Today on Newshub Nation ` is the champion of the regions overstepping and overpromising? Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones joins us live. David Seymour's End of Life Choice bill is being called 'unworkable', but can it be modified enough to appease its opponents? And we look at a successful meth addiction programme in Northland that's facing an uncertain funding future. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019 Kia ora, good morning. I'm Simon Shepherd. And I'm Tova O'Brien. Welcome to Newshub Nation. The government's ban on military-style semi-automatic weapons became law this week ` just four weeks after the Christchurch terror attack. And more details have emerged on how the gun buy-back will work. The government says it will pay for the guns and parts that are now illegal. How much that will cost still isn't known. The passing of the new law in Parliament prompted some emotional speeches. Mr Speaker, we embrace those who lost their lives in the mosques. They are us. Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Act MP, David Seymour's End of Life Choice Bill was deemed unworkable by the Justice Select Committee. It's now being referred back to Parliament for a second reading. If it gets through, David Seymour is promising changes to restrict eligibility for assisted suicide to only those with a terminal illness. And the government has rejected holding a select committee inquiring into how Pharmac buys new drugs. The opposition pushed for the inquiry, after breast cancer patients petitioned for extra drug funding. Health Minister David Clarke says Pharmac is already looking into how patients can get early access to new drugs. He's the self-styled 'Champion for the North', as he so often likes to remind us. The first citizen of the provinces, but does Shane Jones' bluster and bravado mean he gets away with far more than most other ministers? Once again, he's in hot water. Once again, he's been reprimanded by the prime minister, and once again, it's over allegations of a conflict of interest and interfering in a judicial process. Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones joins me now. Kia ora, Matua. Thank you for joining us. Minister Jones, you directly spoke to the Chief Executive of the NZ Transport Agency about its case against Stan Semenoff Logging failing to meet safety standards. A High Court case, you're a minister, you're not allowed to interfere. Why did you? No, well, the facts are being distorted by the National Party. Not once have I ever had anything to do with the prosecution decision that you refer to. Those decisions, I imagine, are made in windowless rooms by lawyers and an independent body. I have no delegations for those matters. The brief discussion I had with the acting CEO of NZTA, I'm glad to see, has been taken up now by the industry leadership. I accept, however, the cautionary words that the Prime Minister expressed with me. It is a distraction. It is very difficult to maintain the entirety of the Cabinet Manual if perceptions start to grow that a minister's interfering with a High Court case. But I've probably seen more High Court cases and, in the Maori Fisheries, funded more High Court cases than any other MP. I know exactly where the boundary line is. But you're related to the managing director of this Northland company. You once received a donation from him. What made you think it was appropriate to get involved and make that call to the NZTA CE? You see, I have not made any call to the NZTA CEO. I have raised, in Parliament, with him issues that are now actually being agreed to by the broad leadership of the industry, and people misapprehend what my role is ` My role is to isolate those issues that time to time thwart and undermine regional development. Now, try as much as the Tories might to brand me as someone breaking High Court rules, the reality is I am a feisty, earthy, industrial-grade politician. That's what the people expect of me, and when I've been around the motu, the country, over the last two weeks, not one single garden-variety Kiwi has raised this with me as being a problem. That's not necessarily on them, though, and being feisty and industrial-grade doesn't preclude you from the Cabinet Manual and interfering in judicial processes is against the Cabinet Manual. The NZTA had taken the case against Semenoff Logging. And that case is, I presume, going to continue in the High Court, and I have nothing to do with that case. I've never had anything to do with that case. They are a body that exercises statutory power, and our democracy works on the basis that when we who hold power, i.e. the officials... they're capable of looking after themselves and having their decision tested in any court. Just because I raise an issue about the essential importance of logistics, supply-chain, doesn't mean that I'm involved in a High Court case. I absolutely reject- The reason the ministers need to keep an arm's length is because of ministerial influence, so even having that conversation can be perceived as influence. So this is where, Tova, I think that you run the risk of repeating non-credible memes being driven by the National Party. I utterly reject their assertions, and the reality is that I will remain the champion of the regions. The industry love my contributions. From a party that is pro-industry, you should not expect me to shut up. Just because I say things that make the windy bureaucrats feel a bit nervous, in actual fact, that makes me more popular amongst the people who back me. Yeah, there's windy bureaucrats and then there's ministerial interference. But anyway, this isn't the first time you've been accused of this. You were also accused of interfering in legal proceedings against fishing company, Talleys. The PM hauled you over the coals for overstepping with the Serious Fraud Office investigation. You have form here. Well, I don't recall saying anything untoward about the SFO. I remember giving a general debate speech. It was enough for the Prime Minister to give you a call and to tell you not to. Yeah, I mean, the reality is that there's the role that I have as a minister, and then there's the role that I have as a politician. Look, I wouldn't read too much in it. I think that people from time to time in the media misapprehend the role that I have. In terms of any other court cases ` well, I've got nothing to say about them. The people that are embroiled in litigation, they can look after themselves. So was the Prime Minister wrong to reprimand you? No, she is totally within her rights to do what she does. I thoroughly understand the Westminster system of democracy. I've just got a very robust` and as I've said, I'm a retail politician, I'm industrial-grade and I don't care if it sounds as if I'm always leading with my chin. That is what the people who support me expect me to do. Yeah, perhaps there needs to be more of a demarcation between those two hats because former National minister, Morris Williamson, he interfered in a police case, made a call, also said he wasn't trying to influence an active police case, but he was forced to offer his resignation to the then Prime Minister