Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill.

This Government is committed to improving road safety outcomes on New Zealand’s roads, and improving safety lies at the heart of this bill. Over the last five years, the number of people killed and seriously injured in crashes where a driver has consumed drugs other than alcohol has risen. Some of those are legal prescription medications that have an impairing impact, and some are currently illegal. It is clear that our current approach to deterring impaired driving from drugs is not preventing this harmful behaviour. A driver who has consumed drugs not only places themselves at risk; they also risk the lives of other road users. Last year alone, over 100 people were killed in crashes where a driver was found to have drugs other than alcohol in their system. This represents about 30 percent of all road deaths last year. These are preventable tragedies, and we need to do more to stop drivers who are under the influence of drugs from choosing to drive.

Enhanced drug-driver testing is a key action in the Road to Zero road safety strategy this Government announced at the end of last year. This bill signifies our commitment to keeping road users safe from the problem of drug-driving. The bill establishes a regulatory framework to enable a random roadside oral fluid testing regime. What that means is that drivers, if they consume impairing drugs, will be able to be stopped and swabbed with a saliva test. If they test positive for the presence of drugs twice, they will receive an infringement. Currently, drug-drivers do face serious criminal penalties if they’re caught, but they often aren’t. This bill will allow police to test drivers for the presence of impairing drugs anywhere, anytime, just as they do for alcohol.

The roadside oral fluid testing regime will initially test for six drugs or drug classes, and these are THC, the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis; methamphetamine; benzodiazepines; MDMA, also known as ecstasy; opiates; and cocaine. These drugs have been selected based on a combination of their elevated crash risk and the prevalence of their use by drivers in New Zealand. The bill proposes that drivers who fail two consecutive oral fluid tests at the roadside will face the same infringement penalty as the drink-driving infringement penalty.

It was important to me that the bill includes safeguards to ensure the regime is administered fairly and doesn’t unintentionally criminalise or present an infringement to someone who is not impaired or who hasn’t used drugs, so there will be cut-off thresholds built into the devices correlated with recent use. This means drivers who have very, very low levels of drugs in their system which are not likely to be impairing will not be penalised. Drivers who fail a first test will be tested again to avoid the risk of incorrectly penalising drivers, and drivers will be able to elect to take an evidential blood test to dispute the result of the oral fluid test. Drivers will have a medical defence available where they have consumed drugs in line with their prescriptions.

This new oral fluid testing regime will sit alongside the existing compulsory impairment test. The compulsory impairment test can still be used when police have good cause to suspect a driver has consumed drugs or if an oral fluid test shows the presence of more than one drug. However, there will be restrictions on when police officers can switch between an oral fluid test and a compulsory impairment test. This means police can still identify and penalise drivers who have consumed drugs that the oral fluid devices are not able to test for and remove those drivers from the road.

The bill retains and introduces some situations where a driver would be required or be able to elect to have a blood test. These evidential blood tests will be able to test for all qualifying drugs as defined in the Land Transport Act 1998. In addition to creating an infringement offence for failing two consecutive oral fluid tests, the new regime will introduce both infringement and criminal offences for drivers who’ve consumed drugs identified through a blood test, depending on the amount of the drug identified in the driver’s system. The bill proposes that drivers that are injured and have a blood sample taken are also assessed against the criminal limits, rather than only penalised for the presence of class A drugs.

The bill also recognises the significantly higher road safety risk posed by drivers who consume multiple impairing substances, such as drugs and alcohol or two drugs. We know that road safety risks are higher when drugs are combined, and they are the highest when drugs are combined with alcohol. To further deter this high risk behaviour, this bill introduces combination infringement and criminal offences. Drivers who are found to have consumed more than one substance will face higher penalties, both at the roadside through the oral testing regime, and following evidential blood testing.

Criminal limits will be set in legislation for some drugs, including the most prevalent drugs used by drivers in New Zealand, and blood tests will be used to determine which drivers are liable for a criminal offence. The intention is to align criminal limits for drugs with the equivalent blood-alcohol limits used in the existing drink-driving regime. A driver will be liable for a criminal offence if their blood test indicates that they’ve consumed drugs above the criminal limit. Below this level, a driver will receive an infringement offence. An independent expert panel on drug-driving will advise the Government on the setting of drug blood limits that will establish the criminal threshold. The criminal limits will be included in the legislation before it is enacted. The expert panel is continuing its work, and I expect that the criminal limits will be available to the select committee and the public to scrutinise alongside the bill.

