CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR. WWW.ABLE.CO.NZ COPYRIGHT ABLE 2020. TENA KOUTOU, NAU MAI, HAERE MAI. WELCOME TO Q+A. I'M JACK TAME. TODAY ` TAX CUTS ARE BACK ON THE AGENDA. WE HEAR FROM PAUL GOLDSMITH AND LABOUR'S GRANT ROBERTSON, AS NATIONAL MAKES ONE OF ITS BIGGEST POLICY PLAYS OF THIS ELECTION. A PLAN THAT IS ACTUALLY ASPIRATIONAL, A PLAN THAT BACKS KIWIS AND A PLAN THAT BACKS OUR ECONOMIES. I THINK NZERS ARE GOING TO SAY THANK YOU, NATIONAL, FOR BACKING US. THEN ` SHOULD WE LEGALISE RECREATIONAL CANNABIS? WOULD A LEGAL MARKET REDUCE DRUG HARM IN AOTEAROA? A Q+A SPECIAL DEBATE. FUNDAMENTALLY, THIS IS A QUESTION ABOUT RECOGNISING THE REALITY. HAPPINESS DOESN'T COME, ACTUALLY. IN A BONG OR A BOTTLE. BUT FIRST, A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT WOULD INTRODUCE TEMPORARY INCOME TAX CUTS. ACCORDING TO THE PARTY, THE 16-MONTH CUTS WOULD COST ALMOST $5B. BUT FINANCE SPOKESPERSON PAUL GOLDSMITH HAS BACKTRACKED ON HIS PREVIOUS DEBT REDUCTION COMMITMENT, AS HE PRESENTS THE PARTY'S ECONOMIC AND FISCAL PLAN. PAUL GOLDSMITH, TENA KOE, WELCOME TO Q+A. TENA KOE. WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITH THESE INCOME TAX CUTS? LOOK, WE REALLY WANT TO GET THE ECONOMY BACK ON TRACK. WE'RE CONFIDENT ABOUT NEW ZEALAND'S ABILITY TO REBUILD AND REGAIN OUR PROSPERITY. IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF HOW QUICKLY WE DO THAT. AND WE THINK OUR PLAN WILL GET US BACK ON TRACK FASTER. AND IT'S CAREFULLY BALANCING THE NEED FOR SHORT-TERM STIMULUS, WHICH IS WHERE THE TAX CUTS COME IN, AND ALSO CONTINUING TO INVEST IN CORE PUBLIC SERVICES AND OVER THE LONGER TERM, HAVING A PATH BACK TO PRUDENT LEVELS OF DEBT. THE TAX CUTS FOR STIMULUS. SO, SOMEONE ON THE MINIMUM WAGE WILL GET ABOUT $8.10 A WEEK. SO, THAT'S LESS THAN THE PRICE OF A BLOCK OF CHEESE ` ON SPECIAL. A HIGH EARNER, SOMEONE LIKE YOU OR I, WOULD GET ABOUT $60 A WEEK. IF THIS IS ABOUT STIMULATING THE ECONOMY, WHY NOT GIVE MORE TO LOWER INCOME WORKERS, WHO ARE MORE LIKELY TO SPEND THAT MONEY? WELL, WE'RE VERY CAREFULLY TARGETED AT THE AVERAGE INCOME EARNER IN NEW ZEALAND GETS ABOUT $64,000 A YEAR. BUT WHY DO LOW INCOME EARNERS NOT GET MORE THAN SOMEONE LIKE YOU OR I, WHO HASN'T BEEN AFFECTED BY COVID-19, WHO'S EARNING A SIX-FIGURE SUM? IT'S TAX RELIEF, IT'S FOCUSED ON THAT MIDDLE INCOME EARNERS, THE NEW ZEALANDER. THE GREAT MIDDLE GROUND OF PEOPLE WHO GET UP EARLY, GO TO WORK, WORK HARD TO PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND WE THINK THEY NEED SOME IN THEIR WALLET. IT DOESN'T ANSWER ME. WHY IS SOMEONE WHO'S WORKING AT A SUPERMARKET EARNING MINIMUM WAGE, THEY GET EIGHT BUCKS A WEEK? YOU GET $60 A WEEK. DON'T ALWAYS TALK ABOUT MPS. IT'S NOT ABOUT MPS. IT'S ABOUT ON SOMEONE ON A SIX-FIGURE SALARY. SO WHY SHOULD YOU GET RELIEF OF $60 A WEEK, BECAUSE SOMEONE WHO'S WORKING IN A SUPERMARKET STACKING SHELVES GET $8 A WEEK? BECAUSE WE WANT TO GET SOME MONEY BACK INTO THE HANDS OF THE AVERAGE INCOME EARNER. THEY'RE GOING TO GET $3000 EXTRA OUT OF THIS. IT'S THEIR OWN MONEY, THAT WE'RE GONNA BE RETURNING TO THEM. AND IF THERE'S TWO OF THEM IN THE HOUSEHOLD, TWO AVERAGE INCOME EARNERS, THEY'LL GET $6000. AND WE BELIEVE THAT WILL GET MONEY THROUGH THE ECONOMY. SO LET'S JUST ASK A BASIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION. IS SOMEONE ON A LOW INCOME MORE LIKELY TO SPEND THAT MONEY THAN SOMEONE ON A HIGH INCOME? LOOK, IT'S UP TO NEW ZEALANDERS HOW THEY WANT TO SPEND THEIR MONEY. YOU'RE THE FINANCE SPOKESPERSON HERE. FROM AN ECONOMIC THEORY, IS SOMEONE ON A LOW INCOME MORE LIKELY TO SPEND A TAX CUT THAN SOMEONE ON A HIGH INCOME? WE'VE CONTINUED` LOOK, THERE'S A LOT OF EFFORT THAT GOES RIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD IN TERMS OF BENEFITS AND SUPPLEMENTARY INCOME AND ACCOMMODATION. YOU'RE NOT ANSWERING, MR GOLDSMITH. THIS IS ABOUT STIMULUS. YOU'RE NOT ANSWERING ME THIS QUESTION. IT'S ABOUT PUTTING MONEY BACK INTO THE HANDS OF KIWIS. AND IF YOU HAVE A TAX RELIEF, IT'S NATURAL THAT PEOPLE WHO PAY MORE TAX GET MORE RELIEF. BUT IT'S IMPORTANT, WE THINK, AS PART OF THE OVERALL` IT'S NATURAL? I THOUGHT STIMULUS WAS THE PLAN HERE. AND THE ECONOMISTS WE'VE SPOKEN TO SAY THAT PEOPLE ON LOWER INCOMES, IF YOU GIVE THEM A TAX BREAK FROM THE MONEY THAT YOU SAY IS THEIRS, ARE FAR MORE LIKELY TO SPEND THAT MONEY. AND THEY'LL GET SOME EXTRA MONEY. AND WE WANT TO PUT SOME EXTRA MONEY INTO THE HANDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING HARD. AND $64,000 IS THE AVERAGE INCOME IN NEW ZEALAND. AND THEY ARE THE ONES THAT WILL GET THE GREATEST PERCENTAGE BENEFIT OUT OF THIS REDUCTION. LAST MONTH YOUR LEADER SAID THAT TAX CUTS WOULDN'T BE HAPPENING. SO, WHAT HAS CHANGED HER MIND? I THINK WHAT WE SAW, PARTICULARLY WITH THE SECOND LOCKDOWN, WAS THAT WE'VE HAD GREATER JOB LOSSES. WE'VE LOST ABOUT 70,000 JOBS ALREADY SINCE MARCH, AND REAL BUSINESSES UNDER TROUBLE. AND I THINK THE REAL THING ABOUT THE SECOND LOCKDOWN IS THE IMPACT THAT IT HAD ON BUSINESS CONFIDENCE AND THE CONFIDENCE OF THE BROADER COMMUNITY. AND SO WE'VE SEEN WHEN THE PREFU FIGURES CAME OUT, THAT WAS REINFORCED THAT THE RECESSION IS GOING TO BE LONGER AND DEEPER THAN WE PREDICTED. SO WE FELT THAT THE NEED TO DO SOMETHING EXTRA. SO WE HAVE MORE OF A BLEAK OUTLOOK THAN PERHAPS WE HAD BEEN EXPECTING SIX WEEKS AGO OR TWO MONTHS AGO, AS A RESULT OF THOSE PREFU FIGURES. THAT'S RIGHT. SO THE RESPONSE, TO HELP STIMULATE THE ECONOMY, IS TO GIVE NEW ZEALAND'S HIGHEST INCOME EARNERS A TAX BREAK. WELL, THE RESPONSE IS TO GET NEW ZEALANDERS SOME MORE MONEY BACK IN THE POCKET. AND THE CONTRAST IS WITH A LABOUR GOVERNMENT THAT WANTS TO HAVE MORE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES. AND SO YOU'VE GOT A CHOICE. YOU CAN HAVE SHANE JONES AND PHIL TWYFORD DECIDING ` AND JAMES SHAW ON HIS GREEN SCHOOL ` THEY WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY, AND THEY'LL PUT IT OUT THERE, AND THEY'LL DECIDE WHERE IT GOES. WHEREAS WE HAVE A BELIEF THAT ACTUALLY NEW ZEALANDERS THEMSELVES CAN KEEP MORE OF THEIR OWN MONEY, AND THEY CAN DECIDE HOW TO SPEND IT. AND IF THEY WANT TO GO OUT AND INVEST AND SPEND ON HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM, WELL, THAT'S GOOD. BUT I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE SPENDING ON HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM IF THEY'RE GETTING $8.10 A WEEK, ARE THEY? WELL, LOOK, THE PERSON ON THE AVERAGE WAGE` HALF A BLOCK OF CHEESE. YEAH. NATIONAL PRIDES ITSELF ` IN YOUR VIEW ` ON BEING BETTER ECONOMIC MANAGERS. YOU ARE BORROWING TO PROVIDE TAX CUTS, RIGHT? SO THIS MONEY IS COMING OUT OF THE COVID FUND, WHICH HAD BEEN PUT ASIDE FOR A RAINY DAY, SHOULD WE HAVE ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT OUTBREAK OF COVID-19 IN OUR COMMUNITY. THAT IS MONEY THAT NEW ZEALAND IS BORROWING AGAINST ITS FUTURE. HOW IS THAT RESPONSIBLE? WELL, LIKE I SAY, THERE'S THIS CAREFUL BALANCE THAT WE'VE GOT ABOUT IN THE SHORT TERM, GETTING MORE MONEY INTO THE ECONOMY TO HELP IT TICKING OVER AND HELP GET THAT GROWTH BACK AND CREATE MORE JOBS. THEN, OF COURSE, YOU'VE GOT TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN CORE PUBLIC SPENDING THROUGH THIS TIME. AND YOU'LL SEE IN OUR PLAN THERE'S ROOM FOR EXTRA SPENDING EVERY YEAR. AND THEN OVER THE LONG TERM, WE HAVE TO SET A PATH BACK. AND OUR PLAN GETS US BACK TO REASONABLE LEVELS OF DEBT ` 35% OF GDP ` IN 15 YEARS, ROUGHLY, COMPARED WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S