or whatever it might be, to support a political party in the marketplace of ideas, does every single person who makes a donation ` even at the incredibly low threshold like the Greens proposed of only $1000 ` does every single person have to be flushed out in public? I'm not sure that's actually entirely fair or reasonable, you know? So I think the question is not the system itself, that that needs to be restructured, but it's where the thresholds are. As for the idea of a sort of universal political income, the idea that there should be a welfare system for political parties I think is risible, and I don't really think we should go there. No appetite for that? Well, there needs to be some sort of` It is another form of accountability, and I think that there is a general expectation in New Zealand that parties, in a sense, go out and win people over and earn their keep. Peter, the National Party get the most in donations by a long shot. They're certainly going to go for the status quo, aren't they? Well, probably. But I think Vernon's right. I think the issue here is not the fundamentals of the system. I think what's been revealed of late are issues about people 'gaming' the system. So, you get a large donation; you unbundle it into a series of smaller donations. I think there needs to be more work done about disclosure in those circumstances, particularly with the issue of the channelling of foreign money through into domestic campaigns. That's theoretically not permitted, but there are ways of doing that. I agree with you strongly about political parties being state-funded. I think that would be a disaster. All it would do would be entrench the parties that are in Parliament now, because you'd have a formula based on votes gained at the last election. So new parties, unless they were well-funded ` brings you back to the first problem ` could never emerge. So parties have gotta go out there and raise their own money. And the problem that they then have is how they properly account for it, and I think, in recent times, there have been some serious issues raised about how that's occurring. How concerned are you about these foreign donations? Well, it depends, obviously, on their source. I mean` But the suggestion, for instance, that China is using a deliberate policy of funding political parties ` not just in New Zealand but elsewhere ` to gain political favour is, I think, of extreme concern. Now, that may or may not be so, but I think it needs to be worked into our system in such a way that there can be robust accounting of where that money's coming from. Tania, has this really only become an issue because of the National Party scandal of the past couple of weeks? Or does there need to be more clarity around who is making donations to the parties? Well, I think the number of people who brought up the commonality between the issues that came up this week with the National Party and previous donation scandals around hidden influence in political party funding some elections ago proves that it is not an issue simply of this year but a long-standing one. And I think it does demonstrate the real danger in the influence on organisations who are seeking to hide the amount of money that they give to a particular candidate or party. But I would also just like to come back to Vernon's point. I think there's a challenge here in saying that` I agree that there is a difference between when individuals should be held accountable or publicise the amount of money that they give to a political party versus organisations or large donations. But $1000 is not a huge... It is a huge amount of money for a lot of people, so the idea that that is somehow a kind of reasonable standard I think is actually` there's some consistency to that. For many, many people, participating in the electoral process by giving money is out of reach, you know? It's not something that they can do. They can give their time; they can give their vote. But what I think this election scandal has exposed is that the idea that you buy your vote or you buy your influence in the marketplace of ideas is a right limited to a very small amount of people in New Zealand, and I think that's what needs to change. Unrealistic to get taxpayers to fund political campaigns? It doesn't seem like there's huge political support for that at the moment, but I think partly because people don't understand what that would look like or what it would mean. And I suspect that, in some cases, if people made a case for how you might equalise political coverage, for example, in the media or ensure that both small, emerging parties have access to that kind of coverage as well as regulating the amount that the major parties get would be a more useful way to provide equity in political campaigning. But it is hard to see how you'd get past that problem of entrenchment, you know? How does a smaller party`? Take the Greens, for instance, who doubled in size in the 2011 election. Do they get locked in to a formula? All right, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you all very much. Up next ` what could New Zealand learn from Switzerland when it comes to drug policy? Plus ` why experts say a simple and inexpensive bit of technology could help make police pursuits safer. Welcome back. The Global Commission on Drug Policy says governments around the world need to radically rethink the way they tackle drug problems. The commission's latest report looks at how careful regulation could be more effective than prohibition with an overall goal of reducing the harm caused by drug use. It's an approach Switzerland has taken since the 1990s. Heroin users are provided with safe doses of the drug and supervised injecting rooms. The approach has halved drug-related deaths there. But is it an approach that could work here with the growing problems of synthetic cannabis and