and then resigned. Have you offered your resignation to the Prime Minister at any point? The difference between Morris Williamson and me is that I was an ambassador, then I became a politician. Morris was a politician, now he's an ambassador in America. He's done it the other way round. Have you offered your resignation to the Prime Minister at any point? Oh, no. Absolutely not. OK, what about ` because it looks a bit like the Prime Minister, she kind of hauls you into the office, says, 'Don't do this, Shane.' You say, 'Sure, sure, sure.' Then you walk out and perhaps do it again. Does she have any control over you? No, I take very seriously what the Prime Minister says, but the Prime Minister also realises that there has never been a consistently loud, focussed voice from the regions and the provinces. She, I believe, realises that from time to time there might be a bit of bump and grind, and she's well within her rights to caution me to ensure that I don't represent an unwelcome distraction to the overarching narrative of the government. I don't believe I do. In fact, where I go, I'm met with popular acclamation. What about Winston Peters? Has he ever chastised you or cautioned you? What happens in our caucus is tapu. That's where it stays. OK, on the provincial growth fund, how many full-time jobs has your PGF, Provincial Growth Fund, created so far? Yeah, so the most recent announcement was well over 500. The challenge that I've got is that although we've allocated $1.6 billion the pace at which the bureaucrats and officials can roll out the approval process, I can't interfere with that. I can encourage them to go quicker. I do, every week. But at the end of the day, there are strictures that they have to observe in terms of the allocation of public money. You say over 500, but the list provided by your office says that only 272 full-time jobs have been created so far. That's a long way off the 10,000 promised. Yeah, well, look, can we just deal with the 10,000? That 10,000 figure is an extraordinarily important and ambitious figure associated with the full import of the programmes, once they're up and running. And as I said to you, the Provincial Growth Fund, whilst we are allocating putea, there are other things happening in the provinces. I'm a great supporter of those other things because I'm pro-industry. I'm pro-fishing, I'm pro-dairy, and I'm pro-mining. The fact that oil and gas is actually going to get a boost down in the South Island, then they're going to find in me a great champion. Let's talk about oil and gas. Let's talk about a region that is crying out for more funding and jobs, Taranaki, thanks in large parts to your government's oil and gas ban. What responsibility does the Government ` and you, as champion of the regions ` what responsibility do you have to ensure economic stability there. Well, I don't want to go into too much detail, but in the near future there's going to be a transitional, large meeting up there. But I would say that Taranaki stakeholders, they have various proposals that they're promoting. There is a proposal doing the rounds called 8 Rivers. That's associated with storing gas in the ground, using gas for hydrogen energy. But I want to remind everyone, Tova, that when the Prime Minister made her announcement, which I supported, but we secured the ongoing existence of ongoing entitlements that are already in place. which is why I'm an enthusiast for the various mining entities, oil and gas mining down in the South Island, who are rolling out through the process that they're entitled to do. OK, so, 8 Rivers, you raise that now, you also raised that last time you were on this programme, last year. But we haven't heard much more about it, so what's happening with that? It wants 20 million from the PGF, is that right? Is it going to get that money? Yeah, well, it's just going through the process. I mean, obviously these things take a bit of time, because it is an enormously large project. I'm not the only Minister that would make that decision. And, look, I accept that when I associate myself with oil and gas industry it does lead to criticism. And you mentioned Greenpeace, well, you mentioned the accusations that Greenpeace made against me about a fishing court case. I've got no time for their lime-coloured righteousness. And if people in the South Island are allowed to use their rights to explore and develop oil and gas, I know the South Island people want that to happen. And before Greenpeace lecture me about that, they can explain to New Zealand why their boat has been under investigation for polluting the Bluff harbour. Greenpeace aside, what about Labour and the Greens. What do they think about what you're saying today? No, they know, the Prime Minister knows that when we made our announcement, no more fresh mining applications offshore. We did, however, retain the ability of International and Domestic firms to use their current entitlements. Which means 8 Rivers could go ahead, cos they` Well, they would need to go through a statutory consent process, but the point I'm making` With the help of your $20 million dollars from the PGF? Well, we don't know what the amount of putea is. But there is going to be some? Let's not taint the process, allow them to go through the process. Ministers will make a decision, yea or nay. But the point that I'm making ` I can't fund, and we don't fund everything that happens in provinces. We make decisions that have impacts. An impact that was made from our oil and gas decision is people are legally allowed to continue to explore and invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the South Island. So, 8 Rivers, for those who don't know, is a development project that would create hydrogen, urea, electricity using natural gasses. So, that's controversial within your Government. How much biffo is going on behind the scenes between you and David Parker, say? Oh, no, David Parker is a very good friend of mine. Although as Attorney General, he has been known from time to time to warn me to be very conscious of the blurry lines between my writ as the champion of the provinces and other legal obligations. OK, let's move on to Westland Milk. Chinese Company Yili is buying Westland Milk for nearly $600 million dollars, $588 million dollars. Are you comfortable with China buying such a significant New Zealand dairy asset? Well, in phase two of the overseas investment rules that David Parker is leading, he is going out to consult whether there should be criteria for a test of national significance, not necessarily for land, but for strategic industries. Is that a 'no'? No, what I'm saying is that I don't want to say anything that taints the ability of the Mongolian milk company to acquire whatever consents that they might have. Well, one of your colleagues, Mark Patterson, has said that it's an erosion of New Zealand control in our significant dairying assets. Do you agree with him? Well, you're talking to me as a Minister of the Crown. And I feel like I have an obligation` Sometimes it's hard to differentiate. Yeah, fair point. But please listen with your taringas. I don't want to taint whatever process the Mongolian