Joyce Steven: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Joyce Steven: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4330] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
 I move  
That the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a second time 
. I would like to thank members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for their work on this bill. I thank both the present committee and the committee in the previous Parliament. 
This bill which was originally introduced by the previous Labour Government concerns the safety and privacy of New Zealand motorists. It addresses the problems of drivers who are impaired by controlled or prescription drugs and the unrestricted release of personal information held on the motor vehicles register. It has been advanced in a sort of whole-of-Parliament manner although perhaps with a little bit more urgency by the current Government. 
People who drive when their judgment and reactions are impaired by drugs are a danger to themselves and to others. A study conducted by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research has shown that of blood samples collected from 826 deceased drivers over 4 years more than half had either alcohol or drugs or both in their blood. There are some very sad stories behind those numbers. 
It is already an offence under the Land Transport Act to drive while incapable of proper control due to alcohol or drugs but the existing offence can be difficult to enforce in respect of drugs due to the high evidential burden on the prosecution. This bill will make the task of the police more straightforward. Under this bill a police officer who suspects a driver of being impaired can require the driver to carry out a compulsory impairment test. This will include examination of the eyes a one-leg stand test and a walk-and-turn test. The impairment test is based on procedures used in other countries. 
A driver who does not satisfactorily complete this test will be required to provide a blood specimen. A driver who is found to have drugs in his or her blood will be prosecuted. “Drugs” means both prescription medicines and controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The penalties for this new offence are the same as the penalties for drink-driving. Blood specimens taken as evidence of alcohol and drug-driving offences will be available for road safety research. 
This bill will also protect personal information held on the motor vehicles register. This register contains the names and addresses of everyone registered as an owner of a motor vehicle—and that is more than 3.4 million New Zealanders. There are no safeguards on the use of this personal information. Angry motorists after a road-rage incident have used the register to trace and harass other drivers. Car thieves have used it to locate high-value vehicles. Further millions of names and addresses have been released to marketing organisations for direct-mail advertising. This is quite a long way from the purposes of the motor vehicles register which are law enforcement and revenue collection. Personal information on the driver licence register is protected. Why should the motor vehicles register be left completely open? 
Under this bill names and addresses will be better protected. That does not mean that the motor vehicles register will become a secret file; people will be able to request personal information under the Official Information Act and in deciding on requests the Registrar of Motor Vehicles will have to balance public interest and privacy concerns. Businesses and others will be able to apply for ongoing access to names and addresses without having to make a separate Official Information Act request in each case. Each application will be considered on its merits and information will be released if there is good reason—for example to allow a motor vehicle manufacturer to contact owners in order to carry out a vehicle service recall. 
This will bring our law broadly into line with most English-speaking jurisdictions. Non-personal information currently available such as vehicle specifications numbers of owners and so on will continue to be available without restriction. 
This bill was referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in October 2007. This year new clauses are added to the bill by Supplementary Order Paper 10. These clauses will extend the life of certain laws that were due to expire at the end of June. These concerned parking enforcement and various technical matters. The committee received 49 submissions and a number of changes have been made in response. I believe that the bill is better for it. 
The bill is amended to clarify that the offence under this legislation comprises two parts: impairment and the evidence of a drug in the driver’s bloodstream. An offence is committed only if both parts of the offence have been detected. The committee has also recommended that the impairment test clause be amended. The bill as introduced refers to a person being “unable to complete” an impairment test. The committee was told that this could cause problems for the prosecution and that the expression “does not complete” would be preferable. 
The  
Gazette 
 notice improving the impairment test will now describe the test in full instead of just recording that the Minister had approved of the test. 
The committee has recommended that the penalty for refusing the impairment test be the same as for drug-impaired driving. Under the bill as introduced the penalty for refusing the test was less than for drug-impaired driving. This incentive for people fearing prosecution for drug-impaired driving to refuse to undergo the test has now been removed. 
The defence provision has been redrafted so that a prescription for a drug must be valid and current before it may be relied upon as a defence. In addition two new defences have been added so that defendants may argue that they followed instructions from the doctor or the manufacturer of the medicine. Further persons who have refused to undergo the impairment test will have a defence if they have a pre-existing medical condition or disability or have been injured in an accident preceding the requirement to undergo the test to an extent that precludes them from taking the test. 
Another change concerns the taking of blood in a hospital or doctor’s surgery. Currently a medical practitioner may take blood for the purposes of a traffic prosecution only if he or she has reasonable grounds to suspect a person is present as a result of a motor vehicle accident. The committee recommended empowering the medical practitioner to take blood from persons who have suffered injury or the onset of a medical condition subsequent to an accident or an incident involving a motor vehicle. The strengthening of the defence provisions and the removal of loopholes and perverse incentives will make this regime stronger and fairer. 
Turning to the motor vehicles register clauses I note that as well as the changes regarding personal information the bill is also a comprehensive rewrite of the law concerning the registration and licensing of motor vehicles. The committee has taken the opportunity to implement some further reforms. The first is the expression “registered owner”. Everybody talks about the ownership papers for a vehicle. People assume that a listing on the motor vehicles register is like a land title—a proof of ownership of a vehicle—but actually it is not. This misconception has been commented on and confirmed by the courts over the years. The committee agreed the best way to stop perpetuating the misconception about ownership was to drop the misleading term “registered owner”. The committee has adopted a completely neutral term “registered person”. 
The committee also recommended changes concerning personalised plates. The bill as introduced removes the existing statutory monopoly as it could not be justified on competition grounds. However this change would be ineffectual if a contract between the Crown and a supplier of the plates itself provided for a monopoly. Criteria are needed that apply to all contracts whether existing or in the future so that competition on equal terms is fostered amongst suppliers and would-be suppliers. These criteria are that a contract is terminable on reasonable notice given by either party and that there is no limit on the number of contracts in force at any given time. Contracts may be for the same or different letters or numbers or both and if no contract exists for particular letters or numbers or both the registrar may sell personalised plates directly. Therefore the committee agreed that the bill should be amended to provide for this. That would implement the intent of the bill as it was introduced. 
The committee has also made some changes to improve the balance between privacy and the public interest. 
Corporate bodies’ details on the register will continue to be available as corporate bodies do not have a right to privacy. The confidential listings provision has been strengthened by limiting the discretion of the registrar to override a confidential listing. The power to grant an authorisation for ongoing access to names and addresses will be a matter for the Secretary for Transport in order to simplify administration. The secretary will be required to make decisions within a reasonable time of receipt of all relevant information. The secretary will also have to consult the Commissioner of Police before granting authorisation to address concerns that organised crime might try to obtain names and addresses via such authorisations. Finally the committee recommended that people who do not wish to be contacted by those who have obtained an authorisation may opt out by advising the registrar that they do not wish their details to be released. 
Again I thank the committee for its work on the bill. The bill will help remove high-risk drivers from the roads so that the public can travel in greater safety. It confers greater protection for the privacy of the more than 3.4 million individuals whose details are held on the motor vehicles register. It makes a number of other important changes to facilitate the smooth operation of the motor vehicles register. This is a good bill and I commend it to the House.