Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) I move, That the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a second time. I would like to thank members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for their work on this bill. I thank both the present committee and the committee in the previous Parliament.

This bill, which was originally introduced by the previous Labour Government, concerns the safety and privacy of New Zealand motorists. It addresses the problems of drivers who are impaired by controlled or prescription drugs, and the unrestricted release of personal information held on the motor vehicles register. It has been advanced in a sort of whole-of-Parliament manner, although perhaps with a little bit more urgency by the current Government.

People who drive when their judgment and reactions are impaired by drugs are a danger to themselves and to others. A study conducted by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research has shown that of blood samples collected from 826 deceased drivers over 4 years, more than half had either alcohol or drugs, or both, in their blood. There are some very sad stories behind those numbers.

It is already an offence under the Land Transport Act to drive while incapable of proper control due to alcohol or drugs, but the existing offence can be difficult to enforce in respect of drugs due to the high evidential burden on the prosecution. This bill will make the task of the police more straightforward. Under this bill, a police officer who suspects a driver of being impaired can require the driver to carry out a compulsory impairment test. This will include examination of the eyes, a one-leg stand test, and a walk-and-turn test. The impairment test is based on procedures used in other countries.

A driver who does not satisfactorily complete this test will be required to provide a blood specimen. A driver who is found to have drugs in his or her blood will be prosecuted. “Drugs” means both prescription medicines and controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The penalties for this new offence are the same as the penalties for drink-driving. Blood specimens taken as evidence of alcohol and drug-driving offences will be available for road safety research.

This bill will also protect personal information held on the motor vehicles register. This register contains the names and addresses of everyone registered as an owner of a motor vehicle—and that is more than 3.4 million New Zealanders. There are no safeguards on the use of this personal information. Angry motorists, after a road-rage incident, have used the register to trace and harass other drivers. Car thieves have used it to locate high-value vehicles. Further, millions of names and addresses have been released to marketing organisations for direct-mail advertising. This is quite a long way from the purposes of the motor vehicles register, which are law enforcement and revenue collection. Personal information on the driver licence register is protected. Why should the motor vehicles register be left completely open?

Under this bill, names and addresses will be better protected. That does not mean that the motor vehicles register will become a secret file; people will be able to request personal information under the Official Information Act, and, in deciding on requests, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles will have to balance public interest and privacy concerns. Businesses and others will be able to apply for ongoing access to names and addresses, without having to make a separate Official Information Act request in each case. Each application will be considered on its merits, and information will be released if there is good reason—for example, to allow a motor vehicle manufacturer to contact owners in order to carry out a vehicle service recall.

This will bring our law broadly into line with most English-speaking jurisdictions. Non-personal information currently available, such as vehicle specifications, numbers of owners, and so on, will continue to be available without restriction.

This bill was referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in October 2007. This year new clauses are added to the bill by Supplementary Order Paper 10. These clauses will extend the life of certain laws that were due to expire at the end of June. These concerned parking enforcement and various technical matters. The committee received 49 submissions, and a number of changes have been made in response. I believe that the bill is better for it.

The bill is amended to clarify that the offence under this legislation comprises two parts: impairment and the evidence of a drug in the driver’s bloodstream. An offence is committed only if both parts of the offence have been detected. The committee has also recommended that the impairment test clause be amended. The bill as introduced refers to a person being “unable to complete” an impairment test. The committee was told that this could cause problems for the prosecution and that the expression “does not complete” would be preferable.

The Gazette notice, improving the impairment test, will now describe the test in full, instead of just recording that the Minister had approved of the test.

The committee has recommended that the penalty for refusing the impairment test be the same as for drug-impaired driving. Under the bill as introduced, the penalty for refusing the test was less than for drug-impaired driving. This incentive for people fearing prosecution for drug-impaired driving to refuse to undergo the test has now been removed.

The defence provision has been redrafted so that a prescription for a drug must be valid and current before it may be relied upon as a defence. In addition, two new defences have been added so that defendants may argue that they followed instructions from the doctor or the manufacturer of the medicine. Further, persons who have refused to undergo the impairment test will have a defence if they have a pre-existing medical condition or disability, or have been injured in an accident preceding the requirement to undergo the test, to an extent that precludes them from taking the test.

Another change concerns the taking of blood in a hospital or doctor’s surgery. Currently, a medical practitioner may take blood for the purposes of a traffic prosecution only if he or she has reasonable grounds to suspect a person is present as a result of a motor vehicle accident. The committee recommended empowering the medical practitioner to take blood from persons who have suffered injury or the onset of a medical condition subsequent to an accident or an incident involving a motor vehicle. The strengthening of the defence provisions, and the removal of loopholes and perverse incentives, will make this regime stronger and fairer.

Turning to the motor vehicles register clauses, I note that as well as the changes regarding personal information, the bill is also a comprehensive rewrite of the law concerning the registration and licensing of motor vehicles. The committee has taken the opportunity to implement some further reforms. The first is the expression “registered owner”. Everybody talks about the ownership papers for a vehicle. People assume that a listing on the motor vehicles register is like a land title—a proof of ownership of a vehicle—but actually it is not. This misconception has been commented on, and confirmed by the courts, over the years. The committee agreed the best way to stop perpetuating the misconception about ownership was to drop the misleading term “registered owner”. The committee has adopted a completely neutral term, “registered person”.

