Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move, That the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I’m very pleased to present this bill to the House for its third reading. This is Parliament’s third attempt in about three or four years at introducing oral fluid testing for drugs at the roadside. Hopefully, it is third time lucky, because I for one do not want to be back here in 2026 or 2027 or 2028, legislating again to bring New Zealand into line with many other jurisdictions that see drugs out there in the community and want to make sure that people who get behind the wheel are not on drugs, because we know that they’re a major factor in many road deaths and serious injuries. We had a go back in 2022, but the approval criteria was incompatible with commercially available devices. We’re now making sure that police are equipped with roadside oral fluid screening as a road safety tool to enable the enforcement.

The way I think about it is it’s a little bit like breath testing for alcohol. They’ll be able to stop any driver of a motor vehicle to administer an oral fluid screening test—a key part of deterring drug-driving, making sure that people can be tested anytime and anywhere. A driver who tests positive on the first screening test will be required to undergo a second screening test and to provide an oral fluid sample for laboratory testing. Two positive screening tests triggers a mandatory 12-hour stand down from driving to address any immediate road safety risk. An infringement notice is only issued following a positive laboratory test. The Minister of Police will set out in notices what qualifying drugs, or families of drugs, will be tested for at the roadside and in the laboratory. The requirement for two positive screening tests before a person is stood down and a positive laboratory test before an infringement offence is committed are measures to address concerns about the accuracy of the devices. These devices have been used in Australia for many years. Two tests have 98 percent accuracy.

There were changes in the committee of the whole House stage, resulting in changes to the way oral fluid samples will be able to be collected for future independent analysis. This allows drivers the option to challenge the infringement notice issued following a positive laboratory test by paying a private analyst to test their oral fluid sample.

The Government’s moving quickly on this bill. We expect Police to be ready to implement the bill by the end of this year, once it becomes an Act. Before it is rolled out, they will have to procure and approve the devices and the laboratory services, and they’ll have to train police officers and develop regulations to support the regime. But it is a good step forward. I think many people will welcome it. As I said at the start of my brief remarks, drugs are a contributor to many deaths and serious injuries on the road, alongside alcohol. Now, of course, we will soon have a method of testing for drugs on the road. And I think we will look back in five to 10 years and we will say, “What was the fuss about? How crazy was it that you could be high on weed or coke or meth—”

Tom Rutherford: MDMA.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, “MDMA”, says Tom Rutherford.

Tom Rutherford: Butterick told me!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh my! Tom says Mike Butterick told him. I’ll just be a bit careful about what I say here, particularly in relation to Tom Rutherford, the youngest member of the National Party caucus.

It doesn’t actually matter—the point is drugs can impair your driving, and the idea that you could be high and drive is nuts. Up until this law comes into effect and is implemented, there is, essentially, nothing to stop you doing that—certainly not in the law, or certainly not any ability to check that. It’s a good bill. We’ve worked pretty hard on it, and I’m looking forward to seeing its passage through the House today. Thank you.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure this evening to take a call as the Opposition’s transport spokesperson on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. This is a piece of legislation that Labour supported at first reading; was very constructive, I believe, through the select committee process; and supported at second reading. We did have some issues that weren’t resolved at the committee stage, but, despite that, we come to third reading and as a party we will be supporting this bill this evening.

It’s interesting, just listening to the Minister outline the Government’s belief that this will prioritise road safety. It’s interesting because, at the same time, of course, this is a Government that is not responding to the needs of communities when it comes to road safety, in relation to lower speed limits in communities where they have called specifically for that. So it is interesting to hear that from the Minister. But I do hope that the rationale, which is one based on road safety, is one that is one to be enjoyed by the House this evening.

When we step back and have a look at the impact of drugs in the systems of drivers of motor vehicles in New Zealand, it’s very clear that the data and the statistics indicate that a significant proportion of serious injuries—and, need I say, fatalities—are easily attributable to that particular criteria as well. That’s why, when Labour was in Government, we sought to introduce roadside testing. We had a very clear view that procurement should not be what drives this legislation. It’s something that has been expressed, I think, at all stages and did become perhaps more apparent through the select committee process: that this is a piece of legislation that, I still believe, should not be driven by decisions around procurement but should be taken from a principled approach as to how things would be rolled out and what is the right thing to do.

That is why, up to this point, Labour has been deeply concerned about the concerns that have been expressed right throughout by the Attorney-General around the potential breaches that an individual who might be going about their normal business, any day of the week, any time of the week, would be, effectively, detained at the roadside. This is something that we were hopeful the Government during the committee stage would not only turn their mind to but actually give some serious consideration to making some changes. It’s something that was contained in the select committee report, by all members, and the reason as to why there was no specified change in the select committee report is because we were not in a position, given time, to land ourselves on what an appropriate time limit would be, nor were officials able to provide the committee with what an appropriate level of time might be.

