Tisch Lindsay; Henare PeeniPart 1 Amendments to Bail Act 2000The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The debate on Part 1 is debate on clauses 3 to 11A and schedule 1.PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Thank you for this opportunity. From the outset Labour supports this bill. Drug and alcohol misuse is a major driver of crime. As a preface to a broader contribution from me on this particular part with regard to the drug issue that is currently happening in Tai Tokerau I want to lament the recent loss of my nephew Moses Mahanga who was involved in that particular incident and of course my cousin Mr John Harris who was buried recently.We know that the driver of this particular issue is drugs so this party supports any bill that will see drug and alcohol misuse addressed as a major driver of crime. We want to make sure that when people are put under supervision the means and the legislation are in line to ensure that we keep them safe from themselves but more importantly we keep our communities safe. Clause 4 in Part 1 refers to some very simple matters and I think they are quite straightforward. The inclusion of the use of the term psychoactive substance" falls in line with the Psychoactive Substances Act which was passed in this House in—if memory serves me right—approximately 2013. I did actually have to go and have a look at exactly what some of the psychoactive substances were. I was not too sure myself but I went in and had a look and it is clear that there is an issue there. But I wonder just out of curiosity—and I am sorry I did not sit in on the select committee. For a lot of those drugs that are included in the Psychoactive Substances Act it is often said that they are undetectable. They are hard to detect in the system they are hard for the immediate senses to detect and I just wonder what kind of an issue that may bring for those officers or those with the powers to enforce testing with this particular bill. That is just out of curiosity more than anything else. It clearly says there in the definition of the term "drug or alcohol condition"—and it is a pretty straightforward change in that particular clause—that "either or both" is being removed and it now says "doing 1 or more of the following:" and that once again is referring to the use of a psychoactive substance. In the definition of "drug or alcohol monitoring device" it is quite clear there that it is "a device connected to a person's body that is able to detect the presence in the person's body of 1 or more of the following:" and that gets to my point about some of those questions. A quick Google search will tell you how to the untrained eye to the naked eye—to make an assessment straight off the bat it is often difficult for law enforcement officers and for those with that responsibility to instantly see that that person is under the influence of a psychoactive substance. I wonder what the technology looks like—what the device might look like—that will actually allow for that proper testing to take place and to make sure that we are not impinging on people's rights.Clause 4 carries on talking about the "medical laboratory technologist" and it is quite straightforward. Those people with those particular skills—and I have mentioned how it is when you first interact with the person under supervision. Clearly it sets out the terms in here about those professionals who are more qualified and who with the right tools and with the right practice can actually assess more properly whether or not the individual is under the influence. Moving on to some of the other changes in Part 1 of this particular bill clause 8 inserts new sections on the testing and monitoring of people with drug or alcohol conditions. We know that when people are put back into the community under supervision it is important that we make sure that first of all their rights are not impinged on but more importantly those particular people abide by the supervision rules that have been placed upon them."