Sunday 25th September, 2011

Q+A interview with Dr Don Brash.

Points of interest:
- ACT leader “very sorry” to see No. 2 John Boscawen stand down at election; says Boscawen changed his mind in part because of pressure he’s been under after “a very tough month”
- Brash “accepts” that rolling Rodney Hide as leader “certainly hasn’t had much effect on the polls”
- “Well, certainly I’m disappointed in the polling”
- I think we’ve never had such a strong list of candidates as we have this year
- Police “clearly ignoring” the right to self-defence; “intolerable” that they charge people for defending themselves
- Brash unable to prove claim that people are “more likely than not to be prosecuted” if they use legitimate force in self-defence. (Police don’t keep those stats)
- “I can quote a dozen cases... half a dozen cases in the speech where police have charged people defending themselves, get charged by the police”.
- Cannabis laws “not working”, need reform
- “Should the state be using $100 million of taxpayers’ money to criminalise an activity which, on the face of it, does no harm to anybody?”
- Brash has never used marijuana; “I’m not encouraging its use”
- Says criminalising marijuana only gives power to the gangs

The interview has been transcribed below. The full length video interviews and panel discussions from this morning’s Q+A can be watched on tvnz.co.nz at, http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news

Q+A, 9-10am Sundays on TV ONE. Repeats at 9.10pm Sundays, 10.10am and 2.10pm Mondays on TVNZ 7

Q+A is on Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/NZQandA#!/NZQandA and on Twitter, http://twitter.com/#!/NZQandA

Dr DON BRASH interviewed by PAUL HOLMES

PAUL Good morning,

ACT leader Dr Don Brash.

DON BRASH – ACT Leader
Good morning, sir.

PAUL So, what's with John Boscawen?

DR BRASH Well, I’m very sorry indeed to see John step down. He’s made an enormous contribution to the ACT Party over the last 15 years, and indeed in Parliament over the last three years, but he’s advised me and advised the ACT Party board that he needs more time with his family, and I respect that.

PAUL Well, it sounds a bit dopey, because a month ago he’s happy to be number two on the list.

DR BRASH Well, that’s true.

PAUL What's changed?

DR BRASH He wondered about it even then, apparently.

PAUL But he said, “Yes, I’ll be number two on the list.”

DR BRASH Yes, he did, but he’s changed his mind.

PAUL Well, it looks dopey.

DR BRASH Well, it looks, uh...

PAUL Dopey.

DR BRASH Well, I... He’s changed his mind.

PAUL Try “dopey”.

DR BRASH Well, I don’t accept that, Paul, actually. John has been carrying an enormous burden, particularly in the last couple of weeks. I mean, ACT has been at the very centre of the debate on covert surveillance. The government’s ability to get that through may well depend on ACT Party votes, and it’s some very important principles around that legislation. So that’s one issue. The Criminal Procedures Bill was another issue which John was very much involved in. It’s been a very tough month.

PAUL With the greatest of respect, ACT doesn’t seem to have been at the centre of too much for a very long time. In fact, people don’t even know who speaks for ACT these days, really

DR BRASH Well, John Boscawen and I both speak for ACT at this point, and as you say, I’m announcing a policy on law and order this afternoon.

PAUL You see, doesn’t it look like, when you see a fellow accepting the number-two position and he’s your main parliamentary person and a month on he says he’s not standing again, that it looks a bit like the party’s falling apart?

DR BRASH Well, it may well look like that, but that’s not the reality. We’ve got a very strong list. I think we’ve never had such a strong list of candidates as we have this year.

PAUL Mm. You see, does it have something to do with you being 2%, when, when you rolled Rodney, you reckoned you were going to get them up to 15%? Is that why Boscawen...?

DR BRASH Well, certainly I’m disappointed in the polling. Let’s be quite clear about that. But the politics is very strange, Paul, I must say, because when we ask people “What would you like the government to look like after the election?” 27% of the total population would like ACT to be part of the government.

PAUL Well, OK, so why are you still only 2%?

DR BRASH Well, we have to persuade people that they can vote with their electorate for the National candidate and with their party vote for ACT.

PAUL Yeah, but can I suggest to you that on the basis of these polls, rolling Rodney seems to have had no point at all?

DR BRASH Well, it certainly hasn’t had much effect on the polls. I accept that.

PAUL Mm. No, well, why not?

DR BRASH Well, I mean...

PAUL It’s your failure, isn’t it?

DR BRASH Well, no. Well, one of the reasons I challenged Rodney was I wasn’t sure he could hold Epsom, and I’m still not sure that he could have done. I’m quite sure that John Banks can, and that’s very important for ACT’s survival.

PAUL Just finally on John Boscawen – I mean, this is a very strange piece of decision-making. You have to admit that. You have to accept that. I mean, what does it tell us about the calibre of the person the party’s recruiting?

DR BRASH Oh, look, John Boscawen is a very very hard-working, straight-up-and-down, absolutely honest guy, and I think he’s made an enormous contribution.

PAUL So who’s going to be your number two?

DR BRASH Well, that’s to be resolved by the board next week.

PAUL The unannounced person who is currently number three?

