Soper Lesley: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Soper Lesley: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12397] 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a short call on the first reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) which does have wide support for its introduction and I am looking forward to considering it at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
When one considers that transport officials estimate that illegal drugs were probably responsible for 38 serious injuries 77 minor injuries and 12 road deaths in 2006 one can see why there has been considerable public concern over the dangers of drugged drivers and why this bill was necessary. The bill will send a very clear message to people that it is unacceptable to drive while drugged. Of course we do already have an offence under the Land Transport Act for driving while incapable of proper control due to alcohol or drugs but prosecuting a person under the influence of drugs has been difficult under that existing legislation. “Incapable” has been a high threshold to meet as has establishing that the cause was illegal drugs. 
The new offence proposed in the bill is committed when a driver is impaired and there is evidence of illegal drugs in the driver’s blood. “Impairment” is a lower threshold to meet than “incapable of proper control” and will be determined by a more robust published test under the provisions of the bill. Under those proposed new provisions police will put a suspected drugged driver through a roadside test of balance—the one-leg stand test coordination the walk-and-turn test and eye-pupil response. A driver who fails those tests will be given a blood test and a positive result will lead to prosecution. It is expected there will be around 400 prosecutions a year. The emphasis of course is on illegal drugs. If a person is impaired but found to be on a prescription medicine then of course that person should be off the road and if that prescription medicine was properly taken then he or she has a defence to prosecution. 
There will no doubt be some debate in the select committee around the question of being prosecuted under both driving and drugs laws which New Zealand First has indicated they want to see but the bill is currently written so that blood samples taken by police investigating driving offences cannot be used as evidence in drugs cases—that is no double jeopardy. As to penalties for the new offences they have been aligned with the penalties for drink-driving which I think sends a very clear message again about the unacceptability of drug-driving. For a first or second offence that means imprisonment up to 3 months or a fine up to $4500 plus disqualification for at least 6 months. For a third or subsequent offence it means imprisonment up to 2 years or a fine up to $6000 and disqualification for more than 1 year. 
The other good balanced aims of the bill are around the protection of personal information held on the motor vehicle register and some changes in respect of registration and licensing of motor vehicles. There is no doubt that in the past the motor vehicle registration system has been open to abuse. The register has been a publicly available publication. Anyone can obtain the name and address and some other details of someone through the system by quoting a licence plate number and paying $2.25c and there are no safeguards on use of that personal information. It has been used by angry motorists in road rage aftermaths it has been used to harass women it has been used by professional car thieves to target vehicles and it has been used in bulk by direct mail companies to fill up our mailboxes with intrusive material we do not want or need about products we would rather not consume. The bill will remove Land Transport New Zealand’s obligation to supply names and addresses on request. Applications for release of personal information will be treated like any other Official Information Act request taking into account the principles of the Privacy Act. 
The bill will enact a provision stating the purposes of the register: law enforcement and security collection of revenue and transport law and policy. Those purposes will guide consideration of requests. The existing right to obtain vehicle details remains as does the right to seek confirmation that a specified person is the registered owner of a specified vehicle. But the proposed bill restricts the right to fishing expeditions to obtain any other personal information about car owners including their phone numbers email addresses and home addresses. Legitimate inquiries however such as insurance company advisers and sales yard staff checking trade and vehicle ownerships and manufacturers recalling vehicles are catered for by the bill’s provisions and will still be allowed full access. 
Another very good feature of the bill is that it will improve the quality of owner information held on the motor vehicle register by tightening up current requirements to register changes of ownership and by dealing with the problems of vehicles with no known owner. This is no small issue. About 100000 vehicle records are currently tagged as “owner unknown” or “gone no address”. It is likely that the real numbers are much higher. They are not usually revealed until there is an inquiry. Some vehicles stay in the name of a previous owner for literally years. Strengthening the requirement to notify a sale or purchase enforcing more effectively the existing requirement to advise a change of address and giving police powers to order unknown owner vehicles off the roads are sensible and necessary provisions. 
This bill is a good balanced bill. I am looking forward to sitting on the select committee that considers it. Thank you.