- E haere ake nei. Today, on Newshub Nation ` muddled messaging and misinformation. The Government and the latest outbreak. Medicinal cannabis is legal, but can you get it? Desperate patients say it's about to get even harder. And important changes to sexual violence trials are before parliament, but do they go too far? Tena tatoa katoa. Good morning, I'm Simon Shepherd, and welcome to Newshub Nation. In political news this week ` whole towns were evacuated from the North Island's East Coast following a trio of shallow earthquakes, two near the Kermadec Islands, the largest measuring 8.1 Strong currents and waves were reported. Police have charged a 27 year old man with threatening to kill after he allegedly threatened two Christchurch mosques ahead of the anniversary of the March 15 terror attacks. He made the threat on an online message board, 4chan, which police discovered via a tip-off from a member of the public. And Auckland will move to alert level 2 at 6am on Sunday following five days of no new community cases, with the rest of the country moving to level 1. Cabinet will review the alert levels on Friday, potentially moving Auckland to level 1 before the weekend. But close, close plus, casual plus and casual ` it's been a head-spinning two weeks, especially for casual contacts of students at Papatoetoe High School, like the third family, Cases I, J, K and L Did they let us down or was the messaging just too confusing? We're going to ask Associate Health Minister Peeni Henare, but first, here's a timeline of the past two weeks. A Valentine's Day gift from the Prime Minister. - Auckland will need to move to alert level 3. - The epicentre ` students receive letters from the Auckland Regional Public Health Service. February 14: The same day, this text: Three days later, two more positive test cases and the advice changes for casual contacts. February 17: Then February 19 ` according to the government, two members of the third family, Cases I and J, start to show symptoms. Then can the actions that cause public outrage and prime-ministerial frustration. February 20: Case J goes to work at Kmart. February 22/23: Case L goes to work at KFC and Case I tests positive. Then February 26: should they have isolated? - Look, yes, they should have. - Yet, on the same day, the government's COVID-19 Facebook page says: Case L is now positive and mad. - Really upsetting. I wasn't told to isolate by anyone. - But the COVID-19 Minister pushed back. - Nine phone calls and three text messages to one of the cases. Six phone calls and three text messages. - Did it, though, force a change in tactics? Associate Minister of Health Peeni Henare joins us now live from Parliament. Before we address the last fortnight, Minister, do you have an update for us on COVID overnight? - Kia ora. Kia ora tatou. There are no new community cases to be reported at this point in time, so the status quo stands from the announcement that was made on Friday afternoon by the Prime Minister. All good news, Simon. - Well, that's great. So Auckland will move to level 2 on Sunday and the rest of the country to level 1. How confident are you that this outbreak is contained? - Well, look, I am confident. In talking with the health officials and with my colleagues, we've gained considerable confidence that we've managed to contain this particular cluster. they were able to get tested twice and they've done a fantastic job. All reports are that the high school has complied, and now, I guess, we can take that box off. So, yes, I am confident that we've managed to contain this particular cluster. And I'm sure, like the rest of Tamaki Makaurau and the country, we're looking forward to a shift in alert levels at 6am on Sunday. - Do you think, in the past two weeks, there's been some confusion around which contacts should do what? Would you admit that the messaging has become too complicated? - Well, these are complicated times, Simon. We acknowledge that during these particular times, when we're looking towards the way we contact trace and the way we connect with our communities that are affected, that information is important. I'm confident that Minister Hipkins and the Prime Minister have articulated very clearly their position on that, and I support them on that. But the fact remains, Simon, is that we are now positively looking forward. And as the alert level shifts, you know, we still need our people to remain vigilant, in particular in Tamaki Makaurau and Auckland, to make sure that this doesn't happen again. - Well, that's right. And part of making sure it doesn't happen again is looking to plug the holes in any kind of response that you have had over the last two weeks. The Minister of Health seems to have changed tactics ` 45 home visits this week. If they'd been doing that all along, maybe this extended lockdown could have been avoided. So there has been a change of tactics. - Well, I think you will have heard, you know, like all of us, we get a little frustrated and, uh,... we acknowledge the impact that shifting in alert levels has on our people and our communities. So, you know, if that's what was required by the health officials, then that's what they've done. We've had, like most of us, lessons along the way. - Sure. - And in communicating with our families, it's really important that we're very clear on that, which is why I think that direct contact is important. - Well, that's right. Should that direct contact have happened earlier? And I point also to Ashley Bloomfield issuing that health order yesterday to say that, you know, immediate home visits on those identified as contacts. So this kind of action, which the opposition has been calling for in the last week, should have happened earlier. - Well, look, we're confident of our health response, Simon. Look, we've worked very closely, we've also got to have quite a measured approach to make sure that, for example, those tamariki at Papatoetoe High School are willing to comply and able to comply with the rules that are in place. And in order to do that, we've got to have a measured approach. So we always come out first with an education and a strong information approach. And at times, we might need to do that, and we witnessed that with Dr Bloomfield in his announcement. - OK, but the Prime Minister also changed her approach. She's been very measured and kind and inclusive, but she took a tougher tone this week with people who didn't isolate. Do you think that is going to discourage people from getting tested or volunteering information like, 'Hey, we've got a lodger in our house'? - Well, while we acknowledge that when people are being interviewed about their particular circumstance, it is a stressful time for them. So it might take one or two or even more interviews to make sure we get that information. Will I acknowledge that it's been frustrating for our country? Of course, it has been. As the MP for Tamaki Makaurau, I hear these frustrations from our community. But, as I said earlier, Simon, I'm positive and