For the benefit of folks perhaps at home, what we’re talking about here is if someone is going about their business on any day of the week and they come across a random checkpoint, a police checkpoint—as they will experience when it comes to alcohol breath-screening tests at the moment—and it is for the purpose of a drug test, under this legislation it is possible that they could be detained at the roadside for any length of time, because the bill as currently drafted has no limitations on how long someone could be detained. It’s something that the Attorney-General herself did raise.

There is only one other piece of legislation in this country when it comes to land transport where there is a time limit, and that’s 15 minutes for the police to, effectively, detain someone for the purposes of establishing their identity. So there is precedent for this in legislation, and so it is disappointing that the Government and the Minister didn’t actually follow through on that. I am hopeful, though, given there is a review period and the review must be commenced within a five-year period, that the Government would look at the implementation of this bill and turn their mind to sort of time considerations to address the specific concerns that the Attorney-General had raised. I want to just really stress that these were concerns that were brought to the committee’s attention and brought to parliamentarians’ attention by the Attorney-General. The concerns that Labour has had and expressed through this process have been a direct result of the concerns that she has raised. So it is disappointing that we have landed there.

There are some really interesting changes that have come through as a result of this being in front of the select committee. One of the things that didn’t change is the nature of the consultation by the Minister of Police, who would be the person who needed to be satisfied that these would be devices that could, basically, detect a list of families of qualifying drugs. The change in the legislation is that the Minister no longer has to be satisfied that the threshold would be met at a level that there was impairment to be followed through. That is an extremely high threshold, in terms of the nature of the devices being approved for that purpose. So we would have liked to have seen the opportunity for the Minister of Police, in this circumstance, to be able to consult with others outside the Minister of Transport and the Minister of science, if that was the case indeed.

One of the interesting things that this bill does also provide is a pathway for the police to engage the compulsory impairment tests. The select committee heard from the Police that there is an undertaking to sort of roll out the numbers of trained individuals that would be able to administer these tests. If we are in rural communities where it might take some time to get a trained compulsory impairment test person to the particular site, that does cause some limitations in itself. So it is pleasing to see that there is going to be a pathway that’s available to the police there.

I have no doubt that the police are well-intentioned in this space. Actually, I spent Saturday night out with my local Palmerston North police, and they do a fantastic job. But there is a concern that there needs to be limits that are baked into this legislation that provide certainty around liberty, and the ability for folk who are just going about their normal business of the day or night to be able to do that. It’s really interesting that the ability for someone to elect for an independent analysis at the lab was something that was a new addition. I want to thank submitters for identifying that and the committee for bringing that in, because, as it stood as originally drafted, there wouldn’t have been that ability for someone who might have an issue with the laboratory process to independently seek—at their own cost—to have their sample tested. And then, of course, it needs to be bio-verified and authenticated in a laboratory. But provided that was followed through, then that was another safeguard within the legislation.

One of the interesting things that we’ve heard from the Government is that they intend to roll this out by Christmas. I hope that this is a procedure and a bill that’s really implemented in communities in a way that’s safe. That procurement is something that still needs to be worked through, and, again, I really don’t like the sense that procurement is what drives legislation. We should be looking at what good legislation is and then procurement falling within that. But I do hope that—you know, the Government have indicated they want to roll this out by Christmas; that’s not a very long runway. I hope that there is a lot of confidence in being able to do that.

But I also hope that whilst this is being rolled out in communities all around the country, there is also an ability to be able to collect the information for the review process that will follow, because one of the changes that we have seen with this bill is the review would have undertaken quite an explicit list of aspects—for example, the impact that this legislation may have on Māori and Pacific communities, which is something that submitters did raise. That was taken out by the Minister’s amendments. So I do hope that the review is able to be undertaken in a way that really does address and turn its mind to some of the real issues that were raised at select committee that haven’t been worked through in a fulsome way, in my view, by the committee of the whole House.

So, as I say, this is a bill that will be important, because road safety is absolutely important. As I’ve said, that is the reason why Labour, in Government, sought to do something about this. This legislation passing—if not tonight, then tomorrow—will be a further step towards ensuring that roads are safe and that communities are protected. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to oppose this bill for a number of reasons. But I want to say, first and foremost, that, yes, everyone should be free to travel around their communities and around our country without risking death or serious injury, and we can have that transport system that is free of death and that serious injury. Yes, it is true that no one should ever drive while seriously impaired. It puts themselves and others at risk. However, there is a lack of evidence that this bill or the drug-driving regime will address the root cause of dangerous or impaired driving, or of drug harm. I just want to unpack some of that, and what we observed in the committee stage.