milk company is going through. Mark is a dearly loved colleague of mine, I thoroughly understand his anxieties, but people are playing by the rules. And the rules at the moment allow them to proceed. I'm disappointed with the ineptitude and how absolutely useless the directors of New Zealand's second-largest dairy co-op are, but that's not the problem of the Mongolians. That's the problem of how useless those directors are. The $10 million that the Provincial Growth Fund loaned Westland Milk, was that an attempt to stave off an offshore purchase like this? Well, I must be very honest, I had no idea that the directors had only one plan in mind, and they never ever shared that with me that they were preparing the company for sale via Macquaries, I think those are their advisors. So we put a caveat on that $10 million dollars in the event that there was a change of ownership, then the deal would vaporise. Now it's been suspended. And it's not the only time you've offered a loan through the PGF. You also gave Oceania Marine in Whangarei a $4.8 million dollar loan. Is the Government becoming a lender of last resort? Well, look, the policy underlying the Provincial Growth Fund is imaginative. It is bold. And, look, I accept that it inverts what used to happen. And I realise there are risks in doing that. But if there is a genuine case of market failure, then we have the criteria, endorsed by Cabinet, for the four ministers to proceed in that direction. Now, I know I'm attacked by the National Party for doing this, but I'm reminded of that great saying which I'll adapt from my Grandmother, that, you know, if the Epsom cat wants to eat fine fish, then he's got to get his feet wet. OK, let's move on to the capital gains tax, an announcement is going to be made very soon by your Government. Are you happy with where the Government has settled? So, there's various ways that I could be sacked. One of them that will definitely get me sacked by the end of this programme is if I offer any view whatsoever in terms of what lies exclusively in the province of my Leader and Prime Minister. Yes, but as the much-lauded, by your good self, champion of the regions, that includes farmers and regional businesses, can you give them assurances that they're not going to be stung by a capital gains tax? Well, in the near future, all I would say is that to the folk who have dirty boots and hard-working calloused hands, watch this space. Sounds like New Zealand First got a win, and perhaps the tail is indeed wagging the dog. It was Winston Peters birthday this week, 74-years-old, what did you get him? Every time I go overseas I bring a gift back for my rangatira, and that gift is the subject of great privacy between him and I. But we shared a day yesterday in Whangarei, and although the announcements were relatively modest, it's always a pleasure to be with, yeah, the rangatira of New Zealand First. What about the gift of succession? Who would win in a leadership fight between Shane Jones, Ron Mark and Fletcher Tabuteau, say? Right, well, I don't think we should contemplate a future at all without our leader, Winston Peters. And when I had the opportunity, Tova, to come back into politics, I wanted to demonstrate that the provinces would have a champion, and that champion doesn't need to hanker after anything else. Yeah, that's not a no. Thank you very much for joining us, kia ora, Matua Shane. 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 Eric Crampton and Deborah Morris-Travers. They're using the hashtag ` NationNZ. Or you can email us at nation@mediaworks.co.nz. The address is on your screen now. Still to come ` we dissect the week's poitical news with our panel. Plus, brexit has had a flextension. We try an decipher what it all means with a British brexpert. Welcome back. I'm joined now by our panel, Marg Joiner, Tim McCready and Ella Henry. Thank you so much for joining us this morning. Ella, do you think that Shane Jones is backing away or showing any signs of contrition about crossing the lines when it comes to judicial matters? I'm not sure I could ever use the terms 'contrition' and 'Shane Jones' in the same sentence on any matter, so perhaps no. No? I think he argued his case, whether or not anyone else agrees with him. He feels very comfortable that he hasn't crossed any boundaries. And, you know, I too have just returned from the regions after a few days in the Far North, and I have to say that that was not on anyone's lips north of Whangarei. That seems to be a point that he makes, doesn't it, Marg? Yeah, and I completely tautoko what Ella said there. I think some commentators have already said there's a couple of audiences here looking at this probity issues. And there's the Beltway, that's informed and are exercised about it, and then you have the audience out and the voter, which is the audience that Shane Jones is working to appeal to, and they won't have the same concerns. But I wonder if that's because he's not being disciplined, you know, publicly, which he should be. The Prime Minister has come out and said, you know, 'You shouldn't have stepped into that NZTA case.' I think she's cautioned him about using parliamentary privilege recently for speaking out against a journalist that he disagreed with. But we're not really seeing that level of discipline that I think, probably, the Prime Minister, as the leader of the Cabinet ministers, should be doing. And why are we not seeing that level of discipline? Well, it's a good question. And I think a lot of commentators say that it's,... you know, the coalition creates a bit of a challenge for the Prime Minister, and it's Winston Peters' problem to deal with. But I think that that's not really acceptable. Well, I think it's Shane Jones' issue. He's a seasoned politician. I think both the Prime Minister and Winston Peters are leaving him to it. But what about come election times, Ella? Does Shane Jones need to reign it in to get alongside what is a very popular Prime Minister at the moment? I think that ` and I can only speak as somebody who is a Maori from the Far North who's engaged in looking at regional development ` that where Shane's credibility for those Maori in the Far North lies around his delivery of economic development opportunities rather than the politics of Wellington. And Wellington is a very, very long way away from the Far North, so I can only talk about that. I don't know what they're talking about in other parts of the country. You know, the provincial growth fund is much loved; regional developments is much loved; and by association, the politics are politics. He speaks to his voters, right? Yeah. He's speaking to his constituency. He's playing by his rules, and they're not what you'd expect, and he's very comfortable doing that, and I think there will be a lot of voters who are very comfortable with him playing by those rules. There's no chance of him ever offering his resignation over something like this, is there? I wouldn't say so. So, we talk about the PGF and how he's popular in the regions. He's up there all the time. 500 jobs he says have been created after $1.6 billion. Is that good enough, Tim? Well, I mean, as he