methamphetamine? I sat down with Commissioners Ruth Dreifuss, the former president of Switzerland, and our former prime minister Helen Clark and started asking why they thought the war on drugs has failed. It has failed because the aim of the war on drugs was to reduce the supply, to reduce the demand and to get rid of it from criminal organisations. And what we have to see after 60 years of this policy is an increase in the supply, an increase in the demand and an empowerment of the criminal organisations. So, I mean, along the aims of this policy, it has failed. So you're advocating a total change in the way we approach drugs. What does that change look like? On one side, we have to really reduce the harm caused by drugs consumed under prohibition, in hidden places, in unsafe environments and so on. The second is, really, to offer people treatment they can really comply with, they can continue to be in a balanced life and recover a balanced life, which means that abstinence is a good aim for many people. It is an aim. But for others, it is another aim that should be realised ` and that this is balanced life with consumption of drugs, but not so harmful as it is now. The third element is, really, to decriminalise the consumption of drugs, because criminalising the people is also building obstacles to public health, to social integration. It is fuelling also... prejudice and... discrimination. And thirdly, we think... Uh, fourthly, what is really necessary is to go from a global prohibition of the substances, which is not working, to a regulated market where the state puts rules ` well, strong rules, more or less, strong rules ` to make the access and the use and the production of these substances. Helen, how would you characterise New Zealand's drug problem? Well, firstly, I think we're well behind. We were an innovator, going back to the HIV response, when the needle exchange scheme was introduced. And remember, we didn't decriminalise heroin at that point, but we simply made a safe space for people to come and exchange the needles, so they could use their drugs safely without contracting not only HIV, but Hepatitis C... and other conditions. But we haven't substantially innovated since then. It's a time of opportunity here in New Zealand, because there will be a referendum on cannabis, which I sincerely hope passes. The medicinal cannabis issue is also in front of Parliament currently. But at the same time, because we have this series of very tragic deaths from the so-called 'synthetic cannabis', we need some massive harm-reduction programmes put in place. And that's where I think we can really learn from what Ruth Dreifuss has done in Switzerland, what's happening in Sydney, what's happening in Canada ` so many places now where there's safe consumption spaces where people can come, consume their drug, have it tested and not die. And for me, that's the bottom line ` people should not be dying. We've had around 45 deaths in the last year from synthetic cannabis. They've been around ` synthetics ` for around 20 years. You were prime minister for nine of those years. Why didn't you do more then? Well, if you go back to the confidence and supply agreements of 2002 and 2005 with United Future, United Future and Peter Dunn had a very hard line on drugs; they specifically had as a red line that we would not make any moves towards decriminalisation. And it kind of put the item off the agenda. But I also think the drug issue's evolved. So, now you have the synthetic cannabis crisis. Now, back in my time, my understanding is that synthetic cannabis was not illegal. We didn't have deaths before this drug moved into an illegal category, and then, of course, as Ruth Dreifuss has just said, there are very dangerous products being sold on the streets. So to get a grip on that, we need not to throw heavier sentences on people or classify it as Class-A, which would criminalise the users. No. We need a massive harm-reduction response where people can come in to some kind of drop-by, safe space centre and get something that is not going to kill them. Ruth, as President of Switzerland, you oversaw the introduction of a health-based drug policy there. What were the main changes that were introduced in Switzerland? For some people, the risk of addiction is bigger. And if they are dependent on the substance, we have to offer the possibility of treatment. For some, it will be the treatment for abstinence. For others, it will be substitution therapy. And for instance, since we introduced heroin prescription ` medical heroin, controlled by the state, under medical supervision with a prescription in a day clinic. So, I mean, yes, this allowed for` I mean, in our country, it's a large number ` 1300 people or something like this ` being treated year` for a year, because they are chronically ill, receiving this prescription, this treatment. But not only that, but a treatment where they are also consolidated and empowered in their daily life. And we introduced many harm-reduction measures. But I must really say, our challenge was mainly heroin` injecting heroin consumption. So for all the different substances, we have to find exactly the real response, but the principle of harm reduction will be the same for all the substances ` that is, to help the people to be responsible for themselves, to protect themselves, to protect also... their fellows and their colleagues, to feel that they are not criminalised. So, Helen, our problems are with synthetic cannabis, with methamphetamine. As Ruth said, it's not heroin. So are we able to apply that northern European model to our own experience? Oh, yes. I think, as Ruth said, that the harm-reduction principle is the right principle to start with. And then with the best public health advice you have, and inviting people into the safe spaces to come to some kind of arrangement that