The bill also includes a power that allows the criminal limits to be added and amended by Order in Council. I will be interested to hear the select committee’s view on whether or not this power should remain once the initial set of criminal limits have been added to the bill. To make sure drivers aren’t incentivised to consume less prevalent or new drugs that will not have criminal limits, the bill ensures that drivers who have consumed potentially impairing qualifying drugs without criminal limits set are still captured by the regime. The penalty that they would be liable for would depend on whether or not the driver had failed a compulsory impairment test.

The regime described in this bill does impact on some of the rights and freedoms set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This includes the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the right not to be arbitrarily detained, and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is not surprising given proposals to introduce or change drink- and drug-driving laws over the decades have had similar impacts. On balance, I believe that the proposed regime is justified given the importance of the objective of the bill to improve road safety outcomes and to save lives.

The bill also includes several safeguards to help protect people’s rights and freedoms. Drivers will only be issued an offence after failing two consecutive oral fluid tests. This requirement reduces the probability of a false positive result. Drivers will be able to elect a blood test to conclusively identify the level of a drug in their system. The bill also includes criteria for the type of oral fluid testing devices used. Before approving devices, the Minister of Police must have regard to their accuracy, be satisfied that they will return a positive result only if the device detects a presence of qualifying drug at a level that indicates recent use, and as introduced the bill does not include details about the level at which a driver becomes liable for an infringement offence. Introducing an infringement offence threshold to the bill could act as an additional safeguard. Ministers have therefore agreed to consider whether these thresholds should be added to the bill at the select committee stage.

The bill introduces an oral fluid testing regime with a number of complexities that I expect will receive substantial public interest and benefit from scrutiny through the select committee process. In particular, I am interested to hear if the select committee has any recommendations on whether the bill should include a requirement for drivers to pay for the cost of an evidential blood test when they are found to be liable for only an infringement level offence.

This bill is about addressing the increasing prevalence of drugs in fatal crashes on our roads. I’d really like to thank the Minister Police, Stuart Nash, for the excellent collaborative work that his office and my office and our officials have put in to get the bill to the stage where we can have a first reading. We’re absolutely committed to improving the road safety outcomes in New Zealand. Too many people die and are seriously injured on our roads each year, and this level of trauma is not acceptable. Addressing the problem of drug-driving is one of the key steps to reducing some of these avoidable tragedies. I commend the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill to the House.

National strongly supports the introduction of roadside drug testing as an absolutely essential measure if we are serious about saving lives on our roads, and our regret is that it has taken so long for this legislation to come before the Parliament. We need to get a grip about the scale of death on our roads that has occurred as a consequence of drug-impaired driving. Five years ago, the Ministry of Transport reported that we had 18 deaths from drug-impaired driving. Last year, that number was 107. That is carnage. That means every single week another two New Zealanders die on our roads because someone is driving under the influence of drugs.

I’ve been heavily influenced on this issue by a horrific tragedy that occurred on the Appleby Straight in Nelson on 31 December 2017. A young man 23 years of age, Matthew Dow, was innocently driving from Kaiteriteri to meet his family for New Year celebrations, and a reckless, drug-impaired driver who was under the influence of multiple drugs, driving so badly that there were multiple calls to the police about the reckless driving, came across on State Highway 60, smashed into the road in what’s been described by my emergency services as the most horrific accident that hardened ambulance officers had attended for 30 years. Matthew Dow did not have a chance.

The tragedy is that Matthew Dow’s just one of hundreds of New Zealanders. The family of Matthew, Karen and Peter Dow, organised a petition two years ago to try and get the Government to move on drug-impaired drivers. They gathered the support of families like the Porteous family and the Keene family, who lost their parents in a seven-death crash in Waverley in June of 2018. I could list name after name, tragedy after tragedy, as what has occurred, and I’d commend for all in Parliament to read the coroner’s report, Tim Scott’s strong plea to this Parliament over 18 months ago to make progress on this issue. I would also thank those thousands of people, over 5,000 from Nelson, who joined with the Dow family in signing the petition for action on this issue.

I’ve said the Government has been tardy. Let’s be clear about the paper trail: the Government received detailed proposals for introducing drug-impaired driving in late 2017. The Minister Julie Anne Genter, who gave the most unenthusiastic speech I’ve ever heard for a bill, rejected officials’ advice in February 2018. She said that roadside drug-testing was too intrusive. She said that it was far too expensive. She said that it breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. She said that the impairment test worked perfectly adequately.

Well, let me talk some facts. It is a matter of record that more New Zealanders today die from drug-impaired driving as compared with drunk-driving. Last year, there were 15,000 New Zealanders prosecuted for drunk-driving. Do you know how many were prosecuted for drug-driving last year? Forty-two, and every single one of those was, effectively, where there was an accident, a fatality, and as a consequence, there were blood tests that were taken. The impairment test that currently exists for our police officers is unworkable, and that is why it’s so important that we make progress.