said, these things take a little while to roll out, and I think, you know, when you do spend time in the regions, you really do see how needed this is and how much of an impact the Provincial Growth Fund can have. So it is a bit of a shame, I think, that we often do get distracted by, you know, what conflict of interest Shane's running up against now rather than, maybe, looking at what some of these things that, actually, the Provincial Growth Fund could do for the country. OK. He seemed to be quite keen to say that he was pro-mining in that interview. What do you take from that, Marg? Yeah, again, I think I'd come back to him playing by his rules, and he's speaking to his voters, and there's a big chunk of voters out there that would be very comfortable with the way he's playing this game. OK. ELLA: Well... Sorry, Ella? No. LAUGHS: OK. I thought you were just going to jump in there. So, but... Particularly in the South Island` So, he's trapped a little bit in terms of, you know, future oil and gas exploration. He can't get behind something overtly like 8 Rivers, which has been proposed for Taranaki. So he's choosing extension of permits down in the South Island to market himself that way. Well, and the reality is, you know, we're a tiny` we're a couple of islands in the middle of the Pacific, or the bottom end of the Pacific. I mean, we have to be very proactive about economic development, and... I come from a very green background ` I'm totally opposed to more oil mining in the country ` but I do understand that we're going to have to get creative as a nation around power and energy, whether it's solar or wind or whatever other kinds of things we can mine from, because` So, you know, every politician who thinks like Shane does is going to be saying the same thing ` 'Let's keep looking.' And I don't think that's a bad thing, necessarily. If we have an open mind about what we're going to be doing and exploring, I guess... every political party has to have a stand on that perspective. Mm. Can I just to Westland Milk? Westland Milk was going to get a $10 million loan from the Provincial Growth Fund. It's now in the process of being sold to overseas company from Mongolia. Now, Shane Jones kept going on about the Mongolian company. What, Marg, would we take from that kind of language? Well, I think... What's the quote? 'There's only one thing worse that being talked about, and that's not being talked about,' so I think his language is very intentional in terms of staying relevant, staying in the headlines. And it is, as it's been said, the 'year of delivery', and there will be a lot of parties coming up, working to differentiate themselves, and Shane Jones is clearly doing that. Why is he emphasising Mongolia, do you think, Tim? Well, what is he not emphasising by saying that, I guess? I mean, it's a Chinese-owned firm,... Mm. ...and I` Yeah, I don't know why he's... (CHUCKLES) Is he walking a diplomatic tightrope there? Because, you know, his colleague doesn't like the idea, but he's part of the government, so he has to. Yeah, I think so. I think so. And the thing about this Provincial Growth Fund that I think a lot of people agree with is that there is a real role for those infrastructure investments, but some of these private` where that loan starts to cause issues is... You know, it's a loan into a private business, and there's a lot of questions around whether or not our tax dollars should be going forward for something that should be done, you know, as a business. OK, just quickly ` the Champion of the Regions was very circumspect about giving any pronouncement about the capital gains tax, but was there an indication of a win for businesses and farmers there, Ella? Oh. I mean, the CGT ` you know, the parlance around the CGT, the conversation, the dialogue... I mean, I'm a fan of-of... taxing, you know, profiteering. But I know that this is a debate that's still ongoing, and I guess he was as circumspect as you need to be at the moment, because it's still hanging in the air about what the implications are for business. He said he didn't want to get sacked. (CHUCKLES) He doesn't. (LAUGHTER) Who does? And it's that sensitive, I guess. Mm-hm. Yeah. All right. Thank you very much for your time, Marg, Tim and Ella. Of course. Britain avoided crashing out of Europe this week after the EU granted the UK another extension. It now has until October the 31st, Halloween, to come up with a plan. Europe corresponded Lloyd Burr asked Professor Anan Menon from King's College London why Europe agreed to extend the deadline. Well, they need it, because we haven't come to a decision about what we want, quite simply. Parliament has passed a series of votes rejecting every single option on the table ` May's deal, no deal, a referendum, a customs union, a single market ` and if we hadn't had that delay yesterday, we would be hurtling towards a cliff edge tomorrow and leaving with no deal at all, and neither we nor the European Union wanted that. Is there a particular sticking point ` for example, the idea of a customs border between Northern Ireland and the republic of Ireland? There are lots of sticking points. That's the problem. And in a sense, the difficulty facing the Prime Minister is if she makes a compromise one way ` so if she says to the Labour Party, 'Look, we'll have a customs union, which is what you want; that should be fine,' she risks losing as many votes from her own side as she gains from the Labour side. It's a bit like a political Rubik's cube that the Prime Minister's going to have to struggle with, and it's very, very hard getting all the sides aligned at the same time. In fact, I'm starting to wonder whether it's a Rubik's cube with some pieces missing, because actually, a solution is proving very, very hard to find. Do you think the British voters, when they voted to leave, do you think they thought it would be this hard? No, because, I think... For several reasons. One, because the Brits have never really got what the European Union is; two, because the Leave campaign made it sound simple ` as, indeed, they would; and three, because it has been more difficult than it needed to be, if only because we've had a weak Prime Minister with no majority since 2017, and that has made the process a lot messier than it otherwise would have been. So, the EU has elections in May, and under this new timeframe, this new extension, it means that Britain's going to have to contest those elections even though they don't want to be in Europe. Do you think Britain would agree to that? Well, the bottom line is the European Union has made it very clear ` either you participate in those elections if you're still a member on the 23rd of March, or you'll leave with no deal. The fear on the EU side is if we remain in and we don't have those elections, and then we decide at the last minute, 'Actually, we've changed our minds; we're not leaving,' it casts into doubt the legality of the European parliament, because we Brits won't have voted for our MEPs. So they're saying, 'If you're staying in after the 23rd of May, you have to have those elections.' Prime Minister Theresa May, she's failed to get her deal through three times. Yeah. Do you think she's going to be able to get it through a fourth time, or at least get a deal through? Well, look, this is where it gets messy. There are two bits to her deal. There's something called a withdrawal agreement, which deals with the loose ends of the past of membership; and then there's a political declaration, which is about the future. Whatever deal we strike with the European Union, we have to sign the first one, so that's a constant in all of this. What she's talking to the Labour party about is whether she can change the second one to try and make the future relationship look a bit different to how it looks now. A lot will hinge on how those negotiations go. If they can come to a compromise, that compromise will come back to Parliament and will probably pass. If they can't come to a compromise, then I suspect that she'll still try and bring her deal back to Parliament and say to the Brexiters in her party, 'Look, I warned you ` Brexit is slipping out of your grasp. 