PLAN, WHICH STILL HAS IT QUITE HIGH, AT 48%. SO WE KNOW WE KNOW THIS IS AN INSIDIOUS VIRUS. WHAT HAPPENS IF WE HAVE A BIG OUTBREAK OF COVID-19 UNDER A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT? I KNOW NO ONE WANTS THAT. BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DO? BECAUSE YOU'RE EATING INTO THIS FUND TO GIVE PEOPLE TAX CUTS. IF WE HAVE ANOTHER OUT OF OUT-OF-CONTROL-SITUATION, IT'LL TAKE LONGER TO GET OUR DEBT UNDER CONTROL. AND THAT WILL BE` YOU'LL BORROW MORE? WELL, OF COURSE, IF IT'S OUT OF CONTROL. WE'VE GOT $14B` HOW MUCH MORE ARE YOU PREPARED TO`? THERE'S $14B SET ASIDE, STILL, UNDER THE COVID FUND. WE'RE GOING TO USE FIVE OF THAT FOR THE TAX CUT. SO THERE'S ANOTHER NINE BILLION SET ASIDE. HOW MUCH HAS THE WAGE SUBSIDY COST US SO FAR? WELL, THERE WAS $13B IN THE FIRST TIME ROUND, BUT THE SECOND` IF WE HAD ANOTHER OUTBREAK` THE SECOND ROUND WAS A LOT LESS EXPENSIVE. WE DON'T WANT TO BE LOCKING DOWN AGAIN. THAT'S THE LAST THING WE WANT AS A COUNTRY. I THINK WE ALL AGREE ON THAT. BUT YOU CAN SEE WHERE I'M GETTING TO HERE. IF WE HAD AN OUTBREAK OF THE SIZE OF OUR FIRST ONE ` AGAIN, WE ALL HOPE THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN ` BUT YOU'VE EATEN INTO THAT COVID FUND WITH TAX CUTS. WE'VE STILL GOT $9B LEFT IN THAT FUND, AND WE THINK WE CAN MANAGE. AND THE REAL THING ON THE BORDER IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING WHAT WE SAY WE'RE DOING ` UNLIKE THE GOVERNMENT IN SOME RESPECTS ` AND HAVING A GOOD, CLEAR PLAN TO GET THAT RESOLVED IN A TIMELY FASHION. WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO HEALTH EXPENDITURE IN NEW ZEALAND AS OUR POPULATION AGES? WELL, IT WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE. RIGHT. DOES YOUR ALLOWANCE FOR OPERATING ALLOWANCES TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT? ABSOLUTELY. OK, SO WHAT IMPACT WILL YOUR CUTS OF $50B LESS COMPARED TO A LABOUR-LED GOVERNMENT BY 2033, 2034, WHAT IMPACT WILL THEY HAVE ON THAT LEVEL OF SERVICE? LOOK, I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU'RE PICKING UP ON THE MISINFORMATION THAT'S COMING FROM GRANT ROBERTSON. I'M SURE HE'LL PASS IT ON AGAIN WHEN HE GETS A CHANCE. TOTAL MISINFORMATION. WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, IN EFFECT` SO, HOW MUCH LESS WOULD YOU PUT ASIDE, BECAUSE YOU CALL IT PAYING DOWN DEBT, WHICH IS FAIR ENOUGH. BUT YOU'RE TAKING THAT MONEY OUT OF OPERATING ALLOWANCES, WHICH IS THE NEW MONEY ASSIGNED IN A BUDGET EVERY YEAR. WHAT THEY'RE EFFECTIVELY SAYING IS UNLESS NATIONAL COMMITS TO SPEND EVERY DOLLAR THAT LABOUR INTENDS TO SPEND, WE'RE CUTTING. WELL, THAT'S NONSENSE. $50B LESS, THOUGH. BUT THIS IS TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE. STUFF COSTS MORE MONEY IN THE FUTURE. YEAH. SO WHAT THEY'VE ALLOWED IS FOR $2.4B OF EXTRA SPENDING EVERY YEAR, AND WE THINK WE'RE ALLOWING FOR $1.8B EVERY YEAR. SO WHAT IMPACT WILL THAT HAVE ON SERVICES? WELL, WE'LL BE MUCH MORE CAREFUL WITH OUR SPENDING, WHICH IS WHAT EVERY NEW ZEALANDER WOULD EXPECT. IT MEANS FEWER SERVICES, RIGHT? WELL, NOT NECESSARILY. IF YOU FOCUS ON GETTING GOOD RESULTS AND DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY AND YOU HAVE A CLEAR SENSE OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITH THAT INVESTMENT, THAT YOU CAN STILL MAKE GOOD RESULTS. WESTPAC IS FORECASTING HOUSE PRICES TO INCREASE BY 8% NEXT YEAR. A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT WOULD MOVE THE BRIGHT LINE TEST BACK TO TWO YEARS, AND YOU WOULD ALLOW INVESTORS TO RING FENCE LOSSES. WHY ARE YOU INCENTIVISING INVESTMENT IN THE HOUSING MARKET? WELL, LOOK, WE WANT... ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE SEEN, ACTUALLY, OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IS THE WAITING LIST FOR SOCIAL HOUSING INCREASED FROM 5000 PEOPLE, WHEN WE LEFT OFFICE, UP TO 18,000. OK, I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT SOCIAL HOUSING. I'M ASKING WHY YOU WOULD INCENTIVISE INVESTING IN HOUSING, WHEN ALREADY WE'RE EXPECTING AN INCREASE` BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A SHORTAGE OF RENTAL HOUSING AT THE MOMENT. AND WHAT THIS GOVERNMENT DOESN'T UNDERSTAND IS IT'S NOT COMPULSORY FOR PEOPLE TO RENT OUT THEIR HOUSES. AND IF YOU MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT AND LESS PROFITABLE AND DO A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS THAT MAKE IT A LESS ATTRACTIVE PROPOSITION, THE NATURAL OUTCOME IS PEOPLE WOULD WITHDRAW FROM THE RENTAL MARKET, AND RENTAL PRICES GO UP. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. SO WE THINK YOU'VE GOT TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE PRAGMATIC ABOUT IT. WE INTRODUCED THE BRIGHT LINE TEST, AND WE THINK TWO YEARS IS APPROPRIATE. OK. BEFORE WE GO, LET ME ASK ABOUT THE MINIMUM WAGE. WOULD YOU SCRAP THE PROPOSED INCREASE TO THE MINIMUM WAGE TO $20? YES, WE SAID WE'D DEFER THAT FOR NEXT YEAR, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO BE PUTTING MORE PRESSURE ON BUSINESSES UNDER CONTROL. AND WE'RE SEEING JUST THIS WEEKEND, LABOUR'S RESPONSE TO OUR TAX CUTS IS TO PUT MORE COSTS ON STRUGGLING BUSINESSES BY HAVING EXTENDED ARRANGEMENTS IN PLACE. AND FUNNILY ENOUGH, I GOT A LETTER FROM A CAFE OWNER THIS MORNING SAYING, 'I'M STRESSED.' THIS IS SENT TO THE PRIME MINISTER, 'YOUR GOVERNMENT IS ERRATIC. WHY DO YOU DO THIS? 'HOW DO WE EMPLOY PEOPLE, PAY PEOPLE, PROVIDE JOBS IF WE CAN'T MAKE ANY MONEY?' AND THAT IS THE THING THAT SMALL BUSINESSES ARE STRUGGLING WITH ALL THE TIME. AND EVERY WEEK THIS GOVERNMENT ADDS MORE COSTS TO THEIR BOTTOM LINE AND MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO STAY. WE WILL GET LABOUR'S FINANCE SPOKESPERSON TO REPLY TO SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS IN A MOMENT. PAUL GOLDSMITH, TENA KOE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. YES, AFTER THE BREAK, LABOUR FINANCE SPOKESPERSON GRANT ROBERTSON WILL BE HERE WITH HIS RESPONSE, AS NZ OFFICIALLY ENTERS A RECESSION. * HOKI MAI. WELCOME BACK TO Q+A. LABOUR FINANCE SPOKESPERSON GRANT ROBERTSON SAYS NATIONAL'S PROPOSED TAX CUTS ARE, 'DESPERATE AND IRRESPONSIBLE'. THIS, AS NZ OFFICIALLY ENTERS A COVID-19 RECESSION, RECORDING TWO CONSECUTIVE QUARTERS OF NEGATIVE GROWTH. GRANT ROBERTSON, TENA KOE. WELCOME TO Q+A. KIA ORA, JACK. NATIONAL IS OFFERING TAX CUTS; YOU'RE OFFERING A TAX INCREASE. THIS IS A GAME CHANGER, ISN'T IT? WELL, NO, IT'S A HUGELY RECKLESS AND IRRESPONSIBLE ACT FROM THE NATIONAL PARTY TO BE OFFERING THOSE TAX CUTS AT THE VERY TIME WE NEED TO BE INVESTING IN OUR HEALTH SYSTEM AND OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM. THEY'RE RAIDING THE FUND THAT WE PUT ASIDE IN THE EVENT OF A RESURGENCE OF COVID. I JUST DON'T THINK THERE COULD BE A MORE DESPERATE ACT THAN THIS AT THIS POINT. BUT WE NEED TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY AS WELL. AND WON'T PEOPLE, WITH A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA MONEY, BE ABLE TO GO AND SPEND IT IN SUPPORTING KIWI BUSINESSES? WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOTTA GET A BALANCE RIGHT HERE. AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING WILL COMPLETELY UNDERMINE THE FUNDING THAT IS NEEDED JUST FOR OUR HEALTH SYSTEM. FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE MOMENT, IN THEIR ALLOWANCES, THEY HAVE ABOUT $800M AVAILABLE FOR SPENDING NEXT YEAR. THAT'S LESS THAN THE AMOUNT THAT WE PUT INTO THE HOSPITALS OF NZ THIS YEAR, LET ALONE EDUCATION