is meeting their needs and opening up a conversation also about the range of services they might require, which may not only be health services. I understand with synthetic cannabis, some of the most marginalised people in our country are affected by this ` the people that are sleeping on the street, the homeless, the hungry. So we have quite a lot of issues to deal with. And I think synthetic cannabis, in a way, is the sort of tip of the pyramid, but underneath that are other social issues too. How do our laws compare internationally around the personal consumption thresholds, for example? What does concern me here is that the level deemed to be for personal possession is so low that it may not be realistic for what people are actually consuming. So if they have more than that amount in their possession, they're automatically deemed to be suppliers. And that can carry quite a heavy sentence. So there's so many things that need to be looked at in our drug law. But the commission's position is one should move to decriminalisation and effective state regulation, just as we regulate tobacco, alcohol, road safety, guns ` you name it, we regulate. But because of the UN conventions pointing to prohibition, there's been an attempt just to eliminate. That is not going to work. It didn't work with alcohol; it won't work with these. But we still see harm from alcohol and tobacco, despite them being regulated. We do. We still see commercialisation and the financial incentives of opiates. How do you ensure that doesn't happen here? Well, we do see harm. But we, of course, regulate to reduce the harm. And we've made incredible progress on tobacco. So fewer and fewer young people are ever smoking a cigarette now. We do have the prospect of a pretty much smoke-free generation. So with the move to legalisation of cannabis, it will be important to put a regime in place where it can't be advertised, it can't be sold to children ` you know, there's a whole lot of rules you can put around it. I should say ` New Zealand has quite a small bureaucracy and capacity. I think we should really be scouring the world for the best ideas here. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. A lot of countries are doing things in this space which we could emulate. But we seem to take a lot of time trying to reinvent things, and I think that's a waste of time and effort and is holding up much-needed reform. So, we do have cannabis law reform in the pipeline, but you say what is being proposed is flawed. Why do you say that? Well, what I say is that the government bill on therapeutic cannabis was really rather limited. But the good thing is that across the Parliament now, there's clearly a very large majority for giving access to therapeutic cannabis, and that should not be only for the terminally ill who would like to access it, but also for those who are living with chronic pain or other conditions. So what I would really urge is the parties need to get together and hammer this out. Otherwise, we're going to go round in circles for quite some time. What do you say to critics that regulation will condone the use of these substances, dangerous substances? Well, we don't have evidence on that. For the countries who made some steps towards regulation, there is not really an increase in consumption if it is well done. What does regulation do to the organised crime that we currently see behind drug networks? Hopefully puts it out of business. You see, at the moment, the drugs are there in the legal market and totally unregulated. You've called drug use, individual drug use, a victimless crime, haven't you? If it's considered a crime, it is indeed victimless. What is the point of locking up someone who has a drug habit? Is decriminalising cannabis a prerequisite to then moving on to regulate those other drugs, like synthetics, like methamphetamine? I think it would be a very important step to legalise cannabis, because that then provides a legal option. If you think, for example, of the most marginalised buying this ghastly, very dangerous so-called synthetic cannabis product ` what if they had access to the store as in Switzerland? They could buy a low-dose cannabis. You create an alternative with the legalisation of cannabis. So I think it's a very important first step while this society debates where it wants to go. But I think right now, massive harm reduction, also in safe consumption spaces, would be very important for getting on top of the synthetic cannabis deaths. It does sound expensive, but where could we see cost savings from this? We could see huge cost savings on the prison system. We have had a blowout of prison numbers ` again, over the recent nine years of the previous government, where bail law was amended unhelpfully. And of course, we haven't yet seen the full potential of 'three strikes and you're out'; people are still building up towards that. When that hits, if it's not changed, we will see another blowout in prison numbers. So the savings on imprisonment would be huge from moving to a decriminalisation approach. One last question for you, Helen. You went to Arohata and met some women there, didn't you? What was their experience around accessing health services as drug users? I think the sad thing to us, visiting and listening to the women in the drug treatment programme at Arohata, was that, for them, it was the first time they'd ever been able to access a service. You shouldn't have to end up in jail to access a service. Ruth Dreifuss and Helen Clark, we'll leave it there. Thank you both very much. Thank you. Thank you. And you can watch an extended version of that interview on our website ` newshub.co.nz/nation. Still to come ` National put the government under the pump over fuel prices, and Winston Peters took pot-shots at Simon Bridges. We look at the week in Parliament. Plus ` GPS technology