'If you don't vote for this now, there's a danger that the October extension gets extended again, 'we have a referendum and we stay in, so it's now or never if you want Brexit.' Now, Theresa May as Prime Minister ` she's survived so many coups, and so many people have tried to oust her, but she's still hanging on. How long do you think she can hang on for? Well, I think the one thing that has become abundantly clear about Theresa May is she's not a quitter. She will hang on against the odds, she will defy the pundits, and, you know, most people thought she would have been gone long before now. If a large part of her Cabinet were to turn round to her ` which is quite possible in the next few weeks ` and say, 'Look, Prime Minister, it's been great; we don't think you should lead us any more,' I don't see how she possibly stays on. So it is quite possible we will be in Tory leadership territory over the next few weeks. Are you surprised she's hung on this long? I'm surprised in the sense that it shows an enormous amount of doggedness, because there have been several moments during the last three or four years where I've thought, 'God, if I were in your shoes, I'd just give up. 'This is a miserable job that you've got.' And, you know, we shouldn't forget that one of the reasons, at least, why she's doing this is she has a real sense of duty about her. She wants to get this over the line because she believes that is her duty to the country. Is there Brexit fatigue with the general public? Are they sick of this? It's interesting. Yes, there is a real sense of Brexit fatigue. There's also a sense of Brexit obsession. If you talk to people who work for the newspapers here, they'll say their postbags are full of letters saying, 'Oh, God, stop writing about Brexit,' and yet if you put Brexit in a headline, it's the most clicked-on article of the day. So there's that` It's almost like an addiction in that sense. But I think what Brexit has done to the British people is twofold. One ` the division, Leave/Remain, has become the new tribal division in our politics. More people identify as Leave or Remain than identify as Labour or Conservative, and there's some scary polling out there showing that both sides are immensely hostile towards the other, so Britain is divided. On the other hand ` and ironically and rather sadly ` the one thing that the Brits now agree on is that their politicians are letting them down. 80-plus per cent of British people think Parliament is failing them, politicians aren't up to the task. So that is one of the sad consequences of this sorry saga. So, finally, in your opinion, will Brexit ever happen? There's a question. I simply do not know at this point whether Brexit will happen or not. I usually end an interview like this by saying, 'If you forced me to bet, I would probably say it would,' but I think that's slightly changed as a result of the summit. Now I think it's 50/50. Wow. Up next ` as the End of Life Choice Bill approaches its second reading, ACT MP David Seymour and Care Alliance's Peter Thirkell debate its future. Plus ` why a successful programme treating meth addiction in Northland is struggling to secure funding. Welcome back. The Euthanasia debate is gaining momentum as the End of Life Choice Bill approaches its second reading in Parliament next month. The author of the controversial bill, ACT MP David Seymour, is planning three changes, including limiting it to those with a terminal illness, but will they be enough to sway its opponents? David joins me now, along with Peter Thirkell from anti-euthanasia group Care Alliance. Thanks for your time this morning. To you first, David Seymour. The justice select committee process had nearly 40,000 submissions. Do you accept there are flaws in your bill? No, I don't. You know, the bill was examined by the select committee. They've come back with a number of minor and technical changes to make sure that the way that it's written aligns with its intention, and that's what should happen. That's why we send bills to select committees, so I'm very pleased. Yeah, but surely, there are flaws. There are flaws, because you're proposing changes to them. No. Just because you want to make something better doesn't mean that it's flawed. I think the major change that's occurred and the major change that I'm now proposing is that it's become clear from listening to people, including the public and also my fellow members of parliament, that there is not support for a bill that is for people who don't have a terminal prognosis within six months. So that's an easy fix. That was already one of the criteria ` was people who are terminal within six months would be able to access the bill if they so choose. We simply narrow it and make it only that, and that's the law-making process. That's listening, that's changing, that's improving, and that's getting a bill passed that everybody's happy with. So, Peter, how do you feel about those changes that are being proposed? Well, the bill that's going to the parliament for the second reading is in fact in its present form. So David has indicated some changes he has in mind, but that's all they are. The present bill is the present bill. And as you alluded to, 40,000 New Zealanders wrote in expressing concerns. A lot of expert evidence. 