Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders, Bailees, and Other Persons Legislation Bill

The debate on Part 1 is debate on clauses 3 to 11A and schedule 1.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you for this opportunity. From the outset, Labour supports this bill. Drug and alcohol misuse is a major driver of crime. As a preface to a broader contribution from me on this particular part, with regard to the drug issue that is currently happening in Tai Tokerau, I want to lament the recent loss of my nephew Moses Mahanga, who was involved in that particular incident, and, of course, my cousin Mr John Harris, who was buried recently.

We know that the driver of this particular issue is drugs, so this party supports any bill that will see drug and alcohol misuse addressed as a major driver of crime. We want to make sure that when people are put under supervision, the means and the legislation are in line to ensure that we keep them safe from themselves but, more importantly, we keep our communities safe.

Clause 4 in Part 1 refers to some very simple matters, and I think they are quite straightforward. The inclusion of the use of the term “psychoactive substance” falls in line with the Psychoactive Substances Act, which was passed in this House in—if memory serves me right—approximately 2013. I did actually have to go and have a look at exactly what some of the psychoactive substances were. I was not too sure myself, but I went in and had a look, and it is clear that there is an issue there. But I wonder, just out of curiosity—and I am sorry I did not sit in on the select committee. For a lot of those drugs that are included in the Psychoactive Substances Act, it is often said that they are undetectable. They are hard to detect in the system, they are hard for the immediate senses to detect, and I just wonder what kind of an issue that may bring for those officers, or those with the powers to enforce testing, with this particular bill. That is just out of curiosity more than anything else.

It clearly says there in the definition of the term “drug or alcohol condition”—and it is a pretty straightforward change in that particular clause—that “either or both” is being removed and it now says “doing 1 or more of the following:”, and that, once again, is referring to the use of a psychoactive substance. In the definition of “drug or alcohol monitoring device”, it is quite clear there that it is “a device, connected to a person’s body, that is able to detect the presence in the person’s body of 1 or more of the following:”, and that gets to my point about some of those questions. A quick Google search will tell you how, to the untrained eye, to the naked eye—to make an assessment straight off the bat, it is often difficult for law enforcement officers and for those with that responsibility to instantly see that that person is under the influence of a psychoactive substance. I wonder what the technology looks like—what the device might look like—that will actually allow for that proper testing to take place and to make sure that we are not impinging on people’s rights.

Clause 4 carries on talking about the “medical laboratory technologist”, and it is quite straightforward. Those people with those particular skills—and I have mentioned how it is when you first interact with the person under supervision. Clearly, it sets out the terms in here about those professionals who are more qualified and who, with the right tools and with the right practice, can actually assess more properly whether or not the individual is under the influence.

Moving on to some of the other changes in Part 1 of this particular bill, clause 8 inserts new sections on the testing and monitoring of people with drug or alcohol conditions. We know that when people are put back into the community under supervision, it is important that we make sure that, first of all, their rights are not impinged on but, more importantly, those particular people abide by the supervision rules that have been placed upon them.

We have supported this bill through the first reading and through the second reading. The reason for that was that we do actually support the intent of this bill, which is to bring the offenders and bailees in line with the offenders inside the wire, inside the prison, so those inside the prison do have permanent and blanket restrictions on consumption of alcohol and drugs, as we know.

Prisons are smoke-free and we claim that our prisons are alcohol-free and drug-free, and Corrections staff have done a great job at ensuring that those policies of smoke-free prisons are effectively implemented. But there have been instances of those rules being violated, but those are not really, really concerning to us. What is concerning is that the offenders were released on bail or on temporary removal or on temporary release and had these restrictions placed on them. However, there was no mechanism in place to ensure that they actually complied with those restrictions and there were no consequences if they did not. This bill will ensure that those on the outside, those in the communities, whether they are on bail, on temporary release, or on parole, are actually answerable for their violation of those restrictions.

That was the reason that we supported this bill throughout, although we did have some reservations about how this bill is going to be actually administered. We were told that those offenders on parole and on temporary release will be managed by Corrections, and those who are on bail will be drug tested, randomly though, by the police. We did have some confusion about the modalities and the resources. At the moment the police do not have resources to carry out their core functions of crime prevention, so we wonder how they are going to be drug testing these people on bail when they do not have resources to respond to emergencies. That was one of the concerns that we had. However, we still supported the intent of the bill.

At present when the offenders are on parole, they are managed by way of drug testing—again, random drug testing—by Corrections. We had pointed out that at present the situation has no requirement that the chief executive of Corrections communicates with the Commissioner of Police while formulating these rules. We were told that there was no need for such a requirement because we have faith in both entities and we have faith that they both will communicate. Well, if that was the case, where was the communication when—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

When we broke for dinner, I was speaking about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 163 and the intent behind it. The intent was that the amendment that was sought in that SOP was that both Corrections and Police will be absolutely required to communicate with each other and not just expected to. That is the ambiguity that this SOP sought to take care of. However, the Minister has taken the view that there is no necessity for such an amendment as Corrections and Police already communicate with each other. Well, Minister, if that was the case, what happened to the communication when Phillip John Smith escaped and went right up to Brazil causing us huge embarrassment internationally? What happened to their communication when Tony Robertson raped and killed Blessie Gotingco?

