Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 7 to 25, “Amendments to Part 6 (driving offences involving drink or drugs, and penalties and procedures)”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

I would like to take the opportunity to cover some of the issues around Part 2, because the committee has shown a willingness to prosecute this bill and make it into the best possible shape that it could be. In outlining the Government’s position on Part 2, this is the most substantial section of this bill in amending provisions to the Land Transport Act. It covers drug-driving offences, enforcement procedures, and the Minister of Police’s powers to make notices approving oral fluid screening devices and specifying listed qualifying drugs that can be tested by an approved analyst.

I draw attention to replacement section 71G, inserted by clause 22. This section sets out the approval criteria for oral fluid screening devices. The current section 71G in the Act prevented the implementation of a roadside testing regime as there was no commercially available testing device that met the approved criteria. Under the new approval criteria, the Minister of Police must consider the accuracy of the device in light of the requirements for screening oral fluid.

Devices are not 100 percent accurate. They can produce both false negative and false positive results. In recognition of this, there must be two positive roadside screening tests before a driver is prohibited from driving for 12 hours, which may address any road safety issue. There must be a positive laboratory test before an infringement notice is issued.

The police Minister must also consider the positive screening threshold used by the device and the extent to which the threshold indicates recent drug use. The regime targets recent drug use as a proxy for impairment. When considering this matter, the Minister must also have regard to any relevant standard. The current Australian and New Zealand standard for oral fluid testing sets out device cut-off thresholds for some drugs that are widely accepted as indicative of recent use.

Part 2 of the bill also includes enforcement procedures for the new regime. A police officer will be able to stop any driver or motor vehicle to administer an oral fluid screening test without the need to suspect drug use. The ability to stop any driver at any time is a critical component to an oral fluid testing regime. A driver that has a positive result from a first oral fluid screening test will be required to undergo a second test and an oral fluid sample or samples will be sent for laboratory analysis. A driver who receives two positive oral fluid screening tests will be prohibited from driving for 12 hours to address any immediate road safety risk but will only incur an infringement penalty following a positive result from a laboratory test.

The Transport and Infrastructure Committee introduced an ability for a person who has been issued with an infringement notice to elect to have an oral fluid sample independently tested. This aligns with the existing blood testing regime for alcohol. If a person chooses to do this, they need to pay for this independent test.

Under the bill as reported back from select committee, drivers that test positive on first screening tests would need to provide a sufficient sample of oral fluid for laboratory and independent testing. Bear with me a minute, because these things are important. Given the device limitations and the potential amount of time it can take to obtain a sufficient oral fluid sample for both laboratory and independent testing, the Minister has tabled an Amendment Paper to allow drivers to choose to provide an elective oral fluid sample with the sample collected at roadside if it isn’t sufficient for independent testing. This has required some careful drafting of the enforcement provisions. The drafting changes introduce a number of potential pathways to allow possible future advances in device and laboratory testing technology that will enable a more streamlined approach in the future.

The Amendment Paper amends clause 19 to insert new section 71D and 71DE and set out three different processes following a positive first oral fluid screening test. The first is where there is sufficient oral fluid for both laboratory and private analysis that is obtained from the first or second screening test. No further oral sample is needed from the driver.

The second applies where there is sufficient oral fluid for laboratory analysis but not the private analysis. In this case, the driver will have the option of providing an elective oral fluid sample for possible future private analysis at their own expense. The person will have up to 10 minutes to decide whether to provide this elective sample.

The third is where the first or second oral fluid screening test do not provide an oral fluid sample sufficient for laboratory analysis. The person who provides one or more samples for laboratory analysis can opt to provide an elective oral fluid sample.

The bill provides that an enforcement officer may apply the applicable process after the first oral fluid test or after the second oral fluid screening test. This is intended to provide as much flexibility as possible for the New Zealand Police to implement the regime in the most sensible way, depending on the screening technology used. For this reason, the legislation also does not prescribe how many oral fluid samples are required for the new regime. This will depend on the screening devices and laboratory services used when the regime is implemented.

Replacement section 71E, inserted by clause 20, provides that a person who is unable to provide an oral fluid sample that is sufficient to carry out an oral fluid screening test or sufficient to carry out laboratory analysis following a positive first oral fluid screening test may be required to provide a blood sample. If a person is unable to provide a sufficient elective oral fluid sample, they won’t be able to request independent analysis if they are issued an infringement notice after positive laboratory test results. I hope that will clarify some of the provisions within Part 2. Thank you.

Kia orana, Mr Chair. Thank you to the Minister for Rural Communities for providing a top-level response at the start of this part. On this side, we agree with him that this is the part that is the most substantial, so we do have a number of questions, and, obviously, there are some tabled amendments from us that are there as well.

I want to turn to clause 11. One of the real difficulties that the select committee had and that is contained in its report was this issue around how long someone could reasonably be expected to be effectively detained on the roadside for the purposes of an oral fluid screening test. It was something that we sought to get some advice on. The advice, for a number of reasons, was not as easily forthcoming as perhaps some members would have liked. This is in response to the Attorney-General raising two matters of concern.

It’s the one around arbitrary detention that I want to ask the Minister about. It is very clear in the Attorney-General’s report that she has formed the view that there is a real risk of arbitrary detention. It’s in paragraph 62 of her report on this matter, but she basically says that there is that risk, in her view, “where an initial oral fluid screening test takes in excess of 15 minutes or where an individual is unable to provide” what is to be known as “a sufficient oral fluid sample and instead must” then go down the track that the Minister has touched on. That’s the blood sample. Given that she has indicated anything beyond 15 minutes is considered a risk of arbitrary detention, and in the following paragraph, she identifies that, in her view, there are no safeguards in this bill to address that concern. My question to the Minister is whether he or his Government are seeking to amend that, because I do not see that listed in any of the Amendment Papers that have been tabled by the Government.

There is one in my name, and I’d be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that, because this is something that Labour members certainly have quite an issue with. If we think about it, this is meant to be random, and we’ve been given guarantees that it will be a random form of roadside testing and that anyone, anytime, can basically come across a random checkpoint, at any time of the day, on New Zealand’s roads. The possibility is that they could, under the current bill as drafted, be detained for a huge period of time.

Now, we have the Attorney-General saying that anything beyond 15 minutes is a real risk of arbitrary detention and that there are no safeguards in this bill. There is only one piece of legislation in this country where there is a time limit in relation to land transport matters, and it is 15 minutes, and it’s for the police to basically obtain information to seek confirmation of the identity of an individual. They’ve got 15 minutes. After 15 minutes, the individual is free to go. Why are there no safeguards being proposed by this Government—when this bill, if passed, is enacted—to mitigate the concerns that have directly been, effectively, identified by the Attorney-General?

