Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's good to take a call on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. This has been a bill long in the gestation of Parliament actually and you know it's funny. We're at the fag end of the Parliament with one day to go one question time and just the adjournment debate coming down the line and yet I remember the Hon Dr Nick Smith and other members on this side of the House talking about this issue very early on in the Parliament. I remember the promises from the Government: We'll take action." "We're going to do something about this—it's a real issue." "This is something that has to happen." We've had petitions we've had Alastair Scott's member's bill—who rightly identified the issue and put it to the Parliament and we had the opportunity to debate this and it's only now at the second to last day of this parliamentary sitting period that we are considering this bill. It's been rammed into the urgency motion. We're sitting here till midnight—it's eight minutes to 10 and we're here till midnight. We're going through all the COVID bills and the COVID motions and the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill and all the rest of it and the Government is trying to clear the Order Paper. Look I know what it's like—I know what it's like. The Government is trying to clear the Order Paper and because of the mismanagement of the House over the last few weeks we're having to go through this urgency process where the Government rams everything through and the Order Paper is going to be cleaned up. That's all good. That's fine. I know what it's like but we're going to be here till midnight and it's just "Shove this first reading in and we'll get on with it." But you know the point I want to make is really just to echo what my colleague Dr Nick Smith said which is that this should have been earlier in the process. It was December last year that Julie Anne Genter put out a press release under pressure may I say from Dr Smith and Alastair Scott and other colleagues in the Parliament and the Porteous family. We said "Well what is going on with drug-driving? We've got increasing numbers of people who are causing deaths related to drug-driving"—and various coroners' reports show that—"What is going on?" and Julie Anne Genter the Associate Minister of Transport said "Don't worry I've got a bill coming"—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Early in the year. CHRIS BISHOP: —"early in the year." We said "OK—early in the year." Well the House actually I think sat on 30 January last year. That could be "early in the year"—you know it's unreasonable to expect a bill to be introduced in January but 30 January—OK. That's the first day. February went by—OK. The House sits we had the Prime Minister's statement we get under way—all good. No bill. March April May June July—where are we now—5 August and we've got the first reading of the bill. So look it's taken a bit of time. I understand it takes a bit of time to get bills into the House but three years? The simple reality is—and we know this—there's been dispute between the Minister of Transport the Associate Minister and the Minister of Police. We know that's the case because the Hon Julie Anne Genter is on the record bagging this proposal. I don't believe for a second that the Associate Minister of Transport actually supports this—let's be very clear about that. I do not believe that she supports it because she is on the record repeatedly bagging all of the various elements of the regime that she as the Minister is seeking to introduce. Actually I think it was a bit unfair of the Government to ask Julie Anne Genter to be the Minister in charge of the bill because it's I think tolerably clear from past comments that she does not support it. But anyway we will support this bill because we think it's urgent as the Hon Dr Nick Smith said. We think it's urgent. We think it's important that we get on with it and it's a shame that our motion to send it to a committee for urgent report back has failed but we do support it and think we should get on with it. I do just want to make a couple of comments about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because it's interesting that this has got a section 7 report. Not every bill that comes before the Parliament gets a section 7 report. There's been a bit of debate actually in this term of Parliament about the role of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in our constitution. The current Government is seeking to introduce a bill to allow declarations of inconsistency when it comes to breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it would actually be a pretty significant constitutional change for New Zealand. This is one of those bills which has attracted a section 7 report and I would argue it is a perfect example of why we need a parliamentary bill of rights rather than a supreme law bill of rights. In New Zealand we discuss and invigilate the appropriate limits on rights in the Parliament and this is a classic example—just like the alcohol breath-testing was back in the 1990s—where the appropriate bounds of the right to be presumed innocent and the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure rub up against the regime that we want to put in place to improve the safety of New Zealanders. I believe the limit on the various rights that are impinged by this bill are justified. Now there'll be others who would take a different view and actually the Associate Minister of Transport at various points has expressed that view. Others take a different view but I think it's important that the appropriate justification and the limits on the right are tested through the parliamentary process rather than through the court process and having a parliamentary bill of rights allows us to do this. So the Attorney-General has averted Parliament's attention to the breach of rights and in his view it's unjustified. But the ultimate political test or the ultimate test as to whether or not we'd consider that to be a justified limit on the right is for Parliament to decide. That's the appropriate point and that's right. So I don't know if I'll be a member of the next Parliament but I hope I will—I'm running for re-election. I really hope I will. Erica Stanford: You'll be fine. CHRIS BISHOP: Thank you Ms Stanford. You'll be fine—you'll definitely be fine in East Coast Bays. But I hope I'm a member of the next Parliament and I may well be a member of the Justice Committee. I have been in the past and it's a good committee. It's been a bit of an edgy in the last three years it'd be fair to say. It's been a bit back and forth but sometimes you get that on a committee. But I may be a member of the committee and I am sure that the committee will invigilate the issue properly and they'll consider the section 7 report and that's the appropriate place to do it. I just want to comment on what Stuart Nash the Minister of Police said about the Road to Zero strategy because the Road to Zero is another classic example of this Government. A big fanfare—you know $1.4 billion being spent over three years on safety limits and the introduction of drug-driving. Very few speed limit changes have happened. Only 18 out of 198 kilometres of median barriers has been implemented. Hon Dr Nick Smith: How many? CHRIS BISHOP: Eighteen in three years—six per year. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Six kilometres? CHRIS BISHOP: Oh no—median barriers. I reckon the whole National Party caucus could have built more median barriers in three years than the Government's managed. There have been 151 out of 322 side barriers. So look it has not been a great record of success and this is just another example of how it's big talk but very little action. We support this bill. Drug-driving is an increasing problem in New Zealand and as the explanatory note to the bill says it's necessary to reduce road trauma and make our roads safer. This is a bill that will require quite a degree of investigation at the select committee stage. We're looking forward to that. We think it can be done quickly. It's been extensively consulted on at various points already. The Ministry of Transport has done a very good job on the regulatory impact statement on the bill so a lot of work that's gone into this already. We do not believe there is any real need to hold it up. Send it to a committee get on with the job get it in place and bring New Zealand into line with other countries and try and improve the safety on our roads and protect New Zealanders' lives. Thank you very much Madam Speaker."