It is a pleasure to talk on the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders, Bailees, and Other Persons Legislation Bill. The bill is in four parts, and because New Zealand First wants to debate each part separately, there is going to be a lot of repetition. I will cover a few things off. Part 1 makes amendments to the Bail Act 2000, Part 2 makes amendments to the Parole Act 2002, Part 3 makes amendments to the Sentencing Act 2002, and Part 4 amends the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014.

Everything that I say, basically, on Part 1 is able to be repeated for Parts 2, 3, and 4. I will just take a couple of points out of the bill. In clause 4 when we talk about bodily samples, we are meaning “a sample of the person’s blood, breath, hair, or urine;”. When we talk about testing offenders to see whether they have got alcohol in their systems, one of the things we have to be aware of if we attach a device to their bodies is that it is possible for devices to pick up alcohol-based products.

I remember when I was a teacher and we had a policeman come round to the school and show the kids about breath-testing devices. The policeman got some kids to gargle Listerine. The device was able to pick up the alcohol in the Listerine and it gave a positive reading. Also, there were certain types of deodorant and cologne that were alcohol-based as well, and there was potential there to give off false positives. So that is just something that we have to be aware of. I do not know how great the devices are. I suspect that that will not happen, but it is just a possibility given that breath-testing devices could pick up alcohol in cologne and Listerine.

Before I got into that I should have said that this bill is designed to stop people who have an issue with alcohol and drugs and may have offended because of alcohol and drugs. If they have a condition that says they should not be partaking of alcohol and drugs—well, no one should be partaking of drugs in the first place—this monitors that. People who have allegedly committed a crime and have been bailed may be bailed on the condition that they do not partake of alcohol and drugs. If they have been to court and been sentenced to a community sentence, it may be on the condition that while they are doing that community sentence they should not partake of alcohol or drugs. If they have been in prison and they have been paroled, part of their parole conditions could be that they should not partake of alcohol and drugs. It makes sense, because we have got to keep these people away from some of the factors that actually lead them to offend, and we have got to keep our communities safe.

So the Labour Party does support this bill. One of the changes made when the bill was at the Law and Order Committee was the addition of psychoactive substances—not just drugs and alcohol being consumed by the person. We are well aware of synthetic marijuana and the problems that causes. I think that this is a very sensible inclusion in the bill. We are aware of the whole debate around psychoactive substances that occurred—I think it might have been last year—and in many cases psychoactive substances cause as much damage and harm in people’s lives as the regular partaking of marijuana, other drugs, and substances like that.

Another part of the bill that I think is a good inclusion is that offenders are able to use any information gathered to support themselves if they, for example, are going for custody of a child and one of the concerns from another parent is that they have alcohol or drug problems. They can actually use the information gathered by the monitoring devices to prove that they have actually abstained from alcohol and drugs and that they should be given a chance with their child in that instance.

If we debate this bill part by part the debate is going to repeat the same issues over and over again. Personally I think the time of the House could be better spent on other legislation, but it is the choice of people to debate it part by part. So I will just leave it there at this stage. Kia ora.

My colleague Kelvin Davis just pointed out that because this debate on the four parts is being taken separately, it is going to be very repetitive. So just to make it a little more interesting, I am going to focus more on alcohol than I am going to focus on drugs. So—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! I will just make one point: the member must focus on—sit down. Two or three points—the first thing is that the Committee stage is to talk about his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 163, which he has tabled before the Committee and will be voted on in the course of this debate. He must also use this period of time to talk about the submissions that were made before the select committee. In his previous speech, he started talking about an escapee from prison; that does not form any part of this debate. So he must speak very narrowly either to what was raised in the select committee by way of submissions or the SOP that he put before the Committee.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to point out that this is the Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders, Bailees, and Other Persons Legislation Bill, and I am going focus on the alcohol part. Is that permissible, Mr Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Yes, as long as he is talking about what was raised in the select committee by submitters and what is the substance of his Supplementary Order Paper 163, but not introducing new material. This is the Committee of the whole House, and it reflects the select committee discussions.

Thank you, Mr Chair. So then I would like to stick to my SOP. The intent of that SOP was to make sure that both Corrections and Police talk to each other when formulating regulations about how this drug testing of offenders in the community is going to be managed. However, unfortunately the Minister took the view that they already do communicate with each other, which I do not think is the case. Had they communicated, Blessie Gotingco would probably still be living. There has been a huge lack of communication between these two vital departments, namely, Corrections and the Police.

So then I come to the alcohol testing of community-based offenders, which I do not think has been given enough focus. I would like to point out an incident on 1 June 2013—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I hesitate to raise a point of order after that scintillating contribution from Mr Bindra, but this bill—and this part—is about conditions of bail, and the drug and alcohol testing when someone is on bail. It has nothing to do with Police and Corrections talking to each other, and people escaping New Zealand; it is actually about drug and alcohol testing of people on bail.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The point is well made by the Minister. The member must draw the attention of the Committee to the specific clauses that he is wishing to amend by way of his Supplementary Order Paper, and make it relevant to the part that we are debating at the moment, which is Part 1. So if he could do that, the Committee would appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do take the Minister’s point and your own point on board. I think I have spoken enough about the SOP, and I will try to finish my speech here. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 235 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 163 in the name of Mahesh Bindra to clause 11 be agreed to.