Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4)

Part 1 of this legislation, clauses 4 to 18, relates to the heart and soul of what members will be debating today, and also to the amendments that have come through. When we look at those provisions, we see that they contain the rules and regulations about how drug-driving will be tested by the police to determine whether someone is under the influence of drugs while driving.

When we look at the offence of drug-driving, compared with the more common or more understood offence of drink-driving, we see that the nature of that offence is the difficulty in measuring the drugs in someone’s system. There has been a lot of debate on that, and Part 1 reflects that difficulty. Testing for drugs is not as easy as testing for alcohol, in the sense that a method of roadside testing for drugs has not yet been developed for drugs. We do not have that technology available to us, so the testing regime has developed through a two-step process.

The first step is the traditional impairment test to see whether somebody is under the influence of some substance. The nature of that test is very much what we used to do in the old days to test for alcohol impairment, before the technology was developed. That first test is to see whether there is a case of an impaired driver. The officers working in that area are extremely well trained, and there will be special training for officers involved in testing for drug-driving. If an officer believes that a driver is impaired, then the driver’s blood is tested, which is the next level of tests. Those tests are expensive, so it is not expected that every driver will be expected to do a drug test. That is why we have the impairment test to filter out those who may potentially be seen as impaired but not impaired enough to warrant the expense of a blood test.

Part 1 covers a number of issues about blood testing that have become quite prominent. They relate to some of the issues that arise around the current testing for drink-driving, in the sense that there are some holes in the law and this bill attempts to plug them. Those holes relate to particular situations, which one could debate all day and all night, where people cause injury to themselves, and to some of the issues that have been raised by the Opposition members in regard to amendments that have been followed through.

The Minister of Transport has today put before the Committee amendments that try to dilute one offence provision by using another offence provision. Those kinds of requirements and changes to the legislation will be integral in trying to make sure we have a system that covers off as much of that drug-testing as possible, especially in regard to the blood component where there are possible angles whereby smart lawyers, or poor drivers who are breaking the law, could take advantage of a law that is in its infancy and try to create holes by which they could avoid the full force of the law.

This bill is an attempt to try to cover off those angles as much as possible. One such angle relates to the traditional situation where we have that point of difference between drink-driving and drug-driving, in the sense that somebody may be convicted of drink-driving and then the question arises as to whether the person could be convicted of drug-driving. That issue has been covered off in Supplementary Order Papers to this bill, so if there is a minor breach of the drink-driving requirements, then the drug-driving requirements can also be applied.

I take a call in the third reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) to address Supplementary Order Paper 24, which is before the Committee at the moment. It addresses two matters. I acknowledge the assistance of the Hon Trevor Mallard in advancing these matters. If I may say so, by appearances through this issue he is emerging as a kaumātua of the Labour Party.

The first matter is a substantive change and relates to circumstances where a driver normally has to do an impairment test before he or she can be prosecuted for the offence of drug-impaired driving. However, if the driver is hospitalised and unable to perform the impairment test, the driver could not be prosecuted under the bill as introduced. The Supplementary Order Paper will ensure that hospitalised drivers can be prosecuted for a new offence of driving with class A drugs in the blood. There will not be an impairment test for that offence, because it is impractical. Again, I thank Trevor Mallard for bringing that amendment forward. We had quite a discussion about whether it was going to be class A drugs or controlled drugs generally, but across the Chamber we settled on class A drugs at this time for new section 57A, inserted by clause 6.

The second matter is more one of form rather than substance in that officials advised that they felt we had already covered this one. But it was agreed, and I am comfortable with amending it to be very clear, that the police can advance both the alcohol test and the drug-impairment test at the same time on the side of the road, and they are not precluded from proceedings from both alcohol and drug processes at the same time. Amending these clauses will strengthen the message that drug-driving is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. It will also give judges the option of conviction for drink-related and drug-related offences. So that issue is dealt with by amendments to section 71A in clause 10 and section 72 in clause 11, which are the subjects of Supplementary Order Paper 24.