OR THE POLICE OR ANYTHING ELSE. SO THERE'S A BALANCE TO BE STRUCK HERE. WE'VE CERTAINLY STIMULATED THE ECONOMY THROUGH THE PERIOD IT REALLY NEEDED IT WITH THE WAGE SUBSIDY. BUT I THINK THIS IS THE WRONG POLICY FOR THE WRONG TIME. THERE WILL BE PEOPLE WATCHING THIS, THOUGH, WHO ARE PRICKLING AT SOME OF YOUR PARTY'S PLANS. YOU'VE ANNOUNCED YOU WANT TO DOUBLE SICK LEAVE ENTITLEMENTS, RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE AGAIN TO $20. I MEAN, LOOK AT THE GDP FIGURES THIS WEEKEND AND THE PREFU DATA, WHERE OUR ECONOMY CLEARLY NEEDS TO BE STIMULATED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. AND PEOPLE ARE GONNA LOOK AT YOUR PARTY AND SAY YOUR PARTY IS PILING COSTS ON TO BUSINESSES. WHAT THAT MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE WILL MEAN IS ACTUALLY 44 BUCKS A WEEK MORE FOR SOMEONE WORKING FULL TIME ON THE MINIMUM WAGE. BUT WHAT WILL IT MEAN FOR A BUSINESS? BUT THAT'LL MAKE THEM $36 A WEEK BETTER OFF THAN NATIONAL'S POLICY. WHAT WILL IT MEAN FOR THE BUSINESS? WELL, THAT'S THE VERY POINT YOU'VE JUST MADE TO PAUL GOLDSMITH, JACK, WHICH IS THAT THOSE PEOPLE ON THE MINIMUM WAGE SPEND THAT, AND THEY SPEND IT IN SMALL BUSINESSES. NOW, WE'VE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH SMALL BUSINESSES OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS, SUPPORTING THEM THROUGH WAGE SUBSIDIES, SMALL BUSINESS CASH FLOW SCHEME. WE'VE GOT MORE SUPPORT COMING THEIR WAY IN TERMS OF SUPPORTING E-COMMERCE OFFERINGS. BUT WE KNOW THAT WHEN WE LIFT THE MINIMUM WAGE, THAT MONEY GETS SPENT IN THE ECONOMY. AND I WOULD SAY THIS HAS BEEN WELL SIGNALLED, JACK. WE SIGNALLED THIS $20 NUMBER RIGHT BACK AT THE START OF OUR TERM IN GOVERNMENT AT THE END OF 2017. ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH HOUSE PRICES INCREASING? WELL, HOUSE PRICES HAVE INCREASED AND WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE. WHAT WE LOOK FOR IS SUSTAINED MODERATION IN THAT, JACK. AND THAT IS ABOUT MAKING SURE WE GET BOTH THE DEMAND AND THE SUPPLY SIDE RIGHT. AND WE BUILT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER MORE HOUSES DURING THIS TERM IN GOVERNMENT ` I THINK A RECORD NUMBER GOING RIGHT BACK TO THE 1970S. WE HAVE GOT DEMAND MEASURES, LIKE THE BRIGHT LINE TEST LIGHT RING FENCING OF RENTAL LOSSES, LIKE THE BAN ON FOREIGN BUYERS. ALL OF THOSE THINGS COME TOGETHER. BUT CLEARLY THERE'S HUGE UNCERTAINTY WITH WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IN HOUSE PRICES AND ACROSS THE ECONOMY, ACTUALLY. 8% IS WHAT WESTPAC IS FORECASTING FOR HOUSE PRICES TO INCREASE NEXT YEAR. WHAT IMPACT WILL THAT HAVE ON NZ SOCIETY? YEAH, WELL, OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A CHALLENGE FOR PEOPLE MOVING INTO THE HOME BUYING MARKET. WE KNOW THAT. BUT THERE IS HUGE FLUCTUATION AND UNCERTAINTY. BUT THE CHALLENGE IS FOR YOU AS WELL, ISN'T IT, MINISTER? I MEAN, YOU CAME INTO GOVERNMENT THREE YEARS AGO, PROMISING TO ADDRESS THIS CRISIS. AND HERE WE ARE STILL STARING DOWN RECORD INCREASES IN HOUSE VALUE. WELL, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF FLUCTUATION DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME, JAKE. AND THIS IS NOT A THREE-YEAR FIX; IT'S ABOUT BUILDING MORE HOUSES. IT'S ABOUT MAKING SURE WE LOOK AFTER THE PEOPLE IN OUR RENTAL PROPERTIES, MAKING SURE THEY LIVE IN WARM, DRY PROPERTIES. IT'S ABOUT MAKING SURE WE ALSO GET THE PLANNING SYSTEM RIGHT. YOU KNOW, WE'VE NOW GOT A NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENT ON URBAN DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE GOING TO BE REFORMING THE RMA. WE'VE GOT NEW FORMS OF FINANCING AVAILABLE TO PARTNER TO BUILD HOUSES, THE PROGRESSIVE HOME OWNERSHIP SCHEME, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY A RENT-TO-OWN SCHEME. ALL OF THESE THINGS COME TOGETHER AS A PACKAGE TO MAKE HOUSING MORE AFFORDABLE. BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH, IS IT? I MEAN, THE RESERVE BANK SAYING FIGURES FROM JULY SHOW THAT MORE PROPERTY INVESTORS HAVE BORROWED MORE THAN FIRST HOME BUYERS HAVE BORROWED IN NZ. GIVEN KIWIBUILD, WHY SHOULD VOTERS TRUST YOUR PARTY TO FIX THIS? BECAUSE WE HAVE BUILT MORE HOUSES THAN ANY GOVERNMENT SINCE THE 1970S, AND BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY HAVE A PLAN. BUT THESE ARE SOCIAL HOUSES. IN THE SUPPLY SIDE. YEAH, BUT ALL OF IT ADDS TO THE HOUSING STOCK, JACK. AND WE ARE SEEING MORE AFFORDABLE HOMES BUILT, AS WELL, AS PART OF THE PARTNERSHIPS THAT WE'RE DEVELOPING. SO THIS IS A LONG-TERM FIX. WHAT THE NATIONAL PARTY IS NOW PROMISING IS TO GET THE BRIGHT LINE TEST DOWN TO TWO YEARS. THEY'RE SAYING THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE HEALTHY HOMES GUARANTEE ANY MORE. THERE'S NO PLAN THERE TO ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE OVERALL CHALLENGES IN HOUSING. AND I'LL DEFINITELY TAKE IT IN ON THE CHIN ` THIS IS GOING TO TAKE MORE THAN THREE YEARS, BUT WE HAVE THE PLAN TO DO IT. PEOPLE WILL LOOK AT THE NATIONAL PARTY'S FISCAL PLAN, THOUGH, AND NOTE THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF DEBT REDUCTION OVER THE NEXT 12 OR 13 YEARS. WHAT DO YOU SAY TO PEOPLE WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE GENERATIONS THAT MIGHT BE LEFT TO SERVICE THAT DEBT UNDER YOUR GOVERNMENT? WELL, WHAT I WANNA DO IS MAKE SURE THAT THOSE GENERATIONS GROWING UP HAVE THE SUPPORT THEY NEED THROUGH THE EDUCATION SYSTEM AND THE HEALTH SYSTEM. AND WHAT NATIONAL HAS PUT FORWARD WILL MEAN SIGNIFICANT CUTS IN PUBLIC SERVICES RIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD. THEIR NUMBERS DON'T ADD UP, JACK. YOU CAN'T HAVE A SITUATION WHERE YOU REDUCE REVENUE, INCREASE AND PROMISE TO INCREASE SPENDING AND REDUCE DEBT AT THE RATE THEY'RE DOING. THEY'RE STUCK IN THI BERMUDA TRIANGLE OF FISCAL POLICY. IT JUST DOESN'T ADD UP. ALL RIGHT. LABOUR'S FINANCE SPOKESPERSON, GRANT ROBERTSON. TENA KOE. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. KIA ORA, JACK. IN A FORTNIGHT, BOTH GRANT ROBERTSON AND PAUL GOLDSMITH WILL BE WITH US ON Q+A FOR A LIVE DEBATE OVER NZ'S ECONOMIC FUTURE. BUT AFTER THE BREAK ` SHOULD NZ LEGALISE RECREATIONAL CANNABIS? AS KIWIS PREPARE TO GO TO THE POLLS, WE ASK IF LEGALISING POT WOULD REDUCE DRUG HARM. AND IN FACT WE'RE GOING TO EXACERBATE THOSE VERY RISKS OF HARM THAT WE ARE TRYING TO AVOID. POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD NOT BE MAKING THE LAW; POLICE OFFICERS ARE THERE TO ENFORCE THE LAW. * KIA ORA. WELCOME BACK TO Q+A AND OUR 2020 CANNABIS REFERENDUM DEBATE. LET'S BEGIN WITH THE QUESTION YOU'LL BE ASKED AT THE POLLS NEXT MONTH ` THE BILL PROPOSES RESTRICTED ACCESS TO RECREATIONAL CANNABIS. PEOPLE OVER THE AGE OF 20 COULD DO THE FOLLOWING ` NOW, IF YOU'RE WONDERING WHAT 14g OF CANNABIS LOOKS LIKE, IT'S ABOUT THIS MUCH. SO, THIS IS OREGANO, AN OLD PAULA BENNETT TRICK. THE BILL WOULD ALSO DO THE FOLLOWING ` ONE THING TO NOTE IS THAT UNLIKE THE END-OF-LIFE-CHOICE REFERENDUM, THIS ISN'T A BINDING REFERENDUM. IF MORE THAN 50% OF PEOPLE VOTE YES, AN INCOMING GOVERNMENT WOULD STILL HAVE TO INTRODUCE THE BILL. THAT PROCESS WOULD INCLUDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS. IF MORE THAN 50% OF PEOPLE VOTE NO, THEN THE CURRENT LAW WILL REMAIN IN PLACE. AND FOR MORE DETAIL ON THE BILL, WE WILL HAVE A LINK ON OUR FACEBOOK PAGE, SO YOU CAN READ IT YOURSELF. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, HERE TO DEBATE THE PROPOSAL ARE OUR MANUHIRI THIS MORNING ` DR KATE BADDOCK FROM THE NZ MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL MP NICK SMITH, GREEN MP CHLOE SWARBRICK, AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR KHYLEE QUINCE FROM AUT. KIA ORA KOUTOU. THANKS FOR BEING HERE. CHLOE, I WILL BEGIN WITH YOU. WHY SHOULD WE LEGALISE RECREATIONAL CANNABIS? SO, LEGALISATION IS A QUESTION OF WHAT KIND OF LEGAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, CRIMINAL RESPONSE DO WE WANT TO HAVE TO A SUBSTANCE? I THINK WHAT YOU'LL FIND IN THIS DEBATE TODAY IS ACTUALLY THAT WE KIND OF HAVE A VERY SIMILAR STARTING POINT, WHICH IS THAT WE ALL FUNDAMENTALLY AGREE THAT CANNABIS CAN CAUSE HARM. THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES, HOW DO WE BEST RESPOND TO THAT SUBSTANCE TO REDUCE THAT HARM? BECAUSE WHAT YOU ARE LIKELY TO HEAR IS THE INVOCATION OF STATISTICS OR OF THE HARM THAT CANNABIS IS PRESENTLY CAUSING, PARTICULARLY TO YOUNGER PEOPLE. AND WE HAVE SOME OF THE BEST RESEARCH IN THE WORLD ON THAT, PRIMARILY OUT OF THE OTAGO AND CHRISTCHURCH LONGITUDINAL STUDIES. BUT ALL OF THAT HARM HAS HAPPENED UNDER THE CRIMINAL STATUS QUO. AND YOU'RE NOT EVEN, THERE, TOUCHING THE SIDES ON ISSUES SUCH AS THE PRIME MINISTER'S CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISERS REPORT THAT SHOWS THAT 1300 MAORI ARE CONVICTED ANNUALLY FOR LOW-LEVEL CANNABIS OFFENCES. FUNDAMENTALLY, THIS IS A QUESTION ABOUT RECOGNISING THE REALITY. CANNABIS EXISTS ` I'M SORRY TO SAY I CAN'T INVENT IT ` AND IT HAS EXISTED FOR A LONG TIME. DO WE WANT TO GRAPPLE WITH THAT REALITY, BE MATURE ADULTS, AND CREATE A LEGAL FRAMEWORK THAT REDUCES THAT HARM AND INCREASES COMMUNITY WELL-BEING? NICK SMITH? WHY SHOULDN'T WE LEGALISE RECREATIONAL CANNABIS? WELL, LEGALISING CANNABIS IS NOT GONNA MAKE US A HAPPIER, IT'S NOT GONNA MAKE US A 'SAFIER', IT'S NOT GONNA MAKE US A HEALTHIER COUNTRY OR A MORE SUCCESSFUL COUNTRY. IT'S GOING TO EXACERBATE OUR PROBLEMS AROUND THINGS LIKE MENTAL HEALTH. WE HAD 107 PEOPLE DIE ON THE ROADS FROM DRUG-IMPAIRED DRIVING. IT'S GOING TO MAKE THOSE PROBLEMS WORSE. IT'S GOING TO MAKE SAFETY FOR INDUSTRIES LIKE CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, FARMING, FISHING, THOSE INDUSTRIES MORE DIFFICULT. AND IT'S ALSO SENDING A NORMALISATION SIGNAL. AND I SIMPLY SAY HAPPINESS DOESN'T COME, ACTUALLY, IN A BONG OR A BOTTLE. NO ONE'S SAYING THAT. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO DEBATE THIS ALL, BUT I WANT TO HEAR FROM ALL OF OUR GUESTS FIRST. DR KATE BADDOCK, WHY DO YOU OPPOSE LEGALISATION? INTERESTINGLY, I WAS INTERESTED BY WHAT CHLOE WAS SAYING. AND THE POINT IS THAT, REALLY, LEGALISATION OF CANNABIS IS NOT GOING TO FIX THE PROBLEM. IT'S NOT GOING TO FIX THE PROBLEM AT ALL. THE PROBLEM ALREADY EXISTS. I TOTALLY AGREE. BUT LEGALISING A DRUG WHICH CAUSES HARM IS NOT GOING TO HELP. WE KNOW THAT IT CAUSES PHYSICAL HARMS, SOCIAL HARMS, PSYCHOLOGICAL HARMS. THE MORE YOU INGEST, THE MORE THE HARM RISK. AND THE THING IS THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO LEGALISE A SUBSTANCE, THEN THERE'S EVERY LIKELIHOOD IT'S GOING TO BE USED MORE ` NOT LESS, BUT MORE. AND FURTHERMORE, IF YOU START REGULATING THE POTENCY, CHANCES ARE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TAKE ACTUALLY STRONGER CANNABIS, NOT WEAKER. AND IN FACT, WE'RE GOING TO EXACERBATE THOSE VERY RISKS OF HARM THAT WE ARE TRYING TO AVOID. WE DON'T NEED IT. THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS AND ISSUES AROUND ITS PERSONAL USE. THEY SHOULDN'T BE IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. THEY SHOULD BE IN THE HEALTH SYSTEM. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE SHOULD BE LEGALISING RECREATIONAL CANNABIS. KHYLEE QUINCE, WHY DO YOU WANT RECREATIONAL CANNABIS TO BE LEGALISED? I COME TO THIS KAUPAPA AS HE TANGATA MAORI AND AS A CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADVOCATE. AND AS CHLOE'S ALREADY PAINTED THE PICTURE, THE HARMS FROM CANNABIS, MAORI ARE HIGHLY OVERREPRESENTED IN BOTH THE HEALTH, JUSTICE, SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC HARMS OF CANNABIS. DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU. AND SO THIS IS JUST A LEGAL QUESTION. IT'S NOT A MEDICAL QUESTION. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH MOST OF THE SCIENCE. BUT THIS IS NOT ABOUT SCIENCE OR MEDICINE. IT'S ABOUT IS THIS THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS THOSE HARMS? AND IT'S ABOUT HARM REDUCTION. IT'S NOT ABOUT A BINARY ISSUE OF, IS CANNABIS GOOD FOR YOU? BECAUSE ITS MEDICAL STATUS AND ITS SCIENTIFIC STATUS WILL NOT CHANGE WITH LEGALISATION. BUT WHAT WILL CHANGE IS THE WAY IN WHICH WE RESPOND TO THOSE JUSTICE OUTCOMES. THERE'LL BE 230 PEOPLE THAT WON'T BE CONVICTED SOLELY OF POSSESSION OR USE OF CANNABIS. FIVE PEOPLE CURRENTLY IN PRISON SOLELY FOR POSSESSION OR USE OF A LESSER AMOUNT THEN THAN THAT AMOUNT OF CANNABIS. AND THOSE AREN'T GOOD. WE'VE ONLY TALKED ABOUT THE RISKS AND HARMS SO FAR. WE ALSO NEED TO TALK ABOUT FUTURE-LOOKING POTENTIAL. AND MANY MAORI PEOPLE ` I'M NOT NECESSARILY ONE OF THEM ` SEE THE SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC POTENTIAL. AND WE'VE SEEN THAT WITH THE CROWD-FUNDING OF HIKURANGI ENTERPRISES, NOW RUA BIOSCIENCE ` THAT MANY, MANY MAORI PEOPLE WITH LIVED EXPERIENCE LIVE IN REGIONS WHERE MY WHANAUNGA COME FROM, WHERE THERE IS VERY POOR INFRASTRUCTURE, VERY POOR LIFE PATHWAYS, IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. AND THAT BILL REPORT RELEASED LAST WEEK SHOWS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A BILLION DOLLARS HERE. SO $675M INCOME AND A SAVING OF OVER $300M FROM JUSTICE AND POLICE. I WANT TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT SOME OF THOSE ECONOMIC FACTORS A LITTLE LATER IN THIS DEBATE. BUT LET'S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT ACCESS AND THE HEALTH IMPLICATIONS FOR THAT ACCESS AT THE MOMENT. I'M GOING TO THROW TO YOU SOME STATS HERE FROM THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH. 29% OF 15- TO 24-YEAR-OLDS HAVE REPORTED USING CANNABIS IN THE LAST YEAR, WHICH IS UP FROM 15% IN 2011. NICK SMITH, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE CURRENT PROHIBITION MODEL IS INEFFECTIVE IN REDUCING HARM? NO. MAKING IT LEGAL WILL MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE. WE'LL GET, AND THE REPORTS FROM BERL SHOW ABOUT 400 STORES AROUND NZ. 30%, THOUGH, OF 15- TO 24-YEAR-OLDS, UP FROM JUST 15% IN 2011. THAT PERCENTAGE HAS DOUBLED. AND IF WE LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF CONVICTIONS FOR CANNABIS OFFENCE OVER THE LAST DECADE, THEY'VE REDUCED BY ABOUT 60%, WHICH IS A GOOD SIGN. IF YOU LEGALISE CANNABIS, YOU ARE GOING TO SEE THOSE FIGURES GET WORSE. THERE WILL BE MORE USE. THIS IDEA THAT IF PARLIAMENT PASSES A LAW AND SAYS NOBODY UNDER THE AGE OF 20 IS GOING TO TOUCH THE STUFF, YOU'VE GOT IT GROWING IN PEOPLE'S HOMES, YOU'VE GOT THESE STORES ` AND I'LL MAKE A BET. THE PREDOMINANCE OF THESE DRUG STORES, AS WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS, WILL BE IN OUR POOREST AND MOST VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE CORPORATE COMPANIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE PROFITING FROM THE PRODUCT, AND THEY MAKE MORE PROFIT BY SELLING MORE. WHO PROFITS AT THE MOMENT? GANGS GET PROFIT, AND WE NEED TO GO AFTER THEM. BUT EQUALLY, THE CLAIM THAT IF WE GO DOWN THIS LEGALISATION PATH, THAT MAGICALLY THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT AND THE GANGS IS GOING TO