Scott AlastairLAND TRANSPORT (RANDOM ORAL FLUID TESTING) AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I move That the Land Transport (Random Oral Fluid Testing) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.It is a privilege to rise and introduce this significant and timely bill to the House. A study by the Automobile Association published in June of this year showed that drug-impaired drivers are now involved in more fatal crashes on our roads than drink-drivers. This bill introduces random roadside drug-testing and will provide the police with the power to test any driver any rider or any supervised licence holder at any time and it fits neatly into Minister Genter's ambitious target of zero road fatalities. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that motorists who take drugs and drive can be easily detected at the roadside and penalised accordingly. The law currently stipulates that it is a driver's responsibility and duty to be mentally and physically fit when they drive a motor vehicle on public roads and this includes not being impaired by alcohol or drugs. This bill is about saving lives saving family and friends from the grief of losing a loved one preventing serious injuries and preventing destroyed lives and it forms part of the solution in how our society tackles the complacency of some who use drugs and then drives. The random drug-testing of drivers will be similar to our already existing random breath-testing for alcohol. In 1969 the first alcohol breathalyser—imagine what that looked like—was introduced in New Zealand. In its first year of operation 2928 drivers were tested with this new gadget. Only 214 were deemed sober enough to drive. New Zealand had a serious drink-driving culture and it was not uncommon for our drivers to engage in this dangerous and high-risk behaviour. In 1978 the legal blood-alcohol limit was lowered and evidential breath-testing was introduced. In 1979 there was a substantial drop in the New Zealand road fatality statistic. Now not all the road safety success can be attributed to random breath-testing for alcohol. But this new testing and road safety education coupled with compulsory seatbelts for children changed the New Zealand road safety record significantly. In 1996 New Zealand ran a very successful advertising campaign featuring the slogan If you drink and drive you're a bloody idiot." New Zealand's road fatality for 1996 was 515 which was the lowest number in 32 years. Education and awareness are key elements in changing culture.Over time I think we can all agree the impact on society of random roadside alcohol-testing combined with the targeted education campaigns has had a profound effect on the safety of our roads. The aim of this drug-driving bill is to have a similar outcome: to save lives. My hope is that by engaging the community in a highly visible drug-driving campaign reinforced by this new deterrent of a random roadside drug-test similar to our alcohol testing people will think before getting behind the wheel. It is time for us to work together towards changing a culture of indifference by those that use drugs and then drive.The incidence of drug-driving in New Zealand is startling. The recent study by the Automobile Association in June found 79 drivers who were involved in fatal crashes last year tested positive for drugs compared to 70—70—who were above the legal alcohol limit. So this is the first time that drugs have overtaken alcohol in this statistic. In 2013 the number of drug-impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes was just 14—14—compared with the 53 that were intoxicated with alcohol. The numbers of the drug-impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes has steadily increased since 2013. In 2015 it was reported that 47 percent of people who are casual users of drugs drive. So almost half of casual users of drugs drive. A survey of the effect of drugs on driver behaviour undertaken by the New Zealand Drug Foundation in 2009 found that two-thirds of cannabis users nearly half of methamphetamine users and a quarter of Ecstasy users reported driving under the influence. But these statistics are not a complete surprise. The issue has been bubbling away in our communities for years and all sides of the House have previously acknowledged it as a problem. It is time now to take action and to instigate change. Our police need access to stronger and more visible drug-driving enforcement measures. We need to change the drug culture as we did with drink-driving all those years ago.Currently if police have reasonable cause—and they must have reasonable cause—to suspect a driver of being impaired by drugs they can ask the person to complete a behavioural test such as walking heel to toe in a straight line and turning and standing on one leg. I'm not joking—that is the test. Finally failing that test—that non-scientific archaic test—the driver must then complete a blood test.This bill will allow a trained police officer to stop and drug test any driver who's driving a motor vehicle motorbike truck or bus without first needing to determine reasonable cause to suspect that the driver had used drugs. The bill allows for the testing of the presence of three types of drugs in oral fluid. The three drugs named in the bill are THC methylene dioxy-methyl amphetamine—Ecstasy—and methamphetamine. These drugs impact the skill and judgment required for safe driving. In my discussions with others across the House and across community groups I've been pleased to find that there is strong support for this bill. Positive and constructive suggestions or changes to the bill have already been made to me and I welcome these discussions—get them into the select committee process. Questions like: should the testing include a wider range of drugs? Is there better technology currently available? For example I'm made aware of technology that allows sweat to be tested from the palm of one's hand. Then the question is if the drug is detected is there a tolerance level that is appropriate or acceptable—similar to our allowable limits for alcohol. Should there be an allowable limit for drugs for driving? I hope that these questions challenges and opportunities for improvement will be explored in the select committee stage. In many of our workplaces nowadays we test for drugs due to safety concerns—for example when operating heavy machinery forklifts chainsaws and processing equipment. We all understand and accept that notion that we need to keep people safe at work free from drug-affected colleagues. But we don't yet have an effective drug-testing regime to ensure we are all safer on our roads.Of course the introduction of random roadside drug-testing alone will not stop drug-driving. However this bill alongside—you would have noticed—recent and very good anti - drug-driving advertising campaigns will increase awareness and send a strong message to the public that it is not OK to take drugs and drive. It is time that drug-drivers think twice before getting behind the wheel. The intention of this bill is not to be an anti - drug use piece of legislation; it's about road safety education and compelling those who use drugs to stay off the road. I believe in the strength of our legislative development process and I'm certain that the final Land Transport (Random Oral Fluid Testing) Amendment Bill legislation that is passed will go a long way in combating drug-driving.This bill will directly address the growing incidences of drug-driving - related accidents and fatalities. The current law and enforcement measures do not effectively deter drug users from driving while impaired. If drug users think twice and are deterred from driving by the fear of detection we will save lives. Roadside drug-testing of drivers is justified in the interests of reducing fatalities and serious injuries on our roads. I thank all of those who have contributed and commented positively. I commend this bill to the House."