looking forward, and I'm looking forward to the week ahead, and once again, a reminder to remain vigilant. - Yeah. It seems, though, that some people may have become less compliant, and that sparked a bit of outrage. Do you have any data or any feedback on the levels of compliance during this latest lockdown? - No, sorry, I don't have any of that data at hand. What I can say, though, Simon, is in my communications with a large number of community health providers and community social service providers, for the most part, our people in Tamaki Makaurau, in particular, have been compliant, adhering to the rules and supportive of the measure we've taken. - Clear messaging, as you say, is important. That's what we've been talking about. Can I just ask you about tweets by other political parties, one by National MP Simon O'Connor who put out a tweet showing himself as a puppet. And then at the other end of the scale, Maori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi was telling people to isolate who were not required to. What does that do and how much does that distract from the public health message? - It is extremely unhelpful and, since a year ago, the Prime Minister Dr Bloomfield and Minister Hipkins have made it quite clear that we must look to one source of truth, and that's why we promote the daily briefings from here in Wellington, but also the information pages through websites and clear messaging through our providers in the community, so that they can communicate that to families. The kind of noise that you might see on the fringe from opposition parties is certainly not helpful. - Right. - And we'll be looking forward to making sure that our communications are clearer and strong. - So are you telling them not to do anything like that? Is that what you're saying? What would you like to say to them? - Well, I'd like to say to them it's not helpful at all. We are a team of five million. And, you know, we have a responsibility as representatives of our communities, who represent communities in the House of Parliament, to be on the same page with this. And so I'd ask them, if they could, not to. - OK. You say it's important to be vigilant. If this happens again, another localised outbreak, would the government consider a local lockdown instead, rather than locking down everybody? They've tried this quite successfully in New South Wales. Is that on the agenda? - It's certainly not on the agenda at the moment. Look, I'll be quite clear with you, Simon, we're not out of the woods yet with regard to this current cluster. We've made it clear that we will be shifting alert levels in Tamaki Makaurau Auckland, but we're still at alert level 2 and we've still got more work to do to make sure that we continue testing, to make sure that it's not in our community, and to make sure that the messaging is clear, that if you're unwell, stay home. So, you know, at the moment, we're not even considering what a future lockdown might look like. We're dealing with this one. And it's important we do that to make sure that, hopefully, we don't have one in the future. - Well, let's talk vaccination, the most recent survey data. What is it sort of saying about the possible vaccination uptake amongst Maori and Pasifika? - Look, it's going to be a challenge, and we knew that from the outset, that the, kind of, anti-vax message is not going to be helpful for our campaign in terms of rolling out the vaccine. So as a result, with the Ministry of Health and a large number of our community providers and health stakeholders, we're looking to roll out a strong campaign to push back against the anti-vax message and to promote the vaccination programme that we have. But I will say this to you, Simon; I think of myself and my grandmother, who's 80-plus years. She doesn't have social media. She doesn't trust too many people. But I look forward to, as a responsible whanau member, sitting down with her and talking her through what the vaccine is and what it means, in the hope that she'll make an informed decision. - So are you saying that social media is basically, you know, responsible for an increase or the amount of hesitancy that you're picking up from Maori and Pasifika? - Well, it's given a platform to a large number of users we all know, and it hasn't been helpful. We all recall back... - Does that` But can I... - Sorry, Simon. - Can I ask though, is it just social media, or is it a wider distrust in the health system, a system that has been acknowledged as failing Maori and Pasifika in some respects? - Yes, and we've acknowledged that the health system hasn't served the Maori community particularly well, which is why I find myself in the position I am, as Associate Health Minister, responsible for Maori health. And what we've learnt from the Waitangi Tribunal claim is that we've got a lot of work to do to re-engage our whanau and our Maori communities to make sure that they adhere to the health messages and do the best that they can for the wellbeing of their community. But we've all got a role to play in this, Simon. I'm not particularly pointing it at social media or any particular individual, but what I would say is, as a team, we've all got a job to do, from media, to the likes of myself, to leader and leadership within the communities, and that's all important. - And just one quick question to finish off with, Minister. Should the people of South Auckland be offered the vaccine immediately to ring fence vaccinate South Auckland? - The Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and Minister Hipkins and myself and other ministers have sat down and talked about this, and we'll make sure that, with a strong equity lens, that those who need it the most should be a priority, and we'll be prioritising that in the vaccine roll-out. - OK. Associate Minister for Health Peeni Henare. Thank you so much for your time this morning. Nga mihi nui. All right, if you've got something to say about what you see on our show, please let us know. We are on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram ` NewshubNationNZ with the #NationNZ or you can email us at nation@tv3.co.nz. But e whai ake nei, still to come ` we dissect the week's political news with our panel. Plus ` doctors and patients say it's about to get harder to get medicinal cannabis. An exclusive report from Anna Bracewell-Worrall - Hoki mai ano, welcome back. We've seen the government's COVID-19 messaging change several times in the past two weeks. Combined with social media and misinformation, is clarity being lost? Journalist David Farrier and public narrative researcher Dr Jess Berenston-Shaw join me now. Morena. First to you, Jess. Several changes in tone and message from the government. What's your analysis of this last week? - I think it's tricky. I think it speaks to the trickiness of trying to communicate in a kind of unknown scientific situation, things are constantly evolving scientifically, and any kind of narrative that you're trying to develop around evolving science is