I want to commend Wairarapa MP Alastair Scott, who 18 months ago brought an almost identical bill to this House, and members opposite voted that bill down on first reading. Members like Stuart Nash, members of New Zealand First, and members from the Green Party should reflect on the fact that in the intervening 18 months, over 140 New Zealanders have lost their life. It is not good enough to say that on some technical part of that bill they may have disagreed, because every member of this House knows in their heart that you can amend bills at select committee. That was the proper place to do it. It rests on their conscience that they rejected, for petty party political reasons, that bill that came from Alastair Scott. I have tried three times since with the leave of the House to introduce a bill, and members opposite every time have blocked the legislation that would save lives. Again, I put it down to petty politics rather than doing the right thing.

I was part of this Parliament back in 1993 when we introduced almost identical legislation around dealing with drunk-driving. It was hugely controversial for the National Government at the time. People said that testing people randomly without any due cause was a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. People argued that the testing equipment was not accurate. People argued that, well, actually, different people helped handle alcohol differently, and it was an unworkable regime. The truth is in the road fatalities. Within three years of us introducing random drunk-driving roadside testing, we more than halved the horrific toll that occurred from drunk-driving, and this legislation has exactly the same potential. We know in the United Kingdom, we know in Australia, where they have such a regime, that they have actually been able to achieve better than a 50 percent reduction in fatalities.

On the Table of the House rests a report from the Attorney-General saying that this bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This is actually a good test as to where Parliament puts people’s rights, because as much as people can claim that having to do a saliva test for drug impairment might be an infringement on their rights, I say this: having a drug-driver coming through your windscreen at over 100 kilometres an hour, as Matthew Dow faced, is a far greater infringement on people’s rights than someone having to take a saliva test to save the hundred-plus lives that are lost in New Zealand.

This is a poor form of a bill. I make the parallel: the Government says in this legislation that it does not set any of the limits for the five drugs it seeks to test. The Government says, “Oh, we’re going to add that later as a Supplementary Order Paper.” So, really, three years and they still haven’t worked out what the limits are? Imagine if you’d introduced an alcohol limit bill and you hadn’t worked out whether the limit was to be 80 milligrams or 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. That’s how poor this law is. The public actually should be submitting on a bill with that detail. This is being introduced at this late stage simply because the Government knows they’re vulnerable to losing the vote on the referendum with respect to cannabis. If the bill wasn’t introduced prior to the election, they would be vulnerable to that argument. The bill is deficient in having that gap. I’d love the next Minister to explain why the public shouldn’t, in their submissions, have the opportunity to have a say on those important limits that will be critical, and if so, can the Minister table them today, because for us to get on with it, that is detail that is required.

Again, I want to pay tribute to Karen Dow, the mother of Matthew Dow, who has championed this cause with the same passion that those Mothers Against Drunk Driving championed the cause of introducing random roadside alcohol testing. This is a much-needed road safety measure. I’d invite the Minister to move a motion to have the bill reported back by 1 December. Every month we delay this bill coming into effect costs another eight New Zealanders their lives, and Parliament needs to move with some urgency.

Let me acknowledge that every single death on our roads caused by drug-driving is an absolute tragedy. I acknowledge the pain and harm and heartache caused to friends, family, and loved ones. Because of that, I am sad that the previous member who spoke on this bill, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, has got so political about such an important issue. The previous member said that his greatest regret is that it’s taken so long to get a bill to this House. Well, can I remind this House that the previous member was in a Cabinet for nine years that did nothing about this issue. He knew about this issue.

The other thing I would say is that member was a member of a Cabinet that instructed a former transport Minister to bring a paper to his Cabinet that he was in. They didn’t. They did nothing about an issue that that member knew about for a long, long time. So instead of criticising this Government, that member should take a good, hard look in the mirror. He could have done exactly what we have finally got round to doing.

I would just like to start off by saying that in my role as a Minister of Police, it has been a real privilege and a pleasure to work with the Hon Julie Anne Genter to get this bill to the House. We have heard that drug-driving is a serious road safety issue, and in 2019, around 30 percent of all crashes involved a driver found to have drugs in their system. That’s a hundred Kiwis who lost their life last year in drug-driving crashes. The international research shows that consuming drugs and, in particular, combining drug use with alcohol can impair driving ability in a number of ways, including slower reaction times, increased risk-taking, and causing fatigue. All significantly increase the chances of accidents causing injury and death.