In order to do that, the tabled amendment in my name is one that will provide, actually, not 15 minutes but 20 minutes. This is something that the select committee did hear about and grapple with as well. The reason why the tabled amendment has a period not exceeding 20 minutes is simply because the advice that was offered was unable to provide any information around that. There was some suggestion that there were other jurisdictions in Victoria that would have differing amounts of time as well.

My first question is around how the Government is seeking to mitigate the real concerns and risks that have been identified by the Attorney-General, and whether the Government is prepared to support an amendment that will basically ensure that there are protections for people in this country who are going about their lawful business so that they won’t expect to be arbitrarily detained for a period in excess of 20 minutes. That’s my first question.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I really appreciate the explanation that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mark Patterson, gave us at the beginning of this part. I mean, this is a very substantial part of the bill, so I’m hoping to be able to canvas a few different areas.

I’m going to start with clause 22, which introduces a new section 71G. These are some pretty substantive changes from the original legislation and it’s about the approval of oral fluid screening devices. In new section 71G(2)(a)(i), it does make it very clear that a device can be approved if it only has one or more qualifying drugs, and the process around the decision making for the Minister of Police is changed. Instead of being satisfied that the test can meet a certain threshold, now they just must consider certain thresholds.

I guess that the question that I have is how the Government and the Minister approving the devices will be certain that the devices are accurate enough with these changes. Again, I’ve previously referred to the Attorney-General’s report; there is a real risk of arbitrary detention because of the time frame, but there’s also a real risk around the error rate of the oral testing devices. It’s not really specified, because of the changes in this Amendment Paper to the original legislation. It’s no longer the case that the Minister is going to be satisfied that the tests meet a reasonable threshold of accuracy; they just need to consider and balance up the different accuracy—in this new section 71G, which is in clause 22, in Part 2.

What work is the Government going to do to safeguard against unreasonably high rates of inaccuracy with the oral fluid testing devices? What recourse will the people of New Zealand have if oral fluid testing devices are approved that are found to have very high rates of inaccuracy or take such a long time that people are detained—assuming that the Government’s not going to support my colleague Mr Utikere’s Amendment Paper, which I think is a good idea, and we will certainly be supporting that Amendment Paper. I guess, what will be the follow up, given that now we can approve devices that we can’t be assured ahead of time have the right accuracy? Will the Government have a monitoring programme? Will that be funded? Will there be regular reporting on accuracy rates of the devices used? If they do procure devices which are found to have unreasonably high inaccuracy rates, will they switch to a different oral fluid testing device?

I can understand why they’ve loosened it up in the legislation, because it was too hard to procure the right devices, but I think the point is that you want devices that are accurate and that are not taking too long and that are actually delivering the results so that we can have the deterrence effect and have the road safety outcomes that we all want. If the devices aren’t doing that, what is the recourse? How is the Government going to be assured?

Just in answer to Mr Utikere’s Amendment Paper and the Government position on that, we will not be supporting that. We do understand the valid reasons that he has put this out: we don’t want to be impeding citizens unnecessarily. The Auditor-General has made some commentary around that, but there are some practicalities around this.

This is not as seamless as an alcohol breath test; we are dealing with emerging technologies, to Ms Genter’s point, and evolving as to how we address what we all, or most of us, in the House agree is a very real issue. We want to be able to stop people that are driving around impaired. Perfect is the enemy of good here. We do need to get a regime in place. We will be looking to best practice around the world, and provisions in the bill do provide for that.

The reason we don’t support a 20-minute cut-off, as proposed in the Amendment Paper, is because it does take some time for these devices to return a result. There are some issues in how cooperative a driver might be, and we did hear, actually—I understand the select committee undertook these tests where Arena Williams described the process last night. One of the members in the committee was unable to provide a test—I believe it might have even been my own colleague Andy Foster, who I was a little bit alarmed to hear this about. He seems like he’s OK, so that’s good news. There are some actual practical reasons why this might take a period of time.

The other part to that is if someone is pulled over and they are genuinely impaired, if there is a 20-minute cut-off, as proposed in the Amendment Paper, that’s a stop clock: you can play for time. As indicated, if you’ve got a driver who’s not cooperative or refuses to give the sufficient volume of sample, even if they were able to—so there’s a chance there that the system would be gamed. It’s quite likely that that would be the case, so 20 minutes—we don’t support that. We do think there needs to be operational discretion from the police. We do have confidence in the police that they will roll this out in an appropriate manner.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister, for those answers. It’s interesting: the conversation in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee did touch on whether there should be a legislative time restraint to really take into account the serious concerns which were raised in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act section 7 report from the Attorney-General. ACT is rather concerned about the civil liberties aspects of this bill, so I would like to hear some answers from the Minister to a couple of concerns which I have, and I also have some further concerns to raise after this contribution.

One of my concerns, Minister, is you’ve defined a stop clock: if you set a time limit, we’ll end up with a stop clock. I mean, I think section 114 of the Land Transport Act says you’re only allowed to stop a driver for 15 minutes without cause before needing to move to another piece of legislation or another contributing factor—so if you suspect them of something else, you can move to another piece of legislation. Did the Government and did the Minister think about maybe having, say, a 15 minute or—as Mr Utikere has proposed—a 20-minute time, and then having an automatic progression, as in some kind of a mandatory sample? Did you look into that in any way, Minister? I think that would negate the stop clock, because who’s really going to try and play for time if they know as soon as that time runs out, the police officer who has that person stopped can use suspicion of cause to go on to another process? I think that is an issue that I’d like to hear the Minister’s comment on.

The other issue that came up in select committee—and I’m less concerned about this after discussion with the police, but it is still a concern that I’d like even just to have the Minister on record saying what he would and would not expect to happen in the real world—is amended section 59, inserted by clause 10, and that is failure or refusal to remain in a specified place or to accompany an enforcement officer. We had advice in the committee that this would be used only for, as an example, moving a driver from a somewhat unsafe, dangerous position—maybe on the road—to a shoulder, a berm, or off the road just so that there is a safer place to actually conduct one of these tests. I’m a little bit concerned that there isn’t a limit on how far that can go. How far can an officer take somebody with them—you know, required to “accompany enforcement officer”? Would that be—say, as a police officer—I’ve pulled this person over, I don’t have the test with me but I think I’d like to do a random test; you will need to now accompany me to the station 20 minutes, 50 kilometres, down the road. Our rural communities wouldn’t want to be going through that, as the Minister, I’m sure, can empathise as the Minister for Rural Communities.

Look, let’s be fair, police do great work, but they are humans. We don’t want to have issues arise where there’s a gap in the law that could be exploited in that sort of position. I’d like to hear on that—“accompany an … officer”.