The committee also recommended changes concerning personalised plates. The bill as introduced removes the existing statutory monopoly, as it could not be justified on competition grounds. However, this change would be ineffectual if a contract between the Crown and a supplier of the plates itself provided for a monopoly. Criteria are needed that apply to all contracts, whether existing or in the future, so that competition on equal terms is fostered amongst suppliers and would-be suppliers. These criteria are that a contract is terminable on reasonable notice given by either party and that there is no limit on the number of contracts in force at any given time. Contracts may be for the same, or different, letters or numbers, or both, and if no contract exists for particular letters or numbers, or both, the registrar may sell personalised plates directly. Therefore, the committee agreed that the bill should be amended to provide for this. That would implement the intent of the bill as it was introduced.

The committee has also made some changes to improve the balance between privacy and the public interest.

Corporate bodies’ details on the register will continue to be available, as corporate bodies do not have a right to privacy. The confidential listings provision has been strengthened by limiting the discretion of the registrar to override a confidential listing. The power to grant an authorisation for ongoing access to names and addresses will be a matter for the Secretary for Transport, in order to simplify administration. The secretary will be required to make decisions within a reasonable time of receipt of all relevant information. The secretary will also have to consult the Commissioner of Police before granting authorisation, to address concerns that organised crime might try to obtain names and addresses via such authorisations. Finally, the committee recommended that people who do not wish to be contacted by those who have obtained an authorisation may opt out by advising the registrar that they do not wish their details to be released.

Again, I thank the committee for its work on the bill. The bill will help remove high-risk drivers from the roads, so that the public can travel in greater safety. It confers greater protection for the privacy of the more than 3.4 million individuals whose details are held on the motor vehicles register. It makes a number of other important changes to facilitate the smooth operation of the motor vehicles register. This is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) I rise to indicate the support of the Labour Party for the second reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4), and also to signal that Labour members will be pushing, through the Committee of the whole House, for further changes to the bill before we can settle on a position finally as to whether the bill will proceed to its third reading.

The bill was originally introduced in October 2007 under the previous Government by the then Minister of Transport, the Hon Annette King, as the current Minister of Transport, Mr Joyce, has just said. The bill enjoyed widespread support across Parliament. There was no division on the bill, and it was referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for consideration. The purpose of this debate is to consider the deliberation of the committee to see whether the bill should pass into law.

Generally speaking, the bill has only two parts that are of interest, although there are a couple of interesting little bits in it towards the end, which the Minister has already touched on and which I want to make a brief comment on. Essentially, the bill amends the principal Act of 1998 in the name of Mr Williamson and has two main functions. The first function relates to the powers to deal with drug-impaired drivers. The bill creates a new offence in law for when a driver is impaired and there is evidence of drugs in the driver’s blood. This issue was canvassed extensively during the first reading of the bill. I do not propose to rehash all of that discussion, other than to say that all members are concerned about impaired drivers, particularly as the range and variety of drugs become more widespread and the cost to access those drugs falls. We are concerned that people are in the position of being in charge of a motor vehicle while they are under the influence of drugs.

This Parliament moved a long time ago on the issue of drink-driving, and I think many members will be able to reflect on the enormous cultural and attitudinal changes on the topic that we have seen in our country in the last 25 to 30 years. As someone from a generation who grew up with a very strong anti - drink-driving message from youth, it is always interesting to hear our older adults talking about the 1970s and early 1980s when there was no such regard for these matters, and people would drive in all sorts of conditions. I think there is widespread acknowledgment now that that is a dangerous thing to do, and we now have to move the debate further, with regard to drug impairment. As many accidents, injuries, and deaths can be caused by someone in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs as under the influence of alcohol. It is in that area where there is some difference between the Opposition and the Government on how the bill can be made to be as effective as possible. I know we will be coming back to speak about the issue some more.

We will be putting forward some amendments in the Committee stage of the bill, which Mr Mallard will speak on. He has developed some amendments for us that would see the effect of the bill being far more clear and transparent and would provide many more tools for enforcement officers than we believe is the case at the moment. I know there was a discussion on that matter at the select committee. Labour members pushed that point there and were not successful, but we are hoping to be able to have discussions with the Government on the matter, because we have come to it wanting to achieve the best outcome. We want to make it clear that anyone who is more impaired than is indicated by a breath-test reading can be subject to an impairment test for drugs and then a blood test for drugs. We think we need to have very clear mechanisms around that testing, particularly where there is also alcohol involved.

The second function of the bill makes changes to the registration and licensing of motor vehicles. The bill will create a regime that allows controlled access to registered persons’ names and addresses by other people and organisations. Another societal change is that much more information about people is available than has ever been the case before, and that information is able to be easily manipulated for marketing purposes and for invasion of privacy as well, if that is the case. We need to make sure that there are proper rules around this bill in order to protect people’s valuable information. Members will no doubt have had representations from constituents that when they purchased a new motor vehicle or when they changed the ownership arrangements of a motor vehicle, they received an absolute deluge of information from people seeking to market to them, which was of huge concern when it was unwanted.

The bill was introduced in 2007, and the National Road Safety Committee ran a significant road safety consultation project called See You There—Safe As. That is where we got the initiative to move forward with the public safety issues relating to drug-driving. For a long time the issue was put in the too-hard basket, and indeed part of the discussion we are having with the Government is to try to retrieve the issue from the too-hard basket and put it back clearly with the issue of driver safety.

It is interesting that the Minister spoke about his concern for road safety, and it goes without saying that no members in the House and no parties in the House are opposed to road safety. We all want people to be as safe as possible on the roads. But we as an Opposition are very concerned about the fact that the recent Government policy statement takes away $49 million of future funding increases for road policing. That is direct road safety policing on our highways and local roads in New Zealand that will not happen now because of the changes in the Government policy statement that we have considered through Budget 2009.