While I have the microphone, I would like to add how pleased I am to be able to lend my support to a good bill. We talked about the various people who have brought it forward: the previous Government back in 2007, and the excellent work of members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee after the election, as well. I also add my personal pleasure in being able to bring this legislation forward, because drug-driving is a very, very big issue for this country. It has been underplayed in the issue of transport safety, and I am pleased, as Minister of Transport, to bring this bill forward. Perhaps my biggest contribution as Minister is the impetus in terms of getting it through the Chamber, as we hope we will be able to do by next week. Then I think we really will have achieved something in terms of advancing the prosecution of drug-driving in this country.

It is not my intention to speak for long. I have a request to make of Government members: could they stop praising me, please? It is causing some problems with my colleagues.

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: I understand that, yes; it ruins the whole reputation.

Ha, ha!

I think we have made a lot of progress. Members will understand that there is some training in the delivery of the impairment test to be done for police officers. The test will probably take about 15 minutes to do; it is not as simple as walking along a white line. It was demonstrated to the select committee. I watched a couple of my colleagues attempt to do it, and I am concerned that it can be pretty hard. We might end up with some failures in relation to people who are entirely unaffected by drugs. But, of course, the test will not be randomly imposed on people; police officers will have reasonable cause before they start the process.

I think we have made a lot of progress. There are some other things that we could have done but that we have not done. I think we could have brought parts of the testing provisions in earlier, and had police officers who had had their training out there doing it, even before we had all the police officers right around the country trained to do it. But we have chosen not to do it in a progressive way like that, although there is an option under the Order in Council procedures to bring the testing in earlier. I encourage the Minister to bring it in as early as possible, and I make it clear that the Opposition will not criticise him if he does not have enough police officers trained. There will be places around the country, even when this testing has been implemented, that will not have enough people to do the test. We know that; we accept that. But if we can start catching people early and get them before the courts, I think the message will very much be one of perception as well as one of the facts of prosecution. If people know they can be prosecuted for drug-driving, we could well get the behavioural change that we are looking for. In the end, we are not looking to have people convicted of driving under the influence of drugs; we are looking to not have people drive with P and other drugs in their system. That is the objective, and it is very, very important.

There are some other changes, too. Frankly, I think that if the select committee had had another month to have a go at the legislation, it might have been able to better look at some of the future-proofing of this legislation. If I have one request of the Minister, it is that he does not let his officials think that the job is finished now. Work has to be done on the legislation going forward, because we know that the technology will change. Although I am generally not in favour of having things come in by way of regulation or Order in Council, it may well be that we can have more flexible primary legislation, while changes as far as the testing equipment for drugs is concerned are brought in by Order in Council. I hope that in the end we will get past the need to have blood tests. I think that technology is heading in that direction, and it may well be that we get to the point of having the easy swab at the side of the road.

The other point I make in this area is on the question of costs. I do not think that anyone has focused on that question since the select committee brought the legislation back to the House. The changes made at the select committee provide for the presumption that people found guilty will, in fact, pay the costs of the tests. At the moment—and I say this with some care because up until quite recently I was the shareholding Minister for the Institute of Environment Science and Research and also, on and off, the Minister for Sport and Recreation—we have found that in sport and recreation it is much more cost-effective to send tests to an accredited laboratory in Australia than to have the institute develop the systems and accreditation to do the tests within New Zealand. One thing the committee was unanimous about was that wherever it is practical, the person caught with drugs in his or her system should be the person who pays for the test, rather than use the system as it is at the moment where the cost of testing falls much more heavily on the taxpayer.

So the message to come out of this legislation is, first of all, to not take drugs. But absolutely, certainly, if people do take drugs, then they should not drive.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). I thank Mr Mallard for his request that we stop killing him with kindness. I have to say that I found it very, very hard to break the habits of a lifetime and speak well of him in the second reading debate. I found that my emails and text messages when I left the Chamber were full of questions like “What has happened to you?”, “Have you gone mad?”, and “Are you weakening?”. But I need to say that Mr Mallard made a major contribution on this part of the discussions at the select committee. It was a very challenging aspect of the bill.

The committee was superbly served by its officials and by the police. I think many of us on the committee watched in bemused wonderment, and with a great degree of confidence, the police demonstration as to how the impairment test will be applied on the roadside. A two-part process is outlined. Firstly, there is the establishing of impairment, and, secondly, where necessary, there is a quite expensive follow-up blood test.