The Government is committed to reducing road trauma associated with drug-driving. This is reflected in the Road to Zero road safety strategy, being extremely competently rolled out by Minister Genter. While we have already had a regime to enforce drug-driving, we can strengthen our approach to further deter people from engaging in this high-risk behaviour and to remove drug-impaired drivers from our roads.

It’s quite alarming that only 26 percent of New Zealanders think that they will be caught drug-driving versus 60 percent of Kiwis who think they will be caught drunk-driving. This needs to improve if we want to see a reduction in drug-driving - related trauma. Hence we are going to go very hard against those who drive while impaired on drugs. The Government’s Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill will introduce a compulsory random roadside oral fluid testing regime. The regime aims to reduce drug-impaired driving through highly visible, high-volume enforcement with certain and swift sanctions—the critical elements required for deterrence. The majority of submitters supported the introduction of oral fluid testing and a zero tolerance, presence-based approach to roadside drug testing.

Let me talk a little bit about the proposed regime.

💬 Chris Bishop: Oh, God.

It will allow police officers—you’re not interested in this, Mr Bishop?

💬 Chris Bishop: No.

Not interested at all. Well, there you go. That’s what we have faced for a long, long time—no interest in this issue whatsoever. The proposed regime will allow police officers to require drivers to randomly undertake oral fluid testing similar to the current random drink-driving testing. A driver who produces two oral fluid tests—positive tests—will receive an infringement notice but has an option to elect an evidential blood test. Levels for drugs in blood will be prescribed in legislation, above which a driver will be liable for a criminal offence. These levels are being determined based on evidence from an independent panel of experts. This independent panel of experts was due to report back this month, however due to COVID and the inability for that panel to meet, the work has been delayed.

When the previous speaker said, “Will New Zealanders have the ability to submit in this?” Absolutely. A Supplementary Order Paper will be submitted to select committee which will allow Kiwis to have their say on this. That is the reason why the limits are not in the bill at the moment because of the interruption due to COVID.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You had three years.

You had nine years. An independent expert panel has been established. They are experts in this field and they will come up with recommendations based on international evidence. A range of issues will be canvassed during the select committee process. This includes how some of the issues raised in section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report could be mitigated, liability for the cost of blood testing for infringement offences, and continued inclusion of the power to allow for criminal limits to be added and amended through Order in Council after the bill is enacted.

We intend that the bill will be enacted before August 2021, and implementation will begin 12 months after enactment. Police will shortly be issuing a request for information to the market for oral fluid testing devices. The devices will be procured once the bill is passed and funding is confirmed, and we anticipate it taking a year to procure the devices, import them into the country, and train front-line staff in their use. It is expected that 33,000 tests will be delivered in the first year of use, rising to 66,000 tests by year three. Police has operational discretion to determine the most effective approach to introducing oral fluid testing.

The regime described in this bill impacts upon some of the rights and freedoms set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the right not to be arbitrarily detained, and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is not surprising, given proposals to introduce or change drink and drug-driving laws over the decades have had similar impacts. The proposed regime is justified, given the importance of the objective of the bill to improve road safety outcomes.

The bill also includes several safeguards to help protect people’s rights and freedoms. Drivers will only be issued an offence after failing two consecutive oral fluid tests. This requirement reduces the probability of a false positive result. Drivers will be able to elect a blood test to conclusively identify the level of a drug in their system. The bill also introduces a criteria for the type of oral fluid testing devices used. Before approving devices, as outlined by Minister Genter, the Minister of Police must have regard to their accuracy and be satisfied that they will return a positive result only if the device detects the presence of a qualifying drug at a level that indicates recent use.

As introduced, the bill does not include any details about the level at which a driver becomes liable for an infringement offence. Introducing an infringement offence threshold to the bill could act as an additional safeguard. Ministers have therefore agreed to consider whether these thresholds should be added to the bill at select committee stage.

Finally, the message I want to send to all New Zealanders is if you drive under the influence of drugs, we will catch you, so don’t. Thank you.

I have tabled a motion that would allow the select committee considering the bill, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, to be able to report the bill back earlier. Now, that motion can only be put by the leave of the House, and so I am seeking leave for my motion to allow an earlier report back on this bill to be considered, and that motion would be considered in the normal timetable required under the Standing Orders, after the decision about the select committee is put. The reason I’m seeking leave at this point is to give members notice to then consider about how they would vote. So I am seeking leave for the motion in my name for an earlier than normal report back on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill.

