Mallard Trevor: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) — Third Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4601] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to reinforce what the Minister of Transport said in his opening comments on the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). The bill was dealt with on a multipartisan basis in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I commend both the chair David Bennett and Tau Henare for the work they did. A comment was made coming out of the committee that it was pretty hard to tell who was from what party as we were working through the particular issues which I think was healthy. For most members of the committee it was a late experience. We came to the committee after the evidence had been heard and we had officials back to explain things to some of us quite a few times to make sure we got our heads around the bill because the effect of drugs is not simple. The point we got to at the end was that a lot of our intuition is correct and the evidence is very clear that people who drive with drugs in their system and especially those who drive with both alcohol and drugs in their system are much more likely to have accidents and they are more likely to be serious accidents. 
From the time of the work Harry Duynhoven and Annette King did on the legislation—and I think David Parker; there may have been another Minister on the way—going through to the current Minister there has been a positive approach to the legislation. The passage of time has meant that it was improved in the select committee and again there was a lot of openness to that. The one issue I would have preferred more work to be done on was that of a non-primary legislative arrangement for the introduction of devices for random testing for drugs at the street level as the machines came in and for machines that would have avoided the need for a blood test later on. It is not beyond our wits to design something in primary legislation that allows for that to come in by way of Order in Council the way that breath-testing devices are currently certified by the Minister at the moment. If it can be done for breath-testing devices for alcohol it should be able to be done for breath or saliva-testing devices for drugs. My view is that our Regulations Review Committee arrangements in New Zealand are sufficient protection against the executive because any of those regulations would go to that committee and if any one member of that committee wished it would be referred to the House and the House would have a vote on it. So that is a way that I think Parliament reserves its position against Ministers who abuse the regulatory process and it is a pity we did not use it. 
The Minister is correct that there were a couple of amendments that I am very pleased he agreed to promote and certainly improve in their drafting. The ideas worked their way through the Labour Party caucus and through quite a lot of positive discussion—not always supportive I must say—on the Red Alert blog site. It was interesting to use modern technology to consult on issues like this and to get an instant response. Some were gut responses some were intuitive responses and some were very well-researched responses to the way that Red Alert is beginning to work. 
Another issue the Minister referred to was the group of drugs known as—and I will not attempt to pronounce the long name—Valium and the effects on people who drive with excess amounts of Valium in their systems. I tell the Minister that my understanding of the legislation is that if someone is involved in an accident and is clearly showing the effects of drug use of some sort—and I am told people who use Valium in a way beyond the way it is prescribed end up pretty dopey tired and slow—the impairment test could be applied to them. If they fail that impairment test then they can have a drug test and their only defence would be that they were using it within the prescription regulations. That is roughly what we aimed to get and if we have a person who is very anxious about that and obviously our hearts go out to people whose relatives have been killed in such a situation I am not sure that this detail of law change is exactly what is needed. 
I think there is room going forward. I know that this will not be a unanimous view amongst all members of the House but some of those issues should be in the review of in the Misuse of Drugs Act. One of those issues is whether the class A category is the only category that can be tested for or where the results are positive without an impairment test there can be a conviction. As has been pointed out to me there is still room for careless driving reckless driving or a number of other charges to be brought against people for careless or reckless driving causing death. People should not get off scot-free but we need to look at for example people who use amphetamines as opposed to methamphetamines or people who use some of the more serious of the cannabis family and whether drugs that are not currently in the class A group could be there. 
In the end the suggestion I promoted was something that will get a relatively broad consensus it will not be too controversial around Parliament and it will take care of the worst drugs especially methamphetamines which appear to be the most commonly used drugs in conjunction with alcohol and cause some of the most serious overconfidence and reckless behaviour. If we can get the worst of them now and work on the rest of the drugs going forward then that will be something positive. I commend the bill to the House. Like most work in this House it is a progress report. If people say “We’ve finally got this issue nailed.” they are fooling themselves.