I concur with what Mr Davis said when he spoke on the title of the bill. He was a very, very fine school principal, working in a challenging community and setting standards. There are two ways in which we will finally lick this drug business. The first is having community-minded citizens standing up and being counted. In my book What’s Up with Our Schools? I talk about the need for respected figures in communities, like school principals, to stand up and confront the filth that is drug use and drug dealing. Secondly, we need the backing of the law.

I think all New Zealanders will welcome the passage of Part 1 and the statement it makes that this country is no longer prepared to go light on or to tolerate drug use, particularly when it comes to driving motor vehicles. This bill is one more step in the process of ridding our communities of the scourge of drugs. I had no doubt at all during my 16 years as a school principal in two communities that people were driving the streets while drug impaired and preying on youngsters. If this part of the bill gets those people off the streets, and if it takes away their ability to drive their vehicles with impunity, then a lot of good will have been done for New Zealand and New Zealanders—in particular, for New Zealand youngsters.

I am looking forward to this bill being passed, and to the police getting out there on the streets and having another instrument in their armoury in the fight against drugs, drug peddling, and drug use. The committee thought long and hard about how far the bill could go and how tight its measures could be, but everybody was motivated by one thing: the desire to make a start and get it as right as we possibly could. I think the committee, aided so well by officials and the police, has taken some big steps in that direction. I compliment each of the members of the committee on their diligence and thoughtfulness, and on the way that the committee was able to work across parties for the common good of New Zealand. At the end of the day, New Zealanders will welcome this law. They will cooperate with it. They will accept the minor inconvenience that is involved in being stopped on the side of the road, because they want the issue of drug-driving to be addressed.

I echo what has been said already. Part 1 is the heart and soul of this legislation, as my good colleague, and able chairman of the committee, Mr David Bennett said.

💬 Hon Member: And a great MP.

And a great MP—so far. I also echo my whanaunga Kelvin Davis, in his speech about the scourge of drugs and alcohol in our communities, especially in relation to their use behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. It is interesting to note, in relation to Part 1, that we now have TV programmes like Sudden Impact and all sorts of reality-based programmes, but that a lot of what we see on those programmes comes from the United States. Invariably, most of the incidents that we see on television are due to two things—drugs and alcohol. The police in the enforcement bureaus overseas do a sterling job of trying to weed out all of those drug-impaired and alcohol-impaired people. We have seen those people walking the white line, touching their noses with their fingers, and carrying-on in all sorts of ways. Although society would not like to have to go through all that, it is a sign of the times; it is a sign that we have to take more responsibility. As my relation Kelvin Davis said, if people do not want to get caught, then they should not do drugs. If they do not want to get caught tanked up behind the wheel of a vehicle, then they should not drink and drive. It is pretty simple. I think of the campaigns about driver safety over the last few years, and I know that this bill is just another tool for weeding out those people who do not really care about themselves, and who do not really care about other drivers on the road. Innocent people are always the ones who get it.

The amendments that the Minister has talked about, in line with the suggestions by the Hon Trevor Mallard, are good ones. They are sensible, and they are a common-sense approach to a problem. I also say that when we have a lack of new technology, we cannot run ahead of current technology. We always have to keep apace of that technology, and not get too far out from it. One day we will have the technology that we see on Star Trek, and all sorts of things. We would like to see it tomorrow—

💬 Todd McClay: Teleporting.

Maybe we will have a bill before us called the “Drug-Impaired Teleporting Bill”. But it is important to realise that the enforcement agencies are only as good as the tools that they have to police with. We should not try to get too far ahead because we think we have the right technology. I want to say here what a wonderful job our enforcement agencies do—not so much in terms of the drugged or drunk driver, but in terms of what they do in trying to protect and serve the innocent people on the road. It is important that we at least acknowledge the very hard and difficult job those agencies have. As I said, this provision is the heart and soul of a bill that I think is able to be sold to the public.

I am delighted to speak on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). It is a bill that I found interesting the first time that it was discussed. There was a very interesting discussion on the issues and the challenges that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee had to face.

Essentially the bill is about getting unsafe drivers off the road and making our roads safe; that is the prime purpose of the bill. We already have an established mechanism in relation to drink-driving that has been well publicised. Drink-driving is not acceptable, and there is a very easy screening test that can be done at random in just a few seconds. But that is not the case at all for drugs and driving.

