Fenton Darien: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Fenton Darien: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4339] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). In doing so I note that the bill is another bill that was introduced by the previous Labour Government. I am pleased that this very important transport safety measure has been reported back to Parliament with the support of most parties as far as I can tell—albeit with some reservations from Labour. I will address those reservations as we go on. Indeed my colleague Mr Trevor Mallard has talked about some of those reservations. 
This bill has two main functions: “the first is to enhance the powers of the police to deal with drug-impaired drivers and the second is to make changes to the registration and licensing of motor vehicles.” I put on record tonight that I oppose drug-driving. I do not support the right of any person to get into a vehicle and put the lives of others at risk. The purpose of the bill in regard to identifying drug-impaired driving and getting those drivers off the road has my full support. I also state that I am categorically against illegal drug-taking particularly of the class A kind. Like many members in this House I have watched with horror the rise of the use of the drug P—methamphetamine—which is a highly dangerous and scary drug. 
There are few parliamentarians who could say hand on heart there is nothing they did in their youth that on reflection with the benefit of age and experience was a bit stupid. I am not one of those people. I am of a generation who thought drug taking was cool. I freely say that tonight. I am lucky it did not ruin my life or the lives of others around me as indeed it has ruined many people’s lives. We cannot change what we did yesterday but we can change what we do today. So I speak in support of this bill from a personal perspective as a Labour member and as a parent and family member. I do not want to see someone I love bowled over by someone out on the road who is impaired by drugs. 
It is also important to acknowledge today’s young people and their families who struggle with the same kinds of issues that have been around for many years—the awful nightmare of drug abuse. This bill is not about punishment; it is about protection. The bill is about protection for ordinary citizens. Tonight I want to say to those parents listening to this debate who have young sons or daughters struggling with drug problems that there is hope. It can be beaten. It is our love compassion and support that will make the difference in the end along with the strong experienced and publicly funded support of health professionals. 
Struggling with a personal drug problem is no excuse for putting other people’s lives at risk. That is why Labour is strongly supporting this bill. I do not want to be “Pollyanna-ish” about this issue. There are some risks in relation to abuse of the powers being proposed in the bill tonight. My experience makes me cautious along with the experience I have had as a union advocate in terms of workplace drug-testing. I am cautious about the rights of New Zealanders who because of their ethnicity the type of car they drive their looks or their status may be targeted under any legislation that gives the police rights that in the wrong hands could be used unreasonably and unfairly. I am even more cautious now we know that the road policing budget has been cut by $45 million— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: $50 million. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —$50 million and that 300 police cars will be off the roads. I would like to know from the Minister of Transport what budgetary support will back this bill. What resources will be given to the police who after all will have to spend considerable extra time on policing the provisions of this bill? 
Conducting an impairment test for drugs at the roadside is not a quick process as was demonstrated in the select committee with the help of the honourable member Michael Woodhouse. It is not like the breath tests for booze which take a second in the first sweep; a drug test takes at least 10 minutes—maybe more for the first process. It is a reality of current technology that we do not have a quick test to identify drug use as we do for alcohol. 
Although the Minister has been quick to try to claim credit for getting this bill back to Parliament he has not fronted up yet to say how the police will be resourced to ensure that the bill works. It is all very well to say the bill is a priority for this Government—we all think it is a priority—but the business of making it work is just as important as passing it into law. The Minister has not said how axing 300 police cars—300 front-line vehicles—will help with the enforcement of this bill let alone other transport enforcement and safety issues. 
We have had some robust debates about this bill in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and in our party. As my colleague Trevor Mallard has outlined Labour will put forward some amendments during the Committee stage as will the Maori Party. I definitely support the amendments from my colleague Trevor Mallard. In the end for me it comes down to this: no one should be allowed on the road with a weapon called a car when he or she has taken drugs or alcohol. The price is just too high. 
In the Committee stage there will be further debate on some of the details but one of the details I want to drill down to during this second reading speech is an issue in Part 17 that is of particular concern to the Labour Party. Part 17 came about in the original bill because of complaints about the misuse of private information on the motor vehicles register. Under current law anyone can get details of personal information about vehicle owners such as their name and address. Vehicle owners have no option but to register information; it is what the law says. Because vehicle owners are required to do it the Government has a particular responsibility to endeavour to protect this information as best it can. The reality is that information on the vehicle register has been misused and that gave rise to Part 17 in the first place. Victims of domestic violence have been stalked and harassed. Employment-related concerns road-rage repercussions—and we have seen an increase in that recently—potential vehicle burglary along with a whole range of other issues have been raised by the public. 
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—which I have sat on all the way through the process of this bill including during the time of the previous Government—has heard those concerns. The bill before us deals with those concerns. But the National Government has ensured that it does not deal with the other major series of complaints received from the public concerning the misuse of vehicle registry information with regard to direct marketing. Currently the information that is registered becomes available to a range of marketing companies which can then pester people relentlessly about buying a new car or other goods. It is called direct marketing which involves sending personally addressed but unsolicited advertising to prospective customers. The advice to the select committee was that this practice could be managed through a process called opting in. In other words those who register their vehicle as required by law have to be asked whether they want to receive information from marketing companies rather than their being deluged with junk marketing. The National Government has changed that. It has ignored the advice of the Privacy Commissioner and other submitters who expressed strong concerns to the committee about personal information which the public is after all compelled to provide being released for a commercial and unrelated purpose. 
The Privacy Commissioner in particular said that the Government has a responsibility to exercise stewardship over the personal information that we require citizens to provide or public trust will be eroded. Unfortunately despite this advice the National Government has gone for a process of opting out. The Privacy Commissioner’s view was that that was problematic because it does not provide a viable form of notification and it implies consent thus allowing personal details to be released by default without the person’s knowledge or consent. Labour is concerned that this advice is being ignored and we have noted that in the select committee report. This means that the vehicle register will continue to be used as a marketing tool and the public will be pestered with unwanted junk-mail solicitation. 
I can only surmise from the discussions that have gone on since National became the Government that it was somehow swayed by lobbyists in that area. I look forward to this bill continuing its progress through the House and I look forward to the debate in the Committee stage on the measures proposed by Labour and indeed on the concerns that I have raised. Thank you.