I think one of the first things is the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill has often been equated with drink-driving, but the thing is, we must understand that the way that we quantify and look at drink-driving in terms of the interaction between ethanol and our body and our digestive system is vastly different from the myriad of drugs that have been discussed in this particular bill.

Indeed, in clause 4, when we’re looking at qualifying drugs—or a “family of qualifying drugs”, under the definition—one of the things that we did try to explore during the committee stage was around the idea of what it means when something shares a substantially similar chemical structure, particularly in light of benzodiazepine or amphetamine. Unlike ethanol, there are a lot of different compounds, particularly for medicinal uses. So, for example, anxiolytics or, potentially, central nervous system stimulants for ADHD treatment are some things that can have that particular chemical compound, particularly when we’re looking at benzodiazepine and having similar structures, which benzodiazepine, for example, have in terms of having both a benzene as well as a diazepine ring structure in its chemical structure.

The other concern that we have, for example, is the inconsistency when you’re talking about pharmacological effect. So, again, pharmacological effect is when we’re looking at the interaction between a particular drug or particular substance with the human body, and particularly when we’re looking at what is considered the first-pass effect through the liver. But when we are looking at some of these clauses—let’s say clause 12(3), which replaces section 64(6)—we’re looking at the idea of the proportion of the drug in the system. It is not simply about impairment, and it doesn’t take into account that certain people process certain compounds faster than others. So, naturally, we are seeing—again, unlike ethanol—possibly a discriminatory effect when we’re looking at people being stopped for these sorts of tests. I think nothing in this bill finds itself with the baseline of impairment, because a lot of these come down to the proportion of the available drug, or the proportion of a qualifying drug, in a person’s blood.

So it does beg the question, from the very definition of qualifying drugs: are we looking at a discriminatory element, especially when you’re looking at someone who is having certain mental health issues which will require certain drugs being administered—or, indeed, who has certain neurodivergences, such as ADHD—not being a part of this? We’re seeing that even in the primary Act, under Schedule 5. For what is considered a qualifying drug, it actually determines the amount that should be present in the system.. But this bill, again, doesn’t actually show those amounts, and we have no indication and no clarity from the Minister of Transport on when that Order in Council will be made that clarifies the actual amount within that, in terms of families of qualifying drugs. The example that I gave during the committee stage was bromazepam, which is anxiolytic, but it does share a similar structure to benzodiazepine, but it’s not currently in the schedule of the primary Act, so we do need to have an amount that’s specific to this.

The other concern—and it also ties up, in general—is that, indeed, very rarely, do we see a bill that fails the BORA test, and that’s the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act test here in Parliament. This particular one does require the Attorney-General to produce a section 7 report. But I think what has been quite a disheartening factor about that is even though there is a section 7 report that has been done on this, there are a number of sections which I think would have been pertinent for the Attorney-General, and also for the Government, to consider under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and which have not been considered as a result.

To give an example, when we are looking at—for example, I gave a couple of cases on this particular issue. One of them is the Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board case, which was from 1984 and went all the way up to the Court of Appeal, which very much challenges the very essence of natural law theory and particularly the presumption against self-incrimination. Indeed, this particular one touches on the BORA principles in sections 23(4), 25(d), and also 27(1), none of which were explored as part of the section 7 report, despite the fact that, again, we have a section 7 report as opposed to a consistency report against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

This is a serious concern because, for many of us, we know that, under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, we have natural rights under natural law, one of which, the presumption against self-incrimination, very much doesn’t allow one an absolute right—potentially, if you want to argue that—against self-incrimination. By having a police officer pull you up and force you to take a test, that very much touches on, some would say, one of the fundamental rights against self-incrimination. I think one of the things that has been particularly evident in the Attorney-General’s report as a result of this was actually that, yes, maybe one could argue that, on balance, particularly if you are applying section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the limitations, maybe there is a reason for us to limit that particular right. However, we have also seen that the oral fluid test cannot prove impairment. That’s one of the major issues because it is not like alcohol, where the relationship between breath and blood levels is more strongly correlated with impairment. Yes, there may have been some things that have been said in terms of the accuracy of this particular oral test, but, to be honest, it doesn’t actually offer the same level of reassurance as what we’re currently seeing in terms of the breath alcohol test.

