Flavell Te Ururoa: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4337] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 Kia ora tatou i tenei po e te Whare hoki mai tatou ki raro i tona marumaru i tenei po. In the New Zealand education circles that I am familiar with questions often emerge about the levels of schooling in which boys are performing more poorly on average than girls and particularly in curriculum areas around reading literacy at primary school level and internally assessed areas at secondary school level. 
The Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) is the absolute extreme of that as I am told that over 82 percent of the alcohol or drug-affected drivers in fatal crashes are male. Within that category the 20 to 24 and 25 to 29-year-old age groups had the greatest proportion of alcohol or drug-affected drivers involved in fatal crashes. It is appropriate that this bill be about young men. Surely looking at the gender factor is a blindingly obvious place to start when addressing amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998 to prevent drug-impaired drivers from doing any more damage. Yet this bill appears to be gender blind or gender ignorant as it fails to come to grips with the unique factors associated with the target population of drunk and drugged drivers or riders who are killed in road crashes. 
For the Maori Party the people drive us in every aspect about understanding policy and it is because of our concern for the tangata factor that we have supported any moves to penalise drug-driving and the introduction of a testing and penalty regime that mirrors alcohol testing. As far as I know all of the Maori submitters to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee commended the Maori Party’s stance an endorsement that was based on the tragic personal experiences involving the deaths of whanau members. It was their assessment that the Maori Party should be encouraged to continue to provide strong leadership in making an unpopular but needed stand on this issue. Tom Inia from Ngaruawahia lives right on State Highway 1. His instructions to the committee were clear. He said: “It can’t be denied; speed and alcohol and drugs are killing our people. Nothing is ever done about the last one [drugs]”.  
This bill is about doing something about drugs. The Candor Trust through founding member Ursula Te Aho in particular ran surveys and found that nearly half of young drivers had driven under the influence of drugs at some time. Ms Te Aho told a particularly sad and distressing story about what she described as the heroic death of her twin sister. As a passenger in a car of known drug users the driver stopped on the Hutt motorway for no reason after which some of the passengers got out of the car and just ran around on the road. All of them had been using drugs during the day. A friend was hit by a car and Ms Te Aho’s twin sister tried to drag her to safety but both were hit by a car and both were killed as a result. This story is just one of a heap of sad tragic stories that end in death and destruction through the fatal mix of drinks drugs and driving. 
Set up as a campaign against drugs on roads the Candor Trust reported that local studies revealed that cannabis is by far and away the most common drug behind teenage fatal crashes. In particular the results of a drunk and drug-driver study has shown that cannabis has been a factor in fatal crashes at a level nearly equivalent to alcohol. Other studies suggest that more than half of convicted drink-drivers could have been dually impaired with drugs. I believe that this is all the evidence we need to justify this House facing up to the issue and giving it very serious consideration. The Maori Party will therefore support moves to penalise drug-driving—and that includes prescription drugs—and the introduction of a testing and penalty regime that mirrors alcohol testing. 
This bill introduces a new element of not driving while impaired by drugs. It will enable the Minister of Police to approve a compulsory impairment test if the police consider there is good cause to suspect drug taking. I suppose this is where we start to have some issues with the bill. I signal that we are concerned about the new right in this bill to use blood samples in research without any specific informed consent from those suspected of drug-impaired driving. The blood samples will be stored for 1 year by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research and will be available for research into the patterns of drug use. 
Although it may be that limited testing such as prevalence testing is able to be undertaken we have concerns about the storage access and any other use of the samples. The testing will be to ascertain what drugs have been taken to cause impaired driving and to what extent. Although we agree that such information is necessary we inevitably have a range of questions emerging in respect of ethics standards and tikanga Maori. We are more than just concerned; we will be tabling Supplementary Order Papers at the Committee stage to address specifically the provisions around research on blood specimens. We will also be putting forward an amendment to enable those being drug tested to opt out of having their blood stored and tested. 
This may include the provision of saliva testing as an alternative to blood samples. We are aware that the technology of saliva testing is not yet reliable enough for evidential purposes—that is it is not sufficient to enable a prosecution—but that is not to say that a breakthrough is not waiting just around the corner. As we understand it the Ministry of Transport the police and the Institute of Environmental Science and Research are continually monitoring international developments in drug-testing technology and have been giving assurances that they will seek to review the drug-testing regime in light of this context. 
I guess the biggest issue for us is around the integrity of the process of blood storage and particularly the follow-up that may occur with or without the knowledge of the individual. We believe that police should be required to secure informed consent for blood storage and research in order to recognise both ethics standards and tikanga Maori. We noted with concern the submission from YouthLaw Tino Rangatiratanga Taitamariki which stated that there was a risk of inconsistent police practices in administering and determining impairment tests. Given all the increases in the power of the police and the set requirements upon New Zealanders that will result from the bill it is disturbing that the bill’s explanatory note admits that there is “little direct evidence as to the prevalence of drug testing in New Zealand”.  
Where have we got up to? We take it as an absolute that something must be done. We agree with the submitters that speed alcohol and drugs are killing far too many of our people. One simply cannot drive straight on drugs no matter how heroic or ambitious one is. So we will support this bill in support of the protection of our whakapapa and out of respect for the kaupapa of whanaungatanga and kaitiakitanga. But there are still some problems inherent in any legislation that fails to give confidence about the storage and further research of blood samples. As I indicated earlier the Maori Party will be introducing Supplementary Order Papers to address that particular aspect. Tena tatou.