11. Question No. 11—PoliceHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 11—Police11. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Police: Did he make the statement on TVNZ One News in December in response to the launch of Matthew's Petition urgently seeking the introduction of random roadside drug testing so as to reduce the escalating road toll from drugged drivers There's a discussion document that's been approved by Cabinet"; if so was the statement correct at that time?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Yes. Cabinet had approved public consultation via a discussion document in relation to drug-driving. Subsequent to that officials drafted a document. Cabinet signed off the document in February this year for release in March subject to final editorial changes. All of this information has been proactively released and as the member knows it is available on the transport website. I am not sure however if the previous Government has proactively released their Cabinet decisions from April and November 2016 where they rejected proposals around drug-driving off the back of a review in 2014.Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can he stand by a statement saying there's a discussion document that's been approved by Cabinet a statement made in December 2018 when the document is referred in January as a draft and when Cabinet only approved it in late February?Hon STUART NASH: I suggest the member listens to my words: Cabinet had approved public consultation via a discussion document in relation to drug-driving.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Had Cabinet in December approved the discussion document?Hon STUART NASH: I'll say again: Cabinet had approved public consultation via a discussion document in relation to drug-driving. Subsequent to that—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Hon STUART NASH: —officials drafted a document—SPEAKER: No resume your seat. Hon Dr Nick Smith: I have now used on a previous occasion and on this occasion five questions to ask a simple question: was the discussion document approved? What the Minister keeps doing is saying "a consultation process". Now this is the same Minister that's told my colleague Chris Bishop that he needs to be accurate with words. I am being accurate with words; I ask the Minister to do the same. SPEAKER: Yes and the member has been here long enough to know that that may well be an appropriate point of order to make at the completion of the supplementary answer not by way of interrupting it. I mean the member might consider it a bit of a miracle if he's satisfied with an answer but we've got to give the Minister a chance. Hon STUART NASH: As I mentioned Cabinet had approved public consultation via a discussion document in relation to drug-driving. I would say that I do find the line of questioning from that member rather rich considering the previous National Government knew this was a problem in 2009—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Hon STUART NASH: —and rejected Labour's initiative—SPEAKER: Order! Order!Hon STUART NASH: —to deal with this 10 years ago. Hon Dr Nick Smith: I stand by the point that you asked me to make and that was: my question five times now and in the question on notice was about a discussion document. The Minister has not addressed the question of the timing of the discussion document being approved by Cabinet.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order—look can I just say that if you read what was said in December there's a discussion document that's been approved by Cabinet. Then ask yourself: is there such a record of an agreement for there to be a discussion document and is that itself the document? There are many ways to answer this question and he's being pedantic and stupidly semantic if I might suggest.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: We'll stay with this point of order rather than a new one can we?Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well this is the same point of order.SPEAKER: The same point that Dr Smith has raised?Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well I simply want to make it clear to the Rt Hon Winston Peters that the question here really goes to the heart of whether a document existed at the time it was claimed to exist. SPEAKER: And I'm going to go right back to the ruling that I made the last time Dr Smith interrupted a question and that is that we've got to give the Minister a chance to finish. Continue Mr Nash.Hon STUART NASH: Thank you Mr Speaker. Look I'm going to repeat what I've said about three or four times and I hope I make this clear. Cabinet had approved public consultation via a discussion document in relation to drug-driving. Subsequent to that officials drafted a document. Cabinet signed off the document in February this year for release in March subject to final editorial changes. So yes Cabinet had approved public consultation via a discussion document.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the proposals for introducing random roadside drug-testing from police and transport officials sit on Ministers' desks for 17 months before being approved—a period in which another 100 New Zealanders died from drug-driving? Hon STUART NASH: I'm not too sure if the member is referring to the Cabinet documents drafted and presented to the Cabinet in which that member sat twice in 2016 and rejected or if he is referring to a discussion document which I had a look at which was woefully incomplete and inadequate. So is it the Cabinet papers that your Cabinet rejected Dr Smith? Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he stand by the statement in the Cabinet paper he signed which says "The technology of roadside drug testing has improved markedly since Cabinet last considered the issue in 2016." and that "fatalities have since sharply escalated"; if so why is he now saying that the previous Cabinet had it wrong? Hon STUART NASH: I am saying the previous Government had it wrong in 2009 when it rejected a fantastic Labour initiative which in fact would have made the introduction of roadside drug testing much more streamlined than it is today. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has he seen the research in the New Zealand Listener that road fatalities from cannabis-impaired drivers increased by 145 percent in Colorado following legalisation; if so how is legalisation of cannabis consistent with the police goal of a zero road toll? SPEAKER: I'm not sure the Listener is a research document but I get into trouble if I say too much about that! Hon STUART NASH: Yeah I don't know what the member is talking about when he's talking about the legalisation of cannabis. This Government has not proposed the legalisation of cannabis so it's hypothetical. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will he give an assurance that random roadside drug-testing will be introduced prior to any of the Government's moves to liberalise access to recreational drugs taking effect—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: No. We'll wait until the end of the question. Hon Dr Nick Smith: I'll start again. SPEAKER: No just keep going from where the member interrupted. Hon Dr Nick Smith: I am going to start again because—SPEAKER: The member if he wants to have the supplementary will continue from the—and the member will sit down while I'm standing up. If the member wants to continue with the supplementary which might well yet be ruled out of order if he doesn't get it order the member will continue. He won't start again. Hon Dr Nick Smith: —such as the amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act which removes the capacity to prosecute for the possession of drugs such as meth and cannabis? Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member prefaced his question by saying it was a Government move. The fact of the matter is that such a matter is a condition subsequent to a referendum. It is for the people to decide. It is not a Government move and therefore the question should be ruled out. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Hon Dr Nick Smith: My question specifically referred to the amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act. That is an amendment that is before the House. It is a Government bill. It is separate to the question of the referendum and both the Police Association as well as the New Zealand Law Society say that it amounts to decriminalisation of possession. SPEAKER: Answering the question. Hon STUART NASH: I do not consider what we are proposing under the Misuse of Drugs Act to be a liberalisation of drugs whatsoever. What we are doing is we are taking synthetic cannabinoids and actually putting them into class A under the Misuse of Drugs Act which will allow the police to go a hell of a lot harder against those who are dealing supplying and importing synthetic cannabis into our community. Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Minister confirm that the amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act which is currently before the Health Committee still allows for the prosecution of those who are using or who are in possession of drugs but provides and formalises that police discretion? SPEAKER: Order! While it comes close to one of the previous supplementaries it's not within the range of the primary question or the other ones. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister stand by his statement that the introduction of roadside drug-testing is urgent and "needs to be rushed"; if so why did the discussion document prepared by police and transport officials sit on his desk for 17 months? Hon STUART NASH: It did not sit on my desk for 17 months. There was a discussion document which was woefully inadequate but what I would say is we do take this very seriously. The previous Government blocked a move in 2009 to deal with this. In 2016 the previous National Government rejected two Cabinet papers. We take this very seriously. That is why this Government is doing something about it when that Government had nine years and did nothing. Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Minister confirm the difference between the impairment of somebody on a substance and the presence of a substance in somebody's system? Hon STUART NASH: Well what I would say is that the New Zealand Police already undertakes a compulsory impairment test when they suspect that someone is driving under the influence of drugs so to say that there is no drug testing at the moment is in fact incorrect. What this Government is looking to do is use technology in a way that will allow us to be a lot more accurate in testing impairment. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did his office tell Newshub that I had refused to work with him on the introduction of random roadside drug-testing when I had repeatedly stated publicly that National would support any of our bills or Government bills to achieve that and the only communication between our offices was my invitation for him to meet with affected families and his reply refusing to do so? Hon STUART NASH: What I can say is we take this so seriously that when the member Alastair Scott had a member's bill—Kieran McAnulty: Who? Hon STUART NASH: —Alastair Scott—I met with Mr Scott and offered to work closely with him to ensure that his bill was fit for purpose. But the advice that I received—which I handed on to Mr Scott—from the New Zealand Police was that his bill was too narrow to make a difference. I offered to work with him to widen the scope of the bill so we could work together on this and he said no. Rt Hon Winston Peters: If this is the case was the 17-month document which it is claimed he left lying unread on his desk the one refused by the previous administration—Hon Dr Nick Smith: No it wasn't.Rt Hon Winston Peters: —and for the same reasons he was not reading it himself?SPEAKER: Order! Who interjected then?Rt Hon Winston Peters: He did.SPEAKER: It happened again. Who interjected?Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Did the member interject?Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes I did.SPEAKER: The member will withdraw and apologise.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Why is it acceptable for the Deputy Prime Minister to interrupt my questions but not the other way round?SPEAKER: I ruled against the Deputy Prime Minister when he interrupted the member. I repeatedly ruled against that member for interrupting questions that were out of order and I'm not sure whether he is being deliberately—Hon Member: Obtuse.SPEAKER: No I can't think of an appropriate word. It's not that one.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Provocative.SPEAKER: Provocative; that's a good word. Thank you—and the fact that I wasn't standing means that you can interrupt to support me. I can't work out if the member's being deliberately provocative but I'll give him the generosity of thinking that he wasn't.Hon Member: Supplementary.SPEAKER: No sorry. We've got an answer to give here.Hon STUART NASH: Look I just want to reiterate yet again the previous National Government knew this was a problem in 2009—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order Mr Speaker.Hon STUART NASH: —they did nothing about it then. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order Mr SpeakerHon STUART NASH: There were two Cabinet documents—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Order! Order!Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There's a long set of Speakers' rulings that say it's not appropriate for questions to be asked to give the opportunity for a Minister to have a whack at a previous Government or the Opposition. We have now had three questions on this subject in which false claims have been made about the steps that were made by the previous Government as evidenced by the quote that I made of the Minister's own Cabinet paper.SPEAKER: OK. I was getting pretty close to agreeing with the member when he accused one of the two Ministers of making a false claim. At that point he lost it. The Minister will answer.Hon STUART NASH: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like that member to let me know which claim I have made is false.SPEAKER: No no no. The member will answer the question.Hon STUART NASH: I've forgotten the question.SPEAKER: I'm going to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to remind the House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: To the Minister of Police just to make it clear: the document that sat there for 17 long months was because it was utterly deficient and he began to work on something that would be worthwhile into the future?SPEAKER: That wasn't quite it but it was close.Hon STUART NASH: The Deputy Speaker is dead-right; the document that—[Interruption] The Deputy Prime Minister is dead-right; the document that we inherited from the previous Government was woefully inadequate.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why will the Minister not release the original discussion document drafted by police and transport that the Deputy Prime Minister now says is deficient?Hon STUART NASH: I'm confused. This member has said that I inherited a document from his Government and now he's asked me to release it. Goodness me Dr Smith! I am sure that you had something to do with that—it's probably why it was so deficient.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a very serious issue involving 70 lives that are lost per year. This Government received a discussion document from transport and police officials in December 2017. The Minister has refused to release that. My question which I asked him to answer was "Why would he not release that discussion document prepared by police and transport?" That's a reasonable question.SPEAKER: I want to just get an assurance to make sure that we're completely online. The member has asked for its release under the Official Information Act (OIA) and it has been refused?Hon Dr Nick Smith: It has not yet been answered.SPEAKER: It's out of time?Hon Dr Nick Smith: I would need to check with my—[Interruption] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question of whether the document has been released or not—the fact is that the Deputy Prime Minister has made claims about the deficiency of that document that was prepared by police and by transport. So it's a perfectly reasonable question to say to the Government "Well release it."SPEAKER: The member said "Why had he not released it" and to me it sounded like the Minister had actually refused to release it as opposed to—or made a decision about it. Given the description of it and my experience of the Act I'm sure it will be forthcoming. If it's been studied so closely for its inadequacy it must be in the Minister's office and I expect it to be delivered under the Official Information Act of course which I have no responsibility for. But I'm sure if it's been properly requested it will be over in the next couple of days.Hon STUART NASH: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to reiterate that there are no OIAs sitting in my office that are overdue.Hon Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It just might be helpful for the House to say that the discussion document and all of the documents that were related to that were released under the Official Information Act by my office over a year ago in fact to his colleague Chris Bishop as well as some journalists.SPEAKER: OK. Well that was not a point of order. Now a supplementary question?Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The final discussion document has been publicly released; the draft that the Deputy Prime Minister referred to has not.SPEAKER: There's a very clear difference and I hope the House has been given accurate information."