I’d also like to hear the Minister really, really answer the question I’ve just proposed about having a next step after a cut off, rather than just having, as it was described just now, a target for a person of ill motivation to try and get to avoid doing a random roadside oral fluid screening test. I’d just like to make the point that this is for the first test—this is a screening test. It is the first test which somebody does; we should not be expecting this to be taking 20 minutes. For the future, when courts or others are looking back on what’s happened in this Chamber today, I think they would like to see something from the executive, something from the Minister, saying, “Look, if I saw a case of 20 minutes, I would be seriously concerned.”—something along those lines, Minister, just to give some guidance to future New Zealanders looking back on what we’re doing here today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I actually have a similar point to the previous speaker, Cameron Luxton, around a particular point, and this is clause 10(5). Basically, it says, after section 59(2), insert new subsection (3)—and I’m looking at paragraph (b)—which is when a person committing an infringement offence “fails or refuses to accompany without delay an enforcement officer”.

Now, I know there might be other people who would like to ask more around the question of enforcement officers, but my first question—and I’m also just signalling to the Chair that there are a lot of subparts to Part 2, and I would personally be looking at doing it, methodologically, from Subpart 1 to Subpart 6. I think, on Subpart 1, for this particular question—I know there are other people who might be more interested in terms of some of the conditions and circumstances around enforcement officers—my question is around the power that is being granted to an enforcement officer to be able to issue that infringement notice if a person fails or refuses to accompany without delay.

I am sure the Minister for Rural Communities is aware of the obiter dictum that was part of the landmark case of Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board in 1984 through the Court of Appeal. In that particular instance, just for context, essentially it was a person who had a car full of thousands of eggs and was stopped by a poultry farmer officer on multiple occasions, where they were asked where their eggs came from and the person refused to answer and was issued with an infringement notice as well as a $700 fine.

Rawiri Waititi: It came from a chicken.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: It came from a chicken, but where is that chicken from? But, anyway, the point is that that particular thing went all the way up to the Court of Appeal, and it became a fundamental question around a person’s privilege in terms of compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Now, I had a look at the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report, particularly the section 7 report, and I am a little bit alarmed that neither section 23(4), 25(e), or 27(1) were a part of that report. I think, in this case, it is absolutely vital that we address those three particular sections, because it all comes down to a person’s privilege against self-incrimination. The reason I raise that case and I want to mention this point is that, for a person to have committed an infringement notice, it’s “fail or refuse to accompany without delay”, because they refused to accompany on the basis that what they would need to do when they are accompanying the enforcement officer will be subject to self-incrimination. That is quite a serious New Zealand Bill of Rights Act test, and that is quite a serious right, in terms of the fundamental rights that we have as members and people of Aotearoa.

The reason that that case was so important, and why we are seeing it again here, is on the basis that there is a general concern around a person’s liberty and their being able to travel freely and be able to not self-incriminate in these sorts of situations. There was a genuine concern, as part of that case, around the fact that we are looking at too much power being granted to the executive, or, in this case, to the enforcement officers to be undertaking—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can you just repeat the case again?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yes, it is Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board. It is a Court of Appeal case from 1984.

Tom Rutherford: Is this in the Green Party talking points?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: We are the legislature; of course, we’re going to be mentioning case law that is pertinent to the way we make bills. It’s one of the things, particularly for the committee stage, with the Hansard—I mean, the member would understand, with the Hansard, when lawyers are taking certain cases to the court or if someone, anyone, challenges this bill on a matter of fact and a matter of one’s privilege against self-incrimination, they will be going to the Hansard, and they will be looking at the ministerial intent as part of the statutory interpretation process, which I am sure that member is well aware of.

Tom Rutherford: I’ll be letting the poultry farmers know.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yes, please do, because it is quite an exciting case. I would highly recommend that any member who hasn’t seen the case or hasn’t read that case brief to go and have a look. But the point here is: what is the power being granted to an enforcement officer under clause 10—[Time expired]

Thank you, Mr Chair. I will take on a couple of the points that have been raised. I know everyone wants to get to the Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board case, but I will deal with Julie Anne Genter’s points around approving devices and the accuracy of devices.

We know that the screening tests now are about 95 percent accurate and the laboratory tests are almost 100 percent accurate, so there is a high degree of accuracy. An infringement is only found on the basis of the laboratory testing. A positive result at the roadside triggers that laboratory analysis, and we expect police to monitor the effectiveness of those devices over time as technology overseas in similar jurisdictions evolves. We have provisioned for that in the bill and we have discussed that earlier on in these deliberations.

To the points that Cameron Luxton and Lawrence Xu-Nan made, in substance raising the same issue, I must say the Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board case, discussed regularly at the Coach and Horses on a Friday night, is seared into the consciousness of rural New Zealand. It is essentially the civil liberties element, the failure to remain in place or accompany an officer, and how far can an officer take a driver. Those are substantive questions that came from Mr Luxton and Mr Xu-Nan. There are existing powers that the police have within the alcohol enforcement laws, and we expect that the police will conduct themselves in exactly the same way with the drug testing as they do with the alcohol provisions on those matters.

Thank you to the Minister for Rural Communities for that response, but I think that doesn’t actually reassure—I know it doesn’t reassure me; I don’t know if Mr Cameron Luxton would have other thoughts around this.

Yes, it is true that under the primary legislation, or including this amendment bill, enforcement officers would have the power to do that, but, again, it comes down to the lack of specificity or unless there is specific secondary legislation that will be specifying the powers that are granted to an enforcement officer. The reason I mention about the level of specificity is when it comes to something as important as our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, often when it does get challenged in a court of law, it favours the side that did not draft the bill, and it doesn’t favour the side that doesn’t have any level of specificity.

One of the reasons why I raise this particular case is because of what we’ve seen from subsequent case law as a result of the case that I just mentioned, as well as the comment that was made as part of the obiter dictum in that particular case. What I’m curious about, and, I guess, slightly concerned about, is that what we are seeing here is that by granting and by not having that level of reassurance around the testing itself and having enforcement officers granting those powers, what we might actually see is more people being able to challenge the enforcement officer or the relevant enforcement agency on the matter of privilege, and on the matter of privilege against self-incrimination because of the fact that there isn’t a level of specificity that comes down to the extent of the power granted to enforcement officers.

It was mainly a question of when it comes to enforcement officers. I understand that both the primary legislation, as well as this bill, may confer certain powers, but what those powers extend to—does it extend to, for example, we’ve seen the enforcement officer being able to detain; does it extend to the enforcement officer being able to issue a fine? What are the limitations of that fine? What are the ways that the person who commits the offence will be able to, I guess, receive that—orally or by writing? Again, the more specific that we make the legislation, the fewer chances there will be for people to be able to challenge that, because of the fact that it is all laid out in a high degree of detail.