The withdrawal of $49 million of road policing funding has real impacts. Already this year members will have been alarmed to see during long weekends, holiday weekends, the extent of the carnage on the roads. That carnage is not only the deaths that are often referred to but also the horrific injuries that people often have to live with for the rest of their lives. This tougher regime around drug testing is a new area we are introducing. If we are going to have that regime in place, and if we are going to be serious about it, while at the same time seeing an increase in injuries and the road toll, then withdrawing $49 million of funding from road policing, which the Government has done, is very much an unwise decision that we are opposing very, very strongly.

Just today we saw in the New Zealand Herald that up to 10 percent of the total police fleet of vehicles is to be axed as a cost-cutting measure. We see that approach being taken with regard to the vehicles and money going into road policing, and it can lead us only to the conclusion that the Government is not as serious about road safety issues as I think the community would demand it be. The area of funding is where we get to see the measure of how serious the Government is, and I think it has been found wanting in that regard. Indeed, the National Party in its pre-election promises stated that it would put an additional 50 police cars on the streets. That is what the National Party campaigned on. Yet we see from the New Zealand Herald story, which has been confirmed by the Government, that there will be up to 300 fewer vehicles on the roads to help the police with the difficult issues around road safety and drug safety. That number of 300 fewer police cars on the roads is of enormous concern to us.

Mr Mallard will be speaking more intensely on the issues around our amendments, which is exactly what we want to see. But I think it is worth mentioning, just in closing, the motor vehicles register, because the bill is seeking to make a very important change in that area. Specialist marketing organisations have really taken full advantage of the changes to the availability of information over the years. [Interruption] I was going to mention an organisation in a moment. The names of 2.3 million people are registered on the register. The information might be a boon to organisations such as Crosby/Textor, which is able to participate in the very direct political marketing that it likes to do in order to put across its messages. But we need to make sure that a regime is in place that can ensure that when the information is supplied, it is then used for the purpose for which it was supplied. Direct marketing is bombardment with marketing, or, in the case of Crosby/Textor, with propaganda. But there are also some safety issues for people who may be seen on the road, their registration plate taken down by somebody who wishes them ill, and their name and address found by virtue of the register being too available. The changes that are being made there are very important.

The bill changes many other issues by virtue of the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, but the change I thought was very interesting was the change to personalised plates. Until now, the ability to sell a personalised plate has basically been a monopoly position.

Hon Tau Henare: He hasn’t even got a car.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: I am sure Tau Henare has many stories about cars—

Hon Tau Henare: Yes, absolutely, and not all of them mine.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: Let us not pursue that point too far. Let us just say that the bill has a lot of provisions that we agree with and want to pursue further, but we do have serious amendments that we want to see in the Committee stage, and we will ask the Government to consider them.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) As chairman of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee it gives me great pleasure to speak on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). It is a bill that the previous Labour Government set up during its previous term, and we have carried it through, making a number of amendments to make it a bit more practical. It is a starting point. I think that is what everyone has to understand when we look at drug-driving and the enforcement of any regulation around it. This area is not as developed as drink-driving, for example. We do not have the technology, testing, or the years of experience in how to build up a testing regime. We are starting with pretty basic sorts of tests, with the straight line walking tests that we used to do for drink-driving now being applied for drug-driving.

This bill is very much a starting point. Amendments that will be proposed or the debate around this bill need to be considered in the context that this is a starting point in dealing with this issue. Over time, as technology develops and as we become more responsive to the needs of our police force in enforcing this legislation, we can develop stronger penalties, rules, and methods of identifying those who are drug-drivers.

I commend this bill to the House, knowing that it is a starting point. It is the first step in that process, and something that we look forward to passing through this House with the support of the major parties.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) I am slightly surprised that Mr Bennett did not speak with more enthusiasm about the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). He put considerable energy into it. I compliment him on the way that he ran the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It was an open select committee with a good process and a lot of access to officials. It is fair to say that, apart from a few issues, the committee came down in agreement. In fact, if one did a very careful analysis, one might find that Mr Henare and I had more in common with each other than I did with some of my colleagues and than he did with some of his colleagues. That happens when people listen to officials at committees and form their own opinions.

I will not talk about the licensing area. Other members have crossed that area, and I have not spent a lot of energy on it. I was on the select committee for only a few months, and this discussion is really a side aspect of that.

Hon Tau Henare: You even got a good letter.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I got a lovely letter from the committee, and I say thank you very much.

We should not be tolerant of people who drive when they have taken drugs. A lot of research shows that when people are affected by multiple drugs, especially by alcohol and by another drug, the effect is not additive but multiplicative. Far too many drivers have accidents in New Zealand, especially injury-causing accidents, having taken drugs. Many of those people have imbibed alcohol, and have taken drugs on top of that.

This bill is an effort to attack that problem. I agree with David Bennett that it is a first step, but I think we know that this is the step we will take for about the next 5 years. Therefore, we have to take every practical step that we can to make sure it is the best we can do at the current time. Frankly, if I was the Minister of Transport, I would have wanted to take a bit more time over the bill to look at the research; maybe I would have taken another 6 months to work it through. But the Government does not hold my view. There are a couple of areas where the Labour Party’s view differs from the report of the committee. We reserved our position on the report.

I will say one thing to indicate an area of disappointment. As I said, I think the committee worked in quite a non-partisan manner, and we shared views. I had an undertaking from the committee that parliamentary counsel would be available to draft amendments. That offer was withdrawn. I am not sure whether it was withdrawn by the Attorney-General or by the Minister of Transport afterwards, but I found that quite disappointing. No blame is attached to the select committee chair or the deputy chair for that. I understand the constitutional position; parliamentary counsel work for the Minister. But one would have thought that when amendments have a real possibility of getting a majority in Parliament, even if the National Government does not support them, it would be good to have those amendments drafted by parliamentary counsel. I hope to have drafts available later tonight so that parliamentary counsel can look at them, work on them, and, if necessary, get them into shape.