DISAPPEAR IS NOT CORRECT AND IS NOT THE EXPERIENCE OF JURISDICTIONS. YOU WILL HAVE THE GANGS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF YOUNG PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO STILL SELL THE PRODUCT TO THEM. YOU WILL ALSO HAVE THEM SELLING THE MORE POTENT STUFF THAT THE REGULATORY SYSTEM SEEKS TO BAN. ALL RIGHT. WE CAN LOOK TO SOME OVERSEAS EXAMPLES HERE. I NOTE FROM THE PRIME MINISTER'S SCIENCE ADVISER, IF WE LOOK TO CANADA, WHICH HAS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR LEGISLATION TO THE ONE THAT IS PROPOSED FOR NZ, THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT HAS REPORTED ABOUT A 2% INCREASE IN ADULT USAGE IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS FOR CANNABIS. SO LEGALISATION HAS MEANT THAT CANNABIS USAGE HAS INCREASED. YEAH, SO THAT'S PRIMARILY AMONGST FAR OLDER PEOPLE. AND IF YOU LOOK INTO THE FIGURES, DEMOGRAPHIC DATA IN PARTICULAR, AND WHAT NICK IS SPEAKING TO THERE AROUND YOUNGER PEOPLE USING, WHAT YOU SEE IS THAT LESS YOUNG PEOPLE ARE USING IN CANADA UNDER A LEGALLY REGULATED MODEL. I ALSO JUST WANT TO RESPOND TO A FEW OF THE POINTS THAT WERE MADE, PARTICULARLY AROUND THE NOTION OF WHERE THE BLACK MARKET SITS HERE, BUT ALSO THE POINT MADE ABOUT WHO IS EXPLOITING VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES RIGHT NOW. SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW YOU RESPOND TO A SUBSTANCE, YOU BASICALLY HAVE A SPECTRUM OF POTENTIAL RESPONSES, ONE OF WHICH IS TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO COMPLETELY PROHIBIT THIS, IE, WE'RE GOING TO PLACE IT IN THE HANDS OF THE BLACK MARKET. THE COMPLETE OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM IS COMMERCIALISATION. AND I'D ARGUE ALCOHOL IS FAR TOO CLOSE ON THIS END OF THE SPECTRUM. BUT I'D ARGUE WE RUN THE RISK OF DOING THAT WITH CANNABIS. SO IF I MAY, BOTH ENDS OF THAT SPECTRUM ARE EXTREMES WHEREBY YOU HAVE ENTITIES ` WHETHER THEY ARE IN THE CRIMINAL UNDERGROUND OR COMMERCIAL GLOBAL CORPORATES ` THAT ARE SEEKING TO MAKE A QUICK BUCK BY EXPLOITING VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES. THE SPACE IN THE MIDDLE, WHERE YOU BACK AWAY FROM THAT PROHIBITION BLACK MARKET CONTROL AND WHEN YOU BACK AWAY FROM COMMERCIALISATION, FROM NORMALISATION, FROM GLAMORISATION, IS WHERE YOU PROHIBIT THINGS LIKE ADVERTISING AND SPONSORSHIP, WHERE YOU REQUIRE THERE TO BE PUBLIC SERVICE EDUCATION ABOUT HOW THESE SUBSTANCES CAN BE HARMFUL. THAT IS THE SPACE OF REGULATION, AND THAT IS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED UNDER THIS BILL. NOBODY'S PRETENDING THAT THE BLACK MARKET IS GOING TO DISAPPEAR OVERNIGHT. BUT IN FACT, IN CANADA, AS YOU'VE STARTED TO SEE IN JUST TWO YEARS, MORE THAN HALF OF THE SALES AND SUPPLY HAS SHIFTED FROM THE BLACK MARKET TO LEGAL MARKET. THAT BEING SAID, THERE IS OBVIOUSLY CONCERN ABOUT THE IMPACT THAT INCREASED CANNABIS USE OR AVAILABILITY WOULD HAVE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE. AT THE MOMENT, THE PRIME MINISTER'S CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISER SAYS THERE IS NO CLEAR PATTERN OF CHANGE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE FROM THE EVIDENCE IN CANADA. BUT DR BADDOCK, THIS IS ONE OF YOUR PRIMARY CONCERNS. WELL, ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN, THERE IS GOOD EVIDENCE THAT THE YOUNGER THE PERSON IS WHO STARTS, THEN WE HAVE RISKS RELATED TO AMOTIVATION SYNDROMES. WE HAVE RISKS OF EDUCATIONAL UNDERACHIEVEMENT. AND IT IS TRUE THAT THE LAW SEEKS TO LIMIT THIS TO OVER 20-YEAR-OLDS. BUT WE CAN SEE WHAT RELATIONSHIP WITH RELATION TO ALCOHOL THAT JUST DOESN'T WORK. WE ARE GOING TO SEE 15-, 16-YEAR-OLDS USING CANNABIS. IT'S GOING TO BE IN HOUSEHOLDS FOR PERSONAL USE. THERE IS NO WAY YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO RESTRICT THIS TO THE OVER 20-YEAR-OLDS. SORRY TO INTERRUPT. IF WE KNOW, THEN, THAT YOUNG PEOPLE, THEIR BRAINS ARE DEVELOPING UNTIL ABOUT THE AGE OF 25, WHY NOT WHY NOT HAVE THAT AGE RESTRICTION MUCH HIGHER? WHY NOT HAVE IT AT 25, AS OPPOSED TO 20, KHYLEE? WELL, OF COURSE THIS IS ABOUT ` AND THIS IS WHERE YOU NEED TO TAKE A BALANCE OF CONSIDERATIONS. I WAS ON THE PRIME MINISTER'S CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISER'S COMMITTEE. AND OF COURSE, THESE ARE POLITICAL QUESTIONS, SO YOU NEED TO LAND SOMEWHERE. ONE ISSUE WAS DISENTANGLING THE LEGAL AGE FOR DRINKING, AND ALSO THE AGE AT WHICH PEOPLE CAN DRIVE. AND REALLY, YOU'VE GONE PAST EVEN THE CHANCE OF CONTROLLING PEOPLE'S ACCESS TO CANNABIS IF YOU IT TOO LATE. YOU COULD DO THE SAME THING IN RELATION TO DRIVING. SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY LANDING ON A BALANCED, PRAGMATIC... BUT IN THE WORLD OF NZ, WHERE YOU'VE GOT YOUNG PEOPLE FLATTING TOGETHER ` I'VE GOT YOUNG KIDS AT UNI, BOTH IN HALLS OF RESIDENCE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MIXES OF AGE. AND THE IDEA THAT IN A FLAT, I'VE GOT A 20-YEAR-OLD AND I'VE GOT A 19-YEAR-OLD, AND ONLY THE 20-YEAR-OLD'S GOING TO BE ACCESSING THIS LEGAL CANNABIS IS A DREAM. BUT WE JUST I'M GOING TO STOP YOU, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THIS IN A MINUTE. BUT WE COME BACK TO THAT CENTRAL POINT, DON'T WE, THAT 80% OF NZERS REPORT USING CANNABIS UNDER THE STATUS QUO. WE WILL CONTINUE IN A MOMENT. ILLEGAL IT MAY BE, BUT CANNABIS USAGE HAS BEEN PART OF KIWI LIFE FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY. AND YOU ONLY NEED TO LOOK AT SOME OF OUR POP CULTURE TO APPRECIATE HOW POPULAR THE DRUG IS. WHENA OWEN DIVED INTO THE ARCHIVES TO PLOT POT THROUGH THE AGES. THE TOYES: # I SMOKE TWO JOINTS IN THE MORNING. # I SMOKE TWO JOINTS AT NIGHT. # THE LONG ROAD TO THE PROPOSED CANNABIS REFORM HERE BEGAN OVER A CENTURY AGO. KNOWN THEN AS INDIAN HEMP, IT WAS WIDELY AVAILABLE IN NEW ZEALAND AND USED TO TREAT EVERYTHING FROM CHILBLAINS TO ASTHMA. MEANWHILE, MARIJUANA IMPORTED BY MEXICAN WORKERS INTO AMERICAN CITIES WAS BEING BLAMED FOR CRIME AND WIDELY REPORTED. WE FOLLOWED THE STATES IN 1927, RESTRICTING ITS USE TO PRESCRIPTION ONLY. # LISTEN TO THE CHILDREN.# THE MASSIVE SOCIAL SHIFT IN THE 1960S SAW A SHARP INCREASE IN THE USE OF CANNABIS. THE NARCOTICS ACT IN 1965 BANNED IT. IT WAS INITIALLY HEAVILY POLICED, BUT IN THE '70S, USE OF THE DRUG SOARED, AND THAT'S WHEN SOME BEGAN TO QUESTION THE LAW, LIKE THIS AUCKLAND LAWYER IN 1973. AND IT'S QUITE APPARENT THAT THE POLICE DON'T SEEK OUT MARIJUANA USERS WITH THE ENTHUSIASM THAT THEY USED TO SEEK THEM OUT. THE 1975 MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT WHICH FOLLOWED STILL INFORMS OUR CANNABIS LAW. DURING THE 1990S, 200,000 MARIJUANA PLANTS WERE SEIZED EACH YEAR. WE ARE COMPARATIVELY BIG USERS. THE CHRISTCHURCH AND DUNEDIN LONGITUDINAL STUDY RECENTLY CONCLUDED THAT APPROXIMATELY 80% OF NZERS WHO WERE STUDIED ` AND ARE NOW MIDDLE-AGED ` HAVE TRIED CANNABIS AT LEAST ONCE. AND UP TO 10% OF THOSE BECAME HEAVY USERS. DYNASTY'S THE ONLY KID AROUND HERE WITH A JOB. SHE DOES AFTER-SCHOOL GARDENING WORK FOR HER DAD. YES, CANNABIS IS REFERENCED IN OUR FILM, MUSIC AND, MORE BLATANTLY, IN PERFORMANCE PROTEST. LIKE IT OR NOT, THE CANNABIS COUNTERCULTURE HAS A PLACE IN POPULAR CULTURE HERE. THE ONLY PARTY WITH A PLANT AS ITS MAIN FOCUS. FOR OVER TWO DECADES, THE AOTEAROA LEGALISE CANNABIS PARTY HAS PUSHED FOR CANNABIS REFORM, BUT THE GREENS HAVE HAD THE PLATFORM TO GET SOME MOVEMENT. YOU'RE AN MP. THE MARIJUANA'S AGAINST THE LAW. SHOULD YOU, AS AN MP, FLOUT THE