There are some difficulties with the motion the member is seeking leave to put. The first is that Standing Orders really only allow for a Minister to. That Standing Order is 289, I think. Secondly, of course, the date is in another Parliament. However, the House is the master of itself, so I will put the leave. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s good to take a call on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. This has been a bill long in the gestation of Parliament, actually, and you know, it’s funny. We’re at the fag end of the Parliament with one day to go, one question time, and just the adjournment debate coming down the line, and yet I remember the Hon Dr Nick Smith and other members on this side of the House talking about this issue very early on in the Parliament. I remember the promises from the Government: “We’ll take action.”, “We’re going to do something about this—it’s a real issue.”, “This is something that has to happen.” We’ve had petitions, we’ve had Alastair Scott’s member’s bill—who rightly identified the issue and put it to the Parliament, and we had the opportunity to debate this, and it’s only now, at the second to last day of this parliamentary sitting period, that we are considering this bill.

It’s been rammed into the urgency motion. We’re sitting here till midnight—it’s eight minutes to 10, and we’re here till midnight. We’re going through all the COVID bills and the COVID motions and the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill and all the rest of it, and the Government is trying to clear the Order Paper. Look, I know what it’s like—I know what it’s like. The Government is trying to clear the Order Paper, and because of the mismanagement of the House over the last few weeks, we’re having to go through this urgency process where the Government rams everything through and the Order Paper is going to be cleaned up. That’s all good. That’s fine. I know what it’s like, but we’re going to be here till midnight, and it’s just “Shove this first reading in, and we’ll get on with it.”

But, you know, the point I want to make is really just to echo what my colleague Dr Nick Smith said, which is that this should have been earlier in the process. It was December last year that Julie Anne Genter put out a press release, under pressure, may I say, from Dr Smith and Alastair Scott and other colleagues in the Parliament, and the Porteous family. We said, “Well, what is going on with drug-driving? We’ve got increasing numbers of people who are causing deaths related to drug-driving”—and various coroners’ reports show that—“What is going on?”, and Julie Anne Genter, the Associate Minister of Transport, said, “Don’t worry, I’ve got a bill coming”—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Early in the year.

—“early in the year.” We said, “OK—early in the year.” Well, the House actually, I think, sat on 30 January last year. That could be “early in the year”—you know, it’s unreasonable to expect a bill to be introduced in January, but 30 January—OK. That’s the first day. February went by—OK. The House sits, we had the Prime Minister’s statement, we get under way—all good. No bill.

March, April, May, June, July—where are we now—5 August, and we’ve got the first reading of the bill. So, look, it’s taken a bit of time. I understand it takes a bit of time to get bills into the House, but three years?

The simple reality is—and we know this—there’s been dispute between the Minister of Transport, the Associate Minister, and the Minister of Police. We know that’s the case, because the Hon Julie Anne Genter is on the record bagging this proposal.

I don’t believe for a second that the Associate Minister of Transport actually supports this—let’s be very clear about that. I do not believe that she supports it, because she is on the record repeatedly bagging all of the various elements of the regime that she, as the Minister, is seeking to introduce. Actually, I think it was a bit unfair of the Government to ask Julie Anne Genter to be the Minister in charge of the bill, because it’s, I think, tolerably clear from past comments that she does not support it.

But anyway, we will support this bill because we think it’s urgent, as the Hon Dr Nick Smith said. We think it’s urgent. We think it’s important that we get on with it, and it’s a shame that our motion to send it to a committee for urgent report back has failed, but we do support it and think we should get on with it.

I do just want to make a couple of comments about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, because it’s interesting that this has got a section 7 report. Not every bill that comes before the Parliament gets a section 7 report. There’s been a bit of debate, actually, in this term of Parliament about the role of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in our constitution. The current Government is seeking to introduce a bill to allow declarations of inconsistency when it comes to breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and it would actually be a pretty significant constitutional change for New Zealand.

This is one of those bills which has attracted a section 7 report, and I would argue it is a perfect example of why we need a parliamentary bill of rights, rather than a supreme law bill of rights. In New Zealand we discuss and invigilate the appropriate limits on rights in the Parliament, and this is a classic example—just like the alcohol breath-testing was back in the 1990s—where the appropriate bounds of the right to be presumed innocent and the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure rub up against the regime that we want to put in place to improve the safety of New Zealanders. I believe the limit on the various rights that are impinged by this bill are justified.

Now, there’ll be others who would take a different view, and, actually, the Associate Minister of Transport at various points has expressed that view. Others take a different view, but I think it’s important that the appropriate justification and the limits on the right are tested through the parliamentary process, rather than through the court process, and having a parliamentary bill of rights allows us to do this.

So the Attorney-General has averted Parliament’s attention to the breach of rights, and in his view, it’s unjustified. But the ultimate political test, or the ultimate test as to whether or not we’d consider that to be a justified limit on the right, is for Parliament to decide. That’s the appropriate point, and that’s right.

