SpeechHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm very happy to offer a contribution in response to comments from both of the previous two speakers Chlöe Swarbrick and Simon Court. First in response to some of the questions and concerns posed by Chlöe Swarbrick I do wish to provide real confidence to the committee that this legislation has been developed very carefully and it most certainly doesn't arise out of a moral panic about this issue. I would just put to the attention of the committee a number of supporting facts that sit behind my saying that. The first is that the evidence is on the table that there is a real problem to be solved here. Now moral panics classically are situations where there isn't actually a real problem to be solved—they're situations in which people in legislatures and communities whip themselves up into a lather about something they don't like but perhaps something that isn't actually a problem. The evidence on the table is very clear in New Zealand that we have a problem. We have a lot of people every year who die on our roads who have these substances in their system. And while at that unfortunate point it's not always possible to draw a direct link between the consumption of that substance and the accident that has been caused there is a very strong and reasonable supposition that in many of those cases there is a strong link. And that's not to get into the serious injuries that are also caused. The numbers are significant and let me just take members of the committee through them. In 2020 101 people who died on our roads—out of a toll of 320—had illicit substances in their systems. In 2019 it was 111 people out of 350 roads deaths. In 2018 it was 98 people out of 378 people. It is a large and growing proportion of our road fatalities in which people have these substances in their system. So I have no doubt and I'm very comfortable saying to the committee that this is a piece of legislation that is founded on a real policy problem that causes immense pain and suffering in our communities and we need to solve it.Now that's not to say that it's simple. Both members who have spoken point to some of the complexities and I referenced them in my opening comments that while we would know that it's not good for someone to be driving a vehicle with these substances in their system—most of us would not want ourselves or our children to get into a vehicle with a person who had these substances in their systems—the relationship that we can draw between certain levels and a level of confidence that impairment is occurring is a complex one. And because we're dealing with a wide range of different substances this piece of legislation is even more complex. It's not like drink-driving where we're effectively dealing with the effect of one substance—alcohol—on the human system and the responses and the reaction times that it has. We're dealing with under this legislation as it stands today 25 different substances. Each of them affect the human body in a different way—the way in which impairment occurs occurs differently if it's a sedative or an opioid or methamphetamine or a prescription drug. So we have to account for all of those.Returning to my point—just to provide assurance to the committee in response to Ms Swarbrick's concerns—this is the other area in which I would say I think she can have confidence that this isn't a moral panic about the youth smoking weed: this is a piece of legislation which is inclusive of both illegal and legal substances. It is focused on the harm that is caused by substances if people use them before driving. It isn't focusing on one particular substance or one particular demographic. The likelihood is that some of those substances will be more likely to be consumed by some demographics and some of the other substances will be more likely to be consumed by others.The final point in response to Ms Swarbrick's concerns that I would just come back to is the one that I did mention and this has been the role of the Expert Advisory Group. I just actually want to acknowledge them here. Dr Helen Poulsen who is the chair of the Expert Advisory Group Dr Sharon Kletchko Andrew McGlashen Professor Ian Shaw and Associate Professor Malcolm Tingle. These are amongst New Zealand's leading experts in pharmacology toxicology and the effects of these substances on people's bodies. They went through an exhaustive process and produced three reports that have been published—they're up on the Ministry of Transport's website and I'd encourage members who are interested to look into these—and they did a number of the things that Mr Court said should be done. They looked through the scientific literature they looked at thresholds and other jurisdictions where these regimes have often been operating for some period of time and they looked at local data on the concentration of substances in people where there had been fatal crashes. So effectively they've compiled all of the different and credible pieces of evidence that are out there.Then in a very exhaustive way for every single substance that is considered under this legislation they have set limits which relate to firstly the infringement offences which is a limit that is comparable with the recent use of the substance and then limits for the criminal offence which are higher which are limits where we have a high degree of confidence based on the expert opinion that there is a level of impairment in place. I really would request people that want to engage in this discussion do have a read—between now and the next stage of the committee stage debate—of those reports. Because they are very thorough and I think they can give all members of the committee confidence that this has been a robust process.The final point I'd like to make in response to both speakers relates to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 96 which is the SOP that seeks a change to the legislation to put a review in between three and four years after implementation. And the happy comment that I can offer is that the Government will be voting in favour of that SOP. I was approached by the Hon Julie Anne Genter about this proposal some time ago. We worked through the text of that SOP to a point of satisfaction. I'm pleased to see the ACT Party is now on board; that's a very unique alliance of political parties. I don't know if we've had such a vote with the three of us lined up on any issue in this term of Parliament but I'm very happy to lend the Government's support to that SOP. I think it's a practical measure. This is important. I have confidence in this legislation but I acknowledge that we're moving into new territory and that there are complex issues complex intersections of rights here and so I do think that a review of that nature as is crafted and agreed in that SOP is appropriate and the Government will be very happy to support it.Debate interrupted.