always going to be tough. I think it's important to disentangle the difference between essentially public health instruction, which we're kind of dealing with here, which is what people should be doing in the face of particular public health issues, versus kind of wider narratives around things like vaccination and COVID more generally. And what we've seen this week is obviously around how does instruction get to people in a really busy, messy, changing information environment? And that is tricky. - Yeah, sure. I noticed that the Prime Minister reminded us that COVID-19 kills, and she also came down hard on, sort of, the KFC-working gym-goer. That was a first for her as well. Was that calculated on her behalf, and do you think it worked? - I think it's tricky. I think she's moved` Again, she's moved from this messaging quite clearly around the kind of collective responsibility. Part of that, probably it makes sense if she feels that people are kind of letting people down in that collective responsibility, it does actually make sense that she kind of names that. I think where the difficulty has come from is from those people themselves saying, 'Hey, we didn't get the message,' and then that obviously can backfire and look kind of draconian. - All right. So getting clarity of message through is their goal. But that gets muddy, doesn't it, David Farrier, when you throw in social media and other politicians jumping in? - Yeah, it gets muddied very quickly because everyone has an opinion. And suddenly on social media, everyone's opinion is kind of taken at the same value, whether it's a scientist or a politician or just someone that's been watching endless YouTube videos. And I think things also can spiral very quickly out of control on social media when the wrong people pile in and spread that message. I think we've seen a lot of that with the messaging around vaccines. The health and wellness space on Instagram with influencers at the moment is a mess of misinformation, and that's just going to get worse and worse. I think getting that messaging out clearly is just going to get harder and harder. - What did you think, though` What's your take on National's Simon O'Connor tweet of the image of him being a puppet? - (GROANS) It is so frustrating, and` Oh, he's dog-whistling to the conspiracy theory crowd, hands down. I mean, you just need to read the comments under that post and see people weighing in on who the puppet masters are. And it's this narrative we're seeing all around the world with conspiracy theory culture, from QAnon to what's happening here, where there's this idea that we are puppets and politicians are puppets and, you know, big business and the cabal is pulling the strings. So it's pure dog-whistle. It's really` It's immature. I mean, Gerry Brownlee did this last year when he was kind of dropping hints that the government knew there'd be another lockdown when he was just saying, you know, essentially, 'just asking questions.' So it's immature, it's frustrating, but it gets him a lot of likes on Facebook. - Jess, what is your take on that kind of tweet? - Yeah, I mean, it's designed to purposely, I think, to be, you know, 'That wasn't necessarily what I was doing.' 'I did think, you know, maybe he's maybe he's finally coming out and saying, look, I'm sick of being manipulated by people who are spreading false information about COVID and science. - I think David Farrier would find that a charitable interpretation. Well, all right, but this is really important because we're just trying to roll out a vaccine in New Zealand. And Ministry of Health Research shows 40% of people are hesitant or won't take it. So, Jess, how is the government going with engendering trust in the process? - I think it's important to point out that hesitancy is pretty normal, and hesitancy is different from people who absolutely will refuse to take a vaccine or decline a vaccine altogether. So I think it's important to kind of normalise this idea that having doubts about an intervention or any medical intervention, especially when people don't feel like the effects of COVID are particularly close to them. And in New Zealand, we're lucky enough not to be seeing people get ill, be in hospital or die. So that hesitancy is quite normal. So I think it's important just to kind of outline that and not to get ourselves into a kind of a massive moral panic that there are heaps of people that are somehow going to decline the vaccine. - OK. - But the next step is if people are hesitant, what are you going to do ` in the context of the social media environment and this really busy, mixed and manipulated information environment that David's talked about ` what are you going to do to make sure that you don't get a whole lot of laundering of really extreme false information into people who are hesitant? - OK. - And one of the things` Oh, sorry, yep. - Just on that, I mean, you're trying to get that information through via social media, and yet at the same time, you have people who are leaders in certain communities, i.e., David, the Tamakis, saying they're not going to take it, right? So, I mean, are they just fringe? Are they just the 10%, or do they have a wider, wider responsibility here? I mean, they definitely have a wider responsibility. And there are a lot of people that look up to the Tamakis, well, not a lot, but enough to be bothersome. And it's the same when you look at someone like Billy TK, the failed politician, you know, he's still got a Facebook page that's very active, and he's pandering these messages to them. So, I agree, we shouldn't be too alarmist about this whole thing. There are people that should naturally` Will just be worried, Like, no one likes getting an injection in the first place. But I think we do have to keep an eye and just be educated and aware of where people are getting their information from and how to talk to those people, because there are, you know, there are increasingly still people going down that rabbit hole of utter disinformation, which is which is alarming. - Can I can I just raise one with you, David? Briefly, I see that former politician Jami-Lee Ross has now formed a company which is going to be marketing anti-radiation or radio-frequency pills. So there's somebody there who maybe making money out of conspiracy theories. - Yeah. Oh, yeah, another` The grift is real. And there are plenty of people out there in New Zealand and the States and all over the world who will take advantage of this stuff. And, you know, there's a base of people out there that do have a distrust of the government for various reasons, and that can be fine. But also when that's preyed upon, to be distrustful of them during the messaging around a pandemic, that's when it can get really dangerous. And there are plenty of people out there just wanting to make money, like Jami-Lee Ross selling a pill that is, like, utterly based not in science. - OK, Hey, Jess, can I just ask you then if` How are we going to get the message through via, say, social