LAW? WELL, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S REALLY INTERESTING, ACTUALLY. I'VE ALWAYS SAID THAT THERE'S NO WAY I WOULD SMOKE CANNABIS WHEN I'M ON PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS. BEFORE THE COALITION GOVERNMENT WAS FORMED, THE GREENS INSISTED THAT LEGALISING CANNABIS SHOULD BE ON THE TABLE. A 2018 AMENDMENT NOW EXEMPTS TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS USING CANNABIS FROM PROSECUTION, AND LAST YEAR, THE LAW WAS TWEAKED AGAIN AROUND POLICE DISCRETION. A POLL TAKEN A FEW WEEKS AGO SUGGESTS THE NUMBERS FOR AND AGAINST LEGALISING THE DRUG ARE 50/50. (HELICOPTER ROTORS WHIRR) BUT UNTIL THE REFERENDUM RESULT IN EARLY NOVEMBER, THE FUTURE OF CANNABIS REFORM IN NZ IS UP IN THE AIR. WE'LL CONTINUE THE DEBATE IN A MINUTE. AND WE'RE GOING TO SHARE THE VIEWS OF A RANGE OF KIWIS. HERE'S AN OPINION THAT WILL BE OF INTEREST TO ANYONE WITH SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN. KIA ORA. I'M PERRY RUSH. I'M PRESIDENT OF THE NZ PRINCIPALS FEDERATION. I'LL BE VOTING YES IN THE UPCOMING REFERENDUM. WE KNOW THAT CANNABIS IS IN EVERY COMMUNITY IN NZ. IT DOESN'T DISTINGUISH ON SOCIAL STATUS OR POSITION. WE DON'T WANT YOUNG PEOPLE CRIMINALISED FOR THEIR CANNABIS USE. WE THINK CANNABIS IS A HEALTH ISSUE, NOT A CRIMINAL ISSUE. WE STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO BE VOTING YES IN THIS REFERENDUM. PUT THE WELFARE AND WELL-BEING OF YOUNG PEOPLE FIRST. TENA KOUTOU KATOA. MY NAME IS HIRINI KAA, AND I'M AN ANGLICAN MINISTER. THERE'S NEVER REALLY BEEN A WAR ON DRUGS. INSTEAD, THERE'S BEEN A WAR ON MAORI. THE POLITICIANS SHOULD GRAPPLE WITH THE SYSTEMIC RACISM IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM, RATHER THAN OUTSOURCE IT TO SOME POPULIST PROXY. AND THIS REFERENDUM IS GOING TO INCREASE THE SUPPLY AND AVAILABILITY OF A DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE IN OUR COMMUNITY WITHOUT ADDRESSING THAT BROADER PROBLEM. THAT'S WHY I'M VOTING NO. * I'M JULIAN LEYS, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CONSTRUCTION STRATEGY GROUP. WE RECOMMEND VOTING NO IN THE CANNABIS REFERENDUM. AS THE ORGANISATION THAT REPRESENTS THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN NZ, WE BELIEVE THAT LEGALISING CANNABIS WILL SEE AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF IMPAIRED WORKERS ON SITE AND POTENTIALLY WORKPLACE ACCIDENTS AND DEATHS. KIA ORA. MY NAME IS OTIS FRIZELL. I'M AN ARTIST AND A TACO GUY. I NO LONGER SMOKE MARIJUANA, SO I'M NOT A SMOKER, BUT I'M A YES VOTER. I BELIEVE IN THE SCIENCE. I BELIEVE IN THE ECONOMY OF GANJA. I THINK THERE'LL BE TAX BENEFITS. THERE WILL BE JOBS. IT'S A RENEWABLE RESOURCE AND HEALTH BENEFITS, WITH CBD OILS, IT'S DEFINITELY GOTTA BE A YES. HOKI MAI ANO. WELCOME BACK TO Q+A AND OUR CANNABIS REFERENDUM DEBATE. I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT SOME JUSTICE ISSUES HERE. NICK SMITH, SHOULD PEOPLE BE CRIMINALLY CONVICTED FOR POSSESSION OF CANNABIS? NO, AND WE CHANGED THE LAW LAST YEAR, AUGUST, IN WHICH WE GAVE POLICE GREATER DISCRETION. CHLOE: NATIONAL VOTED AGAINST IT. AND SO THERE'S A STRONG PUSH TOWARDS SENSIBLE THINGS LIKE THE DRUG COURTS THAT NATIONAL INTRODUCED IN GOVERNMENT, AROUND IMPROVING TREATMENT, AROUND IMPROVING EDUCATION. BUT WE NEED TO BE OPEN THAT THERE ISN'T AN ISSUE LIKE DRUGS THAT'S SIMPLY ABOUT IT BEING A HEALTH ISSUE OR CRIMINAL ISSUE. YOU NEED TO CRIMINALLY GO AFTER THOSE THAT PROFIT, THAT TRADE, THAT IMPORT DRUGS. YOU NEED TO FOCUS ON THE TREATMENT FOR THE USERS. 242 PEOPLE WERE CONVICTED OF CANNABIS POSSESSION AS THEIR MOST SERIOUS OFFENCE IN THE YEAR LEADING UP TO JUNE 30. YEAH, THERE'S BEEN A 60% DECLINE IN THE NUMBER OF CONVICTIONS FOR CANNABIS... THOSE 242 PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE PROBLEMS GETTING JOBS, TRAVELLING OVERSEAS. THAT'S A LIFE-CHANGING CONVICTION. YEAH, LOOK, I DEAL WITH CONSTITUENTS ALL THE TIME. THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT EITHER ARE DECLINED A JOB OR TRAVEL BECAUSE OF A MINOR CONVICTION, AND THE FURTHER CHANGE WE MADE IN THE LAW, AUGUST 2019, GIVING POLICE A WIDER DISCRETION IS GOING TO SEE FURTHER REDUCTIONS` IS ONE PERSON GOING TO JAIL FOR LOW LEVEL CANNABIS OFFENCES TOO MANY? LOOK, YOU ALWAYS NEED TO LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL CASE AS TO WHAT ELSE IS THERE. THIS IDEA, CHLOE, THAT OUR 10,000 PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE IN PRISONS ARE THERE BECAUSE OF MINOR CANNABIS OFFENCES IS NOT TRUE. AND THOSE NUMBERS HAVE PLUMMETED. AND THERE'S BROAD SUPPORT ACROSS THE PARLIAMENT FOR A TREATMENT FOCUS FOR THOSE` ACTUALLY THERE WASN'T, BECAUSE THE NATIONAL PARTY VOTED AGAINST THE LAW CHANGE. WE VOTED FOR OUR CHANGE. POLITICIANS HAVING A FIGHT. BUT WHY DON'T WE JUST DECRIMINALISE, RATHER THAN LEGALISE? I CAN ANSWER THAT. BECAUSE DECRIMINALISATION IS AN UNCOMFORTABLE HALFWAY HOUSE, FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD NOT BE MAKING THE LAW. POLICE OFFICERS ARE THERE TO ENFORCE THE LAW. UNFORTUNATELY, SO FAR, WE'VE SEEN THAT THEIR PRACTICE HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE AUGUST 2019. THE DATA HAS SHOWED THAT THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO PROSECUTE UNLESS IT'S IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THERE'S NO TRANSPARENCY ABOUT WHAT'S IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. SO FIX THE PROBLEM. DON'T LEGALISE. DECRIMINALISATION WOULD SIMPLY REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FROM THE PEOPLE WHO USE IT. WE COULD THEN PUT IT BACK INTO THE HEALTH SYSTEM FOR THOSE THAT HAVE ISSUES WITH ACTUALLY BEING EITHER DEPENDENT ON CANNABIS OR SUFFERING FROM THE HARMS RELATED FROM CANNABIS USE, PUT THEM INTO THE HEALTH SYSTEM, LET THEM GET THE TREATMENT AND THE MANAGEMENT THAT THEY NEED, AND KEEP THEM OUT OF JAIL. ABSOLUTELY AGREE. BUT YOU DON'T NEED TO LEGALISE RECREATIONAL CANNABIS TO DO THAT. LET CHLOE SPEAK HERE. IF I CAN CONTINUE. THE POINT THAT'S BEING MADE AROUND ENSURING THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE HAVING ISSUES WITH DEPENDENCY OR ABUSE OF THIS SUBSTANCE, IF YOU DECRIMINALISE, YOU STILL AREN'T DEALING WITH THAT ISSUE OF SUPPLY CHAINS. YOU STILL ARE NOT ABLE TO IMPOSE, THROUGH DUTY OF CARE, AN OBLIGATION ON THE PERSON WHO IS SELLING THE SUBSTANCE TO POINT OUT AND TO INTERVENE WHEN SOMEBODY IS EXPERIENCING PROBLEMATIC USAGE. I ALSO THINK IT'S REALLY WORTHWHILE TO ACTUALLY PUT IN CONTEXT WHAT NICK WAS SPEAKING ABOUT BEFORE, IN TERMS OF THE NUMBERS OF STORES AND COMMUNITY INPUT. WE'RE GOING TO COME TO THAT. I WANT TO COME TO THAT A BIT LATER ON. I JUST WANT I WANT TO ASK KHYLEE SOMETHING, BECAUSE THIS IS HER AREA OF EXPERTISE. I WANT TO GO BACK TO A COMMENT FROM HIRINI KAA THERE. HE SAID THAT ACTUALLY LEGALISATION IS NOT THE ISSUE. WE NEED TO BE TRANSFORMING THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, SO THAT MAORI HAVE EQUAL OUTCOMES. AND AT THE MOMENT, THAT ISN'T HAPPENING. WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT? MAORI ARE OVERREPRESENTED IN CANNABIS CONVICTIONS. I COMPLETELY AGREE. HIRINI IS A CLOSE WHANAUNGA OF MINE. WE HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT THIS FOR MANY YEARS. BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO PUT IT ON THE NEVER-NEVER, TO SAY, LET'S FIX THE POLICE, LET'S FIX RACIST JUDGES. THAT'S MY MAHI EVERY DAY. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHIP AWAY AT THAT. I AGREE, IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO DO THAT IF YOU FUNDED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES APPROPRIATELY, IF YOU PROVIDED POSITIVE LIFE PATHWAYS FOR OUR RELATIONS IN RANGITUKIA, WHERE HE IS, AND MY RELATIONS IN HOKIANGA, BUT THIS IS ONE WAY. THERE'S NO POINT PUTTING IT OFF ON THE NEVER-NEVER. SO IT IS A RESPONSE, BUT NOT A PERFECT ONE. CAN I TAKE IT DOWN THE ONCE BITTEN, TWICE SHY? BECAUSE WE HEARD ALL THESE ARGUMENTS THAT IT WAS BETTER TO REGULATE DRUGS THAN PROHIBIT THEM IN 2014 OVER THE ISSUE OF PARTY PILLS AND NATURAL HIGHS. AND PARLIAMENT PASSED THE LAW, PERSUADED BY THE SAME ARGUMENTS. WITHIN 12 MONTHS, IT HAD BLOWN UP IN OUR FACE. WE HAD OUR ACCIDENT AND EMERGENCIES FILLED WITH PEOPLE WHO HAD MISUSED THOSE DRUGS THAT WE WERE SUPPOSEDLY GOING TO REGULATE. MAORI WERE ACTUALLY DISPROPORTIONATELY REPRESENTED, IN THE NUMBER OF DEATHS FROM THAT EXPERIMENT. THAT SHOWED THAT REGULATION ACTUALLY DID NOT WORK. IT INCREASED HARM. LET ME ASK THIS. IF WE HAVE HAD A PROHIBITION LAW IN PLACE FOR DECADES, WHY ARE WE HAVING THIS DEBATE TODAY? BECAUSE THERE WILL ALWAYS BE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO GO DOWN THE LIBERALISE, THE LEGALISE. BUT AGAIN, 80% OF NEW ZEALANDERS HAVE ACCESSED CANNABIS. THE MORE IMPORTANT STATISTIC IS THAT THERE IS ABOUT 2% OF NZERS WHO REGULARLY USE CANNABIS. NO, IT'S 11%. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOMEONE WHO'S HAD A TOKE AT SOME TIME IN THEIR LIFE, AND THE PERSON THAT IS REGULARLY USING. THEY ARE MASSIVELY DIFFERENT STATISTICS. THE ONES THAT ARE HIGHEST AT RISK OF THE HARMS ASSOCIATED WITH ITS USE, AND THERE'S NO QUESTION, I THINK, THAT THOSE NUMBERS WILL INCREASE IF IT'S LEGALISED. WE HEARD CONCERN BEFORE FROM THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AS WELL. AND I KNOW FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO'LL BE VOTING IN THIS REFERENDUM, THE ISSUE OF POTENTIAL DRUG DRIVING IS OF CONCERN. AND AT THE MOMENT, IS THERE ANY WAY TO SCIENTIFICALLY MEASURE SOMEONE'S LEVEL OF IMPAIRMENT? ARGUABLY, ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN THIS KIND OF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPED IS BECAUSE OF CRIMINAL PROHIBITION. BUT THERE ISN'T, IS THERE? AT PRESENT THE BEST THAT WE HAVE IS SALIVA TESTING WITH A BACK-UP OF BLOOD TESTING. AND THAT IS PART AND PARCEL OF THE LAW WHICH WE WENT THROUGH PASSING THE FIRST STAGE OF IN THE FINAL FEW WEEKS OF THIS PARLIAMENTARY SESSION. BUT THIS IS ACTUALLY AN ISSUE THAT HAS TO BE DEALT WITH, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER CANNABIS IS LEGALISED OR IT REMAINS ILLEGAL, BECAUSE ALL OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE CITING OF DRUG DRIVING AT PRESENT ARE HAPPENING UNDER THE CRIMINAL STATUS QUO, WHERE I MIGHT ADD, A NUMBER OF USERS ARE ENGAGING IN GUESSWORK ABOUT THE POTENCY OF THE SUBSTANCE, HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO IMPAIR THEM OR IMPACT THEIR BEHAVIOUR. SO ACTUALLY, AGAIN, EDUCATING USERS, ENSURING THAT THERE IS THAT DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT IN MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, AND STOPPING PEOPLE FROM ENGAGING IN USING. YOU RAISED THESE NUMBERS BEFORE, DR SMITH. MORE THAN 100 PEOPLE DIED WITH DRUGS REGISTERED AS BEING IN THEIR SYSTEM IN NZ LAST YEAR. YES. SO THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT WE ALREADY FACE. YES, IT'S TRUE. BUT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO FACE IT MORE IF WE HAVE MORE REGULAR USERS. WE KNOW THAT THE GREATER THE AVAILABILITY OF ANY SUBSTANCE TENDS TO REFLECT IN GREATER USE OF IT. AND THIS WILL BE DISPROPORTIONATE TO THOSE WHO ARE AT GREATEST RISK IN OUR COMMUNITIES. HANG ON. AND SO THAT MEANS THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAVE THC IN THEIR SYSTEMS. AND WE KNOW THAT IT DOES HAVE AN EFFECT ON DRIVING. IT DOES SLOW YOUR ABILITY TO CONCENTRATE. IT DOES SLOW WHAT THEY CALL YOUR PSYCHOMOTOR EFFECT, SO YOU DON'T RESPOND AS QUICKLY IN EMERGENCIES. AND IF YOU'RE DRIVING HEAVY TRUCKS, FOR INSTANCE, YOU'RE AT MUCH GREATER RISK OF ACCIDENTS. WHY ARE WE ATTACKING TRUCKIES? BE PERFECTLY HONEST WITH YOU, WE DON'T HAVE THESE SAME KINDS OF CONCERNS ABOUT PEOPLE NECESSARILY TURNING UP TO WORK, HAVING CONSUMED PILES AND PILES OF ALCOHOL, WHICH IS PRESENTLY LEGAL. WE WILL ASK YOU ABOUT THAT IN A MOMENT. IF YOU'RE WONDERING HOW THE CANNABIS DEBATE IS DIVIDING VOTERS, FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE CAN REVEAL DETAILS FROM VOTE COMPASS, THE ONLINE TOOL WHICH ASSESSES VOTER PREFERENCES AND PRIORITIES. THIS DATA IS COLLATED FROM THE RESPONSES OF 72,000 PEOPLE WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED AND THE ONLINE SURVEY SINCE THE END OF AUGUST. AMONG MAORI VOTERS, THE SPLIT IS MORE PRONOUNCED. BUT THERE'S AN EVEN BIGGER DIVIDE BY AGE GROUP. OF COURSE, IF PAST ELECTIONS ARE A GUIDE, YOUNGER VOTERS GENERALLY HAVE LOWER TURNOUT PERCENTAGES THAN OLDER VOTERS, WHICH MEANS THIS IS SHAPING UP TO BE A TIGHT CONTEST. WE WILL BE BACK WITH OUR CANNABIS DEBATE IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES. KIA ORA. I'M CHRIS CAHILL, PRESIDENT OF THE POLICE ASSOCIATION. WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO MAKE AN INFORMED VOTE. LOOK AT THE LEGISLATION AND DECIDE, WILL THE NEGATIVES THAT THE 'NO' CAMPAIGN TALK ABOUT COME TO PASS, OR WILL THE POSITIVES THE 'YES' CAMPAIGN TALKS ABOUT BE THE REALITY. NEW ZEALAND POLICE WILL POLICE THE LAW YOU DECIDE, SO PLEASE MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. * I'M AARON IRONSIDE, SPOKESPERSON FOR SAY NOPE TO DOPE, AND WE'RE VOTING NO IN THIS REFERENDUM BECAUSE FIRSTLY, MEDICINAL CANNABIS IS ALREADY LEGAL, AND THE NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OPPOSES THIS REFERENDUM. AND A NO VOTE WILL FORCE THE GOVERNMENT TO STRENGTHEN THIS LAW. IT'S ALSO THE CASE THAT THE CRIMINAL ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED BY WRITING INTO THE MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT THAT POLICE ARE NOT TO GIVE YOU A CRIMINAL CONVICTION JUST FOR USING CANNABIS UNLESS THEY CAN PROVE IT'S IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. WHICH LEAVES ONE BIG ISSUE UNADDRESSED BY THIS LAW ` YOUNG PEOPLE; IT DOES NOTHING TO PROTECT THEM FROM THE DEVASTATING EFFECTS OF CANNABIS USE. KIA ORA. MY NAME IS LAURA O'CONNELL RAPIRA AND I'M FROM ACTIONSTATION AND JUSTSPEAK. I'LL BE VOTING YES IN THIS YEAR'S REFERENDUM BECAUSE I WANT ALL OF THE YOUNG PEOPLE IN AOTEAROA TO DO WELL. OUR CURRENT LAWS CRIMINALISE THE USE OF CANNABIS AND YOUNG PEOPLE, BUT PARTICULARLY YOUNG MAORI, ARE BEING SWEPT INTO OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM AS A RESULT. MAORI ARE THREE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE ARRESTED FOR CANNABIS USE THAN NON-MAORI, EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE THE SAME HISTORY WITH THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. BY VOTING TO LEGALISE CANNABIS, WE CAN SUPPORT PROVEN APPROACHES SUCH AS DRUG EDUCATION, TREATMENT AND PREVENTION INSTEAD OF PUNISHMENT, AND WE CAN ALSO SUPPORT ALL OF OUR WHANAU TO LIVE HAPPY AND HEALTHY LIVES. KIA ORA E TE WHANAU. WELCOME BACK TO Q+A AND OUR CANNABIS REFERENDUM DEBATE. I WANT TO START WITH THE SAME QUESTION FOR KHYLEE AND KATE. KHYLEE, I'LL START WITH YOU. WOULD LEGALISED CANNABIS REDUCE ALCOHOL HARM IN NEW ZEALAND? SO, FOR ONE, I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S THAT IT'S A GREAT