DR BRASH Well, no. That’s to be decided by the board next week.

PAUL Your speech this afternoon – you’re doing a speech this afternoon. I suppose it’s what we’d call a law and order speech. You’re talking about the right of self-defence, and you want that right of self-defence enshrined into the Bill of Rights. Why?

DR BRASH Well, quite frankly, it’s in law now.

PAUL Yes, it is. Section 48.

DR BRASH But quite frequently the police ignore that, and we have some awful cases where people who get attacked by clearly serious criminals who have been then prosecuted by the police for defending themselves. I mean, the classic case, of course, well known is Greg Carvell. Attacked by a guy wielding a machete in a gun shop, Mr Carvell shoots the guy, wounds him – doesn’t kill him – wounds him, and he’s charged by the police for assault.

PAUL In fact, you say that you’re more likely to... I mean, if you use some reasonable force to defend your life or property, you’re more likely to be charged than not, yes?

DR BRASH Well, absolutely.

PAUL Well, where’s your stats on that? Because we couldn’t find any on Friday. The police have no idea how you worked that out.

DR BRASH Well, let’s put it this way – I can quote a dozen cases... half a dozen cases in the speech where police have charged people defending themselves, get charged by the police.

PAUL Why does this need a change in legislation, though? I mean, as you say, Dr Brash, it’s already in the Crimes Act, section 48, quote: “Everyone is justified in using, in defence of themselves or another, such forces as it is reasonable to use.” It is already there.

DR BRASH But the police are clearly ignoring it, so we’ve got to do something to make sure the police respect that section 48 of the Crimes Act.

PAUL Yeah, but what better definition can you get than “reasonable”?

DR BRASH Well... Well...

PAUL And that’s always going to be a matter of subjective judgement, isn’t it?

DR BRASH Well, one thing is quite clear – the present situation is intolerable. You can’t have a situation where someone defending himself or herself in the dead of night against an intruder with a gun or an axe or a machete is charged by the police for using force.

PAUL No, I understand that, but what do you want? I mean, for example, if someone’s tagging your fence...?

DR BRASH Well, no, that’s a...

PAUL Hang on. If someone... Well, hang on. We’ve had that. If someone’s tagging your fence, does that allow you to stab them to death? If someone’s pinching your letterbox, should you be able to whack them over the head with an axe handle?

DR BRASH No, I say in the speech, in fact, that if someone lobs a tennis ball into your property, you’re not justified in shooting them as they retrieve the tennis ball. Let’s be reasonable about that. But if you’re...

PAUL That’s what I’m saying. You’ve got “reasonable” already in the Crimes Act.

DR BRASH You can quote half a dozen cases in the last two years alone where the police have charged people for defending themselves. That’s intolerable.

PAUL The other worry, I think, is vigilante justice. People worry that violence begets violence, that you’re encouraging the right to execute vigilante justice.

DR BRASH Well, I’m absolutely not doing that. I’m saying if you’re attacked by someone with an axe or a gun or a knife or whatever and you defend yourself and you injure that person, the police shouldn’t be charging you; they should be charging the attacker.

PAUL I’d better move on. One of the other planks of your... There are about three major planks, but the other most fascinating plank is the decriminalisation of marijuana. You say you don’t like marijuana yourself particularly. You don’t use it, haven’t used it. Why do you want to see the decriminalisation of marijuana? Because this is very scary for your audience.

DR BRASH Well, Paul, this is an issue which I’ve come to late in life. This is not an issue I’ve focused on at all previously. I’ve never been, as you say, a user. I’ve never been tempted to use it. But quite clearly...

PAUL Never had a night out?

DR BRASH No. No, not on cannabis, anyway, but... or any other kind of drug. But the reality is it’s not working now. There are 400,000 New Zealanders, it’s estimated, using cannabis on a fairly regular basis – 6000 people prosecuted every year. $100 million of taxpayers’ money being used to police this law. It isn’t working. The Law Commission has said it isn’t working. The Global Commission on Drug Policy says it isn’t working. I mean, it’s now recognised it ain’t working.

PAUL Mm. And of course, as you say, clogs up the courts, costs us a lot of money. And would you tax it?

DR BRASH I think there are all kinds of things you can do to restrict its use. I’m not encouraging its use. I’m simply saying criminalising it has not worked.

PAUL Yeah. So what you’re going to do is you’re going to get tough on the... So you’re going for the “get tough on crime” crowd with your speech and also the “free up the use of marijuana” crowd. How does that work?

DR BRASH Well, I’m saying, look, ACT is a party which believes that protecting citizens from criminals is one of the fundamental roles of the state. So that’s the argument behind the self-defence argument. We should not have the police prosecuting people who defend themselves. The second question, as you say, is criminals... is cannabis. Should the state be using $100 million of taxpayers’ money to criminalise an activity which, on the face of it, does no harm to anybody? We’re a party which believes in freedom.

PAUL So you’d sanction another drug. Goddamn, there's enough around.

DR BRASH Well, there are too many of them, but what do you do by criminalising it? You simply give power to the gangs.

PAUL Thank you very much for coming in, Dr Brash.

© Scoop Media