Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I want to join with the Minister and colleagues who have already spoken on this bill—the first two of whom were on the select committee—in commending this bill and in thanking firstly the members of the select committee the officials and also those who submitted on it. I wasn't on the select committee and others will be able to speak with more authority about that experience. But I want to take the House back a little back further to the genesis of this and provide a perspective on why we're here and why we're here now and not earlier.In early 2009 when I was a very fresh new member of Parliament I was a member of what was known then as the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the first bill that brought the roadside impairment test regime in was being considered by that committee. One of the senior members on that committee the Hon Trevor Mallard on the day that New Zealand Police came in to demonstrate the roadside impairment test and how it would be carried out decided that the newest member of the committee should actually embark on that test. So in the middle of the select committee room 4 in front of the media and a number of officials I actually walked the line touched my toes turned around did all of the things that needed to be done on a roadside impairment test and found that it was actually pretty difficult to pass even when one was not impaired by any substance.Tim van de Molen: Did you pass?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I did pass you'll be pleased to know Mr van de Molen and we went on a discussion about why this was all necessary because there were emerging technologies at that time which showed—saliva testing. We knew that the illicit ingestion of substances was illegal but we wanted to make this very much a road safety issue not a criminal issue. What we heard at that time was that the saliva-testing regime—the measurement of the degree of impairment at that time that was 13 years ago was not as specific sensitive and there wasn't a sufficient correlation between the degree of say THC in one's system and the level of impairment. One could smoke a joint the night before wake up relatively clear-eyed but still have that in the system. That contrasts with blood alcohol and breath alcohol where there is a high correlation between the amount of alcohol in the system and the level of impairment. And that was our difficulty. Now fast forward to 2013 and 2014 and I was the Associate Minister of Transport with responsibility for road safety. In that period there was a tremendous tragedy on the State Highway 1 near Foxton where a truck driver not noticing roadworks had stopped a number of cars up ahead rammed into the back of a line of cars. Those cars concertinaed and one of them burst into flames killing a mother and son. It was a tragedy. And the driver was taken to Palmerston North Hospital where a blood test was taken that showed THC was in his system but because he had not embarked on the roadside impairment test that we had passed the bill for he was not able to be charged with drug-driving causing death. Indeed he was being charged with careless driving causing death and understandably that caused a tremendous amount of anger. I had to go on I think it was the Sunday show profiling that and defend the process which was pretty hard I have to say. A very probing interviewer said to me Look it's really clear. He had THC in his system. That probably caused the accident." And all I could say was "Yes but probably wasn't the burden of proof."At that time there was also quite a good advance in the technology. I was in the UK as police Minister a year or so later meeting the UK Minister and they'd just introduced the saliva testing regime. I think from memory because cost was an issue it was about 20 quid—£20—a test so it was relatively inexpensive. I raised the question of the correlation between the level of THC or cocaine or whatever it was and impairment and he basically said "We don't care." They did have a per se threshold by the way and if that was set too low or too high the risk that a person takes when they take illicit substances and they get behind the wheel of a car is theirs. I'm really pleased to note that I think we are approaching that regime at the same time as the science and the technology has advanced even further. So I went back and I asked officials. I asked Police Transport about whether or not this was a regime whose time had come. The officials actually were still very cautious—and I have to defend the Hon Julie Anne Genter against the criticism that she had when she first became associate transport Minister because actually all Ministers can do is act on the advice of the officials and that was certainly the advice we had. So I am pleased that we are here doing this. The technology has advanced and yes there might be an argument that says we could have moved a little quicker but we are here and that's the right thing to do. I also want to join with my colleague Mark Mitchell in acknowledging firstly Nick Smith who advocated for the family of the late Matthew Dow but also the hundreds of families around the country who have been traumatised by road collisions caused by drugged drivers. I cannot imagine what that must be like and I'm confident that as a consequence of this legislation we will be giving police more powers to prevent that tragedy and that carnage. I think it's appropriate actually that the second and third speakers in this bill are both former police officers. Neither of them talked about it in detail but I know both of them have attended incidents and seen things that no one should have to endure. It's difficult for our first responders also to deal with those things and all we can do to reduce that harm I think we should. I am really pleased we're here and I look forward to this improving safety on our roads."