The amendments are to give effect to two things. Firstly, at the moment, when people are injured and are hospitalised as a result of their injuries, a blood sample is taken. If they fail the blood-alcohol rules, then they are liable for a conviction for drink-driving. But under the current law, and under this bill if it passes unamended, if they are filled with heroin or methamphetamine, and that was confirmed by a blood sample, they are not liable for a conviction, because they have not failed an impairment test. My view and the view of the Labour Party is that it is unacceptable for people to drive with class A drugs in their blood. We are not talking about urine tests, because if something is in a person’s urine, it can be there for a very long time and it might not be active. But as far as class A drugs are concerned, it is our view that if they are found in someone’s system, the full force of the law should come on to that person and he or she should be liable for a conviction. It is a relatively simple matter. I had a quiet discussion with the Minister and have undertaken to get that amendment to him so that he can consider it. I know that the officials do not like it, because part of it relates to proving impairment, as well as the fact that drugs were there. Clearly, if people are laid up in a hospital bed, we cannot do an impairment test on them, but we already take their blood, and my view is that it should be used for those purposes.

The other area where I and the Labour Party have a difference with the committee’s recommendation is where someone fails a breath test but the police officer has reason to believe that the driver could be affected by drugs as well. Currently, both the law and this bill state that, basically, if the driver fails the breath test, then he or she is out of there as far as any liability in terms of drugs is concerned. In the way that the bill has been drafted, the transport provisions effectively work only once rather than twice if someone is impaired by alcohol.

To use an extreme, ridiculous, but accurate example, if people have a pile of P on the seat beside them, and they come to a police stop, it would be better for them to swallow the P, have a quick shot of whisky, and fail the breath test, in the knowledge that they will not be prosecuted under the Misuse of Drugs Act and that they cannot be tested under the transport legislation. Let us use a less ridiculous example. Someone who is driving while affected by methamphetamine—something that is increasingly common—is very, very dangerous. Such a person will be better off to have a shot of alcohol and fail a breath test than face the full force of the law on drug-driving. From my perspective, that is just wrong. If people drive with drugs and alcohol in their system, they should be prosecuted for both. We should make sure that people are properly tested for both and are liable. The effect of the amendment is that not withstanding someone failing an initial breath test, the police officer can still perform the impairment test, and if someone fails that test, then his or her blood can be subject to testing not only for alcohol but also for other drugs.

I know that some of my friends in the Green Party are not particularly keen on this amendment and this direction, but I say to them that for a blood test for cannabis to be positive, cannabis has to be active in the blood. It is active in the bloodstream for the vast majority of the period for which one gets a positive result. These are not like urine tests, where cannabis can stay in the urine for 6, 8, or 10 weeks. Cannabis does not last for long in the bloodstream.

These are serious amendments. They are designed to reduce the incidence of people driving under the influence of drugs. They are designed to save lives. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the multiplicative effect of having drugs and alcohol in one’s system causes accidents. It is very, very serious. People lose their lives, and we are just beginning to understand how many lives are lost as a result of it. P is wrong, and we should stop people from driving with it in their systems. Thank you.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) There being no other speakers, I will make a very brief comment. In all my years in Parliament, the last 4 or 5 months that I have had on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when dealing with the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) have been one of the most civil—outside of the Māori Affairs Committee—and well-intentioned times on a select committee. The Hon Trevor Mallard hit it on the head when he said that the committee listened very intently to what the officials had to say. This is an area—and I agree with my colleague David Bennett—where it is about a starting point; I do not think we are where the previous Minister wants to be straight away, but it is a starting point. I think it is a great jumping off point. Over the last couple of years, as we have seen the whole issue of drug use and how it impinges on and affects our society and communities, we get more and more willing and able to see the effects and say “OK, this is what we need to do with this situation.” I think the bill is a great starting point.

I must admit that I agree with a lot of what the Hon Trevor Mallard is talking about, but I also say that we should start from a position where we can have some wins and some doables and then see where we can stretch the legislation out a wee bit more over time. I know that the previous Minister said that there are issues that the community finds reprehensible, and the examples she gave were very good ones, but we have to start somewhere. There is a whole lot of other stuff in this bill, as well, with licensing and what not, but the issue of drug-driving is one for the now. Unless we start from a point where we can get some wins on the board and some doables, I say think we might miss the opportunity. I do not want to take up too much more time, but I say thank you and that my colleague was a great chairman.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Kia ora tātou i tēnei pō e te Whare, hoki mai tātou ki raro i tōna marumaru i tēnei pō. In the New Zealand education circles that I am familiar with, questions often emerge about the levels of schooling in which boys are performing more poorly on average than girls, and particularly in curriculum areas around reading literacy at primary school level and internally assessed areas at secondary school level.

The Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) is the absolute extreme of that, as I am told that over 82 percent of the alcohol or drug-affected drivers in fatal crashes are male. Within that category, the 20 to 24 and 25 to 29-year-old age groups had the greatest proportion of alcohol or drug-affected drivers involved in fatal crashes. It is appropriate that this bill be about young men. Surely, looking at the gender factor is a blindingly obvious place to start when addressing amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998 to prevent drug-impaired drivers from doing any more damage. Yet this bill appears to be gender blind or gender ignorant, as it fails to come to grips with the unique factors associated with the target population of drunk and drugged drivers or riders who are killed in road crashes.

