Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. ACT will support the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill at this third reading. The ACT Party as the member for Auckland Central pointed out shared many of the concerns that the Green Party had about the operation of this legislation. There was still a great deal of work to do to establish an evidence base that roadside testing for both prescription and illicit substances would actually be able to detect that drivers were impaired and that a testing regime would deter drivers from driving while under the influence of drugs.ACT supports the Government having taken responsibility for roadside testing. Employers have been testing drivers who work for them for decades. I've worked in the construction industry and during my time in the industry I was required to submit to regular testing while operating motor vehicles and heavy plant and equipment as were many of my staff.So it's a fine thing that the Government is now taking responsibility for establishing a similar testing regime on the public roads. ACT supports this bill because it's a practical series of solutions. They're not perfect solutions but they're practical and they will help achieve healthier communities in the long run.ACT will support this bill despite the fact that we have reservations around the data and the evidence that is available now to determine whether the testing regime the testing methods whether they be oral or otherwise are actually of a sufficient accuracy and repeatability so that people who are stopped and tested as part of a routine exercise one that we're familiar with through what used to be commonplace drink driving stops—although they've become less common while the country's police force are engaged in managed isolation and quarantine duties stopping people from escaping from hotel rooms rather than policing the nation's highways. And we know that the police themselves feel very unhappy about that.But despite the fact that there are still gaps in the evidence and the data the ACT Party supports this because there was an amendment proposed by the Green Party which ACT supported and which the Government accepted to include a review clause in this legislation. So that after three years the data and the evidence on roadside testing will be reviewed and a report will be provided as to whether the legislation is working as intended and what other operational measures have been identified to improve the working of the legislation. Because it is important both for the safety of the public—for people learning to drive for people who have been driving a long time for people who drive for work—to know that drivers who get into a car to drive while impaired with prescription drugs or illicit drugs are deterred from doing so.So this piece of legislation is part of the Government's Road to Zero plan as the Minister alluded to. It's one small part of a much larger plan which we understand having heard the Minister's announcement last week is part of a $1.2 billion scheme involving additional road policing and other measures to make the roads safer. This particular piece of the Road to Zero plan focuses on the human factor on behaviour on deterring people who might otherwise get behind the wheel while under the influence of illicit drugs or prescription medication. The aim of Road to Zero is to reduce the road toll by 40 percent over a 10-year period. That started in 2020. So that's now 40 percent by 2030. Last year 2021 319 people lost their lives on the road but the injury toll tells the real picture. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) received 32528 new claims for injuries on the road in 2021 alone with a total cost of $568 million in claims to the taxpayer through the ACC account. So it's important that every possible measure having weighed the costs and looked at potential benefits that every possible measure that stacks up from a benefit-cost ratio analysis is implemented.That's why the ACT Party while supporting this bill does take issue with other measures in the Road to Zero approach such as simply applying blanket speed limit reductions across entire regions—as is proposed for Northland or on that vital link the Napier-Taupō road reduced to 80 kilometres an hour for its entire length—and not considering the social and economic costs on communities of a blanket approach which fails to recognise actually the Government has another responsibility and that is to recognise that humans do make mistakes. Drivers do make errors. That it's not just about road policing lowering speed limits and then enforcing them with the radar gun and severely increased penalties which we know the Government is considering.Actually the Government has a responsibility to identify where it should be investing in roading infrastructure in addition to legislation like this which is about improving driver behaviour. For example road safety infrastructure such as guard rails and wire rope barriers have saved dozens and dozens of lives; people may well have been injured but they can still go home to their families. And yet rather than investing in road safety infrastructure rather than upgrading roads designed in the 1950s two-lane roads with six-foot deep ditches either side lined with trees and power poles practically in the carriage way rather than making those investments the Government's chosen to invest in other transport priorities which actually don't contribute to reducing the road toll and reducing injuries on the road at all like a light rail project in Auckland or like a bike bridge in Auckland—both projects which are doomed never to be built by this Government.These 1950s-designed roads we call State highways in other countries would be modern multi-lane and often grade separated four-lane highways. I'll give you an example of Sweden a country which has a much lower road toll than New Zealand: 5000 kilometres of roads in Sweden round about the same distance of State highways as New Zealand. Half of them 2500 kilometres is separated by median barriers. In New Zealand we've only managed to separate not even 500 kilometres.That is why in terms of Road to Zero objectives this bill only goes a very small way. It will be very difficult for the Government to identify the benefits and reduced fatalities from this legislation. ACT will support it because it's important that the Government puts its money where its mouth is and at least implements the same testing regime that employers and businesses have been undertaking with their workforces that use the road for decades. But it doesn't go any way to solving the real problem with this country's State highway infrastructure with all of those design engineering and other issues with the State highway network which mean that when a person makes a mistake on the road they are more likely to suffer serious injury or even death in New Zealand than they would be in a country we would normally compare ourselves favourably to such as Sweden which has made a real investment in road safety infrastructure.Hon Member: 50 percent taxes!SIMON COURT: The former Minister of Police brings up the matter of 50 percent taxes". He might not realise that New Zealanders on the top tax rate plus GST already pay over 50 percent in taxes; they pay road user charges and fuel excise duties and they're still not getting safer roads—to the former Minister of Police over there.That is why the ACT Party believes that in addition to this legislation it's vitally important that adequate investments are made in prioritised road safety infrastructure including State highways. Thank you Madam Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m."