Fenton Darien: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
Fenton Darien: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4604] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in the third reading debate on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). In doing so I note that today we are voting on an improved bill thanks to the efforts of the Hon Trevor Mallard and the agreement of the National Government last week to adopt his amendments. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: And the very hard work in the select committee. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I tell the honourable member that I will get to that. The previous Labour Government introduced this bill in 2007. In late 2007 the previous Transport and Industrial Relations Committee considered 49 submissions from a range of groups and heard 21 of those submissions. The committee reported back before the last election and the bill has made its way into the legislative programme of the new Government. Much of the first part of this bill has had most of the attention and I suppose that is rightly so. That first function enhances the powers of the police to deal with drug-impaired drivers by creating a new offence for when the driver is impaired and there is evidence of drugs in the driver’s blood. 
As we have heard through the debate on this bill Parliament supports the bill. We have heard many passionate speeches from members about drug-driving. There is no doubt that everybody agrees that getting into a vehicle and putting any life at risk by driving with drugs in one’s system is not acceptable. We inevitably turn to thinking about our family members and friends when this kind of debate takes place. We think about our children many of them just embarking on their lives as drivers and we worry about the awful things that can and do happen. Therefore I am pleased that the passing of this bill today will provide another means of getting dangerous drivers off the road. It is not the taking of drugs that is the focus of the bill but the driving while using such drugs; this bill is about transport safety. 
This week we have heard some criticism of the bill in the media because benzodiazepines are allegedly not covered by the bill. Having followed the bill from start to finish I believe that it is not as straightforward as that. It is true that the Hon Trevor Mallard’s amendment that enables the prosecution of injured drivers who are unable to carry out an impairment test is confined to class A drugs but without that amendment being subsequently adopted by the Government there would be no prosecution of such injured drivers. However it is not totally true to say that benzodiazepines are not covered by the bill and have been overlooked. New clause 4(3)(a) in Part 1 of the bill describes what controlled drugs are and new clause 4(3)(c) describes what prescription medicines are. In our advice to the committee way back when we were first sitting we were advised that the controlled drugs that would be tested for were cannabis benzodiazepines opiates amphetamines and so on. That was the advice given to the select committee at the time. 
Clauses 5 and 6 describe the offence under the bill that a “person may not drive or attempt to drive a motor vehicle while (a) impaired; and (b) that person’s blood contains evidence of the use of—(i) a controlled drug; or (ii) any prescription medicine.” I emphasis that last point: “any prescription medicine”. That includes benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines are prescription drugs which means they must be prescribed by a doctor. To obtain them in any other way is illegal. This bill states that anyone who is impaired and who is identified through a blood test as having a prescription medicine such as a benzodiazepine in his or her system and who has ignored the instructions of the prescription and/or their medical professional is just as liable as any other drug-driver for prosecution. 
The issue is a little more complicated than it seems at first appearance. I was a little bit disturbed that the Minister could not give answers to the media when asked about the claims that benzodiazepines were not included in the bill. His response was to blame Labour. He said that the bill was the way Labour drafted it and the way it came back from the select committee. Well I am sorry but I call that a cop out. I call that a failure of responsibility. This is an issue for National not Labour because National is the Government. I thought it was a job of the Minister. I thought he got paid lots of money to check such things. After all was it not the Minister who was telling the country not that long ago that this legislation was a priority for the Government and that it failed to get through the select committee which is rubbish? The bill did not get through in the last Parliament because we did not have time. It is one thing to pick up a bill drafted by Labour and with amendments pushed by Labour members but it is quite another to try to blame them and the select committee—and I take offence on its behalf—including his own National members for the omission that at best is questionable. 
However I agree with the Greens that we need to get this bill right. I agree that drugs such as benzodiazepines need to be covered perhaps beyond the requirements of prescription medicines. Perhaps the bill does not cover the issues to the extent that at least one submitter would like to see but the select committee had to consider all submissions all advice and all issues and make the decisions that are being reported back today. When considering this bill as I have from its inception and through all stages in the House I wanted to ensure that the purpose of the bill which is a transport safety measure was paramount. 
I noted the Green’s first reading speech in which Metiria Turei commented on the assurance that the then Labour Government had given that the bill was not a Trojan horse for blood testing under the Misuse of Drugs Act. I also note the comments of my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard. My view is that the Misuse of Drugs Act is being reviewed by the Law Commission and that is the place for that debate to happen. The debate around the extension of testing procedures for that Act should take place in Parliament with extensive consultation and involvement of the public. Maybe we will get there but let us do it properly. This bill is about getting drug-drivers off the road. It is about adding another protection to the armoury of the police to ensure that that happens. It is about being able to take the next step in prosecuting such drivers so that there is a clear message to anyone who thinks it is OK to get into a car in an unsafe state of drug influence. 
The second part of this bill which has not had a lot of attention is about protecting the vehicle register from abuse. New Part 17 came about in the original bill because of complaints about the misuse of private information. Vehicle owners have no option but to register their information. They are required by law to do so. Thus the Government has a responsibility to protect that information. The bill deals with this issue but it does not deal with the other major series of complaints received from the public which are about the misuse of vehicle registry information from direct marketers. Direct-marketing is the sending of unsolicited mail to prospective customers. As one man said in his complaint about direct-marketing “I will give you a false address in future. My car was written off but I am still getting junk mail about my warrant of fitness. My details should only be released for law enforcement. My name has been given to a marketing company who has given it to someone else. I am forced to give my details but disagree that this information should be given to anyone else.” The select committee was advised that the best way of managing this was through a process called opting in—in other words those who registered their cars have a choice about whether they receive information from marketing companies. That seemed pretty fair to me and the Labour members but unfortunately the National Government disagreed with it and has gone for an opt-out process which means that vehicle owners will continue to be pestered with unwanted and intrusive junk solicitation. Let us wait for the complaints to continue. 
Having said that Labour believes that the good in this bill is stronger than the problems which is why we are supporting it along with the changes made with the advocacy of Trevor Mallard and supported by the Government. I will take a moment to thank the advisers and officials. The select committee tested them considerably particularly with a new committee that started in this Parliament. Having the work go over two Parliaments made the process more difficult. The advisers and officials had to go over much of the work that was previously done and explain the whole thing from the beginning. I assure those listening today that Labour is serious about cracking down on drug-driving. Labour started the process. It has worked with National since the election. This bill that we are passing today will make a real difference in the road safety concerns around drug-driving.