For the Māori Party, the people drive us in every aspect about understanding policy, and it is because of our concern for the tangata factor that we have supported any moves to penalise drug-driving, and the introduction of a testing and penalty regime that mirrors alcohol testing. As far as I know, all of the Māori submitters to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee commended the Māori Party’s stance, an endorsement that was based on the tragic personal experiences involving the deaths of whānau members. It was their assessment that the Māori Party should be encouraged to continue to provide strong leadership in making an unpopular but needed stand on this issue. Tom Īnia from Ngāruawāhia lives right on State Highway 1. His instructions to the committee were clear. He said: “It can’t be denied; speed and alcohol and drugs are killing our people. Nothing is ever done about the last one [drugs]”.

This bill is about doing something about drugs. The Candor Trust, through founding member Ursula Te Aho in particular, ran surveys and found that nearly half of young drivers had driven under the influence of drugs at some time. Ms Te Aho told a particularly sad and distressing story about what she described as the heroic death of her twin sister. As a passenger in a car of known drug users, the driver stopped on the Hutt motorway for no reason, after which some of the passengers got out of the car and just ran around on the road. All of them had been using drugs during the day. A friend was hit by a car, and Ms Te Aho’s twin sister tried to drag her to safety but both were hit by a car and both were killed as a result. This story is just one of a heap of sad, tragic stories that end in death and destruction through the fatal mix of drinks, drugs, and driving.

Set up as a campaign against drugs on roads, the Candor Trust reported that local studies revealed that cannabis is by far and away the most common drug behind teenage fatal crashes. In particular, the results of a drunk and drug-driver study has shown that cannabis has been a factor in fatal crashes at a level nearly equivalent to alcohol. Other studies suggest that more than half of convicted drink-drivers could have been dually impaired with drugs. I believe that this is all the evidence we need to justify this House facing up to the issue and giving it very serious consideration. The Māori Party will therefore support moves to penalise drug-driving—and that includes prescription drugs—and the introduction of a testing and penalty regime that mirrors alcohol testing.

This bill introduces a new element of not driving while impaired by drugs. It will enable the Minister of Police to approve a compulsory impairment test if the police consider there is good cause to suspect drug taking. I suppose this is where we start to have some issues with the bill. I signal that we are concerned about the new right in this bill to use blood samples in research without any specific informed consent from those suspected of drug-impaired driving. The blood samples will be stored for 1 year by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research and will be available for research into the patterns of drug use.

Although it may be that limited testing, such as prevalence testing, is able to be undertaken, we have concerns about the storage, access, and any other use of the samples. The testing will be to ascertain what drugs have been taken to cause impaired driving, and to what extent. Although we agree that such information is necessary, we inevitably have a range of questions emerging in respect of ethics, standards, and tikanga Māori. We are more than just concerned; we will be tabling Supplementary Order Papers at the Committee stage to address specifically the provisions around research on blood specimens. We will also be putting forward an amendment to enable those being drug tested to opt out of having their blood stored and tested.

This may include the provision of saliva testing as an alternative to blood samples. We are aware that the technology of saliva testing is not yet reliable enough for evidential purposes—that is, it is not sufficient to enable a prosecution—but that is not to say that a breakthrough is not waiting just around the corner. As we understand it, the Ministry of Transport, the police, and the Institute of Environmental Science and Research are continually monitoring international developments in drug-testing technology, and have been giving assurances that they will seek to review the drug-testing regime in light of this context.

I guess the biggest issue for us is around the integrity of the process of blood storage, and particularly the follow-up that may occur with or without the knowledge of the individual. We believe that police should be required to secure informed consent for blood storage and research in order to recognise both ethics standards and tikanga Māori. We noted with concern the submission from YouthLaw Tino Rangatiratanga Taitamariki, which stated that there was a risk of inconsistent police practices in administering and determining impairment tests. Given all the increases in the power of the police and the set requirements upon New Zealanders that will result from the bill, it is disturbing that the bill’s explanatory note admits that there is “little direct evidence as to the prevalence of drug testing in New Zealand”.

Where have we got up to? We take it as an absolute that something must be done. We agree with the submitters that speed, alcohol, and drugs are killing far too many of our people. One simply cannot drive straight on drugs, no matter how heroic or ambitious one is. So we will support this bill, in support of the protection of our whakapapa, and out of respect for the kaupapa of whanaungatanga and kaitiakitanga. But there are still some problems inherent in any legislation that fails to give confidence about the storage and further research of blood samples. As I indicated earlier, the Māori Party will be introducing Supplementary Order Papers to address that particular aspect. Tēnā tātou.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) It is a pleasure to take a call on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). In doing so, I note that the bill is another bill that was introduced by the previous Labour Government. I am pleased that this very important transport safety measure has been reported back to Parliament with the support of most parties, as far as I can tell—albeit with some reservations from Labour. I will address those reservations as we go on. Indeed, my colleague Mr Trevor Mallard has talked about some of those reservations.

This bill has two main functions: “the first is to enhance the powers of the police to deal with drug-impaired drivers, and the second is to make changes to the registration and licensing of motor vehicles.” I put on record tonight that I oppose drug-driving. I do not support the right of any person to get into a vehicle and put the lives of others at risk. The purpose of the bill, in regard to identifying drug-impaired driving and getting those drivers off the road, has my full support. I also state that I am categorically against illegal drug-taking, particularly of the class A kind. Like many members in this House, I have watched with horror the rise of the use of the drug P—methamphetamine—which is a highly dangerous and scary drug.