media and other platforms without spreading the disinformation at the same time? It's a tricky balance there, isn't it? - Yeah, it is, and I think, you know, what David was just pointing to is quite useful, which is one of the things that we know is as opposed to directly trying to counter a lot of the specific false facts, naming some of these strategies that people are using and their motivations like false information, is spread by people who want to manipulate the situation, who want to benefit from that personally or grab power. And that, the research says, is actually one quite effective technique that we can use before people get exposed to false information is talking about the kind of strategies and motivations of people. I would say that one kind of error that often institutions, like big institutions, like governments, will make is that these strategies around things like vaccines are what I would call a kind of correcting strategy. So their whole communication strategy is built around just correcting all of the false information. What you actually need is a strategy which is around building up quite a strong story around what are the benefits that, say, COVID vaccination will actually bring and the current environment. And then what options does it offer us? - OK, so, David, I see you agreeing. So I mean, you deal with conspiracy theories directly. Is it the right policy to ignore the disinformation or the misinformation and avoid trying to correct people? - Yeah, the tricky thing is not to wade into fights because that will just elevate their argument. And you're not going to convince any of these people overnight that you're right and they're wrong. So I would just say, like going gently into discussions, never get involved in Facebook threads, trying to beat anyone there with science, because that's just not going to happen, just gently, gently, and seed a little bit of doubt and just talk about the science behind things, but never get angry. This is online and in real life, like you wouldn't get angry at your grandma for, like, a silly belief. So don't get angry at anyone else for their silly beliefs. Like, have a dialogue and just be curious and you might cut through at some point. - You don't sound convinced. OK. Thank you so much for your time this morning, David Farrier and Jess Berenston-Shaw. Coming up, our political panel on the news of the week. But next, changes to sexual violence trials are before parliament. Do they go too far? - Hoki mai ano. Welcome back. Major changes to sexual violence trials are before parliament right now. Green Party Women's Spokesperson Jan Logie has been the force behind the bill. Others, like defence lawyer Marie Dyhrberg, say it jeopardises the right to a fair trial. I talked to them both about two amendments in particular that are causing a heated debate. The first helps complainants decide whether they give evidence via video rather than in court, and I asked Jan Logie why it was necessary. - Well, we know that the process of giving evidence and cross-examination is one of the most traumatic experiences for a complainant in a court case. And that we've had report after report telling us that those few victims of sexual violence who make it to court, who come out the other end, are telling us that they are feeling worse off at the end of the court process than they did before they reported, and that's just simply unacceptable. - So, Marie, as a defence lawyer, you will have the opportunity to oppose any sort of advance video and evidence and cross-examination. What's wrong with that? - Thanks, Simon. We're just going to clear up a few misconceptions here. The legislation in place at the moment allows for prerecording, so there is no real change to this, except it is a presumptive stance that they are taking in this legislation to say there will be prerecording, unless there is some interest in justice to do otherwise. Now, the learned people, the examples overseas, the academics such as Liz MacDonald, and also judges who deal in the sexual violence courts are aware of the legislation, the Court of Appeal decision that has said, in effect, so it is not workable. - All right, so, Jan, if you if you have to recall complainants who have pre-recorded, isn't that adding to their trauma? - Actually, could I just go back and address just a couple of points there? - Sure. - That Court of Appeal ruling didn't consider overseas experience and it only looked at very limited benefits. And the Law Commission has looked at this issue, in effect, twice from all of the perspectives, including the concerns of the defence, and have said that they recommend that we do this. And it's also being considered by crown law in terms of does this undermine the right to a fair trial, and they've held twice that it doesn't. - All right. So you say that it has been` - But it's really, really important. - Concerns of defence are recording could happen a long time before trial, so new evidence could emerge. What's going to happen when new evidence emerges, post that evidence being recorded? - Overseas experience is that recall does happen, we're not pretending it might not, but in a very small number of cases, and then it's just a small section of evidence, not the entire process, so that's worth it because a huge number still get to do it earlier. - Marie, what do you say to that? - Yeah, so far as the UK is concerned, Simon, in the UK, whilst there is the provision for this prerecording for all complainants, in reality it's so fraught with flaws that it is reserved for young people or complainants who have cognitive difficulties, so that has to be made very clear indeed. - That's not accurate. Just because it's available overseas does not mean to say that it is right. Now, it may well be in some other jurisdictions,... - That's not true. - ...disclosure is made in a very timely way, but that does not happen in New Zealand. We have the situation where defence counsel receive disclosure right up to the time we start the trial. We are getting new evidence. We are having to consider that and revamp our strategies and what our defence is. That, often, is going to mean that we have to call the complainant back. - Do you agree that there is a high level of re-traumatisation in the court process and this may help reduce that? - Look, we don't know whether it's re-traumatisation because you are assuming there is a victim and you're assuming that the complaints are true. So let's just say complainant and trauma. No, it won't reduce it. If it did, then of course. We already have enormous steps that the defence go along with. We don't argue that complainants can take breaks, that they can sit outside the court, that they have the evidence recorded by way of evidential video that is played in court, and that is done within weeks after the allegations are made. There's a closed court. All of those things are` - So, you're arguing that there are provisions in place already` - I can't even list all of the reports that