is used by our fire and ambulance services, plus most police forces in Australia. So why won't our police use it to help make car chases safer? Welcome back. Since 2016, more than 20 people have died in police chases ` situations that combine speed and split-second decision making. Police had been monitoring pursuits by tracking cars with GPS technology. But a Newshub Nation investigation has found police stopped using the units after a 2004 trial. Well, now former officers and crash investigators are asking why this crucial safety measure was shelved. Mike Wesley-Smith reports. (POLICE SIREN WAILS) It can be over in a terrible few seconds. As emergency services deal with the aftermath of a police pursuit that ended in tragedy, the families of the victims are left to deal with the emotional wreckage. I feel just pain. Yeah, I feel a bit broken. It hurts so much... every day. It's a part of us has gone. Just since 2016, more than 20 people have died in crashes during police pursuits and almost 400 more have been injured. Two people have been killed following a police chase that ended with a car crashing into a tree in Auckland early this morning. There's three families who won't have loved ones coming home today. A teenager who was in the boot of a car as it was being pursued by police has died. And with every death, there are questions about what happened and why. During his 22 years in the police force, Lance Burdett was involved in his fair share of police chases. The role of police is to protect life and property. So every time you undertake a pursuit, you're putting public at risk. Since the early 2000s, pursuits have been supervised by staff and police communication centres, detached from the adrenaline of the chase. It's almost like the thrill of the catch and the kill. You get tunnel vision, cos all you see is the person in front of you. An expert described this mindset as 'like a red mist descending on an officer'. It can cloud judgement and effect an officer's ability to make balanced decisions at high speeds, ultimately causing some to take undue risks. (SIRENS WAIL) Lance was a pursuit controller for two years. He says, often, he was largely left blind to how pursuit was progressing in real time, as he was only able to rely on radio communications. Cos you don't even know where the car is. The bizarre thing is you don't know. You're relying on the person telling you and giving you information ` 'Please turn left into such-and-such. We're travelling at this speed.' And you are hoping that they're telling you the truth. In 2003, the police reviewed their procedures after two fatal pursuits that year, including this one in Northland. He was being chased by police at speeds of up to 200km an hour. One of the recommendations was to trial what is known as 'automatic vehicle location technology' or AVL. Put simply, AVL is a GPS system installed in cars that allows a communication centre to see the location and speed of police vehicles involved in a pursuit. The 2003 review concluded: To get a better idea of the advantages of AVL and how it worked, I sat down with former police officer and experienced crash investigator Todd McCormack. So what we've got here is one of our GPS devices. So you can see they're not very big; they're quite small, compact. Todd is now a director of Fleetpin ` a company which sells AVL units. He says they cost around $200 per device and can provide a lot of valuable information to pursuit controllers. Oh, they can see where a vehicle is now. They can see its speed up to every second. And when the lights` sirens and blue lights are activated, it can show that they're actually active and that they're being turned on. And it can show` It's got all the G forces and whatnot inside the unit, so they spit out all of that data as well. So all of the G forces on cornering and braking and acceleration, they all come out as well. Todd says the data collected from a patrol car's AVL unit could also be invaluable to a crash investigator. We used to estimate and have to provide very opinion evidence on what happened earlier. Now, that's transparent. You can see it. And that shows you the road on street view. And you can see my speed. Gosh. And you can see where I am. AVL has been adopted by many police agencies overseas, including almost all police forces in Australia. In New Zealand, emergency services, including St John Ambulance, Wellington Free Ambulance and the New Zealand Fire Service, also utilise the technology. I, personally, do not see a downside from any perspective in terms of having GPS in all vehicles. Gareth Jones is a former British police officer based in Canada and is one of the world's most experienced police pursuit investigators, with more than 200 cases under his belt. He says, AVL not only assists in the investigation of crashes, the data recorded also helps police officers defend themselves from accusations. (SIREN WAILS, MUFFLED VOICE) Digital data in that GPS ` it's logged in the GPS ` is presumably going to support the account that I've given of what's happened, so it works in my favour. And for some years, New Zealand Police appeared to agree. By 2010, there were 120 vehicles installed with AVL units in the Auckland region. And the technology also attracted the support of the Independent Police Conduct Authority. In an investigation into a 2006 fatal police pursuit, the IPCA wrote: Coroners were also supportive, with one recommending in a 2011 inquest that: And in 2017, this recommendation was endorsed by another coroner investigating a fatal pursuit incident. Lance says AVL could also shorten pursuits, as controllers tracking police cars at comm centres could strategically place them ahead of the fleeing driver to stop the pursuit. I'm a big believer, coming outside of the police now and looking back in, that AVL is something that we should be