There are few parliamentarians who could say, hand on heart, there is nothing they did in their youth that on reflection, with the benefit of age and experience, was a bit stupid. I am not one of those people. I am of a generation who thought drug taking was cool. I freely say that tonight. I am lucky it did not ruin my life or the lives of others around me, as, indeed, it has ruined many people’s lives. We cannot change what we did yesterday, but we can change what we do today. So I speak in support of this bill from a personal perspective, as a Labour member, and as a parent and family member. I do not want to see someone I love bowled over by someone out on the road who is impaired by drugs.

It is also important to acknowledge today’s young people and their families who struggle with the same kinds of issues that have been around for many years—the awful nightmare of drug abuse. This bill is not about punishment; it is about protection. The bill is about protection for ordinary citizens. Tonight I want to say to those parents listening to this debate who have young sons or daughters struggling with drug problems that there is hope. It can be beaten. It is our love, compassion, and support that will make the difference in the end, along with the strong, experienced, and publicly funded support of health professionals.

Struggling with a personal drug problem is no excuse for putting other people’s lives at risk. That is why Labour is strongly supporting this bill. I do not want to be “Pollyanna-ish” about this issue. There are some risks in relation to abuse of the powers being proposed in the bill tonight. My experience makes me cautious, along with the experience I have had as a union advocate in terms of workplace drug-testing. I am cautious about the rights of New Zealanders who, because of their ethnicity, the type of car they drive, their looks, or their status, may be targeted under any legislation that gives the police rights that, in the wrong hands, could be used unreasonably and unfairly. I am even more cautious now we know that the road policing budget has been cut by $45 million—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: $50 million.

DARIEN FENTON: —$50 million, and that 300 police cars will be off the roads. I would like to know from the Minister of Transport what budgetary support will back this bill. What resources will be given to the police, who, after all, will have to spend considerable extra time on policing the provisions of this bill?

Conducting an impairment test for drugs at the roadside is not a quick process, as was demonstrated in the select committee with the help of the honourable member Michael Woodhouse. It is not like the breath tests for booze, which take a second in the first sweep; a drug test takes at least 10 minutes—maybe more for the first process. It is a reality of current technology that we do not have a quick test to identify drug use as we do for alcohol.

Although the Minister has been quick to try to claim credit for getting this bill back to Parliament, he has not fronted up yet to say how the police will be resourced to ensure that the bill works. It is all very well to say the bill is a priority for this Government—we all think it is a priority—but the business of making it work is just as important as passing it into law. The Minister has not said how axing 300 police cars—300 front-line vehicles—will help with the enforcement of this bill, let alone other transport enforcement and safety issues.

We have had some robust debates about this bill in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and in our party. As my colleague Trevor Mallard has outlined, Labour will put forward some amendments during the Committee stage, as will the Māori Party. I definitely support the amendments from my colleague Trevor Mallard. In the end, for me, it comes down to this: no one should be allowed on the road with a weapon called a car when he or she has taken drugs or alcohol. The price is just too high.

In the Committee stage there will be further debate on some of the details, but one of the details I want to drill down to during this second reading speech is an issue in Part 17 that is of particular concern to the Labour Party. Part 17 came about in the original bill because of complaints about the misuse of private information on the motor vehicles register. Under current law anyone can get details of personal information about vehicle owners, such as their name and address. Vehicle owners have no option but to register information; it is what the law says. Because vehicle owners are required to do it, the Government has a particular responsibility to endeavour to protect this information as best it can. The reality is that information on the vehicle register has been misused, and that gave rise to Part 17 in the first place. Victims of domestic violence have been stalked and harassed. Employment-related concerns, road-rage repercussions—and we have seen an increase in that recently—potential vehicle burglary, along with a whole range of other issues, have been raised by the public.

The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—which I have sat on all the way through the process of this bill, including during the time of the previous Government—has heard those concerns. The bill before us deals with those concerns. But the National Government has ensured that it does not deal with the other major series of complaints received from the public concerning the misuse of vehicle registry information with regard to direct marketing. Currently, the information that is registered becomes available to a range of marketing companies, which can then pester people relentlessly about buying a new car or other goods. It is called direct marketing, which involves sending personally addressed, but unsolicited, advertising to prospective customers. The advice to the select committee was that this practice could be managed through a process called opting in. In other words, those who register their vehicle as required by law have to be asked whether they want to receive information from marketing companies, rather than their being deluged with junk marketing. The National Government has changed that. It has ignored the advice of the Privacy Commissioner and other submitters who expressed strong concerns to the committee about personal information, which the public is, after all, compelled to provide, being released for a commercial and unrelated purpose.

The Privacy Commissioner, in particular, said that the Government has a responsibility to exercise stewardship over the personal information that we require citizens to provide, or public trust will be eroded. Unfortunately, despite this advice, the National Government has gone for a process of opting out. The Privacy Commissioner’s view was that that was problematic because it does not provide a viable form of notification, and it implies consent, thus allowing personal details to be released by default without the person’s knowledge or consent. Labour is concerned that this advice is being ignored, and we have noted that in the select committee report. This means that the vehicle register will continue to be used as a marketing tool and the public will be pestered with unwanted junk-mail solicitation.

I can only surmise from the discussions that have gone on since National became the Government that it was somehow swayed by lobbyists in that area. I look forward to this bill continuing its progress through the House, and I look forward to the debate in the Committee stage on the measures proposed by Labour and, indeed, on the concerns that I have raised. Thank you.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) I am pleased to take a call in support of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). I congratulate the Minister of Transport on the clarity of his expectation that this bill will be given timely passage through the House. I stress that “timely passage” by no means suggests haste on the part of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

Although I did not hear submissions on the bill, I was very much a part of the consideration of those submissions in this term of Parliament. I congratulate all members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on their careful consideration of the bill. I think that there will be times in the future when members of that committee deal with some issues on which their views will be quite considerably apart in principle, and I look forward to robust debate when that occurs. But I think we have established a standard of consideration and discussion that is a model for the other select committees to consider.

