O'Rourke Denis: Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6630. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 That was probably because of the noise coming from the other side of the room. Anyway I would like to say this in response to what I have just heard. In fact yes New Zealand First does support the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill. We think it is a common-sense approach and yes we do think it is fair and equitable. It is fair to say that. We do think in particular that there is a defect in the Act as it is at present where a positive evidential breath test is not admissible simply because the suspect person has elected a blood test but is in circumstances where no blood test is possible. That is a defect. It is a hole in the legislation and it does need to be fixed. 
New Zealand First is very much in support of all practical means to make sure that such loopholes are closed and that people who are in fact guilty of drink-driving are caught. Provided that that is done with due process of law then we think we should be as tight as possible in making sure that all such people are in fact prosecuted and prosecuted successfully. It is just not good enough that somebody should be able to elect to take a blood test knowing in fact that a blood test is unlikely to be possible and then to be in a position where their breath test is not admissible. 
I would have to say though that I do not think that the drafting of this particular bill is very good at all. In fact the provision— 
Brendan Horan 
: Grammatically incorrect. 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: Well that is true. My friend Mr Horan has said that it is grammatically incorrect and it is poor grammar. It says in clause 4(2): “After section 77(4) insert: ‘(5) Subsection (3)(b) does not apply if a blood specimen was not able to be taken from the defendant for any reason.’ ” What kind of grammar is “was not able to be taken”? I do not know who wrote this but they need to go back to school and learn some grammar. But more particularly we need good drafting of this bill. The bill should be amended so as to read for example: “Subsection (3)(b) does not apply if it was not possible or practicable for a blood specimen to be taken …”. That is what I presume it means and if that is what it is intended to mean that is actually what it should say not these poorly drafted words that we see before us. 
When we see members’ bills coming forward in this way people should at least take the trouble to draft them properly so that not only is the English correct but also it actually says what it is intended to say. I think that the word “possible” or the word “practicable” is what is intended so we want this to be amended. We want to see that it covers only situations where it is actually not possible to get a blood test or where it is not practicable to do so. So we would expect to see this amended accordingly. 
Another thing that it should do is this. The last few words are “taken from the defendant for any reason.” That is not good enough either. That is also poor drafting because what we do not really mean is “any reason.” and what we should do is tighten that a little bit as well. I think it should say for example “unavoidable reason.” or words to that effect. 
New Zealand First if it going to continue to support this bill in the future would like to see that it is properly drafted and amended accordingly. But I would like to go on and say this: drink-driving remains one of New Zealand’s most serious safety issues and I do not think we are doing nearly as much in this country as we should about it. This is a very small measure. It is worthwhile but we would expect of the Government that it takes a lot more action on controlling drink-driving. 
The new amendments to the alcohol bill will take us a little bit further in respect of that but we also need to take further actions in respect of who may drive a car. Driving a car is a privilege and there must be further restrictions on doing it especially in relation to people who are affected not just by alcohol but also by any situation in which their driving ability is impaired. 
So we would like to see much more comprehensive legislation than we see here. In particular we need to address much more the behaviour of people who drink excessively. We need to be tougher with the penalties—much tougher than we are now—and we need to widen the scope of offences that already exist.