The other thing that I want to mention as also part of the same vein in terms of potential challenges in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is actually a very recent case where the ruling just came out a few days ago, which is aptly named Lawrence v New Zealand Police. This is a High Court ruling that talks about when a person—in this case, Mr Lawrence—was stopped by the police. He was allowed to consult a lawyer, as your natural right is to consult a lawyer. But one of the things that the officer failed to consider is that under section 23(1)(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the right to consult the lawyer also requires the right to privacy, as in you are supposed to consult the lawyer in private. Because of the fact that the police officer just happened to be in the car with Mr Lawrence at that precise time, it also meant that that particular test was considered inadmissible in court because of the fact that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act had been violated.

So we are actually going to be seeing a lot more potential challenges when it comes to this. With regards to clause 27 of this particular bill where it talks about how an enforcement officer must forbid a person to drive a motor vehicle for the 12-hour period if the person fails or refuses to undergo an oral fluid screening test without delay, one of the other things we haven’t managed to get clarity on during the committee stage is what “without delay” actually means. I think what it does is it opens our enforcement officers up for a lot of legal challenges under the court of law.

So, to sum up, the Green Party will not be supporting this. Not only, from a pharmacological component, have we not gotten the reassurance that—when we’re looking at qualifying drugs or interaction of drugs or even drugs that are available for certain treatment of anxiety and neurodiversity—it has the protection for those people, but we’re also seeing some severe challenges in terms of the fundamental New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, both through the section 7 report and also through some of the case law that I’ve expressed.

But there are other ways to deal with this. I just want to leave in saying that unsafe speed is actually a factor in more fatal crashes than alcohol or drugs. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak on this third reading of the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. It has been traversed by many others in the House, but I will do so again: driving while impaired is a dangerous activity on the road, and that is what this bill is trying to address. It’s not good enough for New Zealanders and their families to go about their lawful business on the road and have the risk of someone who is seriously impaired through drug-driving also sharing that road and creating a danger for all of us in this country. Serious impairment is something that needs to be picked up on, and the best that we can do right now is with the tests that we have. This bill is also supposed to repair something that has been in place already, and the Labour members have spoken on it, and we’ve had a bill of a similar nature trying to achieve a similar goal in 2022. It wasn’t, despite the good intentions of the time, able to achieve that, and so this bill is in place to try and remedy that situation.

I was on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which examined this piece of legislation, and as has been traversed, again, there were some issues raised at the select committee. On one of those issues, I took the opportunity to speak to the Minister who introduced this bill, to raise my concerns about the time which someone could be delayed from undertaking their lawful business on the side of the road and also the ambiguity around whether that person could be required to accompany a police officer to a further location than what would be deemed necessary by any reasonable person. I have been reassured, and something in the statutory review in the bill has reassured me, that we will be able to address this issue and others in future, because, as the select committee said in our commentary, we think that the statutory review process of the bill needs to happen. Our request for the Government is to consider further whether this bill should include a time limit in which enforcement officers may require a driver to remain stopped.

This bill contains within it a statutory review, which must be undertaken between three and four years from this bill passing, and I think, at that point, there are quite a few issues which do need to be traversed. Some have been traversed tonight; some, I’m sure, will be brought up by other members. But, for my part, I think some serious attention needs to be given to the time which a New Zealander or a visitor to our country can be delayed from going about their lawful business and how far they can be expected to remove themselves from an unsafe area, and whether that has been properly accounted for with the new knowledge that we have. Part of what the select committee was unable to make our decision on was the lack of options around suitable time frames. That was fair enough. The officials told us, “We don’t know what the procurement’s going to be right now, so we’re going to have to build some of this into the bill.” OK, we’ve accepted that, but that means, when the statutory review comes up, that’s the right time when this stuff needs to be taken into account.

There was one other issue that I think should be in the statutory review, and that came up during select committee, and that was the regime of random testing. Randomness was acknowledged by the officials as a euphemism for a strategic approach that can be applied through operational planning. It doesn’t mean random—just pick up every 20th car—it means that Police will use a strategic approach on how they operationalise this. I think that this House would see it as quite important that that also is included in the statutory review.

So, with that out of the way, I think it is important that this bill passes, so that New Zealanders can have confidence that, when they go out on the road, they are doing so amongst a community of safe drivers who are not impaired. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. I just want to follow my colleagues, mostly from the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and say thank you to them and to the other members who doubtless will speak shortly for the hard work that they’ve put together and the collegial work that they did to bring this bill to where it is and to recommend a number of amendments to the House, many of which are part of this bill.