I also congratulate the officials, who provided very carefully considered advice on issues that, on the face of it, are reasonably straightforward road-safety issues, but which when we delve deeper into them, become much, much more complex and problematic. So I congratulate those officials.

One of the members of the committee who is not with us now, the member for Hutt South, mentioned a couple of those issues that we really needed to grapple with.

Hon Darren Hughes: He’s right there!

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, he is no longer on the select committee, but I am delighted to see he is still in the House. His actions on the committee were a measure of his chameleon-like ability to swing from one side of the political spectrum to the other. There were times when I could close my eyes during the consideration process and think gosh that could be an ACT member of Parliament, such was the tub-thumping, right-wing rhetoric that came from him from time to time about otherwise quite important issues. I do not say that to trivialise the very careful consideration, in particular, of multiple drug and alcohol use.

Mr Mallard has mentioned in the House the real difficulty that members of the committee had in accepting that a different standard might apply to someone who was high on drugs and also under the influence of alcohol. As the Minister Steven Joyce mentioned, the survey of several hundred fatal accidents revealed that many of those people and their passengers were killed not only as the result of alcohol but also as the result of drugs. It was difficult for the committee to accept that a different standard might be applied, or that once somebody was screened for alcohol, the process would stop. There was quite careful analysis of whether this bill should be lined up in some way with the Misuse of Drugs Act as it related to penalties, sanctions, and consequences. After all, the crime of possession of drugs is really no different from the crime of ingesting drugs, as would be revealed by the impairment test and subsequent blood test under this legislation.

The last issue that was very carefully debated in relation to the drug elements of the bill was future-proofing. The committee looked at whether there might in the future be a screening test that is less intensive and time-consuming than the impairment test that the committee saw. I went through that test for the first and, I hope, very last time. Perhaps there will be a time in the future when swabs or some other less invasive procedure could be used for screening. The officials have quite rightly raised some questions around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the invasiveness of that test, and whether there is a prima facie case to have that test.

Fundamentally, it comes back to the issue of this bill being about road safety. A couple of the members mentioned that this bill is the first step on a journey, and I expect that there will be amendments to this legislation in the future. But this bill is about reducing the risk of death and carnage on our roads. Regardless of whether there might have been a better way or might be a better way—and I guess we will hear some details about that when we come to the Committee stage—I think we can say that people will be safer on the roads as a result of the passage of this legislation and the police being able to use their powers of enforcement.

I want to touch on one other aspect of the bill that Ms Fenton talked about, and that is the provisions of the bill relating to the motor vehicles register and the public availability of that information, which is sometimes used for marketing purposes. The previous member for Ōtaki rather disingenuously described the ability to access that register by referring to a certain organisation. I think Ms Fenton’s description of the choice to opt in or opt out was probably a little emotive. I consider this provision to be analogous to the junk mail that we all get in our letterboxes every day of the year unless we have a “No Junk Mail” sign on the letterbox. The bill now provides for a simple and timely opt-out provision, which, in my view, is the electronic equivalent of a “No Junk Mail” sign on the motor vehicles register.

I look forward to the Committee stage, where we will debate the bill in more detail. Other parties will be introducing what I am sure are very carefully considered amendments. I look forward to that debate going ahead. Thank you.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) I follow my colleagues in debating the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). Interestingly enough, listening to Michael Woodhouse then, I found that the first part of what I want to say is pretty much the same, which is an interesting phenomenon, and probably one that does not happen very often in this House. For me this is the first substantive bill that I have been on a select committee to consider. I did not hear the submissions, but I was part of the consideration of the submissions.

As others have said, this bill has two main components. There are a number of other smaller matters, but the two main components are around enhancing the powers of the police to deal with drug-impaired drivers, and around the registration and licensing of motor vehicles, particularly in relation to privacy matters. I will primarily focus on the first of those components. The bill has traversed some areas that are quite difficult but very necessary. I think the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has worked very well through some of those issues. Some of the difficulties have been of a technical nature, such as trying to work out how to enable what the committee was trying to achieve, particularly with the limits of technology at the moment. The second area was more in the area that Darien Fenton was talking about: how we politically, or ethically, deal with matters where we start to cross over into areas of human rights, for example, or possibilities of provisions of this legislation being enforced differentially. So there has been some very robust discussion, as has been said. Like Michael Woodhouse, I acknowledge the expert advice the select committee received from officials during that process. They have been asked time and again by the committee to consider particular matters and to come back and clarify them for the committee, and I think they have done that exceptionally well.

As my colleague Trevor Mallard has said, we want to look at further amendments to this bill because we think that in some areas the legislation could, in fact, go further. The first of those is the area where it is obvious that somebody is more impaired than is really indicated by the result of the breath test that he or she has taken. They should be able to be further tested both with the impairment and/or blood test for drugs. Secondly, where the driver of a car is hospitalised and could currently be subject to a blood test for alcohol, we want to look at also blood testing for class A drugs in those circumstances. So amendments will be coming in those areas.

As others have commented, this bill has been some time in gestation. It was introduced by the previous Labour Government and the then Minister of Transport, Annette King, in October 2007. It was the result of considerable work by campaigns and consultations like the See You There—Safe As campaign, and a recognition by the community and the Government of concerns about the threat to the safety of ordinary New Zealanders from drug-driving. At that time National supported, and obviously continues to support, this work being done and this bill coming to the House. But I think it is a little rich for National members, at this stage of proceedings, to try to make this out to be their own initiative, and one that, as Steven Joyce apparently has claimed, has been languishing in the too-hard basket.