pursuing. Now it's so cost effective. So cost effective that for the $350,000 it cost police to make this recent recruitment ad, police could have purchased around 1500 AVL units. That's enough for around half the current police fleet. But it's at this point that we lose signal on police decision making, because after trialling AVL, at some point and for reasons unknown, police removed the technology from all patrol cars and reverted back to principally monitoring pursuits by radio communication. Yeah, that is very surprising. Yeah, I'm actually` That's a very old system. I mean, that's what they would've had in the 1970s, wouldn't it? And before that. Mm. Police have repeatedly declined to be interviewed for this story and have not explained exactly why AVL units were taken out. Instead, they sent us a series of statements confirming: Police did not confirm what that technology is or how it will be used. (SIRENS WAIL) For Lance Burdett, the police stance doesn't make any sense. I can see no valid reason why AVLs aren't in police vehicles. There is no valid reason that I can see. Police also say they rely on the police helicopter and stationary traffic cameras to monitor pursuits. The problem with using a helicopter ` well, one, it's only in Auckland. And is it up and in the air? And is it available? Now, highway cameras aren't that good. All of a sudden, it just goes (BLOWS AIR RAPIDLY). The car's gone. So what good` what use is that? So while patrol cars don't have GPS tracking, officers are issued with smartphones with GPS built in. So we asked police, 'Have they ever analysed the data from the phones of officers 'involved in a fatal pursuit?' So then we approached the Independent Police Conduct Authority, who are tasked with investigating police pursuits. Their investigation manager responded: It is surprising that there's not more to the police pursuit monitoring at this point. Caroline Perry is the director of Brake ` a road safety charity. I think having AVLs or other technology that's similar to that installed in vehicles would not only help to protect the police who are working and doing a great job trying to keep our roads safe, but also to help protect other road users too if police are involved in things like police pursuits. Instead of relying on eyewitnesses, you've actually got accurate data about what's occurring. That's got to be a good thing. Mike Noon from the AA is another who supports the use of AVL, particularly when monitoring and investigating pursuits. We'd like to see the police doing everything they can to make this very unfortunate situation that they find themselves in with the driver fleeing as safe as possible. This looks like a good tool to help with that. But for Lance Burdett, he asks, 'Why wait?' I always take things back to their core ` what's your core values? What's your core business and your core role? Safer communities together. Well, we're putting all of those things at risk. Stay with us. We're back after the break. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel, Tania Sawicki Mead from criminal justice advocacy group JustSpeak, former United Future Leader Peter Dunne and business consultant Vernon Tava. Welcome to you all, thanks for joining us. Peter, I'll start with you. Helen Clarke said that there wasn't a move to decriminalization when she was Prime Minister because she was blocked by United Future under confidence and supply in 2002 and 2005, is that fair? No, there's a little bit of rewriting of history going on here. What 2000 and 2005 agreement said was no change in the legal status but it didn't actually rule out a whole range of any other initiatives that might have been considered. And, in fact, that's been broadly the position that's maintained since then. And, for instance, in 2015, as the minister responsible, I was able to bring forward a National Drug Policy which says many of the sorts of things that the Global Commission is now arguing for. So I think there's a wee bit of rewriting of history going on. Vernon, the Commission calls for decriminalization. It calls for regulation. Is that realistic in our context of synthetics and methamphetamine? I'm not sure that the policy really needs to change depending on the drug. Because this is an area where it is the criminalization of the substance that is really at the root of a lot of the problems. These are harmful substances, I think there's sort of a touching view in some quarters that, um, what the government says to people is going to make any real difference at all to whether they like to imbibe certain intoxicants. I think that's naive and it's false. People are going to do these things. What is under our control is whether we are driving people to very, very harmful substances, which is more likely under any form of prohibition, as we saw with prohibition of alcohol. People went from drinking wine and beer to consuming, you know, hard spirits that were made in all sorts of dodgy circumstances and caused harm. And we're seeing the same thing with drugs, because when it's illegal, you have to make it more potent, you have to make it more portable. So, and with synthetics, of course, we've got people who are completely unregulated who are, it's not any form of cannabis. They're just spraying poison on vegetable matter. So given the situation we're currently in, something has to be done. And it has to be better than the status quo. Tania, Helen Clark talked about women she met in Arohata prison and the fact that their first encounter with any health services is around their drug taking was in prison. Is this unusual? No, unfortunately that's not unusual. Many, many people, woman and men, who struggle with addiction. Their first experience with getting help for that addiction is when they're inside prisons. And of course, then there are a whole host of other harms that are being