That was mainly in response to what the Minister said, and, again, I appreciate the Minister answering the questions. Those powers are conferred within the primary legislation, but I just want some clarity around whether there will be additional notices provided or additional secondary legislation created by Order in Council that allows us to see that in the context of this bill that is addressed. I hear what the Minister is saying in terms of the high degree of accuracy, etc., but, again, the difference we’re seeing with this bill is the context that it is not about drink-driving; it’s about drug-driving.

For drink-driving, we’re looking at possibly—correct me if I’m wrong—one specific compound, which is ethanol, whereas with drug-driving, we’re looking at a whole myriad of different potential comedowns, different levels, and, again, it comes down to the idea that, yes, there is the level of accuracy, but different people have different pharmacological effects as a part of that, and the first-pass effect, in terms of how your liver functions, all factors into that. In a sense, there is potentially this sense that it is unquantifiable, which is why I was asking the Minister before about the pharmacological effect.

In the context of this, I’m just wanting some clarifications around whether there will be other secondary legislation as a result of this particular bill that’s introduced.

Thank you. I take my first call on this particular bill. Just after the last speaker’s presentation to the committee, it gives another meaning to “fried” in regards to the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. We should put “Fried” in there, just because he’s brought up the eggs in his speech.

Look, I just want to make a short contribution to this, Minister, and I’m looking forward to your contribution to the questions that I have and the concerns that I have in regards to this bill. I will touch on Part 2—replacement section 59, inserted by clause 10, and replacement section 60A, inserted by clause 11—in terms of the powers of enforcement officers. As we know and if we follow the data, Māori are four times more likely to receive a conviction for drug possession. How far does the testing go in terms of the powers of an enforcement officer? Are we just testing for what appears to be somebody who is under the influence, or does it allow, then, for the fishing expedition of that particular person who has been pulled over? I don’t see anything in the legislation that isolates this as just an isolated case.

If we look at the data, Māori men are more likely to be stopped, tasered, and prosecuted by the police due to bias and structural racism. That was a report that came out, and the name of the report is Understanding Policing Delivery, and Māori men are stopped because of their—and in the report, it actually talks about their physical appearance, their size, their gender, their age, and the perception of aggressive behaviour—perception. Now, to some people, their perception of aggressive behaviour or even ability to be intimidated could be somebody wearing gang regalia. That’s not a public place, in a vehicle, right? That’s a private vehicle. Some people deem that as that, and we’ve seen legislation being moved in this House to that fact. I have concerns about the particular sections that I have mentioned, on the powers of enforcement officers, because of the data and the many reports that have been presented and that have been done and the and the structural racism and bias that continues to go towards Māori in this particular fashion.

I do have concerns in regards to that. I don’t see any protective measures put in place. I do like the amendment proposed by the member Tangi Utikere. You don’t want people there all day. As this bill goes through and we debate the amendments, I do think there should be some protective measures. There are no protective measures in here. There are no protective measures, and how far can the powers of the enforcement officer go? Are we just testing, or are we then going to search the vehicles, and are we then going to search the person? The implications of that means that other laws then kick in and, again, supports the report Understanding Policing Delivery of their bias and structural racism. That’s the fact.

These are the questions that I ask of the Minister. What protective measures does this piece of legislation have in place to ensure that there isn’t the bias, that there isn’t the structural racism, that, following the report, Māori are not stereotyped, because of their physical appearance, size, gender, age, and the perception of aggressive behaviour? Those are the questions that I have for the Minister, and I look forward to his answers. Kia ora tātou.

Kia orana Mr Chair, and thank you. I am disappointed to learn that some parties might be seeking to adopt a position that, effectively, provides restrictions on the free movement and liberty of people of this country, or anyone, actually, who is driving a motor vehicle. Mr Waititi identified the lack of protective measures, which is in line with what the Attorney-General has identified as well, and it is the position that we take on this side of the House in leaning into—

Rawiri Waititi: Great minds think alike.

TANGI UTIKERE: —absolutely—some of those amendments. I have to signal the real concern that we would have if there was nothing put in this bill to address the specific concerns that the Attorney-General has raised, because as it stands—I actually like the term “the Foster clause”, which Mr Patterson referred to. What it identifies is that where someone is perhaps in the circumstance where they have an inability to legitimately not provide a suitable sample, they would be able to be detained—anyone would be able to be detained—for an indefinite period of time. Mr Luxton has identified concerns that are very real. I mean, we’d expect that people are able to move around this country on our roads without any unfair limitation.

Now, everyone accepts that when you rock on up to a breath-alcohol screening point, that is perhaps, for some, going to be a mild inconvenience, but you do not expect to be waiting there for 20 minutes for a screening test. It’s a matter of seconds, right? I think that most people in this House would have experienced a breath-alcohol screening test. It’s very, very simple and is some impediment, but not in excess of 20 minutes. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for this to have a protective measure that actually is in excess of the only other time limit that exists in land transport legislation, which is 15 minutes.

If we have a look at the amendment, for the benefit of other members of the committee of the whole House, what it seeks to do is to say that a person required to remain stopped on a road for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to administer an oral fluid screening test cannot be required to remain stopped for a period that exceeds 20 minutes. Members might ask, “Well, when would the 20 minutes actually commence?” Well, we’ve got an answer for you: it’s the next one that comes. Subsection (1B) would provide that the 20-minute period contained in the subsection commences when an enforcement officer informs the driver of the requirement to undertake an oral fluid screening test, which would be the initial one.

The moment that an enforcement officer informs the driver that there is a requirement for them to undertake an oral fluid screening test, that is the very first one. From that point, the 20 minutes starts. It doesn’t start from the moment that a vehicle is stopped and is waiting in a queue—as we have all experienced—but the clock would start the moment the enforcement officer is, effectively, informing the driver of the reason as to why they are stopped and the requirement to undertake the oral fluid screening test. We don’t think that that is unreasonable.

Now, there has been a suggestion that drivers would be able to game the system. The good thing about this legislation is that it actually provides flexibility around the compulsory impairment test (CIT). Currently, the police are restricted as to when they can engage that CIT. This provides much flexibility to the police to actually divert, when they need to, to engage that. If they have real cause to believe that there is impairment, then they can go down that route. We will come to the CIT later on because there are particular things that need to happen with that, but I have real concerns that the Parliament would allow to go through this change in legislation that, effectively, would allow for citizens, residents, and visitors going about their normal business to be detained for a period in excess of 20 minutes—in excess of 20 minutes.