90% of the submissions were opposed. But importantly, within that, there were sub-groups like doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals ` groups, peak medical organisations and such. So a lot of expert evidence, and there isn't one sub-group constituency within the submissions that supports this bill. What I would say to that figure of 40,000 and your analysis saying 90% was against the bill is that outside of the select committee process, there's been a lot of polls which seem to indicate that the public is in favour of some form of assisted dying. Well, polls are fairly whimsical things. They tend to be single-question things. They're usually framed in a way` They use soft language like 'assisted dying', 'with the approval and assistance of the doctor', and, you know, 'given certain safeguards'. That really doesn't carry the weight of expert evidence. There were 54,000 pages of evidence that went to the select committee. Over 600 doctors wrote in, and 93% of them were opposed; 800 nurses, 93% opposed. So almost 2000 medical professionals, and 94% of them were opposed, so these are the experts that are speaking out on the bill. OK. So, David Seymour, what do you say to that? Well, first of all, the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders don't make submissions to the select committee. That's their choice. It doesn't mean that their views are less valid. The same with nurses, the same with doctors. And I think Dr Thirkell needs to ask himself, as do most people that oppose this bill, why it is that over 20 years New Zealanders have consistently said ` and this is according to polling companies, such as Reid Research, that Newshub relies on; polling companies that predicted the last election to within 1% ` not that I was happy about that, but they're good, and they're accurate ` 70%, 75% of New Zealanders consistently say that they want choice in this area, and I would give two-word answer to why that is. Life experience. Because New Zealanders have seen bad death, and they've said, 'If my time comes, I'm in a position where palliative care can't help me,' and for some people, that is a reality, as it's widely accepted, 'then I want to be able to choose. It's my life. It's my right. 'It's my choice to be able to choose how I go and when I go, 'not to suffer, writhing in agony, to satisfy somebody else's idea of what a good death is.' I just want to pick up on something that Peter Thirkell has said, about medical professions submitting to the select committee process. One of the issues is that even the medical associations express concern about the reliability of predicting how long someone will live. So they may fall into the eligibility and have a timeframe of six months, and it gets turned on its head. So, I mean, what's an acceptable level of error there? Well, they're` Well` David first. Can we actually just go back to the fact that this is a choice? It's your life; it's your choice; it's your right. So, yes, it is true that new treatments come along. It is true that people will bad prognoses make miraculous recoveries, and everybody who wants to choose this bill has to weigh that up. But what is not right is that people who don't have that kind of fortune have to suffer just in case. This is about a personal choice. It's not about imposing one person's morality on everybody else. So is that what you're saying, that Peter's imposing his morality on everybody else? Well, if you accept that this bill is safe, and that is the position of the Supreme Court of Canada, it's the position of the Attorney General` That is highly contested. Well, no. That is unsafe. Based on overseas evidence, people who are vulnerable are at risk. OK, gentlemen. Let's just pause there. SEYMOUR: Which one of us would you like to answer the question? I'd like to ask Peter a question. What about choice, as David is saying? Well, choices have consequences, and the harsh consequence of this bill is that a medical practitioner, a doctor, has to take a lethal injection and put it into a patient and end their life. Although, it is not a choice for the person alone. By definition, it implicates someone else. If you create a moral opportunity for someone to elect to die, then you create a moral duty for someone to actually carry that out. You can't act alone, and` Well, with the greatest of respect` ...therein lies the rub. The bill is incredibly clear. Nobody has to do anything they don't want to do. If you're a doctor and you want nothing to do with this, then you can conscientiously object. Now, I'd just like to come back to the evidence about doctors ` the New Zealand Medical Association's done a survey ` almost 40% of doctors are in favour. Two thirds of nurses are in favour. Well, I contest that. Well, OK. People can look it up for themselves on the internet. All right. We'll let people` That's what the data is. The NZMA says this is an unethical practice and will remain unethical even if the law passes. What the Parliament is at risk of doing is imposing on the medical profession an unethical practice. Well, the Canadian Medical Association has just elected a doctor who is in favour of their legislation. That's Canada. We're talking about New Zealand. There are lots of problems in Canada. Can I ask something about Canada? You've brought Canada up. Now, Canada ` one of the major concerns about enacting this kind of legislation is whether it's going to be a gateway or a slippery slope to people like minors or people with disabilities or who have a mental illness being able to access this. Now, that's not allowed under the bill at the moment, but is that a possibility? That's one of the concerns, isn't it, David? Well, no, it's not. Frankly, it's one of the weakest arguments that people make. But Canada's looking at that right now. There are over 2000 submissions. When the Canadians passed their law, they passed a law that said, 'In a couple of years, Parliament must review the law.' My bill does the same thing. That's right, and that's democratic. You've now got people submitting and saying, 'Well, maybe it should change this way, maybe it should change that.' So that's a possibility. But to say because somebody in Canada has raised the possibility is a bit like a Canadian saying, 'Well, I've read the ACT Party website, 'and New Zealand's about to get a flat tax.' The fact that some Canadian says it doesn't mean that Canada's going to do it. It sounds like, Peter, you say that more than just 'somebody says it'. You say it's overwhelming. Is it? Yeah, well, just on this issue alone, there were over 2000 submissions from those who were opposed, and we had Dr. Leonie Herx out last week ` a palliative care physician from Canada ` on the ground. She says we paint a rosy picture. It was the same in Canada two and a half years ago, but actually, the ground has shifted. It's become normalised. They are already talking about broadening the criteria. It is simply unstoppable, and she says it's not actually a slippery slope ` it is a logical progression. You open the door, you let the genie out of the bottle, you can't complain. I'm not sure that one avowedly spiritually-motivated Canadian doctor speaks for the country, but there you go. Okay, and one last quick question, Peter, even if this bill's not successful, the fact that it's got this far, does it indicate a public shift on this issue? No, I think, again, I come back to the submissions. It's all very well to talk about polls, they're whimsical, they're not informed. Well... There's a huge amount of expert evidence and evidence from the public saying, 'Please don't do this.' It puts vulnerable people at risk, it disrupts the doctor-patient relationship and requires them to participate in a system that would be unethical. The overseas experience certainly is not reassuring. Well, Simon, if I can come in on that. Simon` And palliative care is another alternative. We'd be much better to put our energies into that life-affirming` Simon, ...it's widely accepted that palliative care is great, but it does