This bill is about road safety. We’ve already had Tangi Utikere talk about road safety in a broader context, and road safety best practice usually would say that’s about safer roads and roadsides, about safer speeds, about safer vehicles, and about safer road users. This bill is about the safer road users part of that because drug-driving we know is a major problem on our roads. We had 289 people who tragically lost their lives last calendar year on the roads. That is the first time below 300 since 2014 and, actually, according to the Automobile Association, is the lowest per capita rate of death since the 1920s. But it is still 289 people who died on our roads, and that is 289 too many.

Of those, 64 had drugs in their system, and a further 32 had drugs and alcohol in their system. So there is no doubt that drugs are playing a significant role in road death and injury. That is why this bill is here. This bill aims to put in place a drug-testing regime. The whole purpose of that is not so much to catch people but to discourage people from consuming drugs, being under the influence of drugs, and then driving, and then potentially causing death or injury to themselves or to other people.

As we’ve already heard, the previous Labour Government saw this as a problem and had a crack at fixing it. The intention was good. The problem was that for the regime that was put in place, the technology just simply doesn’t exist to be able to do the testing at roadside and be able to determine someone effectively guilty at roadside, because the technology is not there.

So what this regime does is, instead of doing that, it says we do a screening test at roadside and then we do a laboratory test to say, “We’re going to fine you.” That laboratory test is recognised as being much, much more robust. So the advice that we had from the experts was that they couldn’t stand behind the accuracy of the roadside test—the oral fluid test. It’s pretty good, but it’s not perfect. There’s always that issue of saying—whether you like the numbers or not—it is better that 100 guilty people go free than that one innocent person is convicted. So I guess that that is what that thinking is about. But what they did say is that they would stand behind the lab test as being just as good and just as accurate as the blood test, which we already are familiar with.

So this regime puts in place that two-stage mechanism. The bill is based, in theory, on random, but random, as you’ve heard my colleague Cam Luxton say, actually is a bit targeted. It’s targeted to places where, while it is in theory anyone, anywhere, anytime—that’s true—it is likely to be operationally targeted. Part of that is because the number of drug tests is going to be very, very much less than the number of alcohol tests that are done at the moment. But it is still intended as a deterrent.

Look, that does take me to the one issue which did exercise the select committee and also, as we’ve already heard, the Attorney-General, and that is in the first instance, before somebody’s been tested—they’ve not been found guilty, there’s no behaviour, and there’s no evidence of drug taking at this stage. There may be later on, after they’ve been tested. But before they’ve been tested, what rights do they have? Now, the Attorney-General said, “You’re stopping somebody. You’re detaining them for a period of time. You are taking a saliva test, so there’s some level of intrusion.” So the Attorney-General and quite a number of the submitters expressed concern about that. The select committee spent some time thinking about that.

So, look, I just wanted to put on record that this was a concern that we raised. There was exploration of whether we should suggest a time limit by which the testing should be done. Look, I understand why there isn’t one that the Minister has taken up. Part of that is because, while Tangi Utikere said we don’t want to be led by the technology which is available, the reality is that until we’ve got technology, we don’t know whether it’s a 10-minute process, a 15-minute process, or a 20-minute process, and allowing for some time left over to make sure you do that process properly. So I understand that; any time that we’ve put in there at this stage would have been a bit random. But we were concerned—and I did want to put this on the record—about the potential length of detention. We were concerned, also, about the 12-hour stand down, which occurs, essentially, if you’ve tested positive at the roadside—you’re still going to get that 12-hour stand down, even if the lab test says “No, you’re actually in the clear.” So there’s an issue there. But it is an issue about road safety, so we thought that that took primacy over the inconvenience of that 12-hour stand down.

There were concerns expressed about prescription medicines, but I think the answer to that, really, is to say, well, look, if you’ve taken a prescription medicine, most of those things say to give yourself a reasonable length of time before you actually drive after using a prescription medicine.

The other one, as Cam Luxton also said, is the issue around accompanying a police officer. What we really anticipated there was that if you’ve pulled over on the side of the road, the police officer might say to you, “Look, we want you to move to a safer place.”—so you’re not on the road itself; you’ve moved off the road—rather than taking you 20 minutes, 30 minutes, or whatever it might be to a police station, particularly in the rural areas.

Look, we were concerned about the power of the State, I guess, and the Attorney-General said that as well, and we want to make sure that’s exercised properly. One of the things we did do was to say that we wanted to make the process more flexible, so we allowed the police to flick between the oral fluid testing and the existing good-cause-to-suspect regime. But, really, what I wanted to finish off with was to say, despite all of those concerns, which we want to put on record, those things, I think, can be dealt with by the process, which is in the legislation, of monitoring, of reviewing, and then, potentially, of changing as a result of those things.