We hear about the changing technologies and all that sort of stuff, and we hear that there are practical reasons—do not roll this out until those issues are sorted. The procurement of devices and how that works needs to be sorted, and it needs to not limit the reasonable movement of citizens beyond a period of 20 minutes. I ask the Minister in the chair why he thinks that it is appropriate to have limitations to that extent.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I thought I would just address a couple of questions that are bit of a hangover from last night.

One of them was from Julie Anne Genter. Ms Genter asked a question around fatal crashes and some evidence around that, and I’m advised that the provisions in the bill are intended to improve the detection and deterrence of drug driving on our roads. Of course, the impact at this stage in New Zealand is unknown because we’ve never done this before, but the officials in Police and the ministry will be closely monitoring deaths and serious injuries where a driver involved in a crash had consumed impairing drugs. We know from statistics that one in three deaths on our roads is influenced by this kind of behaviour. We would assume that any impaired driving or driving under the influence we can take off the road would have some impact, but it awaits to be seen, because we actually have to introduce the measures first before we can undertake the testing.

The second question from Ms Genter was: will it be possible that the drivers know the substances that the oral fluid test will be testing for at the time they are in operation? The answer to that is yes. The bill does require the police Minister to approve the oral fluid screening devices by notice, and that notice must specify the qualifying drugs or families of drugs that the devices will be used to detect and the concentration level of the drug or drugs that will return a positive result.

There were some further questions last night from Lawrence Xu-Nan. Mr Xu-Nan, after his New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) questions and benzo questions, asked: do we think the tests are reliable enough or accurate enough to warrant limitation under BORA? Yes, we do. The devices are about 95 percent accurate in correctly detecting the presence of some drugs, although there is some variation and there is some recourse beyond that to address the issue. The regime does require two positive tests at the roadside before a person is stood down for 12 hours and a positive laboratory test before an infringement notice is issued. We think that’s adequate and sufficient protection in place.

Just finally, there’s the amendment from Tangi Utikere amending new sections 71G(3) and 71GA(2), inserted by clause 22. We don’t support these amendments. The sections require the police Minister to consult the Minister of Transport and the science Minister. If the police Minister considers it appropriate to do that, they can do it; there’s no need for the bill to provide mandatory consultation for this discretionary action.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair—thank you. I really thank the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Transport, for his answers to my questions yesterday. There is a follow-up question from what the Minister just said. The Minister of Police will be required to let people know which substances will be tested for in the oral fluid devices. My understanding from the Transport and Infrastructure Committee is that it’s unlikely that they would be testing for more than two or three substances at one time, because the more substances you’re testing for, the longer it takes to get a result.

We have been, in this section, in this Part 2, talking about the issues around the length of time that drivers might need to be detained, so I guess the question that flows from the answers that the Minister just gave is: if drivers know that certain substances will be tested for, it’s also the case that a whole lot of other—dozens of other—substances won’t be tested for. What is to stop people from switching the substance so that maybe they’re using less of the substance that’s being tested for but still using other impairing substances that won’t be tested for? How can we have the policy objective of deterring people from driving impaired if we’re only testing for two or three substances and drivers know what those are—when we know there’s many, many more substances that can impair driving?

I guess it’s just a question around what is the Government going to do about the fact that they can only test for a few substances at one time; there are many, many impairing substances that presumably are represented in the statistics the Minister made reference to.

Then, otherwise, in this part, I guess the other question is: will the Government be seeking to test for more substances? You know, maybe six—I don’t think you can test for more than six. And, I guess, the more substances that are in the devices that are procures, the longer the wait-time to get a result. I think this does, again, question whether—because the Attorney-General did mention there’s real risk of arbitrary detention that will increase if you’re testing for more substances. It would be great if the Minister did have an answer to that, although I appreciate the answers that the Minister has given so far.

I believe we’ve really only covered a few of the subparts in Part 2, so expecting, Mr Chair, that we’ll be able to drill down into the detail of further subparts after this.

Just to quickly address those questions from the member: of course, we don’t test for any substances now, so any addition to that process will be a good start and I think we could always look at adding more substances later on if the member encouraged us to do so. I’m aware that we’ve already covered this off in the previous part, so don’t want to labour those issues too much longer, I think, as we are now in Part 2.

There was a question there from Mr Waititi about the protective measures the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill has against bias and discrimination. The bill does enable enforcement officers to stop any driver to administer oral fluid screening tests without the need to suspect. That’s an important part of the regime. It’s an important component so that there are no, I guess, unreasonable factors preventing police from doing that. But, I mean, police can do that generally; unlike other jurisdictions around the world, there are no reasons police need to provide for stopping the driver. There are a whole range of things that police stop drivers for.

We are primarily concerned about stopping harmful behaviour on the road. Police will consider issues raised when operating the regime but, of course, we’ve got utmost faith that our police operate with integrity and we have high confidence in our police, the men and women of the New Zealand Police force—that they will treat every individual that they come across with the dignity and respect they deserve, regardless of what they look like. That’s the expectation of this Government: that we treat people as individuals; we don’t treat people by the colour of the skin but, rather, we acknowledge the content of their character, so to speak, and we treat everyone equally. That’s the expectation that the Government applies to Government agencies and that’s the expectation that we would apply to the police as well.

I wanted to touch on Mr Utikere’s Amendment Paper around timing; I think the previous Minister’s already addressed some of the answers to the questions around that so I won’t labour it too much longer, but I understand that specifying a time frame in legislation may incentivise drivers to prolong the process to avoid undergoing a screening test, which would undermine the effectiveness of the regime. I think the previous Minister’s mentioned that before so we don’t need to go into it too much longer.

Finally, there was a comment there about needing to be very cautious about restricting people’s movements, particularly in vehicles, and, of course, we agree. We agree that those limitations on free movement around the country should only be done for very, very important reasons. We think that the prevention of death and injury on the roads due to impairment is a very important reason and, like the previous Government who took significant steps to stop individuals travelling around the country for very good health reasons, we think this is a very good law and order reason—and health reason—to put some minor preventions in place to stop those people driving on our roads and causing horrific harm and injury to innocent New Zealanders going about their everyday business.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Again, I just want to signal to you, Mr Chair, that this is the substantial portion of this bill, with 20 pages and eight subparts, and it is also a bill that has a section 7 report, which then deserves greater scrutiny. I’ve been kind of taking things methodically and moving through from one subpart to another and there is still very much to say about this particular bill, despite the fact that the Associate Minister of Transport may suggest that some of them have been covered under the previous part. I also want to signal to the Minister that there are some very specific clauses that we would like to address as part of Part 2.