not work for everyone. There are many countries that have considered these laws,... It's not widely accepted. ...and they have not voted them in, because the lawmakers were spooked and fear-mongered by the kind of arguments we've heard this morning. It's not fearmongering; it's evidence. But of those countries that have put an assisted dying law in place, none of them have gone back. And that tells you the reality is far better than the rhetoric you hear. Well, we're going to continue this debate as the bill goes towards its second reading. David Seymour, thank you for your time. Thank you. Peter Thirkell, thank you. Thank you, Simon. Appreciate it. Up next ` reporter Mitch McCann looks into a successful programme treating meth addiction in Whangarei. Plus ` there were emotional scenes in Parliament this week as gun law amendments were passed. We look at what happened in the House. Police in the region even set up a special unit to deal with the crisis. But there is now a glimmer of hope offered by a new programme called Te Ara Oranga. It's producing some encouraging results, but it's future is far from guaranteed. Here's Mitch McCann. In his own words, Dobson Abraham's life has been a rollercoaster. Orphaned at 10, by 14 he was on drugs and into gangs. At 17, he was introduced to meth. Wasn't until 1997, when I tried methamphetamine, and from then I was just hooked. He remembers that first time, and from there, it all changed. It was that much of a rush that I could actually hear fireworks going off, off in my head. What started off as one gram a day to get a hit, turned into three or four, even seven grams. For the next 22 years he smoked, sold and supplied to poor men and businessmen. The hit was truly a power trip. I loved smoking it. I loved the money side of things. I was dealing for a while. Um, yeah, just the power that come with it. Two years ago, he hit rock bottom. He was sick of jail, sick of the craving and sick of the impact meth was having on his family. I actually hit rock bottom a few times. But it was this last time that I thought to myself, 'Man, this life isn't for me.' Dobson started to pull his life back together. He resisted the cravings, and started searching for a job. He found one with the help of Te Ara Oranga, Northland's pilot methamphetamine reduction programme. Million times better. They, um, (TUTS, SIGHS) Yeah, they the heart. Heart is, um... is where it should be now. Not everyone has been as successful as Dobson. Northland's meth problem is one of New Zealand's worst. Wastewater testing in recent years has shown population meth use has been 4x higher than Christchurch, and three times higher than Auckland. The market here is worth around $14m annually, according to police. And since October 2017, that is what Te Ara Oranga has been dealing with. The programme is a little different to others around the country. It sees DHBs, NGOs, police and social workers all come together. It's real point of difference is how people can seek help, and how fast it operates. And, so far, it's working. Just in the last four weeks we had 44 referrals into treatment. If police identify a meth user, it can refer them to the programme rather than arresting them. That bypasses the courts and speeds up the treatment. Doctors, DHBs and NGOs can refer as well. Wait-times for rehab programmes are cut from weeks and months to just days. We would attempt to contact you within 24-48 hours. We would offer to do an assessment, and treatment options. Te Aro Oranga has also hired what it calls Pou Whanau Connectors. These are locals whose entire job it is to get meth users the help that they need. For Project Manager, Jewel Reti, it's been a rewarding few years. When a whanau member or a parent makes the changes to help their own family. So, I think it's not just about the person, but about their whanau member. And when people stop using and make those positive changes that are sustainable, you know, it's endless. In less than two years, Te Ara Oranga has referred 803 people on to health clinicians who deal with meth addiction. 305 of those were referred by police, something that wasn't being done before the programme existed. The DHB has screened more than 4000 people in Emergency Departments for meth use. Meanwhile, 88 people have been helped to find new jobs or keep their current ones. Statistics and first-hand accounts would suggest Te Ara Oranga is working here in Northland, but could a similar programme work in other parts of the country devastated by Methamphetamine? One regain encouraged by Northland's success is the east coast. Gisborne is another city battling this problem. Oh, it's pretty crippling in Te Tai Rawhiti. We've just got so much violence going down, it's been getting worse over the last few years, actually. Tuta Ngarimu works at charitable trust Ka Pai Kaiti. He's researched Te Ara Oranga, and would like to see an East Coast version. I think that's a great idea. That's a community initiative that came from the community, and they've managed to flesh out all the problems that they're having up there, and come up with this programme, which I think is great. And that idea has merit, according to the New Zealand drug foundation boss Ross Bell. He says small towns are being crippled by meth. This model, successful in Northland, would equally be successful in the East Cape part of the North Island, in Taranaki, in the West Coast, in Southland, in provincial New Zealand, that is currently being challenged with issues around methamphetamine. But there's one challenge that stands in the way of any national rollout. It's the same one that could see the end of the programme in Northland ` money. Despite encouraging results so-far, Te Ara Oranga has only had its funding extended until this December. That's created a whole lot of uncertainty around what happens after then. In October 2017, Te Ara Oranga was given a one year $3 million grant to establish the service from the Proceeds of Crime Fund. A year later, they received another million dollars from the Ministry of Health. In March this year, the Ministry funded it for six more months. After that ` well, who knows? I think it's ridiculous that these really great projects are treated as pilots, short-term pilots that never become sustainable. We never keep them going. This has already proved successful in a short amount of time. Social workers and NGOs have no way of knowing if they will have jobs come next year. For recovering meth users, that assurance of ongoing help can be critical. Health Minister David Clarke wasn't available to appear on camera, his office told Newshub Nation he won't comment on funding with the budget so close. In a statement, though, he says ` He says when the government has revealed it's response to the Mental Health and Addiction Inquiry... One person hoping Te Ara Oranga continues is Detective Sergeant Renee O'Connell. She leads Northland's dedicated Meth harm unit. Normally, we were seeing mainly 20-year-olds and over, but there are definitely younger and younger children experimenting and using meth regularly, which is a real concern. Renee's team has been a big part of Te Ara Oranga. She wants