I think, to put on record, these are the things which we think the executive of the Government should be paying attention to. With that, I think it will be a good regime. It will be a step forward for road safety, and the monitoring regime, hopefully, will provide—or we expect will provide—the protections for civil liberties and for our people. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to give our last call on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill for tonight. I just want to say that I think, on principle, everybody here has acknowledged that impaired driving can be an issue and it can result in harm. Whether this bill actually addresses impaired driving is a whole other issue.

To me, the previous speaker, Andy Foster, gave us a lot of good reasons as to why we should be cautious about this bill, and there’s actually a lot of really good, valid reasons that would lead us to believe and argue that this is not the solution to the problem. One of the issues that was identified by the previous speaker was the sort of technology that was emerging in relation to having accuracy in those roadside tests, including in the laboratory. That is an emerging area that is developing. I think the problem is that we’re having legislation being introduced where the technology is not fully there, when we actually do have experts who have told us about the initiatives that can be put in place at the community level to reduce the harm that substance use can cause. So if the concern that we have is that drug use can result in harm—in this case, by people actually going on the road while being impaired—that can be addressed right now with the evidence-based stuff that we have available at our disposal. That needs to be funded by the Government in order for us to minimise the harm of substance use.

As many have identified—including the New Zealand Law Society, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and the New Zealand Drug Foundation—this bill fails to address some key issues, such as actually ascertaining whether a driver is impaired, which is very different from whether a test actually registers that there’s a substance in someone’s body. This is a really, really important distinction that needs to be made. There were examples of how medicinal cannabis, for example, could cause people to return a positive test while having no signs of impairment. That actually disincentivises people from seeking medical treatment when they need it, out of fear that they may face repercussions. While those penalties may not be put in place until the lab test comes back, actually, even the roadside testing may result in people being prevented from driving for 12 hours. That cannot be understated as a harmful effect of a piece of legislation that is not grounded in evidence. Those 12 hours could have quite severe real-life implications for people.

The previous speaker spoke about the randomness, I guess, of how this may be administered. But what we do know, and the evidence can point at this, is that, actually, Māori and Pacific communities are already disproportionately targeted by our authorities. So the reality is that because we do have that systemic issue within our Government agencies, what we will actually be seeing is the targeting of those communities in this piece of legislation when they’re already targeted in other parts of the system. When people are already profiled based on their ethnicity or socio-economic background, for example, and associated with drug use, I just cannot see how this bill—when it cannot present a robust, evidence-based argument for, for example, how accurately the technology that we’ll have will deliver a positive result when it comes to impairment. Yet we’re relying on the authorities to make calls in relation to roadside testing that will actually reduce harm in our communities.

If the Government was so, so serious about reducing injuries and deaths on the roads, what they would not be doing is campaigning on increasing the speed limits and taking selfies to celebrate increases in speed limits. Those are the things that actually can make our roads safer. Those are the things that are grounded on evidence. If the Government wants to reduce the harm that substances cause, I think we need a Minister in charge of issues that has a track record of actually campaigning based on the best research available. When we have Ministers that have shown very little knowledge on issues relating to the evidence when it comes to health, I think it is concerning to see, then, a Minister championing an issue that will actually not deal with the real harm that substances can cause in our communities, that can result in death. This is why our communities deserve far better than a dog-whistle bill that doesn’t address the fundamental, underlying issues that can lead to harm in our communities.

I’d like to begin by acknowledging the hard-working members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—past and present—of which I am a member, for shepherding this bill through the House. In particular, my colleagues Tom Rutherford and Grant McCallum, who have been replaced on the committee, but, no doubt, did a lot of work on the select committee—as did others from around Parliament: Tangi Utikere, Andy Foster, Cameron Luxton, and other members.

I think a lot of issues have been traversed tonight on the importance of the substance of this bill that we’re looking at. I think most of us here acknowledge the importance of making sure we keep our roads as safe as possible, and doing as much as we can in a practical sense. I’ve listened intently, as I’m a new member of the select committee. I’ve listened to the debate and it’s quite clear to me that there was a gap between rhetoric and intent and actual delivery on the ground. That is what this bill actually seeks to achieve: to develop a mechanism and a policy that can be operationalised so that police can go out there—as you will well know, Mr Speaker—and apply the best tools available to keep our communities safe.