So I don’t know if I’ll be a member of the next Parliament, but I hope I will—I’m running for re-election. I really hope I will.

💬 Erica Stanford: You’ll be fine.

Thank you, Ms Stanford. You’ll be fine—you’ll definitely be fine in East Coast Bays. But I hope I’m a member of the next Parliament, and I may well be a member of the Justice Committee. I have been in the past, and it’s a good committee. It’s been a bit of an edgy in the last three years, it’d be fair to say. It’s been a bit back and forth, but sometimes you get that on a committee. But I may be a member of the committee, and I am sure that the committee will invigilate the issue properly and they’ll consider the section 7 report, and that’s the appropriate place to do it.

I just want to comment on what Stuart Nash, the Minister of Police, said about the Road to Zero strategy, because the Road to Zero is another classic example of this Government. A big fanfare—you know, $1.4 billion being spent over three years on safety limits and the introduction of drug-driving. Very few speed limit changes have happened. Only 18 out of 198 kilometres of median barriers has been implemented.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How many?

Eighteen, in three years—six per year.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Six kilometres?

Oh no—median barriers. I reckon the whole National Party caucus could have built more median barriers in three years than the Government’s managed. There have been 151 out of 322 side barriers. So, look, it has not been a great record of success, and this is just another example of how it’s big talk, but very little action.

We support this bill. Drug-driving is an increasing problem in New Zealand, and, as the explanatory note to the bill says, it’s necessary to reduce road trauma and make our roads safer.

This is a bill that will require quite a degree of investigation at the select committee stage. We’re looking forward to that. We think it can be done quickly. It’s been extensively consulted on at various points already. The Ministry of Transport has done a very good job on the regulatory impact statement on the bill, so a lot of work that’s gone into this already. We do not believe there is any real need to hold it up.

Send it to a committee, get on with the job, get it in place, and bring New Zealand into line with other countries and try and improve the safety on our roads and protect New Zealanders’ lives. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. I don’t intend to take too much of a long call, but the first thing I want to do is just read out an article, a Herald article, and then I’d like Dr Nick Smith to try and guess what date it was written. The title is “Tests reveal most crash drivers had taken drugs.” It says, “More than half the drivers taken to hospital after causing a crash were found to have had drugs in their system, a study has found. The Ministry of Transport study used blood samples taken from 453 drivers who caused crashes. Drugs were detected in the systems of 258 drivers, analysis by the … ESR”. And they said, “We think the majority of drivers driving with illicit drugs are pretty safe from detection, unfortunately. … They may be caught. But the roadside saliva testing really sends a clear message that if you drug and drive, you could be randomly caught. But Associate Minister of Transport Simon Bridges said the Government would wait for saliva testing technology to improve before using it.” This is the story. It says, “More than half the drivers taken to hospital after causing a crash were found to have drugs in their system.” in 2012.

In fact, the information that was given to the National Party at the time, in 2012, was recommending drug-driving saliva testing. So it seems pretty ironic to me that we have Dr Nick Smith standing up on that side of the House, and so is Chris Bishop, saying this has taken a while to come to fruition. Well, they’ve got that one right—2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and then it goes, 2017. Is that five or six years? It was five or six years under the National Government, and they’ve got the temerity to stand up in this House and say we’re taking too long, when we’ve spent two years working hard to get it right, in a third of the time that they did. They did nothing. They did zero when they had all the information in front of them.

And then on top of that, what was worse was Nick Smith stood up and said why didn’t we support Alastair Scott’s bill, which, by the way, was a member’s bill that was put in in 2018, immediately after the National Party had just got out of Government. So if it was such a great idea for Nick Smith in 2018 and the rest of the National Party to stand up and demand that this side of the House support a member’s bill that was just put into the ballot, why did they not do anything over the six years that they had the chance to, from 2012, all the way through to the 2017?

Perhaps the next members of the National Party that want to stand up—and try to explain that without using the bullet points if it’s taking too long, without sounding ridiculous. Then Dr Smith tries to move to truncate the select committee process after he lambasts this side for trying to add the thresholds as a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the select committee, where the select committee needs to address those technicalities, where the public can submit on those technicalities and those additions to the SOP, and especially the advisers and the experts. So in no way do any of the arguments that Nick Smith or Chris Bishop are talking about have any legs or make any sense.

We are obviously supporting this bill, because drug-driving’s a problem. We’ve heard of the numbers of crashes that are caused by drivers with drugs in their system is increasing. It’s just common sense that we need to have a system in place to be able to detect those people, to create deterrence, to ensure that they don’t do it again, but then that no other person thinks they can get away with it and continue to do it. But also, most importantly, to make the roads safer and to stop these crashes and these deaths that are caused by drug-driving.