people to know that despite a health-based approach, Police are still enforcing the law. In its first six months, the programme saw dozens of arrests and firearm seizures for more serious offenders. O'Connell says continued funding is critical. It's a point of difference for what we're able to offer. The Pou Whanau Connector role, the Alcohol and Drug Educator role, the Employment Specialist are just some that, without the funding, I'm not too sure what would happen with those roles. It's important to people like Dobson too, who says Te Ara Oranga helped him into work, and get his life back. He now has a message for those wanting the success he has seen. People will get trapped in a hole. And they think themselves that deep that they think there's no way out. There's always a way out. Stay with us, we're back after the break. Welcome back, and we're back with our panel. Marg Joiner, Tim McCready and Ella Henry. So, on the euthanasia debate, Tim, is it starting to look like David Seymour's End of Life Choice Bill is too flawed to get passed? Oh, I don't think so. I think he's taken some careful steps, there, to make sure that it does get through. But I think the one thing that we did see from that really feisty debate, there, is just how personal this is going to become. You know, I think everyone has their own story with end of life. I think... even just this week we saw Paula Bennet come out and talk about her experience working in a rest home ` how she was working with people as they're approaching the end of their life. And she's come out in full support for this. I think we're going to start to see that more and more as the weeks, months and potentially year goes on. He's suggesting some major changes, isn't he, Marg? Did you think that's going to help get it through that second reading? Yeah, perhaps. I think the most critical thing here is that, as a society, and our parliamentarians have all the facts to debate this. As Tim says, it is a really personal issue. It's also a hugely complex one. And a really difficult one. So it's really important that we have all the facts in that debate. Ella, the fact that we've got this far in the debate this time around, do you think it indicates a shift in public opinion? I do, and I have to say from the outset that I support the idea of having a choice, just as I did 30 years ago when we were having this exact same debate about abortion reform. That women have a right to a choice ` and back then the dilemma was that, you know, 'This is going to turn the women of New Zealand into tarts because they've got access.' And so that didn't happen. In fact, millennials are far more conservative. I think that I'm proud to live in a country where we're having the debate, and where we may actually be able to, as I plummet towards my dotage, (LAUGHS) ...have a choice ` a dignified choice, if I can. Are you prepared to see more of that, kind of, feistiness that we just saw in that kind of debate, Marg? In the debate in Parliament or` No, in the debate just then. The debate just then and in society. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think we need it. That's about having a really well-informed debate. The more informed it is, the more feisty, perhaps. OK, can we just move on to our safety as a country. Now we've got ANZAC day ceremony coming up. In Auckland, 58 services have been cancelled for, maybe perhaps, because of fears of public safety. Should we have done that, Tim? Well, I think our terrorism threat level at the moment is still currently at high. The police have put out this notice that public safety is of the most importance. So I think consolidating services is something that this year we just have to really accept, and I know that Simon Bridges and a lot of the opposition are saying, 'You know, that this isn't good enough.' But, you know, I think these are exceptional circumstances. And, as sad as it us, I really think that we're just` But haven't we seen that other countries when they respond to such attacks, they say, 'It's not going to change us. It's going to be business as usual.' Ella, should we have done that? I actually love the fact that as a nation, we've started to ask ourselves, 'How do we change?' 'How do we create legislation that makes it harder to get ahold of guns?' 'How do we unite around the diverse populations in our community?' I love that about our country, and I'm proud of the fact that we're saying to ourselves, 'How can we be better?' 'How can we change?' And if that means we have more` I mean, I did not realise there were more than 58 ANZAC ceremonies in Auckland. I must- I go to the Point Chev one. Eh, you know? (LAUGHS) It's always great and grand. So if we consolidate, if we stand together a more united, centralised ANZAC ceremony, that's to me, a good thing. But, Marg, is there a sense that maybe someone who commits a heinous act like this is winning if we are reacting that way and changing what we normally hold. Yeah, look, I don't think these decisions are made lightly, and the people who make them do have all the information and expertise to make them, so I trust those people that have made that decision. As Ella said, people commemorate it in all different ways, and that won't change. And so, you've got plans for ANZAC? You'll just go to your normal one in Point Chev? Yeah, they always have a fine old nosh up afterwards, and a great catch-up with the girl guides and the brownies. And nobody here has any fears about their security for attending those kinds of services? No, I think the police are doing what they have to do, and things ultimately, next year, will hopefully return to normality. But just something we've got to have this year. OK. Let's look after each other, and let's remember what ANZAC is about ` is about commemorating those people we lost in our whanau and our communities. OK. Ella, thank you very much. Tim McCready, thank you very much, and, Marg Joiner, thank you. There was a rare show of unity in the house this week, as the government's gun control reform bill passed its third reading with overwhelming support. Prime Minister Jacinda Adern praised the National Party for its cooperation and held back tears as she remembered the victims of the Christchurch terror attack. We are here because of the victims and families, and I have to reflect, Mr Speaker, that when I visited the hospitals and the victims, that none of them had just one gunshot wound. I struggled to recall any single gunshot wounds. In every case they spoke of multiple injuries, multiple debilitating injuries, that deemed it impossible for them to recover in days, let alone weeks, Mr Speaker. They will carry disabilities for a lifetime, and that's before you consider the psychological impact. We are here because of them. And I believe that they are here with us, supporting what we are doing here today as well because these weapons were designed to kill, and they were designed to maim, and that is what they did on the 15th March. That's all from us for now. I'm Tova O'Brien. And I'm Simon Shepherd. We are off next weekend. Enjoy your Easter break. Thanks for watching. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2019