COMPARATOR. I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SYSTEM THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE IN RELATION TO ALCOHOL. AND WE KNOW THAT ALCOHOL CAUSES ` THE HELEN CLARK FOUNDATION DONE GOOD WORK ON THAT ` ALCOHOL CAUSES IMMENSE HARM. SO IS IT GOING TO BE WORSE THAN THAT? HIGHLY UNLIKELY. WOULD IT REDUCE THE HARM, THOUGH? IF WE LEGALISED CANNABIS, DO YOU THINK PEOPLE WOULD START USING CANNABIS MORE THAN THEY WOULD USE ALCOHOL, AND WE MIGHT REDUCE THE ALCOHOL HARM? OR IS THERE NO EVIDENCE THAT BEARS THAT OUT? I DON'T KNOW OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT WOULD SHOW THAT IT WOULD REDUCE IT. I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. OK. KATE, WHAT DO YOU THINK? I THINK WE'RE COMPARING APPLES AND CAKES. YOU KNOW, THEY ARE SO FAR APART FROM EACH OTHER, IN TERMS OF, WOULD ONE REDUCE HARM FROM THE OTHER? I THINK IT'S A SPECIOUS ARGUMENT, SORRY. THE COMBINATION OF THE TWO IS MORE HARMFUL. BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION. THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION. BUT THE EVIDENCE IS STRONG THAT IF YOU USE BOTH CANNABIS AND ALCOHOL, ALL OF THE HARMS FROM BOTH COMPOUND. THE EVIDENCE IS ALSO STRONG THAT ALCOHOL CAUSES MASSIVE SOCIAL HARM. SO LET ME ASK THIS ` FROM A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE, NICK SMITH, DO YOU OPPOSE ALCOHOL ADVERTISING IN NZ? WELL, WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THE COMPARISON ABOUT HARM, YOU NEED TO ALSO LOOK AT THE LEVEL OF USAGE. IF PEOPLE USED CANNABIS THE WAY THAT ALCOHOL IS USED IN NZ, THE HARM WOULD BE HORRENDOUS. THAT DOESN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE QUESTION IS ADVERTISING FOR ALCOHOL AND FOR TOBACCO NEEDS TO BE RESTRICTED. THEY ARE ALL HARMFUL DRUGS. JUST BECAUSE WE'VE GOT HARMFUL DRUGS LIKE SMOKING AND ALCOHOL DOES NOT MAKE A GOOD ARGUMENT FOR MAKE ANOTHER. THE LAST THING I'D SAY IS WE'VE GOT A COLLECTIVE VIEW ACROSS PARLIAMENT FOR NZ TO BE SMOKE-FREE BY 2025. HOW CAN YOU BE SMOKE-FREE IF YOU'RE GOING TO A NEW PRODUCT LEGAL? I'M JUST INTERESTED IN ` YES, I KNOW THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF HYPOCRISY ALL AROUND THIS DEBATE. I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THAT, THOUGH. AS AN MP, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO REDUCE ALCOHOL HARM IN NZ? IMPROVED THE TREATMENT, INCREASED THE TAX, IMPROVED THE EDUCATION? AND I HAVE TO SAY, FOR INSTANCE, IF I CONSIDER OVER MY PERIOD IN PARLIAMENT, MY CHILDREN'S GENERATION IS FAR MORE RESPONSIBLE WITH ALCOHOL THAN, FRANKLY, MY GENERATION WAS. AND WE NEED TO KEEP THAT PRESSURE ON, BECAUSE ALL OF THESE SUBSTANCES CAUSE HARM. IF I MAY RESPOND TO THAT, WHAT NICK'S DONE IN THIS PAST TERM IS, AS A PART OF THE NATIONAL PARTY, HAS VOTED AGAINST A MEMBERS BILL IN THE NAME OF LOUISA WALL WHICH WOULD HAVE TIGHTENED UP WHAT ARE CALLED LOCAL ALCOHOL POLICIES AND ENABLED LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO HAVE A GREATER SAY ON WHERE THOSE LIQUOR PREMISES CAME ABOUT. THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT IN THE FORMER NATIONAL PARTY GOVERNMENT, THERE WAS A REPORT COMMISSIONED, CHAIRED BY I BELIEVE IT WAS GRAHAM LOWE, 2014, WHICH RECOMMENDED TO IMPROVE THE EFFICACY OF ALCOHOL HARM REDUCTION, WE HAD TO BAN SPONSORSHIP AND ADVERTISING. WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT WITH THE REGULATION OF CANNABIS, BASED ON THE BILL THAT IS CURRENTLY DRAUGHTED AND BEFORE THE PUBLIC, IS A PROPOSAL FOR THE MOST REGULATED SUBSTANCE IN THE NZ MARKET. IF WE WERE TO TREAT ALCOHOL IN THE SAME WAY THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO TREAT CANNABIS, WE WOULD HAVE FAR LESS ALCOHOL HARM. SO YES, ABSOLUTELY, I THINK THAT THE GREENS ARE THE ONLY PARTY THAT HAVE A CONSISTENT LINE ON SUBSTANCES. KHYLEE, WHAT WOULD BE THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF HAVING APPROXIMATELY 420 ` AN IRONIC NUMBER ` 420 CANNABIS RETAILERS IN NZ? THAT IS THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF RETAILERS THAT WOULD SUPPLY NZ, ACCORDING TO THE BERL REPORT. AGAIN, WE'RE BEING PRAGMATIC ON THAT SPECTRUM OF RESPONSES FROM HAVING A VERY FEW NUMBER OF OUTLETS TO HAVING A HUGE NUMBER OF OUTLETS, FEW NUMBER OF OUTLETS, THE HARM ` SO CANADA, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS SHOWN, IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, THERE ARE VERY FEW OUTLETS, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU'VE HAD REALLY NO IMPACT, OR VERY LITTLE IMPACT ON THE BLACK MARKET IN CERTAIN PLACES. SO YOU NEED TO WEIGH UP TACKLING THE BLACK MARKET AND OVERSUPPLY OF OUTLETS. SO, YES, YOU DO NEED TO LAND SOMEWHERE IN TERMS OF HAVING EASE OF ACCESS WITHOUT OVERDOING IT. AND WE KNOW, IN RELATION TO ALCOHOL, THAT'S A DIFFICULT TASK. AND FOR CONTEXT'S SAKE, THERE ARE CURRENTLY APPROXIMATELY 10,000 LIQUOR SHOPS IN NZ. IF YOU TAKE A CITY LIKE AUCKLAND, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'D HAVE APPROXIMATELY 125 RETAILERS. A TOWN LIKE KAIKOURA OR KAITAIA, YOU'D BE LOOKING AT A RETAILER. I SUPPOSE IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THE LEGISLATION EXPLICITLY BANS ALCOHOL` CANNABIS ADVERTISING. SO YOU WOULDN'T SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER THIS LEGISLATION, THE ALL BLACKS BEING SPONSORED BY A CANNABIS COMPANY. LET ME ASK, NICK SMITH, $1.4B IN EXCISE TAXES, ACCORDING TO THE BERL REPORT ` WHAT WE COULD EXPECT TO RAISE THROUGH CANNABIS. WHAT SORT OF DIFFERENCE WOULD THAT MAKE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S COFFERS? I THINK IT WOULD CREATE A HUGE VESTED INTEREST FOR GOVERNMENT TO SEE CANNABIS USE ` BOTH THE COMPANIES AND THE GOVERNMENT PROFITING FROM A SUBSTANCE THAT YOU CAUSES HARM. YOU JUST SAID YOU BACKED INCREASING THE EXCISE TAX FOR ALCOHOL. ABSOLUTELY, BECAUSE THAT IS ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT YOU'VE GOT FOR REDUCING HARM, BUT IT IS MY VIEW THAT THOSE CANNABIS STORES THAT ARE PROPOSED UNDER THIS LEGISLATION WILL BE FOCUSED IN OUR POOREST AND MOST VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES. AND I FURTHER SAY THAT THE WORST REASON FOR LEGALISING CANNABIS IS SO THE GOVERNMENT CAN MAKE A BUCK OUT OF IT. ONE OF THE MOST FEARFUL THINGS I HAVE ABOUT THIS LAW IS THAT THE MOMENT YOU HAVE A COMMERCIAL INDUSTRY, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE STRONG LOBBYISTS AND A PUSH FOR MORE AROUND CANNABIS. KATE: WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE THAT. OK. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WRAP THINGS UP IN JUST A MOMENT. CAN WE ALL AGREE ON ONE THING ` THAT IT IS IN THE VOTERS' INTEREST TO GO ONLINE AND READ THIS LEGISLATION, SO THEY'RE UP TO SPEED WITH THE DETAIL OF WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. KUA MUTU. THAT IS IT FOR OUR CANNABIS REFERENDUM DEBATE. OUR THANKS TO CHLOE SWARBRICK, DR NICK SMITH, DR KATE BADDOCK AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR KYLEE QUINCE. IF YOU ARE STILL IN DOUBT OR YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT DETAIL IN THE PROPOSAL, WE WILL HAVE A LINK TO THE LEGISLATION ON OUR FACEBOOK PAGE. DON'T FORGET, THE FIRST OF THIS YEAR'S LEADERS' DEBATES BETWEEN JACINDA ARDERN AND JUDITH COLLINS IS ON TVNZ1 THIS TUESDAY AT 7. UNTIL THEN, THANKS TO THE Q+A TEAM. HEI TERA WIKI. WE WILL SEE YOU NEXT SUNDAY MORNING AT 9 O'CLOCK. CAPTIONS BY FAITH HAMBLYN AND JAMES BROWN. CAPTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE SUPPORT OF NZ ON AIR.