have told us that re-traumatisation is happening and is the norm in our court process, and the really brutal experiences of parents, of children, of victims, who` even when they've got a guilty conviction at the end. - OK, Let's move on to another` let's just move on to another change now, Jan. The second one is where, if the complainant and defendant may have sexual history, right, they may have been a couple. But under this law, a judge will now have to approve that detail being introduced as evidence. Does that mean that relevant evidence, Marie, I'm asking this to you, does that mean the relevant evidence is off limits? - It absolutely is. What it is, it's very far-reaching, and what I must say at this point, that the two specially-trained judges in the sexual violence pilot are on the law commission, are opposed to this change. What it does is it removes the background and it removes the context in which a defendant may well think that consent has been given. It also allows the jury to see what is the relationship between these two people individually, specifically in this case. But also, at the moment, it means that if there's no charge in relation to a particular event, you have to apply to the court. Now, that is completely disregarding Section 23 of the Bill of Rights Act, under which no person, no person in New Zealand accused has to make a statement. - OK. - You do not have to do that. - Jan Logie` - And it takes away the right to silence. - Jan Logie, does it take away the right to silence? And does it also take away some relevant evidence or push it off limits? - No, it absolutely doesn't. What this is doing is making sure that complainants have a fair trial, as well as defendants. What this does is bring our law in line with the UK, Canada and Australia, the jurisdictions that we compare ourselves to. This is just ensuring that our evidence laws match our criminal law, that consent cannot be given in general or for the future, and that the evidence that is tested in the court needs to match our criminal law. And this has been tested in terms of any concern for the defendant by the bill of the Crown Law, and they've given it two clear Bill of Rights checks. It got sent back by the Select Committee for them to look at it again, and they were fine. And I want to say that the law commission has recommended this twice, and not just once. - OK. There is a one final point, which Marie raises, and that is, you say, that these changes will have more of an impact on defendants from lower income or Maori and Pacific communities. Why is that? - That is because, unfortunately, they are the ones hardest hit by not having the access to justice and the finances and the costs that will be required to undertake all of these challenges, all of these applications to have to surmount the challenges because we start off under these bills, under these two amendments, in particular, a presumption of guilt, and they will be affected because they just simply won't have the resources. - When I brought this up with a member of the judiciary last year about the concerns that the defence were raising, the judge said to me, what the defence is missing is that the right to a fair trial is a right for the complainant, as well as the defendant. And that is really critical in this, that the complainants in our system are not getting anything near a right to a fair trial, and that we have done absolute best to ensure that we are protecting the rights of everyone in that court. - So, do you` - That Maori women` Maori are victims of crime, and they are reporting and they deserve justice as much as anyone, and we've ensured that there are communications assistants that will work for defendants, as well as complainants, to make sure they understand everything that's happening in the court, which has been part of the problem up to this point. - And I think both of you there are going to stay diametrically opposed on that last issue. - We are. Thank you very much for your time this morning. Marie Dyhrberg and Jan Logie. And if you want to see an extended version of that debate, head to our Newshub Nation Facebook page. Up next ` news and politics with Ben Thomas and Dr Lara Greaves. Plus ` why is it about to get harder to get medicinal cannabis when it's supposed to get easier? - Welcome back. I'm joined now by our political panel, PR consultant and former National Party press secretary Ben Thomas, and Dr Lara Greaves from Auckland University Politics. Welcome to you both this morning. And another extraordinary week in Aotearoa. Has the government convinced people that this seven day lockdown was necessary, or are they losing public buy-in? Ben Thomas, to you first. - Well, I think it was necessary because there were links missed in the contact tracing. The Ministry of Health didn't get out and door-knock and find the links that were there. So it was necessary because of those failures, overall you'd say that it was probably a bit of a miss by the government in its response. - Do you think, Lara Greeves, do you think that the Government has as a result of this, lost a bit of public confidence? - Yeah, look, I, I kind of I broadly agree with Ben there. I think there's been two issues that have come up for me this week. One has been the messaging and the messaging not being quite right for a diverse range of communities. And potentially the government needs to look at that and look at that going forward, and how they can kind of partner with Maori and Pacific communities and deliver that on the ground messaging better. The second one is around that contact-tracing. So it's great to have Dr. Ayesha Verral in cabinet as an expert on contact tracing. But it's been a while since there's been a report. I checked the Ministry of Health website since going back to sort of June last year, since there's been a report on contact tracing. So, kind of, it would be good to see them again, partner with Maori and Pacific expertise and expertise from a range of community groups, you know, some sort of other ethnic communities to see how contact tracing and the best way to contact people going forward can be, because sending people a letter is not really necessarily the best method of contact nowadays. - So is there an acknowledgement of that already from Dr. Bloomfield, who has, and yesterday said` or the day before that, the 45 home visits since Monday this week, and then and then a new public health report are saying people have to isolate and have to get tested. They have acknowledged now that they should have been doing some more face-to-face work, Ben. - Yeah, I think that's right. There's been a lot of focus on the messaging, on, you know, the sort of PR aspect. But, you know, here it wasn't a failure of messaging. It wasn't a failure that we didn't come up with a catchy enough slogan. The issue was that, you know, contradictory information was being given out from official sources. People didn't know what the position was. It's not clear that the Ministry of Health