SpeechLAND TRANSPORT (DRUG DRIVING) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I present a legislative statement on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I move That the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.I'm very pleased to present the bill in its third reading to the House this evening. It's an important piece of legislation. I reflect on the fact that it was last week that the Government formally put out the public engagement campaign around the Road to Zero campaign which is our piece of work working with partners across the country to bring down New Zealand's road toll to stop hundreds of deaths and thousands of serious injuries occurring every year in our land transport system. That was a really important piece of work that was commenced in the last term of Government. It is about not just accepting the current road toll that we have for some time. One of the recommendations of the Road to Zero programme that was established in the last term of Government was the establishment of drug-driving legislation. So it has been a long piece of work. I looked back on some of the dates in preparation for the debate this evening. It was back in February 2019 so three years ago from around about now that the initial consultation document on drug-driving was released and then July 2020 that the legislation was read for the first time having been introduced by the Hon Julie Anne Genter. So this is an important piece of work but it is one that we have worked through carefully and really turned over the issues to make sure that we establish a regime that is fair that is justified that will be durable and that most importantly will be up to the task and will keep Kiwis safe on our roads.I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee who have overseen the select committee process for this piece of legislation. It hasn't been a simple piece of law. They've done a really good job I think of supporting the legislative passage and improving the legislation as it's gone through.I also want to particularly thank the members of the Independent Expert Panel on Drug Driving who contributed their considerable experience and expertise to the development of this bill and to making sure that we have robust defensible and fair thresholds for both infringement and criminal offences that are included in this bill. That panel was chaired by Dr Helen Poulsen and included some of New Zealand's leading experts in toxicology pharmacology and biochemistry. As we covered in some detail in earlier stages of the debate in the House and in the committee I think that members of the House can have great confidence that the information that has been provided by that expert panel ensures that this is a robust and fair piece of legislation. I'd also like to thank submitters who engaged in this process and my predecessors—the Hon Phil Twyford the Hon Julie Anne Genter and the Hon Stuart Nash—who have all had a role in developing the legislation and bringing it through to the House.As I said previously the goal of Road to Zero is to stop that sort of almost casual acceptance that the road toll is a necessary payment that we make for driving on New Zealand's roads. Last year 320 Kiwis lost their lives on our roads; about 320 the year before that; and so on and so on; and thousands of people seriously injured. Drug-driving is a big and a growing part of that carnage on our roads. In 2020 of the people who lost their lives on our roads 101 people did have drugs within their system. That is a very very large proportion and it is a proportion that continues to grow in real numbers and as a percentage year on year. So it is very clear based on the evidence that taking action on this issue will help us to save lives and have a safer land transport system.It is important to note within this bill that the oral fluid testing regime that we are setting up is only a road safety tool. The tool can't be used for detecting illicit substances and used outside of the context of people who are driving their vehicles. I think that's an important assurance to provide. A positive oral fluid test cannot be used as evidence of the use of a controlled drug and a prosecution for an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. A positive oral fluid test would not be sufficient to justify the search of a vehicle for the purposes of any other drug-related offences. This is purely about reducing the harm that is caused by drug-drivers on our roads.The legislation establishes infringement offences for 25 drugs. It is important to note that these are both legal and illegal substances. So the focus here is really focused on the harm that may be caused by substances no matter what the type of that substance. It is possible for someone consuming a legal substance to be impaired in the same way that someone who has consumed an illegal substance can be impaired. Again I think this is just an important point to convey: this isn't about focusing on any particular substance or any particular demographic; it is focusing in on any of those substances that may cause people to be harmed in our system.Broadly speaking the bill establishes a new random roadside oral fluid testing regime to deter drivers. The way it works is by providing officers with the power to administer that oral fluid test. A person who is asked by an officer to complete that test will do so and they will then be asked to complete it a second time if the first test shows that drugs may have been used by the person who was driving. This is about building as much robustness into the result as possible. It is important to note that a person who tests positive after two oral tests is only liable for an infringement offence not a criminal offence. At that point in the process under the legislation the person themselves may elect to go down the route of receiving a determinative blood test and it is only in the event that that blood test produces a positive result that the person may face a criminal penalty if they exceed the criminal thresholds that are set out in the Act. The thresholds are different. The infringement thresholds as advised by the independent expert panel are a proxy for recent use and the criminal thresholds are a proxy for a level of impairment. The expert panel set that after extensively working through the international literature on this issue international examples and the best and most up-to-date scientific advice from within New Zealand. So to be very clear: the threshold for criminal offending which may only occur after the person has elected to go down the route of a blood test is a higher threshold for people to reach.We also recognise the added road safety risk of driving after combining drugs or drugs and alcohol. The regime does include stricter infringement combination offences and combination criminal offences when a driver has consumed more than one substance. We do understand that people who consume drugs can very often benefit from a health intervention. As a result there will be compulsory referrals for assessment to drug education or rehabilitation programmes for all third and subsequent criminal offences. In discussion with my colleagues and police I am also assured that police will be adopting an approach of trying to provide support and direction towards those services at lower levels within the system as their resources allow.In terms of the setting of criminal limits as I outlined 25 substances will be covered. These will include the most prevalent illicit and prescription drugs used by New Zealand drivers including THC methamphetamine MDMA opioids and cocaine. As I said before this is a road safety tool and it's very important to note that. We've been very careful in the development of the legislation to make sure that that is the focus.When the bill was originally considered by the Attorney-General in late 2020 his view at that point in time was that the bill did not pass a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. I'm very pleased to confirm to the House as I have in earlier stages of the debate that a lot of work subsequently went into the legislation which came after the receipt of expert advice from the panel and engagement between Ministers which means that those concerns of the Attorney-General earlier on in the process have been met. Significant changes to the bill were made including introducing a medical defence pathway inserting the limits advised by the expert panel into the bill and making sure that the devices and the cut-off thresholds of the devices that will be procured by police will be gazetted so that the limits are very transparent and open to scrutiny.So I have a great deal of confidence and I want to convey this to the House that while we're dealing with complex issues within this bill they have been thoroughly considered and I think we do have a robust and fair piece of legislation. And of course in the committee of the whole House stage the Government did take the step of agreeing to a Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Green Party and the ACT Party to set a review mechanism in place three years after the implementation of this piece of legislation. Once this bill has made its way through the House we expect the regime to commence from 2023. I am confident that it will make New Zealand roads a safer place for Kiwi motorists it will reduce deaths and serious injuries and that is something that I'm sure we all support. I commend the bill to the House.