I was really interested in the input from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research at the select committee. It presented some fascinating reports that really made the point that drinking and driving, and taking drugs and driving cause death. I will quote from a couple of the studies that the institute gave us. One study, which was carried out over 4 years from June 2004 to July 2008, was of 826 drivers who had died as a result of motor vehicle accidents, and biological samples were able to be taken from these 826 deceased drivers. The deaths were deemed not to be due to medical problems that had occurred prior to the accident, or due to intentional harm such as suicide. These accidents occurred on designated roads, as well.

The study found that 80 percent of drivers were culpable for their own accident. That was particularly true for those aged under 20 and over 80. These drivers were all analysed for drugs and alcohol use, and these are the interesting statistics: 48 percent had had no alcohol or drugs, but over 52 percent had used alcohol and/or drugs; that is over half. Further analysis confirmed that 14 percent had had alcohol and cannabis; 31 percent had used cannabis with or without alcohol or other drugs; 177 drivers had mixed cannabis with other drugs; and 38 percent, or 316 drivers, had used alcohol or cannabis or both, but no other drug. The most commonly detected drugs were methamphetamine, 36 percent; methadone, 13 percent; and morphine, 7 percent.

We asked the Institute of Environmental Science and Research how many innocent people had died as a result of drivers taking drugs. It came back to us with a further evaluation of the data. In the 5 years from 2003 to 2007 it looked at 90 people who had died in crashes where drugs were cited as a contributing factor. Of those people, 53 were drug-affected drivers who died as a result of their own driving and having taken drugs, but 28 were passengers of those drivers and a further nine were other road users. So out of the 90 deaths, 37 were innocent victims; that is over 40 percent.

That is truly terrifying, and that is why this legislation is so important as a way to ensure that drivers can be tested for drugs through the impairment method, which has already been described. It is not yet a screening test. We do not have a screening test. There was some debate about whether a saliva test could be used as a screening test, but that was considered to be unreasonable under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We considered it to be invasive and that insufficient evidence was available to justify that measure. So until we have the technology for a quick screening test that can be used for drug taking, the impairment test will do. The other measures today mean that we can get drug-drivers and drink-drivers off our roads and keep our roads safe. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. I congratulate the Minister of Transport, the Hon Steven Joyce, on moving to address the issue of drug-driving. It has long been due, so I say good on him for moving in this direction.

The Māori Party has two concerns that are important to us and that I have addressed with the Minister’s officials. Basically those concerns relate, first, to informed consent, and, second, to the prohibition of storage and analysis of the blood samples. I will refer first to the prohibition on the storage and analysis of blood samples. I was thankful for the information that I got from the Minister’s officials, as it gave me some background to the issue. When blood samples are taken from drivers for prosecutions under the Land Transport Act, the samples are split in two. Sample A is initially tested by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research for the presence of alcohol and/or controlled and prescription drugs. If positive, the samples will be stored securely for 12 months for the purposes of appeal. That is all pretty logical. If a driver wishes to appeal the result of a blood test, the unopened sample B is provided to the testing facility of the driver’s choice and tested. After 12 months all samples are securely disposed of—very good.

The key for us in the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) is that it states that occasionally research will be conducted on the alcohol and drug profile of convicted drivers, and if this occurs then a random sample will be taken from the available blood stocks—that is, the samples of those who have been convicted in the last 12 months. Officials have confirmed that even the samples used for profiling will be kept for only 12 months. That is pretty good. This research is conducted only by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. Samples are not allowed out of Institute of Environmental Science and Research facilities, for security and biohazard reasons. That is fine. Such research is conducted anonymously and no identifying information is collated during the research.