knew what the position was for the different varieties of contacts. You know, that goes beyond a messaging failure. That's about not being clear in your own mind about what you want people to do. - OK, talking about messaging, the Prime Minister's notably took a harder line this week, effectively saying, you know, dob in your neighbour, the team of 5 million is going to be judging you. Calculated move, Lara Greaves? Or is that just showing some frustration. - I think it's quite mixed, right? Because I think the vast majority of people are doing the right thing. But we know that there's people we can probably` We've probably all got anecdotal evidence of our neighbour doing that or some people doing that, all that kind of thing. I think generally it's tougher, the more lockdowns that go by, the harder it's going to get to get compliance I think evidence has shown that. I also think that potentially, and she kind of` Ardern signalled this in the press conference yesterday, that they are going to give us a little bit more clarity around what their lockdown strategy is going forward, because initially it was, 'Hey, we don't want people to be cycling in and out of lockdown. That's going to be disruptive.' That's going to be disruptive for people's mental health and well-being of for business. But it's looking like that in the next week or two, we might be able to expect them kind of outlining what their strategy will be for the next potential a year or two during the vaccine rollout. And then even after that, going forward, what will New Zealand look like in two or three years time? - Yeah, and she has signalled a road map, didn't she, Ben? But I guess what use is a road map and people aren't going to stick to the road map, i.e., the Tamakis decided to go down to Rotorua and then off to the South Island. Does that kind of behaviour from public people really not help the public messaging that the government is trying to get through? - Well, of course it doesn't. Although remember that the Tamakis didn't technically break any of the rules that were in place. They were part of a flood of people who escaped from Auckland just before the lockdown took effect. You know, compliance is waning, you know. Yeah, I think you might be able to hear the traffic noise behind me during the supposed this level 3 lockdown where we're all staying at home. It's very different from level four last year. And part of this is the sort of PR rolling mall. We had a blitzkrieg in level 4. You know, it was almost like a dystopian future. Every bus stop shelter that you passed, every YouTube video that you uploaded had the same clear, consistent message, stay home, stay safe. That's harder to do. But it also seemed, you know, that's harder to do when you've got different categories of contact, different requirements. But at the same time, it seems that the government has taken its foot off the pedal. I'm not so concerned, for instance, about the vaccine rollout and getting by in there, because I just trust that there will be the same kind of all-encompassing blitzkrieg of communications that we had for level 4. But we haven't had that for level 3. We have sort of just kind of assumed, I think, that everyone is sitting rapt at home watching the 1:00p.m. briefings with the Prime Minister and Dr. Bloomfield, as they were maybe last year. But I just don't think that's the case any longer. - OK, well, just on vaccination rates, Peeni Henare says there are alarming rates of Maori considering not getting the vaccine. Lara Greeves, do we need that kind of blitzkrieg that Ben's talking about in terms of PR to encourage uptake? - Yeah, look, we do need targeted messaging. I would say even there's a lot of danger in us repeatedly saying that less Maori are going to get the vaccine or less Pasifika are. That create this kind of false consensus effect, this kind of bandwagon effect that's in the polling literature, That we repeatedly keep hearing, like, 40% of the public are vaccine-hesitant, that then creates a situation for me as an individual or any individual to go, 'Oh, well, if all of them aren't going to get the vaccine, why should I take that risk?' Because people do think of it as a risk. So I think we have to be really careful around that type of messaging as well. Like, 'Oh, all of my neighbours are not going to get the vaccine. Why would I get it?' I do think it is time to be thinking about how they could pair with different community organisations and fund them appropriately to make sure that the vaccine rollout goes smoothly. And I do think there's a bit in that. And even Judith Collins agrees that potentially they should be going to South Auckland to vaccinate first, because I think as well, if, you know, like my auntie in the States just got the second vaccination the other day and just even her getting that, I think that message of knowing someone who personally who's got it that you trust who didn't have side effects, just had a fine time like the millions of millions of people have, I think that that's a really powerful message. So they need to be thinking about that strategically. - So you just talked about the opposition leader there, Judith Collins, Can I ask both of you, Ben, first, have you seen Simon O'Connor's tweet of which he picked` A tweet, a picture of himself being a puppet? Is he being responsible, there? - I don't think he's being helpful. National's way forward as an opposition right now is to do what Nicola Willis is doing, what Chris Bishop is doing, what Erica Sanford is doing, and doing, just good, honest opposition work, asking the right questions and getting the answers, you know, finding the holes, pulling on the threads in things like the Ricardo Menendez March MIQ case, on, uh, you know, housing figures, on, you know, failures with MIQ and the border. This is the sort of thing that oppositions, you know, particularly now, you know, you've got a very strong government, National are languishing in the polls. They just need to concentrate on the work at hand. They don't need to be given rhetorical flights of fancy getting carried away like Simon O'Connor is. Like, I think Simon Bridges, with his histrionics in the house, they need fewer distractions. They just need to pull on the strings, so to speak. The government is doing a lot of, you know, is doing work in a lot of areas. It's not getting it all right. And the opposition needs to focus on that. - So, Lara Greeves, is a lot of potential there for the opposition. Are they using it? - Look, I think they're kind of bouncing around a bit, like we actually saw National this week, and Judith Collins talk about paying people more than what Labour talked about. You know, we see them kind of bouncing around trying to get some traction. I think, and I've said this time and time again, is that National needs to look at what a sort of positive identity for their party is going forward, and whether things like this sort of Facebook post with the puppet and the strings, whether things like that are