As I indicated earlier, this is quite a difficult area, and quite detailed work has already been done. In March of this year Mr Joyce said that driving under the influence of drugs was a real and understated problem on New Zealand roads. He said: “It is a real concern. Tests done on drivers who have been involved in fatalities show a very significant portion had drugs in their systems. I think it is a big issue that needs to be tackled. Historically, it has been in the too hard basket.” Well, it was not in the too-hard basket for the last Government, and clearly it is not in the too-hard basket now, so I think we should acknowledge the work that has gone on here.

This bill was introduced by Labour because of recognition of the dangers of drug-driving in general, but particularly because of the increasing recognition of the menace of P in our society. That really has been part of the background to this legislation. This bill will sit alongside an existing offence under the Land Transport Act of driving while incapable of proper control due to alcohol or drugs. Once this bill has been enacted, those two offences will send a very strong and clear message to people that they must not drive under the influence of drugs. The new impairment test will enable police officers to make well-informed decisions about a person’s ability to drive safely, and if the person is not safe, he or she will not be able to continue. This test is definitely at a different level to the current offence of “being incapable”, which has a very high threshold. This bill brings in another offence, which will be at a level that is much easier to capture.

It will, however, be the case—and we have maintained this throughout the process—that, by law, evidence of drug use gathered as evidence of a driving offence cannot be used as evidence of any offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. In considering that provision in the select committee, I think it was recognised that the penalties and sanctions under this legislation will be at a similar level anyway, so this bill is not going soft on drug use by keeping it as a transport measure. It is really focused on the traffic safety and transport implications of drug-driving.

My colleague Darien Fenton spent some time talking about Part 2 in terms of some of the specific provisions. I thought I might mention some of the particular provisions to do with drug impairment. Before I do that, one thing I thought worthy of mentioning is the commencement date. This was one of the areas where the select committee had some considerable debate. The select committee has recommended “amending the commencement date for the drug-impaired driving provisions in the bill … to the earlier of either a date fixed by an Order in Council or 1 December 2009,”. That is quite soon. That will enable, in fact, one of the things that need to happen, which is the training of more police officers to enable them to actually undertake the impairment test. Only trained officers will be able to do that test. Labour members of the select committee were of the view that the commencement date should be sooner than that, and that the drug-impaired driving provisions should come into effect when the bill receives Royal assent, in order to provide a clear message that, as police training proceeds, drug-impaired drivers will be subject to the full force of the new law. It would be a staggered implementation because there would be increasing numbers of police able to conduct those tests, but none the less it would potentially be earlier than what is provided for here.

This bill brings in a new duty: a duty not to drive or attempt to drive a motor vehicle while impaired by drink or drugs. The committee considered whether blood samples alone, without any evidence of impairment, could be sufficient to get people prosecuted for drug impairment, but unfortunately as things stand at the moment—and, again, this is the technical nature I mentioned earlier—we are not in that position. There is plenty of evidence around alcohol that once one reaches a certain level with alcohol one is impaired, and that those two things go together. In the area of drugs, that is not the case, so we had to bring in a provision around an impairment test first.

One of the areas of some significant debate was whether this legislation could be future-proofed, if you like; whether clauses could be put in so that future technology, as and when it becomes available, could replace the proposed compulsory impairment test. Certainly the Labour members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee were of the view that Parliament is capable of passing legislation that is flexible enough to take advantage of future technology changes using the Order in Council process. Unfortunately the other committee members considered that that was not possible to achieve.

I thought it might also be worthwhile to mention what the impairment test is, given that so much of this provision sits alongside the impairment test. As I mentioned earlier, impairment is a lower threshold than the current “incapable of proper control” threshold. It will be determined by a test under the provisions of this bill. The proposed provisions will have the police putting a suspected drugged driver through a roadside test with a number of features. The test will include balance, the one-leg stand test; coordination, the walk and turn test; and the eye-pupil response.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) I appreciate the opportunity to give the final speech in the second reading debate on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). I do not propose to traverse the issues that previous members from all sides of the House have covered as those issues have been very clearly enunciated. This comes after long and detailed discussion and debate at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

I make reference to the select committee process because this bill was first introduced by the previous Labour Government and was picked up by the new National Government, and it has been in that spirit that the select committee did its work. The committee was very ably assisted by the niggardly determination of Mr Mallard, who displayed a strong grasp of the detail of the legislation and was prepared to raise difficult issues that forced the committee to step back a little bit and think, and surely that is what the select committee process is all about. He was considerably aided by the patience of the chairman, David Bennett.

Hon Darren Hughes: Who?

ALLAN PEACHEY: Mr Bennett.

Hon Trevor Mallard: He did a good job.

ALLAN PEACHEY: He did a very good job. It was complex material, but when one boils it down, it comes down to three very simple things. As previous members have spoken in detail on these matters I will simply draw attention to them in drawing this debate to a close.

Firstly, the bill provides more comprehensive drug-driving laws. I do not think any reasonable New Zealander would have any issue with that at all. Sure, it may be, as has been said, a work in progress, but it is a very, very good start. Certainly, as a result of the work of the committee, some important issues around the rights of citizens balanced against the need for law have been addressed. My hunch is that this will work pretty well. The second intention is to provide more privacy provisions for access to the motor vehicles register. Again, this is a case as much as anything of getting things in balance, protecting the rights of the individual, but also granting access to information when it is required. The third intent of the bill—and it is one that gives it a little bit of urgency at this time—is to preserve provisions in various transport Acts that are due to expire on 1 July 2009. I commend the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) to the House for its support.

• Amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority agreed to.

• Bill read a second time.