Simpson Scott: Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Simpson Scott: Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6632. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to be concluding this first reading debate on my Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill. As various speakers in the debate have indicated this is not a bill that is going to have an impact on a particularly large number of people but the people it will have an impact on are currently able to literally evade the provisions made by this House in the principal Act regarding drink-driving and they are literally able to get off scot-free. 
I want to thank members for their considered debate for their contributions to the debate so far. I am very much looking forward to participating in the select committee process under the capable and very able chairmanship of David Bennett. I know that once we get it to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee we will address some of the issues that have been raised in the debate so far. I was particularly pleased early on in this exercise to receive from Mike Noon of the Automobile Association support in principle from that organisation. It too understands that there has been a very significant attitudinal change towards drink-driving in this nation over the last generation or so since Dr Hutchison was practising medicine as a young intern some years ago— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Just a few years ago. 
SCOTT SIMPSON 
: —just a couple of years ago—and things have changed a little bit. Society’s attitude towards those who drive while under the influence has changed significantly and for even a small number of people to be able to evade the intention of this House in bringing them to remedy for the consequences of their poor social behaviour—and indeed their illegal driving—I think is a matter that needs addressing. 
I want to spend just a minute referring for the sake of those members who did not hear it in the original speech to the judgment relating to the case of  
Police v Childs 
 heard in the Rotorua District Court just this year—in fact in July of this year. Judge MacKenzie examined all the current case law and had to dismiss the case against Childs. He had blown a screening test—that is the one where you have got the little electronic device where you have to give your name and address—and he proved positive on that. He then blew an evidential breath test and then was given the option of a blood test which he was perfectly entitled to take under the existing law. However Mr Childs was an intravenous drug user of some long number of years and his veins—he knew I suspect—were utterly unable to be tapped for the required sample of blood. So after 40 minutes—40 minutes—of attempting to draw a significant and appropriate blood sample the medical officer was not able to do so. When the case came before Judge MacKenzie he had to throw it out because the situation of the facts presented meant that Childs was statute-barred from being prosecuted because no blood sample was available to him. 
I think that is wrong and even if it is for a small number of people each year it is still wrong and for this House not to address what was actually an oversight in the original legislation—in the original 1998 legislation—I think is something that we need to turn our attention to now. Thus the measure of the bill. 
I want to thank the originator of the bill my colleague the senior Government whip Michael Woodhouse who did indeed draft the original bill. I am sure I can vouch for his grammar and the accuracy thereof. He has a good education. 
The Attorney-General’s report is something that is worth a small consideration because the report does sit on the Table of this House. But like other speakers on this side I respectfully reject the position that the Attorney-General has taken on this matter. It will still be the case of the police as in any criminal matter in our criminal jurisdiction to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. That is the measure of all criminal convictions in New Zealand and nothing would change under my bill. The Automobile Association in its support of the bill has indicated that it too would like to consider narrowing the clause a wee bit and that is a matter that will be rightly and properly addressed at the select committee. I am looking forward to participating in the process. I thank members for their consideration so far and commend the bill to the House.