The first question to the Minister, kind of in response to what the Minister has said—I think that fundamentally, based on the independent police report from August last year, it signals that the police themselves, as well as the independent report, suggests that there is a level of bias when we’re looking at basically stopping people to administer that drug test. I agree with the previous Minister in the chair, the Hon Mark Patterson, to say that, yes, the test itself doesn’t discriminate but the way that the people who are being waved down or being stopped very much has a level of bias, particularly towards Māori, ethnic communities, and disabled whānau. That is precisely the question that—

Simon Court: Where’s your evidence of that, Lawrence?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Oh, the independent report from August 2024. If you haven’t seen it, have a look. It’s really enlightening. This very much also supports the question that our colleague from Te Pāti Māori, Rawiri Waititi, was asking as well regarding some of that bias.

My question to the Associate Minister of Transport is on replacement section 64(6), inserted by clause 12(3). Now, it does say that the element of defence is something that is incredibly important for people to have as a part of this whole process. Again, someone having that level of defence is incredibly important when we’re looking at certain rights that are being restricted as a result of this bill.

I am interested to know why that element of defence that has been corrected only talks about an error in terms of the proportion of a qualifying drug, but unlike the previous definition of a qualifying drug, it doesn’t take into consideration the pharmacological effects of that drug. Would pharmacological effects be considered as an aspect of an error that doesn’t prevent someone from having that defence, or is it just simply in terms of the proportionality itself?

I know that I’ve also held back on a number of questions around the determination of the qualifying drug. I think that is coming up later when we’re looking further into Subparts 6, 7, and 8, but I also want to raise the fact that what we are also seeing here is one major Amendment Paper that has been dropped by the Government as part of this process that didn’t go through the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and potentially addresses some of the issues and concerns that the select committee raised, but then we also see the new Amendment Paper that is being dropped by the Hon Chris Bishop in terms of clause 16. So I think I’ll move on to that particular clause.

This is replacement section 71A(8)(b)(iia)(A), inserted by clause 16(5), in the Hon Chris Bishop’s Amendment Paper 256, and this is in conjunction with Amendment Paper 257. I wanted to check with the Minister that we are seeing that the provision with the capital “(A)” here, “may be issued with an infringement notice” has been removed as part of the Hon Chris Bishop’s amendment. I wanted to check with the Minister if that was partly to do with the fact that what you have is a situation where the person who has a positive oral fluid sample should not be issued with an infringement notice before they have a chance to provide a level of defence when it comes to being allowed a private analyst to analyse that sample at the same time. I think one of the things I want to check was the rationale behind the removal of the capital “(A)” of that particular subclause.

The second question I have for the Minister is what sort of analysis is being done that “at the person’s own expense” isn’t going to disadvantage people from lower socio-economic areas that do not have the money or the resources to be able to pay for their own tests at their own expense.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just want to quickly address one of the points the member who just took his seat, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, raised around bias. I think we’ve well and truly covered this topic. We have the utmost faith in the New Zealand Police that they will treat everyone fairly and equally, and I think to continue to labour the point might border on repetitive. I wouldn’t want that to be something that the member engages in in this debate because we love fresh content and new questions, and repetitive questions obviously are not something that I’m overly interested in either.

Just in terms of Miss Genter’s question from before, that I partially answered—I just wanted to make sure I give a full answer. This was around what is deterring drivers from switching to using substances not currently tested for. The devices do only test for a defined list of qualifying drugs—they will be kept under review—but also just to note that if a police officer does suspect the driver has consumed a drug and is impaired, the officer can require the driver to undergo a compulsory impairment test.

I’d like to have some clarification in relation to giving blood under Part 2. New section 72 of the changes talks about when you are taking either blood or saliva from somebody. What would happen, I’m interested, in parts of rural New Zealand where the officer and the person pulled over may be some distance from a place where blood can be taken or where the extra test can be done, even if the person isn’t able to drive their car? That’s if they’ve done two saliva tests, both are proving to be positive, the car is unable to be driven by that person, and the lab test still has not come back.

In situations like that, what happens with the vehicle a long distance from a police station or a tow-truck driver? I’m assuming that the police officer would be able to escort the driver, who can no longer drive, back to a town or a city centre, or that there’s a system to be able to call a taxi or an Uber, I’m assuming, if there’s one available. But if the car is then left at the side of the road, is it then the responsibility of that driver to have the car towed or to find other ways? Where does that responsibility lie?

My point becomes: if those two tests, which have tested positive through the saliva test, then come back not confirmed through a lab test, is it fair that the driver of the vehicle is then required to pay for the towing or taxi or Uber fares for themselves when the lab test has proven that there’s no conclusive evidence that a prohibited substance was detected in that final test?

Further to that, it would be also really helpful to know, in situations where someone refuses to take a test at the side—I understand that incurs a penalty—whether they are able to change their mind down the track? If they refuse and they get the penalty, it will just be useful—and I apologise if this has been covered, but if you’re, again, in parts of rural New Zealand when you’re not on a main State highway or you’re away from bright lights and you’ve got a single police officer who’s dealing with an individual and there are issues in terms of accessing either a police station, transport, or additional backup testing, I’m just wondering if there’s been some consideration in the operational practicalities of how that would apply to parts of rural New Zealand.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll respond to a couple of the points raised by members. A very quick one from Lawrence Xu-Nan, who asked why new section 71A(8)(b)(iia)(A) was deleted. It was deleted because it repeats a matter already covered in the previous subparagraph and it fixes a drafting area, so hopefully that sorts that one.

The questions from the member Ginny Andersen around the impact on rural New Zealand—I think they raised relatively good points. My expectation would be that we treat the situation exactly the same as how we treat drink-drivers, and that is that we have zero tolerance for the harm caused by drink- and drug-drivers on our communities, in particular in our rural communities, where deaths on our rural roads have a significantly large, disproportionate impact on those communities because often one death on those roads means it impacts so many families and so many communities in those areas where almost literally everyone in that road and in that community will know that person.

We take a very low-risk approach to having drink-drivers and drug-drivers on our rural roads. The member’s very good with her maths. She can do the calculations of the likelihood of two false positives: it’s very, very low. On the case where there are two false positives and a laboratory test comes back with a negative, that may well cause some inconvenience or some issues with those individuals that are picked up, but the likelihood of that happening is very, very low and it’s worth the trade-off, for us, in order to reduce and eliminate the risk of drug-drivers and drink-drivers on our rural roads who cause havoc, cause chaos, destroy families, and rip communities apart. That’s not what we stand for on this side of the House, so that’s why we’re progressing with this part of the bill.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I know the Associate Minister of Transport is a new Minister but he has yet to address the second point that the Attorney-General has raised as a concern. Now, there has been some conversation about the arbitrary detention point, but the unreasonable search and seizure point that the Attorney-General has raised in her report is something that the Government really do need to respond to.