I am certainly well and truly supportive of this bill. I do want to acknowledge, yes, there were many issues that have been raised in the last few speeches. But I think that is why there is a five-year review of this bill. I am encouraged by, particularly, my colleague Cameron Luxton, who did raise some serious concerns through the select committee and has reassurance that through the five-year term the bill will be revised and improved even more. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. First of all, I would like to note that there is a level of disappointment on this side of the House that the Government have not supported imposing a time limit on how long those drivers can in fact be detained at the roadside, because we know, as per the report from the Attorney-General, that this would have mitigated those concerns raised in that report. It sought to have a 20-minute time frame for drivers to be detained for the initial oral fluid screening test. We would have liked to have seen the ability of the Minister of Police to have the option of consulting with any other Ministers, in addition to the Minister of Transport and Minister of science, if that was considered to be appropriate.

Saying that, though, look, we continue to support the bill, because it is about road safety and it is about making sure that people who are impaired are not endangering our roads, as they currently do. I would like to highlight the point that it’s good we’re having this legislation coming into place as soon as possible, because what we’re seeing in New Zealand right now is an absolutely unprecedented level of methamphetamine use. We do know, through anecdotal reports, that those driving for long hours can use methamphetamine in order to keep awake if they’re required to, and this is incredibly dangerous for other drivers on our roads. Given the fact that in a period of just 12 months, we have seen a 96 percent increase, in the waste-water testing that Police released just last Friday—so that’s in a 12-month period—we are seeing record levels of methamphetamine coming over the border, finding its way into organised criminal networks, and then being distributed across streets and communities in New Zealand. If people are taking methamphetamine 96 percent more than they were a year ago, the risk of those people driving on our roads impaired has increased as well. So it’s timely and appropriate that we have the ability for police to stop and check and make sure that someone does not have those substances within their system, if they are in fact in charge of a vehicle on our roads.

It’s good to see that this legislation is progressing. It builds upon our support for the fact that police can already conduct those compulsory impairment tests on drivers if they have in fact good cause to suspect that they could be impaired or the driver could have consumed drugs. The introduction of roadside screening tests is a sensible, practical move that will enable roadside testing to detect those drugs and help remove impaired drivers from behind the wheel. It’s good to see also that there’s a five-year review period, because we know that one of the holdups, really, to getting this under way quicker is the fact that we want good, reliable technology that gives results that can stand up and be verified in the lab. We want to make sure that the technology that this legislation is relying upon is in fact in place, and we know that technology can move rapidly. So this is an area where, in five years, we may well see new technology developed that is far more refined and accurate than the existing testing system.

The way I understand the existing testing system to work is that once a positive test has been confirmed, once that goes to the lab, what it will detect is families of drugs. In terms of amphetamine, an amphetamine would show methamphetamine; it would also pick up, potentially, ADHD medication.

Also, there are other types of medication that are classified as an amphetamine that would be classified and picked up in that area. Similarly, when we have opioids as a family of drugs, tramadol is a synthetic opioid and would be picked up potentially similarly as to heroin, one being potentially legally prescribed; one being an illicit substance purchased on the black market. So I think what will be very interesting to see as these cases are picked up by this new legislation—they will proceed into our courts, and we will see instances where they’re being challenged as to whether it is an illicit drug that has been consumed or whether it is in fact a prescribed drug, and whether there are clear instructions on whether that person was able to be operating a vehicle or not once taking that particular prescription drug.

So I think this is going to have a series of effects that will run down the line and impact on how doctors are potentially prescribing and taking a lot more care about thinking whether this would turn up in a roadside drug-test, and I think it will give people a lot more consideration as to how prescription drugs are being used.

It will also impact upon those people who take medicinal cannabis, for example, with cannabidiol (CBD) and THC full-spectrum oil being used and prescribed as medicinal cannabis. People should quite clearly with tetrahydrocannabinol not be using a vehicle, but there are instances where CBD is in a low level in the system—whether that will be picked up and found as having cannabis within the system.

So all of those instances will need to be refined, and, to be quite frank, I don’t know that we know exactly how this is going to work until we get cases of police pulling people over, testing them, turning in a positive test, going to the lab, and then finding out whether the courts have ruled that is in fact a driver that’s impaired. Those are the things that we’ll need to work through as we watch how this legislation rolls out across the country.

It also means that our police will be working hard to make sure that they pick people up and hold them accountable and making sure that they’re adequately resourced to be able to carry out this work, and make sure that there’s adequate funding, also, for the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) tests and the lab tests to occur in a timely manner to make sure all of those things happen. So I think it’s only right that you’ve got a five-year review period to take a good look at how this law is operating, hoping that it’s operating in the way we intended it to.

There are many instances where we’ve heard—I know former MP Dr Nick Smith was a strong advocate. He had a constituent I’m aware of in his area who was a tragic instance that was brought up when we were in the Justice Committee of where someone’s life was lost. There are accounts where people avoid being picked up for driving under the influence of alcohol by instead consuming illicit drugs. So having a system that accurately records impairment for both alcohol and illicit substances will make our roads safer and will avoid instances where people needlessly lose their lives because of a driver impaired on our roads. So, for that reason, we think this is going in the right direction.