Of course you want to do that. But we need to ensure, and we have got to a point where we have ensured, that not only is the technology up to date and correct and usable, but that the legislation that we’re putting forward is workable, and that’s what a responsible Government does. If there’s any issues from the National Party about it, they just need to ask themselves why they didn’t do it when they had the information back in 2012. Because the exact same reason why they didn’t do anything about it is the exact same reason why we voted against Alastair Scott’s bill, because it wasn’t workable. We needed to ensure that we had the technology and the time and the correct legislation to make it work, not just come up with a piece of legislation that we think might work and put a title on it and make a political football out of it—what the National Party unfortunately has.

New Zealand First is looking forward to this piece of legislation going through to the select committee, specifically because it is a very technical bill and because there’s going to be a very important part added to it in the select committee that we need to ensure is robustly identified and submitted on by experts. One of the things moving forward, from New Zealand First’s perspective, is actually the question of whether any illegal drugs in the system at all should have any limit at all. The fact that they’re illegal means that they shouldn’t be in anyone’s system in the first place. So I think that needs to have a wider conversation at select committee and through the submissions, and we’ll be looking forward to that.

And just lastly, a question—and I’m sure it will be addressed through the select committee—is on the actual fee for the blood test scheme. I know that I’m not over the detail completely, but I am aware that it’s a lot more expensive than the drink-driving blood test, a lot more complicated. We’re just looking, particularly in regards to the equity issues surrounding the fact that the driver must pay for those blood tests.

It’s a very important bill and New Zealand First supports it wholeheartedly. We think that the Minister has done a very good job and this Government has done a very good job in ensuring that we’ve got a piece of legislation that is workable and in a timely fashion, and we commend it to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. A roadside drug testing regime could already have been in place for a year now, and when we think about how many lives are lost each year, that’s pretty disappointing.

💬 Ginny Andersen: Or nine years ago.

I hear already members on the other side starting to interject. I think it’s appropriate to reflect on where we are now: the night before Parliament finishes for this term. Three years this Parliament has been conducting its business, and here we are, the final night before we finish, and we’re seeing this bill put forward.

When I came into this place, in 2017, at the start of this parliamentary term, as a new MP, I was very enthusiastic. I still am—

💬 Barbara Kuriger: You still are.

I still am. Thank you, Ms Kuriger; I agree. I came here confident that this was the place where we could make real change, meaningful change for New Zealanders. What we’ve seen with this piece of legislation, with this topic, is that, sadly, it’s been turned into a political football, and we’ve seen the other side of the House choosing to manipulate this in a manner that has resulted in Kiwis suffering. I think that’s the most disappointing part of this. This could already be law right now; yet it’s not. Why not? Because the Government didn’t agree with it. The Government changed their mind. Mr Ball just said, “Well, it should have been in in 2012. The same technology exists now. We disagree with Alastair Scott’s bill.” Well, if that’s the case, if that argument is what he truly believes, how can he now stand up and support this bill in its current form if he’s saying that there is no change to what’s been presented here in this piece of legislation to what was put forward by Mr Scott member’s bill in November 2018? It’s a total contradiction and does not stand up to scrutiny whatsoever.

Alastair Scott member’s bill in November 2018 was the perfect opportunity for all sides of this House to come together, to unite on a really important topic for New Zealanders. We’re talking about saving lives on the roads. We all know there are far too many lives lost every year on New Zealand’s roads. The Green Party—I think it was their initiative—have even come out saying they want a road to zero. Sadly, their actions on this type of legislation have just demonstrated that’s an empty slogan. They could have had a meaningful impact on reducing the deaths on our roads from drugged drivers if they’d supported that member’s bill. That could have been law by now. We could already have been probably 12 months into that law, and yet we’re not. Here we are having the first reading on a bill that doesn’t actually outline any of the parameters in terms of the levels of testing required.

The cynic would say, “Well, it’s an opportunity for them to say they’ve done something just prior to having a referendum on legalising marijuana.” Because you can absolutely guarantee that people around the country want to know this sort of detail. I’m hearing it back in the Waikato. People are constantly asking me “If we legalise marijuana, what happens on the roads? What happens in the workplace?”—some fundamental concerns that they have. This, I guess, is a cynical attempt to try and address—or show that this Government is finally looking at it. Actually, it reminds me a bit of Denise Lee’s pay equity bill that she put forward a couple of years ago as well—the same scenario: a member’s bill put forward by someone on this side of the House, opposed by that side of the House simply because it wasn’t their bill. They’ve now finally put through their own pay equity bill, which they introduced around the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage—well, there’s a headline-grabbing effort if ever there was one—whereas they could have actually supported that bill.