part of that identity going forward, because I think they could go quite nasty. They could go Don Brash Orewa speech style, they could go a bit conspiracy theorist on it, like those Gerry Brownlee comments. They could go in that direction, or they could go and counter, sort of, Jacinda Ardern's popularity with a more positive brand and identity. And I guess we'll see what they do there. - OK, well, we will wait to see what the next move is from National and from the government. Thank you very much to our panel this morning, Dr. Lara Greaves and Ben Thomas, thanks very much for your time. OK. Stay with us. We will be back after the break. - Welcome back. The government's new medicinal cannabis regime was supposed to make it easy for us to use cannabis to treat pain, nausea and anxiety, but patients and doctors say it's about to make things a whole lot worse. Anna Bracewell-Worrall reports. - Rain! George is 2� and loves his planes and his luxury cars. - (BABBLES) - He's had a rough year. As the country went into its first lockdown, Gavin and Nicky got the news no parent wants to hear. - Yeah, we got the devastating news, um,... that he had leukaemia. - This is George reunited with the family dog after his first five weeks of chemotherapy. You can see tremors shaking his hands. He couldn't walk without help. The family got a prescription for medicinal cannabis extract, Cannabidiol or CBD, which has little to no psychoactive effects. Two days later, George crawled up the stairs for the first time. But it didn't stop his persistent nausea and vomiting. - What choice do you have? You're gonna go to the end of the earth for your kid if he's dying before your eyes. And his quality of life was just... it was nil. - They wanted to try THC, tetrahydrocannabinol ` the psychoactive component of cannabis. It can help nausea, but the only product they could legally get wasn't right for George. - It was a mouth spray and... - For $900. - Instead, they contacted a green fairy, an illegal supplier of cannabis for sick people. - We no longer had to sit with a vomit bucket 24/7 on this. - Hmm. - And he wasn't in so much pain. - The family says the THC product was like night and day. - You're walking, George. - You are walking so well, darling. - (BABBLES, LAUGHS) - It's a story Newshub Nation has heard again and again, patients sick and frustrated by the prescription system turning to green fairies. Price is one reason. The other is bureaucracy. - I believe that this can be very easily fixed just by dumbing down some of those requirements a wee bit. - Dr Mark Hotu says prescriptions usually need an eight-page recommendation from a specialist. At least at the end of that process, there have been a number of products to choose from, but that's about to change. - I'm pretty disappointed with the Ministry of Health. They came in with really good intentions, but there was a hitch. - Next month, April, products will have to meet a new standard. The Ministry of Health says it's received 33 product applications. Just two have been approved, both of them on Friday night, ahead of this story airing. Unless there is urgent change this month, the options at Dr Mark's clinic will shrink from this... to this. 95% of your patients won't be able to access their current medication. - That's correct. - Two Tilray products were approved last night. Those who rely on other brands fear their medicine will be gone. Dr Mark doesn't prescribe Tilray because his patients find it too expensive. - You'll go down to Timaru or Whanganui and it'll cost you $540. - The new regulations were meant to make it cheaper and easier to access, to create and support a local market, to end the eight-page sign-off process, and to bring peace of mind to those who need it the most. But instead of opening it up, it's about to shut it right down. Gareth Duff uses one of the cheapest CBD oils on prescription to stop epileptic seizures. It's unlikely to get the tick by April. - It's just helped me hugely. The thought of losing that is really quite frightening. - He simply can't afford the more expensive Tilray products. - If that disappears,... where does it leave me? I could have seizures again. - That's on top of dealing with a life-changing condition. - There's all that stress to worry about, and now there's the, 'Oh no, they could take this away from me and I could be back to square one.' - The company importing Gareth's medicinal cannabis has been trying for a year to tick all the boxes the Ministry of Health requires under the new regime. Their products are due to be taken off the shelves by April. That's in less than a month. - We're fielding multiple calls a day from pharmacies that are concerned about what the state of our products and what's going to happen post March 31st. - An attempt to import another cheaper product called Clever Leaves stopped short because it's Croatian pharmaceutical stamp isn't recognised here. It's recognised by Canada, the USA and all of Europe, but not New Zealand. - Le Brun says New Zealand's high standards can be met eventually, but not in the short term. - They're basically counselling better in the pursuit of perfect, and in the short term, that's likely to push people more to the black market. - Medicinal cannabis companies want a parallel regime with another country, somewhere like Germany, so if a company passes all the lab tests required there, it can be imported here too. - Products that are approved in Germany are shelf-life stable, they're accurate to label, they have all that data to show that they're good enough. - Even the government appears to have been caught off guard by how difficult its own regulations are to meet. David Clark's press release in April 2020 announced... It took until now, nine months later than anticipated, for the very first approval. Now the health portfolio's in Andrew Little's hands, issuing a remarkable commitment. - As I understand it, those products will continue to be available after the 31st of March. - A remarkable commitment, too remarkable. After the interview, Andrew Little's office confirmed he had misspoken, saying in a statement, 'Regardless of the exemption expiring in March, products will be available.' Some products, not all. Little is open to extending the time existing products can be prescribed beyond the end of this month, but he's not planning on easing the standard. - I'm not anticipating changing that anytime soon. I've got to make sure that safety is paramount. - I haven't had anyone that's needed to stop CBD in two and a half years due to side effects. - So the products that you can currently get under the old regime are pretty safe. - They're very safe. - The medicinal cannabis regime was designed to make life easier for the sickest New Zealanders, but it's that regime currently forcing them onto the black market. - Anna Bracewell-Worrall with that heart-wrenching story there, and we are back now with our panel, Ben Thomas and Dr Lara Greaves. Lara, medicinal cannabis. That was a heart-wrenching