This hangs on the taking of saliva or the requirement for someone to provide saliva on the roadside, but further than that is the taking of blood, because there will be circumstances where there will be a requirement for someone to have their blood taken, and that is when someone effectively fails, with all good intent and reason, to be able to provide an adequate sample. Is it correct, Minister, that the only option available to that person then would be to provide a sample of blood, effectively forcing them into that position? He’s nodding his head so maybe that is not the case. When someone is unable to provide two samples, oral fluid samples, is it correct that the only option for them then would be to go and have their blood taken? Of course, they could refuse to do that, but in terms of taking a sample for the purposes of checking or having it analysed, is that the case?

For someone who is wishing to comply with all requests in a situation where they provide the saliva but is just not able to provide the reading or analysis on the roadside, what are the options available to them? That is the first question.

The second question is when it comes to the blood test fee, could the Minister please provide some response to the committee around who meets that cost? I think the bill is silent, in which case it might then fall on the police or the Crown to meet that cost. Minister Bishop has introduced an Amendment Paper that changes the election of a private individual to go and have the oral fluid analysed, and that’s at the person’s individual cost—I understand that; that’s a change. There are two things on that, though. One is that if the private analysis comes back to indicate that, actually, no, it was not a positive reading, is that money for the fee somehow reimbursed or returned to the individual?

The other part of that for the Minister is: in the circumstance where one qualifying drug or family of qualifying drugs is detected upon analysis but a private analysis is elected and taken through and it comes up with a different response to a different qualifying drug or family of drugs, what is the situation of the infringement there? Does it still stand, or does it relate purely to the original family of qualifying drugs that was tested for and turned up a positive result for?

The other question that I have is related to replacement section 71A(8)(b)(ii), inserted by clause 16, which states that “if the analysis establishes that the person’s oral fluid sample is positive for 1 or more listed qualifying drugs, the person may be issued with an infringement notice:”. Can the Minister provide a response as to why it is “may” and why it is not “will”? Are there circumstances where an infringement may not follow, and what are those circumstances within which that infringement will not follow? I’m happy to give the Minister the reference again. It is replacement section 71A(8)(b)(ii), inserted by clause 16.

The other question that I have, given that this is the substantive part of the bill and there are many other clauses, relates to a clause that has not been touched on yet, one that I am interested in, and that is clause 17. I’m referring to replacement section 71B(1A)(b)(i), inserted by clause 17. This is about the requirement to accompany the enforcement officer to a place. It has already been raised by a couple of members today, including Mr Luxton. There is a distinct difference around booze buses in your locality. These are what are unknown technologies at this stage for the roll-out. Are there any parameters around what that place would be defined as? Is there, for example, a requirement as to a limitation on a distance, particularly if you are travelling with family members or others who would have to remain in situ in the vehicle whilst that work is undertaken?

Just to address the question from Lawrence Xu-Nan around replacement section 64(3A)(a), inserted by clause 12; he asked me to explain the amendments. The amendment maintains the existing defence provisions. It replaces the use of “oral fluid test” with “oral fluid screening test” to acknowledge the change in the use of devices, and that helps clarify that prosecutions regarding offences for drugs in the blood are not affected by the results of a roadside screening test.

Just to address the first part of Mr Utikere’s questions, who is re-litigating the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) arguments that we’ve gone over a couple of times previously—in fact, twice last night. I’ll repeat it again in case Mr Utikere wasn’t there to hear it—

Tom Rutherford: BORA is boring.

Hon Peeni Henare: Oh, it’s pretty important.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Well, it is very important. At the risk of not wanting to—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’d like to hear the Minister’s answer, please.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: —provide a legal opinion while there are distinguished professors in the Chamber who no doubt could offer much more insightful views in mind, the BORA tests require us to satisfy a number of aspects.

We on this side of the Chamber think that this is a sufficiently important purpose, which is protecting New Zealanders from the risks and harm of drink- and drug-drivers. We think that the policy to do this—that is testing those individuals for the presence of drugs in their system to prevent them from driving—is sufficiently connected to preventing that harm. We think that there are no other ways, or minimal ways, that we could implement this policy. We think this is pretty much the basic level of things you could do to test for drugs in the system to avoid those horrific accidents and horrific deaths that kill so many New Zealanders on our roads. Overall, we think it is proportional to the response.

We think that, in terms of the requirement to test for those substances, we’re in a pretty reasonable space and we think it is a justified limit on people’s rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Hopefully, that gives us a pretty good round-up on NZ BORA.

Just finally, we will come back to some of the other questions around—the one thing in there that I can, I think, address now from Mr Utikere was: will people be forced to undertake blood samples? No, I understand in no legislation in this country are people required to undertake medical treatment or be provided to give blood tests. Thank you.

Before I take another question—and the Associate Minister of Transport has just indicated that he’s got some other answers that he will come back on—I want to hear specific questions rather than speeches. I understand Dr Xu-Nan is going through some of the clauses, so I don’t want any repetitive questions from other parts that I’ve heard, please. I’ve been watching very carefully and I do find some of the calls are speeches and perhaps—and I’m not referring to the member that’s currently on his feet, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, but just in general—repetitive, and I want to hear specific questions rather than speeches.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that—I will be signalling very clearly in terms of which section that I’m referring to. I’m currently referring to replacement section 71GA, inserted by clause 22, but before that, I think I just want to make a note that, again, one of the things I heard before from the Government members that is quite concerning is someone shouted out that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is boring. I would like to raise that this is a fundamental constitutional document of Aotearoa New Zealand and it should be by no means regarded as boring.

On to the actual section, this partially—actually, because I didn’t hear a response from any of the Ministers—answers some of my questions in terms of the threshold, and particularly the positive evidential threshold, for some of the new qualifying drugs that will be introduced as part of that. I have a question on this section in general. The first question is around replacement section 71GA(1)(b), inserted by clause 22. It says, “specify … for each listed qualifying drug,”, so the Minister of Police may be able to specify under secondary legislation the concentration level of the drug in the person.

The Minister already mentioned that the test itself has a 95 percent accuracy, and two tests would have an even greater accuracy—I get that and understand that. Is the test sufficient to detect concentration levels up to a particular threshold, or is the detection of 95 percent accuracy simply being able to detect a particular kind of drug? That, hopefully, is reasonably straightforward and simple question.

Now, my next question is to do with replacement section 71GA(2), which is: “Before making a notice, the Minister of Police must consult the Minister of Transport and the Science Minister.”, which is understandable and fair. We have mentioned and touched on the fact that certain drugs aren’t part of the listed drugs currently. I have mentioned other compounds that have a similar chemical structure as benzodiazepines and other forms of anxiolytics. Some of those drugs are incredibly important to people with anxiety, depression, and forms of neurodiversity. Will the Minister consider also consulting other organisations?