It is disappointing when I think about the number of people who come here to do the right thing, to see that petty party politics takes precedence over safety and progress for New Zealanders on really key issues like this.

💬 Barbara Kuriger: We did that other one at a quarter to twelve at night.

That’s right; that pay equity one actually was late at night as well. I think the key issue here is that, sadly, the other side will just not accept that members on this side of the House can have good ideas and put forward good pieces of legislation. So that’s really disappointing to see.

The Green Party, I think it was Ms Genter, also said that bringing in roadside testing—this is one of the arguments as to why they didn’t support our earlier bill—was too intrusive. What a slap in the face for every New Zealand family who has lost someone they love as a result of a drugged driver. Too intrusive to do a roadside test? What a disgraceful comment from that Minister. Then we saw Mr Nash saying that this side of the House was not interested. Again, it was just petty politics, trying to make a point in his contribution. Here we are now, passing this bill—it should have happened a long time ago; we’re finally doing it now—and he still gets up and tries to make a jab at this side of the House not being interested in saving lives, when clearly we’d introduced a member’s bill in November 2018. Subsequently, the Hon Dr Nick Smith sought leave to introduce it again, and again, and again, and each time leave was denied by that side of the House. So I think it’s a bit rich for them to be standing up now and trying to claim credit for bringing in a piece of legislation that should already be law, and claiming the glory for that this close to the end of Parliament.

So we do support this bill. It should already be law, as I’ve said. On that side of the House, we continue to hear these cynical comments at a quarter past 10 at night.

💬 Hon Member: Angry—why are you so angry?

The member on that side talks about anger, and I think we have seen too much anger from Government members this evening. So I think it would be important for them to reflect on that when we are now at this position where we’re going to pass this at its first reading and start to make some progress. A cynical effort by the Government to claim some credit in the dying hours of their time in office.

So, on that basis, we support this bill. We support it on principle, as the Hon Dr Nick Smith says. On that basis, we look forward to seeing it progress. Again, the Government just voted down the opportunity to tighten up that select committee process, shorten up that window to allow this to be brought into law, and then they try to say they’re doing the right thing for New Zealand. Well, sadly, they’re not. On this side, we’re committed to that. We tried to get this through earlier. We’ll support it now because it’s the right thing to do. We just need to get it done. Thank you.

Before I give the next call, I’m going to interrupt the member. Some of the quality of the interjections is not good enough. Rare, reasonable, and relevant, and please do not use the personal pronoun “you”, as it brings the Speaker into the debate. I call Louisa Wall.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. It’s my absolute pleasure to speak on this first reading of the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill, and I want to commend Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter and also acknowledge Minister Nash.

So I had a look on the transport.govt.nz road safety progress in New Zealand, which actually outlines our history of road safety. In 1905 was the first known motor vehicle death in New Zealand. In 1929, we started counting the road toll, and we had 69 deaths. In 1937, we had our first national road safety campaign, and 1969 was the introduction of the breathalyser. When we introduced that, that year they tested 2,928 people, and 93 percent of them failed—and that was at the 100 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

In 1978, we lowered that amount to 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, and in 1993—as the Hon Nick Smith talked about earlier—24 years after we bought in breathalysers, we allowed police to test people anywhere, at any time. In 2009, under a new transport law, we allowed the police to conduct a roadside impairment test for drugged drivers. If they had good cause to suspect that they had consumed drugs, then they could have an evidential blood test. The limit for that test was at 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres, to align with how we treated alcohol. Now, 11 years later, in 2020, we are establishing a regime that will allow police to test anywhere, anytime.

I do want to acknowledge Alastair Scott, who in November 2018 put a bill in the ballot, and we did have a vote on it. But what I want to say about that member’s contribution to the debate was he said, “Given advances in technology, to have roadside testing needed to be more practical.” So we’ve come to a point where it’s more practical. And, tonight—who did what—actually does it matter? Absolutely it matters, because if I look at the statistics, in 2014, 18 people were killed in crashes where the driver had consumed drugs. That was 6 percent of the deaths that year. In 2019, that had increased to 107 of 353 New Zealanders, 30 percent of those who died on our roads. So this is an absolute issue and it’s time that we all grow up.

It doesn’t matter whose idea it was; it doesn’t matter why. We just need some consensus and we need and we thank the National Government for supporting Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens. This is an important issue, and I know that in the next Parliament they will address this issue conscientiously. Like everyone else, I look forward to the public having their say on an issue that is incredibly important. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.