story, as I said. Legal, but hard to get. Is bureaucracy seemingly getting in the way? - I think it's looking like it is. And I totally agree with you that those stories are really heart-wrenching, and we see sort of very sympathetic people and families put forward in a lot of these stories. Professor Charles Crothers from AUT did a bit of work around the referendums and looked at public opinion, and upwards of 80% of New Zealanders support medicinal cannabis. It's a bit lower than that for decriminalisation, but it does kind of show that support is there. And I think the government has to be really careful with these kind of stories, cos a lot of us would tend to look at the cannabis referendum result and turn around now and say, 'Hey, why not decriminalisation?' I think some of those legislative mechanisms need to be looked at, potentially looking at where products are legal or suitable for other jurisdictions, other countries, and where they can be made safe for New Zealanders. I think that this access issue is going to be something that continually could be an issue for the government. - Right, yeah. Ben, it could be an issue for the government because, you know, they say that they've cleared the way, they've set up the regime and then we don't have it. I mean, we have the regime, but we don't have any products. It's a bad look, really. - Well, it just goes to prove what Chloe Swarbrick said during the election campaign: regulating cannabis will make it harder to get. I think that, you know, you have these teething problems with any regulatory regime. The Ministry of Health is pretty strict on these things, and you would hope that they would adopt, you know, a bit of a more liberal approach as time goes on. You know, maybe there could be more reliance on overseas jurisdictions, particularly Canada. You know, there's no need to reinvent the wheel, as we're seeing with our, you know, reauthorization of COVID vaccines. You know, I think we do have to put a bit of trust in our trading partners. They're not trying to poison or make their people, their own citizens addicts through these products. - Yeah, and that's a good point about trusting overseas jurisdictions. And it comes into play in the next topic, which is a review or a change in sexual violence laws and the way that they are processed through the court process now. Jan Logie is driving this, but she's not really managing to convince the defence lawyers, is she, Ben? - Well, I mean, it's no surprise, right? Currently sexual assault, rape, you know, those sorts of cases have conviction rates that are about a third of other cases. Now, unless you somehow believe that there's a two-thirds rate of false complaints or mistaken identity that doesn't exist for other crimes, then you would have to say there was a structural problem involved in getting convictions in these cases. And a lot of it comes down to the evidence. I think the defence lawyers are putting up a few, sort of, false flags. You know, this idea that pre-recorded cross-examination will be undone as new information comes to light. I mean, nobody's suggesting that you'll have a cross-examination as soon as a complaint is laid, you know, one week into the process. This will all happen after the disclosure has occurred. You can see why the defence lawyers are taking up this cause for their clients, but at the same time, something needs to be done to address the rates of sexual assault and violence in New Zealand. - Yeah. Lara Greaves, it looks like, I mean, it is a tricky balance ensuring that the court process is less traumatising for complainants, and yet you are protecting the rights to a fair trial. Did anybody convince you in that debate? - Look, I really think that there's potential for the people who are anti these reforms to be, like Ben said, throwing up these, sort of, false flags that then kind of people nit pick, 'Oh, well, Marie Dyhrberg said this or National said this, therefore we shouldn't have these reforms.' I think that, in terms of the democracy, going to defence lawyers, going to experts and, like, having these discussions are really important, but I do kinda worry that, when people put forward arguments saying, 'Oh, what about the defendants?' 'What about that one time that guy is falsely accused?' Because studies show that that is, in fact, really rare. I do worry that some of those nuts and bolts do contribute to that broader sort of rape culture discourse, and so that kind of concerns me in a lot of these discussions. I tend to be on Jan Logie's side for this and have looked at some of that evidence, and it does seem like these prerecording and, like, looking at how we can support survivors to come forward and support survivors in that whole trial process, because it doesn't just end when you make the complaint. I think any way we can support survivors is really positive going forward. - OK. And one more issue, just` - Any relevant evidence will still be allowed in. You know, this is not a case of ruling out any evidence of prior sexual relationships between complainants and defendants. It's just subjecting it to a test of is this relevant, which we've done for other evidence, in fact, all evidence in court proceedings since time immemorial. You know, this is not the kind of grand change that the defence lawyers are sort of proposing. - OK. I just want to touch base on one issue which raised this week and that's the police charging a 27-year-old for threatening to kill after online threats against the Christchurch mosques. Comes on the eve of the two-year anniversary of those attacks. Police say they heard from a tip-off from a member of the public. Should we be concerned about that? Shouldn't it be the intelligence services that are monitoring these channels like 4chan, Ben? - Do you remember those innocent times, you know, five, 10 years ago when some people's biggest concern was that the government was reading all of our emails and knew all of our information? (CHUCKLES DRYLY) It shows that, you know, the government doesn't have either an interest or the resources to actually have this supposed surveillance state that a lot of people used to be concerned about. Look, you would hope that the SIS was doing something as perfunctory as monitoring the boards where these kind of seeds of extremist hate take root. You know, it's possible that they were. The SIS doesn't talk about operational matters. And so this idea that, you know, when they say, 'We can't monitor the whole internet,' maybe there are people checking in, but that's not something that they want to publicise. - Yeah, fair enough. OK. All right. Thank you very much for your time to the panel this morning. Ben Thomas and Dr Lara Greaves. - Thank you. And that is all from us for now. Thank you so much for watching. Hei kona mai. We'll see you again next weekend. Captions by Sophie Pearce and John Gibbs. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2021 This programme was made with the assistance of the NZ On Air Platinum Fund.