Parker David: Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 10 March 2015. Volume:703;Page:2051. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): As prior speakers on behalf of the Labour Party have already indicated the Labour Party will be supporting this bill going to the Law and Order Committee. The regulatory impact statement that accompanies this bill and that has been presented to the House says in its second paragraph: “In its pre-election policy statement on law and order the National Party signalled its intention to introduce ‘random drug and alcohol testing where being drug free is a condition of bail home detention or other community sentences’ ”.Then it goes on and I think this is the thing that I want the select committee to answer for me by the time the bill comes back to the House. It says: “It would not be appropriate to rely on existing provisions in the Sentencing Act 2002 the Parole Act 2002 and the Bail Act 2000 to introduce an alcohol and/or other drug testing regime.” So the first question I have is whether this legislation is necessary because it seems to me that we have got a hint in the second paragraph there that it is already permissible as a condition of bail as a condition of a supervision order sentence by the courts or as a condition of parole to insert conditions as to abstinence from alcohol and to make an offender or someone who is on bail pending a charge subject to a testing regime. If that is the case then I would rather that the Government had been open about that than pretend that a great advance in the law is being made through this legislation if it is already permitted by the existing legislation. That said there is nothing wrong in the legislation or that is apparent on its face and for that reason we will be supporting it to the select committee.We have regulatory impact statements so that this Parliament makes rational decisions and so that we look at the costs and benefits. In this regulatory impact statement we have an assessment of what the costs and benefits are what the costs are of a testing regime and what the likely benefits are to be and therefore we have a reasoned position put forward by the Government in support of this legislative intervention. You would have to contrast that with the absolutely disreputable conduct that we have seen in the last day in respect of the Northland by-election where without any cost-benefit analysis the Government as an election bribe and that is all it is has said that it is going to upgrade—[Interruption] No with respect Mr Deputy Speaker I am quite entitled to raise in this House the importance of regulatory impact statements that we have here and to contrast that with conduct this very day that shows the importance of regulatory impact statements. In respect of those Northland bridges not one of them was—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member has made a point around regulatory impact statements. Now I would like him to get back to the bill that is under discussion and debate at the moment.Hon DAVID PARKER: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you saying that because it is embarrassing for the Government for me to make reference—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! No and I take offence at that comment from that member and I am surprised that it comes from him. Please continue your contribution in respect of the bill.Hon DAVID PARKER: This regulatory impact statement talks about the status quo which the Government says is inadequate unlike in the Northland situation where there has been no reference as to why the status quo is inadequate compared with the cost of change. It then talks about what the other options are in respect of non-regulatory use of community support for testing which would be an alternative to the testing regime that is put in place and contrasts the costs or priorities of other interventions unlike what is happening in Northland where the regional land transport plan is being ignored and the National Land Transport Fund is being plundered to pursue an election bribe. This is an example of good legislation and good parliamentary practice. The example in Northland is a disgrace and members on the other side of the House should be ashamed of themselves for what is in my opinion a corrupt electoral practice.The Drug and Alcohol Testing of Community-based Offenders and Bailees Legislation Bill as has been said by others applies to three classes of people. It applies to people who are on bail. They are not yet convicted they may be convicted or they may be found not guilty but on occasions it can be appropriate to impose a condition that restricts access to drugs and alcohol as a condition of bail and where that happens it is appropriate that we take advantage of new technologies to ensure that that condition of bail is adhered to. It is important that we do not go too far and do not intrude more than is necessary in the sorts of tests that are imposed because these people have not yet been convicted of an offence and may indeed be innocent. That is an issue that no doubt the select committee will look at in order to get the balance right.In respect of people who have been convicted of an offence and who are given a non-custodial sentence—and it might be continuing supervision—then again the need to enforce a condition that is imposed as to maintaining freedom from drug and alcohol abuse is appropriate and a testing regime to back that up as has become common in other jurisdictions seems sensible. Indeed as one of my colleagues mentioned in an earlier contribution I think the findings in respect of similar provisions in Australia are that these testing regimes can make the community safer by enforcing these conditions but can also assist the offender to maintain their non-abuse of drugs and alcohol to the benefit of the offender as well as the community.The third category of people that these drug and alcohol testing regimes can apply to is people who have been in a custodial sentence but have been released on parole. A condition as to remaining drug and alcohol free can already be imposed but the provisions in this bill make it even clearer that that is the case and set out the drug and alcohol testing basis that can be imposed. Interestingly the bill says that the imposition of the requirement to undergo testing actually does not come from the Parole Board but can apply to someone who is on parole in respect of a drug or alcohol conviction or has been released under section 17 of the Parole Act 2002 with a drug or alcohol condition—so that might say that you have got to stay off the drugs or the booze—or is subject to an extended supervision order with a drug or alcohol condition. If those preconditions are met—i.e. any one of those categories of person who is on parole or release is met—then the authorised person under the Act can say to the offender: “You must comply with these conditions and you must submit yourself to the testing regime.”There has been some interesting technological developments—which I am sure the select committee will be referred to—using increasingly sophisticated technology to on a real-time basis ascertain whether someone is or is not free of alcohol and/or drug abuse. I suspect it is easier in respect of alcohol than it is other drugs and that will be one of the issues that the select committee looks at. Real-time notification of that screening—presumably through to the authorities—will enable the better policing of these conditions. The Labour Party supports this to select committee but notes the contrast in respect of some other poor conduct today and yesterday.