That is all pretty good, but in the end there was another key aspect for us. I think that the issue of storage has been covered; we take the institute’s word that the samples will all be locked up and secure. From the perspective of the Māori Party it is all about retention of the information about whakapapa and making sure there is no tampering with that information. The second issue is about the ethics of the use of those samples for research. I understand that it is widely accepted that there are ethical protocols around the use of samples for research, and, as the bill states, occasionally samples can be used for research. We are trying to angle at the notion of informed consent. How can that be dealt with knowing full well that the samples will be disposed of in 12 months? I suppose we are asking for consideration that a practice be established around informed consent. I understand that if somebody is in a car accident and samples need to be taken, at that point in time informed consent is a part of the protocols that are required in terms of the retention of blood samples. Having set that precedent, I just ask the Minister to consider whether there is a possibility of looking at and considering the ethical considerations around informed consent, and whether it would be possible, right from the very start, to have a set process around informed consent for the use of research, if we ever head down that way.

At the moment the door is wide open about how blood samples can be used in terms of research, and from the Māori Party’s perspective, we are keen to plug that gap. For the purposes outlined in my speech yesterday about whakapapa being very important, the retention of the fact that those samples are destroyed takes care of one line. There will be no tampering with the samples, as they will be under lock and key. Those sorts of issues are dealt with. But, as I said, our major issue is the whole question about the protocols around research. In one sense, the new section 209A in clause 17 of the bill before us breaches that fundamental principle. On that basis, we hope that some consideration is given by the members of this Committee to that particular provision. I leave it at that, and I hope for a response from the Minister at some point.

I will make a brief comment on the points that the previous speaker, Te Ururoa Flavell, made. I have been reminded that we were told at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that an approach like the one that the member proposes would kill stone-dead the research being done. The committee found that research particularly valuable in coming to some of the conclusions it reached, and that research is ongoing. Some of the results that we were getting were interim results, but being able to relate the amount of alcohol, the types of drugs, and, sometimes, the amounts of drugs to accidents was very useful to the committee in making its conclusions as to the shape of the law.

I understand that there is a balancing act here. It is an area where Mr Henare and I did not quite get to an agreement on—it was not entirely a love-in—but there is a balance. There are cultural issues, particularly Māori cultural issues, around the taking of blood, the storage of blood, and what blood samples are used for. The balance that goes the other way is the quality of the research that could well lead to fewer deaths in New Zealand. I am sure that this legislation will lead to fewer deaths.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: That’s fine—informed consent.

Well, the problem is in getting informed consent from someone who is drunk, from someone who is high on P, from someone who is unconscious in a hospital, or, in some cases, from people who are dead. We just cannot do it. In my opinion, it is impossible to get informed consent for that sample in those circumstances. Although I appreciate that, all things being equal and everyone being reasonable, it might be a good approach, I think that all members of the Committee know that, unfortunately, the worst offenders in this particular area are not people who are generally reasonable and cooperative. For that reason, the member’s suggestion will not work.

I will make just a couple of comments in response to Te Ururoa Flavell’s suggestion. I find myself agreeing with Trevor Mallard twice in one afternoon, and he will be as discombobulated about that as I am.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Please stop it!

Yes, exactly; normal business will resume shortly.

The need for this research has been canvassed, and I think it is very important research. We need to know what proportion of drivers operate under what levels of impairment, whether it is by drugs or alcohol. We have a bit of a window on it from the work done by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research on deceased drivers, but it is a very, very incomplete picture. My hunch—and it can only be a hunch; as Minister of Transport, one worries about operating on hunches—is that it is a lot worse than we think. If it is, and there are many people in this country who think that is the case, we will have to keep focusing on it and, to take Trevor Mallard’s point, keep bringing forward more refinements to this legislation. For that reason, I think the research is very important. We want as large a sample as is possible. But the trouble is the moment we start disqualifying elements of the sample, because certain people do not want it used—and bearing in mind that the tests have already been taken; people are not being asked to have blood taken, as it has been taken in the course of enforcement—we immediately reduce the efficacy of the sample; the way the sample works, the quality of the sample, and the information that is gathered from it.

I place huge emphasis on the importance of the anonymity of samples when the research is done, and the fact that the research must be done within a year and then the samples are destroyed. I hope that that gives the member sufficient comfort. We are balancing, on the one hand, the desire for people’s privacy and to be respected and, on the other hand, we are saying that this is a big problem that we need to get on top of. I hope this goes some way towards satisfying the member’s concerns.

I very much appreciate being able to take a call on Part 1 of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). I add my voice to the acknowledgments of the excellent work done by the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Although I mentioned it yesterday, I also want to congratulate and acknowledge the officials who helped the committee through some quite complex aspects of the law as it related to the bill, as well as some questions we were asking about the Misuse of Drugs Act, and how the two married together.

