Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to our final debate, and that is on clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on the title, commencement, and principal Act.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, we are at the final stages of this bill through committee and I don’t intend to trifle with the title. I think the title should always generally be what it appears to seek to deliver, and the title as proposed there, I think, is a sensible one.

The questions that I do want to pose to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Penk, are around commencement. Now, Minister Bishop, in his Amendment Paper 256, has proposed a change in date for when this would come into effect. Well, no, it doesn’t actually propose a change in when it would come into effect; it proposes a change if the Order in Council is not made in the time frame by which it comes into effect. What was originally proposed was that it would be by the first anniversary of Royal assent. That is suggested to be changed to 1 April 2026, which could give the Government a little bit more time, perhaps, to roll that out, although we’re talking a matter of weeks here, if that is in fact the case.

My question to the Minister is: is he comfortable that everything is all lined up in order to deliver on commencement? We have heard from Minister Meager, who was initially in the chair last night, that operationally this should come into play by Christmas or by December, and so there were questions around that. It might be that the Minister may need to take advice on this. I’m not too sure. He’s a very astute Minister, so maybe he won’t. I think it is important to understand what the possible implications will be and why it is that the transport Minister has sought to extend this, albeit by a shorter period of time. That would be the first one.

I don’t think there is any benefit in seeking to litigate the principal Act. This simply will amend the Land Transport Act 1998, but really I am interested in when this will, basically, kick in. I get that there needs to be a lead-in period for this. We are talking about the procurement of devices. This is something that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee did turn its mind to when it was progressing through this.

One of the concerns that members on this side of the House do have and continue to have is that this legislation should never be driven by procurement of devices, but is the genesis in making the change an admission of sorts that actually there might be some issue with procuring devices? Maybe not. The Minister might be in a position, based on officials’ advice, to indicate that, actually, no, everything is well on track to deliver things come Christmas, but commencing things to ensure that 1 April 2026 is a change, and I’d be interested in the Minister’s thoughts around that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member Tangi Utikere for his nuanced but important question. My understanding is—acknowledging the point he’s made around the pragmatic considerations as to procurement, introduction of technology, and so on—that a certain amount of time is, of course, necessary for this legislation to become effective.

Of course, the structure of the commencement clause is such that an Order in Council could bring forward, or introduce, as soon as reasonably possible, such measures—pending that technology being purchased, available, presumably tested, and so on—but competing those traditional tensions between flexibility and certainty, allowing some sort of backstop provision by having in the second part of the commencement provision a date by which we know the legislation will come into effect, regardless of whether an Order in Council has been provided in the meantime, explains why there is a particular date at clause 2(2).

As the member has rightly noted, there is, in fact, a slight difference between the original intention being the first anniversary of Royal assent having been given on the one hand and—as now being proposed—1 April 2026. We think—it seems to me—that in these cases, almost always it’s the fact that with a particular calendar date, you provide certainty and clarity in a way that doesn’t require the presupposition that a person would know when Royal assent has been given and then needing to add 12 months to that. I think it’s maximum clarity, but also that flexibility of being able to introduce the law as soon as possible, notwithstanding that the expectation is very much that that would have taken place by 1 April next year.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have just a few questions and I’ll be really quick about it. Following up from the questions around procurement, I guess the first part, I think, going back to the procurement issue in general: is there a requirement for this bill to be passed before procurement is able to be procured? That’s the first question.

The second question is: what is the current level of conversation around the commencement date, noting that probably a lot of that hinges on procurement. As we see, as part of the debate on this bill—particularly I’m looking at the newly introduced 71G(6) and (7), in clause 22—there are specific requirements for how that procurement needs to be done, as well as in terms of things like labelling or appearance on printed matter accompanying the device. I wondered if there’s any conversation that’s been already discussed; either a decision has already been made from a procurement perspective that what we will be procuring already meets the requirement under that particular section, or there’s a conversation yet to be had with potential sources for this procurement, understanding there’s a level of confidentiality around the contract.

I just want to check with the Minister: has there been a conversation with potential sources of procurement around whether they are already going to be compliant with the requirements of this bill, or is that conversation yet to be had in anticipation for this bill being commenced and being passed?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for this latest question. I think, while I would be unwise to speculate on the extent to which discussions around procurement are advanced sufficiently to know exactly how that will play out, I do observe that sometimes there’s a chicken and egg proposition whereby if procurement only should take place in accordance with the requirements of the law, as determined by legislation, the earliest one needs to pass the legislation in order to set those wheels in motion—but one is doing that, I guess, somewhat blind, to the extent that we don’t know exactly what will be available in terms of that equipment.

I’m very confident, and I’m sure that the Minister in whose shoes I’m standing, metaphorically, would be confident, that the procurement is going to take place in an orderly fashion, and I’d be surprised if at least some awareness of the market and the opportunities in this space isn’t already held within our Government, because, of course, that is somewhat presupposed by the idea that we can introduce this legislation, and, of course, be able to meet those Government aims, and the aims of every right-thinking New Zealander and member of this House, that we avoid the evil that is drug-driving and the danger that it poses to us.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 256 be agreed to.