Woodhouse Michael: Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woodhouse Michael: Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6626. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am very very pleased to talk in strong support of this Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill. The principal reason is that I wrote it. As members know only one bill can go into the ballot and I do hope that my Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill does eventually get pulled out. In the meantime I pass this bill on to my very good friend and colleague Mr Simpson who had the great good fortune to have this bill pulled from the ballot. I congratulate him on that good luck but also on the very careful consideration in the process of bringing this to the House for its first reading. I congratulate him on the excellent work that he has done. 
This bill actually had its genesis in a conversation I had with a senior constable in Dunedin who just happened to be my brother. It is actually quite advantageous coming from a very large family: one gets lots of policy advice on matters like aviation defence law and order resource management law education health and so on. This was one of those conversations where he described an incident that had occurred to him in Dunedin not dissimilar to the case that is described in  
Police v Childs 
 described by Scott Simpson in his contribution. Having pulled over a person suspected of drink-driving an evidential breath test was taken where the fellow blew somewhere in the region of 660—clearly over the limit by that measure. He elected blood but the blood was unable to be taken because he was an intravenous drug user and his veins were not of sufficient quality to draw the necessary blood. Suspecting that the driver was also under the influence of illegal substances—interestingly enough an impairment test was introduced under the drug-driving laws passed by this Government in 2009 when I was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Being the new member on that committee I actually undertook the first impairment test which was onerous. Nevertheless this fellow— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Did you pass? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: I passed yes having been completely sober at 10.30 in the morning which is the case I reassure the House usually. But in fact this fellow also passed and therefore the doors were closed to any form of prosecution under the Land Transport Act as it exists right now. The judge addressed this issue and in fact the police I think were quite optimistic in their attempts to charge this fellow with both refusing to permit a blood specimen or in the alternative driving with excess breath alcohol. Clearly the latter is not allowed under this bill and that is what the bill intends to remedy. But he certainly permitted them to have a go and in fact he challenged them to have a go at getting blood out of this person’s veins. I want to quote the judgment; in fact I think this quotes the counsel for the defence in the  
Childs 
 case where he said in his submission that “Had Parliament considered it appropriate to allow the prosecution to rely on the evidential breath test despite an election for blood taking place it would have provided for such an occurrence and that the appropriate place to review circumstances such as the inability to collect a blood sample despite compliance with procedure is Parliament.” That was in July 2012. Well Parliament through this member’s bill had already addressed it and this bill was in the ballot. 
I want to come on to the question of the Attorney-General’s opinion in respect of whether or not this bill actually breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I would respectfully suggest that the person writing the opinion on behalf of the Attorney-General is somewhat confused when he or she is describing that the effect of the bill “would therefore be that the results of some positive evidential breath tests that would not otherwise be admissible in evidence would then become admissible.” I think they are confusing the word “admissible” with the word “admitted”. The evidence is admissible and indeed if blood is not elected would be valid evidence before a judge. However the law prevents it from being admitted into evidence and I think that is a subtle but significant difference. 
The other part of the opinion of the Attorney-General is that the presumption of innocence does not apply in this case and I would again respectfully challenge that. The defendant with whatever evidence is presented before the judge or jury is presumed innocent in just the same way that had blood not been elected the breath evidence would be admissible and the presumption of innocence would prevail. However I do accept that this is an issue for the select committee to deal with when it comes before it and I hope that it does. I am sure the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee under David Bennett will look at the issue very very closely. I strongly support this bill.