done by that institution that undermine the effectiveness of drug and alcohol rehabilitation. So it's a real indictment on the way that we spend money on trying to prevent people from accessing services that would actually help them. And instead we're putting tens of thousands of people in prison, not really ensuring that they get access to the kind of help they need, and further criminalizing them, removing them from all other things that might help them to work through those addiction or substance abuse issues. She's also talked about our thresholds being quite low for personal use. You become convicted as a supplier at quite a low level, would you agree with that? Yeah, absolutely. Recently JustSpeak has been working on a project where I'm telling stories of people with lived experience of the criminal justice system. And one that really stuck with me was a man named Tipene who shared his story, who talked about the five years in prison he served for cannabis. And it really spoke to how disproportionate the sentences are for a substance that comparatively does the same amount of harm as things that we regulate legally in New Zealand, like alcohol and tobacco. And how that entrenches, a: the mass-incarceration of Maori, how it entrenches other kinds of behaviours or conditions that lead people to having substance abuse or addiction issues, and penalizes them for no obvious good for the rest of the communities or our societies. So I think the system is absolutely broken. It's not helping anyone. And we can see with the examples that Helen Clark brought up about many other countries who have encountered these problems. There is a better way. And it does apply to New Zealand as well. Peter, if cannabis is legalised in, there would need to be a regime in place, as Helen Clark said, to avoid commercialization. How do you stop cannabis companies from the commercial imperative to make more money? Well, I think that the model that she referred to of how we regulate tobacco, for instance, is ironically a pretty good one to look at in the context of how you might have a regulated cannabis market. So you'd have legitimate manufacturers producing a commercial product which would be sold under highly regulated circumstances, no sales to under 18s, no advertising. The same sort of restrictions we have now, paying tax to the government. Except you still see harm from regulated alcohol? Well, you do, but it's a far more manageable harm, if you like, than the totally uncontrolled situation we have at the moment. One of the big problems at the moment, and we're seeing it in the synthetic space particularly, is because these things are deemed to be not legal people are unwilling to come forward to seek help. And that's the fundamental problem. It's not about encouraging consumption, it's about getting people to get the help that they need. And the feeling at the moment is that, 'I can't do that, because I'm exposing myself to criminality.' Tanya, do you think it would work for something like synthetics and methamphetamine, to have safe consumption spaces as well? It's different from heroin, isn't it? It` I mean, I think all substances can, um` Many substances are harmful in large quantities or small quantities, it's not a question of whether a substance is harmful or not, or how harmful it is, but what is the best way to get the person the help that they need. And how do we ensure that whatever they do consume is regulated enough such that it's not gonna kill them, which is what we're seeing with some of those synthetics. So I don't think we should think that the drugs that we're dealing with are substantively different to all the other countries in the world who have started to work towards as system which is about reducing harm. I understand the concern about meth, because, you know, people have seen families really struggle with the impact that that has on them. But what we see better effects taking place is initiatives like that in Northland, where rather than penalising and punishing meth users and dealers, they go back to the people who are dealing them, and they say, 'how can we help you?' Because most of the time those people are also users. All right, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you very much for joining us. Right, National had the government under the pump over petrol prices this week with Leader Simon Bridges drawing an explosive reaction from Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. However, Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters was there to lighten the mood, taking a few shots at Mr Bridges poor polling. Here's what happened in the house. I can give this guarantee to this House and to consumers ` there will be no other regional fuel taxes while I'm Prime Minister, which at the moment feels like it might be for a while. (SIMON BRIDGES LAUGHS) Under pressure! Did she just make that undertaking on the hoof because she knows how much this is hurting Kiwis all over this country? Mr Speaker, I made that statement because that member is circulating false information. (SHOUTING, JEERING) Uh, Prime Minister, is it true that support for these policies is unwavering in contrast to Mark Mitchell overnight, 'Support for Simon is unwavering.' (LAUGHTER) SPEAKER: Order. He knew that question was out of order. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise. I'll withdraw and apologise the point of order, speaker. A point of order, Mr Speaker, we are in grave danger of losing the character of this House. If when you're given a golden goose, you cannot use it. (LAUGHTER) Order. We are in danger of losing one of the characters in the House. (LAUGHTER) That's all from Newshub Nation for this week. Thanks for watching, and we'll see you again next weekend. Captions by Elizabeth Welsh, Alex Walker 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.