It struck me during that process that we were probably asking a little bit too much of this bill in our consideration. I wonder whether we were thinking about whether the bill sends a message that it is wrong to take drugs and drive, or that it is wrong to take drugs at all. In that respect, Mr Davis and Mr Peachey provided some very compelling new information about the impact of drugs on their communities, and particularly on the schools that they led. But, fundamentally, this bill is about road safety—keeping us safe on the roads. Yet the question of whether there was sufficient correlation between the Misuse of Drugs Act and this bill continued to underscore the things we were dealing with.

Mr Mallard brought to the Committee the issue of whether somebody who has been in an accident and gone to hospital should have blood taken for the purposes of evidential examination for drugs, and that is a very good issue to raise. We discussed it quite robustly, and there were some very good reasons both for and against doing it. I think the proposed amendment put forward during the Committee stage will achieve what I think is a satisfactory compromise between the two positions—that it should not be done, and that it should. Someone crashing a car and looking a bit glazed might be prima facie evidence of some form of impairment, and if there is a very good context to that, I think that giving the police the discretion to test for class A drugs is a very good compromise. I also say “Well done!” to the Minister of Transport for listening very carefully to the reasoned arguments that were put forward, and for providing the amendment that will see that occur.

I want to touch on the issues that Mr Mallard raised with regard to future-proofing the legislation, and I add my voice to what Tau Henare was saying. We had a very good discussion on whether an Order in Council, or some kind of regulatory provision, would enable the technology to be used as it comes online. This discussion was more difficult in substance than it appeared on the face of it. The technology at the moment is a very, very long way from enabling that to occur. We heard scientists from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research say that the swab that presently can be taken—to be processed by the company in Christchurch—simply will not detect some of the drugs that we are ruling out. It will not catch cannabis, for example, because the atomic weight of cannabis is much larger than the existing test is able to deal with. The handheld device is not easily used, and so on. So I think there are very good reasons for not doing that. But I think it was a worthwhile discussion. We have gone on a journey, and we have come back to the point where we started. I look forward to watching with interest how that matter evolves.

I think we are all agreed that as a result of the passage of this legislation, our roads will be safer. So I offer my congratulations to the committee, I thank the officials, and I say “Well done!” to the Minister of Transport. I support this part. Thank you.

I take a brief call to respond to one issue. Following on from the Hon Trevor Mallard’s kōrero and from the discussion by the Minister of Transport, Steven Joyce, I ask the Minister to give a brief overview of how the samples taken for research are used. I ask this question, which is on our minds, to settle and allay our concerns about the use of that data.

I will have a go at answering the question raised by the previous speaker, Te Ururoa Flavell, while the Minister of Transport gets briefed. The indications we had when considering the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee were that the samples were tested through a two-step or three-step process. It is a broad test that indicates some sort of drug, and samples were cross-tested for alcohol. There was some fine-grain testing to sort out the particular types of drugs that were there when there had been an early indication of drugs. That research was then used for what was essentially a statistical analysis of the correlation between the accidents, the seriousness of the accidents, and whether the accidents caused death or serious injury. In particular, there has been quite a lot of research around whether people were more likely to have serious accidents if there had been a multiplicative effect—if they had alcohol or a drug, or more than one drug.

The very clear evidence coming out of that research is what intuition would tell us. For a number of drugs, having the smoke after a couple of jugs is much, much worse than having a couple of jugs or having a smoke. It is not additive; the substances can actually multiply on each other and accidents are much more likely to occur. It is emerging evidence. Some of the testing, especially around some of the harder drugs, is relatively new. There are research papers on it and although sample sizes are now getting to the point of being valid, earlier on they were not. It is an ongoing process, but it is very clear that we do not have enough information—

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: Solely around road crashes?

Yes, it is based on road crashes and the samples are taken from drivers. There is no random testing of blood for people who have not been involved as drivers. I think there is another group—I am just looking for a nod or otherwise from officials—where there is testing of people who are hospitalised, such as active accident victims who are not drivers. My memory is that we had some indication as to drug testing in respect of other people in the cars. There will not be any prosecutions of those people under the Misuse of Drugs Act, because this is strictly a land transport matter.

