Flavell Te Ururoa: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:655;Page:4472] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. I congratulate the Minister of Transport the Hon Steven Joyce on moving to address the issue of drug-driving. It has long been due so I say good on him for moving in this direction. 
The Maori Party has two concerns that are important to us and that I have addressed with the Minister’s officials. Basically those concerns relate first to informed consent and second to the prohibition of storage and analysis of the blood samples. I will refer first to the prohibition on the storage and analysis of blood samples. I was thankful for the information that I got from the Minister’s officials as it gave me some background to the issue. When blood samples are taken from drivers for prosecutions under the Land Transport Act the samples are split in two. Sample A is initially tested by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research for the presence of alcohol and/or controlled and prescription drugs. If positive the samples will be stored securely for 12 months for the purposes of appeal. That is all pretty logical. If a driver wishes to appeal the result of a blood test the unopened sample B is provided to the testing facility of the driver’s choice and tested. After 12 months all samples are securely disposed of—very good. 
The key for us in the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) is that it states that occasionally research will be conducted on the alcohol and drug profile of convicted drivers and if this occurs then a random sample will be taken from the available blood stocks—that is the samples of those who have been convicted in the last 12 months. Officials have confirmed that even the samples used for profiling will be kept for only 12 months. That is pretty good. This research is conducted only by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. Samples are not allowed out of Institute of Environmental Science and Research facilities for security and biohazard reasons. That is fine. Such research is conducted anonymously and no identifying information is collated during the research. 
That is all pretty good but in the end there was another key aspect for us. I think that the issue of storage has been covered; we take the institute’s word that the samples will all be locked up and secure. From the perspective of the Maori Party it is all about retention of the information about whakapapa and making sure there is no tampering with that information. The second issue is about the ethics of the use of those samples for research. I understand that it is widely accepted that there are ethical protocols around the use of samples for research and as the bill states occasionally samples can be used for research. We are trying to angle at the notion of informed consent. How can that be dealt with knowing full well that the samples will be disposed of in 12 months? I suppose we are asking for consideration that a practice be established around informed consent. I understand that if somebody is in a car accident and samples need to be taken at that point in time informed consent is a part of the protocols that are required in terms of the retention of blood samples. Having set that precedent I just ask the Minister to consider whether there is a possibility of looking at and considering the ethical considerations around informed consent and whether it would be possible right from the very start to have a set process around informed consent for the use of research if we ever head down that way. 
At the moment the door is wide open about how blood samples can be used in terms of research and from the Maori Party’s perspective we are keen to plug that gap. For the purposes outlined in my speech yesterday about whakapapa being very important the retention of the fact that those samples are destroyed takes care of one line. There will be no tampering with the samples as they will be under lock and key. Those sorts of issues are dealt with. But as I said our major issue is the whole question about the protocols around research. In one sense the new section 209A in clause 17 of the bill before us breaches that fundamental principle. On that basis we hope that some consideration is given by the members of this Committee to that particular provision. I leave it at that and I hope for a response from the Minister at some point.