It will be really important that the device that we’re talking about will be required to have a concentration threshold for a qualifying drug and that the threshold would need to be at a level that differentiates it as a recent drug use as opposed to historical or accidental exposure. That’s particular from the instances and the advice I received when I was Minister of Police, for things like medicinal cannabis, which stays in the system for two weeks or longer. So if someone’s had that two weeks ago and it’s showing up in a test, it’ll be important that the device has a level of concentration threshold for a qualifying drug. For those drugs in the amphetamine family, the advice was that those can pass through the system roughly for a 72-hour period and they’re completely out of an individual’s system. So different drugs stay in the system for a longer period of time, and the drug being present within the system does not always mean that the driver was impaired at the time. So making sure that the devices that are approved are able to detect whether there is a concentration threshold qualified in there that’s necessary will be important for fairness before the law.

I’d just like to, in closing, acknowledge the hard work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I know they went out to Kenepuru and they visited the ESR. It’s always good to see select committees going out and undertaking field work to get their heads around some of the more complex areas in order for legislation to be passed in a way that we know will work as well as it is. This is a fascinating area of the law, and it’s good that we’re supporting it on both sides of the House, and I truly hope that it saves lives. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. I almost thought I’d come in to an alternative reality when the Green member was speaking earlier.

The reality is that this bill is about getting people off the roads who are driving while impaired, whether that be with legal or illegal drugs, or alcohol. Indeed, it doesn’t matter to the victim whether the drugs are legal or illegal; they just don’t want to be caught up in an accident on the road. This is a sensible piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

This is a five-minute, split call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak this evening on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. I have followed this particular piece of legislation quite closely. It was under the last Labour Government that we introduced the capacity for roadside drug-testing for the drug-testing regime, because we believe, of course, that it’s important to keep our roads as safe as possible.

It is somewhat inconsistent with other actions of this Government—and I heard from the Minister of Transport tonight that, obviously, he really encourages anything that enacts safer roads in this country. That’s probably inconsistent with the work that’s been done to change speed limits back in this country, particularly when it comes to those speed limits in and around our schools and the concerns that have been raised particularly by parents and whānau in those particular areas. So it is important to me that the Government is consistent in their road safety practices.

Under this piece of legislation, of course, we know that it’s important that when somebody is tested on roadside for impairment, they are held there at that particular time to ensure both an accurate response and outcome to that, so that our police are supported in the decisions that they make in that area to take the next round of actions, of course.

But we are disappointed, on this side of the House, tonight that the Government have not supported imposing a time limit on how long drivers can be detained on the roadside for. We did want to explore this, and, while I acknowledge the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, Andy Foster, for the work that the committee has done on this, I am disappointed that due consideration wasn’t then followed up and the Government haven’t listened to that particular issue—but particularly to that issue being raised by the Attorney-General—that it sought to have a 20-minute time frame for drivers to be detained for the initial oral fluid screening testing.

We have discussed and debated the accuracy in this sense, and I think that’s really important. I do share concerns, particularly on how legislation just like this particularly impacts Māori, Pasifika, and young people in this country. We need to ensure that the right parameters and protections are put in place to ensure that they get a fair go when they are tested at roadside, because we know the outcome of that, and we don’t want that particular group unfairly targeted in any way when they already experience particular challenges at the roadside in this sense.

Labour is supporting this particular piece of legislation tonight. It builds on the work that we started but, of course, doesn’t quite have the parameters and the safeguards in place that we had hoped for. But we think it’s important, in the name of road safety, to push forward on this, so I do, along with my colleagues, commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As my colleague said, it was a privilege to sit on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee through most of the deliberations of this piece of legislation. I do want to highlight both to the House and to the general public that in 2023, there were 64 fatalities where the presence of drugs was detected in the driver, and a further 32 drivers were found to have both drugs and alcohol in their system whilst operating on the road. So this legislation is simply about ensuring that for New Zealanders and international visitors and anyone who drives on our roads, they can feel comfortable and safe knowing that drug drivers will not be operating vehicles and that the New Zealand Police have the enforcement and the tools they need to ensure our roads are safe for everyone and that we can reduce fatalities in this country. It is 2025. It has long been time for legislation like this to help keep our roads safe for the general public, and so I commend this bill to the House.

Right, the time has come from me to leave the Chair. The sitting will resume at 9 a.m. Good night.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)