I rise to take a short call on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4), and again I would like to thank my erstwhile assistant, the Hon Trevor Mallard, who is perhaps almost a relative now in terms of how much assistance he has offered.

I just clarify very clearly that this research can be used for road safety purposes only. The sorts of things we are looking for, literally, are statistical analyses of the sorts of drugs that are involved. The research will be broken out in terms of geography, age, the time of week, and those sorts of things. This will assist the officials and the road safety community to work out where to target their advertising and their road safety measures. It has to be completely anonymous. We could not go down to the level of one bloke in Stratford, or wherever else it may be. I stress that the amount of information we have at the moment is limited to that on deceased drivers only, and we strongly suspect that that skews the numbers one way or the other. We could be looking at a far bigger problem than there appears to be on the basis of that information, or we could be dealing with a smaller problem, or we may need to focus on other areas. But until we have that statistical work, we will not do that. Again, I say we will be very careful to retain anonymity, and it is about road safety purposes only. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 1 be agreed to:

to insert the following new clauses:

6A Contravention of section 12

Section 58 is amended by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following subsections:

“(1) A person commits an offence if the person drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road—

“(a) while under the influence of drink or a drug, or both, to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle; or

“(b) if the person’s blood, as ascertained from an analysis of a blood specimen subsequently taken under section 73, contains evidence of the use of a controlled drug specified in Schedule 1 (except thalidomide) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

“(1A) To avoid doubt, subsection (1)(b) does not limit subsection (1)(a).”

7B Person in charge of motor vehicle causing injury or death

Section 61 is amended by repealing subsection (2) and substituting the following subsections:

“(2) A person commits an indictable offence if the person is in charge of a motor vehicle and causes bodily injury, to, or the death of, a person—

“(a) while under the influence of drink or a drug, or both, to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle; or

“(b) if the blood of the person in charge, as ascertained from an analysis of a blood specimen subsequently taken under section 73, contains evidence of the use of a controlled drug specified in Schedule 1 (except thalidomide) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

“(2A) To avoid doubt, subsection (2)(b) does not limit subsection (2)(a).”

to omit clause 8 and substitute the following new clause:

8 Causing injury or death in circumstances to which section 61 does not apply

Section 62 is amended by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following subsections:

“(1) A person commits an indictable offence if the person causes bodily injury to or the death of a person by carelessly driving a motor vehicle (in a manner that is not an offence against section 61)—

“(a) while under the influence of drink or a drug, or both; or

“(b) if the blood of the person driving, as ascertained from an analysis of a blood specimen subsequently taken under section 73, contain evidence of the use of a controlled drug specified in Schedule 1 (except thalidomide) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

“(1A) To avoid doubt, subsection (1)(b) does not limit subsection (1)(a).

“(1B) A person commits an indictable offence if—

“(a) the person causes bodily injury to, or the death of, a person by driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle; and

“(b) the person does not complete a compulsory impairment test in a manner satisfactory to an enforcement officer, who is trained to give the test, when required to do so by an enforcement officer under section 71A; and

“(c) the person’s blood, as ascertained from an analysis of a blood specimen subsequently taken under section 72 or 73, contains evidence of the use of—

“(i) a controlled drug; or

“(ii) any prescription medicine.”

Section 62(2) is amended by inserting “or (1A)” after “subsection (1),”.

to add to clause 10 the following new subsection:

“(5) An enforcement officer may exercise the powers in subsections (1) and (2) in addition to any breath screening tests under section 68 or evidential breath tests under section 69 and regardless of the outcome of any such tests.”

to add to clause 11(2) the following new subsections:

“(1B) Subsection (1)(e) applies regardless of whether the person has failed any breath screening tests under section 68 or evidential breath tests under section 69 and regardless of the outcome of any such tests.

“(1C) An enforcement officer may exercise the powers in subsections (1) and (2) in addition to any breath screening tests under section 68 or evidential breath tests under section 69.”

Amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Trevor Mallard has withdrawn Supplementary Order Papers 24 and 26 in his name, which he is entitled to do under Speaker’s ruling 114/5.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 17 be agreed to.