My concern is that just consulting the Minister of Transport and the science Minister may not actually address the real concern that we hear from our communities, particularly from those who are suffering from, let’s say, depression, anxiety, or even who are neurodivergent. Would that be a part of the consideration as part of the consultation?

The last question I have is to do with replacement section 71GA(4)(c), which is: if the positive evidential threshold does not align with the applicable threshold in relevant standards or if there isn’t any, the Minister of Police may nevertheless be satisfied. What does the Minister consider to be satisfactory in that case when there isn’t an identifiable standard, either domestic or international?

I do notice that two of the standards have been highlighted in replacement section 71G(7A), inserted by clause 22—some of the standards have been listed there—but when it doesn’t align, does it mean it doesn’t align because what the Minister wants is a higher threshold or a lower threshold, if he doesn’t align with that? And, if it doesn’t, what is the definition of “satisfied”? What are some of the criteria and some of the processes that the Minister will use in consultation with the Minister of Transport and the science Minister when determining that alignment in terms of a positive evidential threshold?

I have three questions. Does the test include concentration level? Will the Minister consult with other organisations, particularly from a perspective of those on anxiolytics for those suffering from depression and anxiety? And what does “underlying” mean, and what does “satisfy” mean?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll address the questions from Tangi Utikere around why does replacement section 71A(8)(b)(ii), inserted by clause 16, provide that an officer may issue an infringement notice if a laboratory test comes back positive. The answer to that is that police have a discretion to issue infringements in all contexts, and that aligns with the standard practice of police across the board.

I’ll address very quickly one of the questions raised by Dr Xu-Nan around whether or not neurodiversity is part of the Minister’s requirements or part of the Minister’s practice or intentions when he undertakes consultation. Now, I can’t speak for the Minister of Police, but I’m aware that the Minister of Police is very much an in-touch, progressive, sensitive Minister, aware of lots of different unique situations and circumstances. He comes into contact with many, many different people in the course of his career and I’m sure he will maintain the discretion to continue that in his consideration as well.

Just finally, just to touch on Dr Xu-Nan’s point around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA), again we’re relitigating something we’ve been over quite a few times and I don’t want to labour the point. Of course BORA is a very important part of our statutory framework, but relitigating that issue that has been well and truly covered off is boring and I would hope that we can move on pretty quickly.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’ll take a call from Tangi Utikere. Please keep it relevant and use new information.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to touch on three areas that have not been touched on yet, but, before I do, can I ask the Associate Minister of Transport whether he is intending to give a response to my question about the fee for blood being taken. Actually, I do think the committee deserves a response around who will foot that bill in circumstances where blood is the only option available to some.

I want to turn to replacement section 71B(1A)(b)(ii), inserted by clause 17(2). This is about the new opportunity for an enforcement officer to, effectively, engage a compulsory impairment test (CIT). One of the things that the select committee did hear about is the specialised training that goes into that particular test and that not all police officers are able to actually undertake that test. My question to the Minister, in that context, is: has he received any advice around the ability for this to adequately be engaged as something that is complementary as part of this roll-out regime? The select committee initiated these changes to allow further tools in the toolkit for enforcement officers to deal with impairment, which is what this particular bill goes to the heart to, and seeking to address that.

That is not going to be any more helpful if the number of officers, particularly in rural communities, is not actually going to increase in being able to deliver on the CIT, because it’s not just any person; there is specified, specific training and certification that is required for these CITs. My question is about how confident the Minister is, or whether he has any advice that actually there are going to be changes to the roll-out of that programme to ensure that it can actually work hand in hand in trying to bring down impairment, which absolutely, on this side of the House, we want to do and want to achieve.

The other is in clause 18, and I want to seek clarity from the Minister. This is a section that relates to the requirement for a person to undergo a further oral test if either the first or the second screening test fails to produce a result, either because, I don’t know, there’s something faulty or something breaks, or whatever it might be. If there is a malfunction with the first or the second screening test, as this bill indicates, and as I understand it, there would be a requirement for one further test to be given. Can the Minister confirm that, in those circumstances, the maximum number of oral fluid screening tests that any individual who is stopped at the roadside would undertake is a maximum of three—that there would be no more than three? If they’ve done the first one and then the second one is a malfunction or a failure or what have you, this particular clause is engaged to permit the additional one. And, if that is the case, what happens after the third test and, for example, there’s another malfunction? Is it that the individual is simply free to go? Is it that the enforcement officer may engage some of those other provisions that exist?

My other, final point is around the tabled amendment in my name that I have not spoken to yet. I note the Minister, in a very early contribution, indicated that the Government was not supportive of it. However, I invite the Minister to reflect on that. I take his point that the requirement is for the Minister of Police—and we accept here that the Minister of Police is the most appropriate person to be making these decisions—to consult with both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Science. What the tabled amendment does is add in there an opportunity for the Minister to, effectively, consult with any other Ministers that he, she, or they may consider as appropriate. The Minister has said, “Well, the Minister can do that anyway.” The former Minister has also cited changing technologies in relation to this regime. This would just provide an opportunity for the Minister to turn their mind to other portfolio areas for warranted Ministers, where that might be appropriate. Those are new areas, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

I completely addressed the couple of questions raised by the member. I don’t think we need further advice on that. New section 71D sets out the process for obtaining oral fluid samples that are required to be provided. You would never set a maximum limit as to the number of times you want to try to administer a test, because, for example, what happens if in the process of administering the test, the particular device or implement is dropped on the ground? You’re, obviously, not wanting to use that particular device or test, because it could be contaminated. And then what happens if it happens again and again? There might be a slippery condition—on rural roads, there’s lots of gravel around, and people can slip and slide here and there, so we’d never want to put a maximum in place, but we did put reasonable expectations on the process, and that’s all outlined in proposed new section 71DE, inserted by clause 19, in terms of maximum numbers of tests that actually work.

How confident am I that changes to the roll-out will work to bring down impairment? I’m incredibly confident that these changes will work. We have a high level of confidence in our police service. They are a tremendous group of men and women who serve our country fantastically well. I’m very proud to be supportive of the police in the role that they do in keeping our roads safe, particularly in rural and regional New Zealand where the causes of accidents and deaths on our roads can have a disproportionately high impact, especially in a community which isn’t particularly rife with drugs. Some of those issues raised around the rural sector, hopefully, have been well and truly covered off.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Amendment Paper 256 set out on Amendment Paper 257 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 256 as amended be agreed to.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to clause 11 be agreed to.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to clause 22 be agreed to.