Whaitiri Meka; Williams PotoHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I'm happy to take a call on the Land Transport (Random Oral Fluid Testing) Amendment Bill. Like that side of the House we take drug harm seriously on our roads as we do in our workplaces. But Labour as my colleagues have outlined clearly opposes this bill.There are a couple of reasons I also want to touch on particularly the findings of the Attorney-General where the Attorney-General applied a couple of tests to this bill: one where he subjects a member's bill to section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in terms of its right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. The Attorney-General considers that the requirement to undergo one or more compulsory random oral fluid tests as this bill is purporting to do is inconsistent with section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Attorney-General then addresses the arbitrary detention nature of this bill in terms of putting people on the side of the road to test them. The Attorney-General concluded that the bill is disproportionate and may lead to a warrantless arrest if the person fails to comply so therefore in the Attorney-General's view it failed section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He also goes on to say that this bill does not meet section 25(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.To the member Mr Alastair Scott the local member for Wairarapa which is part of my electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti we too on this side of the House take drug harm in terms of influence and driving seriously. As outlined our Minister of Police and the Associate Minister of Transport the Hon Julie Anne Genter have got a comprehensive programme to address the issues that this particular bill is trying to address. But what I want to say is that in the proposer's opening address he talked about some findings or some evidence for why we needed to address the changes in the bill. One particular part he talked about was that the new regime the actual Land Transport Act was implemented in 2009. I understand that some of the evidence that Mr Scott alluded to was in 2009 and it begs the question that if the issues around those pulled over or those dying on our roads through drug-related versus alcohol instances were identified in 2009 then it begs the question: why didn't the Government of the day address it then?Actually what the Government at that time said was that the Land Transport Act as it was stated in 2009 actually adequately addressed the issue of drug-related driving offences. So therefore Mr Scott might want to in his reply answer why the Government in 2009 didn't address the outstanding issue that he's identified through this bill.Like I said this side of the House has a comprehensive work programme to address and to enable our police officers the due tools and technology to ensure that we're employing our police officers in the right areas. Until we can get adequate technology to address drug driving which the Land Transport Act currently addresses and the tools that it gives our police people and personnel it is something that hasn't quite yet been defined by the member in terms of what this bill is trying to address. The reasons why have been laid out; not just the Attorney-General's test in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but also its impracticality in terms of the integrity of the testing regime and whether standing people on the side of the road for three to five minutes while they're running the test is actually practical is yet to be explored and to be accepted on this side of the House.Therefore it's clear that the coalition Government has made it really clear and the Labour Party has made itself clear that we will be opposing this bill. Kia ora tātou.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Alastair Scott you have five minutes in reply.